Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2016-11-15 City Council - Full Agenda-1784
1. 2. 3. 4. 5 6 7. 8 9. 10. u� Of EYMo�o Agenda Edmonds City Council n Hy° COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NOVEMBER 15, 2016, 6:00 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 7, 2016 2. Approval of claim checks. 3. Authorize the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with Olympic View Water & Sewer District to fund minor utility relocations for the Madrona Elementary Walkway Project 4. Authorization for Mayor to sign a Right -of -Way Dedication for the Select Homes Short Plat 5. September 2016 Quarterly Financial Report STUDY ITEM 1. 2017 Continued Budget Review Discussion (60 min.) PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS 1. Small Business Saturday Proclamation (5 min.) 2. Snohomish County Health District Participation (15 min.) AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC MEETING 1. Public Comment on the Recommendations of the At -Grade Rail Crossings Alternatives Analysis (20 min.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 2017 Budget Revenues, Including Property Tax Levies (15 min.) 2. Public Hearing & Discussion regarding the 2017 Proposed City Budget (15 min.) 3. Public Hearing on the Assumption of duties of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District (15 min.) 4. Public Hearing on of the Utility Rate Analysis (15 minutes) ACTION ITEMS 1. Closed Record Review for the Meadowdale Club House Play Structure Variance (PLN20160043) (20 min.) 2. Resolution of Intent to Vacate a Portion 92nd Avenue West Street Vacation (5 min.) Edmonds City Council Agenda November 15, 2016 Page 1 11. STUDY ITEMS 1. Development Fee Schedule for 2017 (10 min.) 2. Authorization to release the salvage of unit 779-POL to Evergreen Adjustment Service (5 min.) 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS 14. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(1) 15. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda November 15, 2016 Page 2 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/15/2016 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 7, 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: Cmd110716 Packet Pg. 3 4.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES Special Meeting November 7, 2016 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Kristiana Johnson, Council President Michael Nelson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember (arrived 8:00 p.m.) Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT S. Gagner, Police Officer Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Manager Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL Deputy City Clerk Linda Hynd called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Buckshnis. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council President Johnson relayed staff s request to reschedule Item 7.4 to next week. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Council President Johnson requested Items 4.3 and 4.4 be moved to Agenda Item 7.7 for further discussion. COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 1 Packet Pg. 4 1. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1, 2016 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT DIRECT DEPOSIT, CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS. 5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS 1. PUBLIC DEFENDER ANNUAL REPORT TO COUNCIL Kathleen Kyle, Managing Director, Snohomish County Public Defender Association, provided an overview of the transition: • Cases assigned from prior provider: o Assigned to 361 cases in the first quarter o Contract anticipated 150 incoming referrals per quarter • Serious cases V Quarter (including transfers) 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter DUUPhysical control 32 12 16 Domestic Violence 39 24 14 Assault (Not DV) 10 1 4 • Larger number of referrals �st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 32 1 12 16 • Trends by Month: April 86 May 76 June 97 July 71 August 50 September 76 Oct 39 • Cases by Offense Type Offense Type 5t 1' Qtr + rsfs % 2nd Qtr % 3rd Qtr % DWLS 3rd Degree 85 23% 71 28% 35 18% Theft/Shoplifting 77 21% 61 24% 55 28% All Other Unlisted Misdemeanors 38 1 10% 40 16% 1 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% Simple Traffic Offenses 11 3% 5 2% 2 1% DWLS 1 stand 2nd Degree 16 4% 4 2% 9 5% Obstruct a Public Servant 5 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% Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 5 a 4.1.a Malicious Mischief 2 1% 1 0.4% 1 1% Weapons Related Offenses 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 1 361 253 197 • Probation review hearings by offense type: Offense Type lsr Qtr 2°d Qtr 3rd Qtr 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 1 st 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 Indecent Exp) 0 1 2 Alcohol related offenses (excl DUI) 1 2 3 Total 182 152 87 Ms. Kyle said one question the above table raises is what type of offenses the should court monitor. She provided an overview of charges during the first, second and third quarter 2016 (does not distinguish in cases assigned pre -disposition and probation review cases only): • Driving Charges o 37% of total charges ■ Highest: DWLS3 — 224 or 17% ■ 2nd Highest DUI — 99 or 8% • Crimes Against Persons o 16% of total charges ■ 89% are DV related • Domestic Violence o 13% of total charges • Drug/Alcohol as an Element of Crime o Almost 12% of total charges • Property Charges o 24% of total charges • Others o 11% of total charges • Crimes of novertv I I Of Total Charges I Of Offense Types I Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 6 4.1.a Theft 3rd 275 21% 193 24% DWLS 3 224 17% 191 24% Other simple misdemeanors (including PDP) 138 20% 104 13% Total % of charges 1 58% 1 1 61% Ms. Kyle commented a regional or statewide relicensing program could divert 24% of the cases in Edmonds Court and allow those resources to be refocused elsewhere. She commented SCPDA is complying with WSBA Indigent Defense Standards • Not exceeding 400 misdemeanors per attorney per year • Contract structured for attorney staffing to respond to referrals • Access to additional professional services: investigator, social worker, immigration consultation, interpreters • Diligence in meeting with clients in a confidential setting, reviewing discovery, researching legal issues • On -going continuing legal education She referred to Exhibit 2 in her presentation, Investigations, Social Work and Immigration Consultation Requests by Offense Type, pointing out obstructing is only 2% of total charges and 31% of total obstructing charges required immigration consultation. She referred to information in her report regarding trends and updates and invited questions from the Council. Councilmember Mesaros observed there were 9 cases related to marijuana and asked how the change in Washington State law impacted those numbers. Ms. Kyle said it could be youth crimes, marijuana possession under 21 is still illegal or cases that were in warrant and came back up. Councilmember Mesaros referred to crimes of poverty statistics and asked about the dollar amount. Ms. Kyle answered every 400 misdemeanors requires a full-time public defender whose salary and benefits are approximately $100,000; there are also impacts on other systems, time and workload. The criminal justice system is the most expensive way to address some of these problems; there are less expensive ways that also treat underlying issues. Councilmember Mesaros estimated $100,000 for the prosecutor and another $100,000 for court time, commenting that $200,000 could be used to hire a social worker who could make a difference in people's lives. Ms. Kyle agreed, noting unfortunately social workers cost less than lawyers. She described a case where a lawyer went above and beyond. Councilmember Teitzel referred to page 7 of Ms. Kyle's report that states SCPDA worked with the City to apply for a grant to defray the costs of the Public Defender Assessor, adding a dedicated jail calendar public defender, and adding more social work services. He asked why the grant was not successful. Ms. Kyle explained the grant is through the Washington State Office of Public Defense and is a very competitive process. She assumed since Edmonds has such a stellar reputation, communities with less resources received grants this year. Ms. Hite explained staff submitted the grant with the assistance of SCPDA; she learned the main reason Edmonds did not receive the grant was there were so many requests and Edmonds' request was for things the City already has in place. The grant was mainly for new innovations and new ways to satisfy the public defense standards. Councilmember Teitzel referred to page 8 of the report, Certificate of Restoration of Opportunities Act, a way for people with a felony to get a certificate to help them get a job. He asked if that removed the felony from a person's record. Ms. Kyle answered it does not, the person must still report the felony when applying for a job. The sealing laws in Washington are a totally separate act and it is a much longer Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 7 4.1.a process. A Certificate of Restoration of Opportunity is 24 months after a person completes the terms of their sentence, sealing is a minimum of 10 years. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the table, Drugs/Alcohol as an Element of Crime, and asked what is a legend drug. Ms. Kyle said a legend drug is a prescription drug but the person does not have the prescription. Certain legend drugs are felony offenses and others are misdemeanors. Council President Johnson referred to Crimes of Poverty, and asked the amount for Theft 3rd degree. Ms. Kyle answered under $750 is a misdemeanor. She said it would be interesting to analyze how many Theft 3 are under $25 or theft of food or basic life necessities versus typical retail theft. Council President Johnson said there has been patterns of theft around grocery stores which could be related to alcohol. Ms. Kyle said she would like to see more prevention in stores. They see people who leave the store with a sandwich in their pocket and are met by Edmonds law enforcement; she wished the person would be asked about the sandwich in their pocket before they left the store. She did not know how many Theft 3 were that type of crime but it was worth noting it was a huge piece of what is happening in the Edmonds Municipal Court. Council President Johnson asked what constituted a DWLS 3. Ms. Kyle answered Driving with License Suspended in the 3rd degree is a crime where someone's license has been suspended, often for failure to pay fines, non-appearance, failure to pay child support or a person whose license has been suspended for a crime like DUI or reckless and has served the period of suspension but have not gotten their license back because that often requires money which is why it is viewed as a crime of poverty. People with wealth and jobs can pay what is necessary to get their license back. Council President Johnson asked what options were available to the City to deal with crimes of poverty. Ms. Kyle responded one good option is what the City of Spokane and Spokane County have done, partnering to create a relicensing program where a person pays a $100 entry fee and is put on a payment plan which allows their license to be freed up and they can get back to work; the municipality and the county share that money under some formula. If people have licenses, they are not driving with license suspended which would greatly reduce that offense. Councilmember Tibbott asked if there are incentives for retailers to do crime prevention inside the store. Ms. Kyle said she was sure there are, commenting other places in the country have dealt with these issues. She complimented the agencies who have been meeting regularly to discuss these issues, an opportunity to further research preventative measures for Theft 3. There is still work to be done by SCPDA related to identifying food and clothing resources for clients. Councilmember Tibbott recalled when WinCo was under construction, the crime rate at that location significantly decreased and increased when the store opened. Ms. Hite said the City has had a meeting with the Police Department, Public Defense, Prosecutor and City Attorney to discuss court efficiencies and programs. A follow-up meeting is scheduled in a couple weeks. The City's Prosecutor, Melanie Thomas, is looking at the Spokane relicensing program as an option for Edmonds as well as a prescreening program for pubic defense services. Currently, anyone in the court that says they need a public defender is assigns a public defender; 90% of cases are assigned a public defender but there is no financial screening process. Research is being done related to compensation for people being represented by public defenders that can afford to pay in full or in part of a public defender as well as ways to save on the case load to the SCPDA. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented WinCo has located alcohol toward the back of the store under closer supervision. WinCo believes people get off the freeway, come to the store and steal, and return to the freeway, making them difficult to catch. Safeway also has the alcohol toward the back of the store where it can be observed by more store staff. Safeway has a security guard and catch some people; they also have a police only parking space in front of the store. She anticipated most shoplifting offenses Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 8 4.1.a were related to the Safeway and WinCo stores and is an issue related to the homeless population on Highway 99, whether food or alcohol. Councilmember Nelson said WinCo Loss Prevention only contact the Police Department when they encounter something substantial, during his ridealong, WinCo contacted the police for a suspect with cocaine and Safeway for a suspect fleeing with five liters of vodka on his person. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no audience comment. 7. STUDY ITEMS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON THE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FOR AT -GRADE RAIL CROSSING CONFLICTS Mayor Earling explained this group has been meeting twice a month for 13 months. The group had great representation from the State of Washington Department of Transportation and Ferries, BNSF, Sound Transit, Community Transit and three citizens in addition to Co -Chairs Councilmember Mike Nelson and Port of Edmonds Commissioner Jim Orvis. The group also included Rick Schaefer, Tetra Tech Engineering, Public Works Director Phil Williams and Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty. There has been a fabulous public process including four open houses with great audience participation. The Task Force gave him their recommendation about two weeks ago and he has had an opportunity to ask questions and talk to Task Force members; he was impressed with the work the group has done. Following his review and investigation, he fully supports the Task Force's recommendation and would like to move forward as quickly as possible as there is a key federal grant the City needs to apply for as well as communicate with State legislators. Co -Chair Jim Orvis commented the recommendation is a good product and he was proud of the work that was done by all. He noted one group that is rarely mentioned or given proper credit is the public who attended the public meetings. A veteran of public hearings, he noted few had been as substantive as these; the people who attended were serious, had good comments and ideas and once the process of eliminating ideas began, they had great comments and input. He expressed thanks to the public who gave of their time and energy, did their homework and came to meetings ready to help. Co -Chair Mike Nelson, identified the members of the Task Force: • Cadence Clyborne, Edmonds Resident • Kirk Greiner, Edmonds Resident • Phil Lovell, Edmonds Resident • Joy Munkers, Planning Director, Community Transit • Nicole McIntosh, Director of Terminals, Washington State Ferries • Rick Wagner, NW Division Manager of Public Projects, BNSF • Jodi Mitchell, Sound Transit • Lorena Eng, NW Regional Administrator for Engineering and Regional Operations, WSDOT • Lynne Griffith, Assistant Secretary, WSDOT — Ferries Division • Rick Schaefer, Senior Project Manager, Tetra Tech and Edmonds resident Councilmember Nelson also recognized Co -Chair Port of Edmonds Commissioner Jim Orvis, who had been a guiding hand during the entire process. He assured the Task Force considered every conceivable way to cross the tracks, under, over, practically through, every foot along the waterfront was examined for possible crossing points and consideration was given to structural and design challenges, amount of land, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 9 4.1.a environmental challenges, and community challenges. The public was engaged with the mailing of 25,000 postcards, open houses, presentations to Council; Task Force members provided their expertise, experience and their all into developing the solutions that address the challenge of accessing the waterfront safely and efficiently. He concluded it had been a pleasure to work with all the Task Force members and he was proud of the work they produced. Co -Chair Orvis recognized Mr. Williams and Mr. Doherty. Rick Schaefer, Tetra Tech, reviewed: • Purpose and need for the study: o Access to the entire waterfront area by emergency responders o Ferry loading and unloading o Access to the waterfront area by people driving, walking or biking o Ferry, rain and bus connections • Study Milestones 1. Understanding existing conditions o Understand scope of problem o Gather available data o Public meeting and online open house 2. Identify alternatives o Identify potential near term and long term solutions o Define the screening criteria o Public meeting and online open house 3. Screen alternatives (Level 1 review) o Review alternatives with qualitative criteria o Identify the most promising o Configure into alternatives for further development and examination o Public meeting and online open house 4. Evaluate alternatives (Level 2 review) o Apply quantitative criteria to compare: ■ How meets waterfront access needs ■ Costs ■ Positive and negative aspects o Public meeting and online open house 5. Development recommendation o Develop preferred alternative recommendations for structural and non-structural solutions to improve safety and efficiency of waterfront access • How does rail traffic affect access? (Based on traffic recorded June 16 july 3, 2012) o 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) o At Main Street crossing (daily average): ■ Vehicles delayed (84% ferry traffic) Pedestrians delayed ■ 709 delayed by closures 115 delayed by closures ■ 28.7 vehicle -hours 4.7 person -hours ■ Over 10 ferry loadings/off-loadings affected daily • Graph of emergency calls across the tracks by response time (Fire District 1 records July 1, 2010 to December 8, 2015) 0 277 incidents 0 64 had responses times of 7 minutes or longer Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 10 4.1.a o Variety of causes for delays o Additional 40-50 call -outs per year for rescue boat Graph of hourly distribution of emergency calls and Main Street gate closures Diagram of 2-stage screening/evaluation process Considered solution concepts y Level 1 screening4document decisions Highest rated concepts y Level 2 evaluation4document decisions Highest rated alternatives y Preferred alternative recommendations4document recommendations • Public meetings November 18th January 27Ih May 12th Se temberl4th 116 attendees 83 attendees 58 attendees 49 attendees 38 newcomers 28 newcomers 11 newcomers 326 online visits 175 online visits 268 online visits 40 online visits 259 visitors 131visitors 191 visitors 30 visitors 54 comment submittals 33 comment submittals 20 comment submittals 17 comment submittals • Aerial map identifying location of initial concepts o 40% of concepts raised by community at first public meeting • Sample matrix of purpose and need and feasibility of alternatives • Level 1 outcomes o 51 concepts/variants ■ 6 early recommendations ■ 13 advancing concepts - 10 Level 2 alternatives* *1 lth alternative was added during the Level 2 evaluation (Edmonds Crossing) • Near term recommendations o Emergency evacuation plan for waterfront area o Crosswalk improvement o Emergency notification to halt trains north and south of Edmonds crossings • Level I Outcomes Level 1 concepts I Level 2 alternatives Pedestrian/Bicycle/Emergency Vehicle Access Overpass 1 Admiral Way Pedestrian/Emergency Vehicle Overpass Overpass 4B Dayton Street Pedestrian/Emergency Vehicle Overpass Overpass 9 Edmonds Street Pedestrian/Emergency Vehicle Overpass Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Overpass 5/0n-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 Grade Separation Fe 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) • Aerial view identifying alternative types and locations Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 11 4.1.a Level 2 Alternative Evaluation Criteria o Purpose and Need 1. Reliable emergency response 2. Reduce ferry delays 3. Reduce delays & conflicts at crossings 4. Safe/efficient passenger connections o Other Functions 5. Emergency evacuation 6. Urban design & community goals 7. Consistent with transportation operations o Implementation 8. Fundable and permittable 9. Temporary construction impacts 10. Environmental effects 11. Address sea level rise impacts Alternatives Cost Estimate summary Alternative Type Construction Project ROW Total Cost Cost' costs Admiral Way Overpass Emergency Access $20,100,000 $4,400,000 $3,500,000 $28,000,000 Roadway Dayton Street Emergency Access 21,800,000 4,400,000 2,800,000 29,000,000 Overpass Roadway Edmonds Street Emergency Access 18,100,000 4,200,000 1,700,000 24,000,000 Overpass I Roadway Midblock Overpass Pedestrian/Bicycle 4,200,000 700,000 1,100,000 6,000,000 Main Street Overpass - Pedestrian/Bicycle 5,100,000 900,000 2,000,000 8,000,000 Elevators Main Street Underpass Pedestrian/Bicycle 14,500,000 3,400,000 31,100,000 21,000,000 Dayton Street New Ferry Terminal 210,000,000 47,000,000 29,000,000 286,000,000 Ferry Terminal Relocation Main Street Ferry Ferry Terminal 123,000,000 26,000,000 9,000,000 158,000,000 Overpass — Full build Relocation Main Street Ferry Ferry Terminal 103,000,000 23,000,000 2,000,000 128,000,000 Overpass — Min. build Relocation Main Street Ferry Ferry Terminal 291,000 62,000,000 4,000,000 357,000,000 Underpass Relocation Pt. Edwards Ferry Ferry Terminal 232,000,000 51,800,000 10,200,000 294,000,000 Terminal — Min. build2 Relocation 'Using WSDOT and Sound Transit unit cost bases2 2Point Edwards previous estimate was developed in 2009 as part of the minimum build report Alternatives Evaluation Summary o Emergency Response o Traffic conflicts and delays o Human and natural environment Mr. Schaefer reviewed the Task Force's recommendation in addition to early recommended measures: • Near Term: Pedestrian overpass near the train station and senior center o Displayed renderings of options: ■ Midblock Overpass (stairs, elevator) - May align with Sound Transit's future plans ■ Edmonds Street Overpass (pedestrian, bicycle, emergency vehicles) ■ Main Street Overpass (minimum build) - community objected to this project • Longer Term: Edmonds Crossing Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 12 o Follow Ferries' lead o Anticipate at least two decades in the future Councilmember Teitzel commented it was exciting to see potential, tangible solution to the problem. He referred to the Edmonds Street Overpass, observing the railing in the schematic was waist height which would make it easy to intentionally or unintentionally fall onto the tracks. Mr. Schaefer agreed there would need to be a higher barrier for the portion above tracks, citing the crossings from Queen Anne to Myrtle Edwards Park and the pedestrian walkway in Richmond Beach Park as examples. Councilmember Teitzel commented there would view issues on Sunset with that option. He asked if the Edmonds Street Overpass in the rendering would be high enough to accommodate double tracking. Mr. Schaefer answered yes, the second track will be landward of the existing track. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed appreciation for the work done on this long, hard project by the Task Force, particularly by the volunteers on the Task Force and City staff. She recalled at the Save the Beach Rally advocating for a commission to involve the community. What the Task Force developed was brilliant and the most cost effective. Born and raised in Richmond Beach, she was familiar with the bridge over the tracks in Richmond Beach Park, recalling it includes removable bollards for first responders to reach the beach. Councilmember Tibbott echoed Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' comments. He noted the documents identify the Edmonds Marsh as a Category I wetland. Mr. Schaefer agreed that was changed. Councilmember Tibbott commented the Edmonds ferry crossing had the highest commercial truck traffic and suggested the commercial trucking industry may be a stakeholder. Council President Johnson advised next week's agenda includes an opportunity for public comment on the At -Grade Rail Analysis. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was a stickler for agenda packets; this was probably the best agenda packet she has read in a long time, it was extremely thorough and the Task Force, staff and consultant did a great job. Mayor Earling reiterated he would like to move this project as quickly as possible. He suggested Councilmembers ask any additional questions next week as well as take public comment and then move the recommendation forward. The federal grant application, due in December, will require communicating with the congressional delegation as well as key staffers on the hill. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas looked forward to public comment, noting this was probably one of biggest projects with the most community involvement in recent history. Mr. Schaefer thanked the City Council, noting the robustness of the public process and the vigor with which it kicked off was positively impacted by the Council's generosity in providing funding for the 25,000 mailed notifications. 2. A RESOLUTION TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE SIGN CODE Councilmember Nelson said the proposed resolution would temporarily suspend the pedestrian sign code provisions of the ordinance passed on August 2, 2016. The resolution is the result of concern expressed by local businesses about the challenges they face complying with certain provisions of the sign code related to pedestrian signs; it is clear more time is needed to understand the impact of the sign code provisions and opportunities for revisions. The resolution proposes suspending those provisions for 120 days and during that time, businesses could meet with City staff and staff could return to Council with any revisions prior to the conclusion of the suspension. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 13 4.1.a COUNCILMEMBER NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE RESOLUITON NO. 1373, A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MAYOR TO DIRECT CITY STAFF TO SUSPEND FOR ONE HUNDRED TWENTY DAYS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PEDESTRIAN SIGNIFICANT PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO.4039 AND ECDC 20.60.055. Councilmember Buckshnis how and who would move this forward. Mayor Earling suggested the Council as that was who proposed resolution. Councilmember Teitzel suggested forming a task force post haste with members of the Edmonds Downtown Alliance, Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association, Economic Development Commission and Architectural Design Board as well as members of City staff member to work the issue and bring recommendations to Council before the expiration of the 120 days. He preferred not to have the 120 days elapse and have to be extended to allow further work. Councilmember Tibbott agreed with Councilmember Teitzel's suggestion to form a task force. In talking with members of community, he heard there is a lot complexity related to complying with the code especially downtown and frustrations arise with applying and obtaining a permit in a timely manner. He supported the motion and felt 120 days should be enough time to resolve these issues. He strongly suggested the City develop pedestrian level directional signage that could be implemented shortly after. Council President Johnson relayed the Council adopted the sign code a few months ago and left implementation to the Development Services Department. She suggested staff provide a report before the Council begins tinkering with sign code. Development Services Director Shane Hope referred to staff s response to questions Council President Johnson submitted: • Number of of Planning Board meetings and City Council meetings regarding the sign code 0 2015: 2 open houses 0 2016: 5 City Council meetings and 8 Planning Board meetings • Implementation schedule by Development Services Department o Began with education and information in hopes of voluntary compliance o Following effective date of code changes on August 12, 2016, letter sent on August 16 to 571 businesses in downtown/waterfront area ■ Provide information ■ Reference to website where new code posted ■ Answer basic questions ■ Summarize key points. ■ Emphasize importance of obtaining permit right away. o Some questions raised at that point o Some businesses began removing signs or obtaining permits o Mailed postcard in late September to 571 businesses stating time is running out, encouraging obtain permit, and inviting questions • Cost of sending out information ■ First letter:10 hours staff time for first letter, $100/hour = $1000, mailing cost, copying $500, total $1500 o 2nd mailing: less costly $400-500 • Date of enforcement and fines o No fines have been issues, idea was voluntary compliance o If fines had been levied, $100/day is standard fine • Likely impact of extending enforcement for 120 day o Con: still uncertainty with regard to pedestrian signs unless covered by other part of code such as cannot block ADA access o Pro: gives opportunity to address specific issues that have arisen Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 11 Packet Pg. 14 4.1.a Ms. Hope relayed issues raised in a November 2, 2016 email from a business owner, 1) cost of the permit, 2) interpreting the size of sign and how it counts toward permanent signage, 3) signs that are not next to the building for businesses less visible (biggest issue), and 4) whether businesses could combine to request ADB review. Council President Johnson asked how many sign applications have been received. Ms. Hope said the City received 16 applications; others inquired but felt they could not qualify under the new regulations. There is a $125 application fee plus a $25 technology fee. Council President Johnson asked about next steps for implementation of the sign code if there was a120- day suspension. Ms. Hope answered if the Council requests suspending regulations on pedestrian signs, she would send out a new letter/postcard to the 571 business, do a press release and post an announcement on the webpage advising of the suspension and the need to address key issues as well as meet with key people such as the business associations. With regard to signs located away from a business, she said the sign code has always prohibited locating signs around the corner from the business. However, without a permitting system, that was not readily enforceable. She summarized the process would be to first notify businesses and organize a small group to analyze alternatives to be addressed during the 120-day period. If more time was necessary, she would return to Council. Council President Johnson commented there were a total of 15 City Council and Planning Board meetings and open houses, recognizing people may not notice something is happening until the bulldozer is at their front door. She observed implementation was initiated August 2, approximately 90 days ago, and there has been only minor compliance with only 16 permit applications. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for a temporary suspension of the ordinance. Staff did a great job notifying businesses but the code may need to be tweaked a little so it is agreeable to everyone. She relayed seeing better compliance with ADA and signs not blocking sidewalks. Councilmember Nelson said the most expeditious process would be for Ms. Hope to meet with interested parties such as business organizations like the BID and/or individual businesses to work out issues and then bring any decisions to City Council. Councilmember Teitzel thanked Ms. Hope and her staff for their work on this including numerous meetings. He expressed support for the motion, commenting it was important to give businesses breathing room to get through the holidays. He looked forward to working with Ms. Hope and her staff on the development of a long-range plan that includes permanent wayfinding signs. Mayor Earling observed the resolution directs him to direct staff; in his opinion it was critical that the Council be involved as they chose to bring this issue forward. If the motion passed, he would recruit Councilmembers to assist. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. 2017 REVENUE DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE 2017 BUDGET Finance Director Scott James explained the intent of this presentation is a high-level overview of the City's revenue budget with focus on General Fund revenues as well as a brief review of expenditures and Strategic Plan for the General Fund. He reviewed: • Context o The budget picture for Edmonds has moved from "pretty darn hopeful" for 2016 to one with more caution for 2017 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 12 Packet Pg. 15 4.1.a 0 2017 operating revenues see only 0.9% growth over 2016 o Increasing property values o Future budgets may become more challenging o Costs from FD 1 are unknown o City will have to look for either new on -going revenues or on -going expenditure savings Economic Environment o The Puget Sound economy continues to be one of the healthiest in the country o Home values continue to increase and housing sales remain healthy o For 2017, we anticipate modest growth now and moderating further over the next few years Graph of unemployment rates January 2005 - July 2016 for Greater Seattle, Washington, and United States o September 2005 the Washington State Unemployment rate was 5.5% and gets as low as 4.6% in June of 2007 o Climbs as high as 10.4% in November of 2009 to its current rate of 5.6% as of last September o Since the peak unemployment in late 2009 to early 2010, the Seattle - Tacoma - Bellevue unemployment rate has been trending significantly better than the national unemployment rate Revenue Trend Analysis 2013-2015 Actual, 2016 YE Estimate and 2017 Budget for other financing, transfer -in, miscellaneous, fines and penalties, charges for service, intergovernmental, licenses and permits, and taxes o In 2013, taxes accounted for 44% of the overall revenues and decreases to 38% of revenues for 2017 o Charges for Services accounted for 35% in 2013 and remains unchanged for 2017 o City received $63.8 million in 2013 and grows to an anticipated $82.4 million in 2017 o Economic condition dependent revenue such as License & Permit revenues experienced increases for 2013 to 2014 and moderates between 2015, 2016 and 2017 o Dependency on the City's largest source of revenues, Taxes, decreases from a high of 44% in 2013 to 38% in 2017 • Pie Chart of Revenues by Type o Charges for Services - 34.66% o Intergovernmental - 12.31 % o Licenses and Permits - 2.64% o Taxes - 38.33% o Transfers -in - 5.81 % o Miscellaneous - 5.68% o Fines and Penalties - 0.56% Expenditures Comparison All Funds (page 17 of Budget Book) 0 2017 expenses are anticipated to grow nearly 6.36% or $5.8 million over what we are projecting to spend this year o Compared to the 2016 Budget, this year's request decreased by $9.2 million o Majority of this decrease comes from: - The General Fund budget to pay debt service dropped by $950,000 - Contingency Fund 012 budget decreased $800K for FD1 Retro - Bldg. Maint Fund 016 Fishing pier project for #1.9 million - Street Const. Fund 112 project budget lower by $2.2 million - Utility budget for projects coming in lower Expenditures by Type o Capital outlays - 23.70% o Intergovernmental - 12.85% o Other Services and Charges - 21.21% o Supplies - 4.04% Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 13 Packet Pg. 16 4.1.a o Salaries and benefits -- 28.62% o Transfers -out — 4.92% o Debt service — 4.67% • 2016 - 2017 Comparison General Fund Revenues o 2017 General Fund revenue estimates are projected to decline by 3.22% or $1,254,720 over budgeted revenues for 2016 ■ Majority of that $1,254,720 difference is from bond levy tax and lower development related revenues • Revenues Trend Analysis o General Fund received $34.5 million in 2013 and grows to an anticipated $37.75 million in 2017 o Economic condition dependent revenue such as License & Permit revenues have stabilized for most since 2014 with a minor up tick for 2016 o Dependency on the City's largest source of revenues, Taxes, decreases remains unchanged for 2013 and 2017 ■ General Fund Key Revenues Revenue 2016 YE Estimate P 2017 Variance % Discussion Property Tax 10,064,870 10,221,670 156,800 1.6% Includes 1% increase EMS Levy Tax 3,684,500 3,911.,080 226,580 6.1% Includes $170,090 banked capacity Sales Tax 6,850,000 6,875,000 25,000 0.41/o Tax growth stabilizing • Comparison of property tax 2017-2010 (page 15 of Budget Book) o The Snohomish County Assessor's Office is adding nearly $39.3 million of new assessed value from construction in 2017 o This construction is adding over $53,000 to the cities regular property revenue • Graph of sales tax revenue 2007 - 2017 • Pie chart of General Fund Expenditures by category (page 25 of Budget Book) • 2017 General Fund Expenditures o The 2017 General Fund Expenditure Budget is 3.46% smaller than the 2016 estimated year end expenditure. 0 2014-2021 GF Financial Plan (pages 13 & 14 of Budget Book) o The 2014-2021 Financial Plan is a combination of: ■ 2014 and 2015 history, ■ 2016 projections, ■ 2017 recommended budget, ■ and 2017-2021 projections. o The plan gives a high level view of where we are and where we are going from a financial perspective if there are no major unanticipated changes in the economy, revenues or expenditures. o Total Revenues & Expenditures 2014-2021 Analysis o General Fund Fund Balance • REET Revenues 2013-2017 0 2017 Estimated REET revenues are about $800,000 higher than 2013 o REET revenues stabilizing since 2015 Mr. James thanked staff for their assistance preparing the budget especially Finance Department staff. Mayor Earling opened the opportunity for public comment. There was no one present who wished to provide comment. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 14 Packet Pg. 17 4.1.a Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated the concern she has expressed for the past three weeks with the inability to ask questions as staff presentations were made, relaying she has submitted over 60 questions to staff. She asked when the questions and staff s responses to her and other Councilmembers' question will be provided and posted. Mr. James said staff has been working to compile responses to Council questions. In the past, Council questions and staff responses were compiled and emailed to Councilmembers, a process that has already begun. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated her concern with the inability to have discussions following each presentation. Councilmember Buckshnis said she had several questions that the public is waiting to hear. Her major questions include the amount under budget and the creation of the new IT Department based on the under -budget amount for 2016 without asking Council. Mr. James said the intent of this agenda item is to provide information as well as a Q&A; additional budget sessions are scheduled on November 15 and 22. With regard to savings, there is only $45,000 that was not spent on capital outlays in 2016; the intent was to use those funds as startup cash for the new IT Fund. He described the purpose of the IT fund; the auditor has raised questions about allocating costs for the City's service departments such as IT. One of the intents is to allocate costs to the utility funds to avoid utility funds subsidizing the General Fund or vice versa. Staffs research found several cities have implemented overhead allocation. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has been told that Council President Johnson wants the budget completed by Thanksgiving which she did not support. She asked whether Councilmembers should ask questions in public or via email. Mr. James explained when the 2017 budget was built, any major service level changes were submitted via decision packages. There is not a lot of the change in the services being offered from one year to the next and any changes are explained in the decision packages. Councilmember Buckshnis commented some decision packages do not reconcile to the budget. Mr. James acknowledged there is one example in facilities maintenance. The new Facilities Manager submitted a $6,000 decision package and also included that amount in his baseline budget. Other examples Councilmember Buckshnis noted are instances where there are several line items in the department budget and one-time expenses in 2016 also may create some confusion. He suggested emailing a list of those to Councilmembers to help with understanding the changes in the 2017 budget. Councilmember Teitzel asked how Council questions and staffs responses are disclosed to the public if questions are submitted and answered electronically. Mr. James suggested posting questions and responses on the budget webpage. Councilmember Teitzel said he will email his questions to staff. Mr. James encouraged Councilmembers to ask questions as staff is present tonight to respond. Mayor Earling said he has requested senior staff attend budget presentations to respond to Council questions. Councilmember Teitzel referred to intergovernmental revenue on the Revenue Trend Analysis and inquired about the 2016 YE Estimate of $7.245 million and the increases by $3 million to $10.124 million in 2017. Mr. James responded that increase is due to grants. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked when the Council will begin to discuss including their requests in the budget, noting there was not a great deal of pre -conversation regarding Council requests although some funds have been allocated in the budget for Council requests. She anticipated there may be more Council requests than funds allocated so adjustments may need to be made in the budget to fund those requests. Mr. James responded those could be discussed now or Councilmembers could email him a list of their proposed changes and he could compile the lists and prepare a spreadsheet for Council discussion. He encouraged Council to begin the discussion, ask questions and recommend changes. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed next week's agenda includes 30 minutes for a public hearing on the 2017 budget and suggested scheduling an hour to discuss Council budget priorities. Council Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 15 Packet Pg. 18 4.1.a President Johnson said the estimated time for next week's agenda is 3 hours 15 minutes. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested clearing agenda agendas unless they are urgent to allow time to discuss the budget. Staff, citizens and the Council need time to hash through the budget and potentially deliberate on November 22 although adoption of the 2017 budget is scheduled on the extended agenda for November 22. Council President Johnson commented now is a good time for Councilmembers to identify their ideas, even if they did not know the associated costs. She will include as much time as possible for budget discussion on next week's agenda. She pointed out the extended agenda also includes time on December 6 for adoption of the 2017 budget if necessary. She wanted to ensure all of Councilmembers' issues were addressed in a timely manner. Mayor Earling referred to the $100,000 included in the budget for Council consideration, priorities and allocation, and emails that have been circulating with suggested expenditures. He suggested Councilmembers identify their requests and the ballpark cost, commenting Councilmembers may need to prioritize those items. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed interest in determining the cost of a social worker. She also had questions related to $72,000 for a federal lobbyist and the cost to hire dedicated parking enforcement. Mr. James asked if Councilmember Buckshnis was recommending the social worker and parking enforcement be funded from the $100,000. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Police Department budget includes a decision package for a staff assistant; she has not received sufficient answers regarding that request and she is waiting for answers to other questions. She also expressed interest in the cost of a City arborist and whether it would be advantageous to have City arborist. Councilmember Nelson expressed interest in emphasizing pedestrian safety in the budget to include an additional officer for traffic enforcement which costs approximately $100,000 including benefits, 2 additional radar trailers for traffic enforcement which cost approximately $10,000 each. He said the radar trailer are effective at reduce speeds as well as tracking speeds. Councilmember Mesaros said he was also interested in pedestrian safety. He lives in unique part of City where 10 years ago there were few residents but by the end of 2017 there will be over 400 people living on the Pt. Edwards bluff. He is a frequent pedestrian in that area and it is one of the darkest areas in the City. He suggested Councilmembers visit the area to see how dark it is. He planned to submit a decision package to install street lights in that area to improve pedestrian safety. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there are other areas in the City without street lights and pedestrian facilities. She expressed interest in parking enforcement, and referred to a 2011 email she sent Councilmembers today from business owners complaining about parking and lack of enforcement. She relayed Police Chief Compaan said of the 2 combined parking enforcement/animal control positions, 75% of their time or 1.5 FTE is spent on animal control and only 25% or 0.5 FTE doing parking enforcement. The business community is also supportive of additional parking enforcement, especially in the downtown core. She agreed with the request for additional traffic enforcement and training. She referred to pedestrian accidents in recent years and suggested training be provided to residents such as at schools, the senior center, etc. regarding how to safely cross roads. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas also supported funding for a social worker; the cost in Lynnwood is $40,000-50,000/year via a partnership with the Y. She anticipated benefits a social worker could provide, particularly the City's frequent flyers, by helping people identify resources. The Police Department does its best to relay information regarding services, but that is not their prime function. She was also interested in providing at least partial funding to the Health District. Every city in Snohomish County Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 16 Packet Pg. 19 4.1.a except two are providing funds to the Health District in 2017. She concluded she had more ideas but that was a good start. Mayor Earling said the Health District will make a presentation on November 15. At a recent mayors meeting, the mayors of Mountlake Terrace, Brier, Lynnwood, Edmonds and Mill Creek said they have no money in their budgets for the Health District. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed Mountlake Terrace and Brier were the two cities that do not have money in their budgets for the Health District. Mayor Earling said funds were also not currently included Lynnwood, Mill Creek or Edmonds' budgets. He was open to whatever the Council wants to do; however, as currently proposed, the Health District was asking for money without a formal plan for the future. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said Everett and Marysville were definitely providing funds. Mayor Earling said Marysville was in for $1 and Everett was not certain. Councilmember Teitzel said 1-2 years ago when Council President Johnson was the Council liaison to the Historic Preservation Commission (PHC), there was discussion that much of the memory of where Edmonds began as a logging and mill town was being lost. It was regrettable that people would have to visit the museum to see images of what the town looked like over 100 years ago. With that in mind, the HPC developed a concept to place interpretive panels at the south end of Sunset Avenue and in Yost park with images of 100 years ago. The image at Sunset would be looking south along the train tracks with all the mills in operation and a steam train; a now versus then experience. The image in Yost Park would be near a well-preserved cedar stump showing the logging process for felling trees of that size. Creating those signs would cost approximately $5000 each. That would be a gift the Council could give the community to keep alive what Edmonds looked like 100-125 years ago. He suggested setting aside those funds from the $100,000 Council discretionary budget. To Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' suggestion for pedestrian safety training, Councilmember Nelson said the Pedestrian Safety Task Force, chaired by Mr. Williams, developed a presentation about educating pedestrians how to be safe; it is scheduled to be presented at the senior center this week and in other locations in the future. He emphasized education also requires enforcement. Council President Johnson commented there were a lot of great ideas and asked how to move forward, whether Councilmembers should prepare decision packages with dollar amounts that could be considered along with the other decision packages. She observed there obviously more expenditures than could be funded with the $100,000. Mr. James said it was important to identify ideas so they can be prioritized. He observed the Mayor's budget does not have these extra expenditures built in and suggested the discussion include how they would be funded such as from ending fund balance or offsetting with another expense. Councilmember Buckshnis commented on the financial statement preparation and the Council budget and how inaccurate it was by lumping miscellaneous and the Council contingency together. She said the Council budget page is inaccurate; the Council contingency should be separate from miscellaneous; it was budgeted at $25,000 last year and has not been used for a number of years. Those funds can be used by Council to fund small dollar amounts such as the interpretive signs suggested by Councilmember Teitzel. Mr. James responded to Councilmember Buckshnis' reference to an error, explaining when the 2016 budget was built, the then -Council President moved budget around to satisfy needs as the Council contingency was not being utilized. He summarized it was not staff inaccurately accounting for those funds and absent a request from the current Council President to change that practice, it remained. Councilmember Buckshnis requested that be corrected and the Council realize they have funds available for items like that. Mr. James recommended the Council discuss that change. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Council contingency is totally separate from the budget process; she hoped to continue the practice of a $25,000 budget for Council contingency. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 17 Packet Pg. 20 4.1.a Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Mr. James' question regarding how to pay for the Council's requests, acknowledging that was the Council's challenge. If the Council identified items over the allotted $100,000, they will need to find cuts to pay for them. She asked if the proposed budget was a bottom -line budget, if all anticipated revenue was expected to be expended. Mr. James said the Council can always spend down the ending fund balance which has been increasing over the years. That provides some flexibility although the downstream effects should be considered such as the ups and downs of the economy. This budget is cautious; if the Council wants to be more optimistic, that is their prerogative. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the projected ending fund balance for 2016. Mr. James referred to page 18 of the Budget Book, pointing out the ending fund balance overall is decreasing rather dramatically due in part to the City issuing bonds for Public Works projects. The General Fund ending fund balance is slightly below $5.4 million. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the Council has the ability to determine needs similar to the way department heads determine needs. Council President Johnson referred to the comparison of REET revenue. Mr. James explained there was a large increase in 2015 due to a major sale that generated approximately $170,000 in REET but that was not built into future projections. Council President Johnson asked how REET expenditures are determined. Mr. James said the 2017 budget includes projections for REET revenues; consideration is given to the available funding sources for CIP project such as fuel tax, impact fees, REET and allocate those funds. There are also funds allocated to the pavement improvement plan. He summarized funds are allocated as part of the CIP development. Council President Johnson recalled in March Mayor Earling said he met with Mr. Williams and Ms. Hite to discuss how to allocate REET revenue because a policy had not been established by the Council. Around that same time, the Council was told there was no policy; the traditional way of allocating the first $750,000 to Parks and the remainder to Public Works was not an official policy. When the Planning Board reviewed the CIP, the minutes reflect a statement by Ms. Hite that Mayor Earling weighs out all the priorities for the City and attempts to balance all needs when allocating the REET dollars in the 126 Fund. Council President Johnson asked the City Council's role in REET allocation, assuming it was during the review of the CIP/Civic Field; if the Council did not agree with the allocations, changes could be made. Mr. James said the current process is via the CIP development and adoption by Council. Staff is working on a long range financial plan to invite a longer look at allocating REET revenues. That will include identifying a process for prioritization. He anticipated developing a long range plan for capital in 2017. Council President Johnson summarized the City Council can allocate REET funds; there are two REET funds, REET 1 and REET 2, each collecting 1/4% of REET. Council President Johnson asked what happens if there are excess/unanticipated REET funds in the current year, whether that was part of the Council budget discussion or had that decision been made by department heads. Mr. James said the Budget Book already includes a significant list of projects. He referred to page 170 of the Budget Book and REET 2 (Fund 125), explaining staff recommends ending 2017 with approximately $700,000. If Council wanted to allocate those funds, Council should consider whether staff has the capacity to add more projects; he suggested involving Ms. Hite and Mr. Williams in that decision. Council President Johnson expressed interest in increasing the allocation for park land acquisition. After reviewing the CIP in detail, she identified some areas where funds could be used for that purpose. She was happy to meet with Ms. Hite and 1-2 Councilmembers to review the CIP. Mayor Earling suggested including Mr. Williams. Councilmembers Buckshnis and Teitzel volunteered. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated these are policy issues that may not need to be addressed in the 2017 budget. She recalled one of her questions was how the amount of REET funds used for one of Public Works' decision packages was determined. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 18 Packet Pg. 21 4.1.a 4. ASSUMPTION OF DUTIES OF THE EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT At staff s request, this item was rescheduled to the November 15 Council meeting. 5. PRESENTATION OF A REVISED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH OLYMPIC VIEW WATER & SEWER DISTRICT TO FUND MINOR UTILITY RELOCATIONS FOR THE MADRONA ELEMENTARY WALKWAY PROJECT City Engineer Rob English explained Council approved a version of the ILA in October for the 2361h Street walkway project. Olympic View Water & Sewer District (OVWSD) requested three changes to the ILA: 1. Revised "WHEREAS" language on page 1 2. Added the following provision under Section 41) 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. The changes are acceptable to staff and staff recommends approving the revised ILA. Councilmember Tibbott asked if OVWSD had reviewed the changes, observing two days seemed very short. Mr. English said these changes were proposed by OVWSD. Councilmember Tibbott asked the chances of that happening on this project. Mr. English answered chances were quite slim at this point. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO FORWARD TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. PRESENTATION OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION FOR THE SELECT HOMES SHORT PLAT City Engineer Rob English said this is a right-of-way dedication for a 2-lot short plat located at 8721 218th Street. The right-of-way requirement on 218`h Street is 60 feet; the proposed short plat requires a 10-foot dedication to provide the 60-foot right-of-way. Staff requested this as part of the short plat review and approval. Mr. Williams corrected a statement he made last week regarding the location of another section of right-of-way. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if there had been any concerns from neighbors. Mr. English answered no. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO FORWARD TO THE CONSENT AGENDA NEXT WEEK. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. APPROVAL OF THE 2017-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM & APPROVAL OF 2017-2022 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT Council President Johnson relayed based on earlier discussion, she and Councilmembers Buckshnis and Teitzel will meet with Mr. William and Ms. Hite to discuss allocation of REET funds and present their findings to Council as soon as possible. Mayor Earling asked for a date. Council President Johnson suggested November 22. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 19 Packet Pg. 22 4.1.a Councilmember Buckshnis observed the intent of the meeting was for 3 Councilmember to meet with 2-3 directors to provide policy and asked if that needed to be noticed as a special meeting and the public invited or could the group have an informal discussion to sort things out regarding the CIP/CFP and the use of REET funds. Mr. Taraday answered the standard regarding noticing depends on whether the City Council will rely on the work of the committee. Mayor Earling suggested Council President Johnson meet with Mr. Taraday first. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported he and a couple Councilmembers attended the Museum auction this week. It was a good time that included a terrific presentation on a historical train in the area as well as a prominent business in the area at one time with international connections. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Nelson looked forward to November 9 when the public would know the results of the election regardless of who wins and everyone can move forward. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Nelson's comment about the election. She and her son attended auction and had a lovely time. She thanked Teresa Wippel, My Edmond News, for emceeing the auction. She found the presentation regarding the train station very interesting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed a request by the senior center to raise the City's yearly gift from $60,000 to $75,000 to be in line with Snohomish County's contribution. Mayor Earling clarified the request is to increase the senior center's operations budget. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the reason for the increase is United Way did not fund senior centers last year nor do they plan to fund them in the future. In response to Councilmember Nelson's comment, she said after being in a battleground state where the negative ads were unbelievable, she was glad to live in Washington. She encouraged the public to vote and said she would be happy when the election was over. Council President Johnson encouraged the public to vote. At Councilmember Mesaros' suggestion, she plans to write something about the SMP for discussion next week or the following week. Councilmember Mesaros announced the Seahawks won, 31-25. Councilmember Tibbott congratulated Edmonds-Woodway High School and Meadowdale High School football teams on great seasons. The Meadowdale football team is moving on to the State tournament. His daughter, a product of Yost Pool opportunities where she discovered her love of the butterfly stroke, is also going to the State swim tournament. 10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 20 Packet Pg. 23 4.1.a 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:44 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 7, 2016 Page 21 Packet Pg. 24 4.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/15/2016 Approval of claim checks. Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #222708 through #222817 dated November 10, 2016 for $824,915.20. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Fiscal Impact Claims $824,915.20 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 11-10-16 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 11-10-16 Packet Pg. 25 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 1 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222708 11/10/2016 073947 A WORKSAFE SERVICE INC 233594 PRE -EMPLOYMENT TESTING 1 PRE EMPLOYMENT [DOT] 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 35.0( Total: 35.0( 222709 11/10/2016 075836 AAKAVS CONSULTING LLC EDMONDS/CITY/001 WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - I Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Prof Svc 111.000.68.542.31.49.00 3,750.0( Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Prof Svc 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 3,750.0( Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Prof Svc 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 3,750.0( Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Prof Svc 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 3,750.0( Total: 15,000.0( 222710 11/10/2016 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 1116103 FALL 2016 SOFTBALL AWARD SHIR FALL 2016 SOFTBALL AWARD SHIR 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 1,339.5( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 131.2 1 Tota I : 1,470.7 , 222711 11/10/2016 064615 AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE 44022 WWTP: SERVICE CALL -AIR COMPF SERVICE CALL -AIR 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 2,841.9' Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 47.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 283.1' Total: 3,172.0, 222712 11/10/2016 063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC TM-163058 TRAFFIC CONTROL - ORANGE PEE Traffic Control - Orange Ped Flags 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 325.0( Page: 1 Packet Pg. 26 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 2 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222712 11/10/2016 063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC (Continued) Freight _ 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 19.8: vi 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 a� 33.8( Total: 378.6E E 222713 11/10/2016 073573 ANIXTER 281-1-026352 ENGINEER GRANT (BERTRAND) - C Engineer Grant (Bertrand) - Conductc c 112.000.68.595.33.41.10 1,831.1 -cu- Freight o 112.000.68.595.33.41.10 175.5, m 9.8% Sales Tax Q 112.000.68.595.33.41.10 196.6E Total: CD 2,203.3, r— to 222714 11/10/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988868821 WWTP: UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MA .. wwtp uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 5.1( wwtp mats & towels r r 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 115.9E N 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.5( E 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 11.31 1988868822 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE c PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE E E 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 49.7( u 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 r 4.8 1 Q 1988868823 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 24.9( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 2.4� 1988872842 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT Page: 2 Packet Pg. 27 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222714 11/10/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 222715 11/10/2016 064807 ATSAUTOMATION INC 222716 11/10/2016 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 222717 11/10/2016 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 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 Total : S 084224 alerton system-PW alerton system-PW -PM Contract 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 Total 81282 UNIT E120PR - PARKS LOGOS INSI Unit E120PR - Parks Logos Installed 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 Total 90733 WATER - PRINTING INSERTS FOR I Water - Printing Inserts for Billings 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 90734 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing 4.2.a Page: 3 Page: 3 Packet Pg. 28 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222717 11/10/2016 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 4 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 128.1 < _ UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage vi 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 447.6: UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 447.6: 9.6% Sales Tax •@ 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 11.9z U 9.6% Sales Tax o 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 12.3( 5 9.6% Sales Tax o L 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 11.9z a 90840 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS Q UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing w 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 89.21 UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 89.2, w UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing c 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 91.9E r UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage r 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 320.2( Y UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 320.2E . 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 8.5 1 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 8.5 , E 9.6% Sales Tax U 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 8.8: Q 90848 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 22.7� UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 22.7� UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing Page: 4 Packet Pg. 29 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222717 11/10/2016 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 222718 11/10/2016 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE1016 222719 11/10/2016 074031 BARTH, RUTH 5046 DRAWING 222720 11/10/2016 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 5048 WATERCOLOR 6845 6867 6897 PO # Description/Account 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #700 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 UB Outsourcing area #700 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 Total BACKGROUND CHECKS 1 NATIONWIDE BACKGROUND CHI 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 Total 5046 NO FEAR DRAWING 5046 NO FEAR DRAWING 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 5048 NO FEAR WATERCOLOR 5048 NO FEAR WATERCOLOR 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Total FLEET AUTO PROPANE - 638.2 GAL Fleet Auto Propane - 638.2 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 FLEET AUTO PROPANE - 374.1 GAL Fleet Auto Propane - 374.1 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 FLEET AUTO PROPANE 538.5 GAL Fleet Auto Propane 538.5 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 4.2.a Page: 5 Page: 5 Packet Pg. 30 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 6 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222720 11/10/2016 074307 BLUE STAR GAS (Continued) 6944 FLEET AUTO PROPANE 602.9 GAL Fleet Auto Propane 602.9 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 624.0( Total: 2,234.6( 222721 11/10/2016 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 5025 HOL CARDS 5025 CUSTOM ART HOLIDAY CARD 5025 CUSTOM ART HOLIDAY CARD 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 72.0( Total: 72.0( 222722 11/10/2016 068484 CEMEX LLC 9434353386 ROADWAY - ASPHALT Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 270.6( 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 25.7' 9434376287 STREET SUPPLIES Street Supplies 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 392.0( 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 37.2z 9434397242 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 253.5' 9434397243 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 226.1( 9434397244 ROADWAY - ASPHALT Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 283.5( 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 26.9: 9434397245 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 440.9( 9434397246 STORM DUMP FEES Page: 6 Packet Pg. 31 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 7 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222722 11/10/2016 068484 CEMEX LLC (Continued) Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 670.E 1 Total: 2,627.1( 222723 11/10/2016 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN10161029 WWTP: 10/31/16 CYLINDER RENT/ 10/31/16 cylinder rental --nitrogen, 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 64.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 6.2 1 Total: 70.2 , 222724 11/10/2016 061773 CHAVE, ROBERT 11012016 TRAVEL-APA CONFERENCE TRAVEL-APA CONFERENCE 001.000.62.558.60.43.00 276.0E Total: 276.0E 222725 11/10/2016 075837 CLEVELAND, PATRICK 091416 MILEAGE REIMB FOR BOC CLASS Mileage Reimb for BOC Class - P 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 138.3E Total: 138.3E 222726 11/10/2016 074255 COAL CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOC 120902-16 WWTP: 9/4-10/22/16 TASKS 1-5 TEC 9/4-10/22/16 TASKS1-5 Technical 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 2,128.1 Total: 2,128.11 222727 11/10/2016 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC NOV-16 C/ACITYOFED00001 Oct-16 Fiber Optics Internet Connecti 00 1. 000. 31.518.87.42. 00 406.1( Total: 406.1( 222728 11/10/2016 075648 COVICH-WILLIAMS CO INC 0285778-IN UNIT G01 SUPPLIES Unit G01 Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 115.3, 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.3' Page: 7 Packet Pg. 32 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222728 11/10/2016 075648 COVICH-WILLIAMS CO INC 222729 11/10/2016 005965 CUES INC Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 8 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) 0285779-IN UNIT G07 - SUPPLIES _ Unit G07 - Supplies vi 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 22.30 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.1 £ E 0286522-IN UNIT G02 - SUPPLIES Unit G02 - Supplies U 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 19.5E o 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.91 o 0286523-IN UNIT G02 PARTS L Q- Unit G02 Parts Q' Q 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 19.5( 9.8% Sales Tax ti 0 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.9. 0286593-IN UNIT 138 - PARTS m Unit 138 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0 757.8( r Drum Deposit Fee r 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 34.0( Y 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 74.2 .E 0287019-IN UNIT 138 - DRUM f° Unit 138 - Drum 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 757.8( y Drum Svc Fees E 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 t 34.0( u 9.8% Sales Tax r Q 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 74.2 Total: 1,926.4' 464213 SEWER TV TRUCK - REPAIR KIT Sewer TV Truck - Repair Kit 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 231.9E Freight Page: 8 Packet Pg. 33 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 9 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222729 11/10/2016 005965 CUES INC (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 12.3� _ 9.8% Sales Tax vi 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 23.9E 464332 FREIGHT t Freight 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 177.3( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 17.3E o 464565 SEWER TV TRUCK - SUPPIES Sewer TV Truck - Suppies p L 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 214.2( a Freight Q 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 12.4E 9.8% Sales Tax to 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 22.2, 464983 SEWER TV TRUCK - ADAPTER CAE Sewer TV Truck - Adapter Cable c 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 267.5( r Freight r 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 12.4E Y 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 27.4, . 466791 SEWER TRUCK CAMERA REPAIRS f° Sewer Truck Camera Repairs ; 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 345.0( y Parts E 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 t 7.5( u 9.8% Sales Tax r Q 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.7z Total: 1,372.6, 222730 11/10/2016 069529 D & G BACKHOE INC ESJA.Pmt 4 *Final* ESJA.PMT 4 THRU 9/30/16 ESJA.Pmt 4 thru 9/30/16 421.200.74.594.34.65.00 174,783.6( ESJA.Ret 4 Page: 9 Packet Pg. 34 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 10 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222730 11/10/2016 069529 D & G BACKHOE INC (Continued) 421.200.223.400 -7,959.1 £ Total: 166,824.4, Y 222731 11/10/2016 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3318899 BUSINESS RECRUITMENT ADVERI w t Business recruitment advertisements 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 800.0( . Total: 800.0( 222732 11/10/2016 074444 DATAQUEST LLC CIEDMONDS-20161031 EMPLOYEE SCREENING SERVICE; BACKGROUND & CREDIT CHECK > 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 38.0( a Total: 38.0( O 222733 11/10/2016 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2016100047 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 SWV#0098 m Scan Services for October 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 1,231.4( Total: 1,231.4( 222734 11/10/2016 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 16-3709 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 11/01/201( 0 r 11/01/2016 CITY COUNCIL MINUTE; r 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 369.6( Y Total: 369.6( E 222735 11/10/2016 075515 ECOSS ED-2016-1 E7FG.SPILL KIT OUTREACH PROGI E7FG.Spill Kit Outreach Program 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 1,511.5E y IDDE201-EDM IDDE - ILLICIT DISCHARGE COURS E IDDE - Illicit Discharge Course (3) - U 111.000.68.542.90.49.00 175.0( r Q IDDE - Illicit Discharge Course (3) — 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 350.0( Total: 2,036.5E 222736 11/10/2016 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 00010067032 WWTP: BRAKE PARTS CLEANER BRAKE PARTS CLEANER 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 47.8E Page: 10 Packet Pg. 35 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222736 11/10/2016 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 222737 11/10/2016 069912 EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DIST 2016DebtService 222738 11/10/2016 075566 EHRBAR, PAMELA BID-110816 222739 11/10/2016 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 156176 222740 11/10/2016 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH728412 EDH729050 EDH729159 222741 11/10/2016 075829 EVERGREEN STATE SHEET METAL BLD20161421 222742 11/10/2016 075843 FABREGAS, LINDA 11/04 REFUND 4.2.a Page: 11 PO # Description/Account Amoun 9.8% Sales Tax _ 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 4.6� vi Total : 52.5, a� t DECEMBER 2016 BOND OBLIGATIC U December 2016 Contingency Reserve E 001.000.39.575.20.52.00 2 125,000.0( U Total: 125,000.0( c BID ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES F( > BID administrative services for o a 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 801.0( Q Total: 801.0( .. m RADIX MONTHLY MAINTAGREEME Radix Monthly Maint Agreement - De 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 152.0( Total : 152.0( o r LEGAL ADS-AMD20160003 r LEGAL ADS-AMD20160003 N 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 49.8E LEGAL ADS-STF20160021 LEGAL ADS-STF20160021 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 60.2( CITY NOTICES PROPOSED UTILITI CITY NOTICES- PROPOSED CITY U E t 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 36.1 , um Total : 146.2( Q REFUND REFUND 001.000.257.620 20.0( Total : 20.0( 11/04 REFUND Page: 11 Packet Pg. 36 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 12 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222742 11/10/2016 075843 FABREGAS, LINDA (Continued) 11/04 REFUND 001.000.239.200 39.0( Total: 39.0( 222743 11/10/2016 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU41645 WATER - UTILTY MARKING PAINT Water - Utilty Marking Paint 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 341.3, 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 33.4E WAMOU41695 WATER - SUPPLIES Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 49.4( 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.8E WAMOU41740 WATER - MARKING PAINT Water - Marking Paint 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 59.5E 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 5.8z WAMOU41756 WATER - SUPPLIES Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 171.7E 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 16.8: WAMOU41790 PM: SUPPLIES PM: SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 24.8( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.4z Total: 710.3E 222744 11/10/2016 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0527348 WATER METER #2027 M-METER-0: Water Meter #2027 M-METER-02-01 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 3,056.0( Water Meter #2034 M-METEROMNI- Page: 12 Packet Pg. 37 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222744 11/10/2016 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 13 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 2,648.6( _ Water Inventory #0333 W-PIPECO-0. vi 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 536.9: U 9.8% Sales Tax t 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 559.0E E 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 52.6, u 0527354 WATER SUPPLIES o Water Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 480.0( o 9.8% Sales Tax L a 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 47.0z Q 0528771 WATER INVENTORY - #577 W-RADI Water Inventory - #577 W-RADIO-01- ti 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 4,209.3( Water Meter Inventory - #2025 w 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 852.3( c #2027 M-METER-02-010 r 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 3,056.0( r #2034 M-METEROMNI-01.5-030 N 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 11324.3( 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 412.5' 9.8% Sales Tax ; 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 512.8( 0530057 WATER METER INVENTORY - #202- E Water Meter Inventory - #2027 t U 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 6,112.1 Q #2034 M-METEROMNI-01.5-030 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 1,324.3( #2033 M-MTRECR/WP-01-010 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 1,358.4( 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 861.8E Page: 13 Packet Pg. 38 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222744 11/10/2016 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 222745 11/10/2016 075536 FIR EGONESE ASSOCIATES 222746 11/10/2016 011900 FRONTIER Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 14 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) 4719748 WWTP: CLST REP KIT _ CLST REP KIT 0 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 34.2. U 9.8% Sales Tax t 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 3.3E E 4723124 WWTP: A71 INSIDE CVR A71 INSIDE CVR U 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 4.4� o 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 0.4z o L 4723124-1 WWTP: FLEX TUBE DIAPH KIT Q- FLEX TUBE DIAPH KIT Q' Q 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 78.7, 9.8% Sales Tax ti 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 7.7' Total: 27,533.2( w 441-010 CONSULTING-HWY 99 SUBAREA CONSULTING-HWY 99 SUBAREA r r 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 10,134.3E N Total: 10,134.3E V E 206-188-0247 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY c� TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY A, 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 260.8z c TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY m E 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 260.8< 425-774-1031 LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCI r LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRAI Q 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 47.2E 425-776-1281 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH( SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH( 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 53.8� 425-776-5316 425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LII 425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LII Page: 14 Packet Pg. 39 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 15 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222746 11/10/2016 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 98.1 z Total: 720.9E 222747 11/10/2016 075841 GAOLACH, COLLENE 11/04 REFUND 11/04 REFUND 11/04 REFUND 001.000.239.200 60.0( Total: 60.0( 222748 11/10/2016 073821 GEODESIGN INC 1610-186 ESGA.SERVICES THRU 10/21/16 ESGA.Services thru 10/21/16 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 5,346.1 E Total: 5,346.1 E 222749 11/10/2016 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA 5193 TAI CHI 5193 TAI CHI LEVEL 1 5193 TAI CHI LEVEL 1 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 259.0( 5195 TAI CHI 5195 TAI CHI LEVEL 1 5195 TAI CHI LEVEL 1 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 339.0( 5196 TAI CHI 5196 TAI CHI LEVEL 2 5196 TAI CHI LEVEL 2 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 129.0( 5198 TAI CHI 5198 TAI CHI LEVEL 3 5198 TAI CHI LEVEL 3 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 258.8E 5202 QIGONG 5202 QIGONG 5202 QIGONG 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 204.0( 5205 BALANCE 5205 MOVING FOR BETTER BALAN 5205 MOVING FOR BETTER BALAN 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 165.0z Total: 1,354.9( 222750 11/10/2016 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 134213 UNIT 413 - 4 TIRES Unit 413 - 4 Tires Page: 15 Packet Pg. 40 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 222750 11/10/2016 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER (Continued) 222751 11/10/2016 072515 GOOGLE INC 222752 11/10/2016 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 222753 11/10/2016 012560 HACH COMPANY PO # Description/Account 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 State Tire Fees 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 Total 3362640478 BILLING ID# 5030-2931-5908 Google Apps - Oct-2016 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 Total: 178581/1 WATER INVENTORY #0492 W-VAL Water Inventory #0492 W-VALVCI-0 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 Water - Parts 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 178782/1 WATER -PARTS Water -Parts 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 178783/1 WATER -PARTS Water -Parts 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Total 10166119 WWTP: UV LAMP UV LAMP 4.2.a Page: 16 Page: 16 Packet Pg. 41 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 17 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222753 11/10/2016 012560 HACH COMPANY (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 390.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 38.2, Tota I : 428.2, 222754 11/10/2016 075074 HAGUE, RYAN Hague.10/2016 HAGUE TRAVEL EXPENSES TO N" Mileage to NW Pavement Mgmt. Con 001.000.67.518.21.43.00 203.0z Hotel Stay for the NW Pavement Mgn 001.000.67.518.21.43.00 389.7, Dinners 10/24 & 10/25 001.000.67.518.21.43.00 28.4� Tota I : 621.2; 222755 11/10/2016 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 166300 UNIT P8 - SWITCH HOUSING Unit P8 - Switch Housing 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 54.6( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.3( Total: 60.0, 222756 11/10/2016 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 14287196 WATER - SUPPLIES Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 14331255 WATER - REPAIR CLAMPS. QUICK, Water - Repair Clamps. Quick Joints, 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 14351833 WATER - QUICK JOINT BALL VALVE Water - Quick Joint Ball Valves 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax Page: 17 Packet Pg. 42 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 18 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222756 11/10/2016 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC (Continued) 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 63.6� 14351834 WATER SUPPLIES Water Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 850.8( 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 83.3E 14371568 WATER INVENTORY #0492 W-VALV Water Inventory #0492 W-VALVCI-02 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 774.2' 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 75.8 1 Total: 10,552Z 222757 11/10/2016 071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD G339903 STORM SUPPLIES Storm Supplies 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 271.3( 9.8% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 26.6( Total: 297.9E 222758 11/10/2016 075842 HEGINBOTHAM, SHERRIE 11/04 REFUND 11/04 REFUND 11/04 REFUND 001.000.239.200 39.0( Total: 39.0( 222759 11/10/2016 074746 HIGUCHI, ROD 5057 BOOT CAMP 5057 UKULELE BOOT CAMP 5057 UKULELE BOOT CAMP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 300.3( Total: 300.3( 222760 11/10/2016 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 7030006 WWTP: HEX LAG SCR HDG/SCREV HEX LAG SCR HDG/SCREWS/RATC 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 217.1 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 20.6: Page: 18 Packet Pg. 43 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 222760 11/10/2016 067862 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 222761 11/10/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2872163 2872307 2874247 2874683 2874863 2874866 2875835 2875899 4.2.a Page: 19 Description/Account Amoun Total : 237.8( CITY CLERKS OFFICE SUPPLIES vi SPOONS, KNIFES, WHITE OUT TAP Y 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 64.5 1 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 6.3< .E PAPER PAPER c 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 215.5( @ PAPER > o PAPER a 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 55.0' Q CREDIT -CALENDAR CREDIT -CALENDAR t° ti 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 -68.2 1 CITY CLERKS OFFICE SUPPLIES C C-LINE PROJECT FOLDERS AND Ci 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 93.0( 9.8% Sales Tax r 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 r 9.1 , N POSTER BOARD CARYING CASE F Y POSTER BOARD CARYING CASE F E 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 97.9( .9 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 9.5� WWTP: WITE OUT CORRECTION P E E WITE OUT CORRECTION PENS U 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.3E 9.8% Sales Tax r Q 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1.0' COPY PAPER COPY PAPER 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 51.9£ COPY PAPER Page: 19 Packet Pg. 44 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 20 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222761 11/10/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) COPY PAPER 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 52.0( 8 TAB DIVIDERS 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 6.7( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 5.7E 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 5.0� 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 5.1( Total: 672.8$ 222762 11/10/2016 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 4200 FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNEC Oct-16 Fiber Optics Internet Connecti 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 500.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 49.0( Total: 549.0( 222763 11/10/2016 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 704663 WWTP: CAUSTIC SODA SOL. 50% r CAUSTIC SODA SOL. 50% MEMBRF 423.000.76.535.80.31.52 1,918.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.52 187.9( Total: 2,105.9E 222764 11/10/2016 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 38187 E3FH.SERVICES THRU 10/29/16 E3FH.Services thru 10/29/16 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 495.5( Total: 495.5( 222765 11/10/2016 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 10016-150 PM: SUPPLIES REDMAX AIR FILTER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.9E REDMAX PRE -FILTER Page: 20 Packet Pg. 45 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 21 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222765 11/10/2016 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.9E _ SWIVEL JOINT vi 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.3� FREIGHT t 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.9E 9.8% Sales Tax M 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.1 z 6 11016-102 PM: SUPPLIES o SPRAY NOZZLE, LONG HANDLE BF 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 78.9' o 9.8% Sales Tax L a 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.7< Q Total: 133.0; ti 222766 11/10/2016 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 4498321 INV#4498321 ACCT#2185-952778-8 SHRED 2 TOTES @ $4.65 10/26/16 m 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 9.3( 7 Total: 9.3( o 222767 11/10/2016 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 80500169593 UNIT E123SO - ALUM BOXES r Unit E123SO - Alum Boxes N 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 1,052.0( E 9.8% Sales Tax ca 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 103.1( 80500169697 UNIT 109 - 2 TIRES c Unit 109 - 2 Tires E 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 135.6( u State Tire Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 r r 2.0( Q 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 13.2� Total: 1,305.91 222768 11/10/2016 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 86030691 WWTP: MOUNTED BALL BEARING: MOUNTED BALL BEARINGS FOR 1- Page: 21 Packet Pg. 46 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 22 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222768 11/10/2016 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 210.7E Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 7.7 , 86380810 WWTP: NARROW WEDGE V-BELT NARROW WEDGE V-BELT 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 152.0( Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 8.3( 86575014 WWTP: 1-2-3 BLOCKS W/11 HOLES 1-2-3 BLOCKS W/11 HOLES 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 288.4z Freight 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 7.2( 86774471 WWTP: THREADED PIPE FITTINGS THREADED PIPE FITTINGS, CLAMF 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 369.0( Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.7E Total: 1,053.4' 222769 11/10/2016 069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD 16798 SCANNING SCANNING 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 452.3 1 16801 CREDIT FOR INV#16748-SCANNIN( CREDIT FOR INV#16748-SCANNIN( 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 -100.0( 16803 SCANNING SCANNING 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 394.2E Tota I : 746.6( 222770 11/10/2016 063773 MICROFLEX 00022460 09-16 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM TAXAUDIT PROGRAM 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 30.0( Page: 22 Packet Pg. 47 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 23 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222770 11/10/2016 063773 063773 MICROFLEX (Continued) Total: 30.0( 222771 11/10/2016 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 247283 WWTP: RENTAL - GENIE SCISSOR vi RENTAL - GENIE SCISSOR LIFT & E Y 423.000.76.535.80.45.21 1,188.0( Freight 423.000.76.535.80.45.21 75.0( . 9.8% Sales Tax f° 423.000.76.535.80.45.21 123.7 c Total: 1,386.7, 222772 11/10/2016 075590 MOBILEGUARD INC 09977 10-16 NETGUARD MONTHLY SERVI a NetGuard Monthly Service Building Q- Q 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 36.0( NetGuard Monthly Service City Clerk 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 ti 6.0( 10 NetGuard Monthly Service Communit .. 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Court r 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 6.0( r NetGuard Monthly Service Developm, N 001.000.62.524.10.42.00 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Engineerir E 001.000.67.518.21.42.00 84.0( .m NetGuard Monthly Service Facilities 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 54.0( c NetGuard Monthly Service Finance E 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 6.0( u NetGuard Monthly Service Human Re 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 r 6.0( Q NetGuard Monthly Service Informatioi 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 30.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Mayor's O 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Parks 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 12.0( Page: 23 Packet Pg. 48 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222772 11/10/2016 075590 MOBILEGUARD INC Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 24 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) NetGuard Monthly Service Police 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 240.0( Y NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 30.0( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water U E 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 3.0( '@ NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water U 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 3.0( o NetGuard Monthly Service PW Sewei 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 30.0( 0- NetGuard Monthly Service PW Storm a Q. 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 6.0( Q NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 18.0(to NetGuard Monthly Service PW Fleet 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 6.0( w NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin c 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 2.1( r NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin r 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 0.6( Y NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin U 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 2.1( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 0.6( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 0.6( t NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street U 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 6.0( Q NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 30.0( Total : 642.0( Page: 24 Packet Pg. 49 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 25 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222773 11/10/2016 024001 NC MACHINERY S2445601 UNIT E120PR - NEW BACKHOE LO/ Unit E120PR - New Backhoe Loader 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 93,456.0( Y 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 a� 9,158.6� S2445601 CR SALES CREDIT E Sales Credit cu 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 -280.3 1 6 Total: 102,334.3: o 222774 11/10/2016 067694 NC POWER SYSTEMS CO. PSCS0577376 UNIT G01 - SENDING SWITCH > 0 Unit G01 - Sending Switch a 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 71.3: Q Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 ti 18.0zto 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.7( m Total: 98.1; 0 222775 11/10/2016 075838 NELSON ELECTRIC INC 31810 SR CENTER - INSTALL ELECTRICAI r r Sr Center - Install Electrical Boxes N 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 3,095.4( 9.8% Sales Tax E 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 303.3( .� Total: 3,398.8, c 222776 11/10/2016 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0599953-IN FLEET FILTER INVENTORY m t Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 23.0, cvv 9.8% Sales Tax r Q 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 2.2( 0601266-IN FLEET FILTER INVENTORY Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 21.9( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 2.1: Page: 25 Packet Pg. 50 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222776 11/10/2016 024302 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 222777 11/10/2016 075542 NORTHWEST LANDSCAPE SUPPLY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 1285 PM: SUPPLIES PM: SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 222778 11/10/2016 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER October, 2016 Total Total: COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSI• Emergency Medical Services & Traun 001.000.237.120 PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account 001.000.237.130 Building Code Fee Account 001.000.237.150 State Patrol Death Investigation 001.000.237.330 Judicial Information Systems Account 001.000.237.180 School Zone Safety Account 001.000.237.200 Washington Auto Theft Prevention 001.000.237.250 Traumatic Brain Injury 001.000.237.260 Accessible Communities Acct 001.000.237.290 Multi -Model Transportation 001.000.237.300 Hwy Safety Acct 001.000.237.320 Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis 001.000.237.170 WSP Hwy Acct 001.000.237.340 4.2.a Page: 26 Amoun 49.3$ 0 Y 114.0( 11.1 E 125.1 4- 0 1,095.3' a a 25,006.0z Q co ti 202.0( 62.7: o_ 5,312.0z r r N 410.0' E 2,185.3' 424.2E c m E 134.4: u a r r 134.4E Q 99.5� 14.5� 356.1: Page: 26 Packet Pg. 51 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 222778 11/10/2016 070166 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASUREF (Continued) 222779 11/10/2016 074545 OLDS-OLYMPIC INC 000511-1630501 222780 11/10/2016 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0000130 222781 11/10/2016 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 222782 11/10/2016 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 0001520 0001530 0002930 0021400 0026390 Description/Account FLEET VEHICLES FUEL Fleet Vehicles Fuel 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 Total Total: PLANTER IRRIGATION 220TH ST S\ PLANTER IRRIGATION 220TH ST S\ 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 CEMETERY 820 15TH ST SW CEMETERY 820 15TH ST SW 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 CEMETERY SPRINKLER 820 15TH CEMETERY SPRINKLER 820 15TH 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 SPRINKLER @ 5TH AVE S & SR104 SPRINKLER @ 5TH AVE S & SR104 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / MI FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / MI 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 PLANTER IRRIGATION 10415 226TF PLANTER IRRIGATION 10415 226TF 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 Total 00081633 UNIT 38 - HYD MOTOR Unit 38 - Hyd Motor 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 231868 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees Total 4.2.a Page: 27 Amoun 35,436.9( 0 Y 1,334.2' 1,334.2' 15.71 o c� 0 a 38.2� Q m ti 172.1 m 24.31 c r r r N 195.0( E 17.4f 463.0, m E t U M 981.2, Q 96.1( 1,077.31 Page: 27 Packet Pg. 52 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 222782 11/10/2016 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS (Continued) 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 231891 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 231918 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 231937 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 232362 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 232379 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 232404 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 232428 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 232465 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 232483 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 232507 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 232519 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 232570 STORM DUMP FEES 4.2.a Page: 28 Page: 28 Packet Pg. 53 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 29 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222782 11/10/2016 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS (Continued) Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 96.0( 232580 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 96.0( 232597 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 96.0( 232607 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 96.0( Total: 1,536.0( 222783 11/10/2016 069873 PAPE MACHINERY INC 10186192 UNIT 66 - FAN Unit 66 - Fan 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 187.1 E Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 24.6' 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 20.7: Tota I : 232.5' 222784 11/10/2016 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 21-24349 WWTP: PH 4 TSK 10, PH 5 TSK 1, PH 4 TSK 10, PH 5 TSK 1, PH 6 TS 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 54,311.5( Total: 54,311.5( 222785 11/10/2016 074422 PARTSMASTER, DIV OF NCH CORP 23061266 FLEET SHOP SMALL TOOLS Fleet Shop Small Tools 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 124.8z Freight 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 18.7< 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 14.0 1 23061270 FLEET SHOP SMALL TOOLS Page: 29 Packet Pg. 54 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 30 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222785 11/10/2016 074422 PARTSMASTER, DIV OF NCH CORP (Continued) Fleet Shop Small Tools 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 217.2: Freight 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 32.5� 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 24.4E 23075719 FLEET SHOP SMALL TOOLS Fleet Shop Small Tools 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 134.0( Freight 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 20.1( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 15.1' Total: 601.1, 222786 11/10/2016 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 111733 INV#111733 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2007 SUBARU #AGT1738 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 16.2 1 222787 11/10/2016 069633 PET PROS 222788 11/10/2016 074793 PETDATA INC Total: 0014403-IN INV#0014403-IN - EDMONDS PD -Hi NUTRI/CHICKEN & RICE 10/6/16 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 NUTRI CHICKEN & RICE 10/29/16 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 9.9% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 Total 5393 INV#5393 - EDMONDS PD - OCT 20' 17 1-YR PET LICENSES @ $3.90 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 1 REPLACEMENT TAG @ $3.90 Page: 30 Packet Pg. 55 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 31 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222788 11/10/2016 074793 PETDATA INC (Continued) 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 3.9( 2 LATE FEES COLLECTED @ $2.50 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 5.0( Total: 75.2( 222789 11/10/2016 075432 POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES IF-1266299 INV#IF-1266299 - BRUGGMAN - EDI AXIIIA BALLISTIC VEST 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 896.0( Freight 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 6.7' IF-1266562 INV#IF-1266562 - CLARK - EDMONE GUARDIAN BALLISTIC VEST CARR 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 180.9( Freight 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 5.9' IF-1266650 INV#IF-1266650 - PLOEGER - EDMC GUARDIAN BALLISTIC VEST CARR 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 180.9( Freight 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 5.9' IF-1266997 INV#IF-1266997 - MACHADO - EDM( VISION GEN II BASE VEST CARRIE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 105.3( Freight 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 5.Z Total: 1,386.9, 222790 11/10/2016 073231 POLYDYNE INC 1087731 WWTP: CLARIFLOC Clarifloc 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 8,184.0( Total: 8,184.0( 222791 11/10/2016 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 12 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 48.5: Page: 31 Packet Pg. 56 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222791 11/10/2016 064088 064088 PROTECTION ONE 222792 11/10/2016 030695 PUMPTECH INC 222793 11/10/2016 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 222794 11/10/2016 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 32 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Total : 48.5! 0110917-IN WWTP: DORR OLIVER CHECK BAL vi DORR OLIVER CHECK BALLS, NO[ Y 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 3,276.0( 9.8% Sales Tax U 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 321.0E . Total: 3,597.0' 116990 INV#116990 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2001 VOLVO #BAZ3513 > 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.0( a 9.8% Sales Tax Q- Q 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 16.21 117758 INV#117758 - EDMONDS PD ti TOW SUBARU #AWP1969 w 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 238.5( .. 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 23.3 1 Total: 444.1� r r 3-0197-0800478 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 151.6E 3-0197-0800897 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 30.2' E PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; t 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 114.7� PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; r Q 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 114.7� PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 114.7� PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 114.7� PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; Page: 32 Packet Pg. 57 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222794 11/10/2016 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 222795 11/10/2016 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 222796 11/10/2016 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY 222797 11/10/2016 067681 SAGE CONTROL ORDNANCE INC Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 33 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 114.7 1 _ 3-0197-0801132 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; vi FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 161.2: t 3-0197-0829729 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL E CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 69.5: 6 Total: 986.5', o 5-011087 UNIT 66 - BATTERIES o Unit 66 - Batteries a 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 205.9, Q Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.0( ti 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 21.6: m 5-011373 UNIT 413 - BATTERY Unit 413 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 68.4� r r 9.8% Sales Tax N 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.7' cYi Total: 317.71 E OCT 2016 INVOICE DATED 10/31/16 ACCT#701 #190221 - 3 NPC - 10/20/16 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 35.7( E Total: 35.7( a 12177 INV#12177 CUST#EE0065 - EDMON Q K01/S IMPACT BATON -STANDARD 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 2,150.0( K01LE/S IMPACT BATON -LESS ENE 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 1,075.0( K030C/S CRUSH NOSE -STANDARD 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 1,237.5( Page: 33 Packet Pg. 58 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222797 11/10/2016 067681 SAGE CONTROL ORDNANCE INC 222798 11/10/2016 074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC 222799 11/10/2016 065119 SIRCHIE FINGERPRINT LAB Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 38663 0276414-IN 222800 11/10/2016 066748 SNO CO DEPT OF INFO SERVICES 1000419574 222801 11/10/2016 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDERASSOC 1634 222802 11/10/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0291-9 PO # Description/Account K03LEOC/S OC CRUSH -LESS ENER 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 K01-SB K01 BATON - COMPLETE RI 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 K01 ROTATING BAND 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 PROPELLING CHARGES FOR K01 L 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 Total REMOTE COMPUTER SUPPORT 10 Remote Computer Support 10/11/16 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 Total INV#0276414-IN - CUST#00-A98020 FINGERPRINT INK 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 Total 2016 FIBER NETWORK HOSTING S 2016 Fiber Network Hosting Services 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 Total OCT 2016 PUBLIC DEFENSE COST OCT 2016 PUBLIC DEFENSE COST 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 Total LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AV 4.2.a Page: 34 Page: 34 Packet Pg. 59 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 35 Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222802 11/10/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AV 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 122.8E Y 2003-2646-0 HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON t 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.5z 2006-6395-3 ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / M ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / M 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 146.4' o 2010-5432-7 BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 f BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 f p L 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 43.5 1 a 2011-0356-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI Q' Q TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 m 32.3' to 2011-8789-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 26.7z 2015-0127-7 LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH F o LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH F r 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 20.4, Y 2017-1178-5 STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ E 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 734.9' 2021-3965-5 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 m 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 20.8E E 2021-9128-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212- U PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212- r 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 18.5z Q 2022-5063-5 9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M 9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.5z 2023-5673-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 23.3 Page: 35 Packet Pg. 60 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222802 11/10/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 36 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) 2025-2918-6 STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ _ STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ vi 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 3,036.3� 0 2025-2920-2 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4 t STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4 U 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 120.4, •75 2025-7615-3 STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C U STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS Cac 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 15,123.2z 2025-7948-8 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2 L STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2 0- 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 360.9� Q 2025-7952-0 WWTP: 10/1-10/31/16 EDMONDS-V/ 10/1-10/31/16 Electric Unmetered ti 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 0 9.4, 2047-1489-3 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150' m STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150' 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 0 4.8z r 2047-1492-7 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2 r STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2 Y 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 107.6' 2047-1493-5 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40 E STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40 f° 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 56.7' . 2047-1494-3 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10 m E 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 14.4, U 2047-1495-0 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2 r STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2 Q 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 195.6E 2053-0758-0 DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 181.4� 2207-9275-8 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - ME Page: 36 Packet Pg. 61 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222802 11/10/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 222803 11/10/2016 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 222804 11/10/2016 067809 SNOHOMISH COUNTY FINANCE Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 2016-3434 CM 2016-3434 1000419525 1000419526 222805 11/10/2016 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER October 2016 222806 11/10/2016 075839 SOISET, ALSIA 222807 11/10/2016 062280 SOUND SEAL & PACKING CO 11/02 REFUND 21155 PO # Description/Account 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 Total INV 2016-3434 INMATE MEDS - SEF INMATE MEDS - SEPTEMBER 2016 001.000.39.523.60.31.00 CREDIT FOR AUGUST INMATE MEE CREDIT FOR AUG 2016 MEDS 001.000.39.523.60.31.00 Total 2ND HALF 2016 P&I 800 MHZ BILLI1' 2nd Half 2016 800 MHZ Billing - 001.000.39.591.21.71.00 2nd Half 2016 800 MHZ Billing - Inter, 001.000.39.592.21.83.00 2ND HALF 2016 SNOCOM P&I BILLI 2nd Half 2016 SnoCom billing - Princi 001.000.39.591.21.71.00 2nd Half 2016 SnoCom Interest billin( 001.000.39.592.21.83.00 Total Crime Victims Court Remittance Crime Victims Court Remittance 001.000.237.140 Total 11/02 REFUND 11/02 REFUND 001.000.239.200 Total WWTP: AESSEAL CURC MECH SE) AESSEAL CURC MECH SEAL TC/TC 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 4.2.a Page: 37 Amoun 181.9E 20,620.2! (6 a� t 861.0( . c� 4- 0 -31.7E @ 829.2; o L Q 0. Q 89,827.70 0 9,629.4 1 m 0 r 24,583.5( r r N 2,635.3( 126,676.1( E c 582.0z m 582.01 t U a r Q 150.0( 150.0( 1,801.0( Page: 37 Packet Pg. 62 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 38 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222807 11/10/2016 062280 SOUND SEAL & PACKING CO (Continued) Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 36.5( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 180.0£ Total: 2,017.51 222808 11/10/2016 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 75842 FLEET WORK JACKET Fleet Work Jacket 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 45.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 4.4' Total: 49.4' 222809 11/10/2016 072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY 94815 PAPER PAPER 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 135.1 Total: 135.1 222810 11/10/2016 075840 TSCHIDA, MICHELLE 11/04 REFUND 11/04 REFUND 11/04 REFUND 001.000.239.200 39.0( Total: 39.0( 222811 11/10/2016 074800 TURNSTYLE INC BID-4048 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT UPD) Design and development work/upgra( 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 3,800.0( Total: 3,800.0( 222812 11/10/2016 070774 ULINE INC 81353853 INV#81353853 CUST#2634605 - EDI INDUSTRIAL LAMINATOR 001.000.41.521.11.35.00 299.0( Freight 001.000.41.521.11.35.00 12.9, 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.35.00 30.5 , Page: 38 Packet Pg. 63 vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 39 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222812 11/10/2016 070774 070774 ULINE INC (Continued) Total: 342.4$ 222813 11/10/2016 073310 UNISAFE INC 697960 WWTP: NITRILE EXAM GLOVES X-1 vi Supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 899.0( Total: 899.0( E 222814 11/10/2016 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL 117003056 INV#I17003056 EDM301 - EDMOND! BACKGROUND CHECKS-OCT 2016 .- 001.000.237.100 288.0( c Total: 288.0( > 0 L 222815 11/10/2016 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 18011 ARBOR DAY PLANTS Q' Q. VARIOUS ARBOR DAY PLANTS Q 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,130.0( w 9.8% Sales Tax to 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 110.7, Total: 1,240.71 222816 11/10/2016 064213 WSSUATREASURER 421 OCTOBER 16' SOFTBALL OFFICIAL 0 r MENS GAMES (33 @ $35/EA) r 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 1,155.0( Y CO-ED GAMES (11 @ $35/EA) 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 385.0( •E Total: ca 1,540.0( 222817 11/10/2016 075122 YAKIMA CO DEPT OF CORR NOV 3 2016 INV NOV 3 2016 - INMATE HOUSINC m 23 DAYS INMATE HOUSING - SEPT E 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,259.2,1 U INMATE MEDS - SEPT 2016 r 001.000.39.523.60.31.00 9.1( Q Total: 1,268.4' 110 Vouchers for bank code : usbank Bank total : 824,915.2( 110 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 824,915.2( Page: 39 Packet Pg. 64 4.2.a vchlist 11/10/2016 6:59:59AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account Page: 40 Amoun Page: 40 Packet Pg. 65 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 11/9/2016 Packet Pg. 66 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 11/9/2016 Packet Pg. 67 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 11/9/2016 Packet Pg. 68 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 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 11/9/2016 Packet Pg. 69 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 V STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study v E SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation M STIR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update v STIRE2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project O M SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project > O STIR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) L Q STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study Q 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) N L STIR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STIR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S 7 STIR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study ? •O STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th d STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements d to STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements T 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 i STIR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program LL r-� WTR E4J13 c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program O SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project t FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab M FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades .r r� Q 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 11/9/2016 Packet Pg. 70 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Protect Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STR 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 STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming V STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating v E STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project cc WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays v FAC E5LA c476 A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers O M PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement > O General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis L Q STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Q PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza co ti 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 STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements N L SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II STM E6FE c491 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs E 7 SWR E6GC c492 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project ? •O WTR E6JC c493 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project d STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements d to SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays T STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays 7 tT SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays i STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive LL r-� STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens O SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project t WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects M STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion .r r� Q STR 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 STR E6AA s014 SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update Revised 11/9/2016 Packet Pg. 71 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 11/9/2016 Packet Pg. 72 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 11i9i2016 Packet Pg. 73 4.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/15/2016 Authorize the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with Olympic View Water & Sewer District to fund minor utility relocations for the Madrona Elementary Walkway Project Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On October 18, 2016, Council authorized the Mayor to sign the original Interlocal Agreement with Olympic View Water & Sewer District for the Madrona Elementary Walkway project on 236th St. On November 7, 2016, staff presented a revised Interlocal Agreement with Olympic View Water & Sewer District for the Madrona Elementary Walkway project to Council and it was forwarded to the November 15th consent agenda for approval. 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 Madrona Elementary Walkway project on 236th St. 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 Packet Pg. 74 4.3 City of Edmonds that will enable the City of Edmonds' contractor to eliminate these conflicts with all costs reimbursed by OVWSD. This cooperative relationship will enable the City of Edmonds to construct the Madrona Elementary Walkway project without delays caused by water and wastewater conflicts. Attachments: Proposed Interlocal Agreement Redlined Interlocal Agreement Packet Pg. 75 4.3.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. 76 4.3.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. 77 4.3.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. 78 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. 79 4.3.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. 80 4.3.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. 81 4.3.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, shuttinc 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. 82 4.3.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. 83 4.3.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. B. Respond promptly to information requests submitted by the City or its agents regarding the utilities relocation work. to 0 C_Upon satisfactory completion of the utilities relocation work, provide written M acceptance of the work to the City. L - - Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", No b ,� x E D. Provide onsite inspection of all relocated infrastructure upon notification. ... numbering C Section 5. Obligations City. The City to: Formatted: No bullets or numbering co of the agrees O A. Assume responsibility for constructing the utilities relocation work in accordance with District standard details and specifications. 3 �- Formatted: No bullets or numbering J 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 coo have District engineer review and approve the Citesproposed design prior to construction. to B. Procure all construction contracts through a formal competitive bidding process consistent with applicable State law. m m 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 Q clearly indicating the District's portion of the invoices. 0 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. m c 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. d F. Respond promptly to information requests submitted by the District or its agents s regarding the Project. M Q Interlocal Agreement for Madrona Elementary Walkway Project Page 3 of 6 October 4, 2016 Packet Pg. 84 4.3.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. 85 4.3.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. 86 4.3.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. 87 4.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/15/2016 Authorization for Mayor to sign a Right -of -Way Dedication for the Select Homes Short Plat Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On November 7, 2016, staff presented this item to Council and it was forwarded to the November 15th consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Authorize the Mayor to sign the Right -of -Way Dedication. 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. 88 4.4.a a S000NDS SHORT PLAT FLm.20fff":r0 (AFN20rsnsz�s SJ 101t ROW dedimied in June 201E f . . .. ....... .. .. .. ....... ... 8721 218t" St SW ROW Dedication 2 0 Selecl Home$ 6721 21 Bthi Si S4V f t nsw propery hne I 1�}'L .218TH ST SW � r I Packet Pg. 89 4.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/15/2016 September 2016 Quarterly Financial Report Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Scott James No action needed; informational only. Attachments: 3rd Qtr 2016 Financial Management Report Complete September 2016 Quarterly Report Packet Pg. 90 3rd Quarter 4.5.a 2016 Financial Management Report 'Ile. ts9v ➢ 3rd Quarter Financial Highlights ➢ Q &A L L r O N CD M E CD 0- Packet Pg. 91 4.5.a General Fund - Funds Revenue Comparison 'Ile. 1009V 3rd QUARTER 2016 REVENUE SUMMARY - GENERAL FUND TYPES Fund NO. Fund Name YTD 2015 Receipts YTD 2016 Recei is $ Change ' 16 - ' 15 % Change ' 16 - ' 15 001 GENERAL FUND $2597939100 $269733,249 $9409149 3.6% 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE $1409693 $1419144 $451 0.3% 011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND $69657 $7,252 $595 8.9% 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND $329124 $12,586 ($199537) -60.8% 013 MULTBIODAL TRANSPORTATION $372 $412 $40 10.9% 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT F $69434 $29543 ($39892) -60.5% 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE $2539072 $199649437 $19711,365 676.2% Totals $2692329452 $28,861,624 $296299171 10.0% 2, L r O N CD M E CD 0- a) cn Packet Pg. 92 General Fund Revenue Budget to Actual Year -to -Date Actual Budget % of Budget General Fund Resource Category 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 Change-AE 15 2 Change 2015 2016 Taxes Property Taxes 7,779,098 8,064,029 3.7% 14320,535 14,705,650 2.7% 54.3% 54.8% Sales Tax 4,937,480 5,077,167 2.8% 5:627,000 6,144,400 9.2% 87.7% 82.6% Utility Taxes 5,075,412 5,177,064 2.0% 6,732,519 6,789,980 0.9% 75.4% 76.2% Other Taxes 699,942 738,584 5.5% 872,750 939,340 7.6% 80.2% 78.6% Total Taxes 18,491,932 19,056,844 3.1% 27,552,804 28,579,370 3.7% 67.1%1 66.7% Licenses & Permits Business Licenses & Misc. Permits 163,897 162,231 -1.0% 236,680 244,220 3.2% 69.2% 66.4% Franchise Fees 851,573 857,631 0.7% 1,093,490 1,142,800 4.5% 77.9% 75.0% Development Related Pennits, 537,866 657,124 22.2% 567,370 624,100 10.0% 94.8%1 105.3% Total Licenses & Permits 1,553,336 1,676,986 8.0% 1,897,540 2,011,120 6.0% 81.9% 83.4% Intergovernmental Revenues Liquor Board Profits 262,569 261,672 -0.3% 356,890 357,800 0.3% 73.6% 73.1% Liquor Excise Tax 63,087 139,331 120.9% 65,000 65,200 0.3% 97.1% 213.7%, Grants 55,019 354,568 544.4% 48,470 412,100 750.2% 113.5% 86.0% Other Intergovernmental 248,277 331,437 33.5% 254,190 259,720 2.2% 97.7% 127.6% Total Inte overnmental 628,952 1,087,008 72.8% 724,550 1,094,820 51.1% 86.8% 99.3% Fees For Service Interf.md Reimbursement 1,577,174 1,680,403 6.5% 1,902,614 2,964,600 55.8% 82.9% 56.7% Engineering Services 156,036 176,429 13.1% 272,000 180,350 -33.7% 57.4% 97.8% Plan Check & Inspection Fees 437,296 274,553 -37.2% 323,060 337,584 4.5% 135.4% 81.3% Zoning& Subdivision Fees 47,198 47,321 0.3% 75,000 75,000 0.0% 62.9% 63.1% EMS Transport Fees 639,849 679,183 6.1 % 818,000 837,100 2.3% 78.2% 81.1 % Parks & Recreational Fees 577,945 767,555 32.8% 1,066,360 889,580 -16.6% 54.2% 86.3% Other Charges for Services 461,941 384,650 -16.7%1 395,452 458,966 16.1% 116.8% 83.8% Total Fees For Service 3,897,439 4,010,094 2.9% 4,852,486 5,743,180 18.4% 80.3% 69.8% Fines & Forfeitures Fines & Forfeitures 434,006 409,742 -5.6% 602,450 522,130 -13.3% 72.0% 78.5% Total Fines & Forfeitures 434,006 409,742 -5.6% 602,450 522,130 -13.3% 72.0% 78.5% Miscellaneous Revenues Interest Earnings & Misc. 376,347 409,736 8.9%1 366,539 503,861 37.5% 102.7% 81.3% Total Miscellaneous 376,347 409,736 8.9% 366,539 503,861 37.5% 102.7% 81.3% Other Financing Sources hiterfund Transfers 411,088 82,840 -79.8% 822,175 825,840 0.4% 50.0% 10.0% Total Other Financing Sources 411,088 82,840 -79.8% 822,175 825,840 0.4% 50.0% Total Revenues 25,793,100 26,733,249 3.6% 36,818,544 1 39,280,321 1 6.7%1 70.1% 7 Pacl 11 (et Pg. 93 a 771 General Fund Revenue Comparison '.S.a Year -to -Date Actual % General Fund Resource Category 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 Change Taxes Property Taxes 7,77%098 81064,029 3.7% Sales Tax 4,937,480 510771167 2.8% Utility Taxes 5,075,412 511771064 2.0% Other Taxes 6991942 738,584 5.5% Total Taxes 18,4919932 19,056,844 3.1 % Licenses & Permits Business Licenses & Misc. Permits 163,897 1621231 -1.0% Franchise Fees 851,573 8571631 0.7% Development Related Permits 5371866 657,124 22.2% Total Licenses & Permits 19553,336 196769986 8.0% r Q Packet Pg. 94 4.5.a Health & Persc 76,964 Retail Eating & DrinIdn 650,240 Gasoline Stations 25,191 Automotive Repair 128,4 V:i Sales Tax Analysis By Category Current Period: September 2016 Year -to -Date Total $5,077,167 Wholesale Trade 210,256 � C'ornrnunications 187.796 Clothing and Accessories 162,538 it Trade 599,611 Accommodation 34,076 Business Services 353,126 Amusement & Recreation 53,062 etail Food Stores 199,737 0 Packet Pg. 95 4.5.a Change in Sales Tax Revenue: September 2016 compared to September 2015 Total Retail Automotive Misc Retail Trade Retail Eating & Drinking Business Services Retail Food Stores Others Amusement & Recreation Clothing and Accessories Health & Personal Care Accommodation Gasoline Stations Wholesale Trade Automotive Repair Communications Contractors ($175,000) ($125,000) ($75,000) ($25,000) $25,000 $75,000 $125,000 $175,0 Packet Pg. 96 General Fund Types4.5.a Expenditure Comparison "a C. 1009v 3rd QUARTER 2016 EXPENSE SUMMARY - GENERAL FUND TYPES Fund NO. Fund Name I YTD 2015 Ex enses YTD 2016 Expenses $ Change 116 -'15 % Chanj 16 -'15 001 GENERAL FUND $2799259951 $3096709999 $297459048 9.8' 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE $2109576 $1839578 ($269998) -12.8` 011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND $70,546 $0 ($70,546) -100.0' 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND $3,2469447 $0 ($392469447) -100.0' 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND $79500 $0 ($79500) -100.0` 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE $1509464 $1,963,834 $1,8139370 1205.2' Totals $31,611,483 $32,818,411 $19206,928 3.8' 2, 3 tD r O N E cn ti 0 a E 2 U- r O N L V L M C d E t V R r r Q Packet Pg. 97 General Fund Departm Vr ExpenseSummaryCY 1 L /tic cm E 2016 Amended 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 Amount °D Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining a % Spent CITY COUNCIL $ 295,500 $ 161,353 $ 183,494 $ 112,006 621 ti m OFFICE OF MAYOR 260,250 187,585 192,059 68,191 741 HUMAN RESOURCES 462,044 260,353 265,413 196,631 57 Q. d MUNICIPAL COURT 909,270 622,277 654,546 254,724 721 c d CITY CLERK 589,290 413,948 416,998 172,292 71(, E d am ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,839,930 1,190,344 1,116,739 723,191 611 _ CITY ATTORNEY 741,560 481,960 527,900 R 213,660 711 R NON -DEPARTMENTAL 14,956,000 10,917,365 12,314,850 2,641,150 82( POLICE SERVICES 9,633,050 6,488,421 6,866,786 c� 2,766,264 711 E w COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEV. 535,580 303,816 362,099 173,481 68`. c N DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2,688,352 1,576,660 1,811,147 877,205 671. +U`, PARKS & RECREATION 3,774,541 2,653,025 2,779,501 995,040 741 'a PUBLIC WORKS 2,842,120 1,566,600 2,111,893 r 730,227 741 E FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,483,800 1,102,245 1,067,573 416,227 72� $ 41,011,287 $ 27,925,951 $ 30,670,999 $ 10,340,288 75( Q Packet Pg. 98 4.5.a Special Revenue Funds Revenue Comparison 3rd QUARTER 2016 REVENUE SUMMARY - SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Fund NO. Fund Name YTD 2015 Receipts YTD 2016 Receipts $ Change 116 -'15 % Chang 116 -'15 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND $119343 $68,775 $57,432 506.31 111 STREET FUND $192839215 $193679601 $84,386 6.61 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE $492409828 $498759285 $6349457 15.01 117 IMUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND $889587 $369874 ($519713) -58.41 118 IMEMORIAL STREET TREE $118 $131 $13 10.91 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND $559917 $619734 $59817 10.4' 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND $99602 $99501 ($101) -1.11 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND $899 $120 ($778) -86.61 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS $189881 $209851 $19971 10.41 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 $190729917 $190029284 ($709633) -6.61 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1 $190709959 $19004,125 ($66,833) -6.2( 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND $489614 $359210 ($13,404) -27.61 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND $253 $280 $27 10.91 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT $1409791 $1309501 ($109290) -7.31 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND $5639618 $191139771 $5509153 97.61 136 PARKS TRUST FUND $19002 $19111 $109 10.91 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD $199090 $189872 ($218) -1.11 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION $39919 $59789 $19869 47.71 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT $531,912 $5439698 $119786 2.21 Totals IF $99162,464 $10.296.513 $1,134,049 12.4( Packet Pg. 99 0� E DAf Motor Vehicle Fuel 0 "Ile. 1$g $750,000 $700,000 $650,000 $600,000 $550,000 $500,000 $450,000 $400,000 3rd 4.5.a Tax Revenues>, L L er YTD Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Revenues 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 The City receipts 82% of its Motor Vehicle Fuel Excise Tax (gas tax) into the Street Fund. This fund is used for costs related to street maintenance. The remaining 18% of the gas tax is used for street construction and improvement projects. iJ in Packet Pg. 100 The City receipts 75% of its Lodging Tax into the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund, which uses the funds for the purpose of promoting tourism and visitors to Edmonds. The remaining 25% of the Lodging Tax is receipted into the Fund 123 Tourism Promotion/Arts Fund, which uses the funds to promote tourism through support arts and culture events. 4.5.a 11 Packet Pg. 101 f Packet Pg. 102 4.5.a Special Revenue Funds Expenditure Comparison 3rd QUARTER 2016 EXPENSE SUMMARY -SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS a Fund YTD 2015 YTD 2016 $ Change L % Chan NO. Fund Name Expenses Expenses 116 -'15 16 -'1! 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND $359947 $499896 $139950 0 38.8 111 STREET FUND $192259519 $193439097 $1179578 9.6 EQ 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE $397839487 $390009552 ($7829936) -20.7 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND $669730 $479283 ($199448) -29.1 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE $0 $0 $0 0.0 r 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND $359226 $399690 $49463 12.7 0 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND $404 $19726 $19322 327.6 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND $19641 $19210 ($431) -26.3 0 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS $109116 $179318 $79202 71.2 wo 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 $1469363 $3509412 $2049049 139.4 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1 $289845 $5549417 $5259572 1822.1 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND $209742 $35,263 $149521 70.0 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND $0 $0 $0 0.0 U- 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT $1219265 $1219881 $616 0.5 N 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND $9289226 $7449419 ($1839807) L -19.8 c� 136 PARKS TRUST FUND $0 $0 $0 0.0 M 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION $4,987 $5,609 $622 12.5 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT $559,847 $543,698 ($16,149) -2.9 Totals $6,9699344 $6,856,470 ($112,874) -1.6 a Packet Pg. 103 CD Attachment: 3rd Qtr 2016 Financial Management Report (1679 : September 2016 Quarterly r17C. 1009V Utility Fun, Operating Revenue Comparison 3rd QUARTER 2016 REVENUE SUMMARY - UTILITY FUNDS Fund NO. Fund Name YTD 2015 Receipts YTD 2016 Receipts $ Change '16 -'15 % Chang 116 -'15 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION $63,875 $1311139 $67,264 105.3 421 WATER UTILITY FUND $6,254,790 $6,584,890 $330,099 5.3 422 STORM UTILITY FUND $39395,247 $3,0659261 ($329,985) -9.7 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND $7,633,560 $7,6571389 $239829 0.3 424 BOND RESERVE FUND $337,211 $667,448 $3309238 97.9 Totals $17,684,682 $18,106,128 $421,446 2.4 r Q Packet Pg. 105 r17C. 1$y" Utility Fur�jP Expense Comparison 3rd QUARTER 2016 EXPENSE SUMMARY - UTILITY FUNDS Fund NO. Fund Name YTD 2015 Expenses YTD 2016 Expenses $ Change '16 -'15 % Chang 16 -'15 421 WATER UTILITY FUND $691139238 $693489263 $235,025 3.80 422 STORM UTILITY FUND $292269814 $298729220 $6459406 29.0° 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND $792759920 $794079743 $131,823 1.80 424 BOND RESERVE FUND $3379261 $6679442 $3309181 97.9° Totals $15,953,233 $1792959667 $193429435 8.40 21 3 tD r O N E w ti 0 a E E r O N L V L M a+ C d E t V R r r Q Packet Pg. 106 CD m O co Cj1 � it o iv Attachment: 3rd Qtr 2016 Financial Management Report (1679 : September 2016 Quarterly 4.5.b bAt vX, OF E� O,� d u "J7 1 Rao AT A GLANCE: General Fund operating revenues are ahead of last year's revenues. 2016 sale: tax revenue outperforms 2015 by $140K (page 18) and 2016 interest earnings are higher by $76K than 2015. (page 32) INSIDE THIS ISSUE: Revenues By Fund Summary Expenditures By Fund Summary General Fund Revenues Expenditures By Fund Details General Fund Expenditure Detail Investment Portfolio Fund Balance Overview 1 3 6 32 Summary of All Operating Funds: Revenue The Financial Management Report is a summary report of the City's 3rd Quarter 2016 financial results with a comparison to 3rd Quarter 2015 • Notable Revenue Highlights: • Hotel/Motel Lodging tax revenues => 2016 Investment earnings are $76,200 Higher than 2015 => 2016 tax revenues are $437,000 higher than 2015. These increas- es are led by: *Property Taxes $284,931 *Sales Taxes $139,687 Specific Revenue Highlights by Fund: • General Fund third quarter 2016 operating revenue is $940,149 or 3.6 percent over last year, largely due to increased property tax, sales tax and grant revenues. A detailed analysis of General Fund revenues can be found on page 4, with sales tax performance dis- cussed on page 18. • Special Revenue Funds 2016 Five Comers revenues are $1,134,049 or 12.4 percent higher than 2015. The 2016 revenue increase is primarily due to: • The Drug Enforcement Fund con- fiscations revenues increased $57,000 grew 10.1 % over 2015, a reflection of the continued strength of the regional economy and attractiveness of our city as a destination for visitors. • Real Estate Excise Tax revenues de- creased $147,000 or 6.9% over 2015. This is a result of unusually high reve- nues in Q3 2015 and does not neces- sarily indicate a downturn in REET revenues year over year. REET reve- nues remain ahead of budget, as seen in the graph and table on page 17. • Park Construction Fund 132 grant revenues increased $146,500 over 2015. Additionally, impacts fees in- creased $233,800 and park donations for Veterans Plaza increased $171,500 over 2015. • Utility Funds: • Area rainfall in Q3 2016 was about 2.9 inches compared to 4.3 inches during Q3 of last year, which contributed to an increase in water sales by $300,000 or 6.5 percent over 2015. => Stormwater sales increased by $117,685 or 4.7 percent over 2015, and • Street Fund 1112016 grant rev- enues are $85,516 higher than => Sewer sales increased by $447,511 or 2015. 10.3 percent over 2015. Financial Management Report as of September 30, 2016 Packet Pg. 108 — — — — — — — — - I — Summary of All Operating Funds: Expenditures + General Fund expenditures ended the quarter with 75% of the budget City of Edmonds expended, showing an increase of Purchase of Civic $2,745,048 or 9.8% over 2015. Field completed with help of $1.4 General Fund expense by catego- million in grants I ries are on page 6 and departmental expenses are on pages 1316 Additional General Fund expendi- tures information can be found on - pages 23-31. http:// visitedmonds.com/ http:// visitedmonds.com/ • Special Revenue Fund expendi- tures decreased $112,874 in 2016 over 2015. The majority of this decrease comes from a decrease in construction outlays, with Com- bined Street Const/Imp fund ex- penses being $782,936 lower than 2015. Additional Special Revenue Fund expenditure information can be found on pages 6-8. • Utility Funds 2016 expenses increased $1,342,435 over 2015, primarily due to in- creased capital expenses for water line replacements. Additional Utility Fund expense information can be found on pages 9 —10. I • The Water Fund expenditures were $235,025 higher than 2015 mainly due to increased capital ex- penditures. (see page 9 for expendi- ture details.) I Investment Portfolio • The City's investment earnings in- creased $76,200 over 2015 earn- ings and $209,195 greater than 1 the same period in 2014 due to diversi- fying the City's investment portfolio. (see page 32 for additional investment details) Fund Balances • The September 30 fund balance for the General Fund (excluding subfunds) im- proved by $1.1 million compared to the same balance at September 30, 2015. • Additional fund balance information can be found on pages 33-38. Other Notable Highlights • In 2014, the City received a $1.67 mil- lion retroactive invoice from Fire Dis- trict 1 as the result of their settled labor agreement. Subsequent to receiving this invoice, the City negotiated a small re- duction and were able to pay the re- maining $1,603,000 over eight quarterly payments. To date, the City has paid $1,202,250 towards this settlement. • During September 2016 the City invest- ed an additional $4 million in FNMA bonds, bringing total bond investments to $19.03 million. (see page 32 for a summary of the investment portfolio.) • On February 12, 2016, the City made its last Public Safety Bond payment early, saving the City approximately $13,000 in interest expense. • In October the City began installing a new public restroom facility next to City Hall. (Below is a photo of part of the restroom installation) i I I — — — — — — — — — - Financial Management Report as of September 30, 2016 Packet Pg. 109 I 4.5.b I Page I of I C ITY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2016 Amended 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 Amount No. Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received 001 GENERAL FUND $ 39,280,321 $ 25,793,100 $ 26,733,249 $ 12,547,072 680 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 278,770 140,693 141,144 137,626 510 011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 6,660 6,657 7,252 (592) 1090 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 28,110 32,124 12,586 15,524 450 013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND - 372 412 (412) 00 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,000 6,434 2,543 2,457 510 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1 2,505,000 253,072 1,964,437 540,563 780 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 153,000 11,343 68,775 84,225 450 111 STREET FUND 1,760,500 1,283,215 1,367,601 392,899 780 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2 8,160,017 4,240,828 4,875,285 3,284,732 600 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 106,008 88,587 36,874 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 110 118 131 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 82,150 55,917 61,734 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 21,390 9,602 9,501 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 5,550 899 120 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 27,530 18,881 20,851 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,108,000 1,072,917 1,002,284 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAXI, PARKS ACQ FUND 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 3 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 4 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 4 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 4 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 1,102,000 46,900 280 177,260 1,352,240 630 19,880 12,010 682,500 14,400 1,070,959 48,614 253 140,791 563,618 1,002 19,090 3,919 531,912 63,416 28,378 1,004,125 35,210 280 130,501 1,113,771 1,111 18,872 5,789 543,698 66,418 12,142 69,134 (21) 20,416 11,889 5,430 6,679 105,716 97,875 11,690 (0) 46,759 238,469 (481) 1,008 6,221 138,802 (66,418) 2,258 350 1190 750 440 2° 760 900 910 750 1000 740 820, 1760 950 480 800 0° 840, 14,400 - - 14,400 00 677,380 75,464 70,301 607,079 100 949,540 9,201 936,429 13,111 990 - 63,875 131,139 (131,139) 00 8,443,460 11,554,790 6,584,890 1,858,570 780 4,131,780 6,895,247 3,065,261 1,066,519 740 12,645,240 16,333,560 7,657,389 4,987,851 610 1,989,900 337,211 667,448 1,322,452 340 1,579,570 1,267,519 1,247,374 332,196 790 64,840 57,247 58,161 6,679 900, $ 87,432,326 $ 72,080,824 $ 59,655,089 $ 27,777,237 680, Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to grant invoicing for Fishing Pier Rehab and mid -year transfer from Fund 001. 2 Difference between 2015 and 2016 is due to grant invoicing for various projects in 2016. 3 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to a SnoCo grant, parks donations, and park impact fees. 4 Difference between 2015 and 2016 is largely due to 2015 Revenue Bond Proceeds received in August of 2015. 1 Packet Pg. 110 1 4.5.b Page 1 of 1 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2016 Amended 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 Amount No. Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent 001 GENERAL FUND 5 $ 41,011,287 $ 27,925,951 $ 30,670,999 $ 10,340,288 750/( 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 279,480 210,576 183,578 95,902 660/( 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - 70,546 - - 00% 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 6 800,000 3,246,447 800,000 0°/ 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,400 7,500 - 5,400 0°/ 016 BUILDING MAINT ENANCE 7 2,395,000 150,464 1,963,834 431,166 820/( 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 76,030 35,947 49,896 26,134 660/( 111 STREET FUND 1,716,120 1,225,519 1,343,097 373,023 780/( 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 8,173,112 3,783,487 3,000,552 5,172,560 370/( 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 181,380 66,730 47,283 134,097 260/( 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - - 00/( 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 149,650 35,226 39,690 109,960 270/( 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,880 404 1,726 25,154 60/( 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,000 1,641 1,210 1,790 400/( 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 31,500 10,116 17,318 14,182 5501( 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 2,100,565 146,363 350,412 1,750,153 170/( 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND s 2,750,000 28,845 554,417 2,195,583 200/( 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 44,950 20,742 35,263 9,687 780/( 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND - - - - 00/( 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 210,370 121,265 121,881 88,489 580/( 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 8 1,575,770 928,226 744,419 831,351 470/( 136 PARKSTRUST FUND - - - - 0°/ 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 12,500 4,987 5,609 6,891 450/( 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 682,500 559,847 543,698 138,802 800/( 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 41,155 42,826 (42,826) 00/( 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 14,400 - - 14,400 00% 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND - - - - 00% 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 677,380 75,464 70,301 607,079 100/( 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 5 949,540 9,201 936,429 13,111 990/( 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 12,717,507 6,113,238 6,348,263 6,369,244 5001( 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 8,057,048 2,226,814 2,872,220 5,184,828 360/( 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 17,921,050 7,275,920 7,407,743 10,513,307 410/( 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,990,920 337,261 667,442 1,323,478 340/( 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,971,820 796,480 1,165,593 806,227 590/( 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 59,610 38,113 29,838 29,772 5001( $ 106,584,769 $ 55,494,472 $ 59,215,535 $ 47,369,234 560% 5 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are primarily due to final payment of 2014 debt. 6 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to Interfund Loans to funds 112 and 014 in 2015. 7 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are primarily due to the Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project. 8 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to purchase of Civic Field in 2016. 2 .. . Packet Pg. i i i 4.5.b Page 1 of 3 C ITY O F IDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2016 Amended 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received TAXES: REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 9 $ 10,068,020 $ 5,431,353 $ 5,522,175 $ 4,545,845 55% EMSPROPERTYTAX10 3,688,090 1,844,207 2,020,913 1,667,177 55% VOTED PROPERTY TAX 949,540 503,538 520,941 428,599 55% LOCAL RETAIL SALES✓USE TAX 11 6,144,400 4,937,480 5,077,167 1,067,233 83% NATURAL GAS USE TAX 9,800 4,762 4,481 5,319 46% 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 626,700 472,093 502,892 123,808 80% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,451,800 1,181,169 1,238,582 213,218 85% GASUTILITYTAX 647,900 488,445 462,329 185,571 71% SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 306,500 218,930 243,980 62,520 80% WAT ER UT ILIT Y T AX 1,229,110 866,380 922,389 306,721 75% SEWER UTILITYTAX 629,140 432,803 477,789 151,351 76% ST ORMWAT ER UT ILIT Y T AX 330,430 251,457 263,254 67,176 80% T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 846,000 637,356 641,987 204,013 76% TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,349,100 998,872 926,754 422,346 69% PULLTABSTAX 60,600 36,295 38,477 22,123 63% AMUSEMENT GAMES 40 - 141 (101) 351% LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 242,200 186,792 192,594 49,606 80% 28,579,370 18,491,932 19,056,844 9,522,526 67% LICENSES AND PERNUTS: FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE POLICE - FINGERPRINTING PROF AND OCC LICENSE -TAXI AMUSEMENTS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -COMCAST FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -VERIZON/FRONT IER FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -BLACKROCK OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS ANIMAL LICENSES STREET AND CURB PERMIT OT R NON -BUS LIC/P ERMIT S INTERGOVERNMENTAL: FEDERAL GRANT S-BUDGET ONLY DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST USDA FOREST SERVICE ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE GRANT ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE II WA ASSOC OF SHERIFFS TRAFFIC GRANT TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT DOCKSIDE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE WA STATE ADMIN OFFICE COURTS GRANT 2014 COMMUNITY FORESTRY GRANT WATERFRONT ANALYSIS GRANT PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION -STATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS DUI - CITIES LIQUOR EXCISE TAX LIQUOR BOARD PROFIT S MISCELLANEOUS INTERLOCAL REVENUE 12 INTERLOCAL GRANTS VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS 250 335 230 20 92% 300 - 355 (55) 118% 630 330 - 630 0% 4,740 4,325 - 4,740 0% 710,600 532,250 534,338 176,263 75% 44,900 33,993 31,677 13,223 71% 100,900 75,190 76,654 24,246 76% 18,400 12,932 12,275 6,125 67% 268,000 197,208 202,687 65,313 76% 116,000 96,032 85,661 30,339 74% 42,000 37,840 40,865 1,135 97% 70,400 34,700 50,200 20,200 71% 15,000 5,388 46,623 (31,623) 311% 525,000 464,874 531,425 (6,425) 101% 38,800 17,394 11,392 27,408 29% 42,100 29,763 38,212 3,888 91% 13,100 10,781 14,393 (1,293) 110% 2,011,120 1,553,336 1,676,986 334,134 83% - - - - 0% 11,970 3,018 6,920 5,050 58% - - - - 0% 3,750 - - 0% 6,000 5,250 5,250 750 88% - - 992 (992) 0% 7,500 9,209 3,348 4,152 45% 3,000 - 4,675 (1,675) 156% - 492 614 (614) 0% 300 300 - 300 0% - 1,000 - - 0% - - 330,649 (330,649) 0% 192,500 194,479 197,399 (4,899) 103% 10,000 7,946 8,297 1,703 83% 13,000 12,256 13,569 (569) 104% 36,980 29,139 30,279 6,701 82% 7,240 4,458 4,740 2,500 65% 65,200 63,087 139,331 (74,131) 214% 357,800 262,569 261,672 96,128 73% - - 77,153 (77,153) 0% 383,330 30,000 - 383,330 0% 2,000 2,120 (2,120) 0% 1,094,820 628,952 1,087,008 7,812 99% 9 2016 Real Personal/Property Tax revenues are $90,822 higher than 2015 revenues. 10 2016 EMS Property Taxrevenues are $176,706 higher than 2015 revenues. 11 2016 Local Retail Sa/eslUse Taxrevenues are $139,686 higher than 2015 revenues. Please also see pages 18 & 19. 12 Difference between 2015 and 2016 revenues is due to funds received for closure of ESCA in 2016. 3 Packet Pg. 112 1 1 4.5.b I Page 2 of 3 C ITY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2016 Amended 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: MUNICIPAL COURT CIVIC FILINGS RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS ATM SURCHARGE FEES COURT RECORD SERVICES D/M COURT REC SER SHARED COURT COSTS MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN SALE MAPS & BOOKS CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKINGPERMITS BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT PHOTOCOPIES POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES SNO-ISLE PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS OCDETF OVERTIME CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES FIRE PROTECTION & EMS FOR DUI FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS LEGAL SERVICES ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE ELECTRONIC MONITORING BOOKING FEES FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 13 CRIM CONV FEE CT CRIM CONV FEE CN FIBER SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER ZONINGSUBDIVISION FEE PLAN CHECKING FEES FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE S.E.P.A. REVIEW CRITICAL AREA STUDY DV COORDINATOR SERVICES SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES LOCKER FEES SWIM CLASS FEES PROGRAM FEES TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM WINTER MARKET REGISTRATION FEES BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS $ - $ - $ 25 $ (25) 0% 2,000 1,430 1,580 421 79% 250 386 358 (108) 143% - - - - 0% 50 53 47 3 94% - - - - 0% 400 326 392 8 98% 100 - 4 96 4% 25,100 - 25,100 0% 600 - - 600 0% 2,000 1,629 775 1,225 39% 4,000 3,072 2,759 1,241 69% 180,350 156,036 176,429 3,921 98% - - - - 0% 58,000 43,534 50,484 7,516 87% 15,000 14,400 16,284 (1,284) 109% 26,000 24,653 31,852 (5,852) 123% - - - - 0% 12,300 3,782 2,873 9,427 23% 39,500 31,510 49,211 (9,711) 125% 1,500 - 538 962 36% 300 395 - 300 0% - - 47 (47) 0% 45,000 37,621 39,031 5,969 87% - - 177 (177) 0% 60,000 48,838 52,872 7,128 88% - - 100 (100) 0% 6,000 4,843 3,074 2,926 51% 8,000 17,389 17,556 (9,556) 219% 15,000 8,840 5,869 9,131 39% 822,100 631,009 673,314 148,786 82% - - - - 0% - - - - 0% 9,200 6,885 8,390 810 91% 7,200 5,400 5,400 1,800 75% 1,800 1,409 1,486 314 83% 6,000 2,056 239 5,762 4% 75,000 71,471 83,425 (8,425) 111% 425,000 388,063 303,334 121,667 71% 3,000 8,325 7,740 (4,740) 258% 1,250 939 1,784 (534) 143% 7,000 7,545 1,220 5,780 17% 15,000 15,035 15,130 (130) 101% 10,000 7,120 8,339 1,661 83% - - - - 0% 7,800 5,969 9,415 (1,615) 121% - - - 0% - - - - 0% 861,700 667,056 752,560 109,140 87% 19,130 101,303 964 18,166 5% - - - - 0% 5,000 700 3,700 1,300 74% 950 1,244 916 34 96% 2,964,600 1,577,174 1,680,403 1,284,197 57% 5,743,180 3,897,439 4,010,094 1,733,086 70% 13 2016 EMS Transport User Fees are $42,305 higher than 2015 revenues. 4 Packet Pg. 113 4.5.b Page 3 of 3 C TTY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2016 Amended 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received FINES AND FO RFEITURES : PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 8,000 4,757 5,285 2,715 66% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 25,000 53,353 163,537 (138,537) 654% NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 260,000 185,801 44,055 215,945 17% CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA) 24,600 18,358 16,451 8,149 67% CURRENT TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS - - 201 (201) 0% NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 1,300 14,180 39,108 (37,808) 3008% OTHERINFRACTIONS'04 1,000 736 1,571 (571) 157% PARKINGINFRACTION PENALTIES 43,000 31,309 20,432 22,568 48% PR -HANDICAPPED - - - - 0% PARK/INDDISZONE 1,300 1,442 2,820 (1,520) 217% DWI PENALTIES 6,000 4,427 17,054 (11,054) 284% DUI - DP ACCT 2,500 2,294 1,835 665 73% CRIM CNV FEE DUI 300 406 388 (88) 129% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN - - - - 0% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 33,000 23,695 24,733 8,267 75% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT 1,900 1,902 2,151 (251) 113% CRIM CONV FEE CT 2,300 1,346 1,304 996 57% OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 130 94 - 130 0% OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 9,000 8,863 8,654 346 96% COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 900 837 355 545 39% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN 1,900 1,258 1,336 564 70% CRIM CONV FEE CN 900 551 469 431 52% CRIMINAL COST S-RECOUPMENTS 60,000 41,227 20,212 39,788 34% PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 33,000 22,644 18,946 14,054 57% BANK CHARGE FOR CONV. DEFENDANT - - 5,300 (5,300) 0% COURT INTERPRETER COSTS 100 269 70 30 70% BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 5,000 12,810 12,755 (7,755) 255% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 1,000 1,450 720 280 72% 522,130 4349006 409,742 112,388 78% MISCELLANEOUS : INVESTMENT INTEREST 38,600 25,909 40,318 (1,718) 104% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 5,700 2,788 4,619 1,081 81% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 5,000 4,566 4,808 192 96% PARKING 14,000 11,641 12,074 1,926 86% SPACE/FACILITIESRENTALS 128,000 110,723 124,227 3,773 97% BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 5,000 3,840 3,640 1,360 73% LEASESLONG-TERM 218,100 132,837 134,296 83,804 62% VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 50,000 38,671 48,246 1,754 96% OTHER RENTS& USE CHARGES 4,500 3,300 1,800 2,700 40% DONATION/CONTRIBUTION 5,000 - - 5,000 0% PARKSDONATIONS 9,500 11,282 4,350 5,150 46% BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 950 1,950 1,642 (692) 173% 125TH ANNIVERSARY CONTRIBUTIONS - 3,700 - - 0% VOLUNT EER P ICNIC CONTRIBUTIONS - 500 1,701 (1,701) 0% POLICE CONT RIBUT IONS FROM PRIV SOURCES 1,000 1,200 - 1,000 0% PARKS GRANT S-PRIVATE SOURCES - - - - 0% SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 150 - 305 (155) 203% SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 2,000 1,702 6,575 (4,575) 329% CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY 2,000 - - 2,000 0% OT HER JUDGEMENT /SET T LEMENT 5,651 58 3,876 1,775 69% POLICE JUDGMENTS✓RESTITUTION 200 10 296 (96) 148% CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES - (605) 68 (68) 0% OTHER MISC REVENUES 1,000 16,138 11,061 (10,061) 1106% SMALL OVERPAYMENT 50 26 24 26 48% NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 120 30 - 120 0% NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 330 260 173 157 52% FLEX -PLAN SERVICES FORFEITURES 1,010 - - 1,010 0% US BANK REBATE 6,000 5,822 5,637 363 94% 503,861 376,347 409,736 94,125 8107* TRANSFERS -IN: INSURANCE RECOVERIES - - 57,005 (57,005) 0% TRANSFER FROM FUND 012 800,000 400,000 - 800,000 0% TRANSFER FROM FUND 127 25,840 11,088 25,835 5 100% 825,840 411,088 82,840 743,001 10% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $ 39,280,321 $ 25,793,100 $ 26,733,249 $12,547,072 68% 5 Packet Pg. 114 I 4.5.b I Page 1 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 14,010,590 $ 9,534,675 $ 10,113,608 $ 3,896,982 72% OVERTIME 423,510 380,966 359,894 63,616 85% HOLIDAY BUY BACK 217,790 1,543 2,349 215,441 1% BENEFITS 5,356,460 3,573,445 3,851,100 1,505,360 72% UNIFORMS 89,290 53,402 60,930 28,360 68% SUPPLIES 393,950 254,344 262,666 131,284 67% SMALL EQUIPMENT 161,680 103,597 87,099 74,581 54% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,644,903 1,637,798 2,287,354 1,357,549 63% COMMUNICATIONS 211,890 121,513 117,281 94,609 55% TRAVEL 46,210 25,161 24,432 21,778 53% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 - 3,615 2,885 56% ADVERTISING - 3,591 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 916,390 681,143 699,956 216,434 76% INSURANCE 534,440 418,367 538,732 (4,292) 101% UTILITIES 457,800 352,282 370,106 87,695 81% REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 429,510 307,005 246,141 183,369 57% MISCELLANEOUS 400,094 260,161 222,697 177,397 56% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 10,384,010 9,539,957 9,632,842 751,168 93% INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 135,000 - - 135,000 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 2,909,320 526,556 1,739,021 1,170,299 60% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 67,500 57,600 27,449 40,051 41% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 168,300 - - 168,300 0% CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES - 65,297 - - 0% OTHER DEBT - 87 273 (273) 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 46,150 27,460 23,454 22,696 51% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% INTERFUND SERVICES - - - - 0% 41,011,287 27,925,951 30,670,999 10,340,288 75% LEO FF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE (009) BENEFITS IN HOME LTC CLAIMS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TRAVEL MISCELLANEOUS RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011) MISCELLANEOUS CONTINGENCY RESERVEFUND (012) INTERFUND LOAN INTERFUND SUBSIDIES HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REPAIRS & MAINTENANENCE MISCELLANEOUS MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS DRUG INFO RC EMENT FUND (104) FUEL CONSUMED SMALL EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATIONS REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES $ 178,720 $ 129,976 $ 112,102 $ 66,618 63% 100,480 73,682 68,973 31,507 69% - 6,643 1,286 (1,286) 0% - - 447 (447) 0% 280 275 770 (490) 275% 279,480 210,576 183,578 95,902 66% $ - $ 70,546 $ $ - 0% 70,546 - 0% $ - $ 2,846,447 $ $ - 0% 800,000 400,000 800,000 0% 800,000 3,246,447 800,000 0% $ 100 $ - $ $ 100 0% 200 7,500 200 0% 5,100 - 5,100 0% 5,400 7,500 5,400 0% $ - $ 6,655 $ 1,756 $ (1,756) 0% 162,459 92,546 325,170 (162,711) 200% 2,062,000 50,956 177,495 1,884,505 9% - - 546 (546) 0% 33,000 307 191,821 (158,821) 581% 137,541 - 1,267,045 (1,129,504) 921% $ 2,395,000 150,464 1,963,834 431,166 82% $ 3,000 $ 1,168 $ 1,014 $ 1,986 34% 5,000 800 5,768 (768) 115% 2,230 1,506 1,276 954 57% 800 - - 800 0% 20,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50% 45,000 22,473 31,839 13,161 71% 76,030 35,947 49,896 26,134 66% 6 Packet Pg. 115 4.5.b Page 2 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DEIAAIL 2016 Amended 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent STREETFUND (111) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 515,160 $ 426,740 $ 471,820 $ 43,340 92% OVERTIME 18,400 15,017 16,213 2,187 88% BENEFITS 265,870 216,503 239,611 26,259 90% UNIFORMS 6,000 4,927 3,745 2,255 62% SUPPLIES 240,000 89,818 151,532 88,468 63% SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 9,243 6,176 19,824 24% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14,050 6,627 13,854 196 99% COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 2,984 2,971 529 85% TRAVEL 1,000 300 - 1,000 0% RENTAL/LEASE 190,950 143,997 143,838 47,112 75% INSURANCE 87,620 81,386 97,912 (10,292) 112% UTILITIES 270,170 187,797 180,253 89,917 67% REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 45,000 27,175 10,651 34,349 24% MISCELLANEOUS 24,250 1,349 2,091 22,159 9% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 3,000 903 1,562 1,438 52% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 9,828 - 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 3,420 - - 3,420 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERIVCE COSTS - - 4 (4) 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 1,730 925 865 865 50% $ 1,716,120 $ 1,225,519 $ 1,343,097 $ 373,023 78% COMBINED STREETCONST/IMPROVE(112) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 1,747,910 $ 1,173,877 $ 922,003 $ 825,907 53% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 358,240 313,084 40,908 317,332 11% LAND 438,000 96,051 190,064 247,936 43% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 5,553,332 2,124,829 1,771,980 3,781,352 32% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,220 72,201 72,201 19 100% INTEREST 3,410 3,444 3,396 14 100% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - - - - 0% $ 8,173,112 $ 3,783,487 $ 3,000,552 $ 5,172,560 37% MUNICH'AL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117) SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVERTISING MISCELLANEOUS INTERFUND SUBSIDIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) MISCELLANEOUS TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS (123) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVERTISING MISCELLANEOUS $ 4,400 $ 1,046 $ 864 $ 3,536 20% 1,500 815 150 1,350 10% 166,500 61,838 42,601 123,899 26% 80 - 11 70 13% - - - - 0% 2,000 - 2,000 0% 300 140 - 300 0% 6,600 2,891 3,657 2,943 55% $ 181,380 S 66,730 $ 47,283 $ 134,097 26% $ 77,500 $ 33,145 $ 37,419 $ 40,081 48% - - - - 0% 8,150 82 271 7,879 3% 4,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 50% 60,000 - - 60,000 0% $ 149,650 $ 35,226 $ 39,690 $ 109,960 27% $ 1,790 $ 404 $ 1,726 $ 64 96% 25,090 - - 25,090 0% $ 26,880 $ 404 $ 1,726 $ 25,154 6% $ 3,000 $ 1,641 $ 1,210 $ 1,790 40% $ 3,000 $ 1,641 $ 1,210 $ 1,790 40% $ 28,300 $ 8,843 $ 14,115 $ 14,185 50% - - - - 0% 3,200 1,273 3,203 (3) 100% $ 31,500 $ 10,116 $ 17,318 $ 14,182 55% 7 Packet Pg. 116 I 4.5.b I Page 3 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 2 (125) SUPPLIES $ 21,000 $ 33,129 $ 47,482 $ (26,482) 226% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 186,788 105,409 129,002 57,786 69% RENTAL/LEASE - - 2,790 (2,790) 0% UTILITIES - - - - 0% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 140,000 7,825 12,605 127,395 9% MISCELLANEOUS - - 181 (181) 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,752,777 - 158,352 1,594,425 9% $ 2,100,565 $ 146,363 $ 350,412 $ 1,750,153 17% REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 1, PARKS AC (126) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS INTERFUND SUBSIDIES LAND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OTHER DEBT & DEBT SERVICE COST S INTEREST GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INTERFUND SUBSIDIES SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (129) CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS CEWEIERY MAINTENANCE%IMPRO VEMENT (130) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (132) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LAND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS INTERFUND SUBSIDIES SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138) SALARIES AND WAGES BENEFITS SUPPLIES TRAVEL MISCELLANEOUS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT (139) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INSURANCE INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES $ 314,560 $ - $ $ 314,560 0% - 1,200 - 0% 139,430 18,263 17,213 122,218 12% 692,180 4,000 476,669 215,511 69% 1,573,870 - 55,406 1,518,464 4% 19,890 - - 19,890 0% - - 96 (96) 0% 10,070 5,382 5,033 5,037 50% $ 2,750,000 $ 28,845 $ 554,417 $ 2,195,583 20% $ 13,110 $ 9,240 $ 2,985 $ 10,125 23% 6,000 415 6,443 (443) 107% 25,840 11,088 25,835 5 100% $ 44,950 $ 20,742 $ 35,263 $ 9,687 78% $ - $ - $ $ - 0% $ - $ - $ $ - 0% $ 108,410 $ 61,949 $ 63,437 $ 44,973 59% 3,500 1,764 1,251 2,249 36% 44,500 25,737 26,684 17,816 60% 1,000 197 - 1,000 0% 7,000 1,844 2,756 4,244 39% 20,000 11,241 14,200 5,800 71% 4,200 6,616 922 3,278 22% 1,410 977 749 661 53% 500 - - 500 0% - - - - 0% 11,550 7,488 8,663 2,888 75% 3,800 581 610 3,190 16% 500 - - 500 0% 4,000 2,870 2,609 1,391 65% $ 210,370 $ 121,265 $ 121,881 $ 88,489 58% $ - $ 25 $ - $ - 0% 225,000 116,325 40,331 184,669 18% 500,000 - 475,710 24,291 95% 850,770 807,675 228,378 622,392 27% - 4,200 - - 0% $ 1,575,770 $ 928,226 $ 744,419 $ 831,351 47% $ $ - $ 45 $ (45) 0% - - 5 (5) 0% 2,000 59 210 1,790 11% 4,500 3,359 2,515 1,985 56% 6,000 1,569 2,833 3,167 47% $ 12,500 $ 4,987 $ 5,609 $ 6,891 45% $ - $ 3,828 $ - $ 0% 2,500 2,500 2,500 - 100% 680,000 553,519 541,198 138,802 80% $ 682,500 $ 559,847 $ 543,698 $ 138,802 80% Packet Pg. 117 I 4.5.b I Page 4 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent BUSINESS EMPROVEVIENTDISTRICT FUND (140) SUPPLIES $ - $ 14,842 $ 5,466 $ (5,466) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 26,049 36,002 (36,002) 0% MISCELLANEOUS - 265 1,358 (1,358) 0% - 41,155 42,826 (42,826) 0% LID FUND C O NTRO L (211) INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND INTEREST OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND (232) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND INTEREST WATER FUND (421) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL EXCISE TAXES RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TAXES INTERFUND SUBSIDIES MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST DEBT ISSUE COSTS OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES $ 14,400 $ - $ $ 14,400 0% $ 14,400 $ - $ $ 14,400 0% $ 536,270 $ - $ - $ 536,270 0% 140,610 75,464 70,301 70,309 50% 500 - - 500 0% $ 677,380 $ 75,464 $ 70,301 $ 607,079 10% $ 933,210 $ - $ 933,208 $ 2 100% 16,330 9,201 3,221 13,109 20% $ 949,540 $ 9,201 $ 936,429 $ 13,111 99% $ 795,220 $ 548,842 $ 583,163 $ 212,057 73% 24,000 13,350 18,744 5,256 78% 372,550 250,277 269,564 102,986 72% 4,000 2,032 2,599 1,401 65% 151,000 91,537 81,900 69,100 54% 1,600,000 1,256,936 1,244,166 355,834 78% 143,000 86,669 71,879 71,121 50% 11,000 9,646 3,845 7,155 35% 1,793,286 676,233 799,238 994,048 45% 30,000 23,379 21,859 8,141 73% 200 - - 200 0% 340,000 258,733 296,129 43,871 87% 100,750 71,297 73,627 27,123 73% 58,920 70,904 52,335 6,585 89% 40,000 15,642 15,766 24,234 39% 17,000 19,048 30,107 (13,107) 177% 70,450 50,638 45,280 25,170 64% 30,000 30,639 32,182 (2,182) 107% 1,229,110 866,380 922,389 306,721 75% 731,220 121,300 219,326 511,894 30% 15,000 19,261 15,065 (65) 100% 4,551,921 1,354,101 1,393,872 3,158,049 31% 2,300 - - 2,300 0% 323,870 - - 323,870 0% 25,840 45,839 25,839 1 100% 256,870 133,799 129,008 127,862 50% - 96,726 - - 0% - 31 380 (380) 0% - - - - 0% $ 12,717,507 $ 6,113,238 $ 6,348,263 $ 6,369,244 50% 9 Packet Pg. 118 I 4.5.b I Page 5 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent S TO RM FUND (422) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 640,470 $ 337,352 $ 363,274 $ 277,196 57% OVERTIME 6,000 10,279 10,223 (4,223) 170% BENEFITS 313,950 168,850 185,890 128,060 59% UNIFORMS 6,500 4,850 5,450 1,050 84% SUPPLIES 46,500 23,647 15,537 30,963 33% SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,000 1,510 1,354 2,646 34% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,683,530 809,687 796,196 1,887,334 30% COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 2,370 1,984 1,216 62% TRAVEL 4,300 - 300 4,000 7% EXCISE TAXES 55,000 50,340 43,075 11,925 78% RENTAL/LEASE 252,990 159,646 186,458 66,532 74% INSURANCE 64,120 39,269 63,187 933 99% UTILITES 10,500 6,623 7,103 3,397 68% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 13,000 10,600 13,675 (675) 105% MISCELLANEOUS 94,950 45,526 35,502 59,448 37% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 85,000 83,712 125,878 (40,878) 148% INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 330,430 251,457 263,254 67,176 80% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 413,678 25,585 95,380 318,298 23% LAND 25,000 - - 25,000 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 9,828 - - 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,563,330 2,000 542,241 2,021,089 21% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 83,800 - - 83,800 0% REVENUE BONDS 158,300 - - 158,300 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 32,070 32,063 32,063 8 100% INTEREST 166,430 87,739 83,932 82,498 50% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - 63,866 - - 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 15 263 (263) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - - - - 0% $ 8,057,048 $ 2,226,814 $ 2,872,220 $ 5,184,828 36% SEWER FUND (423) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL EXCISE TAXES RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIR & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT INTERFUND SUBSIDIES MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST DEBT ISSUE COSTS OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES BOND RESERVE FUND (424) REVENUE BONDS DEBT ISSUE COSTS INTEREST OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS $ 1,721,530 $ 1,255,739 $ 1,279,855 $ 441,675 74% 100,000 73,855 67,390 32,610 67% 771,920 550,879 574,285 197,635 74% 9,500 5,777 6,099 3,401 64% 420,200 177,383 189,156 231,044 45% 90,000 49,050 31,527 58,473 35% 4,000 - - 4,000 0% 46,000 14,273 21,421 24,579 47% 1,954,696 1,142,427 1,220,862 733,834 62% 43,000 31,483 29,598 13,402 69% 5,000 - 1,181 3,819 24% 150,000 113,393 138,146 11,854 92% 182,670 148,156 133,674 48,996 73% 96,630 140,834 106,915 (10,285) 111% 1,056,660 694,564 938,686 117,974 89% 325,000 249,065 196,341 128,659 60% 105,450 50,653 44,946 60,504 43% 150,000 128,948 132,444 17,556 88% 629,140 432,803 477,789 151,351 76% 2,563,949 385,994 518,760 2,045,189 20% - 25,251 - - 0% 6,999,825 1,201,773 1,056,610 5,943,215 15% 130,140 - - 130,140 0% 72,840 - - 72,840 0% 170,620 169,990 170,603 17 100% 122,280 68,751 65,128 57,152 53% - 158,765 - - 0% - 6,114 6,327 (6,327) 0% - - - - 0% $ 17,921,050 $ 7,275,920 $ 7,407,743 $ 10,513,307 41% $ 655,010 $ - $ $ 655,010 0% - - - 0% 1,334,910 337,208 667,442 667,468 50% 1,000 54 - 1,000 0% $ 1,990,920 $ 337,261 $ 667,442 $ 1,323,478 34% 10 Packet Pg. 119 1 4.5.b I Page 6 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 224,880 $ 157,793 $ 166,712 $ 58,168 74% OVERTIME 2,000 949 - 2,000 0% BENEFITS 105,050 71,884 73,026 32,024 70% UNIFORMS 1,000 1,061 846 154 85% SUPPLIES 110,000 72,459 60,765 49,235 55% FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 106 - 1,000 0% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 308,200 99,441 98,078 210,122 32% SMALL EQUIPMENT 58,000 21,411 9,743 48,257 17% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 44,000 1,018 1,046 42,954 2% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 1,593 1,798 1,202 60% TRAVEL 1,000 2,935 1,000 - 100% RENTAL/LEASE 19,440 10,810 14,504 4,936 75% INSURANCE 29,560 40,605 29,967 (407) 101% UTILITIES 14,000 8,462 8,776 5,224 63% REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 60,000 28,850 38,127 21,873 64% MISCELLANEOUS 7,190 6,368 6,760 430 94% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 1,188 1,410 1,090 56% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 981,000 269,546 653,034 327,966 67% INTERFUND RENTAL - - - - 0% $ 1,971,820 $ 796,480 $ 1,165,593 $ 806,227 59% FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617) BENEFITS $ 30,940 $ 17,298 $ 11,851 $ 19,089 38% PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 27,470 19,708 17,772 9,698 65% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,200 1,107 214 986 18% $ 59,610 $ 38,113 $ 29,838 $ 29,772 50% TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS $ 106,584,769 $ 55,494,472 $ 59,215,535 $ 47,369,234 56% 11 Packet Pg. 120 4.5.b Page 1 of 1 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY 2016 Amended 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL $ 295,500 $ 161,353 $ 183,494 $ 112,006 620/c OFFICE OF MAYOR 260,250 187,585 192,059 68,191 740/c HUMAN RESOURCES 462,044 260,353 265,413 196,631 570/c MUNICIPAL COURT 909,270 622,277 654,546 254,724 720/c CITY CLERK 589,290 413,948 416,998 172,292 710/c ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,839,930 1,190,344 1,116,739 723,191 610/c CITY ATTORNEY 741,560 481,960 527,900 213,660 710/c NON -DEPARTMENTAL 14,956,000 10,917,365 12,314,850 2,641,150 820/c POLICE SERVICES 9,633,050 6,488,421 6,866,786 2,766,264 710/c COMMUNITY SERVICES✓ECONOMIC DEV. 535,580 303,816 362,099 173,481 680/c DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2,688,352 1,576,660 1,811,147 877,205 670/c PARKS & RECREATION 3,774,541 2,653,025 2,779,501 995,040 740/c PUBLIC WORKS 2,842,120 1,566,600 2,111,893 730,227 740/c FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,483,800 1,102,245 1,067,573 416,227 720/c $ 41,011,287 $ 27,925,951 $ 30,670,999 $ 10,340,288 750/c C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY Title 2016 Amended Budget 9/30/2015 Expenditures 9/30/2016 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent WATER UTILITY FUND $ 12,717,507 $ 6,113,238 $ 6,348,263 $ 6,369,244 50°/ STORM UTILITY FUND 8,057,048 2,226,814 2,872,220 5,184,828 36°/ SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 17,921,050 7,275,920 7,407,743 10,513,307 41°/ BOND RESERVE FUND 1,990,920 337,261 667,442 1,323,478 34"/c $ 40,686,525 $ 15,953,233 $ 17,295,667 $ 23,390,858 430/c 12 Packet Pg. 121 Page 1 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DEr'AIL Title 2016 Amended Budget 9/30/2015 Expenditures 9/30/2016 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL SALARIES $ 119,100 $ 93,666 $ 99,469 $ 19,631 84% OVERTIME 1,000 - 93 907 9% BENEFITS 88,550 56,358 72,764 15,786 82% SUPPLIES 2,000 1,015 1,522 478 76% SMALL EQUIPMENT - 832 2,941 (2,941) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 47,160 5,481 1,432 45,728 3% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 2,401 2,411 589 80% TRAVEL 6,700 758 1,321 5,379 20% RENTAL/LEASE 490 431 278 212 57% REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE 500 - 15 485 3% MISCELLANEOUS 27,000 411 1,249 25,751 5% $ 295,500 $ 161,353 $ 183A94 $ 112,006 62% OFFICEOFMAYOR SALARIES $ 197,160 $ 148,111 $ 148,112 $ 49,048 75% BENEFITS 48,190 34,066 36,059 12,131 75% SUPPLIES 1,500 600 790 710 53% SMALL EQUIPMENT - - - - 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000 908 1,191 809 60% COMMUNICATION 1,400 320 904 496 65% TRAVEL 3,000 188 538 2,462 18% RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 1,537 1,175 1,225 49% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE - - - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS 4,600 1,855 3,292 1,308 72% $ 260,250 $ 187,585 $ 192,059 $ 68,191 74% HUMAN RESOURCES SALARIES $ 226,880 $ 155,893 $ 162,310 $ 64,570 72% OVERTIME - - 43 (43) 0% BENEFITS 73,380 51,617 55,839 17,541 76% SUPPLIES 2,300 1,266 2,850 (550) 124% SMALL EQUIPMENT 300 107 - 300 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 114,000 46,429 35,044 78,956 31% COMMUNICATIONS 700 763 790 (90) 113% TRAVEL 1,000 482 527 473 53% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 2,200 1,395 1,692 508 77% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 7,850 7,793 - 7,850 0% MISCELLANEOUS 33,434 (5,392) 6,320 27,114 19% $ 462,044 $ 260,353 $ 265,413 $ 196,631 57% MUNIC H'AL C O URT SALARIES $ 566,190 $ 394,104 $ 422,019 $ 144,171 75% OVERTIME 600 2,301 1,889 (1,289) 315% BENEFITS 222,750 140,045 152,245 70,505 68% SUPPLIES 9,930 10,616 5,025 4,905 51% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,800 1,631 262 2,538 9% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 64,000 56,474 56,540 7,460 88% COMMUNICATIONS 1,800 1,554 1,847 (47) 103% TRAVEL 2,500 2,971 2,360 140 94% RENTAL/LEASE 800 304 539 261 67% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,700 928 885 815 52% MISCELLANEOUS 36,200 11,351 10,935 25,265 30% $ 909,270 $ 622,277 $ 654,546 $ 254,724 72% 13 Packet Pg. 122 Page 2 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2016 Amended 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent CITY C LERK SALARIES AND WAGES $ 324,480 $ 245,411 $ 251,025 $ 73,455 77% OVERTIME - 1,376 1,509 (1,509) 0% BENEFITS 129,300 89,567 97,189 32,111 75% SUPPLIES 10,240 6,504 3,974 6,266 39% SMALL EQUIPMENT - 602 1,416 (1,416) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 28,310 19,851 18,998 9,312 67% COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 24,477 7,897 42,103 16% TRAVEL 1,000 423 - 1,000 0% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 20,000 15,273 13,467 6,533 67% REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 21,960 7,096 16,234 5,726 74% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 3,366 5,289 (1,289) 132% $ 589,290 $ 413,948 $ 416,998 $ 172,292 71% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SALARIES $ 892,390 $ 584,599 $ 637,826 $ 254,564 71% OVERTIME 6,670 1,408 1,810 4,860 27% BENEFITS 305,800 197,714 213,870 91,930 70% SUPPLIES 43,050 6,754 4,976 38,074 12% SMALL EQUIPMENT 110,650 51,729 46,297 64,353 42% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 111,400 56,432 29,092 82,308 26% COMMUNICATIONS 61,500 34,659 38,949 22,551 63% TRAVEL 2,900 543 833 2,067 29% RENTAL/LEASE 8,200 8,259 8,461 (261) 103% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 242,680 157,668 127,473 115,207 5 3 % MISCELLANEOUS 14,690 46,343 7,153 7,537 49% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 40,000 44,236 - 40,000 0% $ 1,839,930 $ 1,190,344 $ 1,116,739 $ 723,191 61% CITY ATTO RNEY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 741,560 $ 481,960 $ 525,764 $ 215,796 71% MISCELLANEOUS 2,137 (2,137) 0% $ 741,560 $ 481,960 $ 527,900 $ 213,660 71% NON -DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ 100,000 0% BENEFITS -UNEMPLOYMENT 34,500 4,099 2,775 31,725 8% SUPPLIES 3,000 5,789 1,756 1,244 59% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 643,420 304,558 352,952 290,468 55% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 3,591 3,615 2,885 56% RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 3,600 3,600 - 100% INSURANCE 534,440 418,367 538,732 (4,292) 101% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE - - - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS 69,010 62,276 64,415 4,595 93% INTERGOVT SERVICES 10,302,760 9,495,685 9,584,256 718,504 93% ECA LOAN PAYMENT 135,000 - - 135,000 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 2,909,320 526,556 1,739,021 1,170,299 60% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 168,300 - - 168,300 0% INSTALLMENT PURCHASES - 65,297 - - 0% OTHER DEBT - - - - 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 46,150 27,460 23,454 22,696 51% DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS - - - - 0% FISCAL AGENT FEES 87 273 (273) 0% INTERFUND SERVICES 0% $ 14,956,000 $ 10,917,365 $ 12,314,850 $ 2,641,150 82% 14 Packet Pg. 123 I 4.5.b I Page 3 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENTIN DETAIL 2016 Amended 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent PO LIC E S ERVIC ES SALARIES $ 5,778,330 $ 3,911,807 $ 4,195,308 $ 1,583,022 73% OVERTIME 396,240 362,077 329,017 67,223 83% HOLIDAY BUYBACK 217,790 1,543 2,349 215,441 1% BENEFITS 2,220,940 1,518,545 1,631,710 589,230 73% UNIFORMS 80,310 45,180 52,868 27,442 66% SUPPLIES 86,730 58,228 60,373 26,357 70% SMALL EQUIPMENT 24,900 18,481 19,816 5,084 80% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 117,170 67,726 63,498 53,672 54% COMMUNICATIONS 26,210 17,584 21,524 4,686 82% TRAVEL 17,310 16,323 11,790 5,520 68% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 595,100 429,863 442,896 152,204 74% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 14,620 9,398 8,330 6,290 57% MISCELLANEOUS 46,850 26,395 22,033 24,817 47% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 10,550 5,272 5,274 5,276 50% $ 9,633,050 $ 6,488,421 $ 6,866,786 $ 2,766,264 71% COMMUNITY SERVIC ES/EC 0 N DEV. SALARIES $ 224,960 $ 164,426 $ 169,478 $ 55,482 75% BENEFITS 67,430 48,078 51,635 15,795 77% SUPPLIES 7,000 2,685 5,930 1,070 85% SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 - 125 676 16% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 222,400 80,157 130,823 91,577 59% COMMUNICATIONS 1,490 729 782 708 53 % TRAVEL 2,000 179 - 2,000 0% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 1,395 1,333 667 67% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 7,000 6,167 1,993 5,007 28% $ 535,580 $ 303,816 $ 362,099 $ 173,481 68% DEVELOPMENT S ERVIC ES/PLANNING SALARIES $ 1,444,230 $ 993,113 $ 1,074,087 $ 370,143 74% OVERTIME 1,300 491 6,197 (4,897) 477% BENEFITS 534,670 355,936 393,787 140,883 74% UNIFORMS 500 - - 500 0% SUPPLIES 16,100 10,156 9,882 6,218 61% SMALL EQUIPMENT 6,950 5,700 5,089 1,861 73% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 573,942 127,011 237,215 336,727 41% COMMUNICATIONS 8,500 3,391 4,514 3,986 53% TRAVEL 4,250 1,609 4,498 (248) 106% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 24,750 28,161 16,634 8,116 67% REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 6,800 6,612 1,177 5,623 17% MISCELLANEOUS 38,860 44,480 30,617 8,243 79% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 27,500 - 27,449 51 100% $ 2,688,352 $ 1,576,660 $ 1,811,147 $ 877,205 67% ENGINEERING SALARIES $ 1,373,500 $ 921,648 $ 960,063 $ 413,437 70% OVERTIME 5,000 946 3,391 1,609 68% BENEFITS 561,900 364,873 382,555 179,345 68% UNIFORMS 360 - 926 (566) 257% SUPPLIES - - 79 (79) 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,200 644 1,952 248 89% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 465,000 - 452,753 12,247 97% COMMUNICATIONS 11,800 5,951 7,844 3,956 66% TRAVEL 600 21 659 (59) 110% RENTAL/LEASE 26,370 11,160 17,920 8,450 68% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 2,600 - - 2,600 0% MISCELLANEOUS 21,000 7,921 14,736 6,264 70% $ 2,470,330 $ 1,313,164 $ 1,842,877 $ 627,453 75% 15 Packet Pg. 124 I 4.5.b I Page 4 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2016 Amended 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent PARKS & REC REATIO N SALARIES $ 1,830,090 $ 1,274,294 $ 1,313,896 $ 516,194 72% OVERTIME 10,000 8,855 12,298 (2,298) 123% BENEFITS 695,310 467,359 499,213 196,097 72% UNIFORMS 5,370 5,592 4,237 1,133 79% SUPPLIES 117,500 95,011 109,385 8,115 93% SMALL EQUIPMENT 9,080 9,205 7,462 1,618 82% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 514,341 343,531 378,529 135,812 74% COMMUNICATIONS 30,140 18,699 17,627 12,513 58% TRAVEL 4,450 1,664 1,895 2,555 43% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 170,310 135,893 147,349 22,961 87% PUBLIC UTILITY 175,000 151,391 165,416 9,584 95% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 50,800 37,710 31,337 19,463 62% MISCELLANEOUS 91,450 51,456 47,544 43,906 52% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 13,364 - - 0% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 70,700 39,000 43,312 27,388 61% $ 3,774,541 $ 2,653,025 $ 2,779,501 $ 995,040 74% PUBLIC WORKS SALARIES $ 263,850 $ 185,715 $ 196,336 $ 67,514 74% OVERTIME 200 - - 200 0% BENEFITS 81,750 55,504 61,953 19,797 76% SUPPLIES 7,600 2,962 2,861 4,739 38% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 1,479 108 892 11% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 52 64 136 32% COMMUNICATIONS 1,350 451 498 852 37% TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0% RENTAL/LEASE 7,640 4,429 4,609 3,031 60% PUBLIC UTILITY 2,800 1,743 1,869 931 67% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,000 - 522 478 52% MISCELLANEOUS 3,900 1,103 195 3,705 5% $ 371,790 $ 253,436 $ 269,016 $ 102,774 72% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES 669,430 461,889 483,680 185,750 72% OVERTIME 2,500 3,512 3,647 (1,147) 146% BENEFITS 291,990 189,685 199,505 92,485 68% UNIFORMS 2,750 2,630 2,899 (149) 105% SUPPLIES 87,000 52,758 53,263 33,737 61% SMALL EQUIPMENT 3,000 13,186 1,631 1,369 54% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 47,228 3,459 (3,459) 0% COMMUNICATIONS 14,000 10,536 11,693 2,307 84% TRAVEL - - 12 (12) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 52,530 39,443 40,003 12,527 76% PUBLIC UTILITY 280,000 199,147 202,820 77,180 72% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 78,500 79,801 60,168 18,332 77% MISCELLANEOUS 2,100 2,429 4,791 (2,691) 228% $ 1,483,800 $ 1,102,245 $ 1,067,573 $ 416,227 72% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ 41,011,287 $ 27,925,951 $ 30,670,999 $ 10,340,288 75% 16 Packet Pg. 125 I 4.5.b I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund 2016 General Fund Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 1,916,622 $ 1,916,622 $ 2,112,632 10.23% February 4,629,440 2,712,818 4,307,339 -6.96% March 6,886,259 2,256,819 6,797,209 -1.29% April 10,543,424 3,657,165 10,797,010 2.41% May 18,429,883 7,886,459 18,037,636 -2.13% June 20,405,311 1,975,427 20,334,355 -0.35% July 22,524,224 2,118,913 22,256,068 -1.19% August 24,710,319 2,186,096 24,759,102 0.20% September 26,714,429 2,004,110 26,733,249 0.07% October 29,931,863 3,217,434 November 37,264,604 7,332,741 December 39,280,321 2,015,717 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax 2016 Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 189,874 $ 189,874 $ 216,395 13.97% February 316,058 126,183 447,070 41.45% March 479,194 163,136 551,728 15.14% April 640,872 161,679 768,326 19.89% May 800,918 160,046 977,560 22.05% June 986,094 185,176 1,234,188 25.16% July 1,276,157 290,062 1,436,215 12.54% August 1,480,830 204,673 1,708,460 15.37% September 1,690,614 209,784 1,974,089 16.77% October 1,875,616 185,002 November 2,069,074 193,458 December 2,200,000 130,926 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 17 Packet Pg. 126 4.5.b Contractors 828,627 Health & Personal Care 76,964 Retail Eating & Drinking 650,240 Gasoline Stations 25,191 Automotive Repair 128,464 Retail Automotive 1,305,998 Total Retail Automotive Misc Retail Trade Retail Eating & Drinking Business Services Retail Food Stores Others Amusement & Recreation Clothing and Accessories Health & Personal Care Accommodation Gasoline Stations Wholesale Trade Automotive Repair Communications Contractors ($175,000) Sales Tax Analysis By Category Current Period: September 2016 Year -to -Date Total $5,077,168 Wholesale Trade 210,256 1 Comrntmications 187,796 I Misc Retail Trade 599,611 34,076 Services 353,126 _ Amusement & Recreation 53,062 Retail Food Stores 199,737 Others 261,481 Clothing and Accessories 162,538 Change in Sales Tax Revenue: September 2016 compared to September 2015 ($125,000) ($75,000) ($25,000) $25,000 $75,000 $125,000 $175,000 18 Packet Pg. 127 I 4.5.b I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax 2016 Sales and Use Tax Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 471,315 $ 471,315 $ 539,867 14.54% February 1,055,135 583,820 1,204,754 14.18% March 1,506,759 451,624 1,693,551 12.40% April 1,936,463 429,704 2,173,926 12.26% May 2,478,856 542,394 2,754,132 11.10% June 2,960,731 481,875 3,295,015 11.29% July 3,457,813 497,082 3,843,359 11.15% August 3,998,806 540,993 4,487,881 12.23% September 4,517,576 518,770 5,077,167 12.39% October 5,055,818 538,242 November 5,626,862 571,044 December 6,144,400 517,538 Sales and Use Tax 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget mar Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Gas Utility Tax 2016 Gas Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 90,678 $ 90,678 $ 85,977 -5.18% February 190,868 100,190 176,574 -7.49% March 272,706 81,838 249,556 -8.49% April 346,987 74,281 311,852 -10.13% May 405,847 58,860 352,987 -13.02% June 445,893 40,046 385,669 -13.51% July 477,342 31,449 415,562 -12.94% August 501,633 24,291 440,093 -12.27% September 523,862 22,229 462,329 -11.75% October 548,406 24,545 November 586,112 37,705 December 647,900 61,788 Gas Utility Tax 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year -Budget -0-- Prior Yeaz *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 19 Packet Pg. 128 1 I 4.5.b I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Telephone Utility Tax 2016 Telephone Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast TrD Actuals Variance % January $ 125,356 $ 125,356 $ 91,384 -27.10% February 226,461 101,105 230,098 1.61% March 344,917 118,456 328,246 -4.83% April 457,974 113,057 432,105 -5.65% May 577,752 119,778 532,012 -7.92% June 685,900 108,148 633,125 -7.69% July 794,692 108,792 732,953 -7.77% August 904,737 110,045 829,228 -8.35% September 1,019,063 114,326 926,754 -9.06% October 1,131,491 112,428 November 1,235,975 104,484 December 1,349,100 113,125 Telephone Utility Tax 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget --dr- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax 2016 1lectric Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly TrD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 155,396 $ 155,396 $ 177,383 14.15% February 311,244 155,848 348,280 11.90% March 463,906 152,662 509,702 9.87% April 612,759 148,854 674,873 10.14% May 749,676 136,917 801,429 6.90% June 854,497 104,821 913,790 6.94% July 956,312 101,815 1,025,239 7.21% August 1,049,934 93,622 1,131,516 7.77% September 1,145,581 95,647 1,238,582 8.12% October 1,239,871 94,290 November 1,346,584 106,712 December 1,451,800 105,216 Electric Utility Tax 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year -Budget --O-Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 20 Packet Pg. 129 1 I 4.5.b I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Meter Water Sales 2016 Meter Water Sales Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 573,717 $ 573,717 $ 553,882 -3.46% February 969,279 395,562 943,114 -2.70% March 1,534,923 565,644 1,529,160 -0.38% April 1,915,226 380,303 1,904,819 -0.54% May 2,481,868 566,642 2,446,538 -1.42% June 2,912,390 430,522 2,888,880 -0.81% July 3,586,469 674,079 3,581,142 -0.15% August 4,157,711 571,242 4,155,904 -0.04% September 4,946,125 788,414 4,932,273 -0.28% October 5,503,014 556,889 November 6,162,012 658,998 December 6,572,750 410,738 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Storm Water Sales 2016 Storm Water Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 238,091 $ 238,091 $ 238,442 14.15% February 750,139 512,049 750,909 11.90% March 988,469 238,330 988,089 9.87% April 1,200,403 211,933 1,195,226 10.14% May 1,439,120 238,718 1,432,240 6.90% June 1,651,173 212,053 1,642,773 6.94% July 1,891,010 239,837 1,880,842 -0.54% August 2,403,804 512,795 2,395,020 -0.37% September 2,641,727 237,923 2,632,203 -0.36% October 2,853,622 211,895 November 3,092,120 238,497 December 3,304,340 212,220 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 21 Packet Pg. 130 1 I 4.5.b I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales 2016 Unmeter Sewer Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 571,975 $ 571,975 $ 566,825 -0.90% February 1,033,695 461,721 1,035,133 0.14% March 1,603,598 569,903 1,607,616 0.25% April 2,066,627 463,029 2,078,557 0.58% May 2,641,462 574,835 2,642,003 0.02% June 3,110,919 469,457 3,115,575 0.15% July 3,697,613 586,694 3,712,853 0.41% August 4,168,968 471,356 4,182,788 0.33% September 4,762,598 593,630 4,778,740 0.34% October 5,236,709 474,111 November 5,819,454 582,746 December 6,291,410 471,956 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 22 Packet Pg. 131 1 I 4.5.b I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund 2016 General Fund Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 4,549,179 $ 4,549,179 $ 4,953,956 8.90% February 7,065,106 2,515,927 7,893,221 11.72% March 10,227,893 3,162,787 10,217,655 -0.10% April 14,243,715 4,015,821 14,305,106 0.43% May 16,426,676 2,182,961 16,509,045 0.50% June 20,205,702 3,779,026 19,669,418 -2.65% July 23,450,047 3,244,346 23,796,385 1.48% August 27,049,690 3,599,642 28,202,529 4.26% September 30,662,580 3,612,891 30,670,999 0,03% October 33,262,295 2,599,715 November 36,869,601 3,607,306 December 41,011,287 4,141,686 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental 2016 Non -Departmental Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 2,640,077 $ 2,640,077 $ 3,074,199 16.44% February 3,094,175 454,098 4,065,136 31.38% March 4,182,251 1,088,076 4,389,675 4.96% April 6,122,668 1,940,417 6,454,134 5.41% May 6,283,708 161,041 6,679,708 6.30% June 7,925,981 1,642,273 7,828,525 -1.23% July 8,993,121 1,067,140 9,839,305 9.41% August 10,291,465 1,298,344 11,927,542 15.90% September 11,817,373 1,525,908 12,314,850 4.21% October 12,249,051 431,678 November 13,411,675 1,162,624 December 14,956,000 1,544,325 Non -Departmental 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year -Budget —dm- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 23 Packet Pg. 132 I 4.5.b I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Council 2016 City Council Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 19,588 $ 19,588 $ 13,340 -31.90% February 43,238 23,650 27,668 -36.01% March 68,617 25,379 44,120 -35.70% April 91,002 22,385 58,113 -36.14% May 115,388 24,386 71,981 -37.62% June 142,957 27,568 98,095 -31.38% July 169,613 26,656 120,390 -29.02% August 194,018 24,404 143,459 -26.06% September 218,163 24,145 183,494 -15,89% October 242,646 24,484 November 268,263 25,616 December 295,500 27,237 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Office of Mayor 2016 Office of Mayor Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 22,161 $ 22,161 $ 21,296 -3.90% February 44,020 21,859 43,294 -1.65% March 65,603 21,583 64,319 -1.96% April 86,693 21,090 85,409 -1.48% May 108,016 21,323 106,249 -1.64% June 129,368 21,352 127,277 -1.62% July 151,400 22,032 148,207 -2.11% August 172,781 21,380 171,288 -0.86% September 193,702 20,921 192,059 -0.85% October 217,172 23,470 November 239,237 22,065 December 260,250 21,013 Office of Mayor 300,000.00 250,000.00 200,000.00 150,000.00 100,000.00 00 50,000.00 0.00 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget -dr,- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 24 Packet Pg. 133 1 I 4.5.b I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Community Services/Economic Development 2016 Community Services/Economic Development Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 31,041 $ 31,041 $ 25,054 -19.29% February 72,203 41,162 61,145 -15.31% March 112,713 40,509 101,724 -9.75% April 168,538 55,825 146,484 -13.09% May 209,518 40,980 183,771 -12.29% June 247,117 37,599 232,729 -5.82% July 292,697 45,580 274,304 -6.28% August 335,893 43,196 325,051 -3.23% September 383,280 47,387 362,099 -5.53% October 429,917 46,636 November 475,538 45,621 December 535,580 60,042 City Clerk Community Services/Economic Development 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget -dp- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Clerk 2016 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 50,833 $ 50,833 $ 44,524 -12.41% February 96,778 45,946 87,838 -9.24% March 146,191 49,413 142,107 -2.79% April 191,236 45,044 188,255 -1.56% May 235,619 44,383 234,593 -0.44% June 283,490 47,872 281,026 -0.87% July 331,509 48,019 323,638 -2.37% August 381,757 50,248 371,081 -2.80% September 431,132 49,374 416,998 -3.28% October 489,238 58,106 November 538,959 49,721 December 589,290 50,331 City Clerk 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget -dr- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 25 Packet Pg. 134 1 I 4.5.b I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources 2016 Human Resources Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 34,273 $ 34,273 $ 28,007 -18.28% February 71,193 36,920 58,708 -17.54% March 115,298 44,105 90,412 -21.58% April 150,430 35,132 115,675 -23.10% May 189,556 39,126 146,734 -22.59% June 227,772 38,216 175,479 -22.96% July 266,108 38,336 206,637 -22.35% August 302,589 36,480 235,942 -22.03% September 344,265 41,676 265,413 -22.90% October 381,533 37,268 November 414,723 33,190 December 462,044 47,321 Human Resources 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget t Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court 2016 Municipal Court Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 67,768 $ 67,768 $ 67,346 -0.62% February 140,999 73,231 145,300 3.05% March 219,268 78,269 219,191 -0.04% April 293,243 73,975 290,918 -0.79% May 365,511 72,268 366,411 0.25% June 440,872 75,361 435,326 -1.26% July 515,865 74,993 503,006 -2.49% August 594,541 78,676 577,433 -2.88% September 669,574 75,033 654,546 -2.24% October 750,559 80,985 November 828,307 77,748 December 909,270 80,963 Municipal Court 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget -0-- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 26 Packet Pg. 135 I 4.5.b I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Information Services 2016 Information Services Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast TrD Actuals Variance % January $ 87,065 $ 87,065 $ 55,507 -36.25% February 163,617 76,552 158,620 -3.05% March 224,796 61,179 205,381 -8.64% April 281,617 56,821 242,036 -14.05% May 331,746 50,129 283,871 -14.43% June 381,470 49,725 325,732 -14.61% July 448,514 67,044 370,139 -17.47% August 521,686 73,171 421,240 -19.25% September 590,807 69,121 466,969 -20.96% October 648,167 57,360 November 735,478 87,311 December 900,110 164,632 Finance Information Services 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year - Budget Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Finance 2016 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast TrD Actuals Variance % January $ 97,947 $ 97,947 $ 62,994 -35.69% February 174,402 76,455 130,335 -25.27% March 249,528 75,126 197,850 -20.71% April 330,097 80,569 265,012 -19.72% May 403,825 73,728 330,595 -18.13% June 478,183 74,359 391,632 -18.10% July 551,010 72,826 459,737 -16.56% August 624,240 73,230 535,500 -14.22% September 699,491 75,251 649,770 -7.11% October 782,345 82,854 November 857,044 74,699 December 939,820 82,776 Finance 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 - 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC +Current Year - Budget --dw- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 27 Packet Pg. 136 I 4.5.b I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Attorney 2016 City Attorney Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 61,797 $ 61,797 $ 60,070 -2.79% February 123,593 61,797 120,220 -2.73% March 185,390 61,797 162,968 -12.09% April 247,187 61,797 224,651 -9.12% May 308,983 61,797 286,857 -7.16% June 370,780 61,797 347,078 -6.39% July 432,576 61,797 425,065 -1.74% August 494,373 61,797 467,705 -5.39% September 556,170 61,797 527,900 -5.08% October 617,966 61,797 November 679,763 61,797 December 741,560 61,797 Police 800,000 City Attorney 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC +Current Year - Budget -d�- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Police 2016 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 742,786 $ 742,786 $ 771,955 3.93% February 1,501,528 758,742 1,527,193 1.71% March 2,271,626 770,097 2,295,467 1.05% April 3,026,048 754,422 3,078,848 1.74% May 3,780,240 754,192 3,832,659 1.39% June 4,598,322 818,082 4,596,670 -0.04% July 5,363,806 765,484 5,342,881 -0.39% August 6,136,928 773,122 6,111,444 -0.42% September 6,902,315 765,387 6,866,786 -0.51% October 7,698,702 796,387 November 8,768,959 1,070,257 December 9,633,050 864,091 Police 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -*--Current Year - Budget -*I,- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 28 Packet Pg. 137 I 4.5.b I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services 2016 Development Services Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 204,243 $ 204,243 $ 170,060 -16.74% February 415,923 211,680 361,353 -13.12% March 648,648 232,726 565,548 -12.81% April 859,812 211,164 764,404 -11.10% May 1,077,954 218,142 985,455 -8.58% June 1,286,181 208,226 1,183,128 -8.01% July 1,508,767 222,586 1,381,541 -8.43% August 1,735,150 226,383 1,616,477 -6.84% September 1,959,377 224,226 1,811,147 -7.57% October 2,208,198 248,821 November 2,436,068 227,870 December 2,688,352 252,284 Parks & Recreation Development Services 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget t Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Parks & Recreation 2016 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 243,592 $ 243,592 $ 252,899 3.82% February 505,386 261,794 502,972 -0.48% March 781,095 275,709 770,996 -1.29% April 1,058,904 277,810 1,041,241 -1.67% May 1,359,582 300,677 1,333,112 -1.95% June 1,677,232 317,651 1,609,632 -4.03% July 2,108,378 431,146 2,007,609 -4.78% August 2,567,286 458,908 2,491,385 -2.96% September 2,889,106 321,820 2,779,501 -3.79% October 3,183,247 294,141 November 3,438,023 254,776 December 3,774,541 336,518 Parks & Recreation 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Yeaz Budget -dm- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 29 Packet Pg. 138 I 4.5.b I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Public Works 2016 Public Works Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 31,230 $ 31,230 $ 29,570 -5.31% February 62,130 30,900 59,034 -4.98% March 92,810 30,680 89,046 -4.05% April 123,243 30,434 118,682 -3.70% May 154,320 31,076 148,411 -3.83% June 185,380 31,060 178,420 -3.75% July 216,622 31,243 208,906 -3.56% August 246,986 30,363 238,996 -3.24% September 276,279 29,293 269,015 -2.63% October 308,266 31,987 November 337,169 28,904 December 371,790 34,621 Facilities Maintenance Public Works 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget --AP- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Facilities Maintenance 2016 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 115,588 $ 115,588 $ 116,661 0.93% February 236,621 121,033 240,595 1.68% March 365,554 128,934 357,601 -2.18% April 487,500 121,946 468,138 -3.97% May 604,005 116,504 595,677 -1.38% June 723,757 119,752 697,556 -3.62% July 857,071 133,314 822,642 -4.02% August 967,719 110,648 939,588 -2.91% September 1,099,287 131,567 1,067,573 -2.88% October 1,211,418 112,132 November 1,335,849 124,431 December 1,483,800 147,951 Facilities Maintenance 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --#- Current Year -Budget --O-Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 30 Packet Pg. 139 1 I 4.5.b I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering 2016 Engineering Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 198,055 $ 198,055 $ 160,475 -18.97% February 396,423 198,368 303,810 -23.36% March 597,281 200,858 521,251 -12.73% April 796,160 198,879 763,107 -4.15% May 1,001,003 204,843 922,959 -7.80% June 1,201,964 200,961 1,161,113 -3.40% July 1,401,670 199,706 1,362,376 -2.80% August 1,603,612 201,942 1,628,399 1.55% September 1,807,951 204,339 1,842,877 1.93% October 2,023,470 215,519 November 2,232,307 208,838 December 2,470,330 238,023 Engine a ring 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget —dp-- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 31 Packet Pg. 140 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY I 4.5.b I Investment Portfolio Summary As of September 30, 2016 (a) Term Purchase Purchase Maturity Agency/Issuer Investment Type (months) Date Price Date Washington State Local Investment Pool Various $10,837,010 Various Government Investment Pool Snohomish County Investment Pool Various $30,593,920 Various Investment Pool FICO Bonds 33 9/19/2014 1,027,000 6/6/2017 FH LMC Bonds 61 12/28/2012 1,000,000 12/28/2017 FFCB Bonds 36 1/25/2016 2,000,000 12/28/2018 FFCB Bonds 37 1/25/2016 2,000,000 1/25/2019 FHLB Bonds 48 5/5/2016 2,000,000 3/30/2020 FHLMC Bonds 48 5/5/2016 2,000,000 4/28/2020 FNMA Bonds 46 9/30/2016 1,000,000 6/30/2020 FNMA Bonds 46 9/30/2016 1,000,000 6/30/2020 FHLB Bonds 49 7/13/2016 3,000,000 7/13/2020 FNMA Bonds 48 9/16/2016 1,000,000 8/28/2020 FNMA Bonds 48 9/16/2016 1,000,000 8/28/2020 FNMA Bonds 55 7/19/2016 2,000,000 1/19/2021 TOTAL Investment Mix State Investment Pool Bonds Snohomish County Investment Pool % of Total Rate Comparison 17.92% Current 6-month treasury rate 31.47% Current State Pool rate 50.60% Blended Edmonds rate 100.0% Yield to Weighted Maturity Average l 0.52% 0.09% 0.85% 0.96% 0.90% 1.42% 1.23% 1.45% 1.35% 1.38% 1.38% 1.20% 1.40% 1.40% 0.95% 0.92% 0.45% 0.52% 0.92% 0.43% 0.02% 0.01 % 0.05% 0.04% 0.05% 0.04% 0.02% 0.02% 0.06% 0.02% 0.02% 0.03% 0.92% (a) To maturity. Investment interest through September of 2016 is $326,075, whereas interest through September of 2015 was $249,875; difference of $76,200 FInterest Income 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 - 15,000 10,000 5,000 ■ ,. ■■ - Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun II 41 n Jul Aug Sep ■, 1 ■1 Oct Nov Dec 2012 ■ 2013 2014 : ■ 2015 2016 32 Packet Pg. 141 1 4.5.b GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES GENERAL FUND 0 & SUBFUNDS ---- ACTUAL ---- aQi ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2015 6/30/2016 9/30/2016 Q3 YTD 001-General Fund $ 9,359,437 $ 10,024,373 $ 5,421,687 $ (4,602,687) $ (3,937,751 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 519,409 532,581 476,976 (55,606) (42,43. 011-Risk Management Fund 961,512 965,713 968,764 3,051 7,25, ii 012-Contingency Reserve Fund 4,677,030 4,684,313 4,689,616 5,303 12,58E 013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD 56,487 56,720 56,899 179 41, cu 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 2,589 5,116 5,132 15 2,54. CY 016-Building Maintenance 118,085 (48,433) 118,689 167,121 60, c Total General Fund & Subfunds $ 15,694,549 $ 16,220,385 $ 11,737,762 $ (4,482,623) $ (3,956,78- E a� m cn CD ti co General Fund & Subfunds 0 20 a� 2, $15.69 $16.22 16 $11.74 CY 12 tO 0 o N L 8 4 a m U) a� Dec 2015 June 2016 Sept 2016 °- E 0 tU c m E t v cv r r Q *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 33 Packet Pg. 142 4.5.b GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW CHANGE IN FUND FUND BALANCES BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2015 6/30/2016 9/30/2016 Q3 YTD — t 0 0- General Fund & Subfunds $ 15,694,549 $ 16,220,385 $ 11,737,762 $ (4,482,623) $ (3,956,78 Special Revenue 7,711,345 10,255,835 11,174,980 919,145 3,463,63 Debt Service 114,789 115,563 126,931 11,367 12,14. Total Governmental Funds $ 23,520,683 $ 26,591,783 $ 23,039,672 $ (3,552,111) $ (481,01 LL 21 L L CY Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group Governmental Fund r 0 N L Balances - Combined E a� a 20 30 cn $26.59 co 16 9 General 24 $23.52 $z3 04 Fund & Subfunds d' c 12 11.7� Special 0 11.1 2 18 a) 0 10.26 Revenue 3 CY 8 $7.71 12 m Q 0 Debt N Service L E 4 6 a) a m a� a - $0.11 $0.12 $0.13 - 0- Dec 2015 June 2016 Sept 2016 Dec2015 June 2016 Sept 2016 E V c m E t U ns r r Q *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 34 Packet Pg. 143 4.5.b SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW GOVERNMENTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE; ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31/2015 6/30/2016 9/30/2016 ---- ACTUAL ---- Q3 YTD 104 - Drug Enforcement Fund $ 68,732 $ 109,613 $ 87,611 $ (22,002) $ 18,87� 111 - Street Fund 514,447 556,641 538,951 (17,690) 24,50z 112 - Combined Street Const/Improve 9,340 1,393,845 1,884,073 490,228 1,874,73< 117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 468,471 472,727 458,062 (14,665) (10,40� 118 - Memorial Street Tree 17,919 17,993 18,050 57 13' 120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 153,885 162,241 175,929 13,688 22,04z 121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 64,481 72,599 72,256 (343) 7,77E 122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 15,468 14,705 14,378 (327) (1,09( 123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 84,568 86,674 88,102 1,428 3,53,e 125 - Real Estate Tax 2 1,629,534 1,996,449 2,281,406 284,957 651, 87,' 126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 2,239,006 2,366,504 2,688,714 322,210 449,70E 127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 265,925 261,169 265,872 4,703 (5: 129 - Special Projects Fund 38,393 38,551 38,673 122 28( 130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 137,256 154,038 145,876 (8,163) 8,62( 132 - Parks Construction Fund 897,414 1,392,690 1,266,766 (125,924) 369,35,' 136 - Parks Trust Fund 152,249 152,877 153,360 483 1,11' 137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 883,729 895,815 902,601 6,786 18,87.' 138 - Sister City Commission 3,785 6,921 3,965 (2,956) 18( 139 - Transportation Benefit District - - - - - 140 - Business Improvement Disrict 66,743 103,780 90,335 (13,446) 23,59,' Total Special Revenue $ 7,711,345 $ 10,255,835 $ 11,174,980 $ 919,145 $ 3,463,63E Special Revenue Funds 15 12 c 9 0 6 3 ■ Special Revenue Dec 2015 June 2016 Sept 2016 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 35 Packet Pg. 144 I 4.5.b I ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW ENTERPRISE FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31/2015 6/30/2016 9/30/2016 Q3 YTD 421 - Water Utility Fund $ 16,489,530 $ 17,135,816 $ 16,726,157 $ (409,659) $ 236,621 422 - Storm Utility Fund 9,589,898 10,084,412 9,782,939 (301,472) 193,04' 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 42,657,767 44,186,132 42,907,413 (1,278,719) 249,64E 424 - Bond Reserve Fund 843,960 4 843,966 843,962 411 - Combined Utility Operation - 83,251 131,139 47,888 131,13� Total Enterprise Funds $ 69,581,155 $ 71,489,615 $ 70.391,615 $ (1,098,000) $ 810.46( $70, 000,000 $60,000,000 $50, 000,000 $40, 000,000 $30,000,000 $20,000,000 $10, 000,000 Enterprise Fund Balances as of September 30, 2016 $131,139 Combined Utility $9,782,939 $42,907,413 •.. Sewer/WWTP Bond Reserve *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 36 Packet Pg. 145 4.5.b SUMMARY OVERVIEW CITY-WIDE FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2015 6/30/2016 9/30/2016 Q3 YTD Governmental Funds $ 23,520,683 $ 26,591,783 $ 23,039,672 $ (3,552,111) $ (481,01- Enterprise Funds 69,581,155 71,489,615 70,391,615 (1,098,000) 810,46( Internal Services Fund 7,650,499 7,549,040 7,732,280 183,240 81,78- AgencyFunds 203,102 239,169 231,425 (7,743) 28,32: Total City-wide Total j $100,955,439 $105,869,607 $101,394,993 $ (4,474,614) $ 439,55,e FGovernmental Fund Balances as of September 30, 2016 General Fund & Subfunds Drug Enforcement Fund Street Fund Combined Street Const/Improve Fund Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund Memorial Street Fund Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund Employee Parking Permit Fund Youth Scholarship Fund Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts Real Estate Excise Tax 2 Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq Gifts Catalog Fund Special Projects Fund Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement Parks Construction Fund Parks Trust Fund Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund Sister City Commission Transportation Benefit District$ (0) Business Improvement District L.I.D. Fund Control L.I.D. Guaranty Fund 2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund $ (0) Equipment Rental Fund Firemen's Pension Fund $1 MM 1737,76: � $87,611 $538,951 $1,884,073 $458,062 $18,050 $175,929 $72,256 $14,378 $88,102 $2,281, 06 $2,688, 14 $265,872 $38,673 $145,876 11 $1,266,766 $153,360 $902,601 $3,965 $90,335 1 $21,796 $105,135 $7, 32,28( $231,425 $20,000,000 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 37 Packet Pg. 146 4.5.b INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND Q. INTERNAL SERVICE BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS - - ACTUAL ---- — 12/31/2015 6/30/2016 9/30/2016 03 YTD U c 511 - Equipment Rental Fund $ 7,650,499 $ 7,549,040 $ 7,732,280 $ 183,240 $ 81,78' ii Total Internal Service Funds $ 7,650,499 $ 7,549,040 $ 7,732,280 $ 183,240 $ E CD O Cl co T Q N L d �C E Internal Service Fund Balances a d co 10--M9 ti co T g S7.65 $7.55 $7.73 �r O d '^ 6 c 511- Equipment Rental Fund 0 M 3 4 CJ co 0 N 2 a) E r - N Dec 2015 June 2016 Sept 2016 m a E O V c d E z v a *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 38 Packet Pg. 147 5.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/15/2016 2017 Continued Budget Review Discussion (60 min.) Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead} Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Linda Hynd Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative N/A Packet Pg. 148 6.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/15/2016 Small Business Saturday Proclamation (5 min.) Staff Lead: Mayor Earling Department: Mayor's Office Preparer: Carolyn LaFave Background/History The first Small Business Saturday took place in Roslindale Village, Massachusetts on November 27, 2016. Observed on the first Saturday after Thanksgiving, in between Black Friday and Cyber Monday, Small Business Saturday encourages holiday shoppers to patronize brick and mortar businesses that are small and local. Staff Recommendation Narrative In an age of global markets and capitalism, it's far too easy for small businesses to struggle and fail, even if they have superior products and services. We have the power to change this, and Small Business Saturday encourages people everywhere to shop with small businesses. Last year, 88 million consumers shopped small on Small Business Saturday, up 14.9 percent from 2013, spending $14.3 billion at local and independent businesses. Small Business Saturday is the day we celebrate the Shop Small movement to drive shoppers to local merchants in our community. Attachments: SBS_2016 Packet Pg. 149 O Albr r101rf amuf Tian City of Edmonds ■ Office of the Mayor Stipp - SS fOP Small Business Saturday WHEREAS: the government of Edmonds, Washington, celebrates our local small businesses and the contributions they make to our local economy and community; and WHEREAS: according to the United States Small Business Administration, there are currently 28.8 million small businesses in the United States, representing 99.7 percent of all businesses with employees in the United States, and responsible for 63 percent of net newjobs created over the past 20 years; and WHEREAS: small businesses employ over 49 percent of all businesses with employees in the United States; and WHEREAS: 89 percent of consumers in the United States agree that small businesses contribute positively to the local community by supplying jobs and generating tax revenue; and WHEREAS: 93 percent of consumers in the United States agree that it is important for people to 0 support the small businesses that they value in their community; and N U) m WHEREAS: Edmonds, Washington, supports our local businesses that create jobs, boost our N r local economy and preserve our neighborhoods; and E WHEREAS: advocacy groups, as well as public and private organizations across the country, have endorsed the Saturday after Thanksgiving as Small Business Saturday; a NOW, THEREFORE, I, David O. Earling, Mayor of Edmonds, do hereby proclaim, November 26, 2016 as: Small Business Saturday And urge the residents of our community, and communities across the country, to support small businesses and merchants on Small Business Saturday and throughout the year. Dave Earling, Mayor November 15, 2016 Packet Pg. 150 1 6.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/15/2016 Snohomish County Health District Participation (15 min.) Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead} Department: Community Services Preparer: Patrick Doherty Background/History At the July 26th Council meeting representatives of the Snohomish County Health District presented information about their services to Edmonds and the County, as well as their upcoming budgetary challenges. In light of continuing cuts in personnel and services over the past few years, and a projected cut of up to 11.6 FTE positions in the 2017 budget, the District has reached out to Snohomish County and all of its cities with a request of up to $2 per capita contribution for 2017. Since July District staff have been meeting with electeds and staff from around the County to provide additional supporting information and continue discussions. Staff Recommendation The Mayor recommends a one-year $1 per capita contribution to the Snohomish County Health District for 2017 only, totaling $40,900, with the expectation that the District report back mid -year 2017 with its intentions for a sustainable funding plan in future years. Narrative At the 11/15/16 Council meeting Snohomish County Health District representatives will be present to make a brief presentation and provide updates since July, including the status of the County's and other cities' pledged or pending contributions to date (attached you will find a document that summarizes that status as of 11/10/16). You will also find attached the Resolution by the Snohomish County Council regarding their commitment to contribute $2 per capita for the unincorporated area of the County, as well as a letter, dated 11/7/16 and signed by the mayors of Arlington, Darrington, Lake Stevens, Marysville, Stanwood, Snohomish and Granite Falls, indicating their intent to propose an at least $1 per capita commitment to their respective City Councils for approval. Attachments: North County Mayor SHD 11.07.16 SnoCo Council Res 16-022 Per Capita Status —Nov 9 Packet Pg. 151 6.2.a November 7, 2016 Gary Goldbaum, MD, MPH Snohomish Health District 3020 Rucker Avenue, Suite 306 Everett, WA 98201 Re: Financial support of health district programs in 2017 Dear Dr. Goldbaum, The undersigned mayors want you to know how much we value the programs and services in communicable disease, community health, public health emergencies and environmental health the Snohomish Health District provides to Snohomish County's residents. We applaud your efforts recently to educate our communities on the opiate addictions affecting lives in Snohomish County, as well as the work to educate and track opiate overuse for our County physicians. As cities and towns in North Snohomish County we also understand the effects of service reductions with declining revenues. Many of us are working hard to restore our own fiscal health while doing our best to restrain expenses. We will therefore be requesting that our respective City Councils financially support Snohomish Health District in 2017 with at least $1.00 per capita as each city budget allows. At this time we cannot make commitments for 2018, but our hope is that we have even more open dialogue throughout next year so that we can fully understand your plans for future sustainability. In return, we respectfully request that Snohomish Health District commit to improvements recommended in the Ruckelshaus report, including finding a sustainable funding model, updating the strategic plan and governance, as well as, establishing county priorities for the funding you do have. Snohomish County Health District does important work with important outcomes, and we offer our support in this time of transition. Sincerely, 090Man A Barbara Tolbert Mayor, City of Arlington Packet Pg. 152 6.2.a ,�4x ILI '4� Dan Rankin Mayor, Town of Darrington John Spencer Mayor, City of Lake Stevens Jon Nehring Mayor, City of Marysville Leonard Kelley Mayor, City of Stanwood -- Karen Guzak Mayor, City of Snohomish t-1- . -A Matthew Hartman Mayor, City of Granite Falls Packet Pg. 153 M X rt A 4�0 SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL SNOHOMISH COUNTY EXECUTIVE Snohomish County, Washington RESOL UTION NO. 16-022 SUPPORTING A VOL UNTARYPER CAPITA CONTRIBUTION TO THE SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT WHEREAS, to promote the public health in Snohomish County, Washington, the Board of County Commissioners established a Health District on January 1 1959, embracing all of the territory within Snohomish County, and all cities and towns therein; and WHEREAS, in 1966 the Snohomish Health District became the first local health jurisdiction in the state to organize a city -county cooperative health program with cities indicating a willingness to participate financially in support of Health District programs; and WHEREAS, in 1993, counties assumed exclusive financial responsibility for public health, relying on Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) revenues; and WHEREAS, in 2000, the Washington State Legislature repealed MVET and backfilled only 90% of lost public health funds; and WHEREAS, state funding for local public health has decreased from $27.29 per capita in 2000 to $9.36 per capita in 2014, a 65.7% reduction; and WHEREAS, the Health District has experienced a 22% decrease from its 2005 funding level while the county population has increased by 14% in the same 10 year period; and WHEREAS, since 2008, the Health District has reduced its staffing by 37% due to static or declining revenues, while facing increased costs; and WHEREAS, the Health District serves an essential public safety function, whether ensuring safe food, schools, and septic systems; responding to disasters, or preventing and responding to disease outbreaks; and WHEREAS, public health is a shared responsibility, and an effective public health response to the threats to public health in Snohomish County requires regional cooperation, participation and support from cities, towns, and the County; and WHEREAS, consistent with RCW 70.05, the Snohomish County Council is responsible for establishing the Snohomish Health District Board of Health to supervise all matters pertaining to the preservation of life and health of the people within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, Snohomish County seeks to improve and sustain healthy years of life of its residents by engaging in an enhanced partnership with the Health District. This partnership will provide stable funding for public health priorities that would be established to meet the unique needs of the County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Snohomish County Council hereby states its intent to contribute $2.00per capita of unincorporated Snohomish County to the Snohomish Health District, commencing January 1, 2017, conditioned on the execution of a mutually agreeable written agreement that sets forth the terms and conditions of such contribution. APPROVED this 2nd day of November, 2016 C. Terry Ryan Council Chair Ken Klein Councilmember Hans Dunshee Councilmember r. ATTEST. nwan-esunivan Council Vice -Chair C"i - I Ste an right Cou cilmember Attachment: SnoCo Council Res 16-022 (1680 : Snohomish County Health District Participation) N a Status of Per Capita Contributions Signed Letter/Confirmed ✓ Snohomish County ($2.00 for unincorporated) Arlington ($1.00) Darrington ($1.00) Granite Falls ($1.00) Lake Stevens (TBD) Marysville (TBD) Mukilteo ($0.50) Monroe ($2.00) Snohomish ($2.00) Stanwood (TBD) Snohomish Health District Ongoing Discussions Bothell Edmonds Everett Gold Bar Index Lynnwood Mill Creek Sultan Woodway Declined Brier Mountlake Terrace Attachment: Per Capita Status_Nov 9 (1680 : Snohomish County Health District Participation) 12 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/15/2016 Public Comment on the Recommendations of the At -Grade Rail Crossings Alternatives Analysis (20 min.) Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead) Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Linda Hynd 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. On November 7th, 2016 the Task Force and Mayor Earling presented the conclusions and recommendations of the Alternatives Analysis to the Edmonds City Council Staff Recommendation N/A 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. 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. This agenda item is designed to give Edmonds citizens and opportunity to comment on the Packet Pg. 156 8.1 recommendations contained in the report of the Task Force Attachments: Edmonds Street Flyover rendering 1 Edmonds Street Flyover rendering 2 Edmonds Waterfront Access Council Briefing 20161107 Edmonds Waterfront Access report draft 20161103 Packet Pg. 157 m 0 X M rt 00 Attachment: Edmonds Street Packet Pg. 159 6 g 7 2016 ■ r-- al 6- too low ®r WASP Edmonds Waterfront Access Study Rj7 UP! j L[ Marina it EDMO Beach 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 40 "0 0111EIIIIIIIIIII tl E Police and Fire Packet Pg. 161 Station I 8.1.c HOW WILL VILE STUDY ALTERNATIVES? Understand existing conditions Identify alternatives Screen alternatives ( Level 1 review) Evaluate alternatives (Level 2 review) Develop recommendations I TECHNICAL ANALYSIS STEPS J • Observe, quantify • Compile potential • Review alternatives • Further develop the • Develop preferred and document measures to improve within initial criteria remaining alternatives. alternative existing conditions access, including both to determine • Apply more detailed recommendations at Main Street long-range and near- feasibility. criteria to evaluate based on analysis. and Dayton Street term solutions. • Eliminate infeasible alternatives. • Present to City Council crossings. • Develop screening alternatives. - Document and Legislature. • Review data from criteria. • Document findings. findings and initial • Document final previous studies and • Prepare list of recommendations. recommendations in a community input. alternatives for report. screening and evaluation. GET INVOLVED J Share your experiences Share your thoughts Provide feedback on Provide feedback Review preferred with waterfront on alternatives screened alternatives on evaluated alternative access and ideas for to consider and alternatives and initial recommendations improving access screening criteria recommendations pM aoH ___sr. 1 s9ll a M 00 tD 0 U a 0 It 0 W r 0 Q Public meeting Online open hR a e G P Packet Pg. 162 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 St. 1 8.1.c -s J M 00 W CD CD N •L m O U U) N d v v Q r c O L O E W 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 >� 8.1.c G u � Est.1 999W a 277 incidents00 r ti O r r O r 64 had response times of 7 minutes or longer �L m C O Variety of causes for N delays a O L N r Additional 40-50 call- 3': outs per year for O rescue boat W a Fire District 1 records July 1, 2010 to December Packet Pg. 164 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 (1683 : Public 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) Doru iin e n t Decisions HIGHEST -RATED CONCERTS Document Dec i si on s HIGHEST -RATED ALTERNATIVES PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1.c -s J St. 1 Packet Pg. 166 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.c J St. 1 116 attendees 83 attendees 58 attendees 49 attendees 326 online visits 259 visitors 54 comment submittals 38 newcomers 175 online visits 131 visitors 33 comment submittals 28 newcomers 11 newcomers 268 online visits 40 online visits 191 visitors 20 comment submittals 30 visitors 17 comment submittals Packet Pg. 167 >� 8.1.c Concepts � V v J U !' a u ; d M O w rmi, I ti O r r tD r O N t , R ' . D F kk •y •+ 0 y` I ' y , r 4 • , Pik LU a .� - F i .. Owe rpaae Solution ry A _ E: Underpma Soludon } 4 ' On -Site Solution a Q +' Operatlowd Solullon .� r Railroad Modification Ferry Facilitlea Mod ir, cation '' R�r ' � . L 5 � � � • � Packet Pg. 168 8.1.c ROADWAY OVERPASS � 4 # ■ ■ DUSCONTI N UE 3 Displacement of dry moorage stadu is too extensk d hr the Pori to accamn dat M ■ 00 DISCONTI N UE Reies upon Edmonds Cmssinl; (Ferry 1), wfridr is isconunued from ronsideralb on as it was remDyeE o fnam WSF long range plans t0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Not Assessed NDt Assessed r DISCONTI N UE N Does not meet purpose and need ■ DUSCONTI N UE Anticipated econDm ir: effECts morE enensiue than op ire rpass dD — ■ ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 c � Daybnn 5t Pedestrianf Emergency Access Overpassv ■ ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 N M idhlodk Pedestrian} Limited Ernergency Acres s u Ou a rpa ss Q ■ ■ ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 o � Main Street Ferry Overpass 2 ■ a� ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 � Mairb Street Pedestrian/Limited Ernergency Acce s s Or a rpaSS N t ■ DUSCONTI N UE E For similar Fu nmdtinnaIity. the on+st and -A : ual inr aac w greater than for Overpass 7A ■ � � ■ � � � � E 0 i ■ DUSCONTI N UE trades are Siteeper and impacts to park greater tha um it Civ a rpa ss 9 Q ■ ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 � 0 dr o�� Street Pedtr�ran/ Emerne A� gero3ss DISCONTI N IJE Packet Pg. 169 Does not meet purpose and need i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Not Assessed NDt Assessed Level 1 Outcomes Concepts/ Variants Early Recommendations 'I 3 Advancing Concepts Level 2 Alternatives 8.1.c -s J St. 1 Packet Pg. 170 8.1.c Near -term Recommendations f 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-.: Emergency Notification •� zD - M7� -1Le e• ,'. -.�;� to Halt Trains RD 0• _ .� .`C.p �'- _ - , yam, '► LN '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) 8.1.c J Packet Pg. 172 Level 1 Outcomes —13 Advancing Concepts Overp'�ss 1 Overpass 46 � Overpass 9 Overpass 5/On-site 2 Overpass 7A/On-site 2 Underpass 4/On-site 2 Ferry 4/Ferry 8 Overpass 6 Underpass 1/Ferry 5 Ferry 3 Ferry 1 Admiral Way Pedestrian/Emergency Vehicle Overpass Dayton Street Pedestrian/Emergency Vehicle Overpass 1 J Edmonds Street Pedestrian/Emergency Vehicle Overpass Midblock Pedestrian Overpass, with stationed equipment Main Street Pedestrian Overpass, with stationed equipment Main Street Pedestrian Underpass, with stationed equipment Main Street Ferry Overpass (Minimum Build) Main Street Ferry Overpass 2 (Full Build) Main Street Ferry Underpass Dayton Street New Ferry Terminal Edmonds Crossing (Minimum Build) 8.1.c -s J St. 1 Packet Pg. 173 Ir >� 8.1.c G Alternative Types & Locations V mwnWWI RMemmm vim 11 �St. Mom Sbmt Now Fen TermkWd 1 M Go 1 . 11, Sbad Overpass r ti t O O r O N Y I 1 1+ 1• 1 Y ImswaMW _ , I � T F _ - _� _ � # 1 � it _ -� „� • 1'ri� 1;1 lip f ANEW 0 * 1 r +1F U ti• ' yti rr. I F'+ O _ � �',� L L',Y •f 1 fi r 4i O r ti 1IL -0 �' ice• • � fT ! E Al I option s provide p�destrian and bicycle actess_ a EM ER-G EN EY ACCESS BY FOOT R tiz}_ •� � EN EF�G EN C'e WE H I EL E,4EEESS EF1 EEt-G EN CY WE H I ELE ACCESS AN a FERRY F.1OADJO F FLOAD Packet Pg. 174 Level 2 Alternative Evaluation Criteria 8.1.c -s J !st. i s9l a M CO Purpose & Need , I" 0 1. Reliable emergency response 3. Reduce delays & conflicts at crossings I ICD N 2. Reduce ferry delays 4. Safe/efficient passenger connections 1-1 m 0 U I Other Function I I Implementation N a� v t o I 15. Emergency evacuation I I I 1 8. Fundable and permittable I 1 I 16. Urban design & community goals I g Yg II i 19. I Temporary construction impacts Y 1� 0 1 W I 17. Consistent with transportation I I I 1 10. Environmental effects I I 1 operations 1 p 1 1 1 1 11. Address sea level rise impacts a 1 Packet Pg. 175 Alternatives Cost Estimate Summary All costs based in 2016 dollars Sr. 1 8.1.c -s J 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 $ 29,0001, 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. 176 Alternatives Evaluation Summary Categorized Criteria , EVENLY WEI MTED SCONE 0 (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 U 0 Top Rated in this UtVry IV] 197 L A 8.1.c - J Packet Pg. 177 11 k7M M CL 3 O M M M fm+ O C M MON N v 0 X M rt (O 00 O Attachment: Edmonds Waterfront Access Council Briefing 20161107 (1683 : Public i F i U St. 1 8.1.c J V d M 00 CD ti O_ r O N i 4- d m U c O U N a) v c) Q c O L Ic O E W r C 0 E (i Q Edmonds Street Overpass I Packet Pg. 181 M r� CD Milk 0 CD Attachment: Edmonds Waterfront Access Council Briefing 20161107 (1683 : Public Edmonds Crossing `■m JJ•mrAri 3 ■%-Whm AiirryiFmd■i%m= Jbin i dill i r• i•i- Edmonds Crossing EIS ��� 8.1.c J ti 0 r r co r O N a _ L m V _ 7 O U a� a •L 0 R JJ.7 - N •a Pbr!d dui CmrYmr1 =O i1 W ■•■J i•■ m6 !m rum M i i■ r. LNMhL NorL■ir, HWirl% w a� E a Packet Pg. 183 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study Questions? OTETRA TECH complex world I CLEAR SOLUTIONS- e o\ 8.1.c - J `i J 8.1.d 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. P +1-206-728-9655 1420 Fifth Avenue, #550 F + 1 -206-728-9670 Seattle, Washington 98101 www.tetratech.com Packet Pg. 185 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 186 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 187 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 188 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 189 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 190 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 191 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 192 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 193 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 194 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 anon Lanaing_N-th - 1 3kD A E qTM AVE p _ 5fN pYE Fire 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. 195 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 196 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 197 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 198 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 199 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 200 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 201 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 202 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 203 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 204 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. .I SM&T Geol-lazards / Fault Zone 0 800 Feet NTETRA TECH 11 I Packet Pg. 205 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d October 2016 DRAFT Figure 2-2. Soil Density 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 0 600 Feet OTETRA TECH 12 Packet Pg. 206 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 207 F] Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 209 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 210 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 211 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 212 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 213 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 214 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d October 2016 DRAFT 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. 215 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 216 N W A f + W .-, ADMIRAL V1AY��M - ��- -- r RAILROAD AVE 7 —i W r m (D U) 0 c 0 C) 0 0 (D r 0 0 9 0 7 Attachment: Edmonds Waterfront Access report draft 20161103 (1683 : Public Comment on the Recommendations of the At -Grade Rail Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 218 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 219 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 220 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 221 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 222 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 223 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d October 2016 DRAFT Table 4-1 Level 1 Concepts with Corresponding Level 2 Alternatives 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/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 , Underpass 1/Ferry 5 Main Street Ferry Underpass Ferry 3 Dayton Street New Ferry Terminal OTETRA TECH 30 Packet Pg. 224 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 1 EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS 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. 225 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 on MA% wRM LRIORO ^� ,Sa1LM �• REOIXIE1GixE PATH JJJJ _ ww !E g[F IPr�-- MR WAY WrrH LMdMM r MPo 'NIRI WN YN CLF.YiNICE 0YQ TRIL17 - - - — _ _ ------- 7Q08RGE�M .----- 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. 226 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 IEIk SLnPE NnH LO)M C5 R%LWLE a VI s D W WILL 5% X V-01 rr H rMs IhXE WN 215' MN i ` E NM TWKS, OIERriWYNCM wirw ,� 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 -- ~ -_---- __--- is "off _ - WdBSgjS ■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. 227 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 228 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 EM(Eft �G KM . (BMW . 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. 229 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 1S TD WIiER WAWALL PN LIYBYtl 16' --- ----_ 1D% W% ` BRACKE1I rA H AD A9E MD o LMO NC 9p1LH TRAMTenF R TmuE�r Ew ffif"Err% 44OMe NORTH LOCAL ,RWFc (ON UD) I LUM OF FERRI utioE NCKEn� 7pLL ASS Ho c 1!4 VEHICLESrOnu 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. 230 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. EMEK VEMLE 19 _11D, KOMI k" -.`� NEW fEM DOCK 4iRNlSIF .ENIER REXKE➢ TD 9YEANFi16 FFAHY FMT FLOOR) - _WNVUN1_Q W - FEARf NON TOP FL7CR .. � � - LME ANO LLANEE WTH WIfH 9<1ER41K; 14 NC 511 PCLUDW ON DOCK IE' AGE TRM r0 VEHCLES TOTAL I -Pa PATH EN UAL l R'.E, TRAC U 5`il A�0 N .i UWrrS OF Sr9t)CTLRE 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. 231 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 232 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 233 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 234 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 235 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 O = 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. 236 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 237 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 238 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 15 15 15 15 a 5 a 0 • e 15 a a a 0 a o 0 0 a • a 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. 239 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 240 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 241 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 48 Packet Pg. 242 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 243 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 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. 244 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 245 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 246 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d October 2016 DRAFT To be included in the Final Document: Meeting materials Outcome summaries OTETRA TECH A-53 Packet Pg. 247 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 Source: PSCAA 2014 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 ❑, I 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 21,12 2a13 2014 OTETRA TECH B-54 Packet Pg. 248 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 249 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 250 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 251 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 252 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 253 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 254 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 255 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 256 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 257 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 258 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 259 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d October 2016 DRAFT Figure B-3. Soil types in the Project Area Pert nt Eemonm M1f�ma uNoc P- uwe m�, sa.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. 260 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 261 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 262 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 263 Edmonds Waterfront Access Studv 8.1.d October 2016 DRAFT Figure -4. Zoning in Project Area (PLACEHOLDER SANS LEGEND) ►i . r�. - 'i Cc ►`: ►� ►�!� a ■■■ p-. Lam J -M, Source: Edmonds GIs Figure B-5. Comprehensive Plan Designations in Project Area (PLACEHOLDER SANS LEGEND) Downtown/Wrrte I T f�Cfl7Jtfi/ •� .J ♦ o-An r. - - rPOH Y, �• ��—t �� mil— 11 Chi P�,N Source: Edmonds GIS OTETRA TECH B-70 Packet Pg. 264 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 265 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 266 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 267 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 268 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 269 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 270 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 271 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 272 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 273 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 274 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 275 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 276 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 277 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 278 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 279 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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-$6 Packet Pg. 280 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d October 2016 DRAFT 1930 The Indians of Puget Sound. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 4(1):1-84. Hayes, Derek 1999 Historical Atlas of the Pacific Northwest: Maps of Exploration and Discovery, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Yukon. Seattle, Washington, Sasquatch Books. HomeFacts 2016 Unemployment rates accessed at: http://www.homefacts.com/unemployment/Washington/Snohomish-County/Edmonds.htmI Ingles, L. 1965 Mammals of the Pacific States: California, Oregon, Washington. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Juell, Kenneth 2006 Archaeological Site Assessment of Sound Transit's Sounder: Everett -to -Seattle Commuter Rail System, King and Snohomish Counties, Washington. Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. Seattle, WA. Kidd, Robert Stuart 1964 A Synthesis of Western Washington Prehistory from the Perspective of Three Occupation Sites (San Juan and Snohomish Counties). Department of Anthropology. Seattle, WA, University of Washington. Masters of Arts. Kozloff, Eugene N. 1978 Plants and Animals of the Pacific Northwest: An Illustrated Guide to the Natural History of Western Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Kruckeberg, Arthur R. 1995 The Natural History of Puget Sound Country. University of Washington Press, Seattle. LeWarne, Charles 2008 Edmonds -- Thumbnail History. HistoryLink.org Essay 8542. Online document accessed 12/17/2015 at http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplaVPage=output.cfm&file id=8542 Martin, Paul S. 1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179:969-974. OTETRA TECH B-$% Packet Pg. 281 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 282 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 283 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 284 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 285 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 Q Packet Pg. 286 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 7 7 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. m /L^ V Q 0 c 0 c a� E E 0 m m c 0 m E E 0 U a c� 0 0 M 0 r 0 N 0 L L 0 Q. am L a� a r c 0 It m r 0 c 0 w c a� a OTETRA TECH C-93 Packet Pg. 287 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 288 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 8.1.d 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. 289 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 290 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 291 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d October 2016 DRAFT Full set of Level 1 Concept Cut Sheets to be included in Finalized Report OTETRA TECH C-98 Packet Pg. 292 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 293 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 294 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 295 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 296 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 297 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study October 2016 DRAFT 8.1.d 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. 298 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 299 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 300 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 301 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 302 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 303 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. m /L^ V Q a� z O c 0 c� E E O m m r c O c m E 0 U 3 d M 00 to M 0 r to 0 N L O Q. m L a O L m N C O E w c a� E ca a OTETRA TECH D-110 Packet Pg. 304 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study October 2016 DRAFT 8.1.d 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. 305 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 306 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 307 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 308 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 309 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 310 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 311 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 312 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 313 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 314 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 315 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 316 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 317 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 318 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 e e a 0 a a a a e a a (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. 319 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 impacts of sea level rise? r� aaaaaao 0 000 OTETRA TECH D-126 Packet Pg. 320 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 1AT10 F • _.•µ11 ELEVATOR 4, ,,. STAIRS PROPOSED f f� Reduce delays of ferry ® loading $ unloading Access to waterfront ■ Pedestrian • Bicycle ■ ADA aTETRA TECH Parametrix s'-LRppp AVE -� BRIDGE WITH 23.5' M Bsr N CLURMCE OVER- TRACKS AND RAILROAD AVE CENT STAIRS ELEVATOR r Intermodal passenger connectivity Project Elements • 16' wide path • Bridge over RR tracks • ROW required ■ Elevators o so, 10 SCALE'1" W 05/12/2016 a 0 c O R E 0 m a� c 0 E 0 U a M 00 M 0 r O i 0 L ci ci Q 0 0 W r c a� E R a OTETRA TECH D-127 Packet Pg. 321 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 i0k 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 OTETRA TECH D-128 Packet Pg. 322 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d October 2016 DRAFT 10 LEVEL 2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT MAIN STREET UNDERPASS aTETRA TECH Parametr x BI DUTN SRACKETVS LANDING NORM S-' LANDING�. TERM1W 10 20V RECONFIGURE PATH 1 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 R a .00 Project Elements • 16' wide path • Underpass beneath RR tracks • ADA ramps M202016 OTETRA TECH D-129 Packet Pg. 323 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d October 2016 DRAFT LEVEL 2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT NFM TETTECH ADMIRAL WAY OVERPASS OPTIONS 1 & 2 - FIRE TRUCK Parametrix ACCESS CONTROLLED BY P. REMOVABLE w BOLLARDS 0 ACCESS CONTROLLED BY REMOVABLE BOLLARDS 8.3% MAX see 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 8.3% MAX SLOPE WITH LANDINGS 03 PROPOSED WILLOW CREEK REALIGNMENT mom' (NOT INCLUDED WITH THIS �j PROJECT) E �..1' -M&IK4]20l ❑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 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. 324 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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( i r ?.� gA1SE�K +c�,� :tom WORKING DRAFT Puroose and Need Reliable emergency access • Fire truck ■ Ambulance Reduce delays of ferry ❑ loading $ unloading � t 7 BRIDGE WITH 23.5' MIN\ CLEARANCE OVER TRACKS, DAYTON ST, AND SOUNDER DRIVEWAY ACCESS �- PIROP45ED 2ND CK �� + 5% MAX SLOPE 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 0 so Ica 5X.Jll. E:1 �59 • ROW req u i red Modifications to driveways • 70+1- parking stalls to be mitigated 05/1212016 ,L^ V a a� t 4- 0 0 E 0 a� 0 E 0 U M O W M O r O N i L 0 Q Q1 L N c� Q 0 0 E w c E f3 a OTETRA TECH D-131 Packet Pg. 325 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d October 2016 DRAFT LEVEL 2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT N TETRA TEC14 'I 4 EDMONDS STREET OVERPASS Parametrix WORKING DRAFT Puroose and Need Reliable emergency access ■ Fire truck ■ Ambulance Reduce delays of ferry ❑ loading $ unloading Access to waterfront ■ Pedestrian • Bicycle ■ ADA • Emergency (all type) vehicles • Emergency ferry offload Intermodal passenger ❑ connectivity Project Elements • 16' wide path V additional width at comers for turning movements) • Bridge over RR tracks • ADA ramps ■ ROW required a �r 100 � SCALE,1�6p' OTETRA TECH D-132 Packet Pg. 326 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d October 2016 DRAFT :07 � err•. µ 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 OTETRA TECH D-133 Packet Pg. 327 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d October 2016 DRAFT '7 ►�NC[S U I? Purpose and Need Reliable emergency access ■ Fire truck • Ambulance LEVEL 2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT MAIN STREET FERRY OVERPASS 'I - FULL BUILD IXIS7NJG [;�� HOLDING EMERGENCY VEHICLE AC ' TO WATERFf 1OX MAX LOCAL TRAFFIC (BELOW OVERPASS) TOLL. BOOTHS FERRY LOADING AND UNLOADINP LANES — RAISE AND TO OVERH LOADING 1 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH � WORKING DRAFT �.31 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 7 OVE PAS 5TR CTU E 0 &FIRHOLDI G ES: 1 SI EWA S O LDI GPASS COCK O E 30 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 minimize ferry operations impact 0511212016 OTETRA TECH D-134 Packet Pg. 328 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 i 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 OTETRA TECH D-135 Packet Pg. 329 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d October 2016 DRAFT a LEVEL 2 CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT MAIN STREET FERRY UNDERPASS - MINIMUM BUILD TETRA TECH Parametrix l FERRY ADING AND UNLOAD G LANES L BYPASS LANE AND SIDEWALK -_ �- EMERGENCY RWSE D VEHICLE AC ESS TO , 11 OVER LOADING SEAWALLS TO WATER ONT, � 1 B' WIDE PEDESTRIAN 149� MAXRARE l PATH OVER TRACKS, + BRACKEfT'S fl RAILROAD AVE AND A LANDING SOUTH TRANSIT CENTER UNDERPASS PORTAL LANDING NORTH }.�` J► LOCAL TRAFFIC Vt ' (ON LID) -`=- RECONFt • o'FERS�OTION lr�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 AOV _ _HI]LDI N LA 4ES UNDEERPASS FERR HOLEING ES: 1 Er ASS LAME MD SIDEWALK;; 4 HOLDING LAN INC , CSTORA 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��} SCALETmISO' operations impact 0511212016 M O 0 N M 0 CL L N V Q 0 3 0 as E t U fa Q OTETRA TECH D-136 Packet Pg. 330 O 0 a m N O O 0 T y Attachment: Edmonds Waterfront Access report draft 20161103 (1683 : Public Comment on the Recommendations of the At -Grade Rail 90 Q Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 $864,000 $24,000 $- $450 $20 $21 $34 $10 $29 $2,000 $5,156 Roadway Modification, New Sidewalk SF $5 $- a; E Roadway Modification, Multiuse Path 1,920 SF $17 $32,640 U Q OTETRA TECH D-138 Packet Pg. 332 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 333 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 334 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 335 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 $- o U Retaining Wall - Soil Nail SF $130 $- m m t Retaining Wall - Soldier Pile (H greater than SF $200 $- 15' high) 0 r c m Retaining Wall - Tangent Pile (H greater than SF $400 $- E 24' High) o U Sound Wall SF $32 $- d Pedestrian Bridge 160 LF $7,200 $1,152,000 M O Pedestrian Access (Cut and Cover) LF $24,000 $- Bridge Structure - Roadway SF $450 M O r r O O N Demolition - Building SF $20 $- L Demolition - Asphalt Pavement 167 SY $21 $3,500 0 CL L Demolition - Concrete Pavement SY $34 $- a� Demolition - Curb and gutter LF $10 $- a Demolition - Concrete Sidewalk SY $29 $- o Roadway Modification, New Sidewalk 1,200 SF $5 $6,000 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 ca Q OTETRA TECH D-142 Packet Pg. 336 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 337 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 338 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 339 8.1.d 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 $- o 0 SF $130 Retaining Wall - Soil Nail $- m m z Retaining Wall - Soldier Pile (H greater than SF $200 $- a 15' high) 0 c Retaining Wall - Tangent Pile (H greater than SF $400 $- d E o 24' High) V Sound Wall $- $32 Pedestrian Bridge 1,180 LF $7,200 $8,496,000 a M 00 LF $2 Pedestrian Access (Cut and Cover) $- CO Bridge Structure - Roadway M 0 SF $450 co 0 N Demolition - Building SF $20 $- Demolition - Asphalt Pavement 680 SY $21 $14,280 0 CL L SY $34 Demolition - Concrete Pavement $- N w m LF $10 Demolition - Curb and gutter $- v Q Demolition - Concrete Sidewalk $- r c o SY $29 d mlw� Roadway Modification, New Sidewalk 1,200 SF $5 $6,000 c Roadway Modification, Multiuse Path 18,880 SF $17 $320,960 0 E w SF $29 Roadway Modification, New AC Paving $- (including Curb & Sidewalk) m E t U R Q OTETRA TECH D-146 Packet Pg. 340 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 341 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 342 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 343 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 N Roadway Modification, Multiuse Path 9,360 SF $17 $159,120 0 E Roadway Modification, New AC Paving SF $29 $- w (including Curb & Sidewalk) a� Roadway Modification, New Concrete Curb LF $38 $- U ca Q OTETRA TECH D-150 Packet Pg. 344 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d October 2016 DRAFT Roadway Modification, New PCC Paving SF $23 $- c� Roadway Modification, Full Intersection EA $272,200 $- Q Roadway Modification, Mill & Resurface SF $10 $- Roadway Modification, Excavation 4,267 CY $19 0 $81,067 y c 0 CY $7 Roadway Modification, Embankment $- a c Driveway Modification 1 EA $5,000 $5,000 E E 1 LS $5,000 Parking Lot Reconfiguration $5,000 0 EA $294,000 Traffic Signal, New $- r Traffic Signal, Modify Existing $- 0 EA $155,500 c d Traffic Signal, Quadrant Gated Crossing EA $465,100 $- E E Miscellaneous 0 t� Bus Stop Rebuild 1 EA $225,800 $225,800 IL STL $4,680 Surface Parking $- M ao W BNSF Second Track* LS $10,000,000 $- - M o 1 EA Stormwater Pump Station (small)* $100,000 $100,000 0 $248,600 $- N Elevators - 30' Rise EA M 1 EA Emergency Vehicle Storage near dock L $200,000 $200,000 1= Emergency Vehicle (ambulance) 1 EA $150,000 0 $150,000 m L Stairs (30' high) N $138,000 1 EA $138,000 Landscaping 2,925 SF $8 $23,400 Q r c o Project Allowances`C d Mobilization (10%) 1 LS $880,320 $880,320 ?�M 1 LS N $84,000 $84,000 c Additional Construction Staging * — E 3,120 HR BNSF Flaggers $200 $624,000 w Utility Relocation - Level 1 LF $240 $- m E Utility Relocation - Level 2 t $270 $- R LF Q OTETRA TECH D-151 Packet Pg. 345 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 346 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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% $968,351.63 $21,000,000 $19,000,000 $23,000,000 OTETRA TECH D-153 Packet Pg. 347 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 $- o U Retaining Wall - Soil Nail SF $130 $- m m t Retaining Wall - Soldier Pile (H greater than SF $200 $- 15' high) 0 r c m Retaining Wall - Tangent Pile (H greater than SF $400 $- E 24' High) o U Sound Wall SF $32 $- Pedestrian Bridge LF $7,200 $- M O Pedestrian Access (Cut and Cover) LF $24,000 $- Bridge Structure - Roadway 22,410 SF $450 $10,084,500 M O r r O O N Demolition - Building SF $20 $- L Demolition - Asphalt Pavement 18 SY $21 $382 0 CL L Demolition - Concrete Pavement SY $34 $- a� Demolition - Curb and gutter LF $10 $- a Demolition - Concrete Sidewalk SY $29 $- o 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 ca Q OTETRA TECH D-154 Packet Pg. 348 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 349 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d October 2016 DRAFT Description Park Mitigation Allowance 460 LS $400 $184,000 Storm Water Management - Closed System 1,300 LF $200 $260,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 1 500 LF $100 $50,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 2 LF $200 $- Hazardous Material Removal - Level 3 800 LF $360 $288,000 Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Light LF $82 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Medium 840 LF $230 $193,200 Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Heavy 460 LF $390 $179,400 Construction Subtotal $14,035,950 Design Contingency (30%) $4,210,785 Subtotal $18,246,736 Management Reserve (4%) $561,438 Sales Tax (9.5%) $1,333,415 Construction Total $20,141,589 M M Land Acquisition (east of tracks) 23,310 SF $45 $1,048,950 Land Acquisition (west of tracks) 8,190 SF $45 $368,550 Parking Mitigation 2,700 SF $160 $432,000 Environmental Mitigation 8,280 SF $160 $1,324,800 Park Mitigation 8,280 SF $45 $372,600 Total ROW $3,546,900 City PM/Admin 3% $421,078.51 Design/Engineering (incl. third party 15% $2,105,392.56 agreements) Permitting 4% $561,438.02 OTETRA TECH D-156 Packet Pg. 350 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 351 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 $- o U Retaining Wall - Soil Nail SF $130 $- m m t Retaining Wall - Soldier Pile (H greater than SF $200 $- 15' high) 0 r c m Retaining Wall - Tangent Pile (H greater than SF $400 $- E 24' High) o U Sound Wall SF $32 $- Pedestrian Bridge LF $7,200 $- M O Pedestrian Access (Cut and Cover) LF $24,000 $- Bridge Structure - Roadway 23,400 SF $450 $10,530,000 M O r r O O N Demolition - Building SF $20 $- L Demolition - Asphalt Pavement 52 SY $21 $1,092 0 CL L Demolition - Concrete Pavement SY $34 $- a� Demolition - Curb and gutter LF $10 $- a Demolition - Concrete Sidewalk SY $29 $- o 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 ca Q OTETRA TECH D-158 Packet Pg. 352 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 353 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 M sm 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. 354 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 355 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 356 8.1.d Edmonds Waterfront Access Study October 2016 DRAFT Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost— M Roadway Modification, New AC Paving SF $29 $- (including Curb & Sidewalk) f° Roadway Modification, New Concrete Curb LF $38 $- Q m t Roadway Modification, New PCC Paving SF $23 $- o Roadway Modification, Full Intersection $- N o EA $272,200 $- �a Roadway Modification, Mill & Resurface SF $10 E Roadway Modification, Excavation CY $19 $- E 0 Roadway Modification, Embankment CY $7 $- m m z Driveway Modification EA $5,000 $- 0 Parking Lot Reconfiguration LS $10,000 $- E Traffic Signal, New EA $294,000 $- c V Traffic Signal, Modify Existing EA $155,500 $- Traffic Signal, Quadrant Gated Crossing EA $465,100 $- a M 00 Miscellaneous Bus Stop Rebuild EA $89,300 $- M 0 Surface Parking CD c STL $4,680 $- N Structured Parking STL $23,770 $- Elevators - 30' Rise $248,600 $- 0 a m Emergency Vehicle Storage near dock EA $200,000 $- N w m Emergency Vehicle (ambulance) EA $150,000 $- Q Stairs (30' high) EA $87,000 $- r 0 L Landscaping 2,600 SF $8 $20,800 Project Allowances A "MMc JIM= Mobilization (10%) 1 LS $1,088,223 $1,088,223 E — uJ BNSF Flaggers 3,120 HR $200 $624,000 +� c m Utility Relocation - Level 1 520 LF $240 $124,800 t R Q OTETRA TECH D-163 Packet Pg. 357 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 358 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 359 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 360 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d October 2016 DRAFT Existing Terminal Removal 1 1 LS $6,300,000 $6,300,000 Demolition - Building 71,000 SF $20 $1,420,000 Demolition - Asphalt Pavement 13,711 SY $21 $287,933 Demolition - Concrete Pavement SY $34 $- Demolition - Curb and gutter 3,500 LF $10 $35,000 Demolition - Concrete Sidewalk 1,689 SY $29 $48,978 Roadway Modification, New Sidewalk SF $5 $- Roadway Modification, Multiuse Path SF $17 $- Roadway Modification, New AC Paving 98,500 SF $29 $2,856,500 (including Curb & Sidewalk) Roadway Modification, New Concrete Curb LF $38 $- Roadway Modification, New PCC Paving 71,800 SF $23 $1,651,400 Roadway Modification, Full Intersection 2 EA $272,200 $544,400 Roadway Modification, Mill & Resurface SF $10 $- Roadway Modification, Excavation CY $19 $- Roadway Modification, Embankment CY $7 $- Driveway Modification EA $5,000 $- Parking Lot Reconfiguration LS $5,000 $- Traffic Signal, New 2 EA $294,000 $588,000 Traffic Signal, Modify Existing EA $155,500 $- Traffic Signal, Quadrant Gated Crossing Miscellaneous EA $465,100 $- Relocate Transit Center* 1 EA $1,182,600 $1,182,600 Maintenance and Restroom Buildings 1 LS $700,000 $700,000 Structured Parking 870 STL $23,770 $20,679,900 OTETRA TECH D-167 Packet Pg. 361 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 - milim 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. 362 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 363 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 364 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d October 2016 DRAFT Roadway Modification, New Sidewalk SF $5 $- Roadway Modification, Multiuse Path SF $17 $- Roadway Modification, New AC Paving 238,000 SF $29 $6,902,000 (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 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 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 $6,324,404 $6,324,404 ca Q OTETRA TECH D-171 Packet Pg. 365 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 366 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 367 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 368 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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 ca Q OTETRA TECH D-175 Packet Pg. 369 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 370 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 371 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 372 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d October 2016 DRAFT Demolition - Concrete Sidewalk = 16 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 BNSF Second Track* Elevators - 30' Rise Stormwater Pump Station (large)* Stairs (30' high) Landscaping Mobilization (8%) 1,778 SY $29 $51,556 SF $5 $- SF $17 $- 135,000 SF $29 $3,915,000 LF $38 SF $23 3 EA $272,200 SF $10 CY $19 33,333 CY $7 EA $5,000 LS 3 EA $294,000 EA $155,500 1 EA $465,100 EA $1,182,600 1 LS $700,000 LS $10,000,000 2 EA $248,600 1 EA $200,000 2 EA $138,000 40,000 SF $8 1 1 LS 1 $14,409,404 $816,600 $233,333 $882,000 $465,100 jr -I $700,000 $497,200 $200,000 .pc i v, vvv $320,000 $14,409,403.97 OTETRA TECH D-179 Packet Pg. 373 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 374 8.1.d 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. 375 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 376 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 8.1.d 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. 377 Attachment: Edmonds Waterfront Access report draft 20161103 (1683 : Public Comment on the Recommendations of the At -Grade Rail 9.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/15/2016 2017 Budget Revenues, Including Property Tax Levies (15 min.) Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Debra Sharp Background/History Mayor Earling presented the Proposed 2017 Budget to City Council during their October 11th City Council meeting. On October 18th, the Public Works Department presented their 2017 budget requests to Council. On October 25th, Economic Development and Community Services, Development Services, Parks Department, Human Resources, City Attorney and Municipal Court presented their 2017 budgets to Council. On November 1st, the Police Department, City Clerk, Mayor's Office, City Council, Finance & Information Services and Non -departmental presented their 2017 budgets to Council. On November 7th, staff provided Council a presentation of the 2017 revenue sources. Staff Recommendation There are two recommendations for Council. The first recommendation is for Council to make a motion to approve Resolution No. XXXX, finding substantial need to levy the regular property taxes and the EMS property taxes using a limit factor of 101 % . The second recommendation is for Council to make a motion to approve ordinance XXXX regarding the following property tax levy amounts: Regular Property Tax Levy increase of 1% EMS Property Tax Levy increase of 5.7% Narrative On November 15, 2016, Council will hold a Public Hearing on the 2017 City Revenue Budget including Property Taxes. The items for this meeting include the following: 1) Open Public Hearing 2) Accept public comment 3) Staff presentation on property taxes 4) Council will be asked to approve the attached Substantial Need Resolution 5) Council will be asked to approve the attached 2017 Property Tax Ordinance OVERVIEW OF SUBSTANTIAL NEED RESOLUTION AND PROPERTY TAX ORDINANCE Packet Pg. 379 9.1 The first action item before Council is the consideration of a Substantial Need Resolution. Generally cities are allowed to levy an increase in property taxes by the lesser of 1% or the rate of inflation nationally. This year the rate of inflation (IPD Rate) is .953%. The Substantial Need Resolution allows cities to increase the property tax levy by the full 1%. Property taxes are one of the City's most predictable forms of revenue and are used to maintain the quality of various services. The second action item before Council is an ordinance authorizing the levy for collection of City Property Taxes. The levy amounts in the attached Ordinance are included in the 2017 Proposed Budget. The following narrative explains the levy amounts in the Ordinance. The recommended 2016 regular property tax levy for collection in 2017 is the amount levied in 2015 for collection in 2016, plus an increase of $100,650 which is a percentage increase of 1%, plus an increase equal to the amount allowed by one or more of the following; new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, for an estimated total levy of $10,229,200. The recommended 2016 EMS property tax levy for collection in 2017 is the amount levied in 2015 for collection in 2016, plus an increase of $208,640 which is a percentage increase of 5.7%, plus an increase equal to the amount allowed by one or more of the following; new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, for an estimated total levy of $3,973,270. Attachments: 2017 Resolution for Substantial Need to Increase both the Regular Property Tax and EMS Property Tax 2017 Property Tax Ordinance with 1% 2017 Property Tax Levy Packet Pg. 380 9.1.a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, m' WASHINGTON, FINDING SUBSTANTIAL NEED TO LEVY BOTH 0 REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES AND EMS PROPERTY TAXES USING A N LIMIT FACTOR OF ONE HUNDRED ONE PERCENT m NOTWITHSTANDING A LOWER NATIONAL INFLATION RATE. WHEREAS, RCW 84.55.010 generally limits the levy for a taxing district in any year so that the regular property taxes payable in the following year do not exceed the limit factor multiplied by the amount of regular property taxes lawfully levied for the previous year; and WHEREAS, RCW 84.55.010 allows the levy of an additional dollar amount calculated by multiplying the regular property tax levy rate of that district for the preceding year by the increase in assessed value in that district resulting from new construction and a few other sources; and WHEREAS, RCW 84.55.005(2)(c) defines "limit factor" as the lesser of one hundred one percent or one hundred percent plus inflation, and WHEREAS, RCW 84.55.005(1) defines "inflation" as the percentage change in the implicit price deflator JPD) for personal consumption expenditures for the United States as published for the most recent twelve-month period by the bureau of economic analysis of the federal department of commerce by September 25th of the year before the taxes are payable; and WHEREAS, these provisions, taken together, generally limit property tax levy increases by local governments to the lesser of 1% or the rate of inflation nationally; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the existence of an inflation rate under 1%, RCW 84.55.0101 allows cities to increase the levy by the full 1% (limit factor of one hundred one percent) by adopting a resolution of substantial need, and WHEREAS, "substantial need" is not defined in the statute; and WHEREAS, RCW 84.55.0101 requires approval of a substantial need resolution by at least five council members; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2016, the Bureau of Economic Analysis published the IPD for personal consumption expenses, resulting in an inflation rate to be used for 2017 of 0.953%; and WHEREAS, most of the city's 2017 preliminary budget work had already been completed by September 25, 2016, assuming a property tax levy rate increase of 1% for both regular property taxes and the EMS property tax; and WHEREAS, this is only the fourth time since 1998 that the inflation rate has fallen below 1%; and Packet Pg. 381 9.1.a WHEREAS, given this low national rate of inflation, this resolution of substantial need is required to be able to use a property tax levy limit factor of one hundred one percent (a 1% increase); and WHEREAS, according to the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, the annual CPI- U for the Seattle -Tacoma -Bremerton area as of June 2016 was 1.8%, which seems to indicate that local inflation is higher than the national rate of 0.953%; and WHEREAS, under certain collective bargaining agreements with various labor unions, the city has previously committed to pay cost of living adjustments to many of its employees based on this June to June CPI-U of 1.8%; and WHEREAS, property taxes are one of the city's most predictable forms of revenue, particularly when compared to sales tax which can fluctuate significantly with the state of the economy; and WHEREAS, property taxes are used to maintain the quality of various services for which the city pays including, but not limited to, police and fire services, parks and recreation services, street maintenance services, services that support development activity, and services that are required under state law like public records act compliance; and WHEREAS, the above recital clauses constitute the findings of the city council that there is substantial need to levy property taxes using a limit factor of one hundred one percent and the city council desires to do the same; and, now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pursuant to the foregoing finding of substantial need and pursuant to RCW 84.55.0101, the city council desires to increase to the City of Edmonds 2017 regular property tax levy by a limit factor of one hundred one percent and the EMS property tax levy by a limit factor of one hundred one percent. Section 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this resolution to the Snohomish County assessor's office. RESOLVED this day of November, 2016. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, DAVE EARLING ATTEST: Packet Pg. 382 Fw I W Attachment: 2017 Resolution for Substantial Need to Increase both the Regular Property Tax and EMS Property Tax (1663 : 2017 Budget 9.1.b ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY BY INCREASING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY BY THE CURRENT 101 % LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY LEVYING AN ESTIMATED REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF $10,229,200 AND AN EMS LEVY OF $3,973,270, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the City of Edmonds have properly given notice of the public hearing held on November 15, 2016, to consider the City's current expense budget for 2017, pursuant to RCW 84.55.120; and WHEREAS, the City Council in the course of considering the budget for 2017 have reviewed all sources of revenue and examined all anticipated expenses and obligations; and WHEREAS, the district's actual levy amount for the previous year was $10,064,874 for regular property levy, and $3,684,514 for EMS levy, and $949,540 for debt service payments, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined by separate resolution following public hearing to increase the regular property tax levy by 1 %; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines following public hearing that it is in the best interest of and necessary to meet the expenses and obligations of the City to increase the regular property levy by 1%; and increase the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) levy by 5.7%, and WHEREAS, the population of this district is greater than 10,000, and WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Assessor's Office has requested that all Snohomish County Taxing Districts submit their levy certifications to the county on the State Department of Revenue standardized form REV 64 0100; NOW, THEREFORE 2017 Property Tax Ordinance Page 1 of 5 Packet Pg. 384 9.1.b THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The limit factor for the regular levy to be collected in budget year 2017 shall be limited to the 101%, or 100% plus inflation, whichever is lower of the highest amount of regular property taxes that could have been levied in the City in any year since 1985. Section 2. Regular Property Tax. The 2016 regular property tax levy for collection in 2017 is the amount levied in 2015 for collection in 2016, plus an increase of $100,650 which is a percentage increase of 1%, plus an increase equal to the amount allowed by one or more of the following; new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, for an estimated total levy of $10,229,200. Section 3. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) property tax levy. The 2016 EMS property tax levy for collection in 2017 is the amount levied in 2015 for collection in 2016, plus an increase of $208,640 which is a percentage increase of 5.7%, plus an increase equal to the amount allowed by one or more of the following; new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, for an estimated total levy of $3,973,270. Section 4. The levies contained in sections 2 through 3 are subject to amendment upon receipt of 2016 assessed valuation from Snohomish County. Section 5. Pursuant to the request by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office, the Finance Director is hereby authorized to submit to the Snohomish County Council certification of the hereby approved levies on the State Department of Revenue standardized form REV 64 0100 attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2017 Property Tax Ordinance Page 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 385 9.1.b Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. It is enacted on a vote of a majority plus one of the City Council. APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, JEFFREY TARADAY BY CITY ATTORNEY, JEFFREY TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. 2017 Property Tax Ordinance Page 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 386 9.1.b SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the _ day of November, 2016, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY BY INCREASING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY BY THE CURRENT 101 % LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY LEVYING AN ESTIMATED REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF $10,229,200 AND AN EMS LEVY OF $3,973,270, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _ day of November, 2016. CITY CLERK, 2017 Property Tax Ordinance Page 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 387 9.1.b DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE WASHINGTON STATE Exhibit A — Levy Certification Levy Certification Submit this document to the county legislative authority on or before November 30 of the year preceding the year in which the levy amounts are to be collected and forward a copy to the assessor. In accordance with RCW 84.52.020, I, Scott James, Finance Director, for the City of Edmonds, do hereby certify to the Snohomish County legislative authority that the Council of said district requests that the following levy amounts be collected in 2017 as provided in the district's budget, which was adopted following a public hearing on November 15, 2016. Regular Levy: $10,229,200 EMS Levy: $3,973,270 (Includes $56,973.11 for refunds) Signature Date 2017 Property Tax Ordinance Page 5 of 5 Packet Pg. 388 9.1.c Public Hearing on 2017 Budget Revenue Sources & Adoption of 2017 Property Tax Levy �,C. Y zsI Overview of Tonight's 2017 Budget &Property Tax Agenda Items 1) Open Public Hearing 2) Accept Public comment 3) Staff will share a presentation on property taxes 4) Council will be asked to approve the attached Substantial Need Resolution 5) Council will be asked to approve the attached 2017 Property Tax Ordinance a Packet Pg. 389 9.1.c Public Hearing on 2017 Budget Revenue Sources & Adoption of 2017 Property Tax Levy �,C. 1 zsI Item #2: Public Comments Packet Pg. 390 O 2017 Regular Property Tax Levy Item #3 ➢ 2017 Budget Includes 1 % Property Tax Increase ➢ Assessor Shows City of Edmonds Assessed Values Increasing 11.4% (Increase in AV before adding in new construction) ➢ New Construction adds $39,277,000 Assessed Value Q Packet Pg. 391 9.1.c 2017 Regular Property>, `�Calculation T x a 3 Step 1: Start From Prior Year Levy Amount N 2017 Regular Property Tax Calculation for the City of Edmonds Description Amount 2016 Levy Amount $10^41874 m Add New Construction o N Add Allowance for Adjustments to to Add Refunds 2017 Starting Point $1090649874 x M Add 1% of 2016 Levy Total 2017 Levy $109064,874 a A E a Packet Pg. 392 2017 Regular Properyc�` Tax Calculation Step 2: Add Property Tax From New Construction 2017 Regular Property Tax Calculation for the City of Edmonds Description Amount 2016 Levy Amount $1090649874 Add New Construction $539646 Add Allowance for Adjustments Add Refunds 2017 Starting Point $10J189520 Add 1 % of 2016 Levy Total 2017 Levy $1091189520 Q Packet Pg. 393 -1 L. 1 0. O 2017 Regular Property >, Tax Calculation Step 3 : Add allowance for Assessor's Office Adjustments 2017 Regular Property Tax Calculation for the City of Edmonds Description Amount 2016 Levy Amount $1090649874 Add New Construction $539646 Add Allowance for Adjustments $109030 Add Refunds 2017 Starting Point $10,128,550 Add 1 % of 2016 Levy Total 2017 Levy $1091289550 Q Packet Pg. 394 O 2017 Regular PrODertv Tax Calculation g Step 4: Add 1 % fA 7 C N 2017 Regular Property Tax Calculation for the City of Edmonds Description Amount 3 2016 Levy Amount $1090649874 m 0 Add New Construction $539646 to Add Allowance for Adjustments $10,030 2017 Starting Point $1091289550 J K H Add 1 % of 2016 Levy $1009650 Total 2017 Levy $109229,200 0 a ti T 0 N C d E M t R r Q Packet Pg. 395 $950005000,000 $890009000,000 $790009000,000 $6,00090009000 $59000,0001000 $490009000,000 $390009000,000 $290009000,000 $1,00090009000 $0 9.1.c Assessed Value History x Ten Year Assessed Property Values History For the City 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 O L- a. 3 t) U) m 0 tV M t0 t0 J K m O L 0 tV C N E t U f� Y Q 2016 2017 Packet Pg. 396 $2.0000 $1.8000 $1.6000 $1.4000 $1.2000 $1.0000 $0.8000 $0.6000 $0.4000 $0.2000 $0.0000 9.1.c Tax Rate History City of Edmonds Regular Property Rate per $1,000 of Assessed Value History $1.76148784 $1.18940349 $1.24618180 1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CL 0 L 3 V C N N 7 m 0 N M J K R H 0 L- a. r 0 N r- w E M U 2 a Packet Pg. 397 2008 - 2017 EMS Tax Le ly9'1'c-1 Overview ➢ In 2008, Citizens voted to make the EMS Levy a Permanent $0.50 Levy During 2010 — 2013 we saw our Assessed Property Values decline During this span of time Edmonds AV dropped just over 31 EMS Levy cannot exceed $0.50 ➢ In a declining AV environment, the City's EMS Levy also declines 0 a a� c �a N m 0 N M to J K M H 0 a ti N C d a Packet Pg. 398 Year 2009 - 2017 EMS Tax Levy�" Action 2009 $0.50 Permanent EMS Levy becomes effective EMS Levy $3,854,605 continued a) CL 0 L- a. 3 t) C N N 7 Levy Savings Packet Pg. 399 Year 2009 - 2017 EMS Tax Levy'�" continued Action EMS Levy Levy Savings 2009 $0.50 Permanent EMS Levy becomes effective 2010 EMS Levy Declines $3,854,605 $3,477,741 i01 $3761864 Q Packet Pg. 400 2009 - 2016 EMS Tax Levy'�" Year Action 2009 $0.50 Permanent EMS Levy becomes effective 2010 Declining Assessed Values start 4 year skid 2011 EMS Levy Declines 2012 EMS Levy Declines 2013 EMS Levy Declines 2014 EMS Levy Increases 2015 EMS Levy Increases 2016 EMS Levy Increases Total Levy Savings Through 2016 EMS Levy $318541605 $3,477,741 $3,216,629 $298971322 $2,772,620 $3,051,206 $313 87,743 $3,684,514 continued > a 0 L a a� c �a 0 Levy Savings $C $376,864 $637,97E $957,283 N $1,081,985to $8031395 J $466,862 $170,091 Q 0 $45494,46C ti T 0 N C d E t t� R r Q Packet Pg. 401 2009 - 2017 EMS Tax Levy'�" Year Action EMS Levy 2009 $0.50 Permanent EMS Levy becomes effective $318541605 2010 Declining Assessed Values start 4 year skid $3,4771741 2011 EMS Levy Declines $3,2169629 2012 EMS Levy Declines $2,897,322 2013 EMS Levy Declines $217721620 2014 EMS Levy Increases $31051,206 2015 EMS Levy Increases $313871743 2016 EMS Levy Increases $39684,514 Total Levy Savings Through 2016 2017 EMS Levy Increases $3,973,270 Total Levy Savings Through 2017 continued > a 0 L a a� c �a 0 Levy Savings C' $37604 $637,97( $957,2K N $1,081,9821 to $803,39c, $466,86� X $1705091 $4,494,46( ($1185662 N $45375579- E Q Packet Pg. 402 $0.60 $0.50 $0.40 $0.30 $0.20 $0.10 $0.00 T lM TCV T T i Levy Rate H m7 nnn P ♦ 7 V7 7 TT• i 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 istory M 0 L- a. C N t 2016 2017 r a Packet Pg. 403 9.1.c EMS Tax Levy Calculation Step 1: Start From Prior Year Levy Amount 2017 EMS Property Tax Calculation for the City of Edmonds Description Amount 2016 Levy Amount 396849514 Add New Construction Add Allowance for Adjus tme nts Add Refunds 2017 EMS Levy Starting Point $39684,514 Add "Banked Capacity" Add 1 % of 2016 Levy Total 2017 Levy $3,6849514 0 a a� c �a c N 7 3 m 0 N to J X M 0 a ti T 0 N C d E t t� R r Q Packet Pg. 404 9.1.c EMS Tax Levy Calculation Step 2: Add Levy Tax From New Construction 2017 EMS Property Tax Calculation for the City of Edmonds Description Amount 2016 Levy Amount 3,6849514 Add New Construction $19,640 Add Allowance for Adjustments Add Refunds 2017 EMS Levy Starting Point $397049154 Add "Banked Capacity" Add 1 % of 2016 Levy Total 2017 Levy $3,704,154 0 a a� c �a c N m 0 N to J K M H 0 a ti 0 N C d E t t� R r Q Packet Pg. 405 9.1.c EMS Tax Levy Calculation Step 3 : Add Allowance for Assessor's Office Adjustments 2017 EMS Property Tax Calculation for the City of Edmonds Description Amount 2016 Levy Amount 396849514 Add New Construction Add Allowance for Adjus tme nts Add Refunds 2017 EMS Levy Starting Point Add "Banked Capacity" Add 1 % of 2016 Levy $199640 $39500 $3J07,654 Total 2017 Levy $397079654 Q Packet Pg. 406 9.1.c EMS Tax Levy Calculation Step 4: Add Refunds 2017 EMS Property Tax Calculation for the City of Edmonds Description Amount 2016 Levy Amount 396849514 Add New Construction $19,640 Add Allowance for Adjustments $39500 Add Refunds $569980 2017 EMS Levy Starting Point $3,764,634 Add "Banked Capacity" Add 1 % of 2016 Levy Total 2017 Levy $39764,634 Q Packet Pg. 407 9.1.c EMS Tax Levy Calculation Step 5: Add "Banked Capacity" 2017 EMS Property Tax Calculation for the City of Edmonds Description Amount 2016 Levy Amount 396849514 Add New Construction $199640 Add Allowance for Adjus tme nts $3,500 Add Refunds $56,980 2017 EMS Levy Starting Point $31764,634 Add "Banked Capacity" $1709090 Add 1 % of 2016 Levy Total 2017 Levy $399349724 0 a a� c �a c N m 0 N to J K M 0 L a ti T 0 N C d E t t� R r Q Packet Pg. 408 9.1.c EMS Tax Levy Calculation Step 6: Add 1 % 2017 EMS Property Tax Calculation for the City of Edmonds Description Amount 2016 Levy Amount 396849514 Add New Construction $19,640 Add Allowance for Adjustments $39500 Add Refunds $569980 2017 EMS Levy Starting Point $3,764,634 Add "Banked Capacity" $1709090 Add 1 % of 2016 Levy $389546 Total 2017 Levy $399739270 Q Packet Pg. 409 9.1.c Impacts of Tax Increases ➢ 2016 Average Residence Value is $428,400 ➢ 1 %Regular Tax Levy Increase = $5.89 ➢ Keeping EMS Levy at $0.48 = $16.82 ➢ Average Residence would pay $22.71 in 2017 ➢ Or about $1.89 per month extra Q Packet Pg. 410 -1 L. 113. Council Questions, Action & Motio Items #'s 4 & 5 € a 0 a` Council Discussion & Questions 4) To Approve Resolution No. XXXX Finding m Substantial Need to Levy Property Taxes Using a to Limit Factor of 101 %Notwithstanding a Lower National Inflation Rate.-j T L' 5) To Approve Ordinance No. XXXX Levying 1 % a Regular Property Tax Increase for 2017 and Levying 5.7% EMS Tax Increase. Q Packet Pg. 411 9.1.c Information on IPD vs. CPI � O L- a. ➢ A ratio of nominal GDP to real GDP expressed as F a percentage. The GDP price deflator is used as a measure of the inflation rate; it does not account m a for price changes in commodity baskets like the m Consumer 0 Price Index. Rather it shows changes il CWqto r�, GDP compared with a baseyear 19 8 5). p -j X M O L r 0 N C N E t V 2 Q Packet Pg. 412 9.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/15/2016 Public Hearing & Discussion regarding the 2017 Proposed City Budget (15 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 Open Public Hearing, Accept Public Comment and Council continue their deliberations on the Proposed 2017 Budget. Narrative During tonight's Council Meeting: 1) Open Public Hearing 2) The public will be invited to comment on the Proposed 2017 Budget, and 3) Council can continue 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 22nd: Public Hearing and Potential Adoption of the 2017 Budget (if necessary) December 6th: 2017 Budget Review and Adoption of the 2017 Budget (if necessary) Packet Pg. 413 9.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/15/2016 Public Hearing on the Assumption of duties of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District (15 min.) Staff Lead: Phil Williams Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Royce Napolitino 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. A public hearing date has been set for November 15, 2016. Following the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council will determine whether 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. 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. 414 9.3.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. 415 9.3.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. 416 9.3.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. 417 9.3.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. 418 9.3.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. 419 9.3.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. 420 9.3.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. 421 9.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/15/2016 Public Hearing on of the Utility Rate Analysis (15 minutes) Staff Lead: Phil Williams Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On October 11, 2016, staff presented the Utility Rate Analysis to Council. Staff Recommendation Consider public comment and discuss possible changes and/or forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at a future City Council meeting. Narrative A public hearing is scheduled to receive comments on the proposed recommendation to: Increase water utility rates in 2017, 2018 and 2019 by 9.0% annually Increase sewer utility rates in 2017, 2018 and 2019 by 9.5% annually Increase storm utility rates in 2017, 2018 and 2019 by 10.0% annually Decrease the current water utility tax rate (currently at 18.7%) to 17.07% in 2017, 15.50% in 2018, 14.05% in 2019, 12.68% in 2020 and 10% in 2021. The City of Edmonds operates a combined utility operation which incorporates potable water, sanitary sewer, and storm and surface water management functions. The City received the combined utility rate study report from its consultant, the FCS Group, and found it to recommend increases in potable water, sanitary sewer, and storm and surface water management utility rates to address rising operating and maintenance costs including but not limited to wholesale cost increases for potable water from Alderwood Water and Wastewater District and the replacement of failing water/sewer/storm infrastructure. In addition, there is a plan to rebalance the water utility tax in conformance with a Supreme Court decision which is designed to make the general fund revenue neutral. The rate increases proposed by staff will make it so that the City will not need to acquire bonds for annual maintenance projects and in order to address inflation and the rising operating and maintenance costs; thereby resulting in considerable future savings to the City. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance - Water Tax Decrease Proposed Ordinance - Utility Rate Increase Sewer Rate Model Stormwater Rate Model Water Rate Model PowerPoint - Utility Rate Discussion Packet Pg. 422 9.4.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, GRADUALLY REDUCING THE TAX ON THE PUBLIC WATER UTILITY, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 3.20.050.H ACCORDINGLY, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, In Lane v. City of Seattle, 164 Wn.2d 875 (2008), the state Supreme Court determined that public fire protection was a governmental service that could not be recovered through water rates; and WHEREAS, providing for fire hydrants is a general governmental function, for which the City is responsible; and WHEREAS, the tax on the public water utility may be used to pay for fire hydrants, as well as other general government functions; and WHEREAS, in 2009, the city council found that the water utility tax rate referenced above needed to be increased to address the city's then inability under Lane to fund the provision of fire hydrants through water rates; WHEREAS, in 2013, the legislature provided additional options for funding fire hydrants by providing new authority to use water rates for fire suppression purposes as set forth in chapter 70.315 RCW; and WHEREAS, in 2016, the city council simultaneously considered a companion ordinance that proposed to increase water rates for the purpose of funding fire hydrants and other fire suppression water facilities and services; and WHEREAS, the city council held a public hearing on these companion ordinances on November 15, 2016; and WHEREAS, with the associated increase in the water rates, the city council does not believe that the city's general fund requires the revenue that would be generated from maintaining the tax rate at 18.7 percent; and Packet Pg. 423 9.4.a WHEREAS, the city council would like to gradually reduce the tax rate to its pre -Lane level; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Subsection H of the Edmonds City Code 3.20.050, entitled "Occupations subject to tax — Amounts," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in s4ile thr-etigh): H. City Water Utility. The city of Edmonds, as the seller of water services, shall be subject to the tax imposed by this chapter. The water utility shall pay a license tax or fee equal to 4-8-.7 the percentage shown in the table below for the given om on the gross income from the city's water utility_. Water Utility Tax Rate Year Tax Rate (Current)2016 18.70% 2017 17.07 2018 15.50% 2019 14.05 2020 12.68% 2021 10% Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Packet Pg. 424 9.4.a CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 425 9.4.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2016, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, GRADUALLY REDUCING THE TAX ON THE PUBLIC WATER UTILITY, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 3.20.050.1-1 ACCORDINGLY, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2016. 4840-7251-8158,v. 1 Arl CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 426 9.4.b ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7.30.030 WATER RATES - METER INSTALLATION CHARGES, RELATING TO UTILITY RATES OF WATER SUPPLIED THROUGH METERS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7.30.040 UTILITY CHARGES - SANITARY SEWER, RELATING TO UTILITY RATES OF UNMETERED SANITARY SEWER SERVICES, AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7.50.050 RATES AND CHARGES, RELATING TO UTILITY RATES FOR STORM AND SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, IN ORDER TO INCREASE SUCH RATES AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds operates three enterprise utility operations which incorporate potable water distribution, sanitary sewer conveyance and wastewater treatment, and storm and surface water management functions; and WHEREAS, the Engineering Division of the Public Works & Utilities Department recently commissioned a utility rate analysis of its three enterprise utility operations by FCS Group of Redmond, Washington; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received utility rate study reports of the consultants recommending increases in potable water, sanitary sewer, and storm and surface water management utility rates to address rising operating and maintenance costs including but not limited to wholesale cost increases for potable water acquisition and needed replacement of failing utility infrastructure; and WHEREAS, In Lane v. City of Seattle, 164 Wn.2d 875 (2008), the state Supreme Court determined that public fire protection was a governmental service that could not be recovered through water rates; and WHEREAS, providing for fire hydrants is a general governmental function, for which the City is responsible; and Packet Pg. 427 9.4.b WHEREAS, the tax on the public water utility may be used to pay for fire hydrants, as well as other general government functions; and WHEREAS, in 2009, the city council found that the water utility tax rate referenced above needed to be increased to address the city's then inability under Lane to fund the provision of fire hydrants through water rates; WHEREAS, in 2013, the legislature provided additional options for funding fire hydrants by providing new authority to use water rates for fire suppression purposes as set forth in chapter 70.315 RCW; and WHEREAS, in 2016, the city council simultaneously considered a companion ordinance that proposed to decrease the tax rate on the water utility under the assumption that funding for fire hydrants would be included within the utility rates; and WHEREAS, the city council held a public hearing on these companion ordinances on November 15, 2016; and WHEREAS, the action of a city council in setting water utility rates, where the system is financed by revenue bonds, is not subject to referendum because the grant of power to set rates when revenue bonds have been used to create the utility is to the city council (State ex rel. Haas v. Pomeroy, 50 Wn.2d 23 (1957)); and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to increase rates finding that such increases are justified on a cost -to -service basis; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Subsections A and B of the Edmonds City Code 7.30.030, entitled "Water rates — Meter installation charges," is hereby amended to read as follows: A. Base Rate. The bimonthly rates of water supplied through meters shall be fixed at the following levels: Packet Pg. 428 9.4.b Current Single Family Residence (per unit) $ 28.68 Duplex Apt Houses, condos and other multi unit Residences (per unit) $ 25.26 All other customers Current Meter $ 34.68 3/4" $ 70.60 1" $ 130.55 1.5" $ 199.04 2" $ 429.38 3" $ 608.22 4" $ 1,233.55 6" 1/1/2017 1/1/2018 1/1/2019 $ 31.26 $ 34.07 $ 37.14 a� c L m x $ 27.53 $ 30.01 $ 32.71 •2 a N N 1/1/2017 1/1/2018 1/1/2019 $ 37.80 $ 41.20 $ 44.91 Q m $ 76.95 $ 83.88 $ 91.43 $ 142.30 $ 155.11 $ 169.07 r $ 216.95 $ 236.48 $ 257.76 $ 468.02 $ 510.15 $ 556.06 $ 662.96 $ 722.63 $ 787.66 to $ 1,344.57 $ 1,465.58 $ 1,597.48 B. Variable Rate. In addition to the base rate set forth above, the customer shall be charged the following rate per 100 cubic feet of water consumed: Variable Rate Current 1/1/2017 1/1/2018 1/1/2019 $ 2.99 $ 3.26 $ 3.55 $ 3.87 All water base rate and variable rate charges on water utility bills mailed on or after January 1st of each year shall be based on rates as reflected in this section corresponding with said time period. Section 2. Subsection A of the Edmonds City Code 7.30.040, entitled "Utility charges - Sanitary sewer," is hereby amended to read as follows: A. The following rates shall be charged on all billings after the effective date shown with respect to the following customers and/or service: Packet Pg. 429 9.4.b Single Family Residence (bimonthly per unit) Duplex, apartment houses, condos, and other multi unit residences (bi-monthly per unit) Current 1/1/2017 1/1/2018 1/1/2019 connected $ 66.49 $ 72.81 $ 79.72 $ 87.30 unconnected $ 10.74 $ 11.76 $ 12.88 $ 14.10 connected $ 53.42 $ 58.49 $ 64.05 $ 70.14 unconnected $ 10.74 $ 11.76 $ 12.88 $ 14.10 Duplex, apartment houses, condos, and other multi unit residences (monthly) connected $ 26.71 $ 29.25 $ 32.03 $ 35.07 unconnected $ 5.37 $ 5.88 $ 6.44 $ 7.05 All other customers (monthly) Fixed Rate 3.78 $ 4.14 $ 4.53 $ 4.96 Volume Charge (per ccf)* 4.28 $ 4.69 $ 5.13 $ 5.62 *per 100 cubic feet (1 unit) of metered water consumption. Section 3. Subsection A of the Edmonds City Code 7.50.050, entitled "Stormwater rates and charges," is hereby amended to read as follows: A. The following rates shall be charged on all billings with respect to the following customers and/or service: Effective Date Category Current 1/1/2017 1/1/2018 1/1/2019 Single Family Residential and Multi Family Residential Bimonthly Billing Cycle $ 25.81 $ 28.39 $ 31.23 $ 34.35 Montly Billing Cycle $ 12.91 $ 14.20 $ 15.62 $ 17.18 All other resident customers per ESU (montly cycle) $ 12.91 $ 14.20 $ 15.62 $ 17.18 Packet Pg. 430 9.4.b Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 5 Effective Date. This Ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 431 9.4.b SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2016, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7.30.030 WATER RATES - METER INSTALLATION CHARGES, RELATING TO UTILITY RATES OF WATER SUPPLIED THROUGH METERS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7.30.040 UTILITY CHARGES - SANITARY SEWER, RELATING TO UTILITY RATES OF UNMETERED SANITARY SEWER SERVICES, AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7.50.050 RATES AND CHARGES, RELATING TO UTILITY RATES FOR STORM AND SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, IN ORDER TO INCREASE SUCH RATES AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 12016. 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 0 CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 432 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Summary Total Capital Projects Revenue Bond Proceeds Use of Capital Fund Balance Direct Rate Funding Total Funding Sources Revenues Rate Revenues Under Existing Rates Non -Rate Revenues Total Revenues Expenses 411 Sewer Cash O&M Expenses [a] 411 Treatment O&M - Edmonds Only Transfer to Fund 414 (excl. Capital) Existing Debt Service New Debt Service Rate Funded System Reinvestment Rate Funded CIP Total Expenses Annual Rate Adjustment Rate Increases Dictated by: Rate Revenues After Rate Increase Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase ncludes additional taxes due to $ 4,240,897 $ 2,564,357 $ 2,633,660 $ 2,781,485 $ 3,007,638 $ 2,888,055 4,240,897 2,564,357 2,633,660 2,781,485 3,007,638 2,888,055 $ 4,240,897 $ 2,564,357 $ 2,633,660 $ 2,781,485 $ 3,007,638 $ 2,888,055 $ 6,372,883 $ 6,404,747 $ 6,436,771 $ 6,468,955 $ 6,501,300 $ 6,533,806 2,184,340 2,278,569 2,377,997 2,477,020 2,581,837 2,692,905 $ 8,557,223 $ 8,683,317 $ 8,814,768 $ 8,945,975 $ 9,083,137 $ 9,226,711 $ 3,170,399 $ 3,359,590 $ 3,562,413 $ 3,722,987 $ 3,891,393 $ 4,068,123 3,826,106 3,981,922 4,146,515 4,320,560 4,504,791 4,700,010 130,098 129,695 129,979 130,203 130,473 113,177 1,355,068 1,354,906 1,351,946 1,347,476 1,347,962 1,348,987 450,000 700,000 950,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 1,900,000 $ 8,931,670 $ 9,526,112 $ 10,140,852 $ 10,771,225 $ 11,374,619 $ 12,130,298 Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy $ 6,978,307 $ 7,679,452 $ 8,451,045 $ 8,833,033 $ 9,232,286 $ 9,649,585 230,977 431,909 688,190 538,827 439,504 212,192 rate increases. Operating Fund $ 1,159,335 $ 1,202,539 $ 1,248,127 $ 1,296,143 $ 1,346,785 $ 1,397,355 Capital Fund 8,707,975 7,608,794 6,959,398 6,307,189 5,573,667 5,128,676 Debt Reserve Fund 1,152,934 1,152,934 1,152,934 1,152,934 1,152,934 1,152,934 Total $ 11,020,244 $ 9,964,267 $ 9,360,459 $ 8,756,266 $ 8,073,387 $ 7,678,966 Combined Minimum Target Balance $ 1,594,671 $ 1,627,074 $ 1,660,515 $ 1,695,777 $ 1,733,009 $ 1,770,186 G(`C (1-pni IP Pri—ric (Z—A—r KAnrdal - AMitinn l r`nnitnI 9n14 mortal o tonrtart to 9n99 vle Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) 0 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Assumptions Economic & Financial Factors 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 1 General Cost Inflation 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 2 Construction Cost Inflation 0.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 3 Labor Cost Inflation 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 4 Customer Growth 0.50 % 0.50 % 0.50 % 0.50 % 0.50 % 0.50 % 0.50 % 0.50 % 0.50 % 0.50 5 General Inflation plus Growth 3.52 % 3.52 % 3.52 % 3.52 % 3.52 % 3.52 % 3.52 % 3.52 % 3.52 % 3.52 6 Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase 9.00 % 4.01 % 4.07 % 4.13 % 4.20 % 4.26 % 4.33 % 4.41 % 4.48 % 4.56 7 Benefits Inflation 10.00 /]L 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % t.00 % 1- 8 No Escalation 0.00 % 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 Fund Earnings 0.25 % 0.25 % 0.50 % 0.75 % 0.75 % 0.75 % 0.75 % 0.75 % 0.75 % 0.75 City Taxes 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 Local / State Excise Tax 3.85 % 3.85 % 3.85 % 3.85 % 3.85 % 3.85 % 3.85 % 3.85 % 3.85 % 3.85 State B&O Tax 1.50 % 1.50 % 1.50 % 1.50 % 1.50 % 1.50 % 1.50 % 1.50 % 1.50 % 1.50 Net Sewer Tax 2.22 / 2.22 / 2.22 / 2.22 / 2.22 / 2.22 / 2.22 / 2.22 / 2.22 / 2.22 Treatment Portion 69.41 % 69.41 % 69.41 % 69.41 % 69.41 % 69.41 % 69.41 % 69.41 % 69.41 % 69.41 Accounting Assumptions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 FISCAL POLICY RESTRICTIONS Min. Op. Fund Balance Target (days of O&M expense) r 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Max. Op. Fund Balance (days of O&M expense) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 SEWER - Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target Select Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target 1 Defined as % of Plant 1 - Defined as % of Plant Plant -in -Service in 2015 $ 12,630,486 Minimum Capital Fund Balance - % of plant assets 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 2 - Amount at Right =_> $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - TREATMENT PLANT - Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target Select Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target 2 Defined as % of Plant 1 - Defined as % of Plant Plant -in -Service in 2015 $ 41,691,158 Minimum Capital Fund Balance - % of plant assets 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00% 2 - Amount at Right =_> $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550.000 fl1 f� lD rt �= FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx (425) 867-1802 Assumptions JAttachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 2 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Assumptions RATE FUNDED SYSTEM REINVESTMENT Select Reinvestment Funding Strategy User Input Amount of Annual Cash Funding from Rates 1 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense 2 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense less Annual Debt Principal Payments 3 - Equal to Amount at Right =_> $ 450,000 $ 700,000 $ 950,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,900,000 $ 2,100,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,800,000 4 - Do Not Fund System Reinvestment $ 11,947,787 $ 8,707,975 $ 7,608,794 $ 6,959,398 $ 6,307,189 $ 5,573,667 $ 5,128,676 $ 4,795,031 $ 4,570,977 $ 4,532,963 $ 1,118,298 $ 1,159,335 $ 1,202,539 $ 1,248,127 $ 1,296,143 $ 1,346,785 $ 1,397,355 $ 1,447,729 $ 1,441,913 $ 1,314,855 $ 298,772 $ 230,977 $ 431,909 $ 688,190 $ 538,827 $ 439,504 $ 212,192 $ 230,375 $ (5,816) $ (127,058) Capital Financing Assumptions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 GENERAL FACILITIES CHARGE (GFC) REVENUES General Facilities Charge 1W 4,417 Total Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs) 15,000 15,075 15,150 15,226 15,302 15,379 15,456 15,533 15,611 15,689 General Facilities Charge Revenues $ 320,370 $ 384,400 $ 331,275 $ 332,931 $ 334,596 $ 336,269 $ 337,950 $ 339,640 $ 341,338 $ 343,045 $ 344,760 REVENUE BONDS Term (years) 20 2 20 Interest Cost (incl. issuance costs, per City staffs direction) 4.50 % ff4-50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50Issuance Cost 0.00% 0.00°00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement ! 1.25 PWTF LOAN Term (years; 10 year minimum and no more than 20 years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost 1.00 % 1.00 % 1.00 % 1.00 % 1.00 % 1.00 % OTHER LOANS & REVENUE -SUPPORTED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS [a] Term (years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost 4.00 % 4.00 % 4.00 % 5.00 % 5.00 % 5.00 % Issuance Cost 0.00 % A 0.00°/�0.00 %�00 % # 0.00 % K 0.00 % [a] Tax -supported general obligation bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund; terms and annual obligations of such bonds are not factors in this analysis. fl1 f� 0) rt �= FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx (425) 867-1802 Assumptions 20 4.50 % e 4.50 .00 % 0.001 0.00 20 20 20 20 1.00 % 1.00 % 1.00 % 1.00 % 20 20 20 20 5.00 % 5.00 % 5.00 % 5.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % JAttachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 3 P n City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Existing Debt Input Existina Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2011 Water/Sewer Refunding and New Issue Annual Interest Payment $ 38,816 $ 37,541 $ 36,221 $ 34,856 $ 32,996 $ 31,036 $ 29,016 $ 26,916 $ 24,771 $ 22,474 Annual Principal Payment 42,500 44,000 45,500 46,500 49,000 50,500 52,500 71,500 73,500 75,500 Total Annual Payment $ 81,316 $ 81,541 $ 81,721 $ 81,356 $ 81,996 $ 81,536 $ 81,516 $ 98,416 $ 98,271 $ 97,974 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - - - - Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds 98,416 98,416 98,416 98,416 98,416 98,416 98,416 98,416 98,271 97,974 2013 Revenue Bonds Annual Interest Payment $ 40,308 $ 39,908 $ 39,T8 $ 38,758 $ 38,008 $ 37,258 $ 36,508 $ 35,758 $ 35,008 $ 34,258 Annual Principal Payment 10,000 10,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Total Annual Payment $ 50,308 $ 49,908 $ 54,508 $ 53,758 $ 53,008 $ 52,258 $ 51,508 $ 50,758 $ 50,008 $ 49,258 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - - - - Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds 54,508 54,508 54,508 53,758 53,008 52,258 51,508 50,758 50,008 49,258 2015 Revenue Bonds Annual Interest Payment $ 331,605 $ 322,291 $ 312,345 $ 301,787 $ 298,261 $ 286,804 $ 280,791 $ 272,781 $ 261,072 $ 248,625 Annual Principal Payment 238,540 248,655 258,601 268,358 273,785 283,241 287,854 298,464 311,174 323,621 Total Annual Payment $ 570,146 $ 570,945 $ 570,945 $ 570,145 $ 572,046 $ 570,045 $ 568,646 $ 571,245 $ 572,245 $ 572,246 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - - - - Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds 572,246 572,246 572,246 572,246 572,246 572,246 572,246 572,246 572,246 572,246 TOTAL REVENUE BONDS Annual Interest Payment $ 410,729 $ 399,739 $ 388,073 $ 375,401 $ 369,265 $ 355,097 $ 346,315 $ 335,455 $ 320,851 $ 305,357 Annual Principal Payment 291,040 302,655 319,101 329,858 337,785 348,741 355,354 384,964 399,674 414,121 Total Annual Payment $ 701,769 $ 702,394 $ 707,174 $ 705,259 $ 707,050 $ 703,839 $ 701,669 $ 720,419 $ 720,524 $ 719,478 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - - - - Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds 725,170 725,170 725,170 724,420 723,670 722,920 722,170 721,420 720,525 719,478 fl1 0 0) rt (Q tC W n °' Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Existing Debt Input Existing Debt Service - PWTF Loans 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 PWTF LOAN 02-691-019 2002 Annual Interest Payment $ 1,276 $ 1,094 $ 911 $ 729 $ 547 $ 365 $ 182 $ - $ - $ - Annual Principal Payment 36,450 36,450 36,450 36,450 36,450 36,450 36,450 - - - Total Annual Payment $ 37,726 $ 37,544 $ 37,361 $ 37,179 $ 36,997 $ 36,815 $ 36,632 $ - $ - $ - 2005 PWTF LOAN 05-691-015 Annual Interest Payment $ 3,615 $ 3,253 $ 2,892 $ 2,530 $ 2,169 $ 1,807 $ 1,446 $ 1,084 $ 723 $ 361 Annual Principal Payment 72,295 72,295 72,295 72,295 72,295 72,295 72,295 72,295 72,295 72,295 Total Annual Payment $ 75,910 $ 75,548 $ 75,187 $ 74,826 $ 74,464 $ 74,103 $ 73,741 $ 73,380 $ 73,018 $ 72,657 TOTAL PWTF LOANS Annual Interest Payment $ 4,891 $ 4,347 $ 3,803 $ 3,259 $ 2,716 $ 2,172 $ 1,628 $ 1,084 $ 723 $ 361 Annual Principal Payment 108,745 108,745 108,745 108,745 108,745 108,745 108,745 72,295 72,295 72,295 Total Annual Payment $ 113,636 $ 113,092 $ 112,548 $ 112,005 $ 111,461 $ 110,917 $ 110,373 $ 73,380 $ 73,018 $ 72,657 Existing Debt Service - Other Loans [a] 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 [a] Enter payments for other loans and revenue -supported G.O. issues only. Tax -supported bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund and do not impact this analysis. 2007 LTGO BOND Annual Interest Payment 929 $ 862 $ 792 $ 719 $ 644 $ 563 $ 479 $ 393 $ 303 $ 206 Annual Principal Payment 1,836 1,872 1,944 2,016 2,124 2,196 2,268 2,376 2,448 2,556 Total Annual Payment $ 2,765 $ 2,734 $ 2,736 $ 2,735 $ 2,768 $ 2,759 $ 2,747 $ 2,769 $ 2,751 $ 2,762 TOTAL OTHER LOANS Annual Interest Payment $ 929 $ 862 $ 792 $ 719 $ 644 $ 563 $ 479 $ 393 $ 303 $ 206 Annual Principal Payment 1,836 1,872 1,944 2,016 2,124 2,196 2,268 2,376 2,448 2,556 Total Annual Payment $ 2,765 $ 2,734 $ 2,736 $ 2,735 $ 2,768 $ 2,759 $ 2,747 $ 2,769 $ 2,751 $ 2,762 fl1 0 lD rt fQ tC W n 4 Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Existing Debt Input - Fund 411 Existing Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2013 Revenue Bonds Annual Interest Payment $ 390,678 $ 386,278 $ 381,878 $ 376,378 $ 370,628 $ 364,878 $ 358,628 $ 351,878 $ 344,878 $ 337,378 Annual Principal Payment a 110,0006 110,000 110,000 115,000 & 115,000 125,000 135,000 140,000 150,000 150,000 Total Annual Payment $ 500,678 $ 496,278 $ 491,878 $ 491,378 $ 485,628 $ 489,878 $ 493,628 $ 491,878 $ 494,878 $ 487,378 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - - - - TOTAL REVENUE BONDS Annual Interest Payment $ 390,678 $ 386,278 $ 381,878 $ 376,378 $ 370,628 $ 364,878 $ 358,628 $ 351,878 $ 344,878 $ 337,378 Annual Principal Payment 110,000 110,000 110,000 115,000 115,000 125,000 135,000 140,000 150,000 150,000 Total Annual Payment $ 500,678 $ 496,278 $ 491,878 $ 491,378 $ 485,628 $ 489,878 $ 493,628 $ 491,878 $ 494,878 $ 487,378 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - - - - Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds 500,678 496,278 494,878 494,878 494,878 494,878 494,878 494,878 494,878 487,378 Existing Debt Service - PWTF Loans 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 PWTF LOAN 1 Annual Interest Payment $ Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ PWTF LOAN 2 Annual Interest Payment $ Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ TOTAL PWTF LOANS Annual Interest Payment $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Annual Principal Payment = _ Total Annual Payment $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ v 0 lD rt C4 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx (425) 867-1802 Treatment Existing Debt - 411 W Co Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) tC Page 6 n City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Existing Debt Input - Fund 411 Existing Debt Service - Other Loans [a] 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 [a] Enter payments for other loans and revenue -supported G.O. issues only. Tax -supported bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund and do not impact this analysis. 2014 DOE Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment OTHER LOAN 2 Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment TOTAL OTHER LOANS Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment FCS GROUP (425) 867-1802 $ 13,588 $ 12,960 $ 12,319 $ 11,662 $ 10,990 $ 10,302 $ 9,599 $ 8,879 $ 8,142 $ 7,389 6982 27,610 28,251 28,908 29,580 30,268 30,971 31,691 32,428 33,181 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 13,588 $ 12,960 $ 12,319 $ 11,662 $ 10,990 $ 10,302 $ 9,599 $ 8,879 $ 8,142 $ 7,389 26,982 27,610 28,251 28,908 29,580 30,268 30,971 31,691 32,428 33,181 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 $ 40,570 Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx Treatment Existing Debt - 411 Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 7 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Operating Revenue and Expenditure Forecast Actual Budget Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Revenues FORECAST BASIS 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Rate revenues Customer Growth $ 5,762,218 $ 6,341,177 $ 6,372,883 $ 6,404,747 $ 6,436,771 $ 6,468,955 $ 6,501,300 $ 6,533,806 $ 6,566,475 $ 6,599,308 $ 6,632,304 Miscellaneous revenues 8 No Escalation 162,850 9,300 9,300 9,300 9,300 9,300 9,300 9,300 9,300 9,300 Intergov. Services - Lynnwood 6 Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase 29,587 32,250 33,545 34,911 36,354 37,880 39,495 41,207 43,022 44,950 47,000 Intergov. Services - Olympic 6 Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase 380,057 531,758 553,103 575,628 599,422 624,582 651,214 679,43 709,371 741,161 774,955 Intergov. Services - City MLT 6 Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase 1,013,646 1,200,315 1,248,496 1,299,341 1,353,049 1,409,842 1,469,958 1,533,660 1,601,234 1,672,991 1,749,272 Intergov. Services - Ronald 6 Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase 292,107 321,319 334,217 347,828 362,206 377,409 393,502 410,555 428,644 447,853 468,273 Side sewer permits 8 No Escalation - - - - - - - - - - - TOTAL REVENUES $ 7,640,465 $ 8,436,120 $ 8,551,545 $ 8,671,755 $ 8,797,102 $ 8,927,967 $ 9,064,769 $ 9,207,963 $ 9,358,046 $ 9,515,562 $ 9,681,104 Expenditures FORECAST BASIS 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Salaries and Wages y l Labor Cost Inflation 474,118 478,860 493,226 508,023 523,263 538,961 555,130 571,784 588,937 606,606 624,804 Overtime 3 Labor Cost Inflation 31,716 25,0051 25,750 26,523 27,318 28,138 28,982 29,851 30,747 31,669 32,619 Benefits 7 Benefits Inflation 233,678 239,030 262,933 289,226 318,149 349,964 384,960 423,456 465,802 512,382 563,620 Uniforms 1 General Cost Inflation 2,772 4,000 4,120 4,244 4,371 4,502 4,637 4,776 4,919 5,067 5,219 Supplies 1 General Cost Inflation 28,982 51,000 52,530 54,106 55,729 57,401 59,123 60,897 62,724 64,605 66,543 Fuel Consumed 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - - - - Sewer Inventory 1 General Cost Inflation 1,249 4,000 4,120 4,244 4,371 4,502 4,637 4,776 4,919 5,067 5,219 Small Equipment 1 General Cost Inflation 13,903 6,000 6,180 6,365 6,556 6,753 6,956 7,164 7,379 7,601 7,829 Professional Services General Cost Inflation 31,947 58,200 59,946 61,744 63,597 65,505 67,470 69,494 71,579 73,726 75,938 Communications General Cost Inflation 30,057 30,000 30,900 31,827 32,782 33,765 34,778 35,822 36,896 38,003 39,143 Travel/Training General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - - - - Advertising General Cost Inflation 91,585 100 103 106 109 113 116 119 123 127 130 Rental / Lease General Cost Inflation 2,551 2,50 2,575 2,652 2,732 2,814 2,898 2,985 3,075 3,167 3,262 Insurance General Cost Inflation 75,413 29,03 29,901 30,798 31,722 32,674 33,654 34,663 35,703 36,774 37,878 Public Utility General Cost Inflation 798,332 635,000 654,050 673,672 693,882 714,698 736,139 758,223 780,970 804,399 828,531 Repair/ Maintenance General Cost Inflation 68,172 25,000 25,750 26,523 27,318 28,138 28,982 29,851 30,747 31,669 32,619 Miscellaneous (excl. Taxes) General Cost Inflation 76,716 77,450 79,774 82,167 84,632 87,171 89,786 92,479 95,254 98,111 101,055 State Taxes Excise and B&O Tax Rate 154,815 155,589 156,367 157,149 157,935 158,724 159,518 160,316 161,117 161,923 Intergov. Services General Cost Inflation 33,581 50,000 51,500 53,045 54,636 56,275 57,964 59,703 61,494 63,339 65,239 Buildings General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - - - - Equipment General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - - - - Interfund Subsidies/Services General Cost Inflation 316,923 331,1101 341,043 351,275 361,813 372,667 383,847 395,363 407,224 419,440 432,023 Interfund Rental General Cost Inflation 180,048 160,620 165,439 170,402 175,514 180,779 186,203 191,789 197,542 203,469 209,573 Interfund Repair / Maintenance General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - - - - Interfund Transfer Out [a] General Cost Inflation - 632,03 650,991 670,521 690,636 711,355 732,696 754,677 777,317 800,637 824,656 Debt Issue Cost No Escalation 154,048 - - - - - - - - - Intergovernmental Loans No Escalation - - - - - - - - - - Decision Package No Escalation - - - 9 Total Cash O&M Expenditures $ 2,645,791 $ 2,993,745 $ 3,096,419 $ 3,203,827 $ 3,316,279 $ 3,434,109 $ 3,557,681 $ 3,687,391 $ 3,823,666 $ 3,966,975 $ 4,117,823 Depreciation Expense[b] Last year's plus annual additions from CIP $ 825,145 $ 941,718 $ 1,013,285 $ 1,059,656 $ 1,107,418 $ 1,156,613 $ 1,207,283 $ 1,259,981 $ 1,314,787 $ 1,371,784 $ 1,431,062 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 3,470,936 $ 3,935,463 $ 4,109,704 $ 4,263,483 $ 4,423,696 $ 4,590,721 $ 4,764,965 $ 4,947,372 $ 5,138,453 $ 5,338,759 $ 5,548,885 D] (y City Tax Calculation for Excise Taxes $ 634,118 $ 637,288 $ 640,475 $ 643,677 $ 646,896 $ 650,130 $ 653,381 $ 656,648 $ 659,931 $ 663,230 77 lD 'rt [a] Transfers from Operating Fund to Construction and Debt Service Funds are calculated in the model. (Q [b] Depreciation is a non -cash expense. • FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx (425) 867-1802 O&M Page 8 JAttachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) P- n City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Operating Expenditure Forecast Actual Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Treatment Plant Expenditures FORECAST BASIS 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Salaries and Wages Labor Cost Inflation $ 1,205,794 $ 1,242,670 $ 1,279,950 $ 1,318,349 $ 1,357,899 $ 1,398,636 $ 1,440,595 $ 1,483,813 $ 1,528,327 $ 1,574,177 $ 1,621,402 Overtime Labor Cost Inflation 71,262 75,000 77,250 79,568 81,955 84,413 86,946 89,554 92,241 95,008 97,858 Benefits Benefits Inflation 515,424 532,890 586,179 644,797 709,277 780,204 858,225 944,047 1,038,452 1,142,297 1,256,527 Uniforms General Cost Inflation 3,348 5,500 5,665 5,835 6,010 6,190 6,376 6,567 6,764 6,967 7,176 Supplies General Cost Inflation 215,102 367,200 378,216 389,562 401,249 413,287 425,685 438,456 451,610 465,158 479,113 Fuel Consumed General Cost Inflation 58,227 1 90,000 92,700 95,481 98,345 101,296 104,335 107,465 110,689 114,009 117,430 Small Equipment General Cost Inflation 12,978 40,000 41,200 42,436 43,709 45,020 46,371 47,762 49,195 50,671 52,191 Professional Services General Cost Inflation 57,398 150,000 154,500 159,135 163,909 168,826 173,891 179,108 184,481 190,016 195,716 Communications General Cost Inflation 13,364 13,000 13,390 13,792 14,205 14,632 15,071 15,523 15,988 16,468 16,962 Travel & Training General Cost Inflation 8,495 25,000 25,750 26,523 27,318 28,138 28,982 29,851 30,747 31,669 32,619 Advertising General Cost Inflation 68,136 2,000 2,060 2,122 2,185 2,251 2,319 2,388 2,460 2,534 2,610 Rental / Lease General Cost Inflation 10 Insurance General Cost Inflation 65,421 67,600 69,628 71,717 73,868 76,084 78,367 80,718 83,139 85,634 88,203 Public Utility General Cost Inflation 372,509 423,660 436,370 449,461 462,945 476,833 491,138 505,872 521,048 536,680 552,780 Repair / Maintenance General Cost Inflation 286,163 5,000 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 5,796 5,970 6,149 6,334 6,524 Miscellaneous General Cost Inflation 32,710 308,000 317,240 326,757 336,560 346,657 357,056 367,768 378,801 390,165 401,870 Intergov. Services 1 General Cost Inflation 96,441 100,000 103,000 106,090 109,273 112,551 115,927 119,405 122,987 126,677 130,477 Interfund Services (see below) 1 General Cost Inflation 284,645 218,380 224,931 231,679 238,630 245,789 253,162 260,757 268,580 276,637 284,936 Interfund Supplies 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - - - - Interfund Rental 1 General Cost Inflation 11,076 12,550 12,927 13,314 13,714 14,125 14,549 14,985 15,435 15,898 16,375 Machinery / Equipment 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - - - - Debt Issue Cost 8 No Escalation (3,856) Interfund Transfer Out General Cost Inflation Decision Package No Escalation - - - - - - - - - Allocable O&M Expenditures $ 3,374,637 $ 3,678,450 $ 3,826,106 $ 3,981,922 $ 4,146,515 $ 4,320,560 $ 4,504,791 $ 4,700,010 $ 4,907,094 $ 5,126,998 $ 5,360,769 Interfund Services - Edmonds Only = General Cost Inflation Total Cash O&M Expenditures $ 3,374,637 $ 3,678,450 $ 3,826,106 $ 3,981,922 $ 4,146,515 $ 4,320,560 $ 4,504,791 $ 4,700,010 $ 4,907,094 $ 5,126,998 $ 5,360,769 >]1 0 lD rt FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx -th. 1 (425) 867-1802 Treatment O&M J:� Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Pagc 9 !D P. n City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Operating Expenditure Forecast Treatment O&M Allocations 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Allocable O&M Expenditures $ 3,374,637 $ 3,678,450 $ 3,826,106 $ 3,981,922 $ 4,146,515 $ 4,320,560 $ 4,504,791 $ 4,700,010 $ 4,907,094 $ 5,126,998 $ 5,360,769 less: Revenues from King County 8 No Escalation Adjusted Total $ 3,374,637 $ 3,678,450 $ 3,826,106 $ 3,981,922 $ 4,146,515 $ 4,320,560 $ 4,504,791 $ 4,700,010 $ 4,907,094 $ 5,126,998 $ 5,360,769 plus: Overhead Charge 10.00%_ 337,464 367,845 382,611 398,192 414,651 432,056 450,479 470,001 490,709 512,700 536,077 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALLOCATIONS $ 3,712,101 $ 4,046,295 $ 4,208,716 $ 4,380,114 $ 4,561,166 $ 4,752,616 $ 4,955,270 $ 5,170,011 $ 5,397,803 $ 5,639,698 $ 5,896,846 %Shares of O&M Expenditures City of Edmonds 49.25 % 49.25 % 49.25 % 49.25 % 49.25 % 49.25 % 49.25 % 49.25 % 49.25 % 49.25 % 49.25 % City of Mountlake Terrace 29.66 % 29.66 % 29.66 % 29.66 % 29.66 % 29.66 % 29.66 % 29.66 % 29.66 % 29.66 % 29.66 % Ronald Wastewater District 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% Olympic View Water &Sewer Dist. 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Allocable O&M Expenditures City of Edmonds $ 1,828,303 $ 1,992,903 $ 2,072,899 $ 2,157,317 $ 2,246,490 $ 2,340,783 $ 2,440,596 $ 2,546,361 $ 2,658,555 $ 2,777,694 $ 2,904,346 City of Mountlake Terrace 1,101,178 1,200,315 1,248,496 1,299,341 1,353,049 1,409,842 1,469,958 1,533,660 1,601,234 1,672,991 1,749,272 Ronald Wastewater District 294,781 321,319 334,217 347,828 362,206 377,409 393,502 410,555 428,644 447,853 468,273 Olympic View Water & Sewer Dist. 487,839 531,758 553,103 575,628 599,422 624,582 651,214 679,435 709,371 741,161 774,955 Total Treatment O&M Contributions $ 3,712,101 $ 4,046,295 $ 4,208,716 $ 4,380,114 $ 4,561,166 $ 4,752,616 $ 4,955,270 $ 5,170,011 $ 5,397,803 $ 5,639,698 $ 5,896,846 1,883,797 2,053,392 2,135,817 2,222,797 2,314,677 2,411,832 2,514,674 Treatment Edmonds Share Allocated O&M Expenditures $ 1,828,303 $ 1,992,903 $ 2,072,899 $ 2,157,317 $ 2,246,490 $ 2,340,783 $ 2,440,596 $ 2,546,361 $ 2,658,555 $ 2,777,694 $ 2,904,346 plus: Interfund Services - - - - - - - - - - - Edmonds Treatment Plant O&M $ 1,828,303 $ 1,992,903 $ 2,072,899 $ 2,157,317 $ 2,246,490 $ 2,340,783 $ 2,440,596 $ 2,546,361 $ 2,658,555 $ 2,777,694 $ 2,904,346 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx (425) 867-1802 Treatment O&M Pagc 10 Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) P P- n fl1 f� lD rt City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Capital Improvement Program Project Costs in Year: 2016 TOTAL FORECASTED PROJECT COSTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN CURRENT DOLLARS Project ID Project Name Life in Years Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 0 0 50 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Sewer Main Replacement and CIPP 2015 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements 50 $ 88,000 $ 88,000 $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2016 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements 50 1,531,042 1,520,362 10,680 2016 Sewerline Overlays 50 217,250 217,250 - 2017 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements 50 1,570,900 245,750 1,325,150 2018 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements 50 1,785,454 - 278,750 1,506,704 2019 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements 50 1,785,454 - 278,750 1,506,704 2020 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements 50 1,785,455 - 278,750 1,506,704 2021 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements 50 1,785,454 - 278,750 1,506,704 2022 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements 50 1,800,082 - 278,750 1,521,332 2023 Sewer Replacemetn/Rehab/Improvements 50 1,817,559 - 281,457 1,536,102 2024 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements 50 1,835,205 - 284,189 1,551,016 - 2025 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements 50 1,853,023 - 286,948 1,566,074 2026 Sewer Replacemetn/Rehab/Improvements 50 289,734 - - 289,734 2017 Sewer Overlays 50 213,592 - 213,592 - - - - - - - - Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation 50 4,724,390 1,182,263 302,913 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 403,883 407,805 411,764 415,762 Other Studies & Projects Lift Station 1 Metering & Flow Study 6 $ 185,000 $ 185,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study 6 285,165 124,000 161,165 Reimbursement to Fund 421 50 197,087 100,000 97,087 Reimbursement to Fund 112 50 702,768 5,016 697,752 - - - - - - - - Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars $ 24,452,616 $ 3,667,641 $ 3,087,090 $ 2,185,454 $ 2,185,454 $ 2,185,455 $ 2,185,455 $ 2,206,672 $ 2,228,096 $ 2,249,728 $ 2,271,570 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx (425) 867-1802 CIP Input JAttachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 11 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Capital Improvement Program Cumulative Inflation 0.00% 3.00% 6.09% 9.27% 12.55% 15.93% 19.41 % 22.99% 26.68% 30.48% Annual Inflati.nJ 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN INFLATED DOLLARS Project ID Project Name Life in Years Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 50 $ - Sewer Main Replacement and CIPP 2015 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements 50 $ 88,000 $ 88,000 2016 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements 50 1,531,362 1,520,362 11,000 2016 Sewerline Overlays 50 217,250 217,250 2017 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements 50 1,610,655 245,750 1,364,905 2018 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements 50 1,885,575 287,113 1,598,462 2019 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements 50 1,942,142 295,726 1,646,416 2020 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements 50 2,000,407 304,598 1,695,809 2021 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements 50 2,060,419 313,736 1,746,683 2022 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements 50 2,139,698 323,148 1,816,550 2023 Sewer Replacemetn/Rehab/Improvements 50 336,074 336,074 1,889,212 2024 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements 50 - 349,517 1,964,780 2025 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements 50 - 363,498 2,043,372 2026 Sewer Replacemetn/Rehab/Improvements 50 378,038 2017 Sewer Overlays 50 220,000 220,000 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation 50 3,751,886 1,182,263 312,000 424,360 437,091 450,204 463,710 482,258 501,548 521,610 542,475 Other Studies & Projects Lift Station 1 Metering & Flow Study 6 $ 185,000 $ 185,000 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study 6 290,000 124,000 166,000 Reimbursement to Fund 421 50 200,000 100,000 100,000 Reimbursement to Fund 112 50 723,701 5,016 718,685 Total Capital Projects in Escalated Dollars $ 19,182,169 $ 3,667,641 $ 3,179,703 $ 2,318,548 $ 2,388,105 $ 2,459,749 $ 2,533,541 $ 2,634,882 $ 2,740,277 $ 2,849,888 $ 2,963,884 Capital Realization Factor 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 Total Capital Projects after Realization Factor $ 3,667,641 $ 3,179,703 $ 2,318,548 $ 2,388,105 $ 2,459,749 $ 2,533,541 $ 2,634,882 $ 2,740,277 $ 2,849,888 $ 2,963,884 MAINTENANCE RELATED WWTP PROJECTS (EDMONDS' SHARE) Project ID Project Name Life in Years Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Cost by Year in 2016 Dollars 50 $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Cost by Year in Inflated Dollars 50 $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx (425) 867-1802 CIP Input Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 12 P n City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Capital Funding Analysis Summary of Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Sewer Capital Projects $ 3,667,641 $ 3,179,703 $ 2,318,548 $ 2,388,105 $ 2,459,749 $ 2,533,541 $ 2,634,882 $ 2,740,277 $ 2,849,888 $ 2,963,884 Maintenance Related WWTP Projects (Edmonds' Share) - - - - - - - - - - Capital Related Contributions to Fund 414 - Edmonds 1,556,149 1,061,194 245,809 245,555 321,736 474,097 253,173 253,173 253,173 253,173 CAPITAL PROJECTS $ 5,223,790 $ 4,240,897 $ 2,564,357 $ 2,633,660 $ 2,781,485 $ 3,007,638 $ 2,888,055 $ 2,993,450 $ 3,103,062 $ 3,217,057 Capital Financing Plan 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 OTHER FUNDING SOURCES [NOTE A] Other Sources $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - PWTF Loan Proceeds Other Loan Proceeds - - - - - - - - - - Capital Fund Balance 5,223,790 4,240,897 2,564,357 2,633,660 2,781,485 3,007,638 2,888,055 2,993,450 3,103,062 3,217,057 Revenue Bond Proceeds [Note B] - - - - - - - - - - Rates Total $ 5,223,790 $ 4,240,897 $ 2,564,357 $ 2,633,660 $ 2,781,485 $ 3,007,638 $ 2,888,055 $ 2,993,450 $ 3,103,062 $ 3,217,057 TOTAL CAPITAL RESOURCES $ 5,223,790 $ 4,2409897 $ 2,5649357 $ 296339660 $ 297819485 $ 3,0079638 $ 25888,055 $ 2,9939450 $ 3,1039062 $ 3,217,057 Info: Capital Contingency Deficit - - - - - - - - - - NOTE A: SELECTION OF RESIDUAL CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCE Select the Residual Funding Source 2 Rates 1 - Revenue Bond Proceeds 2 - Rates NOTE B: USER INPUT FOR REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS Select Amount of Bond Proceeds 1 User Defined 1 - Amounts at Right ==> $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2 - Calculated by the Model m C'> cD rt -a C4 I FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx (425) 867-1802 Capital Funding JAttachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 13 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Capital Funding Analysis New Debt Computations 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 REVENUE BONDS Amount to Fund $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Issuance Costs Reserve Required Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ OTHER LOANS Amount to Fund $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Issuance Costs Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PWTF LOAN Amount to Fund $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Debt Service Summary 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 EXISTING DEBT SERVICE - SEWER (411) Annual Interest Payments $ 416,549 $ 404,948 $ 392,668 $ 379,380 $ 372,624 $ 357,832 $ 348,423 $ 336,932 $ 321,876 $ 305,925 Annual Principal Payments 401,621 413,272 429,790 440,619 448,654 459,682 466,367 459,636 474,417 488,972 Total Debt Service Payments $ 818,170 $ 818,220 $ 822,459 $ 819,998 $ 821,278 $ 817,514 $ 814,790 $ 796,568 $ 796,293 $ 794,897 Revenue Bond Payments Only 701,769 702,394 707,174 705,259 707,050 703,839 701,669 720,419 720,524 719,478 EXISTING DEBT SERVICE - TREATMENT (411) Annual Interest Payments $ 404,265 $ 399,238 $ 394,196 $ 388,039 $ 381,618 $ 375,180 $ 368,226 $ 360,757 $ 353,020 $ 344,766 Annual Principal Payments 136,982 137,610 138,251 143,908 144,580 155,268 165,971 171,691 182,428 183,181 Total Debt Service Payments $ 541,247 $ 536,847 $ 532,447 $ 531,947 $ 526,197 $ 530,447 $ 534,197 $ 532,447 $ 535,447 $ 527,947 Revenue Bond Payments Only 500,678 496,278 491,878 491,378 485,628 489,878 493,628 491,878 494,878 487,378 NEW DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Annual Principal Payments Total Debt Service Payments $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Revenue Bond Payments Only TOTAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS Total Interest Payments W 0 Total Principal Payments X ^? Total Revenue Bond Payments Only C4 FCS GROUP .41 (425) 867-1802 $ 818,170 $ 8189220 $ 8229459 $ 819,998 $ 8219278 $ 8179514 $ 8149790 $ 7969568 $ 7969293 $ 794,897 820,814 804,186 786,865 767,419 754,241 733,012 716,649 697,689 674,896 650,691 538,604 550,881 568,041 584,527 593,234 614,950 632,338 631,326 656,844 672,154 1,202,447 1,198,671 1,199,052 1,196,636 1,192,677 1,193,716 1,195,297 1,212,296 1,215,402 1,206,855 Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx cC Capital Funding Page 14 Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Revenue Requirements Analysis Cash Flow Sufficiencv Test 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 EXPENSES Sewer Cash Operating Expenses $ 2,993,745 $ 3,096,419 $ 3,203,827 $ 3,316,279 $ 3,434,109 $ 3,557,681 $ 3,687,391 $ 3,823,666 $ 3,966,975 $ 4,117,823 Treatment O&M Expenses - Full Share 3,678,450 3,826,106 3,981,922 4,146,515 4,320,560 4,504,791 4,700,010 4,907,094 5,126,998 5,360,769 lid 414 Cont. for Debt (excl. Capital Financing) - Edmon 129,695 129,979 130,203I 130,473 113,177 75,753 76,065 Existing Debt Service-411 Debt (Sewer & Treatment) 1,359,418 1,355,068 1,354,906 1,351,946 1,347,476 1,347,962 1,348,987 1,329,015 1,331,741 1,322,844 New Debt Service - Fund 412-300 - - - - - - - - - - Rate -Funded CIP - - - - - - - - - Rate Funded System Reinvestment 450,000 700,000 950,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 1,900,000 2,100,000 2,500,000 2,800,000 Additions Required to Meet Minimum Op. Fund Balance - - - - - - - - - Total Expenses $ 8,162,398 $ 8,857,690 $ 9,370,350 $ 9,894,718 $ 10,482,347 $ 11,040,907 $ 11,749,566 $ 12,236,033 $ 13,001,467 $ 13,677,501 REVENUES Rate Revenue $ 6,341,177 $ 6,372,883 $ 6,404,747 $ 6,436,771 $ 6,468,955 $ 6,501,300 $ 6,533,806 $ 6,566,475 $ 6,599,308 $ 6,632,304 Other Revenue 2,094,943 2,178,662 2,267,008 2,360,331 2,459,012 2,563,469 2,674,157 2,791,571 2,916,254 3,048,800 Operating Fund &Debt Reserve Fund Interest Earnings 25 550 5,678 11,561 17,666 18,008 18,368 18,748 19,127 19,505 19,461 Total Revenue $ 8,461,170 $ 8,557,223 $ 8,683,317 $ 8,814,768 $ 8,945,975 $ 9,083,137 $ 9,226,711 $ 9,377,173 $ 9,535,067 $ 9,700,566 NET CASH FLOW (DEFICIENCY) $ 298,772 $ (300,467) $ (687,034) $ (1,079,950) $ (1,536,372) $ (1,957,770) $ (2,522,855) $ (2,858,859) $ (3,466,400) $ (3,976,935) Coverage Sufficiency Test 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 EXPENSES Cash Operating Expenses - Fund 411 Sewer $ 2,993,745 $ 3,096,419 $ 3,203,827 $ 3,316,279 $ 3,434,109 $ 3,557,681 $ 3,687,391 $ 3,823,666 $ 3,966,975 $ 4,117,823 Treatment Operating Expenses - Fund 411 3,678,450 3,826,106 3,981,922 4,146,515 4,320,560 4,504,791 4,700,010 4,907,094 5,126,998 5,360,769 Fund 414 Contributions (excl. Financing of Capital) - Edmonds 130,785 130,098 129,695 129,979 130,203 130,473 113,177 76,257 75,753 76,065 Revenue Bond Debt Service - Fund 411 (Sewer & Treatment) 1,202,447 1,198,671 1,199,052 1,196,636 1,192,677 1,193,716 1,195,297 1,212,296 1,215,402 1,206,855 Revenue Bond Debt Service - Fund 414 38,783 39,040 38,095 39,483 38,130 39,110 38,830 - - - Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement at 1.25 310,307 309,428 309,287 309,030 307,702 308,206 308,532 303,074 303,850 301,714 Total Expenses $ 8,354,517 $ 8,599,762 $ 8,861,877 $ 9,137,922 $ 9,423,381 $ 9,733,977 $ 10,043,237 $ 10,322,388 $ 10,688,979 $ 11,063,226 ALLOWABLE REVENUES Rate Revenue $ 6,341,177 $ 6,372,883 $ 6,404,747 $ 6,436,771 $ 6,468,955 $ 6,501,300 $ 6,533,806 $ 6,566,475 $ 6,599,308 $ 6,632,304 Other Revenue 2,094,943 2,178,662 2,267,008 2,360,331 2,459,012 2,563,469 2,674,157 2,791,571 2,916,254 3,048,800 Interest Earnings - All Funds 44,488 36,048 56,101 76,232 71,703 67,172 62,050 59,092 56,968 55,244 Total Revenue $ 8,480,608 $ 8,587,593 $ 8,727,856 $ 8,873,334 $ 8,999,671 $ 9,131,941 $ 9,270,013 $ 9,417,138 $ 9,572,530 $ 9,736,348 Sv n lD Individual Coverage Realized 1.40 1.28 1.18 1.07 � 0.93 0.79 0.64 0.50 0.33 0.15 INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE SURPLUS (DEFICIENCY) $ 126,091 $ (12,169) $ (134,021) $ (264,588) $ (423,710) $ (602,036) $ (773,223) $ (905,250) $ (1,116,449) $ (1,326,878) 1p FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx -Ph (425) 867-1802 Tests Page 15 J4�" Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Revenue Requirements Analysis Maximum Revenue Deficienc Sufficiency Test Driving the Deficiency Maximum Deficiency From Tests less: Net Revenue From Prior Rate Increases Revenue Deficiency Plus: Adjustment for State Excise Tax Total Revenue Deficiency 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 None Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash $ (126,091) $ 300,467 $ 687,034 $ 1,079,950 $ 1,536,372 $ 1,957,770 $ 2,522,855 $ 2,858,859 $ 3,466,400 $ 3,976,935 - (608,451) (1,281,078) (2,024,345) (2,375,898) (2,744,641) (3,131,357) (3,536,867) (3,962,026) $ (126,091) $ 300,467 $ 78,583 $ (201,128) $ (487,973) $ (418,128) $ (221,786) $ (272,498) $ (70,467) $ 14,910 (17.552) 41.826 95.638 150.334 213.871 272 531 351.194 397.967 482 540 553.609 $ (143,643) $ 342,294 $ 174,221 $ (50,794) $ (274,103) $ (145,597) $ 129,408 $ 125,469 $ 412,073 $ 568,518 Rate Increases 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Rate Revenue with no Increase $ 6,341,177 $ 6,372,883 $ 6,404,747 $ 6,436,771 $ 6,468,955 $ 6,501,300 $ 6,533,806 $ 6,566,475 $ 6,599,308 $ 6,632,304 Revenues from Prior Rate Increases - - 608,451 1,281,078 2,024,345 2,375,898 2,744,641 3,131,357 3,536,867 3,962,026 Rate Revenue Before Rate Increase (Incl. previous increases) 6,341,177 6,372,883 7,013,198 7,717,850 8,493,300 8,877,198 9,278,447 9,697,833 10,136,175 10,594,330 Required Annual Rate Increase -2.27 % 5.37% 2.48 % -0.66 % -3.23 % -1.64% 1.39 % 1.29% 4.07 % 5.37% Number of Months New Rates Will Be In Effect Info: Percentage Increase to Generate Required Revenue -2.27510 5.37% 2.48% -0.66% -3.23% -1.64% 1.39% 1.29% 4.07910 5.37910 Policy Induced Rate Increases o .00%� ANNUAL RATE INCREASE 0.00% 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% CUMULATIVE RATE INCREASE 0.00% 9.50% 19.90% 31.29% 36.54% 42.01% 47.69% 53.59% 59.74% 66.13% Impacts of Rate Increases 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Rate Revenues After Rate Increase $ 6,341,177 $ 6,978,307 $ 7,679,452 $ 8,451,045 $ 8,833,033 $ 9,232,286 $ 9,649,585 $ 10,085,746 $ 10,541,622 $ 11,018,103 Full Year Rate Revenues After Rate Increase 6,341,177 6,978,307 7,679,452 8,451,045 8,833,033 9,232,286 9,649,585 10,085,746 10,541,622 11,018,103 Additional State Taxes Due to Rate Increases - 73,980 155,762 246,134 288,878 333,712 380,732 430,036 481,730 535,922 Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase 298,772 230,977 431,909 688,190 538,827 439,504 212,192 230,375 (5,816) (127,058) Individual Coverage After Rate Increase 1.40 1.72 2.11 2.55 2.67 2.79 2.93 3.05 3.18 3.34 Sv f'! lD rt -0 � C4 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx -Ph (425)867-1802 Tests J00 Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 16 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Fund Activity Funds 411: OPERATING FUND Beginning Balance plus: Net Cash Flow after Rate Increase less: Transfer of Surplus to Capital Fund Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance Maximum Funds to be Kept as Operating Reserves Info: No of Days of Cash Operating Expenses 412: SEWER CAPITAL FUND Beginning Balance plus: Rate Funded System Reinvestment plus: Grants / Developer Donations / Other Outside Sources plus: Capital Facilities Charges plus: Net Debt Proceeds Available for Projects plus: Interest Earnings plus: Transfer of Surplus from Operating Fund plus: Direct Rate Funding less: Capital Expenditures Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance DEBT RESERVE Beginning Balance plus: Reserve Funding from New Debt less: Use of Reserves for Debt Service Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance f>1 f'! lD rt 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 $ 9,831,942 $ 1,118,298 $ 1,159,335 $ 1,202,539 $ 1,248,127 $ 1,296,143 $ 1,346,785 $ 1,397,355 $ 1,447,729 $ 1,441,913 298,772 230,977 431,909 688,190 538,827 439,504 212,192 230,375 (5,816) (127,058) (9,012,416) (189,940) (388,706) (642,602) (490,811) (388,862) (161,622) (180,001) $ 1,118,298 $ 1,159,335 $ 1,202,539 $ 1,248,127 $ 1,296,143 $ 1,346,785 $ 1,397,355 $ 1,447,729 $ 1,441,913 $ 1,314,855 838,724 869,501 901,904 936,095 972,107 1,010,089 1,048,017 1,085,797 1,130,514 1,177,971 1,118,298 1,159,335 1,202,539 1,248,127 1,296,143 1,346,785 1,397,355 1,447,729 1,507,352 1,570,628 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 57 50 $ 7,755,373 $ 11,947,787 $ 8,707,975 $ 7,608,794 $ 6,959,398 $ 6,307,189 $ 5,573,667 $ 5,128,676 $ 4,795,031 $ 4,570,977 - 450,000 700,000 950,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 1,900,000 2,100,000 2,500,000 2,800,000 384,400 331,275 332,931 334,596 336,269 337,950 339,640 341,338 343,045 344,760 19,388 29,869 43,540 57,066 52,195 47,304 41,803 38,465 35,963 34,282 9,012,416 189,940 388,706 642,602 490,811 388,862 161,622 180,001 - - (5,223,790) (4,240,897) (2,564,357) (2,633,660) (2,781,485) (3,007,638) (2,888,055) (2,993,450) (3,103,062) (3,217,057) $ 11,947,787 $ 8,707,975 $ 7,608,794 $ 6,959,398 $ 6,307,189 $ 5,573,667 $ 5,128,676 $ 4,795,031 $ 4,570,977 $ 4,532,963 - $ 1,152,934 $ 1,152,934 $ 1,152,934 $ 1,152,934 $ 1,152,934 $ 1,152,934 $ 1,152,934 $ 1,152,934 $ 1,152,934 $ 1,152,934 $ 1,152,934 $ 1,152,934 $ 1,152,934 $ 1,152,934 $ 1,152,934 $ 1,152,934 $ 1,152,934 $ 1,152,934 $ 1,152,934 725,170 725,170 725,170 724,420 723,670 722,920 722,170 721,420 720,525 719,478 �= FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx (425)867-1802 Funds Jt° Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 17 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Existing Debt Input - Fund 414 Existing Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2011 Water/Sewer Refunding and New Issue Annual Interest Payment $ 8,447 $ 7,537 $ 6,592 $ 5,647 $ 4,294 $ 2,940 $ 1,493- Annual Principal Payment 30,336 31,503 31,503 33,836 33,836 36,170 37,336 Total Annual Payment $ 38,783 $ 39,040 $ 38,095 $ 39,483 $ 38,130 $ 39,110 $ 38,830 $ $ $ Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - 38,830 TOTAL REVENUE BONDS Annual Interest Payment $ 8,447 $ 7,537 $ 6,592 $ 5,647 $ 4,294 $ 2,940 $ 1,493 $ $ $ Annual Principal Payment 30,336 31,503 31,503 33,836 33,836 36,170 37,336 Total Annual Payment $ 38,783 $ 39,040 $ 38,095 $ 39,483 $ 38,130 $ 39,110 $ 38,830 $ $ $ Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - 38,830 Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds 39,483 39,483 39,483 39,483 39,110 39,110 - - Existing Debt Service - PWTF Loans 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2002 PWTF Loan PW-02-691-019 Annual Interest Payment $ 1,221 $ 1,046 $ 872 $ 698 $ 523 $ 349 $ 174 $ - $ - $ - Annual Principal Payment 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 Total Annual Payment $ 36,096 $ 35,921 $ 35,747 $ 35,573 $ 35,398 $ 35,224 $ 35,049 $ $ $ TOTAL PWTF LOANS Annual Interest Payment $ 1,221 $ 1,046 $ 872 $ 698 $ 523 $ 349 $ 174 $ $ $ Annual Principal Payment 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 Total Annual Payment $ 36,096 $ 35,921 $ 35,747 $ 35,573 $ 35,398 $ 35,224 $ 35,049 $ $ $ fl1 0 X CD rt �= FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx (425) 867-1802 414 Existing Debt fr c Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 18 P n City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Existing Debt Input - Fund 414 Existing Debt Service - Other Loans [a] 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 [a] Enter payments for other loans and revenue -supported G.O. issues only. Tax -supported bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund and do not impact this analysis. 2012 LTGO Bond Annual Interest Payment $ 3,965 $ 3,391 $ 2,800 $ 2,192 $ 1,585 $ 961 $ $ - $ - $ - Annual Principal Payment 28,735 29,556 30,377 30,377 31,198 32,019 - - - Total Annual Payment $ 32,700 $ 32,947 $ 33,177 $ 32,569 $ 32,783 $ 32,980 $ - $ - $ - $ - 2007 LTGO Bond Annual Interest Payment $ 50,385 $ 46,751 $ 42,945 $ 38,992 $ 34,893 $ 30,517 $ 25,992 $ 21,319 $ 16,423 $ 11,180 Annual Principal Payment 99.552 101.504 105.408 109.312 115.168 j j Q m9 129 Q7R 128.832 132.736 13815A Total Annual Payment $ 149,937 $ 148,255 $ 148,353 $ 148,304 $ 150,061 $ 149,589 $ 148,968 $ 150,151 $ 149,159 $ 149,772 TOTAL OTHER LOANS Annual Interest Payment $ 54,350 $ 50,142 $ 45,745 $ 41,184 $ 36,478 $ 31,477 $ 25,992 $ 21,319 $ 16,423 $ 11,180 Annual Principal Payment 128,287 131,060 135,785 139,689 146,366 151,091 122,976 128,832 132,736 138,592 Total Annual Payment $ 182,637 $ 181,202 $ 181,530 $ 180,873 $ 182,844 $ 182,568 $ 148,968 $ 150,151 $ 149,159 $ 149,772 fl1 f'! lD rt �= FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx (425) 867-1802 414 Existing Debt J�2 Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 19 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Capital Improvement Program Project Costs in Year: 2016 TOTAL FORECASTED PROJECT COSTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN CURRENT DOLLARS Project ID Project Name Life in Years Total Cost 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 W WTP - Repair and Replacement 50 $ 1,843,896 $ - $ - $ 235,649 $ 228,785 $ 293,201 $ 284,661 $ 209,371 $ 203,273 $ 197,352 $ 191,604 W WTP - Construction Projects - In House 50 35,022 - - - - 17,770 17,252 - - - - WWTP- Construction Projects - Contracted 50 7,225,373 3,112,120 2,063,107 235,649 228,785 266,546 517,565 209,371 203,273 197,352 191,604 50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Total Capital Projects in Escalated Dollars $ 9,104,291 $ 3,112,120 $ 2,063,107 $ 471,298 $ 457,571 $ 577,517 $ 819,478 $ 418,742 $ 406,546 $ 394,705 $ 383,208 Previous 2,881,000 2,125,000 500,000 500,000 650,000 950,000 C1 0 W CD rt (P FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx (425) 867-1802 414 CIP Input Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 20 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Capital Improvement Program Dif 231,120 61,893 28,702 42,429 72,483 130,522 418,742 Cumulative Inflation 0.00% 3.00% 6.09% 9.27% 12.55% 15.93% 19.41% 22.99% 26.68% 30.48% Annual Inflation 0.001/ 3.00% 3.001/ 3.00% 3.001/6 3.00% 3.001/ 3.00% 3.001/ 3.00% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN INFLATED DOLLARS Project ID Project Name Life in Years Total Cost 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 WWTP- Repair and Replacement 50 $ 1,660,000 $ - $ - $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 330,000 $ 330,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 W WTP - Construction Projects - In House 50 40,000 - - - - 20,000 20,000 - - - - WWTP- Construction Projects - Contracted 50 7,137,120 3,112,120 2,125,000 250,000 250,000 300,000 600,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Total Capital Projects In Current Dollars $ 8,837,120 $ 3,112,120 $ 2,125,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 650,000 $ 950,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 D] 0 W lD rt FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx (425) 867-1802 414 CIP Input Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 21 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant (Fund 414) Capital Funding Analysis Summary of Capital Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Treatment Plant CIP $ 3,112,120 $ 2,125,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 650,000 $ 950,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Capital Financing Plan 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Direct Billing of Agencies 0.00 % $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Project to be Funded 3,112,120 2,125,000 500,000 500,000 650,000 950,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 OTHER FUNDING SOURCES [NOTE A] Outside Sources $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - PWTF Loan Proceeds - - - - - - - - - Other Loan Proceeds - - - - - - - - - - Use of Fund 414 Balance 48,050 35,500 16,000 16,500 16,500 16,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Revenue Bond Proceeds [Note B] - - - - - - - - - - Agency Contribution Deficiency 3,064,070 2,089,500 484,000 483,500 633,500 933,500 498,500 498,500 498,500 498,500 Total $ 3,112,120 $ 2,125,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 650,000 $ 950,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 TOTAL CAPITAL RESOURCES Info: Capital Contingency Deficit $ 3,112,120 $ 2,125,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 650,000 $ 950,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 - - - (350,000) (350,000) (350,000) (350,000) (350,000) (350,000) (350,000) NOTE A: SELECTION OF RESIDUAL CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCE Select the Residual Funding Source 2 Rates 1 - Revenue Bond Proceeds 2 - Rates NOTE B: USER INPUT FOR REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS Select Amount of Bond Proceeds 1 User Defined 1 - Amounts at Right =_> $ - $ 2 - Calculated by the Model Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant (Fund 414) Capital Funding Analysis New Debt Computations 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 REVENUE BONDS Amount to Fund $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Issuance Costs Reserve Required - - - - - - - - - - Amount of Debt Issue $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - OTHER LOANS Amount to Fund $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Issuance Costs Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PWTF LOAN Amount to Fund $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Debt Service Summary 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 EXISTING DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ 64,018 $ 58,726 $ 53,209 $ 47,529 $ 41,294 $ 34,766 $ 27,660 $ 21,319 $ 16,423 $ 11,180 Annual Principal Payments 193,498 197,438 202,163 208,400 215,077 222,136 195,187 128,832 132,736 138,592 Total Debt Service Payments $ 257,516 $ 256,163 $ 255,371 $ 255,929 $ 256,371 $ 256,902 $ 222,847 $ 150,151 $ 149,159 $ 149,772 Revenue Bond Payments Only 38,783 39,040 38,095 39,483 38,130 39,110 38,830 - - - NEW DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Annual Principal Payments - - - - - - - - - Total Debt Service Payments $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Revenue Bond Payments Only - - - - - - - - - - TOTAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS $ 257,516 $ 256,163 $ 255,371 $ 255,929 $ 256,371 $ 256,902 $ 222,847 $ 150,151 $ 149,159 $ 149,772 Total Interest Payments 64,018 58,726 53,209 47,529 41,294 34,766 27,660 21,319 16,423 11,180 Total Principal Payments 193,498 197,438 202,163 208,400 215,077 222,136 195,187 128,832 132,736 138,592 Total Revenue Bond Payments Only 38,783 39,040 38,095 39,483 38,130 39,110 38,830 - - - D] 0 x CD rt fQ tC Ln n "1 Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Fund (Fund 414) Activity Fund 414 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Projected Contributions for Debt Service $ 257,516 $ 256,163 $ 255,371 $ 255,929 $ 256,371 $ 256,902 $ 222,847 $ 150,151 $ 149,159 $ 149,772 Beginning Balance $ 200, $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 plus: Contributions from King County plus: Interest Earnings 500 1,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 plus: Misc. Revenues (AWD biosolids, rebate from PUD) plus: Contribution from Participating Agencies for Debt Service Mountlake Terrace $ 59,677 $ 59,363 $ 59,180 $ 59,309 $ 59,412 $ 59,534 $ 51,643 $ 34,796 $ 34,566 $ 34,708 Ronald Sewer District 24,433 24,305 24,230 24,283 24,325 24,375 21,144 14,246 14,152 14,210 Olympic View Sewer District 42,622 42,398 42,266 42,359 42,432 42,520 36,883 24,851 24,687 24,789 75,753 76,065 subtotal: Contributions $ 257,516 $ 256,163 $ 255,371 $ 255,929 $ 256,371 $ 256,902 $ 222,847 $ 150,151 $ 149,159 $ 149,772 plus: Capital Funding Sources Outside Sources $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Net Debt Proceeds Available for Projects Direct Billing of Agencies for Capital - - - - - - - - - - Agency Contribution Deficiency for Capital 3,064,070 2,089,500 484,000 483,500 633,500 933,500 498,500 498,500 498,500 498,500 subtotal., Capital Funding Sources $ 3,064,070 $ 2,089,500 $ 484,000 $ 483,500 $ 633,500 $ 933,500 $ 498,500 $ 498,500 $ 498,500 $ 498,500 less: Fund 414 Expenditures Fund 414 Existing Debt Service Payments (257,516) (256,163) (255,371) (255,929) (256,371) (256,902) (222,847) (150,151) (149,159) (149,772) Fund 414 New Debt Service Payments - Capital Project Expenditures (3,112,120) (2,125,000) (500,000) (500,000) (650,000) (950,000) (500,000) (500,000) (500,000) (500,000) subtotal., Fund 414 Expenditures $ (3,369,636) $ (2,381,163) $ (755,371) $ (755,929) $ (906,371) $ (1,206,902) $ (722,847) $ (650,151) $ (649,159) $ (649,772, Ending Balance $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Minimum Target Balance $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 Capital Contributions from Agencies $ 3,064,070 $ 2,089,500 $ 484,000 $ 483,500 $ 633,500 $ 933,500 $ 498,500 $ 498,500 $ 498,500 $ 498,500 50.79% $ 1,556,149 $ 1,061,194 $ i245,80 21,736 $ 474,097 $ 253,173 $ 253,173 Share of Mountlake Terrace 23.17 % 710,068 484,221 112,162 112,046 146,807 216,329 115,522 115,522 115,522 115,522 Share of Ronald Sewer District 9.49 % 290,719 198,252 45,922 45,874 60,106 88,570 47,298 47,298 47,298 47,298 Share of Olympic View Sewer District 16.55 % 507,134 345,833 80,107 80,024 104,851 154,504 82,507 82,507 82,507 82,507 Total 100.000 % $ 3,064,070 $ 2,089,500 $ 484,000 $ 483,500 $ 633,500 $ 933,500 $ 498,500 $ 498,500 $ 498,500 $ 498,500 DEBT RESERVE Beginning Balance $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ plus: Reserve Funding from New Debt - - - - - - - - - - less: Use of Reserves for Debt Service Ending Balance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Minimum Target Balance 725,170 725,170 725,170 724,420 723,670 722,920 722,170 721,420 720,525 719,478 fl1 0 lD rt �= FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx (425) 867-1802 Fund 414 U1 Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 24 !D n City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Summary Total Capital Projects Grants and Developer Donations Use of Capital Fund Balance Direct Rate Funding Total Funding Sources Revenues Rate Revenues Under Existing Rates Non -Rate Revenues Total Revenues Expenses Cash O&M Expenses [a] Existing Debt Service New Debt Service Rate Funded System Reinvestment Rate Funded CIP Total Expenses Annual Rate Adjustment Rate Increases Dictated by: Rate Revenues After Rate Increase Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase Coverage After Rate Increases $ 5,189,351 $ 3,504,625 $ 2,719,250 $ 1,881,255 587,500 600,000 3,308,096 2,917,125 2,119,250 2,669,250 $ 2,220,000 $ 2,292,000 600,000 262,500 262,500 2,069,250 1,957,500 2,029,500 $ 5,189,351 $ 3,504,625 $ 2,719,250 $ 2,669,250 $ 2,220,000 $ 2,292,000 $ 3,331,540 $ 3,339,869 $ 3,348,219 $ 3,356,589 $ 3,364,981 $ 3,373,393 26,701 29,096 31,555 31,130 31,159 31,701 $ 3,358,242 $ 3,368,965 $ 3,379,774 $ 3,387,720 $ 3,396,140 $ 3,405,095 $ 2,064,625 $ 2,190,394 $ 2,325,527 $ 2,470,869 $ 2,610,354 $ 2,734,706 669,483 668,849 669,172 670,805 670,030 668,968 950,000 1,200,000 1,550,000 1,800,000 1,950,000 2,050,000 $ 3,684,108 $ 4,059,243 $ 4,544,699 $ 4,941,674 $ 5,230,384 $ 5,453,674 Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy $ 3,664,694 $ 4,041,242 $ 4,456,479 $ 4,914,383 $ 5,271,535 $ 5,443,256 7,288 11,095 (56,665) 3,839 72,311 21,283 3.21 3.71 4.25 4.85 5.28 5.38 [a] Includes additional B&O taxes due to the proposed rate increases. Operating Fund Capital Fund Debt Reserve Fund Total 0 Combined Minimum Target Balance X CD rt FCS GROUP (425) 867-1802 U1 V $ 328,400 $ 339,495 $ 282,830 $ 286,669 $ 358,979 $ 380,262 3,407,533 1,747,496 1,231,502 1,011,739 1,052,178 1,121,021 622,098 622,098 622,098 622,098 622,098 622,098 $ 4,358,031 $ 2,709,088 $ 2,136,430 $ 1,920,505 $ 2,033,255 $ 2,123,381 $ 871,917 $ 882,202 $ 893,094 $ 904,639 $ 916,891 $ 929,907 Edmonds Stormwater Model - Additional Capital 2016 model.xlsx Summary Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 1 m 0 X CD rt (Q 00 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Assumptions Economic & Financial Factors 1 General Cost Inflation 2 Construction Cost Inflation 3 Labor Cost Inflation 4 Customer Growth 5 General Inflation plus Growth 6 Benefits Inflation 7 [Other Escalation Factor] 8 No Escalation Fund Earnings City Taxes Rate Revenue Taxed @ B&O Tax Other Revenues Taxed @ B&O Tax 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.25% 0.25% 0.50% 0.75% 0.75% 0.75% 0.75% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% F-sA-ric CTnrm%A-tnr KAnAnl _ ArlAti-I (`onitnl Onl9 mnrinl vlcv Q Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Assumptions Accounting Assumptions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 FISCAL POLICY RESTRICTIONS Min. Op. Fund Balance Target (days of O&M expense) 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Max. Op. Fund Balance (days of O&M expense) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target Select Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target 2 User Input 1 - Defined as % of Plant Plant -in -Service in 2015 Minimum Capital Fund Balance - % of plant assets 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 - Amount at Right ==> $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - RATE FUNDED SYSTEM REINVESTMENT Select Reinvestment Funding Strategy 3 User Input Amount of Annual Cash Funding from Rates 1 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense 2 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense less Annual Debt Principal Payments 3 - Equal to Amount at Right ==> $ - $ 950,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,550,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,950,000 $ 2,050,000 4 - Do Not Fund System Reinvestment $ 5,711,401 $ 3,407,533 $ 1,747,496 $ 1,231,502 $ 1,011,739 $ 1,052,178 $ 1,121,021 $ 321,112 $ 328,400 $ 339,495 $ 282,830 $ 286,669 $ 358,979 $ 380,262 $ (5,672,694) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Frimn—le CTnrm%A—tnr KAnAnI - ArIrliti—I (`onitnl OlNR mnrinl vlcv Q Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Assumptions Capital Financing Assumptions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 GENERAL FACILITIES CHARGE (GFC) REVENUES General Facilities Charge $ 799 Total Equivalent Service Units (ESUs) 20,000 20,050 20,100 20,150 20,201 20,251 20,302 General Facilities Charge Revenues $ 31,975 $ 39,950 $ 40,050 $ 40,150 $ 40,250 $ 40,351 $ 40,452 REVENUE BONDS Term (years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost (incl. issuance costs, per City staff's direction) 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% Issuance Cost 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement 1.25 PWTF LOAN Term (years; 10 year minimum and no more than 20 years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% OTHER LOANS & REVENUE -SUPPORTED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS [a] Term (years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Issuance Cost 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% [a] Tax -supported general obligation bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund; terms and annual obligations of such bonds are not factors in this analysis. m c� rt (p �C F(`C (,R(ll IQ Frimn-le CTnrm%A, tnr KAnAnI - ArIrliti-I (`onitnl OlNR mnAnI vlcv Q J Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Existing Debt Input Existing Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 2011 Water/Sewer Refunding and New Issue Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds 2015 Revenue Bond Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds TOTAL REVENUE BONDS Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds Existing Debt Service - PWTF Loans PWTF LOAN 04-691-030 Storm Water Improvement Project Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 $ 122,569 $ 117,820 $ 112,900 $ 107,850 $ 100,892 $ 93,644 $ 86,115 158,297 163,993 168,357 173,932 181,205 188,235 195,386 $ 280,866 $ 281,814 $ 281,257 $ 281,782 $ 282,097 $ 281,879 $ 281,501 286,293 286,293 286,293 286,293 286,293 286,293 286,293 $ 133,503 $ 129,571 $ 125,572 $ 121,498 $ 119,679 $ 115,486 $ 113,343 96,035 99,967 103,966 108,040 109,858 114,052 116,194 $ 229,538 $ 229,538 $ 229,538 $ 229,538 $ 229,537 $ 229,538 $ 229,537 229,538 229,538 229,538 229,538 229,538 229,538 229,538 $ 256,072 $ 247,391 $ 238,473 $ 229,348 $ 220,571 $ 209,130 $ 199,458 254,332 263,960 272,323 281,972 291,063 302,287 311,580 $ 510,404 $ 511,352 $ 510,795 $ 511,320 $ 511,634 $ 511,417 $ 511,038 515,831 515,831 515,831 515,831 515,831 515,831 515,831 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 $ 1,443 $ 1,283 $ 1,122 $ 962 $ 802 $ 641 $ 481 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 $ 33,505 $ 33,345 $ 33,185 $ 33,024 $ 32,864 $ 32,704 $ 32,543 TOTAL PWTF LOANS Annual Interest Payment $ 1,443 $ 1,283 $ 1,122 $ 962 $ 802 $ 641 $ 481 m 0 Annual Principal Payment 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 ^? Total Annual Payment $ 33,505 $ 33,345 $ 33,185 $ 33,024 $ 32,864 $ 32,704 $ 32,543 C4 P .41 0) rro r0l 1 IO C.J,....,..J.. Ca......,.,.,a... KA..4-1 A.J.J:a:--- I r,-:+,l 7nIa .....4-1 Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Existing Debt Input Existing Debt Service - Other Loans [a] 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 [a] Enter payments for other loans and revenue -supported G.O. issues only. Tax -supported bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund and do not impact this ana 2007 LTGO BOND Annual Interest Payment $ 42,409 $ 39,351 $ 36,147 $ 32,820 $ 29,369 $ 25,686 $ 21,877 Annual Principal Payment 83,793 85,436 88,722 92,008 96,937 100,223 103,509 Total Annual Payment $ 126,202 $ 124,787 $ 124,869 $ 124,828 $ 126,306 $ 125,909 $ 125,386 TOTAL OTHER LOANS Annual Interest Payment $ 42,409 $ 39,351 $ 36,147 $ 32,820 $ 29,369 $ 25,686 $ 21,877 Annual Principal Payment 83,793 85,436 88,722 92,008 96,937 100,223 103,509 Total Annual Payment $ 126,202 $ 124,787 $ 124,869 $ 124,828 $ 126,306 $ 125,909 $ 125,386 m 0 w CD rt cc cc CrC (_Dnl ID C.J,....,..J.. Ca......,.,.,.... KA..4-1 A.J.J:a:--- I r....:a..l 7nIa ......1-1 n' Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Operating Revenue and Expenditure Forecast Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Revenues FORECAST BASIS 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Rate revenues Customer Growth $ 3,323,232 $ 3,331,540 $ 3,339,869 $ 3,348,219 $ 3,356,589 $ 3,364,981 $ 3,373,393 Stormwater Mitigation Fees No Escalation 799 799 799 799 799 799 799 Illegal Discharge Fine No Escalation 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Housing Rentals/Leases No Escalation ICustomer 13,153 13,153 13,153 13,153 13,153 13,153 13,153 Other Misc Revenues - UB Accts No Escalation 10,091 10,091 10,091 10,091 10,091 10,091 10,091 Grants No Escalation 407,000 - - - - - - Misc Penalty Revenues - UB Acct Growth - - - - - - - TOTAL REVENUES $ 3,754,575 $ 3,355,884 $ 3,364,212 $ 3,372,562 $ 3,380,933 $ 3,389,324 $ 3,397,737 Expenditures FORECAST BASIS 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Salaries and Wages Labor Cost Inflation $ 640,470 $ 659,684 $ 679,475 $ 699,859 $ 720,855 $ 742,480 $ 764,755 Overtime Labor Cost Inflation 6,000 6,180 6,365 6,556 6,753 6,956 7,164 Benefits Benefits Inflation 313,9 345,345 379,880 417,867 459,654 505,620 556,182 Uniforms General Cost Inflation 6,5 6,695 6,896 7,103 7,316 7,535 7,761 Supplies General Cost Inflation I 46,5 47,895 49,332 50,812 52,336 53,906 55,523 Minor Equipment General Cost Inflation 4,0 4,120 4,244 4,371 4,502 4,637 4,776 Professional Services General Cost Inflation 120,000 123,600 127,308 131,127 135,061 139,113 143,286 Communications General Cost Inflation 3,20Qi, 3,296 3,395 3,497 3,602 3,710 3,821 Travel/Training General Cost Inflation 4,300 4,429 4,562 4,699 4,840 4,985 5,134 Advertising General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - Rental / Lease General Cost Inflation 6,500 6,695 6,896 7,103 7,316 7,535 7,761 Insurance General Cost Inflation 64,120 66,044 68,025 70,066 72,168 74,333 76,563 Public Utility General Cost Inflation 10,500 10,815 11,139 11,474 11,818 12,172 12,538 Repair / Maintenance General Cost Inflation I 13,00 13,390 13,792 14,205 14,632 15,071 15,523 Miscellaneous (excl. taxes) General Cost Inflation 91,200 93,936 96,754 99,657 102,646 105,726 108,898 State Taxes B&O Tax Rate 61,783 55,935 56,074 56,213 56,353 56,493 56,633 Interfund Subsidies General Cost Inflation - - - - - - Intergov. Services General Cost Inflation I 85,000� 87,550 90,177 92,882 95,668 98,538 101,494 Machinery/Equipment General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - Land General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - Intergov. Loans General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - Interfund Services 1 General Cost Inflation 229,921 236,819 243,923 251,241 258,778 266,541 274,538 Interfund Rental 1 General Cost Inflation 246,490 253,885 261,501 269,346 277,427 285,749 294,322 Interfund Transfer Out [a] 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - State Permit Fee 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - Debt Service Costs General Cost Inflation - - - - - - 2 1/3 FTEs Labor Cost Inflation - - - - - - New Vehicle Rental/Maint. No Escalation Surface Water Monitoring No Escalation Total Cash O&M Expenditures $ 1,953,434 $ 2,026,312 $ 2,109,736 $ 2,198,077 $ 2,291,723 $ 2,391,100 $ 2,496,672 Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Capital Improvement Program Project Cosh in Vear: 2016 Pro)est ID Description Useful Life Outside Funding Total Costs 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 SW Edmonds Basin Study Implementation Project 50 0% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 105th & 1061h Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project 50 0% 656,683 654,741 1,942 - - - - - - - - 0 0% - - - - - - - - - - - Edmonds Marsh Related Projects 50 0% - - - - - - - - - - - Dayton St. and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements - Dayton St. Pump Station 50 0% 2,159,490 267,700 1,844,660 47,130 - - - - - - - WillowCr- Final Feasibility Study/Design/Construction 50 0% 2,516,911 38,696 445,911 212,779 274,542 266,546 258,783 251,145 253,685 256,148 258,634 Edmonds Marsh Channel Improvements 50 0% 711,230 - 194,175 471,298 45,757 - - - - - - WillowCreekPipeRehabilitation 50 0% 661,189 - 80,097 77,764 503,328 - - - - - - 0 0% - - - - - - - - - - - Normstream Projects 50 0% - - - - - - - - - - - Nonhst-Culvart Abandonment South of Puget Dr.- Assessment/Stabilization 50 0% 185,653 36,595 149,058 - - - - - - - - Rehab/Replace of Northstream Culver) under Puget DR. 50 0% 537,889 113,215 411,961 4,713 - - - - - - - 50 0% - - - - - - - - - - - PeminNlleCreekBasinProjects 0 0% - - - - - - - - - - - PernmolleCreekFlowManagemenlProjecls- Seamm Infiltration 50 0% 1,066,485 116,000 950,485 - - - - - - - - PernnNlleCreek FlowManagement Projecis 50 0% 1,539,065 - - 424,168 457,571 444,244 43,130 41,874 42,281 42,691 43,106 Stoma Drainage Improvement Projects 0 0% - - - - - - - - - - - Improvements - 88th Ave W and 194th St SW 50 0% 4,195 4,195 - - - - - - - - - Improvements - Dayton Sl. - 3rd to 9th 50 0% - - - - - - - - - - - improvememe - Sierra pl - 12th Ave N. to Olympic 50 0% 524,693 522,751 1,942 - - - - - - - - 0 0% - - - - - - - - - - - AnnuallyFundedPrcjects 50 0% - - - - - - - - - - - City -Wide drainage replacement projects 50 0% 13,043,753 306,9D0 145,631 1,932,322 1,143,927 1,599,277 1,552,696 1,567,771 1,582,992 1,598,360 1,613,879 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 50 0% 562,309 17,000 62,136 62,211 62,230 60,417 60,383 58,624 59,193 59,768 60,348 Stone System Video Assessment 50 0% - - - - - - - - - - - 50 0% - - - - - - - - - - - Compliance-RelaletlProlecls 0 0% - - - - - - - - - - - Stonn and Sunwe Water Cornwel,-ire Plan (including asset management plan) 50 0% 214,320 25,000 189,320 - - - - - - - - 50 0% - - - - - - - - - - - ReimbursemenfstoSurest Fund 112 50 0% 1,256,472 721,979 534,493 - - - - - - - - 0 0% - - - - - - - - - - - Reimbursements toArtsFund 117 50 0% 32,832 11,114 18,403 1,060 1,144 1,111 - - - - - 50 0% - - - - - - - - - - - 50 0% - - - - - - - - - - - 50 0% - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0% - - - - - - - - - - - 50 0% - - - - - - - - - - - 50 0% - - - - - - - - - - - 50 0% - - - - - - - - - - - 50 0% - - - - - - - - - - - 50 0% - - - - - - - - - - - 50 0% - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0% - - - - - - - - - - - 50 0% - - - - - - - - - - - 50 0% - - - - - - - - - - - 50 0% - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0% - - - - - - - - - - - 50 0% Total Capital Projects In Current Dollars E 25,74UM S 2,835,888 $ 5,038,205 $ 3,303,445 $ 2,488,499 S 2,371,594 S 1,914,992 S 1,919,514 S 1,938,150 S 1,956,%7 S 1,975,967 Grant Funded Project Casts - - - - - - - - - - - Utility Funded Project Code; 25,743,220 2,835,888 5,038,205 3,303,445 2,488,499 2,371,594 1,914,992 1,919,514 1,938,150 1,956,967 1,975,967 fl1 0 w rt (Q ' FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - Add0ional Cap0a12016 model.xlsx (425)867-1802 CIP Input Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) A tL City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Capital Improvement Program Cumulative Construction Cost Irdlation a 0.00% 3.00% 6.09% 9.27% 12.55% 15.93% 19.41% 22.99% 26.68% 30.48% Construction Coat Inflation =_> 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.0056 3.0056 3.0056 3.0056 3.00% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN INFLATED DOLLARS Project ID Description Usetul Lite Outside Funding Total Costs 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 SW Edmonds Basin Study Implementation Project 50 0% $ - 105th 8 1061h Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project 50 0% 656,741 664,741 2,000 Edmonds Marsh Related Projects 50 0% Dayton St. and Huy 104 Drainage Improvements - Dayton St. Pump Station 50 0% 2,217,]01 267,700 1,900,000 50,000 X Willow Cr- Final Feasibility Study/Design/Construction 50 0% 2,9]1,.15 38,6% 459,208 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 312,000 324,480 337,459 Edmonds Marsh Channel Improvements 50 0% 750,000 200,000 100,000 50,000 Willow Creek Pipe Rehabilitation 50 0% ]15,000 82,500 82,500 550,000 Northstream Projects 50 0% Norrthstresm Culvert Abandonment South of Puget Dr. - Assessment/Stabilization 50 0% 190,125 36,595 153,530 X Rehab/Replace of Nodhstream Culver) under Puget DR. 50 0% 550,77: 113,215 432,560 5,000 50 0% Perrinvllle Creek Basin Projects X Perrimmile Creek Flow Management Projects- Seemm Infiltration 50 0% 1,095,000 116,000 979,000 Perm -We Creek Flaw Management Projects 50 0% 1,]12,323 450,000 500,000 500,000 50,000 50,000 52,000 54,080 56,243 Storm Drainage Improvement Projects - Improvements - 88th Ave W and 194th St SW 50 0% 4,195 4,195 Improvements - Dayton St. - 3rd to 9th 50 0 % - Improvements - Sierra pl -121h Ave N. to Olympic 50 0% 524,751 522,751 2,000 Annually Funded Projects 50 0% City -Wide drainage replacement projects 50 0% 15,306,281 306,900 1:0,000 2,050,000 1,250,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,872,000 1,946,880 2,024,755 2,105,745 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 50 0% 650:11 1],000 64,000 66,000 68,000 68,000 ]0,000 ]0,000 ]2,800 ]5,112 ]8,]40 Stoma System Video Assessment 50 0% - 50 0% Compliance -Related Projects - Stonn and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan (including asset management plan) 50 0% 220,000 25,000 195,000 50 0% Reimbursements to Street Fund 112 50 0% 1,272,507 721,979 550,528 Reimbursements to Ads Fund 117 50 0% 33,694 11,114 18,955 1,125 1,250 1,250 50 0% 50 0% 50 0% 50 0% 50 0% 50 0% 50 0% 50 0% 50 0% 50 0% 50 0% 50 0% 50 0% Total Capital Projects in Escalated Dollars $ 28,It71,259 It2,835,898 It5,189,351 E 3,504,625 $ 2,719,250 $ 2,669,250 $ 2,220,000 It2,292,000 It2,383,680 $ 2A79,027 $ 2,578,198 Grant Project Costs - - - - - - - - - - - Utility Funded Project Costs 28,871,259 2,835,888 5,189,351 3,504,625 2,719,250 2,669,250 2,220,000 2,292,000 2,383,680 2,479,027 2,578,188 Capital Realization Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total Capital Projects Aker Realization Factor 2,835,888 5,189,351 3,504,625 2,719,2% 2,669,250 2,220,000 2,292,000 2,383,680 2,479,027 2,578,188 fl1 n rt (Q FCS GROUP Edmonds Sm-aler Model -Additional Capital 2016 modelAsx (425)867-1802 CIP Input Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) A tL City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Capital Funding Analysis Summary of Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $ 2,835,888 $ 5,189,351 $ 3,504,625 $ 2,719,250 $ 2,669,250 $ 2,220,000 $ 2,292,000 $ 2,383,680 $ 2,479,027 $ 2,578,188 Capital Financing Plan 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Project Specific Grants / Developer Donations (Tier 2) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Project to be Funded by the Utility 2,835,888 5,189,351 3,504,625 2,719,250 2,669,250 2,220,000 2,292,000 2,383,680 2,479,027 2,578,188 OTHER FUNDING SOURCES [NOTE A] Other Grants / Outside Funding Sources $ 118,500 $ 1,881,255 $ 587,500 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 262,500 $ 262,500 $ 262,500 $ 262,500 $ 262,500 PWTF Loan Proceeds - - - - - - - - - - Other Loan Proceeds - - - - - - - - - - Capital Fund Balance 2,692,803 3,308,096 2,917,125 2,119,250 2,069,250 1,957,500 2,029,500 2,121,180 2,216,527 2,315,688 Revenue Bond Proceeds [Note B] - - - - - - - - - - Rates 24,585 Total $ 2,835,888 $ 5,189,351 $ 3,504,625 $ 2,719,250 $ 2,669,250 $ 2,220,000 $ 2,292,000 $ 2,383,680 $ 2,479,027 $ 2,578,188 TOTAL CAPITAL RESOURCES $ 2,835,888 $ 5,189,351 $ 3,504,625 $ 2,719,250 $ 2,669,250 $ 2,220,000 $ 2,292,000 $ 2,383,680 $ 2,479,027 $ 2,578,188 Info: Capital Contingency Deficit - - - - - - - - - - NOTE A: SELECTION OF RESIDUAL CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCE Select the Residual Funding Source 1 Revenue Bond Proceeds 1 - Revenue Bond Proceeds 2 - Rates NOTE B: USER INPUT FOR REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS Select Amount of Bond Proceeds 1 User Defined 1 - Amounts at Right ==> $ - $ 2 - Calculated by the Model fL C'> fD rt -aI �= FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - Additional Capital 2016 model.xlsx (425) 867-1802 Capital Funding JAttachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 10 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Capital Funding Analysis New Debt Computations 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 REVENUE BONDS Amount to Fund $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Issuance Costs Reserve Required Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ OTHER LOANS Amount to Fund $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Issuance Costs Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PWTF LOAN Amount to Fund [a] $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ [a] 2004 and 2005 PWTF loan payment schedules input as existing debt. Amounts shown for reference. Debt Service Summary 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 EXISTING DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ 299,924 $ 288,024 $ 275,742 $ 263,130 $ 250,742 $ 235,458 $ 221,816 $ 206,173 $ 190,764 $ 174,516 Annual Principal Payments 370,187 381,459 393,107 406,043 420,062 434,572 447,152 468,423 482,415 466,092 Total Debt Service Payments $ 670,111 $ 669,483 $ 668,849 $ 669,172 $ 670,805 $ 670,030 $ 668,968 $ 674,596 $ 673,179 $ 640,608 Revenue Bond Payments Only 510,404 511,352 510,795 511,320 511,634 511,417 511,038 515,831 515,409 514,544 NEW DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Annual Principal Payments Total Debt Service Payments $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Revenue Bond Payments Only TOTAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS $ 670,111 $ 669,483 $ 668,849 $ 669,172 $ 670,805 $ 670,030 $ 668,968 $ 674,596 $ 673,179 $ 640,608 Total Interest Payments 299,924 288,024 275,742 263,130 250,742 235,458 221,816 206,173 190,764 174,516 Total Principal Payments 370,187 381,459 393,107 406,043 420,062 434,572 447,152 468,423 482,415 466,092 Total Revenue Bond Payments Only 510,404 511,352 510,795 511,320 511,634 511,417 511,038 515,831 515,409 514,544 fl1 0 lD rt FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - Additional Capital 2016 model.xlsx (425) 867-1802 Capital Funding 4 Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 11 A b- City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Revenue Requirements Analysis Cash Flow Sufficiency Test 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 EXPENSES Cash Operating Expenses $ 1,953,434 $ 2,026,312 $ 2,109,736 $ 2,198,077 $ 2,291,723 $ 2,391,100 $ 2,496,672 $ 2,608,947 $ 2,728,479 $ 2,855,876 Existing Debt Service 670,111 669,483 668,849 669,172 670,805 670,030 668,968 674,596 673,179 640,608 New Debt Service - - - - - - - - - - Rate -Funded CIP 24,585 - - - - - - - - - Rate Funded System Reinvestment - 950,000 1,200,000 1,550,000 1,800,000 1,950,000 2,050,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,250,000 Additions Required to Meet Minimum Op. Fund Balance - 8,125 - - Total Expenses $ 2,648,130 $ 3,645,795 $ 3,978,585 $ 4,417,249 $ 4,762,528 $ 5,019,254 $ 5,215,640 $ 5,383,543 $ 5,501,658 $ 5,746,483 REVENUES Rate Revenue $ 3,323,232 $ 3,331,540 $ 3,339,869 $ 3,348,219 $ 3,356,589 $ 3,364,981 $ 3,373,393 $ 3,381,827 $ 3,390,281 $ 3,398,757 Other Revenue 431,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 Operating Fund & Debt Reserve Fund Interest Earnings 20,000 2,358 4,752 7,212 6,787 6,816 7,358 7,518 7,603 8,027 Total Revenue $ 3,774,575 $ 3,358,242 $ 3,368,965 $ 3,379,774 $ 3,387,720 $ 3,396,140 $ 3,405,095 $ 3,413,688 $ 3,422,228 $ 3,431,127 NET CASH FLOW (DEFICIENCY) $ 1,126,445 $ (287,554) $ (609,620) $ (1,037,475) $ (1,374,808) $ (1,623,114) $ (1,810,545) $ (1,9695855) $ (2,079,430) $ (253155357) Coverage Sufficiency Test 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 EXPENSES Cash Operating Expenses $ 1,953,434 $ 2,026,312 $ 2,109,736 $ 2,198,077 $ 2,291,723 $ 2,391,100 $ 2,496,672 $ 2,608,947 $ 2,728,479 $ 2,855,876 Revenue Bond Debt Service 510,404 511,352 510,795 511,320 511,634 511,417 511,038 515,831 515,409 514,544 Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement at 1.25 127,601 127,838 127,699 127,830 127,909 127,854 127,759 128,958 128,852 128,636 Total Expenses $ 2,591,439 $ 2,665,501 $ 2,748,230 $ 2,837,227 $ 2,931,266 $ 3,030,371 $ 3,135,469 $ 3,253,735 $ 3,372,740 $ 3,499,056 ALLOWABLE REVENUES Rate Revenue $ 3,323,232 $ 3,331,540 $ 3,339,869 $ 3,348,219 $ 3,356,589 $ 3,364,981 $ 3,373,393 $ 3,381,827 $ 3,390,281 $ 3,398,757 Other Revenue 431,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 24,343 Interest Earnings - All Funds 26,732 16,637 21,790 20,318 16,023 14,404 15,249 15,925 16,219 16,138 Total Revenue $ 3,781,307 $ 3,372,520 $ 3,386,003 $ 3,392,880 $ 3,396,956 $ 3,403,728 $ 3,412,986 $ 3,422,095 $ 3,430,844 $ 3,439,238 Individual Coverage Realized 3.58 2.63 2.50 2.34 2.16 1.98 1.79 1.58 1.36 1.13 INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE SURPLUS (DEFICIENCY) $ 1,189,869 $ 707,019 $ 637,772 $ 555,653 $ 465,690 $ 373,356 $ 277,517 $ 168,360 $ 58,104 $ (59,818) COVERAGE SURPLUS (DEFICIENCY) $ 151895869 $ 7075019 $ 6375772 $ 5555653 $ 4655690 $ 3735356 $ 2775517 $ 1685360 $ 585104 $ (595818) tv 0 lD rt CQ tO 0o Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Revenue Requirements Analysis Maximum Revenue Deficiencv 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Sufficiency Test Driving the Deficiency None Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Maximum Deficiency From Tests $ (1,126,445) $ 287,554 $ 609,620 $ 1,037,475 $ 1,374,808 $ 1,623,114 $ 1,810,545 $ 1,969,855 $ 2,079,430 $ 2,315,357 less: Net Revenue From Prior Rate Increases - (333,987) (703,126) (1,111,031) (1,561,688) (1,911,321) (2,075,037) (2,244,340) (2,419,412) Revenue Deficiency $ (1,126,445) $ 287,554 $ 275,633 $ 334,349 $ 263,777 $ 61,427 $ (100,776) $ (105,182) $ (164,910) $ (104,055) Plus: Adjustment for State Excise Tax (146,3741 37.366 79.216 134.813 178.647 210.913 235269 255.970 270208 300.866 Total Revenue Deficiency $ (1,272,819) $ 324,919 $ 354,849 $ 469,162 $ 442,425 $ 272,340 $ 134,493 $ 150,788 $ 105,299 $ 1965810 Rate Increases 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Rate Revenue with no Increase $ 3,323,232 $ 3,331,540 $ 3,339,869 $ 3,348,219 $ 3,356,589 $ 3,364,981 $ 3,373,393 $ 3,381,827 $ 3,390,281 $ 3,398,757 Revenues from Prior Rate Increases - - 333,987 703,126 1,111,031 1,561,688 1,911,321 2,075,037 2,244,340 2,419,412 Rate Revenue Before Rate Increase (Incl. previous increases) 3,323,232 3,331,540 3,673,856 4,051,345 4,467,621 4,926,669 5,284,714 5,456,864 5,634,621 5,818,169 Required Annual Rate Increase -38.30% 9.75 % 9.66 % 11.58 % 9.90 % 5.53 % 2.54 % 2.76 % 1.87 % 3.38 % Number of Months New Rates Will Be In Effect Info: Percentage Increase to Generate Required Revenue -38.30% 9.75% 9.66% 11.58% 9.90% 5.53% 2.54% 2.76% 1.879,. 3.38% Policy Induced Rate Increases 0.00% 10.00% 10.00% 7.00% ANNUAL RATE INCREASE 0.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 7.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% CUMULATIVE RATE INCREASE 0.00% 10.00% 21.00% 33.10% 46.41% 56.66% 61.36% 66.20% 71.19% 76.32% Impacts of Rate Increases 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Rate Revenues After Rate Increase $ 3,323,232 $ 3,664,694 $ 4,041,242 $ 4,456,479 $ 4,914,383 $ 5,271,535 $ 5,443,256 $ 5,620,570 $ 5,803,660 $ 5,992,714 Full Year Rate Revenues After Rate Increase 3,323,232 3,664,694 4,041,242 4,456,479 4,914,383 5,271,535 5,443,256 5,620,570 5,803,660 5,992,714 Additional State Taxes Due to Rate Increases - 38,313 80,658 127,450 179,146 219,254 238,034 257,455 277,539 298,305 Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase 1,126,445 7,288 11,095 (56,665) 3,839 72,311 21,283 11,433 56,410 (19,705) Individual Coverage After Rate Increase 3.58 3.21 3.71 4.25 4.85 5.28 5.38 5.42 5.51 5.60 Operating Reserve Ending Balance $ 321,112 $ 328,400 $ 339,495 $ 282,830 $ 286,669 $ 358,979 $ 380,262 $ 391,695 $ 448,105 $ 428,400 Operating Reserve Target Balance 240,834 249,819 260,104 270,996 282,541 294,793 307,809 321,651 336,388 352,094 # of Days of Cash Operating Expenses 60 59 59 47 46 55 56 55 60 55 Sv f'> lD rt (Q tO t° Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Fund Activity Funds OPERATING FUND Beginning Balance plus: Net Cash Flow after Rate Increase less: Transfer of Surplus to Capital Fund Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance Maximum Funds to be Kept as Operating Reserves Info: No of Days of Cash Operating Expenses CAPITAL FUND Beginning Balance plus: Rate Funded System Reinvestment plus: Grants / Developer Donations / Other Outside Sources plus: Capital Facilities Charges plus: Net Debt Proceeds Available for Projects plus: Interest Earnings plus: Transfer of Surplus from Operating Fund plus: Direct Rate Funding less: Capital Expenditures Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance DEBT RESERVE Beginning Balance plus: Reserve Funding from New Debt less: Use of Reserves for Debt Service Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance 2016 $ 4,867,361 $ 1,126,445 (5.672.694) $ 321,112 $ 240,834 321,112 60 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 321,112 $ 328,400 $ 339,495 $ 282,830 $ 286,669 $ 358,979 $ 380,262 $ 391,695 $ 448,105 7,288 11,095 (56,665) 3,839 72,311 21,283 11,433 56,410 (19,705) 328,400 $ 339,495 $ 282,830 $ 286,669 $ 358,979 $ 380,262 $ 391,695 $ 448,105 $ 428,400 249,819 260,104 270,996 282,541 294,793 307,809 321,651 336,388 352,094 333,092 346,806 361,328 376,722 393,058 410,412 428,868 448,517 469,459 59 59 47 46 55 56 55 60 55 $ 2,692,803 $ 5,711,401 $ 3,407,533 $ 1,747,496 $ 1,231,502 $ 1,011,739 $ 1,052,178 $ 1,121,021 $ 1,148,801 $ 1,081,545 - 950,000 1,200,000 1,550,000 1,800,000 1,950,000 2,050,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,250,000 118,500 1,881,255 587,500 600,000 600,000 262,500 262,500 262,500 262,500 262,500 31,975 39,950 40,050 40,150 40,250 40,351 40,452 40,553 40,654 40,756 6,732 14,279 17,038 13,106 9,236 7,588 7,891 8,408 8,616 8,112 5,672,694 - - - - - - - - - 24,585 (2,835,888) (5,189,351) (3,504,625) (2,719,250) (2,669,250) (2,220,000) (2,292,000) (2,383,680) (2,479,027) (2,578,188) $ 5,711,401 $ 3,407,533 $ 1,747,496 $ 1,231,502 $ 1,011,739 $ 1,052,178 $ 1,121,021 $ 1,148,801 $ 1,081,545 $ 1,064,724 - $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 $ 622,098 622,098 622,098 622,098 622,098 622,098 622,098 622,098 622,098 622,098 622,098 fl1 0 lD rt �= FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - Additional Capital 2016 model.xlsx (425)867-1802 Funds V c Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 14 A Q City of Edmonds Water Utility Summary Total Capital Projects Revenue Bond Proceeds Use of Capital Fund Balance Direct Rate Funding Total Funding Sources $ 5,906,218 $ 2,302,159 $ 2,529,244 $ 3,463,456 $ 3,601,994 $ 3,746,073 5,706,218 2,302,159 2,529,244 3,463,456 3,601,994 3,746,073 $ 5,906,218 $ 2,302,159 $ 2,529,244 $ 3,463,456 $ 3,601,994 $ 3,746,073 Revenues Rate Revenues Under Existing Rates $ 6,792,000 $ 6,828,911 $ 6,866,095 $ 6,903,556 $ 6,808,446 $ 6,842,488 Non -Rate Revenues 109,579 114,349 119,236 119,441 119,786 119,987 Total Revenues $ 6,901,579 $ 6,943,260 $ 6,985,331 $ 7,022,997 $ 6,928,232 $ 6,962,475 Expenses Cash O&M Expenses [a] $ 4,266,451 $ 4,547,617 $ 4,836,724 $ 5,154,232 $ 5,303,249 $ 5,589,494 Existing Debt Service 1,252,624 1,254,168 1,256,540 1,258,950 1,254,358 1,254,742 New Debt Service - - - - - - Rate Funded System Reinvestment 1,800,000 2,000,000 2,300,000 2,500,000 2,700,000 2,900,000 Rate Funded CIP - - - - - - Total Expenses $ 7,319,075 $ 7,801,785 $ 8,393,264 $ 8,913,181 $ 9,257,607 $ 9,744,236 Annual Rate Adjustment • 0' • • 0' • • 0' • 4 0' • 4 0' • 4 0' Rate Increases Dictated by: Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Rate Revenues After Rate Increase $ 7,403,280 $ 8,113,429 $ 8,891,792 $ 9,297,918 $ 9,536,613 $ 9,967,668 Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase 193,784 425,992 617,764 504,178 398,792 343,419 Coverage After Rate Increases 2.67 3.03 3.43 3.50 3.59 3.71 [a] Includes additional State Excise and B&O Taxes due to the proposed rate increases Operating Fund Capital Fund Debt Reserve Fund Total m Combined Minimum Target Balance 0 CD rt FCS GROUP (425) 867-1802 V $ 679,124 $ 704,198 $ 731,536 $ 777,551 $ 804,367 $ 841,613 4,515,666 4,979,663 5,722,567 5,606,287 5,466,143 5,316,804 1,200,608 1,200,608 1,200,608 1,200,608 1,200,608 1,200,608 $ 6,395,398 $ 6,884,470 $ 7,654,711 $ 7,584,447 $ 7,471,118 $ 7,359,024 $ 1,709,951 $ 1,728,757 $ 1,749,260 $ 1,783,772 $ 1,803,883 $ 1,831,818 Edmonds Water Model - Additional Capital (9-14-16) 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx Summary Attachment: Water Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 1 City of Edmonds Water Utility Assumptions Economic & Financial Factors 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 1 General Cost Inflation 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 2 Construction Cost Inflation 0.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 3 Labor Cost Inflation 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 % 3.00 4 Customer Growth 0.50 % 0.50 % 0.50 % 0.50 % 0.50 % 0.50 % 0.50 % 0.50 % 0.50 % 0.50 5 General Inflation plus Growth 3.52 % 3.52 % 3.52 % 3.52 % 3.52 % 3.52 % 3.52 % 3.52 % 3.52 % 3.52 6 Alderwood Water Rate Increase 5.50 % 5.60 % 3.90 % 4.20 % 9.90 % 3.10 % 5.29 % 5.29 % 5.29 % 5.29 7 Benefits Inflation 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 8 No Escalation 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 Fund Earnings 0.25 % 0.25 % 0.50 % 0.75 % 0.75 % 0.75 % 0.75 % 0.75 % 0.75 % 0.75 State Excise Tax 5.029 % 5.029 % 5.029 % 5.029 % 5.029 % 5.029 % 5.029 % 5.029 % 5.029 % 5.029 % 5.029 State B&O Tax 1.50 % 1.50 % 1.50 % 1.50 % 1.50 % 1.50 % 1.50 % 1.50 % 1.50 % 1.50 % 1.50 City Utility Taxes - Collected 18.70 % 17.07 % 15.50 % 14.05 % 12.68 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 % 10.00 Accounting Assumptions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 FISCAL POLICY RESTRICTIONS Min. Op. Fund Balance Target (days of O&M expense) 1 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Max. Op. Fund Balance (days of O&M expense) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target Select Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target 2 1 - Defined as % of Plant Plant -in -Service in 2014 $ 13,882,377 Minimum Capital Fund Balance - % of plant assets 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 2 - Amount at Right =_> $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - D] 0 X lD rt (Q tC 4 lD �' Attachment: Water Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) City of Edmonds Water Utility Assumptions RATE FUNDED SYSTEM REINVESTMENT Select Reinvestment Funding Strategy Amount of Annual Cash Funding from Rates 1 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense 2 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense less Annual Debt Principal Payments 3 - Equal to Amount at Right =_> $ 1,800,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,300,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,700,000 $ 2,900,000 $ 3,100,000 $ 3,350,000 $ 3,600,000 4 - Do Not Fund System Reinvestment $ 1,672,416 $ 193,784 $ 425,992 $ 617,764 $ 504,178 $ 398,792 $ 343,419 $ 271,000 $ 177,439 $ 98,291 Capital Financing Assumptions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 GENERAL FACILITIES CHARGE (GFC) REVENUES General Facilities Charge Total Equivalent Residential Units (MEs) 13,503 13,571 13,639 13,707 13,775 13,844 13,913 13,983 14,053 14,123 General Facilities Charge Revenues 331,499 — $ 340,955 $ 342,660 $ 344,373 $ 346,095 $ 347,826 $ 349,565 $ 351,313 $ 353,069 $ 354,835 REVENUE BONDS Term (years) 20 — 20 20 Interest Cost (incl. issuance costs, per City staff's direction) 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50 Issuance Cost 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement 1.25 PWTF LOAN Term (years; 10 year minimum and no more than 20 years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% OTHER LOANS & REVENUE -SUPPORTED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS [a] Term (years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost 4.00 % 4.00 % 5.00 % 5.00 % 5.00 % 5.00 % Issuance Cost Ew 0.00%3MO.00 % A 0.00% A 0.00% 0.00 %�0.00 % -A [a] Tax -supported general obligation bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund; terms and annual obligations of such bonds are not factors in this analysis. 20 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20 20 20 20 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 20 20 20 20 5.00 % 5.00 % 5.00 % 5.00 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% w 0) Attachment: Water Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) City of Edmonds Water Utility Existing Debt Input Existing Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2011 Water/Sewer Refunding and New Issue Annual Interest Payment $ 254,530 $ 244,814 $ 234,749 $ 224,409 $ 210,180 $ 195,342 $ 179,938 $ 163,947 $ 150,882 $ 136,891 Annual Principal Payment 323,868 335,504 344,641 355,732 370,959 385,096 399,778 435,507 447,689 459,871 Total Annual Payment $ 578,397 $ 580,318 $ 579,389 $ 580,141 $ 581,139 $ 580,437 $ 579,715 $ 599,453 $ 598,570 $ 596,762 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - - - - Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds 599,453 599,453 599,453 599,453 599,453 599,453 599,453 599,453 598,570 596,762 2013 Revenue Bond Annual Interest Payment $ 236,630 $ 234,430 $ 232,030 $ 228,780 $ 225,280 $ 221,530 $ 217,780 $ 213,780 $ 209,530 $ 205,280 Annual Principal Payment MIL 55,000 A0,000 65.000 A 70,000 75,000 J& 75.000& 80,000 85.000 85,000 100 000 Total Annual Payment $ 291,630 $ 294,430 $ 297,030 $ 298,780 $ 300,280 $ 296,530 $ 297,780 $ 298,780 $ 294,530 $ 305,280 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - - - - Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds 305,280 305,280 305,280 305,280 305,280 305,280 305,280 305,280 305,280 305,280 2015 Revenue Bond Annual Interest Payment $ 202,161 $ 196,207 $ 190,152 $ 183,983 $ 181,229 $ 174,879 $ 171,634 $ 165,979 $ 158,577 $ 151,016 Annual Principal Payment Source 145,425 151,379 157,434 163,603 166,357 172,707 175,952 181,607 189,009 196,570 Total Annual Payment $ 347,586 $ 347,586 $ 347,586 $ 347,586 $ 347,586 $ 347,586 $ 347,586 $ 347,586 $ 347,586 $ 347,586 Use of Debt Reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - - - - Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds 347,586 347,586 347,586 347,586 347,586 347,586 347,586 347,586 347,586 347,586 TOTAL REVENUE BONDS Annual Interest Payment $ 693,321 $ 675,451 $ 656,931 $ 637,173 $ 616,689 $ 591,751 $ 569,352 $ 543,706 $ 518,989 $ 493,187 Annual Principal Payment 524,292 546,883 567,074 589,334 612,316 632,802 655,729 702,113 721,698 756,441 Total Annual Payment $ 1,217,613 $ 1,222,334 $ 1,224,005 $ 1,226,507 $ 1,229,005 $ 1,224,553 $ 1,225,081 $ 1,245,819 $ 1,240,686 $ 1,249,628 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - - - - Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds 1,252,319 1,252,319 1,252,319 1,252,319 1,252,319 1,252,319 1,252,319 1,252,319 1,251,436 1,249,628 fv f'! lD rt -0 � C4 FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model - Additional Capital (9-14-16) 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx -Ph (425) 867-1802 Existing Debt JAttachment: Water Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 4 City of Edmonds Water Utility Existing Debt Input Existing Debt Service - PWTF Loans 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 PWTF LOAN 04-691-031 Five Corners Water Pump Station Project Annual Interest Payment $ 1,163 $ 1,034 $ 904 $ 775 $ 646 $ 517 $ 388 $ 258 $ 129 $ - Annual Principal Payment 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 Total Annual Payment $ 27,002 $ 26,873 $ 26,743 $ 26,614 $ 26,485 $ 26,356 $ 26,227 $ 26,097 $ 25,968 $ PWTF LOAN PP09-951-014 2009 Water Comprehensive Plan Annual Interest Payment $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Annual Principal Payment � _ Total Annual Payment $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ TOTAL PWTF LOANS Annual Interest Payment $ 1,163 $ 1,034 $ 904 $ 775 $ 646 $ 517 $ 388 $ 258 $ 129 $ Annual Principal Payment 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 _ Total Annual Payment $ 27,002 $ 26,873 $ 26,743 $ 26,614 $ 26,485 $ 26,356 $ 26,227 $ 26,097 $ 25,968 $ Existing Debt Service - Other Loans [a] 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 [a] Enter payments for other loans and revenue -supported G.O. issues only. Tax -supported bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund and do not impact this analysis. 2007 LTGO Bond Annual Interest Payment $ 1,162 $ 1,078 $ 990 $ 899 $ 804 $ 704 $ 599 $ 491 $ 379 $ 258 Annual Principal Payment IEL 2,295 2,340 2,430 2,520 2,655 2,745 2,835 2,970 3,060 3,195 Total Annual Payment $ 3,457 $ 3,418 $ 3,420 $ 3,419 $ 3,459 $ 3,449 $ 3,434 $ 3,461 $ 3,439 $ 3,453 TOTAL OTHER LOANS Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment Sv f'! lD rt C4 I FCS GROUP -th. 1 (425) 867-1802 V CJ1 $ 1,162 $ 1,078 $ 990 $ 899 $ 804 $ 704 $ 599 $ 491 $ 379 $ 258 2,295 2,340 2,430 2,520 2,655 2,745 2,835 2,970 3,060 3,195 $ 3,457 $ 3,418 $ 3,420 $ 3,419 $ 3,459 $ 3,449 $ 3,434 $ 3,461 $ 3,439 $ 3,453 Edmonds Water Model - Additional Capital (9-14-16) 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx Existing Debt Attachment: Water Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 5 City of Edmonds Water Utility Operating Revenue and Expenditure Forecast Actual Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Revenues FORECAST BASIS 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Rate Revenues Rate Revenues 4 Customer Growth $ 6,088,017 $ 6,640,758 $ 6,673,962 $ 6,707,332 $ 6,740,868 $ 6,774,573 $ 6,808,446 $ 6,842,488 $ 6,876,700 $ 6,911,084 $ 6,945,639 Fire Hydrant Maintenance 2 Construction Cost Inflation 92,523 114,600 118.038 121.579 125.227 128.983 - - - - - Total Rate Revenues $ 6,180,540 $ 6,755,358 $ 6,792,000 $ 6,828,911 $ 6,866,095 $ 6,903,556 $ 6,808,446 $ 6,842,488 $ 6,876,700 $ 6,911,084 $ 6,945,639 Non -Rate Revenues Miscellaneous revenues ■ No Escalation $ 72,453 $ 51,000 $ 51,000 $ 51,000 $ 51,000 $ 51,000 $ 51,000 $ 51,000 $ 51,000 $ 51,000 $ 51,000 Recycling Grants No Escalation 58,129 53,950 53,950 53,950 53,950 53,950 53.950 53.950 53,950 53,950 53,950 Investment Interest Calculated Interlocal Grant from Lynnwood No Escalation - - - - - - - - - - - Total Non -Rate Revenues $ 130,583 $ 104,950 $ 104,950 $ 104,950 $ 104,950 $ 104,950 $ 104,950 $ 104,950 $ 104,950 $ 104,950 $ 104,950 TOTAL REVENUES $ 6,311,123 $ 6,860,308 $ 6,896,950 $ 6,933,861 $ 6,971,045 $ 7,008,506 $ 6,913,396 $ 6,947,438 $ 6,981,650 $ 7,016,034 $ 7,050,589 Actual Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection C7 0 w CD rt CQ to V CD °' Attachment: Water Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) City of Edmonds Water Utility Operating Revenue and Expenditure Forecast Actual Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Expenditures FORECAST BASIS 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Salaries and Wages Labor Cost Inflation $ 736,062 $ 795,220 $ 819,077 $ 843,649 $ 868,958 $ 895,027 $ 921,878 $ 949,534 $ 978,020 $ 1,007,361 $ 1,037,582 Overtime Labor Cost Inflation 19,062 24,00 24,720 25,462 26,225 27,012 27,823 28,657 29,517 30,402 31,315 Benefits Benefits Inflation 337,368 372,55 409,805 450,786 495,864 545,450 599,996 659,995 725,995 798,594 878,453 Uniforms General Cost Inflation 3,078 4,00 4,120 4,244 4,371 4,502 4,637 4,776 4,919 5,067 5,219 Supplies General Cost Inflation 146,397 151,00 155,530 160,196 165,002 169,952 175,050 180,302 185,711 191,282 197,021 Water Purchased Alderwood Water Rate Increase 1,612,415 1,600,00 1,689,600 1,755,494 1,829,225 2,010,318 2,072,638 2,182,192 2,297,537 2,418,978 2,546,838 Supplies for Inventory/Resale General Cost Inflation 115,633 143,00 147,290 151,709 156,260 160,948 165,776 170,749 175,872 181,148 186,583 Small Equipment General Cost Inflation 13,586 11,00 11,330 11,670 12,020 12,381 12,752 13,135 13,529 13,934 14,353 Professional Services General Cost Inflation 150,000 84,15 86,675 89,275 91,953 94,712 97,553 100,480 103,494 106,599 109,797 Communications General Cost Inflation 31,085 30,000 30,900 31,827 32,782 33,765 34,778 35,822 36,896 38,003 39,143 Travel / Training General Cost Inflation 149 200 206 212 219 225 232 239 246 253 261 Advertising General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - - - Rental / Lease General Cost Inflation - 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 5,796 5,970 6,149 6,334 6,524 Insurance General Cost Inflation 70,904 60,688 62,508 64,383 66,315 68,304 70,354 72,464 74,638 76,877 Public Utility General Cost Inflation 25,368 J40,00 41,200 42,436 43,709 45,020 46,371 47,762 49,195 50,671 52,191 Repair / Maintenance General Cost Inflation 20,338 17,510 18,035 18,576 19,134 19,708 20,299 20,908 21,535 22,181 Miscellaneous (excl. Taxes) General Cost Inflation 64,460 68,701 70,762 72,885 75,071 77,324 79,643 82,033 84,494 87,028 State Taxes Excise and B&O Tax Rate 367,651 402,510 399,630 396,321 393,378 390,674 383,428 385,337 387,256 389,185 391,123 Intergov. Services General Cost Inflation 30,693 30, 30,900 31,827 32,782 33,765 34,778 35,822 36,896 38,003 39,143 Interfund Services General Cost Inflation 447,301 13,82 14,235 14,662 15,101 15,555 16,021 16,502 16,997 17,507 18,032 RCP - Salaries Labor Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - - - RCP - Benefits Labor Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - - - RCP - Travel General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - - - RCP - Miscellaneous General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - - - Interfund Rental General Cost Inflation 95,069 98,623 101,581 104,629 107,767 111,000 114,331 117,760 121,293 124,932 Interfund Repair / Maintenance General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - - - Intergovernmental Loan General Cost Inflation 45,839 - - - - - - - - - Buildings General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - - - Improvements/Projects General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - - - Machinery / Equipment General Cost Inflation 15,960 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,883 17,389 17,911 18,448 19,002 19,572 Interfund Transfer Out [d] General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - - - Amortized Debt Issue Cost No Escalation 99,464 - - - - - - - - - Fiscal Agent Fees No Escalation III- - - - Transfer to Fund 117 No Escalation - - - - - - - - - - Total Cash O&M Expenditures $ 4,447,882 $ 3,959,820 $ 4,131,337 $ 4,283,873 $ 4,450,177 $ 4,730,105 $ 4,893,233 $ 5,119,811 $ 5,359,842 $ 5,614,283 $ 5,884,166 Depreciation Expense [a] Last year's plus annual additions from CIP $ 736,330 $ 796,500 $ 914,624 $ 960,667 $ 1,011,252 $ 1,080,521 $ 1,152,561 $ 1,227,483 $ 1,305,401 $ 1,305,401 $ 1,305,401 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 5,184,212 $ 4,756,320 $ 5,045,962 $ 5,244,540 $ 5,461,429 $ 5,810,626 $ 6,045,794 $ 6,347,293 $ 6,665,243 $ 6,919,684 $ 7,189,567 City Utility Taxes (for excise tax calculation) 1,138,459 1,241,822 1,139,540 1,039,873 947,304 859,326 680,845 684,249 687,670 691,108 694,564 Revenue from Incremental Utility Tax 577,746 472,144 369,140 273,217 181,868 - - - - - Fire Hydrant Revenue plus CPI 114,600 118,038 121,579 125,227 128,983 132,853 136,838 140,944 145,172 149,527 [d] Transfers from Operating Fund to Construction and Debt Service Funds are calculated in the model. [a] Depreciation is a non -cash expense. fl1 0 w lD rt (Q tp Ph V CD Attachment: Water Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) City of Edmonds Water Utility Capital Improvement Program Project Costs in Year: CIP No Description Life in Years Total Cost 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2014 Replacement Program 50 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2015 Replacement Program 50 $ 634,176 634,176 - - - - - - - - - 2015 Waterline Overlays 50 $ - - - - - - - - - - - 2016 Replacement Program 50 $ 1,445,814 1,416,688 29,126 - - - - - - - - 2016 Waterline Overlays 50 $ 62,072 62,072 - - - - - - - - - Dayton Ave 3rd to 9th Utility Improvements 50 $ 628,942 327,000 301,942 - - - - - - - - 2017 Replacement Program 50 $ 2,525,098 302,948 2,222,150 - - - - - - - - 2018 Replacement Program 50 $ 2,276,445 - 388,350 1,888,095 - - - - - - - 2019 Replacement Program 50 $ 2,295,830 - - 281,911 2,013,919 - - - - - - 2020 Replacement Program 50 $ 2,978,162 - - - 300,697 2,677,465 - - - - - 2021 Replacement Program 50 $ 3,103,230 - - - - 399,771 2,703,459 - - - - 2022 Replacement Program 50 $ 3,133,359 - - - - - 403,653 2,729,706 - - - 2023 Replacement Program 50 $ 3,163,779 - - - - - - 407,571 2,756,208 - - 2024 Replacement Program 50 $ 3,194,495 - - - - - - - 411,528 2,782,968 - 2025 Replacement Program 50 $ 3,225,510 - - - - - - - - 415,523 2,809,987 2026 Replacement Program 50 $ 419,558 - - - - - - - - - 419,558 50 $ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 50 $ 50 $ _ _ _ Five Corners Reservoir Recoating 50 $ 1,945,080 114,412 1,830,668 - - - - - - - - 2016 Water System Plan Update 50 $ 148,383 144,500 3,883 - - - - - - - - 2017 Water Overlays 50 $ 203,883 - 203,883 - - - - - - - - Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (228th Project) 50 $ 2 2 - - - - - - - - - Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (212th & 76th) 50 $ 760,879 6,690 754,189 - - - - - - - - Reimbursement to Fund 117 1% Arts (2015 Watermain) 50 $ - - - - - - - - - - - Reimbursement to Fund 117 1% Arts (2016 Watermain) 50 $ - - - - - - - - - - - 50 $ _ 50 $ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars $ 32,144,698 $ 3,008,488 $ 5,734,192 $ 2,170,006 $ 2,314,617 $ 3,077,236 $ 3,107,112 $ 3,137,277 $ 3,167,736 $ 3,198,491 $ 3,229,544 fl1 0 w rt FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model - Additional Capital (9-14-16) 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx (425) 867-1802 CIP Input V 00 Attachment: Water Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 8 City of Edmonds Water Utility Capital Improvement Program Project Costs in Year: Cumulative Inflation 0.001/ 3.00% 6.09% 9.270/6 12.550/6 15.93% 19.41% 22.99% 26.68% 30.48% Annual Inflationj 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN INFLATED DOLLARS CIP No Description Life in Years Total Cost 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2014 Replacement Program 50 $ - 2015 Replacement Program 50 634,176 634,176 2015 Waterline Overlays 50 - 2016 Replacement Program 50 1,446,688 1,416,688 30,000 2016 Waterline Overlays 50 62,072 62,072 Dayton Ave 3rd to 9th Utility Improvements 50 638,000 327,000 311,000 2017 Replacement Program 50 2,591,763 302,948 2,288,815 2018 Replacement Program 50 2,403,080 400,000 2,003,080 2019 Replacement Program 50 2,499,743 299,079 2,200,664 2020 Replacement Program 50 3,342,090 328,580 3,013,510 2021 Replacement Program 50 449,946 449,946 3,134,050 2022 Replacement Program 50 - 467,944 3,259,412 2023 Replacement Program 50 - 486,661 3,389,788 2024 Replacement Program 50 - 506,127 3,525,380 2025 Replacement Program 50 - 526,373 3,666,395 2026 Replacement Program 50 - 547,427 50 50 50 - Five Corners Reservoir Recoating 50 2,000,000 114,412 1,885,588 2016 Water System Plan Update 50 148,500 144,500 4,000 2017 Water Overlays 50 210,000 210,000 Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (228th Project) 50 2 2 Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (212th & 76th) 50 783,505 6,690 776,815 Reimbursement to Fund 117 1%Arts (2015 Watermain) 50 - Reimbursement to Fund 117 1 % Arts (2016 Watermain) 50 - 50 50 Total Capital Projects in Escalated Dollars $ 17,209,565 $ 3,008,488 $ 5,906,218 $ 2,302,159 $ 2,529,244 $ 3,463,456 $ 3,601,994 $ 3,746,073 $ 3,895,916 $ 4,051,753 $ 4,213,823 Capital Expenditure Realization Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total Capital Projects after Realization Factor $ 3,008,488 5,906,218 $ 2,302,159 $ 2,529,244 $ 3,463,456 $ 3,601,994 $ 3,746,073 $ 3,895,916 $ 4,051,753 $ 4,213,823 D] 0 w lD rt FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model - Additional Capital (9-14-16) 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx (425) 867-1802 CIP Input V t° Attachment: Water Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 9 1D P. CD City of Edmonds Water Utility Capital Funding Analysis Summary of Expenditures 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $ - $ 3,008,488 $ 5,906,218 $ 2,302,159 $ 2,529,244 $ 3,463,456 $ 3,601,994 $ 3,746,073 $ 3,895,916 $ 4,051,753 $ 4,213,823 Capital Financing Plan 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Other Outside Sources $ $ 237,500 $ 200,000 $ $ $ - $ $ $ - $ PWTF Loan Proceeds - - - Other Loan Proceeds - L9i Capital Fund Balance 2,507,386 5,706,218 2,302,159 2,529,244 3,463,456 3,601,994 3,746,073 3,895,916 4,051,753 4,213,823 General Facilities Charge Revenue 269,222 301,400 340,955 342,660 344,373 346,095 347,826 349,565 351,313 353,069 354,835 Interest Earnings 14,362 6,268 19,739 22,578 37,347 42,919 42,047 40,996 39,876 38,577 37,268 Revenue Bond Proceeds [Note B] - - - - - - - - - - - Rates Total $ 283,583 $ 3,052,554 $ 6,266,912 $ 2,667,397 $ 2,910,965 $ 3,852,470 $ 3,991,867 $ 4,136,634 $ 4,287,105 $ 4,443,399 $ 4,605,926 TOTAL CAPITAL RESOURCES Info: Capital Contingency Deficit $ 283,583 $ 3,052,554 $ 6,266,912 $ 2,667,397 $ 2,910,965 $ 3,852,470 $ 3,991,867 $ 4,136,634 $ 4,287,105 $ 4,443,399 $ 4,605,926 NOTE A: SELECTION OF RESIDUAL CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCE Select the Residual Funding Source 1 Revenue Bond Proceeds 1- Revenue Bond Proceeds 2 - Rates NOTE B: USER INPUT FOR REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS Select Amount of Bond Proceeds 1 User Defined 1 - Amounts at Right =_> $ - $ 2 - Calculated by the Model D] 0 w CD rt (Q tC Ph 00 0) c Attachment: Water Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) City of Edmonds Water Utility Capital Funding Analysis New Debt Computations 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 REVENUE BONDS Amount to Fund $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Issuance Costs Reserve Required - - - - - - - - - - - Amount of Debt Issue $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - OTHER LOANS Amount to Fund $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Issuance Costs Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PWTF LOAN Amount to Fund [a] Debt Service Summary 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 EXISTING DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ 594,624 $ 695,645 $ 677,563 $ 658,825 $ 638,847 $ 618,140 $ 592,971 $ 570,339 $ 544,456 $ 519,496 $ 493,445 Annual Principal Payments 480,635 552,426 575,062 595,343 617,693 640,810 661,386 684,403 730,922 750,597 759,636 Total Debt Service Payments $ 1,075,259 $ 1,248,072 $ 1,252,624 $ 1,254,168 $ 1,256,540 $ 1,258,950 $ 1,254,358 $ 1,254,742 $ 1,275,378 $ 1,270,093 $ 1,253,081 Revenue Bond Payments Only 1,024,681 1,217,613 1,222,334 1,224,005 1,226,507 1,229,005 1,224,553 1,225,081 1,245,819 1,240,686 1,249,628 NEW DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Annual Principal Payments - - - - - - - - - - Total Debt Service Payments $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Revenue Bond Payments Only - - - - - - - - - - - TOTAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS $ 1,075,259 $ 1,248,072 $ 1,252,624 $ 1,254,168 $ 1,256,540 $ 1,258,950 $ 1,254,358 $ 1,254,742 $ 1,275,378 $ 1,270,093 $ 1,253,081 Total Interest Payments 594,624 695,645 677,563 658,825 638,847 618,140 592,971 570,339 544,456 519,496 493,445 Total Principal Payments 480,635 552,426 575,062 595,343 617,693 640,810 661,386 684,403 730,922 750,597 759,636 Total Revenue Bond Payments Only 1,024,681 1,217,613 1,222,334 1,224,005 1,226,507 1,229,005 1,224,553 1,225,081 1,245,819 1,240,686 1,249,628 D] 0 w lD rt fQ tC 00 3 Attachment: Water Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) City of Edmonds Water Utility Revenue Requirements Analysis Cash Flow Sufficiency Test 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 EXPENSES Cash Operating Expenses $ 3,959,820 $ 4,131,337 $ 4,283,873 $ 4,450,177 $ 4,730,105 $ 4,893,233 $ 5,119,811 $ 5,359,842 $ 5,614,283 $ 5,884,166 Existing Debt Service 1,248,072 1,252,624 1,254,168 1,256,540 1,258,950 1,254,358 1,254,742 1,275,378 1,270,093 1,253,081 New Debt Service - - - - - - - - - - Rate -Funded CIP - - - - - - - - - - Rate Funded System Reinvestment - 1,800,000 2,000,000 2,300,000 2,500,000 2,700,000 2,900,000 3,100,000 3,350,000 3,600,000 Additions Required to Meet Minimum Op. Fund Balance - - - - - - - - - - Total Expenses $ 5,207,892 $ 7,183,961 $ 7,538,041 $ 8,006,717 $ 8,489,054 $ 8,847,591 $ 9,274,553 $ 9,735,220 $ 10,234,376 $ 10,737,247 REVENUES Rate Revenue $ 6,755,358 $ 6,792,000 $ 6,828,911 $ 6,866,095 $ 6,903,556 $ 6,808,446 $ 6,842,488 $ 6,876,700 $ 6,911,084 $ 6,945,639 Other Revenue 104,950 104,950 104,950 104,950 104,950 104,950 104,950 104,950 104,950 104,950 Operating Fund & Debt Reserve Fund Interest Earnings 20,000 4,629 9,399 14,286 14,491 14,836 15,037 15,317 15,613 15,926 Total Revenue $ 6,880,308 $ 6,901,579 $ 6,943,260 $ 6,985,331 $ 7,022,997 $ 6,928,232 $ 6,962,475 $ 6,996,967 $ 7,031,646 $ 7,066,516 NET CASH FLOW (DEFICIENCY) $ 1,672,416 $ (282,383) $ (594,782) $ (1,021,386) $ (1,466,057) $ (1,919,359) $ (2,312,078) $ (2,738,253) $ (3,202,729) $ (3,670,732) Coverage Sufficiency Test 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 EXPENSES Cash Operating Expenses $ 3,959,820 $ 4,131,337 $ 4,283,873 $ 4,450,177 $ 4,730,105 $ 4,893,233 $ 5,119,811 $ 5,359,842 $ 5,614,283 $ 5,884,166 Revenue Bond Debt Service 1,217,613 1,222,334 1,224,005 1,226,507 1,229,005 1,224,553 1,225,081 1,245,819 1,240,686 1,249,628 Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement at 1.25 304,403 305,583 306,001 306,627 307,251 306,138 306,270 311,455 310,172 312,407 Total Expenses $ 5,481,837 $ 5,659,255 $ 5,813,879 $ 5,983,311 $ 6,266,361 $ 6,423,925 $ 6,651,163 $ 6,917,116 $ 7,165,141 $ 7,446,201 ALLOWABLE REVENUES Rate Revenue $ 6,755,358 $ 6,792,000 $ 6,828,911 $ 6,866,095 $ 6,903,556 $ 6,808,446 $ 6,842,488 $ 6,876,700 $ 6,911,084 $ 6,945,639 Other Revenue 104,950 104,950 104,950 104,950 104,950 104,950 104,950 104,950 104,950 104,950 Interest Earnings - All Funds 26,268 24,368 31,977 51,634 57,410 56,883 56.033 55,193 54,190 53,195 Total Revenue $ 6,886,577 $ 6,921,318 $ 6,965,838 $ 7,022,679 $ 7,065,916 $ 6,970,279 $ 7,003,471 $ 7,036,843 $ 7,070,224 $ 7,103,784 Individual Coverage Realized 2.40 2.28 2.19 2.10 1.90 1.70 1.54 1.35 1.17 = 0.98 INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE SURPLUS(DEFICIENCY) $ 1,404,740 $ 1,262,063 $ 1,151,959 $ 1,039,368 $ 799,555 $ 546,354 $ 352,309 $ 119,727 $ (94,917) $ (342,417) COVERAGE SURPLUS (DEFICIENCY) $ 1,404,740 $ 1,262,063 $ 11151,959 $ 1,039,368 $ 799,555 $ 546,354 $ 352,309 $ 119,727 $ (94,917) $ (342,417) D] 0 W lD rt FCSGROUP .9h. 1 (425) 867-1802 00 IV Edmonds Water Model - Additional Capital (9-14-16) 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx Tests Attachment: Water Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 12 P. CD City of Edmonds Water Utility Revenue Requirements Analysis Maximum Revenue Deficiency 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Sufficiency Test Driving the Deficiency None Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Maximum Deficiency From Tests $ (1,404,740) $ 282,383 $ 594,782 $ 1,021,386 $ 1,466,057 $ 1,919,359 $ 2,312,078 $ 2,738,253 $ 3,202,729 $ 3,670,732 less: Net Revenue From Prior Rate Increases (614,602) (1,291,512) (2,036,749) (2,361,374) (2,741,808) (3,140,806) (3,559,213) (3,997,915) Revenue Deficiency $ (1,404,740) $ 282,383 $ (19,820) $ (270,126) $ (570,692) $ (442,016) $ (429,730) $ (402,552) $ (356,484) $ (327,184) Plus: Adjustment for State Excise Tax (437,035) 80.127 153,678 240.865 315,594 339,481 408,942 484,321 566,473 649,250 Total Revenue Deficiency $ (1,841,775) $ 362,510 $ 133,857 $ (29,262) $ (255,098) $ (102,535) $ (20,788) $ 81,768 $ 209,989 $ 322,066 Rate Increases 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Rate Revenue with no Increase $ 6,755,358 $ 6,792,000 $ 6,828,911 $ 6,866,095 $ 6,903,556 $ 6,808,446 $ 6,842,488 $ 6,876,700 $ 6,911,084 $ 6,945,639 Revenues from Prior Rate Increases - - 614,602 1,291,512 2,036,749 2,361,374 2,741,808 3,140,806 3,559,213 3,997,915 Rate Revenue Before Rate Increase (Incl. previous increases) 6,755,358 6,792,000 7,443,513 8,157,607 8,940,305 9,169,820 9,584,296 10,017,506 10,470,297 10,943,555 Required Annual Rate Increase -27.26 % 5.34 % 1.80 % -0.36 % -2.85 % -1.12 % -0.22 % 0.82 % 2.01 % 2.94 Number of Months New Rates Will Be In Effect 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Info: Percentage Increase to Generate Required Revenue -27.26% 5.34% 1.80% -0.36% -2.85% -1.12% -0.22% 0.82% 2.01 % 2.94% Policy Induced Rate Increases 0.00 % 9.00% 9.00% 9.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00 ANNUAL RATE INCREASE 0.00% 9.00% 9.00% 9.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% CUMULATIVE RATE INCREASE 0.00 % 9.00% 18.81 % 29.50 % 34.68 % 40.07 % 45.67 % 51.50 % 57.56 % 63.86 npacts of Rate Increases 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2M ate Revenues After Rate Increase $ 6,755,358 $ 7,403,280 $ 8,113,429 $ 8,891,792 $ 9,297,918 $ 9,536,613 $ 9,967,668 $ 10,418,206 $ 10,889,109 $ 11,381,29 ill Year Rate Revenues After Rate Increase 6,755,358 7,403,280 8,113,429 8,891,792 9,297,918 9,536,613 9,967,668 10,418,206 10,889,109 11,381,29 lditional State & City Taxes Due to Rate Increases - 135,114 263,744 386,547 424,127 410,016 469,683 532,253 597,857 666,63 at Cash Flow After Rate Increase 1,672,416 193,784 425,992 617,764 504,178 398,792 343,419 271,000 177,439 98,29 dividual Coverage After Rate Increase 2.40 2.67 3.03 3.43 3.50 3.59 3.71 3.76 3.90 3.9 D] 0 77 (D rt FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model - Additional Capital (9-14-16) 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx -th. I (425) 867-1802 Tests J'001 Attachment: Water Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) Page 13 !D P. CD City of Edmonds Water Utility Fund Activity Funds OPERATING FUND Beginning Balance plus: Net Cash Flow after Rate Increase less: Transfer of Surplus to Capital Fund Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance Maximum Funds to be Kept as Operating Reserves Info: No of Days of Cash Operating Expenses CAPITAL FUND Beginning Balance plus: Rate Funded System Reinvestment plus: Grants / Developer Donations / Other Outside Sources plus: General Facilities Charges plus: Net Debt Proceeds Available for Projects plus: Interest Earnings plus: Transfer of Surplus from Operating Fund plus: Direct Rate Funding less: Capital Expenditures Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance DEBT RESERVE Beginning Balance plus: Reserve Funding from New Debt less: Use of Reserves for Debt Service Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance FCS GROUP (425) 867-1802 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 - $ 650,929 $ 679,124 $ 704,198 $ 731,536 $ 777,551 $ 804,367 $ 841,613 $ 881,070 $ 922,896 1,672,416 193,784 425,992 617,764 504,178 398,792 343,419 271,000 177,439 98,291 (7,851,534) (165,589) (400,918) (590,427) (458,162) (371,977) (306,173) (231,542) (135,613) (53,926) $ 650,929 $ 679,124 $ 704,198 $ 731,536 $ 777,551 $ 804,367 $ 841,613 $ 881,070 $ 922,896 $ 967,260 488,197 509,343 528,149 548,652 583,164 603,275 631,210 660,802 692,172 725,445 650,929 679,124 704,198 731,536 777,551 804,367 841,613 881,070 922,896 967,260 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 $ 2,507,386 $ 7,895,601 $ 4,515,666 $ 4,979,663 $ 5,722,567 $ 5,606,287 $ 5,466,143 $ 5,316,804 $ 5,143,619 $ 4,969,125 - 1,800,000 2,000,000 2,300,000 2,500,000 2,700,000 2,900,000 3,100,000 3,350,000 3,600,000 237,500 200,000 - - - - - - - - 301,400 340,955 342,660 344,373 346,095 347,826 349,565 351,313 353,069 354,835 6,268 19,739 22,578 37,347 42,919 42,047 40,996 39,876 38,577 37,268 7,851,534 165,589 400,918 590,427 458,162 371,977 306,173 231,542 135,613 53,926 (3,008,488) (5,906,218) (2,302,159) (2,529,244) (3,463,456) (3,601,994) (3,746,073) (3,895,916) (4,051,753) (4,213,823) $ 7,895,601 $ 4,515,666 $ 4,979,663 $ 5,722,567 $ 5,606,287 $ 5,466,143 $ 5,316,804 $ 5,143,619 $ 4,969,125 $ 4,801,332 - $ 1,200,608 $ 1,200,608 $ 1,200,608 $ 1,200,608 $ 1,200,608 $ 1,200,608 $ 1,200,608 $ 1,200,608 $ 1,200,608 $ 1,200,608 $ 1,200,608 $ 1,200,608 $ 1,200,608 $ 1,200,608 $ 1,200,608 $ 1,200,608 $ 1,200.608 $ 1,200,608 $ 1,200,608 1,200, 608 1,200, 608 1,200, 608 1,200, 608 1,200, 608 1,200, 608 1,200, 608 1,200, 608 1,200, 608 1,200, 608 Edmonds Water Model - Additional Capital (9-14-16) 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx Funds Page14 Attachment: Water Rate Model (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) W ,IL m 3 WL W C Attachment: PowerPoint - Utility Rate Discussion (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) 9.4.f Seattle $ 122.70 Kirkland $ 95.95 City of Arlington $ 70.15 Woodinville WD $ 69.18 Mukilteo W & S District Westside $ 64.12 City of Lake Forest Park $ 59.12 Alderwood Water & Wastewater $ 57.75 Redmond $ 56.18 Shoreline (via Ronald WWD) $ 53.50 Mountlake Terrace $ 48.00 Lynnwood $ 44.38 Everett $ 42.43 Edmonds $ 36.57 Olympic View W & S District $ 28.21 'nC. 1$9V Packet Pg. 487 9.4.f Seattle $ 122.70 Kirkland $ 95.95 City of Arlington $ 70.15 Woodinville WD $ 69.18 Mukilteo W & S District Westside $ 64.12 City of Lake Forest Park $ 59.12 Alderwood Water & Wastewater $ 57.75 Redmond $ 56.18 Shoreline (via Ronald WWD) $ 53.50 Mountlake Terrace $ 48.00 Lynnwood $ 44.38 Everett $ 42.43 Edmonds $ 36.57 Olympic View W & S District $ 28.21 `nC. 1$9v Packet Pg. 488 IV O CA) U) r+ -0 1 CD U) CD r+ O .m.. N O O ;u r+ CD -11 CD n O 3 3 CD O j-fA--j 3 CD CD w C� CD IV O CO N O C�J r+ l< v C 3 (D Q r+ CD cn CD m v CD 9.4.f M `nc, 189v Revenues Rate Revenues Under Existing Rates $ 6,372,883 $ 6,404,747 $ 6,436,771 $ 6,468,955 $ 6,501,300 $ 6,533,806 Non -Rate Revenues 2,184,340 2,278,569 2,377,997 2,477,020 2,581,837 2,692,905 Total Revenues $ 8,557,223 $ 8,683,317 $ 8,814,768 $ 8,945,975 $ 9,083,137 $ 9,226,711 Expenses 411 Sewer Cash O&M Expenses [a] 411 Treatment O&M - Edmonds Only Transfer to Fund 414 (excl. Capital) Existing Debt Service New Debt Service Rate Funded System Reinvestment Rate Funded CIP Total Expenses Annual Rate Adjustment Y" Rate Revenues After Rate Increase Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase $ 3,170, 399 $ 3,359,590 $ 3,562,413 $ 3,722,987 $ 3,891,393 $ 4,068,123 3,826,106 3,981,922 4,146, 515 4,320,560 4,504,791 4,700,010 130,098 129,695 129,979 130,203 130,473 113,177 1,355,068 1,354,906 1,351,946 1,347,476 1,347,962 1,348,987 450,000 700,000 950,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 1,900,000 $ 8,931,670 $ 9,526,112 $ 10,140,852 $ 10,771,225 $ 11,374,619 $ 12,130,298 y roficy roficy roucy roucy roucy $ 6,978,307 $ 7,679,452 $ 8,451,045 $ 8,833,033 $ 9,232,286 $ 9,649,585 230,977 431,909 688,190 538,827 439,504 212,192 [a] Includes additional taxes due to proposed rate increases. Packet Pg. 490 9.4.f Kates — 2U Seattle $ 122.70 Kirkland $ 95.95 Arlington $ 70.15 Woodinville WD $ 69.18 Mukilteo W & S District Westside $ 64.12 Lake Forest Park $ 59.12 Alderwood Water & Wastewater $ 57.75 Redmond $ 56.18 Shoreline (via Ronald WWD) $ 53.50 Edmonds $ 48.01 Mountlake Terrace $ 48.00 Lynnwood $ 44.38 Everett $ 42.43 Olympic View W & S District $ 28.21 `nC. 1, v Packet Pg. 491 9.4.f W J Seattle $ 134.08 Kirkland $ 104.84 Arlington $ 76.65 Woodinville WD $ 75.59 Mukilteo W & S District Westside $ 70.07 Lake Forest Park $ 64.60 Alderwood Water & Wastewater $ 63.10 Redmond $ 61.39 Shoreline (via Ronald WWD) $ 58.46 Mountlake Terrace $ 52.45 Lynnwood $ 48.50 Edmonds $ 48.01 Everett $ 46.36 Olympic View W & S District $ 30.83 `nC. 1, v a Packet Pg. 492 c> 3 (n o 3 CD CD CD cn w m CD < _. CD M 3 CD �. o < x — CD CD (n cr CD(n — — CD CD cn 0 �l 3 CD mn 9.4.f Y. Q Packet Pg. 494 9.4.f J. Packet Pg. 495 Q. (+ 3 CD CD w 0 CD w 11 N O r--1 O IV O CO N O O� CD l< w 3 CD w O lll��o CD 3 CD CD w C� CD w 11 ..-d N O C�J CD l< w 3 CD 0- C3� 0 CD cn 0 �l 3 CD mn 9.4.f `nc, 189v Revenues Rate Revenues Under Existing Rates $ 3,331,540 $ 3,339,869 $ 3,348,219 $ 3,356,589 $ 3,364,981 $ 3,373,393 Non -Rate Revenues 26,701 29,096 31,555 31,130 31,159 31,701 Total Revenues $ 3,358,242 $ 3,368,965 $ 3,379,774 $ 3,387,720 $ 3,396,140 $ 3,405,095 Expenses Cash O&M Expenses [a] $ 2,064,625 $ 2,190,394 $ 2,325,527 $ 2,470,869 $ 2,610,354 $ 2,734,706 Existing Debt Service 669,483 668,849 669,172 670,805 670,030 668,968 New Debt Service - - - - - - Rate Funded System Reinvestment 950,000 1,200,000 1,550,000 1,800,000 1,950,000 2,050,000 Rate Funded CIP - - - - - - Total Expenses $ 3,684,108 $ 4,059,243 $ 4,544,699 $ 4,941,674 $ 5,230,384 $ 5,453,674 Annual Rate Adjustment 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 7.00% 000, Rate Increases Victated by.,1-0/icy 1-0/icy 1-0/icy Poficy Policy Policy Rate Revenues After Rate Increase $ 3,664,694 $ 4,041,242 $ 4,456,479 $ 4,914,383 $ 5,271,535 $ 5,443,256 Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase 7,288 11,095 (56,665) 3,839 72,311 21,283 Coverage After Rate Increases 3.21 3.71 4.25 4.85 5.28 5.38 [a] Includes additional B&O taxes due to the proposed rate increases Q Packet Pg. 497 9.4.f 0 ends Stormwater Rates — 2a Seattle $32.50 Edmonds $18.89 Kirkland $18.14 Everett $17.44 Redmond $16.56 Lake Forest Park $16.00 Mukilteo $15.73 Shoreline $13.40 Lynnwood $11.56 Mountlake Terrace $11.45 Woodinville $7.26 Arlington $6.89 `°o. 189" Packet Pg. 498 9.4.f • Seattle Kirkland Everett Edmonds Redmond Lake Forest Park M u ki lteo Shoreline Lynnwood Mountlake Terrace Woodinville Arlington Rates — 2a flator for of $35.52 $19.82 $19.06 $18.89 $18.10 $17.48 $17.19 $14.64 $12.64 $12.51 $7.94 $7.53 `7C, IS9v Packet Pg. 499 O A Lh Attachment: PowerPoint - Utility Rate Discussion (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) 9.4.f Ah Shoreline City of Lake Forest Park Woodinville WD Seattle Kirkland Arlington Edmonds Everett Redmond Olympic View W&S District Mountlake Terrace Alderwood Water & Wastewater Mukilteo W & S District Westside Lvn nwood �Ma-Mr: $ 87.70 $ 87.70 $ 73.69 $ 72.30 $ 65.13 $ 52.73 $ 52.51 $ 42.49 $ 42.25 $ 38.82 $ 38.40 $ 37.96 $ 37.75 $ 34.75 'nc, 189,3 Packet Pg. 501 9.4.f Ah Shoreline City of Lake Forest Park Woodinville WD Seattle Kirkland Arlington Edmonds Everett Redmond Olympic View W&S District Mountlake Terrace Alderwood Water & Wastewater Mukilteo W & S District Westside Lvn nwood �Ma-Mr: $ 87.70 $ 87.70 $ 73.69 $ 72.30 $ 65.13 $ 52.73 $ 52.51 $ 42.49 $ 42.25 $ 38.82 $ 38.40 $ 37.96 $ 37.75 $ 34.75 'nc, 189,3 Packet Pg. 502 9.4.f Y. a Packet Pg. 503 9.4.f 2,500,000 2,000,000 UL U U w 1,500,000 cn z O U 1,000,000 z n O Q 500,000 0 Edmonds Water Consumption CCF cb`b 00 0i1, O� 00 02� 00 00' O� 00 O`b ,�O �O NO NO f TO �O �O �O �O �O `nc, 189� Packet Pg. 504 IV O COO CD U) CD O N O CT) j-fA--j 3 CD CD w C� CD m IV O c0 N O C�J r+ CD r+ CD PIE ag v CD 9.4.f .()7c, IS9V Revenues Rate Revenues Under Existing Rates $ 6,792,000 $ 6,828,911 $ 6,866,095 $ 6,903,556 $ 6,808,446 $ 6,842,488 Non -Rate Revenues 109,579 114,349 119,236 119,441 119,786 119,987 Total Revenues $ 6,901,579 $ 6,943,260 $ 6,985,331 $ 7,022,997 $ 6,928,232 $ 6,962,475 Expenses Cash O&M Expenses [a] $ 4,266,451 $ 4,547,617 $ 4,836,724 $ 5,154,232 $ 5,303,249 $ 5,589,494 Existing Debt Service 1,252,624 1,254,168 1,256,540 1,258,950 1,254,358 1,254,742 New Debt Service - - - - - - Rate Funded System Reinvestment 1,800,000 2,000,000 2,300,000 2,500,000 2,700,000 2,900,000 Rate Funded CIP - - - - - - Total Expenses $ 7,319,075 $ 7,801,785 $ 8,393,264 $ 8,913,181 $ 9,257,607 $ 9,744,236 Annual Rate Adjustment • 00', • 00', • 00', - 00', - 00', - 00', Rate Increases Dictated by: Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Rate Revenues After Rate Increase $ 7,403,280 $ 8,113,429 $ 8,891,792 $ 9,297,918 $ 9,536,613 $ 9,967,668 Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase 193,784 425,992 617,764 504,178 398,792 343,419 Coverage After Rate Increases 2.67 3.03 3.43 3.50 3.59 3.71 [a] Includes additional State Excise and B&O Taxes due to the proposed rate increases. a Packet Pg. 506 9.4.f W Shoreline Lake Forest Park Woodinville WD Seattle Edmonds Kirkland Arlington Everett Redmond Olympic View W&S District Mountlake Terrace Alderwood Water & Wastewater Mukilteo W & S District Westside Lvn nwood /. $ $ $ 87.70 87.70 73.69 72.30 65.13 52.73 42.49 42.25 38.82 38.40 37.96 37.75 34.75 'nc, 189" Packet Pg. 507 9.4.f W Shoreline Lake Forest Park Woodinville WD Seattle Kirkland Edmonds Arlington Everett Redmond Olympic View W&S District Mountlake Terrace Alderwood Water & Wastewater Mukilteo W & S District Westside Lvn nwood /. 95.83 95.83 80.52 79.00 71.16 57.62 46.43 46.17 42.41 41.96 41.47 41.25 37.97 'nc, 189" Packet Pg. 508 9.4.f J. Packet Pg. 509 VJ n 0 O cn l< X -11 CD CD CD cn O 0 CD O CD CD O � S 3 CD O N O r+ N l< N '{ X O Z) nil CD C 0 (n O D CD 11 N CD 0 O CD Q CD Q 0 D� CQ C CD 11 X CD 9.4.f D`r City Seattle Kirkland Lake Forest Park Shoreline Woodinville Arlington Edmonds Mukilteo Redmond Edmonds Everett Mountlake Terrace Lvnnwood I: Current $227.50 $159.63 $162.82 $154.60 $150.13 $129.77 $117.60 $114.99 $102.36 $ 97.85 $ 90.69 01 1'11 OY:l 9 RIO 1 11 c. l R`)` 2019 Projected at 30/o/year for all Cities except Edmonds. Edmonds projected at recommended rates $ 248.60 $ 195.83 $ 177.92 $ 168.93 $ 164.05 $ 141.80 $ 132.25 $ 128.50 $ 125.65 $ 111.85 $ 106.92 $ 99.10 Packet Pg. 511 O O � 0 0 ✓� 1 < CD \ O CD CD CD MMI CD n C� MMI CD CCD CD CD O Cn CD CD Q. CD CD CD O � —h GJ C ^ N CA) O CD � � � O CD M O N O O —h O O U) �+ O CD CD m mn 3 CD 11 00 !CD �1 a ;u CD n CD 3 CD r+ 6 �1 �mn V , r-F 0 mn 3 G ;a CD n CD 3 CD G ;u CD n CD 3 CD 0 CD �l CD Q I zT rn v c� CD cD CD m 0- 3 0 c rn 0 w CD 0 n CD D CD rn n 0 n 0 0 0 T � � � r cn v k CD (n cD � CD CD CD � 3 CD 0 rn 3 o. CD �. CD 0 (n z 0 C� 0 CD MMI CD n Attachment: PowerPoint - Utility Rate Discussion (1671 : Utility Rate Analysis - Public Hearing) 10.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/15/2016 Closed Record Review for the Meadowdale Club House Play Structure Variance (PLN20160043) (20 min.) Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History A public hearing was held before the Hearing Examiner on October 13, 2016. Staff Recommendation Accept the Hearing Examiner recommendation to approve the set back variance for the play structure. Narrative The City of Edmonds' Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department (Parks Department) is requesting a setback variance to replace a play structure at the Meadowdale Clubhouse located at 6801 North Meadowdale Road. The subject property is zoned RS-20 (Single-family Residential; 20,000 square foot minimum lot size) which requires a 25-foot street setback. The location of the old play structure and the proposed replacement is within the 25-foot street setback of the terminus of 164t" Place SW. Due to site restrictions, there is no other feasible location for the new play structure. As a result, the Parks Department is requesting a variance to place the new play structure within the 25-foot street setback 4 feet from the northern property boundary and the terminus of 1641" Place SW. Variances are Type III-B land use permits which require a public hearing and a decision by the Hearing Examiner (ECDC 20.01). In this instance, since the variance request is from a public entity (City of Edmonds' Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department) the action of the Hearing Examiner is a recommendation to the City Council in accordance with ECDC 17.00.030.C. Attachments: Draft Resolution Approving Meadowdale Play Structure Variance Exhibit A - Hearing Examiner Recommendation PLN20160043 Staff Report with Attachments Packet Pg. 516 10.1.a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ACCEPTING THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE PLAY STRUCTURE SETBACK VARIANCE (PLN20160043) AND ADOPTING THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AS THE CITY COUNCIL'S OWN. WHEREAS, the hearing examiner conducted an open record hearing regarding a proposed Meadowdale Club House play structure setback variance on October 13, 2016; and WHEREAS, on October 27, 2016, the hearing examiner adopted findings and conclusions and made a recommendation to the city council, all of which are contained in Exhibit A, which exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (hereinafter, the "Recommendation"); and WHEREAS, the city council, after conducting a closed record review on November 15, 2016, agrees with the hearing examiner's Recommendation and would like to adopt the Recommendation as its decision on the matter; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The city council hereby adopts the Recommendation of the hearing examiner as its own findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision on application PLN20160043. The proposal set forth in PLN20160043 is hereby approved. RESOLVED THIS 15ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016: 1 Packet Pg. 517 N Attachment: Draft Resolution Approving Meadowdale Play Structure Variance (1657 : Closed Record Review for the Meadowdale Club House 10.1.b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Meadowdale Clubhouse Play Structure Setback Variance FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION PLN-2016-0043 INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting a setback variance to replace an existing play structure within a 25-foot street setback at the Meadowdale Clubhouse located at 6801 North Meadowdale Road. The examiner recommends approval of the variance, ECEN ORAL TESTIMONY OCT 3 12016 Staff Testimony: PLANNING Kernen Lien, senior planner, summarized the proposal. An existing play structure has been in place since the 1990s and has been removed. There's no other location for the replacement structure. In response to examiner questions, the structure can't be placed in the treed area because the area is sloped and serves as a buffer for adjoining properties. The sloped area has been designated an erosion hazard area. The play structure location couldn't be moved any further away from the property lines because of required "fall" zones around the structure. Michelle Parker, a teacher and director of the Meadowdale Clubhouse, testified that play structures serve an important function in early childhood education, providing learning opportunities not available within the classroom. The current absence of outdoor play facilities has visibly affected the four and five year olds using the Clubhouse. EXHIBITS See the exhibit list on page 7 of the October 6, 2016 Staff Report. Attachments 1-13 were entered as Exhibits 1 at the hearing in addition to the staff report. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. The applicant is the City of Edmonds' Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department (Parks Department). Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Packet Pg. 519 1 10.1.b 2 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application on October 13, 2016 at 3:00 p.m. at the Edmonds Public Safety Complex in the Council Chambers. 3 Substantive: 4 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3. Site/Proposal Description. The City of Edmonds' Parks Department is requesting a setback variance to replace a play structure at the Meadowdale Clubhouse (Exhibit 1, Att. 1-5). The Meadowdale Clubhouse is located at 6801 North Meadowdale Road. There has been a play structure located on the north side of the Clubhouse for more than 20 years. The Parks Department is proposing to replace the old play structure for safety reasons. The subject property is zoned RS-20 (Single-family Residential; 20,000 square foot minimum lot size) which requires a 25-foot street setback. Local public facilities identified in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) are permitted as a primary use in the R-20 zone pursuant to ECDC 16.20.010.A and ECDC 17.100.050.A. The Meadowdale Clubhouse play structure is included in the CIP. The site is triangular and therefore has three front street setbacks of 25 feet. The proposed play structure would be located with the 25-foot street setback of 164th Place SW (Exhibit 1, Att. 3). The location of the old play structure and the proposed replacement is within the 25-foot street setback of the terminus of 164th Place SW (Exhibit 1, Att. 3). The old play structure was considered a nonconforming structure. Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 17.40.020.17, if a nonconforming structure is damaged in an amount equal to 75% or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, a structure cannot be reconstructed except in in full conformance with the Edmonds Community Development Code. Since the old nonconforming play structure has been removed, a replacement play structure is required to comply with the Edmonds Community Development Code. Due to site restrictions, there is no other feasible location for the new play structure. As a result, the Parks Department is requesting a variance to place the new play structure within the 25-foot street setback 4 feet from the northern property boundary and the terminus of 164th Place SW. 4. Characteristics of the Area. The Meadowdale Clubhouse is located in a residential area. The subject site and properties to the north or zoned RS-20 (Single- family Residential; 20,000 square feet minimum lot size) and properties further to the west are zoned RS-12 (Single-family; 12,000 square feet minimum lot size. The City of Lynnwood jurisdictional boundary is located on the west side of 68th Avenue West and the south side of North Meadowdale Road. Properties on the north side of North Meadowdale Road are developed with single-family residences. The Meadowdale Playfields are located on the south side North Meadowdale Road. Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Packet Pg. 520 1 10.1.b 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5. Adverse Impacts. This proposal is exempt from SEPA review based on special circumstances (WAC 197-11-800 (6)(e) and ECDC 20.15A.080). The new play structure will replace an existing, unsafe play structure in the same location. No adverse impacts are anticipated. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ECDC 20.85.020 provides the Hearing Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications as Type III - A decisions in accordance with ECDC 20.01. In this instance, since the variance request is from a public entity (City of Edmonds' Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department) the action of the Hearing Examiner shall be a recommendation to the City Council in accordance with ECDC 17.00.030.C. Substantive: 2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as "Single Family — Resource". The area is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-20). 3. SEPA Compliance and Notice. The proposed use is exempt from SEPA requirements pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(6)(e). As noted on page 2 of the Staff Report, notice of variance was given by newspaper, postings in the required locations, and by mail to nearby property owners within 300 feet of the site. No comments were received. 4. Review Criteria and Application. The applicant seeks a variance from the 25-foot street setback imposed by ECDC 16.20.030 for the RS-20 district. ECDC 20.85.010 governs the criteria for variances to ECDC Title 16. The variance criteria set by ECDC 20.85.010 are quoted below and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. ECDC 20.85.010: No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made. ECDC 20.85.010.A(1) — Special Circumstances: That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. a. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as ofpublic structures and uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats. Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Packet Pg. 521 1 10.1.b 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 b. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property; 5. The proposal involves special circumstances due to the unique triangular shape of the lot and the presence of 20% slopes. As described in Finding of Fact No. 3 and page five of the Staff Report, the site is triangular in shape with street frontages along North Meadowdale Road, 68th Avenue West, and the terminus of 164th Place SW. The 25-foot street setbacks from each of these streets greatly limit where the play structure can be located. The western portion of the property contains slopes in excess of 20% and is heavily treed. Placement of the play structure would necessitate extensive grading and result in the removal of trees that serve to buffer adjoining residential uses. The remaining eastern portion of the site contains the clubhouse and parking lot. Strict application of the setbacks for the RS 20 zone would prohibit the replacement of a play structure that serves both the Meadowdale Community Clubhouse and the surrounding neighborhood. Special circumstances exist on the subject site. The zoning request is justified. ECDC 20.85.010(B) — Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; 6. The property has a unique configuration compared to other properties in the vicinity given its triangular shape. The Meadowdale Clubhouse is a local public facility serving the needs of community and the surrounding neighborhood. The clubhouse and play structure are both identified in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and Capital Improvement Plan. Both of these documents were approved by the City Council following a public process. This variance is necessary to enable a facility designed to provide services for children to include an outdoor play area. The granting of an outdoor play area for a facility involving children is not a grant of special privilege. ECDC 20.85.101(C) — Comprehensive Plan: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; 7. The Meadowdale Clubhouse is identified in the Parks Recreation and Opens Space Plan (PROS), which is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The PROS plan identifies replacing the play area as a planned improvement. The variance is therefore consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets this criterion. ECDC 20.85.010(D) — Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located; Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Packet Pg. 522 1 10.1.b 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8. Pursuant to ECDC 16.20.020.A.1, local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan are a permitted primary use in single family residential zones subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050. The play structure is compliant with the requirements of 17.100.050. Apart from the requested setback variance, the proposal is consistent with Chapter 16.20 ECDC. This variance requirement has been satisfied. ECDC 20.85.010(E) — Not Detrimental: That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone; 9. This proposal would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. It in fact promotes public health, safety and welfare by ensuring the continuation of a play structure in this location. According to the staff report, a play structure has been in the same location for more than 20 years and there is no history of complaints from noise or use. Placing the play structure anywhere else on the property than its previous location could be detrimental. Trees would have to be cleared on the sloped portion of the property and a place leveled out for the play structure. This would remove some of the buffer from the neighborhood and be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations which promote tree preservation and minimization of grading. This criterion is satisfied ECDC 20.85.010(F) — Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 10. The variance is the minimum necessary to ensure the continuation of a play structure in this location. As noted in the staff report, the Parks Department has worked with the playground vendor attempting to move, rotate and configure the play structure to provide the largest setback possible given the site constraints. Because of the playground manufacturer's specified fall zones for providing a safe experience, there is no way to configure the play structure on the site without a variance. Every effort has been made to configure the play structure as far as way from the property line as possible. Due to the odd shape of the lot, being constrained by the club house, parking lot, slope and trees on three sides, the proposed location is the only feasible location for the play structure. The criterion is satisfied. Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Packet Pg. 523 1 10.1.b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RECOMMENDATION All variance criteria are met. The examiner recommends approval of the variance by the City Council. Dated this 27th day of October, 2016. � MIIrAOIbra�dft City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices This decision is a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will make the final decision which is subject to appeal to superior court as governed by Chapter 36.70C RCW. Appeal deadlines are short (21 days from issuance of the decision) and the courts strictly apply the procedural requirements for filing an appeal. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Packet Pg. 524 1 10.1.c file. 189%J CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5'h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edinondswa.aov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Project: Meadowdale Clubhouse Play Structure Setback Variance File Number: LLNO 043 Date of Report: 2016 d Reviewed By: K rnen Lien Senior Planner Public Hearing: October 13, 2016 at 3:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 250 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION The City of Edmonds' Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department (Parks Department) is requesting a setback variance to replace a play structure at the Meadowdale Clubhouse (Attachments 1 — 5). The Meadowdale Clubhouse is located at 6801 North Meadowdale Road. There has been a play structure located on the north side of the Clubhouse for more than 20 years. The Parks Department is proposing to replace the old play structure for safety reasons. The subject property is zoned RS-20 (Single- family Residential; 20,000 square foot minimum lot size) which requires a 25-foot street setback. The location of the old play structure and the proposed replacement is within the 25-foot street setback of the terminus of 164th Place SW (Attachment 3). The old play structure was considered a nonconforming structure. Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 17.40.020.17, if a nonconforming structure is damaged in an amount equal to 75% or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, a structure cannot be reconstructed except in in full conformance with the Edmonds Community Development Code. Since the old nonconforming play structure has been removed, a replacement play structure is required to comply with the Edmonds Community Development Code. Due to site restrictions, there is no other feasible location for the new play structure. As a result, the Parks Department is requesting a variance to place the new play structure within the 25-foot street setback 4 feet from the northern property boundary and the terminus of 164th Place SW. Variances are Type III-B land use permits which require a public hearing and a decision by the Hearing Examiner (ECDC 20.01). In this instance, since the variance request is Packet Pg. 525 10.1.c from a public entity (City of Edmonds' Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department) the action of the Hearing Examiner shall be a recommendation to the City Council in accordance with ECDC 17.00.030.C. II. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Owner: City of Edmonds 2. Applicant: City of Edmonds' Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Department 3. Tax Parcel Number: 00513100008401 4. Location: 6801 North Meadowdale Road (Attachment 8) 5. Zoning: RS-20 (Single-family Residential; 20,000 square feet minimum lot size) 6. Acreage 1 Scluare Footage: Approximately 37,500 square feet. 7. Existing Use: Local Public Facility 8. Proposed Use: No change III. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(6)(e) and ECDC 20.15A.080. IV. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A "Notice of Application and Public Hearing" was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library on September 27, 2016. Notices were also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site on September 27, 2016. See Attachment 9 for notice documentation. The City has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.03. V. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE This application was reviewed and evaluated by Snohomish County Fire District #1, Building and Engineering Divisions. Fire District #1 (Attachment 10) and the Building Division (Attachment 11) did not have any comments on the proposal. The Engineering Division noted the application is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code and Engineering Standards (Attachment 12). VI. CRITICAL AREAS A Critical Areas conditional waiver issued back in 1993 under CRA19930053 when the old play structure was constructed (Attachment 13). The eastern portion of the site where the clubhouse, parking lot and play structure is located is relatively level. The western half of the site is heavily treed with slopes of approximately 23% according to the City's LiDAR. According to the USDA Soil Survey, soils on the site consist of Alderwood urban land complex and Everett gravelly sandy loam. The soils together with the slope would classify the western half of the site as a potential erosion hazard area. The proposed location of the new play structure would not be located within a critical area or critical area buffer. Meadowdale Clubhouse Play Structure Setback Variance File No. PLN20160043 Page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 526 10.1.c VII. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS The Meadowdale Clubhouse is located in a residential area. The subject site and properties to the north or zoned RS-20 (Single-family Residential; 20,000 square feet minimum lot size) and properties further to the west are zoned RS-12 (Single-family; 12,000 square feet minimum lot size. The City of Lynnwood jurisdictional boundary is located on the west side of 68th Avenue West and the south side of North Meadowdale Road. Properties on the north side of North Meadowdale Road are developed with single-family residences. The Meadowdale Playfields are located on the south side North Meadowdale Road. VIII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designation of the site is Single-family Resource. The City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan) lists the Meadowdale Community Clubhouse as a special use park (Attachment 6). Planned improvements on the PROs plan notes replacement of the play area which has also been identified in the City's Capital Improvement Plan (Attachment 7). IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS To date, no public comments have been received. X. APPLICABLE CODES: 1. ECDC 16.20 (RS — Sin-ele-fancily Residential A. 6801 North Meadowdale Road is located with the RS-20 zone and subject to the zoning requirements of Chapter 16.20 ECDC (Attachment 8). B. Local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan are a permitted primary use in residential zones pursuant to ECDC 16.20.010.A and ECDC 17.100.050.A.1. The Meadowdale Clubhouse play structure is identified in the Capital Improvement Plan (Attachment 7). C. Pursuant to ECDC 16.20.030, setbacks for the RS-20 zone are 25 feet from street and rear property lines. Side setbacks are 35/10 feet, which means a total of 35 feet for both sides with a minimum of 10 feet on either side. D. The subject property is a triangular shaped lot which fronts on North Meadowdale Road and 68th Avenue West, making is a comer lot. Street setbacks would apply to North Meadowdale Road, 68`h Avenue West, and the terminus of 164`h Place West in the center of the northern property line (Attachment 3). E. The proposed play structure would be located with the 25-foot street setback of 164th Place SW (Attachment 3). 2. ECDC 17.100.050 Local Public Facilities Local public facilities and schools are regulated by ECDC 17.100.050. ECDC 17.100.050.A — F generally deal with local public facilities, while the remainder of the section relates to schools. Meadowdale Clubhouse Play Structure Setback Variance File No. PLN20160043 Page 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 527 10.1.c A. Permitted use. Local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan shall be allowed uses in all residential, business and commercial zones. The Meadowdale Clubhouse play structure is identified in the Capital Improvement Plan (Attachment 7). B. Parking Requirements. Installation of the play structure will not impact parking at the Meadowdale Clubhouse site. C. Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be arranged and directed so as the direct the light away from adjacent residential uses. There is no proposed lighting associated with the play structure. D. Screening. Electrical substations, water/sewer pump stations, maintenance and storage yards shall be adequately screened from adjacent residential properties with a solid wall or sight -obscuring fence not less than six feet in height. Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 20.12 ECDC. The project does not include any electrical substations, water/sewer pump stations, maintenance or storage yards. The reference to Chapter 20.12 ECDC is the District -Based Design Review Chapter. The City's landscaping regulations are contained in Chapter 20.13 ECDC which is probably the intended reference. Existing landscaping on the site offers adequate buffering from the surrounding residential areas (Attachment 3) and the landscaping will not be altered by the proposed play structure. E. Signage. No signage is proposed with the project. F. Hazardous, Flammable, and Explosive Materials. The project will not involve any hazardous, flammable, or explosive materials. 3. ECDC 17.00.030 A lication o Re ulations ECDC 17.00.030.0 notes: All public structures and uses built or altered by the city or any other public agency shall comply with this zoning ordinance. Where it is a public necessity to build, or alter, a structure or use in a location or in a manner not complying with this zoning ordinance, a variance may be considered. In this case, the action of the hearing examiner shall be a recommendation to the city council. Given the request for a variance is from a public agency (City of Edmonds' Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department), the Hearing Examiner's action in this instance will be a recommendation to the City Council. 4. ECDC 20.85 (Variances) An applicant may request a variance from any requirement of the zoning ordinance (ECDC Titles 16 and 17), except use and procedural requirements, pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC 20.85. ECDC 20.85.010 contains the findings that must be made in order for a variance application to be approved. According to the aforementioned code section, "No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made." The findings are as follows: Meadowdale Clubhouse Play Structure Setback Variance File No. PLN20160043 Page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 528 10.1.c A. S ecial Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; 1 Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats; 1 Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property; B. Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; C. Comprehensive Ilan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; D. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located; E. Not Detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone; F. Minimurn variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. XI. VARIANCE CRITERIA ANALYSIS 1. pecial Circumstances --- The subject property is triangular in shape with street frontages along North Meadowdale Road, 68`' Avenue West, and the terminus of 164th Place SW. The 25-foot street setbacks from of these streets greatly limit where the play structure can be located. The western portion of the property contains slopes in excess of 20% and is heavily treed. The remaining eastern portion of the site contains the clubhouse and parking lot. Strick application of the setbacks for the RS-20 zone would prohibit the replacement of a play structure that serves both the Meadowdale Community Clubhouse and the surrounding neighborhood. Staff finds that the proposal meets the special circumstances variance criterion of ECDC 20.85.020.A. 2. Special Privilege — The property has a unique configuration compared to other properties in the vicinity and the Meadowdale Clubhouse is a local public facility serving the needs of community and the surrounding neighborhood. The clubhouse and play structure are both identified in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan Meadowdale Clubhouse Play Structure Setback Variance File No. PLN20160043 Page 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 529 10.1.c and Capital Improvement Plan. Both of these documents were approved by the City Council following a public process. Staff finds that granting the requested variance would not constitute a special privilege and the proposal is consistent with ECDC 20.85.020.B. 3. Comprehensive Plan — The Meadowdale Clubhouse is identified in the Parks Recreation and Opens Space, which is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The PROS plan identifies replacing the play area as a planned improvement. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and ECDC 20.85.020.C. 4. Zoning Ordinance — Pursuant to ECDC 16.20.020.A.1, local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan are a permitted primary use in single family residential zones subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050. The play structure is compliant with the requirements of 17.100.050. Apart from the requested setback variance, the proposal is consistent with Chapter 16.20 ECDC. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the zoning ordinance, Chapter 16.20 ECDC and that criterion ECDC 20.85.020.1) is met. 5. Not Delriniental — A play structure has been in the same location for more than 20 years and there is no history of complaints from noise or use. Placing the play structure anywhere else on the property than its previous location could be detrimental. Trees would have to be cleared on the sloped portion of the property and a place leveled out for the play structure. This would remove some of the buffer from the neighborhood and be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations which promote tree preservation and minimization of grading. Staff finds that the proposal would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and criterion ECDC 20.85.020.E is met. 6. Minimy)n Variance — The Parks Department has worked with the playground vendor attempting to move, rotate and configure the play structure to provide the largest setback possible given the site constraints. Because of the playground manufacturer's specified fall zones for providing a safe experience, there is no way to configure the play structure on the site without a variance. Every effort has been made to configure the play structure as far as way from the property line as possible. Due to the odd shape of the lot, being constrained by the club house, parking lot, slope and trees on three sides, the proposed location is the only feasible location for the play structure. Staff finds that the requested setback is the minimum necessary and criterion ECDC 20.85.020.17 is met. XII. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis and attachments to this report, staff recommends APPROVAL of the setback variance to place the Meadowdale Clubhouse play structure four feet from the northern property line. Meadowdale Clubhouse Play Structure Setback Variance File No. PLN20160043 Page 6 of 7 Packet Pg. 530 10.1.c XIII. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds 121 — 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 XIV. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Use Application 2. Applicant Statement 3. Site Plans 4. Play Structure Site Plan 5. Play Structure Elevation 6. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan Excerpt 7. Capital Improvement Plan Excerpt 8. Zoning and Vicinity Map 9. Public Notice Documentation 10. Fire District #1 Comments 11. Building Division comments 12. Engineering Division Comments 13. Critical Area File Number CRA19930053 Meadowdale Clubhouse Play Structure Setback Variance File No. PLN20160043 Page 7 of 7 Packet Pg. 531 City of Edmonds Land Use Application El ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT U STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT i VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: FILE # PLtJ7�1 0o`�3 ZONE DATE 26- t 6 REC'D BY FEE 3, 3 8 "-_ RECEIPT # HEARING DATE ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB KC • PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD • PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) i'mo(oW W\\,t vi P Sr � ' u PROPERTY OWNER VIA 0VS S PHONE # 4 2 --7^7 I— 4 2-S7CO ADDRESS —/ U U E-MAIL_ {t Gt V V i (f W Uvt J S v-_A , -(W FAX # a� TAX ACCOUNT # OF PROJECT OR P 0 DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS A Phe Sew APPLICANT ( i ` -tA �6 ADDRESS _�70 0 SEC. TWP TTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) RNG. .e- BLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) .. / _ 0 S PHONE # 2- � --7-7 1 —012_ C.0 E-MAIL Crx v✓J C , 1i ite dliveWdSV-kA. FAx# CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Pa PHONE # _1-4_25 7"? I -oZ� � ADDRESS `700 A IV' e -e--_ E-MAIL CIC" V V e _ , 0 V i7e I6 . c t v -0-0 6'AkkA , A^i 7 FAx # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits and that I am authorized to file this application on the bej4 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT Property Owner's Authorization ewitli submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge the owner as listed below. DATE _!"67 1, { !/YI c. IVY , certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permisst for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection y�s ting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE '1I2-1I4? Revised on 8122112 Questions? Call (425) 771-0220 B - Land Use Application Page 1 of I Attachment: PLN20160043 Staff Report with Attachments (1657 : Closed Record Review for the 0 b 10.1.c To: City of Edmonds Development Services CEP P� 2016 From: City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services PLANNING Date: September 2"d, 2016 i�Lp Request for Variance: The City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Department is seeking a variance to place a play structure in the required setbacks of the RS-20 zone (ECDC 16.20.030). The location of the playground is adjacent to the terminus of 164th Place SW. ECDC 16.20.030 requires a 25-foot street setback for structures. This variance request is to place the play structure 4 feet from the north property line. Intent: The City of Edmonds Parks Department would like to replace the play structure in its current location, on the north side of the Meadowdale Community Clubhouse. This current play structure has been in place for over 20 years and has recently been removed in preparation for replacement because it was no longer safe. This area is considered a special use park in the City's Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan (PROS plan). The replacement of this structure has been identified in both the PROS plan and the 2016 Capital Improvement Plan. This play structure serves both the onsite preschool and the neighboring community. It has been in existence, in the same footprint, for over 20 years. During these 20 years, there has been no history of complaints, and has been an asset for both the users of the Meadowdale Clubhouse and the neighbors. The requested variance is to place the play structure 4 feet from the north property line in approximately the same location as the previous play structure. Criteria for the Variance: Special Circumstances: The Meadowdale Clubhouse is located at 6801 North Meadowdale Road. The property is triangular in shape with street frontages along North Meadowdale Road, 68th Avenue West, and the terminus of 164th Place W. The 25-foot street setbacks from each of these streets greatly limit where the play structure may be located. The western portion of the triangle contains slopes and is heavily treed and the remaining eastern portion of the site contains the clubhouse and parking lot. The 25-foot setback from the property line for a structure creates a situation that will prohibit the replacement of a play structure for the neighborhood park serving both the Meadowdale Community Clubhouse and the surrounding neighborhood. As one can see from the site plan, the configuration and size of the parcel, the existing parking, small area of trees and vegetation and street setbacks all prohibit any other area from accommodating this play structure. There has been a play structure in this exact location for at least 20 years. Attachml Packet Pg. 533 10.1.c 2. Special Privilege: This variance would not produce anything favorable to the City of Edmonds. This is a unique property and parcel configuration compared to other parcels in the surrounding area. This property is a community facility, serving the needs of the neighboring community. If the variance isn't granted, there will be diminished services for the neighboring community. 3. Comprehensive Plan: The Meadowdale Community Clubhouse and play area is identified in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. The plan specifically identifies the replacement of the play area. In addition, it is in the Capital Improvement Program for 2016. 4. Zoning Ordinance: This local public facility is allowed in the RS20 zone. Apart from the request setback variance, the play structure is consistent with the zoning ordinance. 5. Not Detrimental: This neighborhood playground has been here for over 20 years. It gets used by both the onsite preschool and the local neighborhood. There isn't any history of complaints from noise or use. It is identified in the Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan as a special use park. Placing the play structure anywhere else on the property than its previous location would be detrimental. Trees would have to be cleared on the sloped portion of the property and a place leveled out for the play structure. This would remove some of the buffer from the neighborhood and be contrary to the comprehensive plan and development regulations which promote tree preservation and minimization of grading. 6. Minimum Variance: The site plan demonstrates the constraints of this site to continue to accommodate the neighborhood playground. In working with the playground vendor, we moved, rotated and tried to reconfigure the play structure to provide the largest setback possible given site constraints. Because of the playground manufacturer's specified fall zones for providing a safe experience, there is no way to configure the play structure on this site without a variance. As it is, we have configured it as far away from the property line as possible. Due to the small size of the play area, the odd shape of the lot, being constrained by the community clubhouse, parking lot, and tree stand on the remaining three sides, this is the only location for the play area. Attachments: 1. Site plan, 2. Play structure plan, 3. Play structure image, 4. Parks Recreation and Open Space plan of Meadowdale Clubhouse play area 5. 2016 Capital Improvement Plan Attachml Packet Pg. 534 a- . 4.' A A. I 0�S� Ise e �aac 4- A --v- -- • -08 '.44- a grou Meadowdale dowdale 4 lubhouse*, etba�k Parking sk T 4, 7 0 NN omeiry Interrqfational Corp (D Pic;tcri 50 Feet 40 40 Ln W Meadowdale Plate Area Site Plan September 20 Ln Attachment: PLN20160043 Staff Report with Attachments (1657 : Closed Record Review for the Meadowdale Club House Play Structure F� STEERING f- WHEEL i GLIDE PIPEWALL � SLIDE 7" BELL I I I 1 30'-1" I I 1 I 1 I I BABBLE -ON 60. 32'-5" SILO _,- CLIMBER AW PIPEWAL TELESC 12" BUTTON ROCK �. CLIMBER FULL HEX \ CAMBER ROOF �\ SOLAR-- CLIMBER WHIMSY r WHEEL 'PANEL 90 DEGRE r GLIDE SLI 48" SCAVENGER PANEL _W/ BEANSTALK )PE CLIMBER •ti 5X BUTTERFLY CLIMBERS 12" BUTTON - 38'-T I 6. I e SLIDE & LEARN �, PANEL i� i ° BABBLE -ON l� �t_ TRANSFER 1055 SF STATION � 2-5 RISK MANAGEMENT ` SIGI,' 32'-1" .I, PLAYWORLD' Y0i NeMhrxs[ PlAyp nd �quipmenE. inr. 19m USE ZONE: AREA: PERIMETER: see drawing FALL HEIGHT: 5' USER CAPACITY: #49 ✓ ASTM F1487-11 ✓ CPSC #325 AGE GROUP: 2-5 C PROJECT NO: SCALE IHD-191-16A 1/4"=1' DRAWN BY: Paper Size GM DATE: YGROUND SUPERVISION REQUIRED 5-14-16 Attachment: PLN2016OO43 Staff Report with Attachments (1657 : Closed Record Review for the Meadowdale Club House Play Structure 0 O U (,/-) Q W � n� o W w CD LLJ LLJ 75 ISLA lit Packet Pg. 537 10.1.c City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan Meadowdale Community Clubhouse W 1� V Park Features Special Use Park 100 200 � Feet Ak 0.99 Acres Playground Community center Community meeting rooms Restrooms (1) Parking North Edmonds preschool r Site considerations • Zoned Res Single-family 20,000 sf lot (RS-20) Planned Improvements • Replace play area (small) • Continued maintenance Appendix A: Existing System A-41 Attachmj Packet Pg. 538 1 LQ J 10.1.c PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Clubhouse ESTIMATED COST: $85,000 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. Replace playground. 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: 2015-2021 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 j _ 2021 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $0 $75,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL 1 $0 1 $75,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 37 Attachml Packet Pg. 539 10.1.c go 5 16619 16620 N 16625 166?8 ass. 670 rss Lynnwood F6 :16617 ,62 1 16703 16707 10 CO s>> re 77 M c+� Qo Cn ,?" t g91 4 `. 161ST PL " t • 6724 6712 to 014 661 cc ti ti 6631 6619 6611 i 162ND PL SW N 0 r 6620 661 ~ ~ n Lynnwood 1622 P� r o w to w 661y 162 s 163RD PL SW 631 6722 6714 6706 6624 1 ?� 163 `i ti ti ti ti w w 163 Q, cc cc cc ca cc co Project Location � 00 64 9 ti ti to 16415 1 1641 1642 16423 641:11 16426 3 164251642 164311650 j 1642916426 650716510 = 16505 coo 16511 w cQo �� co MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS 6505 Zoning and Vicinity Map PLN20160043 City of Edmonds' Park Department Play Structure Variance Request 6801 North Meadowdale Road I PARKING Scale 1 inch = 250 feet Attachml Packet Pg. 540 10.1.c FILE NO.: PLN20160043 Applicant: City of Edmonds DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 27th day of September, 2016, the attached Notice of Application and Public Hearing was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. The names of which were provided by the applicant. I, Denise Nelson, hereby declare tinder penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 27th day of September, 2016, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: av-�o i {BFP747887.D0C;1\00006.900000\ } Attachlul Packet Pg. 541 10.1.c FILE NO.: PLN20160043 Applicant: City of Edmonds DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 27th day of September, 2016, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 27th day of September, 2016, at Edmonds, Washington. �O Signed: L_.-__._- r` x -_ J - - IBFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachml Packet Pg. 542 10.1.c CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING '"c. 1 gyms PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Edmonds is proposing to replace a play structure within the required setback at the Meadowdale Clubhouse site. A nonconforming play structure that has been at the location for 20 years is being replaced because it is no longer safe. The site is zone RS-20 (Single-family residential; minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet). The play structure is located near the terminus of 164th Place SW which would require a street setback of 25 feet. The variance request is to place the play structure 4 feet from the northern property line and the terminus of 164th Place SW. PROJECT LOCATION: 6801 North Meadowdale Road, Edmonds, WA. Tax Parcel Number 00513100008401 NAME OF APPLICANT: City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department FILE NUMBER: PLN20160043 DATE OF APPLICATION: September 2, 2016 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: September 23, 2016 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: September 27, 2016 REQUESTED PERMIT: Variance (Type III-B Permit Process). With a public agency variance request, the Hearing Examiner will make a recommendation to the City Council for a decision on the request. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: None EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: None COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: October 13, 2016 Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 51h Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday; between the hours of 8:30 AM and Noon on Wednesday; or online through the City's website at www.edmondswa.gov through the Online Permits link. Search for permit PLN20160043. PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing will be held before the Hearing Examiner on October 13, 2016 at 3 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 250-5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Attachml Packet Pg. 543 10.1.c Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington) County of Snohomish } ss Kathleen Landis being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH724011 PLN20160043 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 09/27/2016 and ending on 09/27/2016 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $86.00. Subscribed and sworn before me on this day of Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 KERNEN LIEN DEBRA ANN GRIGG Notary Public State of Washington My Commission Expires October 31, 2017 1, Attachml Packet Pg. 544 10.1.c 4 CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT DESORIPTION:The City of Edmonds is proposing !o replace a play structure within the required setback at Ilia Mandowdale Clubhouse site. A nonconforming play Structure That has boan at the lacplion for 20 years is Doing replaced because I[ is no longer safe. The site is zone RS-20 (Single- famlly resldontial; minimum lot size of 20.000 square loat). The play structure is located near the torminus of 1641h Place SW wh Ch would requtr0 a street setback of 25 toot. The varlanca rpegpuoestt is to place the play Structure 4 toot bent The northarn PROJECT line LOCATION: he Iermintl5 011641h PiVO SW. 6901 Meg in frfeadowdala Read, Edmonds, WA, Tax Parcel Number 005131 DOM401 NAME OF APPLICANT: City of Edmonds Parks; Recreation & Cultural Services Department FILE NUMBER: PLN201 fi0043 DATE OF APPLICATION: September 2, 2016 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: September 23, 2D16 DATE OF PUBLJC NOTICE: September 27, 201a REQUESTED PERMIT: Variance Mpa III-B Permit Process). With a public agency variance request, the Hearing Examiner will make a recommandation to the City Councl for a decision on the roQqquost. DTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: None EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS; None COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: Octohor 13.2016 An yy pporaon has the right to common[ on this appllaalloh during ypubilC comment period, receiva notic0 and participate in any h6arin&cs, and request a Copy 01 the declslon on the aplikatloa, The Cy may ecc0pl public comments at any 1lm0 prior 10 the ctoatAg of Ina record of an open record predaptlslon hearing, if any, or. if no open recordrji�r to the decision on Mo p ojeci pe mll.�Only pWII0on $ 0i recoord a8 dhllnod in ECOC 20.07.003 have standing.lo Indlate an odmINatratNe appeal. Information an this dOWloppmenl apppitcalion can be viewed or obtained at Ina Cily.at Edmands Development Services Department, 121 $In Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between Iho hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday. Tuesday, Thursday and Friday; belwsen the hours Of 8:30 AM and Noon on Wednesday; or onllrre through the Cityrs wabsite at YLtl[tlI @dmgRLI;fSY9.GflY through the Onlina Parmils link Search for parrnll PLN20160043. PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing will b0 held before Iho Hearing Examiner on October 13, 2016 at 3 p.m. In the Council Chambers tocalod of 250.51h Ave North, Edmonds, WA 99020 C17Y CONTACT, ltemen Ban, Senior Planner karrmn.11an Cadmondsw a.gov 426-771.0220 ublished: September 27, 2016. EDH72401t- �G u ti In t0 to C O t 0 M W Q t O !Z N to M O O to r O N Z J d r C N E t V Q Attachml Packet Pg. 545 I 10.1.c I ❑ PW-Engineering ❑ Fire ❑ PW - Maintenance ❑ Parks & Rec. ❑ Building Project Number: PLN20160043 Applicant's Name: MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUBHOUSE PLAYGROUND Property Location: 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD Date Application Received Zoning: 09.2.16 Project Description:_ VARIANCE FOR SET Date Application Routed: 09.2.16 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: KERNEN LIEN Ext. 1223 Name of Individual SubmittingComments: � n o, Title;- r— ` Date: I have reviewed this land use proposal for Pny department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so 1 have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. ❑ 1 have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concl at IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPAR _ _ EW a have provided comment v� �01/ below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Packet Pg. 546 I 10.1.c I CITY OF EDMONDS — PLANNING DIVISION STAFF COMMENT FORM ❑ PW-Engineering ❑ Fire ❑ PW - Maintenance ❑ Parks & Rec. ;D .Building Project Number: PLN20160043 Applicant's Name: MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUBHOUSE PLAYGROUND Property Location: 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD Date Application Received: 09.2.16 Zoning: Project Description: VARIANCE FOR SET Date Application Routed: 09.2.16 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: KERNEN LIEN Ext. 1223 F C Name of individual Submittingg' Comments: 16 Title: V)1)[ f I.�,f 1, fL�� Date: Vk. have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT. so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so 1 have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Packet Pg. 547 10.1.c Date: To: From: Subject MEMORANDUM September 22, 2016 Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager PLN2060043, Meadowdale Clubhouse — Variance City of Edmonds — 6801 N Meadowdale Rd Engineering has reviewed the subject variance application. The information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. The Engineering Division does not have any comments. Thank you. City of Edmonds Attachmell Packet Pg. 548 10.1.c Critical Areas Checklist Site Information Project Name: -PLAYGROUND MEADOWDALE Permit Number: i CLUBHOUSE Site Location: 6808 N MEADOWDALE ROAD Property Tax Account Number: 5131 000 084 01 09 N Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 400 SF c� a Have you filled out a Critical Areas Checklist for a project on this site before? NO as c x General Site Conditions 1. Has the site been cleared or logged? YES Date of most recent action: 1982, MINOR CLEi U JG TO IMPORVE PARKING LOT FUR=ALLATION � SO11S TopographyLANDSCAPING 2. In the Snohomish County Soil Survey, what is the mapped soil type(s)? ALD1 RWOOD URBAN LAND COMI { GRAVELLYj SANDY LOAM 25—' y 3. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. L X Flat: less than 5 feet elevation change over entire site_ '0 3 Rolling. slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10 feet over a horizontal distance of 66 feet.) Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30°/p ( a vertical rise 0 of 10 feet of horizontal distance.) Steep: grades of greAter than 30% present on site. N 0 Comments v Hydrology/Vegetation r� 4. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: NO 5. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water. No Approx. Depth: as E 6. Site is in the floodway NO floodplain of a water course. a 7. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? flows are year-round? Flows are seasonal? 3 8. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow _;shrubs X ;mixed 0 9. Obvious wetland is present on site: NO ra 10. Wetland inventory or map indicates wetland present on site: No WAS-bl 1ATL 11. Critical Areas inventory or map indicates any Critical Area on site: Far City -Use Only S-iJDY'R1 QUIE�LD r itica ar cas stxs r{ . C QND1T10NA1" AL -WAIVE C riticai areas stud riot re iiire� if, s 7ecified` cndid6ns<.satisfied:' Y 9 1 WAIVER: Criticat areas>stLrdy is not regtiir erg. -Determination:Nurnher: e � f .. ,.:E_.::mm... _ 4�eviewerl. _ .. ...Planner IJatc ftev 3127t9Z Attachmel Packet Pg. 549 10.1.c City of Edmonds Critical Areas Checklist The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person Preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of a development permit to the City_ The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are or may be present on the subject Property. The information needed to complete the Che list should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys) - An applicant, or his/her representative, roust fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City_ The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development Permit application. With a signed copy of this form, the applicant should also submit a vicinity map of the parcel with enough defail that City staff can find and identify the subject parccl(s). In addition, the applicant is encouraged to include any other pertinent information or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below)_ Owner / Applicant: _CITY OF EDMONDS Name �---- ---— --- — - OWNER Title Applicant Representative: ARVILLA OHLDE Name PARKS AND RECREATION MANAGER Title 505 BELL STREET 700 MAIN STREET Street Address Street Address EDMONDS, WA 98020 775-2525 EDMONDS, WA 98020 City, State, ZIP Phone City, State, ZIP Signature J ►`- Date Signature 771-0230 Phone Attachfftj Packet Pg. 550 10.1.c City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: City of Edmonds - Parks Determination #: CA-93-53 Project Name: Meadowdale Club House Permit Number: Site Location: 6808 N Meadowdale Rd Property Tax Acct #: 5131-000-084-01 Project Description: Installation of a Playground area. Waiver Criteria (all criteria must be found to apply): XX There will be no alteration of the Critical Area or its required buffers; XX The development proposal will not impact the Critical Area in a manner contrary to the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of the Critical Areas ordinance; XX The development proposal meets the minimum standards of the Critical Areas ordinance; XX The above findings are based on the following conditions of approval: 1. That any development, within 50' of the top of the bank located to the south and west of the property which would require any disturbance of soil, would require another evaluation of the Critical Areas Checklist for steep slopes and unstable soils. 2. The applicant must follow the requirements of the Engineering Division for erosion control (ECDC title 18). Based on the above findings and conditions, the requirement for a Critical Areas Study associated with this development permit is hereby Waived, as authorized by Chapter 20.15B.150 (B) of the Edmonds C*Snature Develo lent Code. Ste )hen F. Bullock r I Name Dfate Attachmell Packet Pg. 551 10.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/15/2016 Resolution of Intent to Vacate a Portion 92nd Avenue West Street Vacation (5 min.) Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History Westgate Chapel and one other property owner have submitted a petition to vacate that portion of 92nd Avenue W lying south of 228th Street SW. The City Council is required to consider street vacations in a public hearing set by resolution. The City Council passed Resolution No. 1371 setting the public hearing for November 1, 2016. At the public hearing on November 1st, the City Council accepted the staff recommendation and directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Intent to Vacate with the conditions listed in the staff report. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Council adopt the Resolution of Intent to Vacate, included as Exhibit 1. Narrative An application and petition has been filed with the City of Edmonds to vacate that portion of 92nd Avenue W that extends south of 228th Street SW for approximately 375 feet. The width of the right-of- way varies from 30 feet at the southerly terminus to 60 feet over the northerly 290 feet. The City of Edmonds has a storm water drainage conveyance system within the westerly half of the roadway and Olympic View Water and Sewer District has sanitary sewer and water lines within the right-of-way. Westgate Chapel owns the majority of the property along this portion of 92nd Avenue W with the only other property owner addressed at 9126 228th Street SW (in the southwest corner of the intersection of 92nd Ave. W and 228th St. SW) also signing the petition for this street vacation. One question raised at the November 1st public hearing is in regards to what the City has required in the past for compensation of vacated right-of-way. ECDC 20.70.140.A.3.a allows the City to be monetarily compensated in the amount of up to one-half the fair market value for the street right-of-way being vacated. Staff reviewed street vacations going back to 1998. There was a series of City -initiated street vacations in 1998 (twelve in total) where the City Engineer identified rights -of -way that were either surplus to the needs of the City or, due to terrain and other topographical features, were unsuitable for construction of a roadway. For these twelve vacations initiated by the City, the vacating ordinances (Ordinances 3197 - 3208) noted that public interest outweighed the necessity to require compensation from abutting property owners. Packet Pg. 552 10.2 Staff identified ten other street vacations since 1998. Of these ten street vacations, eight were required to pay compensation to the City. Five of the eight paid the City one-half of the assessed value of the property. The other three compensated the City slightly less than one-half the assessed value due to other site restrictions, such as critical areas or recording of a covenant limiting future development potential. The two that did not require compensation were the recently vacated rights -of -way in City park (where the City is the property owner) and an alley vacation between 8th and 9th Avenue off of Daley Street. For the current request to vacate a portion of 92nd Avenue West, staff recommended monetary compensation of one-half the assessed value. This is consistent with past City practices and ECDC 20.70.140.A.3.a and supports the public benefit of said vacation. Attachments: Resolution of Intent to Vacate PLN20160032 Staff Report with Attachments Packet Pg. 553 10.2.a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, STATING ITS INTENT TO VACATE A PORTION OF 92ND AVENUE WEST LYING SOUTH OF 228TH STREET SOUTHWEST UPON THE FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN CONTIONS. WHEREAS, on October 4, 2016, the Edmonds City Council adopted resolution No. 1371 establishing a public hearing on a proposed street vacation, File No. PLN20160032; and WHERES, a public hearing on the proposed street vacation was held on November 1, 2016; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the vacation is in the public interest, and that no property will be denied access as a result of the vacation; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to retain 300 square feet of the proposed vacation area for a future project identified in the City's Transportation Improvement Plan; and WHEREAS, Olympic View Water and Sewer District has request easement be reserved for utilities in the right-of-way; and WHEREAS, at that public hearing, the record contained a market data appraisal showing the value of the proposed vacation area to be $203,000; and WHEREAS, the assessed value of the proposed vacation area, minus the 300 square feet being removed from the vacation area, and the depreciated value of the existing asphalt is $185,220; and WHEREAS, the subject right-of-way was originally acquired pursuant to dedication and not at public expense; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ECDC 20.70.140.A.3.a and RCW 35.79.030 the City may be compensated up to an amount equal to one-half of the fair market value of the right-of-way prior to vacation by ordinance; and 1 Packet Pg. 554 10.2.a WHEREAS, the City Council finds $92,610 (half of $185,220) is reasonable compensation when determined in accordance with the fair market value of the parcel to be vacated, the restrictions placed upon said property by the reservation of utility easements for third -parties and the limitations on compensation which the City may require as contained in state statute and City ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The city council hereby states its intent to vacate by ordinance that portion of 92" d Avenue West laying south of 228d' Street Southwest and north of State Route 104 as shown on the attached Exhibit A and further described in File No. PLN20160032, which are incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth as long as the following conditions are met within ninety (90) days, and PROVIDED THAT the City of Edmonds will retain, and will not vacate, the northern 10 feet of the western 30 feet of 92nd Avenue West lying south of 228th Street SW.: 1. The legal description of the vacation area and map of the vacation area must be adjusted to recognize the above -referenced change in the vacation area. 2. The City releases all ownership interest in the stormwater facilities located upon or within the vacated 92nd Ave Street right-of-way, as well as the stormwater facilities located through the Westgate Chapel property at 22901 Edmonds Way. Westgate Chapel shall acknowledge in writing that upon vacation it shall assume ownership and maintenance responsibilities for these facilities and provide easements to abutting property owners as needed. 3. The Olympic View Water and Sewer District currently owns and maintains water and sewer facilities through the subject 92nd Ave W right-of-way. Easements shall be provided to OVWSD accordingly from the underlying fee owner. 4. Other dry utilities such as power, gas, phone and cable may also exist within the subject right-of-way. Easements shall be provided to all entities from the underlying fee owner as required to allow for continued ownership and maintenance of any such facilities. 2 Packet Pg. 555 10.2.a 5. The petitioners shall pay the City of Edmonds $92,610 which is one-half the appraised value of the vacation property. 6. The petitioners shall acknowledge in writing that, if the area of vacation or the three vacant lots on the east side of 92nd Avenue W are to be developed in the future, a fire access road easement will be required if necessary to satisfy the city's fire code. 7. The petitioners shall acknowledge in writing that, if the to -be -vacated right-of-way becomes unusable, blocked, or removed, thereby denying emergency access, the existing fire hydrant located on the west side of 92nd Ave W, mid -block between 228th Street SW and the terminus of the existing road shall be rotated 180 degrees, at the sole cost of the then -owner, so the largest outlet (nozzle cap) faces west. RESOLVED THIS 15ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016: ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. 3 MAYOR DAVE EARLING Packet Pg. 556 10.2.b `/)C. 18Lpi CITY OF EDMONDS 1215th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL Project: Consideration of vacating that portion of 92"d Avenue West lying south of 2281h Street SW Requested Permits: PLN20160032 Date of Report: rber 21, 2016 Staff Contact: ernen Lien, S Planner Public Hearing: November 1, 2016 Council Chambers 250 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL AND PROCESS An application and petition has been filed with the City of Edmonds to vacate that portion of 92"d Avenue West that extends south of 2281h Street SW for approximately 375 feet (Attachments 1 — 7). Westgate Chapel owns the majority of the abutting private property along this portion of 92"d Avenue W with the only other property owner addressed at 9126 — 228th Street SW (in the southwest corner of the intersection of 92"d Avenue W and 22th St. SW) also signing the petition for this street vacation. The width of the right-of-way varies from 30 feet at the southerly terminus to 60 feet over the norther 290 feet (Attachment 4). The City Council is required to consider street vacations in a public hearing set by resolution. The Council passed Resolution No. 1371 (Attachment 8) which set the public hearing for November 1, 2016. Below is staff s evaluation of the street vacation criteria as established in Chapter 20.70 Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). II. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Location: The subject street vacation is for that portion of 92"d Avenue West that extend south of 2281h Street SW. Westgate Chapel at 22901 Edmonds Way is located on the west side of this portion of 92"d Avenue W and the east side of 92"d Avenue W is the Esperance area of unincorporated Snohomish County. PLN20160018 Page 1 of 11 Packet Pg. 557 10.2.b 2. Zoning: Public right-of-ways are unzoned. The Westgate Chapel site to the west is primarily zoned RM-1.5 (Multi -family residential; maximum density of one dwelling unit per every 1,500 square feet of lot area). The Westgate Chapel site also contains a small sliver of RS-8 zoning (Single-family residential; 8,000 square feet minimum lot size) along the northern boundary with 228th Street SW. See Attachment 9 for zoning and vicinity map. Given the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Edmonds Way Corridor, in order to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the right-of- way should be zoned RM-1.5 should the Council approve the vacation. Attachment 10 is an excerpt from the Comprehensive Plan that identifies compatible zoning classifications with the different Comprehensive Plan designations. 3. Size: The area of the proposed vacation is 20,323 square feet. 4. Existing Use: The portion of 92"d Avenue W is used for access to the Westgate Chapel property and access for the four parcels on the eastside of 92"d Avenue W. III. NOTICE Public Notice requirements for street vacations are detailed in ECDC 20.70.090. A notice for the council's consideration of vacation was published in the Herald Newspaper on October 12, 2016. A notice was also posted at the subject site and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. In accordance with ECDC 20.70.090, the public notice included description of easements that may be retained during the vacation process (Attachment 11). The City has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.70.090. IV. PUBLIC CONCERNS No public comments have been received as of the writing of this staff report. V. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE This application was reviewed and evaluated by Snohomish County Fire District #1, City of Edmonds Engineering Division, Olympic View Water and Sewer District and Snohomish County Public Works. Snohomish County Fire District #1: Snohomish County Fire District #1 provided the following comments and recommendations (Attachment 12): 1. No easement is currently required. If the area of vacation, or the three vacant lots on the east side of 92"d Avenue W are to be developed in the future, a fire access road easement will be required. PLN20160032 — 92°d Avenue West Street Vacation Page 2 of 11 Packet Pg. 558 10.2.b 2. If the current road surface becomes unusable, blocked, or removed, thereby deny emergency access, the existing fire hydrant located on the west side of 92" d Ave W, mid -block between 228'h Street SW and the terminus of the existing road shall be rotated 180 degrees so the largest outlet (nozzle cap) faces west. Olympic View Water and Sewer District: Olympic View Water and Sewer District has a high flow sewer main and a water main within the proposed vacation area. OVWSD noted that utility easements will need to be granted at or prior to vacation and has requested that the City require said utility easements be granted as part of the street vacation and not something granted at a later date (Attachment 13). Snohomish County Public Works, Surface Water Management: The east side of 92"d Avenue West falls within unincorporated Snohomish County. Some of the stormwater that flows from this area drains into the stormwater facilities located within 92°d Avenue West and within the Westgate Chapel property. Snohomish County drainage system connects to the City of Edmonds drainage system in 92°d Avenue West via a culvert under 228th Street SW at the 92"d Avenue W intersection. Snohomish County recommended that this connection point stay under City of Edmonds responsibility to ensure there are no blockages or failures that would create a road safety hazard along 228th Street SW, which is listed as a minor arterial in the City's Transportation Plan (Attachment 14). The culvert under 228th Street SW is not within the vacation area and will remain under City ownership. Snohomish County also recommended the City of Edmonds be granted a drainage facility maintenance covenant for the property that would allow the Public Works Department to inspect and maintain the system if the owners fail to do so properly. As noted in the City of Edmonds' Engineering Division Comments (Attachment 15), the Engineering Division is recommending that Westgate Chapel assume ownership and maintenance responsibility for the stormwater facilities within 92nd Avenue W and the Westgate Chapel property. The City's Engineering Division is not recommending that a stormwater maintenance covenant be retained for the City of Edmonds. City of Edmonds Engineering Division: The Engineering Division provided the following comments and recommendation regarding the proposed street vacation (Attachment 15): Engineering has reviewed the application from Westgate Chapel requesting vacation of 92"d Ave W right-of-way, south of 228" St SW. The information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. The Engineering Division recommends approval of the street vacation with the following conditions of approval: 1) The Transportation Comp Plan has identified a project for street improvements along 228" St SW between SR 99 and 95th PI W. In an effort to maintain sufficient right- of-way through the 92"d Ave W intersection, the right-of-way alignment on the north edge of 92"d Ave needs to be adjusted from what the applicant has shown. The PLN20160032 — 92" d Avenue West Street Vacation Page 3 of 11 Packet Pg. 559 10.2.b northern line of that portion of 92"d Ave W to be vacated shall be shown as a continuation of the southern boundary line of 228th St SW as shown east of 92"d Ave. With this revision, the area shown in red below (an area 10-feet by 30-feet) would remain City right-of-way. 2) The City releases all ownership interest in the stormwater facilities located upon or within the vacated 92"d Ave Street right-of-way, as well as the stormwater facilities located through the Westgate Chapel property at 22901 Edmonds Way. Westgate Chapel shall assume ownership and maintenance responsibilities for these facilities and provide easements to abutting property owners as needed. Ownership of the stormwater facilities within the intersection of 92"d and 228th will remain under the ownership of the City of Edmonds as this portion of right-of-way is not being vacated. Background information regarding the stormwater facilities is provided below. 3) The Olympic View Water and Sewer District currently owns and maintains water and sewer facilities through the subject 92"d Ave W right-of-way. Easements shall be provided to OVWSD accordingly. 4) Other dry utilities such as power, gas, phone and cable may also exist within the subject right-of-way. Easements shall be provided to all entities as required to allow for continued ownership and maintenance of any such facilities. Back round Information on Stormwater Facilities: The City currently has stormwater facilities within the subject 92"d Ave W right-of-way and through the Westgate Chapel property at 22901 Edmonds Way, as shown highlighted on the map below. Most of the stormwater runoff draining through this storm system is from upstream properties located within Snohomish County jurisdiction and/or from the PLN20160032 — 92°a Avenue West Street Vacation Page 4 of 11 Packet Pg. 560 10.2.b Westgate Chapel property at 22901 Edmonds Way. As such, upon vacation of 92nd Ave W, the City no longer needs to maintain ownership and maintenance of these stormwater facilities. = a N 228TH I swQI q O q PDO-20,54 i i �rRlt- �°q a q G ° i25;S 0 c`i GS PD1SI1 � o jh • 7.: 0 Y °PDn•9 ° l In response to the City's initial comments on the street vacation proposal, the applicant made contact with Snohomish County to determine their interest in the storm system. Snohomish County provided a written response to the City (see attachment in the staff report) stating "Since this road right-of-way is outside the county's legal jurisdiction, it would not be practical or appropriate for Snohomish County to secure a maintenance covenant or public drainage easement". The County had concerns about the City's ability to inspect the stormwater system, however, Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.30.090 requires property owners to maintain their stormwater facilities and allows for city access to private stormwater facilities to ensure they are properly operated and maintained. VI. ECDC 20.70 — STREET VACATIONS A. ECDC 20.70.050 Initiation of Proceedings Pursuant to ECDC 20.70.050.13 a vacation may be initiated by petition of the owners of more than two-thirds of property abutting the portion of the street or alley to be vacated. A petition for vacation was submitted with signatures from Brent McAtee and John Murphy of Westgate Chapel and Larry and Claudia Walters who own the property addressed as 9126 — 2.28" Street SW. Westgate Chapel owns all of the property on the west side of 92"d Avenue W and three of the four parcels on the east side of 92" d Avenue West. The Walter's own the remainingparcel on the east side of 92"d Avenue W. The only other properties that abut the 92° Avenue W right-of-way are the Sequoyah Condominiums which abut the southern terminus of 92nd Avenue west. PLN20160032 — 92"d Avenue West Street Vacation Page 5 of 11 Packet Pg. 561 10.2.b The initiation of vacation proceedings is compliant with ECDC 20.70.050. B. ECDC 20.70.020 Criteria for Vacation The City Council may vacate a street, alley or easement only if it finds that: 1. The vacation is in public interest; and The applicants submitted a statement in support of the public interest criterion (Attachment 7). The applicants note that approval of the vacation will remove the City form ongoing responsibility of maintaining the driving surface and adjacent shoulders of the current roadway. Additionally, divesting ownership of the stormwater facilities in the right-of-way and Westgate Chapel property as recommended by the Engineering Division will further reduce ongoing maintenance costs for the City of Edmonds. This section of 92"d Avenue West only serves those property owners who have signed the petition for vacation. The City of Edmonds has no plans to open a right-of-way to connect 92"d Avenue West to State Route 104. Staff finds the proposal would be in the public interest. 2. No property will be denied direct access as a result of the vacation. All the properties that take access from 92"d Avenue West have signed the petition for vacation. The majority of the vacated right-of-way will transfer to Westgate Chapel. The Westgate Chapel property on the west side of 92"d Avenue West will continue to have direct access to 228th Street SW and Edmonds Way. Westgate Chapel also owns the three parcels on the east side of 92"d Avenue West. While those parcels will no longer of direct access to 228th Street SW, Westgate Chapel still has access to those properties through their existing property. The 30 feet of 92"d Avenue W adjacent to the Walters' property at 9126 - 228th Street SW will transfer to the Walters and thus the Walters will still have access to 92"d Avenue W and 228th Street SW. No properties would be denied direct access as a result of the vacation. C. ECDC 20.70.040 Limitations on Vacations 1. Pursuant to ECDC 20.70.040.A, "the city may not vacate any street, alley, easement, or part thereof that abuts any body of water unless all elements of RCW 35.79.035 are complied with, and the vacated area will thereby become available for the city or other public entity to acquire and to use for a public purpose." The proposed vacation area does not abut any bodies of water. PLN20160032 — 92"d Avenue West Street Vacation Page 6 of 11 Packet Pg. 562 10.2.b 2. Pursuant to ECDC 20.70.040.B, "the city shall not proceed with the vacation if the owners of 50 percent or more of the property abutting the street or alley or part thereof, or underlying the easement or part thereof, to be vacated file a written objection in the planning division prior to the time of the hearing." As of the writing of this staff report, the City has not received any written objections to the proposed street vacation. D. ECDC 20.70.140 Final Decision 1. ECDC 20.70.140.A provides the following: Following the public hearing, the city council shall, by motion approved by a majority of the entire membership in a roll call vote, either: 1. Adopt an ordinance granting the vacation; or 2. Adopt a motion denying the vacation; or 3. Adopt a resolution of intent to vacate stating that the city council will, by ordinance, grant the vacation if the owners) of property abutting upon the street or alley, or part thereof so vacated, meet specific conditions within 90 days. The city may require the following as conditions: a. Either: i. Monetary compensation to be paid to the city in the amount of up to one-half the fair market value for the street, alley, or part thereof to be vacated unless acquired at `public expense, " then full appraised value shall be paid; or ii. The grant of a substitute public right-of-way which has value as an access way at least equal to the vacated street, alley, or part thereof, or iii. Any combination of subsections (A)(3)(a)(i) and (A)(3)(a)(ii) of this section totaling but not more than one-half the fair market value of the street, alley, or part thereof to be vacated. OR b. A grant of an easement to the city in exchange for the easement vacated. PLN20160032 — 92" d Avenue West Street Vacation Page 7 of 11 Packet Pg. 563 10.2.b If the abutting property owner(s) complies with conditions imposed in the resolution of intent to vacate within 90 days, the city council shall adopt an ordinance granting the vacation. 2. The City may require monetary compensation OR require a grant of an easement to the City. While Olympic View Water and Sewer District has requested easements for their utilities within 92"d Avenue W, the City of Edmonds is not requiring an easement; thus, the City should be monetarily compensated for the vacation. 3. An appraisal was included with the street vacation petition (Attachment 6). The appraisal assumed a highest and best use of the property as multi -family residential development. a. Before Vacation Value. The existing zoning of the majority of the site is RM-1.5 (Mulit-family Residential with a maximum density of one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area). The Westgate Chapel site is currently 171,191 square feet and with the RM-1.5 zone could have a maximum of 114 multi -family units. The appraisal found the land value of the property before the street vacation to be $2,166,000. b. After Vacation Value. The area of vacation included in the petition is 20,323 square feet. So if all the vacation area was appended to the Westgate Chapel property, the new area of the site would be 191,514 square feet. This square footage would provide a maximum density of 127 multi -family units on the site. Excluding the 300 square feet of area the City of Edmonds Engineering Division recommends retaining in right-of-way would give the property 191,214 square feet, which would still yield 127 multi -family units on the site. The appraisal found the land value of the property post vacation to be $2,355,000. The difference in value post vacation in $189,000. If the 300 square feet retained by the City is deducted at the unencumbered value of $12.60 per square feet would resulting difference in land value post vacation would be $185,220. 4. Most of the right-of-way in 92nd Avenue West that is the subject of this vacation request was dedicated in two plats; Plantz Addition recorded under AFN 1167958 in 1955 (Attachment 16) and Ridge Acres recorded under AFN 262998 in 1919 (Attachment 17). It appears a small segment of the right-of-way was dedicated under a deed granted to Snohomish County recorded under AFN 2050548. 5. Pursuant to ECDC 20.70.140.A.3.a.i monetary compensation to be paid to the city in the amount of up to one-half the fair market value for the street. According to the appraisal in Attachment 6 and the $3,780 deduction for the right-of-way recommended to be retained, one-half of the fair market value is $92,610. PLN20160032 — 92°d Avenue West Street Vacation Page 8 of 11 Packet Pg. 564 10.2.b VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The comprehensive plan designation for the properties surround the proposed vacation is "Edmonds Way Corridor." The comprehensive plan provides the following with regard to the Edmonds Way Corridor. Commercial Development Goal E. The Edmonds Way Corridor consists of portions of Edmonds Way between the 100th Avenue West intersection and Highway 99. This corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate S. Established residential areas lie on both sides of the corridor. An established pattern of multiple family residential development lies along much of the corridor, while small-scale businesses can be found primarily near intersections. A major concern is that the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities. E.1 Permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. E.2 Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development. E.3 Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Site access should not be provided from residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative. E. 4 Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single family development. Make use of natural topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible. (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 72) Additionally, the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan identifies a project for street improvements along 228th St SW between SR 99 and 95th PI W (Comprehensive Plan, pg. 266). As conditioned, the proposed street vacation would still be consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. PLN20160032 — 92" d Avenue West Street Vacation Page 9 of 11 Packet Pg. 565 10.2.b VIII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis in and the attachments to this report, staff finds the requested vacation of 92nd Avenue W to be in accordance with the criteria in ECDC 20.70.020 and the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution of intent for the right-of-way vacation and that the following conditions be addressed within 90 days of adoption of the resolution in accordance with ECDC 20.70.140.A.3: 1. The City of Edmonds will retain the northern 10 feet of the western 30 feet of 92nd Avenue West lying south of 2281h Street SW. Legal description of the vacation area and map of the vacation area must be adjusted to recognize this change in the vacation area. 2. The City releases all ownership interest in the stormwater facilities located upon or within the vacated 92nd Ave Street right-of-way, as well as the stormwater facilities located through the Westgate Chapel property at 22901 Edmonds Way. Westgate Chapel shall assume ownership and maintenance responsibilities for these facilities and provide easements to abutting property owners as needed. 3. The Olympic View Water and Sewer District currently owns and maintains water and sewer facilities through the subject 92nd Ave W right-of-way. Easements shall be provided to OVWSD accordingly. 4. Other dry utilities such as power, gas, phone and cable may also exist within the subject right-of-way. Easements shall be provided to all entities as required to allow for continued ownership and maintenance of any such facilities. 5. The petitioners shall pay the City of Edmonds $92,610 which is one-half the appraised value of the vacation property. 6. If the area of vacation or the three vacant lots on the east side of 92nd Avenue W 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 deny emergency access, the existing fire hydrant located on the west side of 92nd Ave 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. IX. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Use Application 2. Application Cover Letter 3. Petition for Vacation 4. Vacation Map 5. Legal Description of Vacation 6. Appraisal 7. Applicant response to request for additional information 8. Resolution No. 1371 PLN20160032 — 92nd Avenue West Street Vacation Page 10 of 11 Packet Pg. 566 10.2.b 9. Zoning and Vicinity Map 10. Comprehensive Plan Excerpt 11. Public Notices 12. Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Comments 13. Olympic View Water and Sewer District Comments 14. Snohomish County Surface Water Management Comments 15. Engineering Division Comments 16. Plantz Addition 17. Ridge Acres X. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds 121 — 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Snohomish County 3000 Rockefeller Ave M/S 607 Everett, WA 98201 Olympic View Water and Sewer District Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 8128 - 228t' Street SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Westgate Chapel, Inc. Larry and Claudia Walters 22901 Edmonds Way 9126 — 228th Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98026 PLN20160032 — 92" d Avenue West Street Vacation Page 11 of 11 Packet Pg. 567 10.2.b City of Edmonds Land Use Application IM ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ■ ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT n ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 7D7ATE. �] ONE K O IN ❑ HOME OCCUPATION REC'D BY C❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION . RECEIPT # ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB kC M STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: • PLEASE NOTE THATA LL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD • PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 92nd Ave W. south of 228th St. S.W. and north of Edmonds Way PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) 92nd Ave W Street Vacation PROPERTY OWNER City of Edmonds, Washington PHONE # 425-771-0220 ADDRESS 121 5th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020 E-MAIL michaelclugston@edmondswa.gov FAX # 425-771-0221 31 27N 4 EWM & TAX ACCOUNT # None. It is a public right-of-way. SEC. 36 TWP. 27N RNG. 3 EWM DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) See attached project description DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) Street vacations are governed by Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.70. The following criteria are both met by the proposal. 20.70.020 A. The vacation is In the public interest; and B. No property will be denied direct access as a result of the vacation. Refer to cover letter. APPLICANT Westgate Chapel, Inc. PHONE # 425-775-2776 ADDRESS 22901 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA 98020-5038 E-MAIL bmcatee@westgatechape.com FAX# CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Jim Egge c/o James Egge & Associates PHONE # 425-388-1698 ADDRESS 10807 25th St. S.E., Lake Stevens, WA 98258 E-MAIL )a-9Qmsn•wm FAX# The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below, SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT l _DATE 6/20/16 I SIX Property Owner's Authorization I, )#&;y A. HwgPxe3� 3, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspecti n sli atlrindant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE 6/20/16 s? Call (425) 771-0220, Revised on 8122112 B - Land Use Application Page I of l Attachml Packet Pg. 568 10.2.b JAMES EGGE & ASSOCIATES 425-388-1698 Land Use Planning ♦ Project Management ♦ Development Analysis ♦ Agency Representation June 20, 2016 Development Services Department / Planning Division City of Edmonds, Washington 121 51h Ave. N. RECEIVED Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Michael Clugston, Associate Planner JUN 2 0 2016 Re: Street Vacation — 92nd Ave. W. DEVELOMEN- - Dear Mr. Clugston, The proposed action: I herewith submit the enclosed (both paper and electronic copied) documents on behalf of my client, Westgate Chapel, Inc. related to proposed vacation of a portion of 92nd Ave. W. south of 228th St. S.W. You and I have previously reviewed the required exhibits in support of the vacation request. Subject site: 92nd Ave W. lying south of 228th St. S.W. Jurisdiction: City of Edmonds, Washington Area: Approximately 0.46 acre (20,323 sq. ft.) Current status: 92nd Ave W. currently serves as paved public roadway which extends southerly from 228th St. S.W. for approximately 375 feet. It is a two-lane roadway with a paved width of 20 feet with gravel shoulders of varing width along portions of both east and west margins. Right-of-way varies in width from 30' at the southerly terminus to 60' over the northerly 290 feet (+/-). The City of Edmonds maintains a storm drainage conveyance system withini the westerly half of the roadway, which will remain and be provided with permanent easement following right-of-way vacation. There are also other utilities (sanitary sewer, water) within the right-of-way, and overhead elecrical powelines and poles situated along the east margin of the right-of-way which are owned and maintained by utility purveyors. Access: 92nd Ave W. currently serves as legal access to four single family properties along the easterly margin, and also serves as one several access points to "Westgate Chapel" to the west. Permanent access easements to each property east of 92nd Ave. W. will be preserved as part of vacation proceedings. Westgate Chapel currently owns all abutting properties which take access from 92nd Ave. W, except tax parcel 00555300200106 which lies at the southeast corner of 92nd Ave. W. and 228th St. S.W. The existing single family detached home on said lot is addressed as 9126 228th St. S.W., although it takes vehicular access from 92nd Ave. W. All other properties southerly of the existing terminus of 92nd Ave. W. take access from either Edmonds Way, or other public roadways to the east.The Sequoyah Condominiums - Phases 1 and 5 lie directlly south of the subject site. Three smaller individual tax parcels lie west of the Sequoyah development and take access from Edmonds Way. Westgate Chapel owns all remaining property directly west and south of 92nd Ave. W., along with Lots 8,9 and 10, Belt Add No 6 which abut the east margin of said roadway. The aforementioned tax parcel at the southwest corner of the intersection of 228th St. S.W. and 92nd Ave. W. is owned by Claudia Marie Walters and Larry Wayne according to county assessor tax records. The Walters have signed the vacation petition. 10807 25th Street SE ♦ Lake Stevens, Washington 98258 ♦ jamese-a@msn.com Attachml Packet Pg. 569 10.2.b 92nd Ave. W. proposed street vacation Westgate Chapel, Inc. June 20, 2016 Zoning/Comprehensive Plan: Incorporated city limits abut the east margin of 92nd Ave W. with lands immediately east under jurisdiction of Snohomish County. The county zoning designation for properties immediately east of 92nd Ave W. is R-8400, a single family low density urban residential zone. Lands to the north of 228th St. S.W. lying easterly of 92nd Ave. W. are similarly zoned. The Sequoyah Condominiums to the east of 92nd and south are zoned PRD-MR (Planned Residential Development — Multifamily Residential). A small portion of the Westgate Chapel property which abuts the southerly margin of 228th St. S.W. west of 92nd Ave. W is zoned RS-8 (8,000 sq. ft. lots), as are lands to the north. That portion of the church ownership north of 228th St. S.W. is part of an existing parking lot which serves the church. The remainder of the church ownership south of 228th St. S.W. within the city is zoned RM-1.5 Multi Family (1,500 sq. ft. of lot area per unit), as are the three smaller tax parcels which abut Edmonds Way that are not church owned. The Future Land Use Map for Snohomish County's Comprehensive Plan depicts lands to the immediate east of 92nd Ave W. as Urban High Density Residential. Land west of 92nd Ave W. lies within the City of Edmonds. City comprehensive plan maps designate lands west of 92nd Ave. W as follows: South of 228th St. S.W. — This is the main church site which is designated within the Edmonds Way Corridor which lists compatible zoning categories as BP BN, BC or similar commercial zones; and RM zones; North of 228th St. S.W. — This area is shown as Single Family — Urban 1, which is consistent with existing RS-8 zoning. The proposed action: As they represent all properties which front the proposed portion of 92nd Ave. W., Westgate Chapel and the Walters mutually propose vacation of 92nd Ave. W. south of 228th St. S.W. where it abuts their respective ownerships. Permanent access easements will be provided to all affected existing ownerships at the time of formal approval of the vacation. Easements will also be granted in favor of all existing purveyors who maintain facilities within the existing right-of-way. Finally, the accompanying exhibits are hereby submitted for consideration by the city as provided for in Edmonds Municipal Code. Please contact me as the primary contact for the vacation request as things progress. Thank you. Jim Egge, Project Planner JAMES EGGE & ASSOCIATES ENCL. Cc Westgate Chapel, Inc. (attn: Pastor Brent McAtee) Attachmj Packet Pg. 570 PETITION FOR STREET OR ALLEY VACATION JUN 2 0 2016 TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES We, the undersigned owners of two-thirds of the real property abutting upon that public right-of-way described below, pursuant to RCW 35,79.010, do hereby petition the City of Edmonds to vacate said public right-of-way, described as follows: A portion of City of Edmonds existing public right-of-way for 92nd Ave. W as described on attached EXHIBIT A. all situate in the City of Edmonds, County of Snohomish, State of Washington, and request that said City Council by Resolution fix a time and place when this Petition shall be heard and determined by that authority, which time shall not be more than sixty (60) days nor less than twenty (20) days after the passage of such Resolution. These pages are a group of pages containing an identical text and prayer intended by the signers of this Petition to be presented and considered as one Petition and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Petition. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he. or she is otherwise not qualified to sing, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. PRAYER OF PETITION: For the vacation of public right -of -Way Westgate Chapel Inc. 22901 Edmonds Way Brent McAtee Edmonds, WA 98020-5039 Larry Wayne Walters 9126 228th St SW, Edmonds, WA 98026-8463 5% �. Claudia Marie Walters (same) jol&o- NAA Page_,__ of-1— MVACPES.DOC -K0VA6 Attachment: PLN20160032 Staff Report with Attachments (1662 : Resolution of Intent to Vacate a Portion of 92nd Ave W) 10.2.b 1 31 } -T 01 I ' 1 rr= 1 00,1 , AF NCO. 982137 I I � RECEIVED JUN 2 0 2016 ,- - --� - - !_(PMENtr I42 I 41 40 I _ r_L_ 02 I I I II E. TN0. 14 30' AF NO. 1214687 34 33 343 44 I 45 I 2287H STREET S.W. N 25 3o M 10.00' N S013109"E 20.0]` 3s 31 a 1 I I 73eC.01' O.8 ' � ..�. T S88'22'55"ETIFO' I II 4 I 30'8'41'25"E � 30.02' I TAX 06 04 I 05 I 03 "WESTGATE CHAPEL I "05553002-1 LOT 1, BiX 2, RIDGE ACRES D0106 AF NO. 262998 / TAX #0054620000100 #0054520000101 I J Y � AREA OF YACATTO J� / PARCEL A. CITY OF o 20,323 SF EDMONDS LOT LINE ADJT. TAX $ 3 N0, LL 2006-026 �w 0391000000800 e / GAF NO, 200703025001 / z �-- — - TAX 9 z 30' 1 #04391000000900 C3 TAX #00391000001000 400 v� 561i9'47-iN 10 / 33.96' Ir/ 5 / N NO'13'09'W / 91.85' L _ ljN "•88'42'29"W 30.01' \ I SEQUOCONDOMINIUM �s AF NO.. 200704125001 ISHEETJOF STREET VACATION GROUP FOURln. 1 ESTGATE CHAPEL nd-ACITY OF EDMONDS P.°.BOX 14g)#0841� AK(W6M134f'wwwGRP�mwnsez5a Attachml Packet Pg. 572 10.2.b RECEIVED ED EXHIBIT A JUN 2 ® 2016 LEGAL DESCRXPTION OF CITY of EDMONDS STREET vACATl2H EVELOPMENTSERACES THAT PORTION OF CITY OF EDMONDS EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF 228TH STREET S.W. AND THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN 92ND AVENUE W., SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, RIDGE ACRES, PER PLAT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 262998; THENCE SOUTH 0013'09" EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN OF 92ND AVENUE W., A DISTANCE OF 375.41 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY PLAT BOUNDARY OF SEQUOYAH, A CONDOMINIUM, PER PLAT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 200704125001; THENCE NORTH 88042'29" WEST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PLAT BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A" OF CITY OF EDMONDS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO, LL 2006-026, RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 200703025001; THENCE NORTH 0013'09" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A", A DISTANCE OF 91.85 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 61049'47" WEST CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A", A DISTANCE OF 33.96 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0013'09" WEST CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A A DISTANCE OF 310.46 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "A", SAID NORTHEASTERLY CORNER ALSO BEING THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF 228TH STREET S.W. AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN 92"' AVENUE W.; THENCE SOUTH 88022'55" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.02 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF 92ND AVENUE W., SAID POINT LYING SOUTH 0°13'09" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 20.01 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE SOUTH 0013'09" EAST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88041'25" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. CONTAINING 20,323 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. 1 OF 1 Attachmj Packet Pg. 573 10.2.b APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST LLP Appraisal of the Westgate Chapel Right of Way Acquisition located at 22901 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA 98020 for Mr. James Egge Right of Way Consultant James Egge & Associates 10807 25th St SE Lake Stevens, WA 98258 by James B. Price, MAI, SR/WA Glenn L. Price, Appraiser Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP 1409 140th Place NE, Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98007 V. A-5183 JUN 20 �016 DEVELOPMENT SEpMCES Attachml Packet Pg. 574 10.2.b Mr. James Egge Right of Way Consultant James Egge & Associates 10807 25th St SE Lake Stevens, WA 98258 Parcel No.: 005462000001E00, 00546200000101 Owner: West ate Cha el Inc. Federal Aid No: N/A Proiect: 92nd Avenue West Street Vacation R/W Plan Title: N/A Mau Sheet: 1 of 1 Map Approval Date: Date of Last Mau Revision: Certificate of Appraiser I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: ♦ The statements of fact contained in this appraisal are true and correct; ♦ The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions; ♦ I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this appraisal, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; ♦ My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event; ♦ My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this appraisal has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice; ♦ I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. I have made a personal exterior inspection of the comparable sales contained in the report addenda; ♦ I have afforded the owner or a designated representative of the property that is the subject of this appraisal the opportunity to accompany me on the inspection of the property; ♦ No one provided significant professional assistance to the persons signing this report; ♦ I have disregarded any increase in Fair Market Value caused by the proposed public improvement or its likelihood prior to the date of valuation. I have disregarded any decrease in Fair Market Value caused by the proposed public improvement or its likelihood prior to the date of valuation, except physical deterioration within the reasonable control of the owner; ♦ This appraisal has been made in conformity with the appropriate State and Federal laws and requirements, and complies with the contract between the agency and the appraiser; ♦ The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute regarding review by its duly authorized representatives; ♦ The appraisal report was prepared in conformity with the Appraisal Foundation's Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. ♦ We have performed no appraisal services for this parcel in the last three years. The property has been appraised for its fair market value as though owned in fee simple, or as encumbered only by the existing easements as described in the right of way diagram dated 9/9/2014. The opinion of value expressed below is the result of, and is subject to, the data and conditions described in detail. I made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report on 2/25/2016. The Date of Value for the property that is the subject of this appraisal is 2/25/2016. Per the FAIR MARKET VALUE definition herein, the value conclusions for the property that is the subject of this appraisal are on a cash basis and are: FAIR MARKET VALUE BEFORE ACQUISITION $2,166,000 FAIR MARKET VALUE AFTER ACQUISITION $2,369,000 DIFFERENCE $203,000 Notice to Proceed Date: Date Signed: May 23, 2016 Signature: Washington State Certified General Real Estate Certification Number Date Signed: May 23, 2016 Signature: Washington State Certified General Real Estate Certification Number February 13, 2014 James B. Price, MAI, SR/WA Cert. # 1100229 I PIJIU Glenn L. Price, Appraiser Cert. # 1101927 Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100, 0054S2IIQ 040 _ Packet Pg. 575 Page 2 10.2.b Assignment Scope of Work The client of this report is James Egge & Associates . In the event of conflict or dispute in determining correct appraisal procedures that are not addressed in the standards noted above, the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (Yellow Book) will be the determining authority. Eminent Domain Appraisal Information and Definitions The intended use of this appraisal is to provide information to the client, James Egge & Associates , as a basis for acquiring the portion of the subject property needed for the proposed project. Unless stated otherwise in the report, the property rights appraised constitute the fee simple interest. "Fair Market Value" is defined as: the amount in cash which a well-informed buyer, willing but not obliged to buy the property, would pay, and which a well-informed seller, willing but not obligated to sell it would accept, taking into consideration all uses to which the property is adapted and might in reason be applied (Washington Pattern Instruction 150.08). The intended user of this report is primarily the client, James Egge & Associates . Additionally, its funding partners may review the appraisal as part of their oversight activities. A copy of this report may be provided to the property owner as a courtesy and part of the good faith bargaining process. However, this does not imply that the property owner has standing as an intended user and is not authorized to publish or use the report for any other purpose. In condemnation, the larger parcel is the portion of a property that has unity of ownership, contiguity, and unity of use, the three conditions that establish the larger parcel for consideration of severance damages. This is also known as the "parent parcel." A review of the tax records indicate that the two Subject parcels have unity of ownership, contiguity, and use; therefore, we conclude the subject's two parcels is the larger or "parent parcel." Though there is also another parcel to the north that has unity of ownership and contiguity, the improvements are separate and not associated with the same tenants, therefore are not considered to be part of the larger parcel as they do not share unity of use. Extraordinary assumptions or hypothetical conditions include, but may not be limited to, the following: State and Federal standards require the appraiser to disregard any decrease or increase in the fair market value of the subject caused by the project. The appraiser may cite the Jurisdictional Exception Rule to comply with this requirement which is found in RCW 8.26.180 and WAC 468-100-102 (2). The after value is based on the assumption that the project has been constructed as proposed on the Right of Way plans as of the date of value. The subject has been appraised as if there were no environmental hazards or contamination. However, any apparent environmental hazards or contamination observed or discovered during the appraisal process must and will be noted in the report. Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100, 005AUAIW A Packet Pg. 576 Page 3 10.2.b APPRAISAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. The property description supplied to the appraiser is assumed to be correct. 2. No survey of the property has been made or reviewed by the appraiser, and no responsibility is assumed in connection with such matters. Illustrative material, including maps and plot plans, utilized in this report are included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property. Property dimensions and sizes are considered to be approximate. 3. No responsibility is assumed for matters of a legal nature affecting title to the property, nor is any opinion of title rendered. Property titles are assumed to be good and merchantable unless otherwise stated 4. Information furnished by others is believed to be true, correct, and reliable. However, no responsibility for its accuracy is assumed by the appraiser. 5. All mortgages, liens, encumbrances, leases, and servitude have been disregarded unless so specified within the report. The property is assumed to be under responsible, financially sound ownership and competent management. 6. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures which would render the property more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for arranging for engineering studies which may be required to discover them. 7. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material, which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed by the appraiser. However, the appraiser is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea -formaldehyde foam insulation or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The value conclusions in this report are predicated on the assumption that there are no such materials on or in the property that would cause a loss of value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for the expertise required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field if desired. The analysis and value conclusions in this report are null and void should any hazardous material be discovered. 8. It is assumed that, if hazardous materials, substances or waste are known or suspected to exist, the property to be acquired will be delivered clean and free of any such hazardous materials, substances or waste, unless otherwise stated in the appraisal report. It is assumed that the grantor(s), or any party of interest, agrees to indemnify the acquiring agency and hold harmless the acquiring agency for any costs or liabilities associated with the removal or remediation of any hazardous substances that have been released, or otherwise come to be located on the site, during the grantor's ownership or operation of the site, including those that may have migrated from the site through water or soil to other properties. "Hazardous substances" shall include all those substances identified as hazardous under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq. and the Washington Model Toxics Control Act, RCW 70.105.010 et seq.; and shall include gasoline and other petroleum products. "Costs" shall include but not be limited to all response costs, disposal fees, investigatory costs, monitoring costs, civil or criminal penalties, and attorney fees and other litigation costs incurred in complying with state or federal environmental laws, which shall include but not be limited to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601; the Clean Water Act 33 U.S.C. Section 1251; the Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. Section 7401; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 6901; and the Washington Model Toxics Control Act, RCW 70.105D.010. It is further assumed that the grantors shall retain any and all liabilities arising from the offsite disposal, handling, treatment, storage, or transportation of any hazardous substances, including petroleum products, removed from the site by the grantors or their employees or agents. 9. Unless otherwise stated in this report, no environmental impact studies were either requested or made in conjunction with this report. The appraiser reserves the right to alter, amend, revise, or rescind any opinions of value based upon any subsequent environmental impact studies, research, or investigation. 10. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless noncompliance is specified, defined, and considered in this report. 11. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless non -conformity has been specified, defined and considered in this report. 12. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or federal governmental or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate is based. 13. The appraiser will not be required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made this report, unless arrangements have previously been made. 14. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not cant' with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the client without the written consent of the appraiser and, in any event, only with properly written qualification and only in its entirety. 15. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, or copy thereof, shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or any other media without written consent and approval of the appraiser. Nor shall the appraiser, client, firm, or professional organization of which the appraiser is a member be identified without the written consent of the appraiser. 16. The liability of the appraiser, employees, and subcontractors is limited to the client only. There is no accountability, obligation, or liability to any third party. If this report is placed in the hands of anyone other than the client, the client shall make such party aware of all limiting conditions and assumptions of the assignment and related discussions. The appraiser is in no way responsible for any costs incurred to discover or correct any deficiencies of the property. 17. It is assumed that the public project, which is the object of this report, will be constructed in the manner proposed and in the foreseeable future. 18. Acceptance and/or use of this report constitutes acceptance of the foregoing assumptions and limiting conditions. Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100; ODqgUmlPacket Pg. 577 Page 4 10.2.b SUBJECT PARCEL MAP The subject whole property, access frontages, "North arrow", camera location and direction of each subject photo on the following pages are shown below. Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100„QO aCg0001 Packet Pg. 578 Page 5 10.2.b RIGHT OF WAY EXHIBIT 11 12 13 37 � � 30 1 „_ 160' 36 j 31 I; M �� 38 16�' W F {2 s �I 39 551 1 40 PINECREST AF M. 952137 01 I ROBERT E. THOMAS NO. 14 C ' AF NO. 1214 7 f I ¢8 ! I 02 0 34 35 33 .I L361 1 32 30 1 43 44 45 4S � - � - 50,13'09"E — Ta�, �r as 30 10.00' _ sa•13'09'e 20.01 36 31 - - - - - I I I `P.O.'a588'22'55E 3a'30" S88'4125'E30.02' 1- 30.01' 1WESTCAS CHAPEL" o i °+ t as 03 I D+ I 02 — — vi LOT 1, SUL. 2, RID6E ACRES / A L AF ND. 262448� i / TAX /0054620000100 , / JW546200DOIDI EA OF &;A� - / / k' TAX 20,8323 5F w 3 2 1 / PARCEL A, OF :., $ 10aouao6m o - EOMONDS LOT UNE ADJT. / M !2 NO. ILL L 2006-026 i I AF NO 2007 25001 LTA s I r4 Y -� — 9 � ; 4S• 'f � T S61'49'47'W 10� 391000001000 5 6 7 $air N0'13. -w !� 91.85' \ - ItN88 42'29'W - 30.01' % SEOWYAH CONDOMINIUM PHASES I - 5• AF NO 200704125001 SHEET of STREET VACATION 1 ESTATE CHAPEL GROUP FOUR.. 1 J1 cnE.,nr� CITY OF EDMONDS OTA � O � P� O BOX /059 / 1911 VERMON ROAD SUITE 'A, LAKE STEVENS, WA 86758 SNOHOMISH CO. WASHINGTON nww 2s)4oa1152 • FAXr42SJB77.1341 • ».GRPl.com Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100'AMthfil packet P9. 579 Page 6 10.2.b PHOTOGRAPHS OF ALL PRINCIPAL IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR FEATURES AFFECTING VALUE 1. Looking West along 228th St SW from across the Street from the NE Corner of the Subject L. Looxmg aoutn along Acquisition Area of YL Taken By: Glenn L. Price Ave w trom the iv w i.orner Date Taken: 4/20/2016 Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100QM6MPacket Pg. 580 Page 7 10.2.b 3. Looking North along 92" d Ave W from the Southern Edge of the Acquisition Area 4. Looking SW at the Church Land from the NE Corner of the Acquisition Area Taken By: Glenn L. Price Date Taken: 4/20/2016 Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100, 5ft(C Packet Pg. 581 Page 8 10.2.b APPRAISAL REPORT 1. OWNER: Westgate Chapel, Inc. 2. LOCATION OF SUBJECT: The subject is located adjacent to and east of 22901 Edmonds Way in the City of Edmonds. According to a survey completed by Group Four for the client, there is approximately 20,323 SF of land in 92"d Ave W to be vacated. Since the vacated street cannot be valued in itself, the value will be determined after being added to the value of the adjacent parcel to the west, which is our Subject. 3. SUBJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Refer to the Addenda. The Subject has Tax Parcel Numbers 00546200000100, 00546200000101 according to Snohomish County property records. 4. DELINEATION OF TITLE (10 years): According to public record, the subject has not transferred between parties in the last 10 years. There is no evidence that the subject property has been offered for sale in the past 3 years. 5. THE APPRAISAL PROBLEM AND APPRAISER'S SCOPE OF WORK: This appraisal is for the 92nd Avenue West Street Vacation project. 92"d Ave West will be vacated by the City of Edmonds below 228th Street Southwest. This appraisal is for a fee acquisition of 20,323 square feet within the existing right of way along the east side of the Subject property that includes the Westgate Chapel and parking area. The value of improvements situated within the acquisition area including gravel and asphalt installed by the city of Edmonds will be reimbursed. The value of the vacated street is predicated upon the across -the -fence value of the property to the west (owned by the Westgate Chapel). The amount to be paid for the street is based on its value as additional land to the property to the west with the same highest and best use. 6. PROPERTY RIGHTS TO BE ACQUIRED AND EFFECTS OF ACQUISITION/ PROJECT: This is the full acquisition of the ROW (Right of Way) inside 92nd Avenue W. based on the exhibit provided earlier. The public street will be vacated into private hands and all easements will remain in place (including some that must be created subsequent to this appraisal for existing utilities). All of the site improvements that have been installed by the City of Edmonds must be reimbursed. 7. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: Neighborhood: A neighborhood can be defined as an area of complementary land uses. A neighborhood's boundaries identify the area that influences the value of the subject property. The subject is located in the city of Edmonds in a suburban area of Snohomish County. Edmonds is located approximately equidistant between Seattle to the south and Everett to the northeast, both of which are about 12 miles away. It is surrounded by the cities of Woodway, Mountlake Terrace, and Lynnwood. The subject's immediate neighborhood is situated in a south central area of the City of Edmonds, just to the west of a pocket of unincorporated Snohomish County completely surrounded by Edmonds. This area consists primarily of single- and multi -family housing with neighborhood commercial development at key intersections. Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100A10ff Packet Pg. 582 10.2.b Page 9 Primary access is provided by Interstate 5 and Highway 99, both of which are generally north/south arterials, and by Highway 104, the main NW/SE arterial that leads from I-5 to the southeast to the Edmonds CBD (Central Business District) to the northwest. Subject: The Subject has a total site area in the Valuation -Before of 3.93 acres or about 171,191 SF with the majority of the level site at grade with the frontage streets. The subject is zoned RM 1.5 which allows for multifamily development. The highest and best use for the overall site as vacant would be for a multifamily development. A. Present Use: The lot is currently developed with a church that was constructed in 1979 and is currently in operation. B. Accessibility and Road Frontages: The Subject is a corner lot with access along its frontage streets of 228th Street SW to the north and 92na Ave W to the south. C. Land Contour and Elevations: The lot has a level topography and is at the grade of the fronting streets. D. Land Area: The lot size is 171,191 SF in the before. E. Land Shape: The lot is an irregularly shaped parcel, but the shape is not restrictive to development. F. Utilities: All utilities are reported to be available to the site at the street. These include water, sewer, electricity, and telephone. G. Present Zoning: Since the ROW currently functions as a public street, it does not have a zoning designation. However, if it were added to the adjacent land to the west (the Subject), the vacated street would most likely be rezoned to the same zoning as that parcel. The adjacent lot is zoned RM 1.5 (Multifamily Residential 1,500 SF/Unit), a designation to reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zone, while still maintaining a residential environment. It also provides for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. There is a minimum setback from the street of 15 feet, 10 feet from the sides, and 15 feet from the rear. The maximum building height is 25 feet and maximum lot coverage ratio is 45%. The minimum lot area for each unit is 1,500 SF. Though there is technically a strip of single-family zoning along the northern edge of the adjacent land, the comprehensive plan will allow this area to be rezoned RM 1.5 according to the City of Edmonds planning department, therefore this adjacent zoning was not considered. The land to the east of the subject is not in the City of Edmonds, but rather unincorporated Snohomish County. Zoning cannot carry over across the city boundary since Edmonds and Snohomish County have different zoning codes, so only adjacent zonings within the Edmonds City Limits can be considered. Number of Potential Units in the Before In order to estimate how many units are possible for the Subject land, we will use the SF before the acquisition of 171,191 SF. Now we must divide by the base density as a c N O c 0 0 IL M a) 0 0 c as c 0 c 0 o- U a) N W W Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100AOffyc packet pg. 583 Page 10 10.2.b allowed by zoning, which is 1,500 SF/potential dwelling unit, to figure out how many units would theoretically be allowed by zoning. 171,191 SF / 1,500 SF/DU = 114 Potential Dwelling Units H. Highest and Best Use As If Vacant: Introduction: The Highest and Best Use is defined as that reasonable and probable use that supports the highest present fair market value as of the effective date of the appraisal. The highest and best use of a property must meet four criteria: physically possible; legally permissible; financially feasible and maximally productive. There are two types of highest and best use: that of the property as if vacant and of the property as improved. In each situation, the highest and best use must meet four criteria. Physically Possible — Uses of the property that are physically possible; Legally Permissible — Uses of the property allowed by land use and deed restrictions; Financially Feasible — Possible and legitimate uses, which produce a net return to the property's owner; Maximally Productive — The feasible use of the property, which produces the highest net return or highest present worth, the Highest and Best Use. The highest and best use concept is based upon traditional appraisal theory and reflects the attitudes of typical buyers and sellers who recognize that value is predicated on future benefits. This theory is based upon wealth maximization of the owner. The highest and best use of the property as if vacant and available for use may be different from the highest and best use of the improved property, if applicable. This is valid when the improvement is not a suitable one, but still makes a contribution to the total property value in excess of the land value. In estimating the highest and best use, the following tests must be satisfied to meet the above criteria: the use must be legal; it needs to be probable, not speculative or surmised; and there must be a profitable demand for such use giving the highest net return for the longest period of time. Highest and Best Use — Unimproved: Physically Possible: The use to which a site can be developed can be affected by its size, shape, topography, access, and soil type. The Subject site is an irregularly shaped parcel containing an area of 171,191 square feet. The site has a level topography that is at the grade of its fronting street. All utilities are reported to be available to the site or available in the street. Legally Permissible: The ROW currently does not have a zoning category as it is being used as a public street. However, if it were available on the open market, it would be rezoned for private use. Based on land uses in the area and the adjacent RM-1.5 zoning of the Subject to the west, we are making the extraordinary assumption that the Subject Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100 0 46210001 Packet Pg. 584 10.2.b Page 11 would be zoned RM-1.5. Based on our calculations above, the site could be developed with 114 dwelling units. Financially Feasible: A financially feasible use of the subject site, if vacant, would be development for a multi -family use. The current market conditions for multi -family development in the greater Puget Sound region have been strong, even through the recent recession. The expected continued growth within the neighborhood indicates a financially feasible option for the Subject. Maximally Productive: The subject site is suited for a variety of development possibilities that would be maximally productive. The size, location, and supporting infrastructure indicate a multi -family development, which would maximize the development as allowed by the RM-1.5 zoning. Conclusion of Highest and Best Use as "if vacant": The highest and best use of the subject site if vacant is for a multi -family development. I. Improvements: No improvements must be addressed in the Before condition. J. Specialty Items: N/A K. Real Estate Taxes: The following is the county's indication of assessed value. The Adjacent Land is being used for religious purposes so no taxes are assessed. TOTAL ASSESSED VALUATION 2016 Assessed Value: Land Improvements Total Taxes (2016) P/N 00546200000100, 00546200000101 L. Assessments Current and Pending: N/A M. Existing Lease or Rental Data: N/A $3,386,500 $6,644,400 $10,030,900 Exempt N. Highest and Best Use of the Whole Property As Improved: The subject improvements provide a significant contribution to the land as it is currently being used as a public street. The cost to install the road must be reimbursed to the City of Edmonds as the road will remain usable after the acquisition. Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100 AoffffdffiTPacket Pg. 585 Page 12 10.2.b 8. APPROACHES TO VALUE: There are three accepted methods of evaluating all types of real property: the cost approach, the sales comparison approach, and the income capitalization approach. All three approaches are used when applicable. When sufficient information is not available, only those approaches or that approach containing the most information is used and/or relied upon. Cost Approach The cost approach to value arises from the economic concept of objective value. This concept implies that the value of anything is the cost incurred to create it. This approach is based upon the estimated reproduction or replacement cost of the improvements. The cost is then reduced in value by the accrued depreciation, if any. The depreciated value of site improvements, if any, and estimated land value are then added to the depreciated reproduction cost of the improvements to develop an indication of value by the cost approach. Sales Comparison Approach The sales comparison approach method of valuation reflects the opinion of buyers and sellers of comparable property about the value of the subject property. The sales comparison approach is based on the principle of substitution: no well-informed, prudent buyer is going to pay more for any property than is necessary to buy another equally desirable substitute property. The sales comparison approach requires the appraiser to assume the role of a typical buyer; gather sufficient data; and analyze, weigh, and adjust the data in such a manner as to properly apply this information to the property being appraised. Income Capitalization Approach The income capitalization approach method of valuation is used primarily in the appraisal of investment property. Therefore, the appraiser must analyze the rental value of the comparable properties and, in addition, obtain background information on what a prudent investor in this type of property expects as a return on investment. From this information, a return on the invested capital can be ascertained and then applied to the subject property's market rent to develop a reliable indication of value based on income. The rent paid or income received, commonly known as contract rent, is not always market rent for a given property. In other words, a survey of comparable properties must be made for the purpose of obtaining rental information to ascertain the going or market rent for comparable properties and the subject property. This information must then be related to the subject property being appraised. The income capitalization approach is the primary approach used in arriving at the indicated market value for income -producing property. Approaches to Value Used All three approaches to value have been considered in estimating the market value of the subject. However, the cost and income capitalization approaches, although considered, are not applicable to the valuation of the subject property: the cost approach, because the valuation is for land only, and the income capitalization approach, because these kinds of properties do not normally produce ground rent. Only the most appropriate approach to value, the sales comparison approach, has been utilized. Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 0054620000010MWI110 W Packet Pg. 586 10.2.b Page 13 9. VALUATION -BEFORE: (A) Site Valuation: (1) Sales Comparison Approach: In the sales comparison approach, the value of a property is estimated by comparing it with similar properties in its market area. This approach is based on the premise that the value of a property is set by the prices of equally desirable substitute properties in the same area. In the Before, we will value the Adjacent Lot to the west of the Subject. In this section, the market value of the fee simple interest of the site, as vacant, will be estimated by comparing it with recent sales of vacant land located in the subject property's neighborhood or in surrounding neighborhoods having similar characteristics. Comparable sales were selected with consideration given to the subject's current attributes, which include zoning, size, amenities, and location. (a) Scope of Data Search: The data search was accomplished using public records, NWMLS, CBA, and CoStar. The search period included sales occurring in the city of Edmonds and surrounding neighborhoods of Snohomish and King Counties. In order to reflect current market conditions, the search included sales from the last three years and the closest in proximity to the subject property with similar site sizes and highest and best use considerations. Sale Idendfica6m Sale Date Sale Pdm Ulk / hits Sue (SF) ` vp, Sub 22901 Gdnrnnds Way, Edmonds 85 171.191 1,511 1 2130548th Ave W, Mountlake Tenace 12/31/13 $500,000 $18,519/lot 27 59,219.00 1,645 2 7907230th St SW., EdnDnds 6115/15 $625,000 $3Z895/lot 19 39204.00 1,548 1. 3 114615 Madison Way, Lynn"ood 4/1/16 $3,200,000 $17,77WIot 180 47Z625.00 1,969 4 17xxT F_205th, Shoreline 12/1/14 $1,725,000 $15,972/lot 108 32.200.00 224 (b) General Discussion: N/A (c) Comparative Analyses: Unit of Comparison The most prevalent indicator of value for multifamily land is the $/Unit (Price per Unit). Adjustments The limited number of sales in the subject's immediate area and lack of uniformity within this market prevent direct extraction of reliable paired -sale adjustments from the marketplace. Any attempt to apply paired -sales adjustments for this property is somewhat subjective and unreliable. Therefore, a general bracketing analysis reflecting market behavior is utilized to determine which Sales are generally superior or inferior to the subject site. This analysis establishes value parameters for the subject allowing for a final conclusion of value. A brief discussion of the various adjustments applied to the comparable sales is presented below: Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100, 5ft packet pg. 587 Page 14 10.2.b Time of Sale — This adjustment is caused by changes in market conditions between the time of sale of a comparable and the date of the appraisal of the subject. Changes in market conditions may be caused by inflation, deflation, fluctuations in supply and demand, or other factors. The sales utilized are fairly recent, dating back to late 2013. Rents in the greater Seattle metro area rose about 12% last year and the apartment market in the Seattle area is one of the strongest in the nation, fueled in part by skyrocketing single-family values. We have made an adjustment of 12% per year to all Sales. Adjustments to Market Corrected Sales Prices The bracketing analysis will be based on the values of the Sales including a market adjustment for sale date. Total Site Area — The Subject gross site area is 171,191 square feet. For multifamily land, we have not found a reliable correlation between the size of the lot and the $/Unit, so we have made no adjustments. Zoning — The zoning of the Subject and the Sales have similar highest and best uses, so no adjustments have been made. While there are inherent differences between zoning regulations between municipalities, the differences are primarily due to allowable density, which is adjusted for later in this analysis. Location —We have only made a downward adjustment to Sale 3 since it is in a statistically inferior market compared to the Subject. Access — Sale 4 has superior access to the freeway compared to the Subject and all of the Sales, so a downward adjustment has been made. Shape — None of the Sales or the Subject have a restrictive shape so no adjustments have been made. Critical Areas — When environmentally critical areas are present it can distort the density calculation for the analysis. Sale 2 does have environmentally sensitive areas, reflected in the lowest density of development for all of the Sales. We have made no adjustment as discussed below in the Density section. Topography — All of the Sales and the Subject are considered to have similar topography so no adjustments have been made. Utilities — All of the Sales have similar access to utilities. Other — Sales 1 and 2 will be developed with townhomes instead of apartments. We have not made an adjustment, but due to this fact, Sales 1 and 2 are given lower reliance in the final reconciliation. Preliminary Approval — Multifamily properties often sell with preliminary approval for a project that drastically reduces the time from sale of the property until breaking ground on the project compared to those properties that sold without preliminary design approval in place. The Subject does not currently have a development plan in place that has been given preliminary approval by the City of Edmonds, but all of the sales do have preliminary approval. We have used a paired sales analysis to analyze the difference in sales price for properties that sold with Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100TYRIQQQ( Packet Pg. 588 10.2.b Page 15 approval verses those that did not, and an appropriate downward adjustment has been made. Density (SF/Unit) — This accounts for the difference in density of development for all of the Sales compared to the Subject. On a unit basis, far denser developments tend to achieve a lower $/Unit, so we have made an upward adjustment to Sale 4. Though Sale 2 has a higher density compared to the other Sales, this is due in part to the presence of critical areas as discussed earlier, so it is likely that the effective density is significantly lower, therefore we have made no adjustment. Appraisers: Price & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP Parcel# 00546200000100A"to Packet Pg. 589 Page 16 COMPARABLE LAND SUMMARY GRID Subject Comparable Sale 1 A ' Comparable Sale 2 Adj. Comparable Sale 3 A ' Co able Sale 4 A ' Location 22901 Edmonds Way, Edmonds 21305 48th Ave W, Mountlake Terrace 7907 230th St SW, Edmonds 14615 Madison Way, Lynnwood 17xxNE 205th St, Shoreline Sale Price $500,000 $625,000 $3,200,000 $1,725,000 Sale Price/Unit $18,519 $32,895 $17,778 $15,972 Date of Sale 12/31/2013 28% 6/15/2015 11% 4/1/2016 1% 12/1/2014 17% Adj. Price / Unit $23,724 $36,399 $17,971 $18,703 # of Units 114 Potential Units 27 Potential Units - 19 Potential Unils -- 180 Potential Units + 108 Potential Units Total Site Area 171,191 59,219 39,204 472,625 32,200 Zonis RM-1.5 Park West Condo. Conplex MR MR CB Location Average Similar I Similar Inferior + Similar Access Average Similar Similar Similar Good - Shape Irregular -Unrestricted i Irregular -Unrestricted Rectangular Irregular -Unrestricted Rectangular Critical Areas None Known None Known None Known Yes None Known To r Level Similar Similar Similar Similar Utilities All Availlable Same Same Same Same Prelim Approvai No Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes - Density SF/Unit 1,502 2,193 2,063 2,626 298 ++ Other Potential A artments Townhomes Townhomes Apartments Apartments Net Lot A '. Superior -- Far Superior --- Slightly Inferior I + Inferior + Attachment: PLN20160032 Staff Report with Attachments (1662 : Resolution of Intent to Vacate a Portion of 92nd Ave W) 10.2.b Page 17 Comparable Analysis A search for similar sites conducted in the subject's neighborhood produced a relatively limited number of sales. The selected land sales, including competitive neighborhoods, are detailed in the Addenda of this report. Each sale will be briefly described. It should be recognized that the comparable sales vary from the subject in several factors, but allow a bracketing process to be developed to establish a reasonable value range for the subject. (d) Correlation and Conclusions of Sales Comparison Approach to Land Value Before: The sales, taken as a whole, indicate an unadjusted sale price of $15,972 to $32,895 per Unit. The bracketing analysis is based on the market adjusted sale prices that have an adjusted range of $17,971 to $36,399 per unit. Most emphasis was placed on Sale 3 since it will be developed with apartments and sold very recently in 2016. Sale 4 was given secondary weight since the density allowed is so much higher, but a similar quantity of potential units compared to the Subject. Sales 1 and 2 were given tertiary weight since they are being developed with townhomes, though apartments would also have been potentially allowed. Based on the bracketing analysis, we estimate that a fair market unit value for the Subject is $19,000 per potential multifamily dwelling unit. The Subject has the potential for the development of 114 multifamily apartment units. Accordingly, based on the above analysis, it is our opinion that the market value of the subject site in the Before is calculated as follows: 114 Units x $19,000/Unit = $2,166,000 (2) Income Approach to Land Value (if appropriate): N/A (3) Correlation and Final Conclusions of Land Value Before: $2,166,000 B. Whole Property Valuation Before: (1) Sales Comparison Approach to Value of Whole Property: N/A (2) Income Approach to Value of Whole Property Before: N/A (3) Cost Approach to Value of Whole Property (if appropriate): N/A C. Correlation and Final Conclusion from All Approaches: The sales comparison approach was the only approach utilized to estimate the subject property's value, as the other approaches were not considered to provide credible or reliable value indications for this acquisition. The land value in the Before condition is estimated at $2,166,000. 10. REMAINDER EVALUATION: (1) Assumptions and Limiting Conditions: General Assumptions and Limiting Conditions remain unchanged. (Refer to Appraisal Assumptions and Limiting Conditions in this report.) Attachml Packet Pg. 591 Page 18 10.2.b (2) Neighborhood Factors: The neighborhood factors remain unchanged. (3) Description of Subject Remainder: The proposed fee acquisition consists of 20,323 SF in fee in the ROW to the east of the Subject. When added to the existing 171,191 SF, the new size of the Subject will become 191,514 SF. After the acquisition, the subject's access will remain the same for as long as the ROW corridor is preserved at the discretion of the client. After the acquisition, the subject will continue to have a generally level topography, an irregular, but non-restrictive shape, and access to all available utilities. As is common with public streets, there are a number of utilities within the ROW including water (blue), sewer (orange), electric (yellow), and storm sewer (green) as shown in the following exhibit. (Not to scale) Though some of the utilities within the ROW lack legal easements, we are making the assumption that the City of Edmonds will record appropriate easements from each one based on the requirements of the particular utility. In the case of storm sewer, the City of Edmonds requires an easement of 5 feet on either side of the line. Snohomish PUD requires 5.5 feet from either side of the electric line. A setback of 7.5 feet on either side of the water and sewer line is required by Olympic View Water and Sewer. The location of all of the utilities constrains development to such a degree that placing an improvement anywhere in the vacated street would be impractical. Only about 2,000 SF of land is unconstrained by the easements located in the northwest and southwest corners of the acquisition area based on our calculations using Google Earth Pro. Though the ROW will not add additional area for buildings, there is substantial real estate value since all of the area within the ROW can be used to increase the density of Attachmf Packet Pg. 592 10.2.b Page 19 development on other areas of the lot. This has been confirmed with the City of Edmonds planning department. If the Subject was vacant and this land was added to the existing lot, an even greater quantity of potential dwelling units could be developed. In the After condition the size of the Subject lot will now be 191,514 SF. As discussed earlier, the ROW will very likely be zoned RM-1.5. Dividing the new site area by 1,500 SF per dwelling unit allows for development of 127 units (rounded down) in the After condition, as opposed to 114 in the Before condition. (4) Highest and Best Use Analysis: The zoning will remain Multiple Residential. As in the Before, the highest and best use of the Subject site as if vacant is for a multifamily development, which is consistent with the current City of Edmonds zoning. (5) Valuation - Remainder A. Land as Though Vacant Scope of Data Search The site analysis and evaluation that was conducted for the property in the Before in Section 9 is relied upon for the Remainder. Thus, the scope of data search is identical to that used to value the subject property in the Before. Discussion of Approaches to Value Remainder: Approaches to Value Remainder Used All three approaches to value have been considered in estimating the market value of the subject. However, income capitalization approach, although considered, is not applicable to the valuation of the subject property since the property is not typical of income -producing properties that rely on ground rent. A small cost approach was used to value the site improvements within the ROW. The only applicable approach to valuation of the land is the Sales Comparison approach. (For additional comments about approaches to value, refer to Section 8.) Comparative Analyses Other than the Subject being a slightly larger parcel, in is the appraisers' opinion, the function of the Subject site is essentially unchanged from the Before. B. Whole Property Valuation in the Remainder: (1) Sales Comparison Approach to Value of Whole Property: The best conclusion from the available data is to apply the subject's Before value of $19,000 per unit to the subject's Remainder area: The addition of the ROW allows for 127 units. $19,000/unit x 127 units = $2,413,000 Since it is not practical to build any substantial improvements with the acquisition area due to the presence of utilities, this area is less valuable than unencumbered land. The loss of value associated with land that can be used for density and site Attacliml Packet Pg. 593 Page 20 10.2.b improvements (parking areas or landscaping) is fairly small, given the constraints of this particular area can be designed around if a development was planned. The estimate of the loss of value due to the reduction of some property rights cannot typically be obtained from sales directly, but has been loosely standardized by entities who purchase large quantities of right of way for infrastructure projects. Typically a loss of value is calculated based on the $/SF of the underlying land value. A reduction of value of 100% is typically reserved for land that is so encumbered that it is very difficult to use in any meaningful way. A reduction of 50% is typical for an easement that disallows improvements, but the encumbered area can still be used for landscaping or parking, but the land is constrained in an inconvenient way. A reduction of 25% is typical for properties where the encumbered area could conveniently be utilized for a use that supports the highest and best use of the land (such as parking or landscaping area for the church), even if it cannot be improved with a building. This is the case that best matches the S Subject. Smaller reductions of value less than 25% are typically reserved for encumbrances that have minimal effect on the uses of the underlying land, such as buying an easement on top of a preexisting easement that already constrains development, or buying an easement within buildings setbacks where construction was already not permitted. The value of the land in the After condition is $2,413,000 without taking the easements into account. After dividing by the 191,514 SF of the increased site area, the $/SF of land is $12.60/SF. Out of the total 20,323 SF of acquisition area, only about 2,000 SF is feasibly able to be improved in conjunction with the Subject land due to the easements that are (or will be) in place. Taking the Before land area of 171,191 SF and adding 2,000 of unencumbered acquisition area means that a total of 173,191 SF of unencumbered land will be valued at full fee value. 173,191 SF (Unencumbered Land) x $12.60/SF = $2,182,207 (Unencumbered Land Value) The remaining 18,323 of encumbered land will be valued at 25% less on a $/SF basis. $12.60/SF — 25% _ $9.45/SF 18,323 SF (Encumbered Land) x $9.45/SF = $173,152 (Encumbered Land Value) $2,182,207 (Unencumbered Land) + $173,152 (Encumbered Land) _ $2,355,359. Thus, the concluded land value in the After is $2,355,000 (Rounded to nearest $1,000) (2) Income Approach to Value of Whole Property in the Remainder: N/A (3) Cost Approach to Value of Whole Property: The acquisition area has been paved at the expense of the City and the value of this asphalt must be taken into account and added to the After land value. We have estimated the footprint of the existing asphalt paving at about 10,100 SF based on our estimates using Google Earth Pro. Using cost information provided by the Marshall and Swift Cost Handbook, we have found that an average Attachm Packet Pg. 594 10.2.b Page 21 residential subdivision street can be built for about $.75/SF for the rock base and an additional $2.20/SF for paving using asphalt for a total of $2.95/SF. From the date of publication of the data, a multiplier of 1.06 must be used to account for higher construction costs since publication for a result of 3.13/SF. Since costs in the Seattle area are higher than the national average, a multiplier of 1.18 must be used to account for this difference, for a result of $3.69/SF. 10,100 SF (Existing Asphalt Paving) x $3.69/SF = $37,269 (Cost of New Asphalt) We must depreciate the value of the paving because while it appears in serviceable condition, there are obvious signs of wear and tear including a fair amount of cracking and patches. Average quality residential streets have an average lifespan of about 8 years until they must be resealed. There are no dramatic potholes on the existing road, but the pavement is obviously distressed and some of the cracks have started to grow vegetation. Of the original 8 years, I estimate that there is no more than 3 years of economic life to the existing road before steps to rehabilitate the asphalt must be taken. Using straight line depreciation, we apply the $37,269 cost of a new road by 3/8 (remaining life/total life) = $14,000 (rounded to nearest $100). $2,355,000 (Value of Land in the After) + $14,000 (Value of depreciated Asphalt) = $2,369,000 Correlation and Conclusion from All Approaches of Land and Improvements Values Remainder: $2,369,000 (6) Recapitulation: A. Value of property "Before" acquisition B. Value of property "After" acquisition $2,166,000 2 3$ 69,000 C. Difference between "Before" and "After" values $203,000 11. EXPLANATION, MEASUREMENT, and ALLOCATION of DAMAGES/SPECIAL BENEFITS: Damages: There are no damages to the owner of the underlying land. Benefits: The appraisers have not found any special benefit to the subject property remainder. Attachml Packet Pg. 595 Page 22 12. SUMMARY OF APPRAISAL CONCLUSIONS Indicated Value Before Acquisition Highest andBest Use Before: Subdivision Type Size Unit Value Land value before Fee Land 114 Lots $19,000 perUnitl $ 2,166,000 Total Area: 114 Lots Total Land: Total Subject Value Before Project Indicated Subject Value After Project Highest and Best Use After: Subdivision 10.2.b $ 2,166,000 Total hnprowments $ - $ 2,166,000 Land Unencumbered Land 173,191 SF $12.60 er SF $ 1182,207 Encumbered Land 18,323 SF $9.45 per SF $ 173,152 Total Area: 173,191 SF (It to $1,000) Total Land: hn owments Depreciated Asphalt $ 14,000 Total hn ovements: Less Cost to Cure if an Total Subject Value After Project $ 2,355,000 14,000 $ 2,369,000 Attachml Packet Pg. 596 �a yOew- n W M rt CQ U1 4 Attachment: PLN20160032 Staff Report with Attachments (1662 : Resolution of Intent to Vacate a Portion of 92nd Ave W) CD CD N W 10.2.b Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa Page 25 Comparable Land Sale No. 1 (1) ADDRESS or LOCATION: 21309 481h Ave W, Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 (2) SALE SKETCH and PHOTO are on following page. (3) a. Access: Private drive off 481h Ave West b. Use at Sale: Vacant c. H & B Use: High Density Residential/Multifamily d. Zoning: RMM (Park West Condo. Complex), Mountlake Terrace f. Area: 59,219 SF g. Sale Date: 12/17/2013 h. Sale Price: $500,000 i. Instrument Type: Statutory Warranty Deed j. Terms: Cash k. Ex. Tax # or AF #:E033083 1. Seller: HDCCBG LLC m. Buyer: Park West LLC p. Date Inspected: 5/5/2016 (4) LEGAL DESCRIPTION or TAX PARCEL NUMBER: Tax Parcel No. 01 080100 0002 00, Snohomish County, Washington (5) PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (description at sale, confirmation information, changes since sale, etc.): Property Description: This is the sale of multifamily -zoned land on the eastern edge of an established complex of condos and apartments. The new project is called Terrace at Park West Townhomes and will consist of 27 fee simple townhomes in 5 buildings. The preliminary plat had already been approved before the sale date. (6) ANALYSIS: Land: 59.219 SF CONTRIBUTION MARKET UNIT VALUE $ $500,000 $ $18,519/Unit Other (Site, Yard, etc.): $ F19 TOTAL SALE PRICE $ $500,000 $ Sale No. 1 Attachml Packet Pg. 599 10.2.b Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa 26 Comparable Land Sale No. 1 (cont.) N �.f• s .. �� - =jr -AVA r Sale No. 1 Taken By: Glenn Price Date Taken: 5/5/2016 Attachml Packet Pg. 600 10.2.b Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa Page 27 Comparable Land Sale No. 2 (1) ADDRESS or LOCATION: 7907 230" St SW, Edmonds, WA (2) SALE SKETCH and PHOTO are on following page. (3) a. Access: 2301h St SW off of Highway 99 b. Use at Sale: Single Family c. H & B Use: High Density Residential/Multifamily d. Zoning: MR, Snohomish County f. Area: 39,204 SF g. Sale Date: 6/15/2015 h. Sale Price: $625,000 i. Instrument Type: Statutory Warranty Deed j. Terms: Cash Equivalent k. Ex. Tax or AF #: 1077722 1. Seller: IFF Holding LLC m. Buyer: Mietzner Brothers Properties LLC o. Confirmed by: GLP p. Date Inspected: 5/5/2016 (4) LEGAL DESCRIPTION or TAX PARCEL NUMBER: Tax Parcel No. 00 576700 0004 03, Snohomish County, Washington (5) PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (description at sale, confirmation information, changes since sale, etc.): A.) Property Description: This is the sale of a lot that previously had a small single-family home on the site but is now being improved with 19 townhomes. Plans had undergone pre -approval at the time of sale. The home was given no value in the transaction, and the rental income over the course of approvals likely offset much, if not all, of the demolition costs to remove it. (6) ANALYSIS: ITEM Land: 39,204 SF $ Other (Site, Yard, etc.): $ CONTRIBUTION MARKET UNIT VALUE $625,000 $ $32,895/Unit TOTAL SALE PRICE $ $625,000 $ Sale No. 2 Attachml Packet Pg. 601 10.2.b Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa Page 28 Comparable Land Sale No. 2 (cont.) it Sale No. 2 Taken By: Glenn Price � �J Date Taken: 5/5/2016 Attachlul Packet Pg. 602 10.2.b Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa Page 29 Comparable Land Sale No. 3 (1) ADDRESS or LOCATION: 14615 Madison Way, Lynnwood, WA 98087 (2) SALE SKETCH and PHOTO are on following page. (3) a. Access: Madison Way b. Use at Sale: Vacant (Forested) c. H & B Use: Multifamily d. Zoning: MR, Snohomish County f. Area: 472,971 SF g. Sale Date: 4/1/2016 h. Sale Price: $3,200,000 i. Instrument Type: Special Warranty Deed j. Terms: Cash Equivalent k. Ex. Tax or AF #: 8650375 1. Seller: The Nichols, LLC m. Buyer: Madison Management, LLC o. Confirmed by: GLP p. Date Inspected: 5/5/2016 (4) LEGAL DESCRIPTION or TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 003733 003 002 00 and 003733 003 003 00, Snohomish County, Washington. (5) PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (description at sale, confirmation information, changes since sale, etc.): A.) Property Description: The sale consists of two parcels in an area that has seen relatively rapid growth of apartment units. At sale, plans for 180 apartment units had already received pre - approval. The site does have a stream running through the middle with associated building setbacks, lowering the amount of usable area for units. (6) ANALYSIS: ITEM CONTRIBUTION MARKET UNIT VALUE Land: 472,625 SF $ $3,200,000 $ $17,778/Unit $ $ Other (Site, Yard, etc.): $ $ TOTAL SALE PRICE $ $3,200,000 $ Sale No. 3 Attachml Packet Pg. 603 10.2.b Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa Page 30 Comparable Land Sale No. 3 T IV Sale No. 3 Taken By: Glenn Price Date Taken: 5/5/2016 Attachml Packet Pg. 604 10.2.b Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa Page 31 Comparable Land Sale No. 4 (1) ADDRESS or LOCATION: 17xx NE 205t", Shoreline, WA (2) SALE SKETCH and PHOTO are on following page. (3) a. Access: NE 2051h Street b. Use at Sale: Vacant c. H & B Use: Multifamily d. Zoning: CB, City of Edmonds f. Area: 32,200 SF g. Sale Date: 12/1/2014 h. Sale Price: $1,725,000 i. Instrument Type: Statutory Warranty Deed j. Terms: Cash k. Ex. Tax # or AF #:2703746 1. Seller: Woodland Park Ave Apartments LLC in. Buyer: GRE 205"' LLC o. Confirmed by: GLP p. Date Inspected: 5/5/2016 (4) LEGAL DESCRIPTION or TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 741770 0552, King County, Washington. (5) PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (description at sale, confirmation information, changes since sale, etc.): A.) Property Description: This property could be used for several permitted uses, but the most profitable is as a multifamily apartment complex. Though commercial uses are allowed, the value for such a use is not the economic highest and best use for the site. Preliminary plat approval was granted for 108 units prior to closing with a first level parking garage. (6) ANALYSIS: ITEM Land: 32,200 SF CONTRIBUTION VALUE $ $1,725,000 $ Other (Site, Yard, etc.): $ $ TOTAL SALE PRICE $ $1,725,000 $ MARKET UNIT $15,972/Unit Sale No. 4 Attachml Packet Pg. 605 Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa 10.2.b 32 Comparable Land Sale No. 4 ❑zoc A 4• , Sale No. 4 Taken By: Glenn Price i Date Taken: 5/5/2016 Attachml Packet Pg. 606 10.2.b Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa Page 33 Market Data LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLANTZ ADDITION BLK 000 D-00 - SEGD FOR TX PURP ONLY - PAR A, ADJUSTED, CITY OF EDM LLA NO. LL-99-46 ACCORDING TO LLA THOF REC AFN 9905170971 TGW LOTS 62-65 INC PLAT OF PINECREST AKA PAR A CITY OF EDM LLA #LL-2006-026 REC AFN 200703025001 EXC SELY 1.33 AC THOF SD ADJ PAR A & LOTS 62-65 INC PLAT OF PINECREST - REFER TO 005462-000-001-01 FOR TXBL PORTION (EXEMPT PER ST OF WA REG #03280-001) Attachml Packet Pg. 607 Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa Page 34 10.2.b ACQUISITION FULL LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHXBXT A LZOLL MSCRIBTIM OF ClTr OF E,tHc bmg STREVAGATXON= THAT PORTION OF CITY OF EDMONDS EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY, RRIXG A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36. TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W,X., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS BEGINNING AT A POINT OF INTERS'F771014 OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF 228" STREET S.W. AND THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN 92- AV'ENUiE W. , SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, RIDGE ACRES, PER PLAT RECORDED 1UNDEiR AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 262998; THENCE SOUTH 0';13' 09" EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN OF 92N° AVENUE WY., A DISTANCE OF 375.41 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY FLAT CRY OF SEDUOYAH, A CO'NDOMINI'UM, PER FLAT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 200704225001; THENCE NORTH $0*42'29' WEST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PLAT BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINC OF PARCEL •A' OF CITY OF EDMONDS LOT LINE ADJUS•I1(ENT NO, LL 2006-026, RROORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 200703025001; THENCE NORTH 0"13'09• WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LIME OF PARCEL "A", A DISTANCE OF 91.85 PEET; TRUCE SOUTH 61049'47' WEST CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL *A", A DISTANCE OF 33.96 PEET; THENCE NORTH 0013'o9• WEST CONTINUING ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "A", A DISTANCE OF 320.46 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "A', SAID NORTHEASTERLY CORNER ALSO H'EINO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF 228`" STREET S.W. AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY KARGIN 9211° AV31NUE W . ! THENCE SOUTIR $8022155' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.02 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CEMERLINE OF 92"0 AVENUE W. , SAI-D POINT LYING 9C347M 0°13'09' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 20,01 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST COMER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE SOUTH 00131090 FAST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, A DISTANCE OF 10,00 FBETI THENCE SOUTH 88"41'25' EAST, A DISTANCE Or 30,01 FEET To THE POINT OF RFr-' TNMT rdr- _ SITUATE IN THE CITY OF EDMOUDS, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON, CONTAINING 20,323 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. I OF] Attachml Packet Pg. 608 10.2.b Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa Page 35 ACQUISITION LEGAL DESCRIPTION 37 r . 39 I ��i3T 1 3D ` �� �� �o 9eirl7 �� dK r f L ifoa Na 14 Ar &u. s�r� I I � 1 er tin�� i 35 34 3l .1 ` -svi a• W22`55`E �.oaT' �- I I I 30�2' �sR xt 'z•,� 1 I � 43DA�4+ CS d5 Qi OY _ — 1 � 11 a'tI �.L� i .... r7 arts I IL4I 1 �. Ao1F�. Jrf ntt 3 P �, C1Fr OF rlLk w l g i%L x "617M-M 51— i Ar Pic. i(qR 1 fI 33,9E ►iiiiROR34D4EW0 5 G 7 I rye,rf2'26'W I "HEETI01STREET VACATION ESTGATE CHAPE 14-403 CITY OF EDMONDS SNOkOMISH CO. 'WASHIHGUM 6EUM M FT1FM9—i of oil 'twhwr2sw ORMP FOUR*R R�OYQYi109A dP!f4M4baklEGMP5619�'A;lrL1�SSC1�51y*LNISI 132 . Auc4wff-M#j I whwraoun Attachml Packet Pg. 609 10.2.b Qualifications of James B. Price, mai, sr/wa Page 36 QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER .TAMES B. PRICE, MAI, SR/WA www.APPRAISALGROUPNW.COM ; JPRICE@APPRAISALGROUPNW.COM PHONE No.: (425) 453-9292; FAx No. (425) 455-9740 1409140TIl PLACE NE, STE 105, BELLEVUE, WA 98007-3963 EDUCATION Bachelor of Science in Finance, Real Estate Emphasis; Northern Illinois University/ University of Illinois. Appraisal Institute courses include Capitalization Theory, Residential Valuation, Easement Valuation, and Standards of Professional Practice. Seminars and Classes include: Al Course 833- Fundamentals of Separating Real Property, Personal Property, and Intangible business Assets, Real Estate Feasibility, Business Valuation, Valuation of Easements and Litigation Skills, Appraising for Pension Funds, and Appraisal of Partial Acquisitions. PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS Appraisal Institute Membership: MAI Designated Member of the Appraisal Institute since 1979 Formerly: President, Director, and Vice President, Seattle Chapter and Alaska Chapter International Right of Way Association Designation: SR/WA (Senior Right of Way Agent) Position: International Right of Way Association Valuation Committee, past chair Formerly: Regional Chair, Region 7, International Right of Way Association International Right of Way Association Director, President, and Vice President; Seattle, Washington and Fairbanks, Alaska Chapters EXPERIENCE: Over 43 years Currently: General Partner, APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST LLP Developer of subdivision, office building, and residences Owner of office buildings and apartments Formerly: Proprietor, APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST Appraiser, Schueler, McKown & Keenan Partner, Price & Associates, Alaska Senior Appraiser, First State Bank of Oregon Appraiser, Pacific First Federal Savings Bank Appraiser, U.S. Small Business Administration Appraiser, Washington State Dept. of Transportation Qualified as an expert witness in Superior Court, Federal Court Master's Hearings, and Federal Bankruptcy Court. Served as an arbitrator in property valuation and lease renewals Washington State Department of Transportation approved appraiser. Fee reviewer; Washington Dept. of Transportation, major banks, and governmental clients. Qualified as a Master; held Master's Hearings in Alaska. Currently certified under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. Currently certified in Washington State as a General Appraiser (Certificate No. 1100229) Vice President- Newcastle Trails Attachlul Packet Pg. 610 10.2.b CLIENTS SERVED Abeyta & Associates, R/W Company Benson & McLaughlin, Accountants Boston Private Bank Bullivant, Houser, Bailey, Pendergrass & Hoffinan; Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Land Management Camp Korey Cathay Bank Center Bank Certified Land Services Chevron Products Company Church of God, Western Washington City of Auburn City of Bellevue City of Des Moines City of Issaquah City of Maple Valley City of Mount Vernon City of Newcastle City of Port Angeles City of Redmond City of SeaTac City of Seattle City of Shoreline City of Tacoma Coldwell Banker Relocation Columbia Bank Costco Eastman, Scott, Attorney, Bellevue El Centro De La Raza, Felicia Gonzales Enumclaw Public Schools First Sound Bank HDR Engineering John Lynch, CPA, Bellevue Johns Monroe Mitsunaga, Attorneys; Michael Monroe, Darrell Mitsunaga Keating Bucklin & McCormack, Attorneys Kent Schools Appraisers: Watts & Price Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP A-5183 Attachml Packet Pg. 611 Qualifications of GLENN L. PRICE, APPRAISER 10.2.b Paae KeyBank of Washington King County Library System Korea Exchange Bank Lane & Associates, Inc., R/W Company O. R. Colan Associates, Inc. (Acquisition Specialists) Ogden Murphy Wallace, Attorneys Pharos Corporation (R/W Company) Port of Friday Harbor Port of Orcas Port of Seattle Puget Sound Energy Reid Middleton, Engineers Saehan Bank Seattle City Light Seattle School District Sound Transit Tacoma Utilities U.S. Bank U.S. Fidelity & Guarantee U.S. Postal Service Union Bank Universal Field Services, Inc. Washington Dept. of Transportation -Approved Appraiser & Reviewer Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission Waste Management Williams Northwest Pipeline Wilshire State Bank APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST LLP Attachml Packet Pg. 612 I r--r C� o b � a � o c � o z H z m C" z x � � tin y b 'ti tr" b Attachment: PLN20160032 Staff Report with Attachments (1662 : Resolution of Intent to Vacate a Portion of 92nd Ave W) `y Qualifications of GLENN L. PRICE, APPRAISER 10.2.b Paae APPRAISAL GROUP "NORTHWEST EDUCATION QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER GLENN L. PRICE 1yw%N,.APPRAISALGROLI PN W.cahi; GPRi(:C(a)APPRAISALGRot1PN W.coni PHONE No. (425) 453-9292 #126 FAx No. (425) 455-9740 1409140TH PLACE NE, SUITE 105, BELLEVUE, WA 98007-3963 Bachelor of Science from University of Washington, Geology major, Architecture minor CONTINUING EDUCATION Appraisal Principals, Appraisal Institute, 2005 USPAP & Ethics, Standards of Professional Practice, Appraisal Institute, 2005 Basic Income Capitalization, Appraisal Institute, 2005 Appraisal Procedures, Appraisal Institute, 2006 Right of Way: 100, IRWA, 2007 General Applications, 2007, Appraisal Institute, 2007 Advanced Income Capitalization, Appraisal Institute, 2007 General Market Analysis & Highest and Best Use, Appraisal Institute, 2008 Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, Appraisal Institute, 2008 General Appraiser Report Writing and Case Studies, Appraisal Institute, 2010 Principles of Real Estate Engineering, IRWA, 2012 Advanced Concepts and Case Studies, Appraisal Institute, 2013 EXPERIENCE: Currently:Appraiser, Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP, Bellevue, WA 2003 — 2009, 2012 - Current Past: Hage & Associates Appraisers, Fairbanks, AK 2009 - 2012 AFFILIATIONS: Candidate for Designation of the Appraisal Institute, Seattle Chapter Washington State General Certified Real Estate Appraiser (Certification No. 1101927) SPECIALTIES Commercial, Industrial, Residential, Land Sensitive Areas and Conservation Easements and Acquisitions Right of Way Acquisitions Litigation Consulting APPRAISAL GROUP OF THE NORTHWEST LLP Attachml Packet Pg. 614 10.2.b CLIENTS SERVED Abeyta & Associates Alaska Department of Fish & Game Alaska Department of Transportation Bellevue College Bluefield Holdings Brandt Law Group Bullivant, Houser, Bailey Attorneys Catherine Janicki, Atty. Certified Land Services City of Arlington City of Auburn City of Edmonds City of Lake Stevens City of Lynden City of Kenmore City of Kennewick City of Milton City of Mountlake Terrace City of Port Townsend City of Redmond City of Richland City of Sammamish City of Shoreline City of Tacoma City of Woodinville Chase Bank Citywide Mortgage Cook Schuhmann & Groseclose, Inc. Core Business Bank Davis & Jonas, CAP Denali State Bank Dynasty Mortgage Evangelical Christian Credit Union Fairbanks North Star Borough Financial Advantage Forterra (Cascade Land Conservancy) HDR, Inc. Appraisers: Watts & Price Howe, Cunningham & Lowe, PLC H.W. Lochner, Inc. Joseph DePalma Administrative Trust John H. O'Rourke Law Offices Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Attorneys Johnson River Enterprises Kent Schools Keller Williams Real Estate KeyBank National Association Lummi Nation Pacific Christian Center Pacific City Bank Puget Sound Energy King County Library System King County Water District #1 O.R. Colan Associates, Inc. Oregon Mutual Insurance Company Plaza Bank Port of Seattle Prime Pacific Bank Ronald Wastewater District Schwartz, Kales, Accountants Snohomish County PUD Sound Transit Suburban North Wealth Management Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians Tagiugmiullu Nunamiullu Housing Authority Tahoma School District Terry Brink, Atty. Umpqua Bank Unibank Union Bank Universal Field Services US Bank Wilshire State Bank Weichert Relocation Company W.W. Grainger Inc. Appraisal Group of the Northwest LLP A-5183 as a c N 0 a 0 r- 0 IL 0 a) 0 a °' c 4- 0, a 0 0 W W N W W Attachml Packet Pg. 615 10.2.b JAMES EGGE & ASSOCIATES 425-377-1703 Land Use Planning ♦ Project Management ♦ Development Analysis ♦ Agency Representation September 22, 2016 Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds, Washington 121 51h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Westgate Chapel — 92nd Ave W. Street Vacation City File No. PLN20160032 Dear Mr. Lien, This letter is in response to your July 19, 2016 request for additional information related to the above street vacation application currently pending before the city. If upon review of the information provided herein, you concur that the request may now be forwarded for consideration by the Edmonds City Council, please contact me to coordinate the potential hearing date as soon as possible. Following are the four specific areas of inquiry in your July 19 letter, with a response to each on behalf of the petitioner: 1. "Pursuant to ECDC 20.07.020 fsic}, one of the criteria the City Council must consider in evaluating a street vaction is whether the vacation is in the public interest. Please submit a statement regarding what public interest would be served by the vacation of this portion of 924d Ave. West." RESPONSE: ECDC 20.70.020 Criterion A. The vacation is in the public interest. This criterion would be met through the elimination of all city public roadway maintenance and attendant liability. 92nd Ave W. currently serves as a lightly used paved public roadway which extends southerly from 228th St. S.W. for approximately 375 feet. It is a two-lane roadway with a paved width of 20 feet with gravel shoulders of varing width along portions of both east and west margins. Approval of the vacation will remove the city from ongoing responsibility to maintain driving surface and adjacent shoulders of the current roadway. That responsibility would be assumed by Westgate Chapel and tax parcel 00555300200106, the sole other ownership currently served by this portion of 92nd Ave W. The aforementioned tax parcel is situtated at the southwest corner of the intersection of 228th St. S.W. and 92nd Ave. W. where a single family home is owned by Claudia and Larry Walters according to county assessor tax records. The Walters have signed the vacation petition. Criterion B. No property will be denied direct access as a result of the annexation. 92nd Ave W. currently serves as legal access to four single family properties along its easterly margin, three of which are owned by Westgate Chapel. The remaining parcel (#00555300200106) is owned by the Walters, who have joined the petition to vacate the right-of-way. 92nd Ave W also serves as one of several access points to the main "Westgate Chapel' complex to the west. Permanent access easements to each existing property will be preserved as part of vacation proceedings. The Walters parcel lies at the southeast corner of 92nd Ave. W. and 228th St. S.W. The existing single family detached home on said lot is addressed as 9126 228th St. S.W., although it takes vehicular access from 92nd Ave. W. All other properties southerly of the existing terminus of 92nd Ave. W. take access from either Edmonds Way, or other public roadways further to the east.The Sequoyah Condominiums - Phases 1 and 5 lie directlly south of the subject site. Three smaller individual tax parcels lie west of the Sequoyah development and take access from Edmonds Way. Westgate Chapel owns all remaining property directly 10807 25`" Street SE ♦ Lake Stevens, Washington 98258 ♦ jamese-a@msn.com Attachml Packet Pg. 616 10.2. b Re: Westgate Chapel - 92nd Ave W vacation September 22, 2016 west and south of 92nd Ave. W., along with Lots 8, 9 and 10, Belt Add No 6 which abut the east margin of said roadway. No property will be denied access by the approval of the vacation of 92nd Ave W 2. "The vacation request was also reviewed by Snohomish County Fire District #1 which has requested additional information about the future use of the vacated right-of-way. The Fire District may require a turn- around for emergency vehicles if the use of the area is to change. Please provide information regarding future use of this area if the vacation is approved." a RESPONSE: There are no current plans for development of the vacated right-of-way, other than continuation of private access to existing properties through easement provisions to be executed with vacation approval. Should Westgate Chapel propose incorporation of the vacated right-of-way into future church related or other permitted facilities, such proposed use would be required to undergo appropriate agency review and approvals per ECDC and other adopted regulation. Consultation with other public agencies would be undertaken by the city at that time as required by code. 3. "The City of Edmonds has existing stormwater facilities within 92nd Ave Wand through the Westgate Chapel property at 22901 Edmonds Way, as shown highlighted below. The stormwater facilities currently serve only that portion of 92nd Ave W proposed to be vacated, along with runoff from right-of-way and properties located within Snohomish County jurisdiction. Please note, if the City were to vacate 92nd Ave W, ownership and maintenance of the facilities would become the responsibility of the adjoining property owners and/or Snohomish County." RESPONSE: Comment noted. Westgate Chapel is willing to assume maintenance responsibility for existing city storm drainage facilities in the subject portion of 92"d Ave W. and/or provide a maintenance covenant for ongoing city maintenance access. (see response following item 3 for results of consultation with Snohomish County) 4. "Please consult with Snohomish County as to whether the County wishes to maintain ownership of said storm facilities, or if they would be agreeable to private ownership and maintenance of the system. Easements would need to be provided accordingly." RESPONSE: Both the applicant and city representatives have consulted with Snohomish County regarding this issue. On August 24, 2016, a formal response by Snohomish County was issued as it relates to the existing city owned storm drainage conveyance system in 92nd Ave W (copy attached). In their response the county makes recommendations related to ongoing ownership and maintenance of a cross -culvert connection at 228" St. S.W. and the city owned conveyance system in 92nd Ave. W. Westgate Chapel is willing to cooperate with the city and county to assure proper long-term maintenance of these facilities, whether it be by maintenance covenant or other mechanism that would provide for ongoing inspection, repair or maintenance of said facilities. The county also noted concern regarding providing easements to existing properties that take access from 92nd Ave. W. Those concerns have been addressed in earlier portions of this letter. Please contact me should you have further questions prior to scheduling a public hearing before the City Council. Thank you. Sincerely, 1( - fm�_ Jim Egge, on behalf of Westgate Chapel, Inc. JAMES EGGE & ASSOCIATES Encl. Cc -Westgate Chapel, Inc, (attn: Brent McAtee) Attachml Packet Pg. 617 10.2.b RESOLUTION NUMBER 1371 A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SETTING A DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF 92ID AVENUE WEST LYING SOUTH OF 228TH STREET SOUTH WEST WHEREAS, RCW 35.79.010 and ECDC 20.70.050 authorizes a street vacation process to be initiated by the petition of the owners of more than two-thirds of property abutting the portion of the street or alley to be vacated; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has received a petition from all of the property owners abutting the portion of 92"d Avenue West lying south of 228"' Street Southwest; and WHEREAS, RCW 35.79.010 and ECDC 20.70.070 requires the city council to fix a time by resolution for public hearing on any proposed street vacation; and WHEREAS, RCW 35.79.010 and ECDC 20.70.070 requires that such hearing occur no less than twenty days and no more than sixty days after the passage of the resolution fixing the hearing date; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington as follows: Section 1. A public hearing on the proposed street vacation shall be scheduled for November 1, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. before the Edmonds City Council. Section 2. The city clerk shall provide notice of the public hearing as required pursuant to RCW 35.79.020 and ECDC 20.70.090 to the extent that such notice requirements are applicable. RESOLVED this 4th day of October, 2016. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: LERK,SCOTT A Y FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. APPR VED: MAYOR, DAVE O. EARLING September 30, 2016 October 4, 2016 1371 1 Attachml Packet Pg. 618 10.2.b 251 22518 = 22519 22516 0 22 18 2260 00 �1• 22603 22522 2260 22512 �G 2260 LA 2607 0 22604 22605 22604 � 22608 22609 Cn cCl o 22615 22608 22609 �' 22606608 22609 22608 22614 !L 22616 ITHIP 22621 22620 22612 2262222613 22612 22613 22612 22620 22619 22620 22619 22704 N 04 22628 N N 22706 ;:27�05 22705 227062+�aAi0 ? w M coo a� a 22707 � `�^ WESTGAT C ACE c ?��0 N °' 22720 = 22715 _ ti 9505 PARKING N 9203 r' � 0 22726 04 N °, a) 00 CT C1A/ CA 0 O N aD TH ST SW co co rinc N N 88 O Cif CA 0 m 0 000 00 22819 �p r c ;7 CP T 22825 9030 229TH ST SW �`� ` 22903 co 0 8925 Cn ti o 0 00 ' .5 SE 32291H PL OA KING P R>8912 23015 00 Q Rn LO AO B = 00 0o O � 2300 ��'p �, < 0 230TH ST S to �� (' N N ClO^� E D ?`gyp 9Sp8 �o�o �p ti� �PAR�IG 7S o0 9321 9307 ! ! : 8 REc i •.29 1 ROOM 987654 507 or, 7p ST S 9229 ;1 30 2 15 23121 2 ? i � 23109 0 23109 9302 N 04 N 31 34 111 1 3 110 8 N 9409 °' 2311 Cn M °' 0 M - 6 19 25� 5 231ST PL ,itO , N T 27 M % 8926 °' 9411 9327 °M' CV)0) 04 0 N 2 ��, %y,3�,� ST SW �f �••` 0�,0 9004 23130 Zoning and Vicinity Map PLN20160032 92nd Avenue Street Vacation 117c, i g9l a Scale 1 inch = 250 feet Attachml Packet Pg. 619 10.2.b Land Use Element Land Use Map Whenever there are references in this plan to categories of land use, they shall apply to areas shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map as follows: Plan Map Designation Land Use Type Compatible Zoning Density Classifications Units/Acre Activity Center Corridor Development Designated Park or School Site Single Family, Resource Single Family, Urban 3 Single Family, Urban 2 Single Family, Urban 1 Multi Family - High Density Multi Family — Medium Density ........................................................................................... Mixed Use Commercial Community Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Highway 99 Corridor Edmonds Way Corridor Westgate Corridor (Planned Business) Hospital / Medical Master Plan Development Public Use or Park/Open Space Mix of uses; refer to specific plan designations within activity center Mixed use development corridor; refer to specific plan designations within corridor See appropriate category below; also refer to specific activity center discussion in plan See appropriate category below; also refer to specific corridor discussion in plan Public Facility P-zone or appropriate R-zone compatible with neighborhood. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Single family RSW-12, RS-12, RS-20 < 4 RS-10 < 4.4 RS-8 < 5.5 RS-6, RS-8 5-8 Multi family RM-1.5, RM-2.4 18-30 RM-2.4, RM-3.0 < 18 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Commercial Mixed Use Commercial or mixture of zones WMU, BC, BN, or equivalent BN or equivalent based on neighborhood plan CG, CG2; transitional zones as appropriate BP, BN, BC, or similar commercial zone; RM zones BP, BN Special Use District Hospital or Medical zone Master Plan Master Plan Overlay or equivalent classification Public or Parks P, OS, or equivalent classification Land Use 37 Attachmel Packet Pg. 620 10.2.b ` PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 the Edmonds City Council will hold a public hearing regarding the following issue: CONSIDERATION FOR THE VACATION OF THAT PORTION OF 92ND AVENUE WEST LYING SOUTH OF 228T" STREET SW. EASEMENTS MAY BE RETAINED FOR FIRE ACCESS AND UTILITIES THAT CURRENTLY EXIST WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. The City Council meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 5t Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. At the time and place stated above, all interested parties will be heard, however, there will be a time restriction for oral comment. Written comments are welcomed prior to or at the public hearing. Information on this project can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday — Friday (8:30 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. only on Wednesdays) or online through the City's website at www.edmondswa.gov through the Permit Assistance link. Search for permit PLN20160032. If the item is continued to another date because it is not completed, or further information is needed, the date of the continuation will be announced only at the meeting. Additional information may be obtained at the Development Services Department, 121 5th Avenue N., Edmonds. Telephone: (425) 771-0220. Scott M. Passey, MMC Edmonds City Clerk Published: October 12, 2016 Posted/Mailed: October 12, 2016 WARNING! THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE OF THE MEETING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER NOVEMBER 1, 2016 Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 775-2525 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. Attachme Packet Pg. 621 10.2.b Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Kathleen Landis being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH726336 PLN20160032 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 10/12/2016 and ending on 10/12/2016 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $60.20. Subscribed and sworn b ore me on this ,_ day of Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 KERNEN LIEN DEBRA ANN GRIGG Notary Public State of Washington My Commission Expires October 31, 2017 Attachmel Packet Pg. 622 10.2.b C IT Y OF EDMONDS 4— PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE EDMONDS CfTY COUNCIL On IuF,OIIy vemhar 1- 2015 the EOmendS City Council will hold n ppvvbiic hearing rr6eggardir� the IOlforri Issue: COfVSIDERATION FOR THE VniiCATION OF THAT PORTION OF 92ND AVENUE WEST LYING SOUTH OF 228TH STREET SW. EASEMENTS MAY BE RETAINED FOR FIRE ACCESS AND UTILITIES THAT CVt7RENTLY EXIST WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. The CIly CpunCTt meellI fl will begin at 7. .O.m-�L1h9S4unctl At the um0 and place slated above, all Inlareated parties wkf be heard, hov+evor, there will be a time restriction for oral comment. Written comments are w@IOMW prior to or at the public hearing. Information on this project can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 Sin Ave North. Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 0:00 A.M. and 4:30 P..M. Monday - Friday ($:39 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. only on Wednesdays) Or online Through the Clty's website at Through the Permit Aasislance fink, search for permll PLN2016W52. 11 the Ilem is eonitnued to another dale becatrse it Is not completed, or further Inlormation is needed, the date Of the corillnualion will be announced only at Rra meoting. Additional inlorelahorl may 130 obtained at the Davelopmant Services Doparinlonl, 121 5tlt Avenue N„ Edrnonds.Telephono:(425) 771.0220. Scott M. Passeyy, MMC Edmonds City Clerk Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for parsons with dksabilitlas. Contact the City Clerk at (426) 775.2626 wiih 24 hours advenco 1101TOo for specJW occommodailons. Poe edlMailed:Oct6ber 12, 2016 Published: October 12, 2016. E0I72G33 [_ u Q Attachmel Packet Pg. 623 10.2.b 1� �f Ud�1':�4tCt•Rt.. October 27, 2016 CITY OF EDMONDS DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PREVENTION MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner From: Kevin Zweber, Fire Marshal Subj: Westgate Chapel — 92"d Ave W. Street Vacation, PLN20160032 In reference to the above application for street vacation, because of the remaining legal lots on 92"d Steet SW, the following condition should be added to ensure fire access and public safety: 1. No easement is currently required. If the area of vacation, or the three vacant lots on the East side of 92"d Steet SW are to be developed in the future, a fire access road easement will be required. 2. If the current road surface becomes unuseable, blocked, or removed, thereby denying emergency access, the existing fire hydrant located on the west side of 92"d Street SW, 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. Kevin Z Deputy Chief — Fire Marshal City of Edmonds, Department of Fire Prevention Snohomish County Fire District 1 425-771-0213 Attachmel Packet Pg. 624 10.2.b CITY OF EDMONDS - PLANNING DIVISION COMMENT FORM ❑ PW-Engineering ❑ Fire ❑ PW - Maintenance ❑ Parks & Rec. ❑ Building ❑ Economic Dev. ❑ Parks Maintenance Project dumber: PLN20160032 Applicant's Name: WESTGATE CHAPEL INC Property Location: 92nd Ave W. South of 228th St SW, North of Edmonds Way Date of Application: 06.20.16 Date Form Routed: 06.21.16 Zoning: R-O-W Project Description: STREET VACATION "PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: _DUE BY 7/14/2016_ If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff. KERNEN LIEN Ext, 1778 Name of Individual Submitting Comments: Lynne Danielson Title: General Manager - Olympic View Water and Sewer District ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so 1 have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. X I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The District h s high flow sewer m in within the ro ed vacation area. There is also a water main within the proposed area Sewer and water easements will need to be grgnted at or prior to vacation of the area defined in the attached submission. The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Easements th 3 allow direct access to manholes, currently located on 921,d Avenueshould be art of the vacation and not something that is to be given cit a later date upon vacation . Attachmel Packet Pg. 625 10.2.b August 24, 2016 Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds- Development Services Department 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Lien, Re: Westgate Chapel Street Vacation Application #PLN20160032 i 44k Snohomish County Public Works Surface Water Management 3000 Rockefeller Ave., M/S 607 Everett, WA 98201-4046 (425) 388-3464 www.snoco.org Dave Somers County Executive Thank you for giving Snohomish County -Surface Water Management Division the opportunity to comment on this application for a right-of-way vacation of City of Edmonds roadway to the Westgate Chapel Inc. Snohomish County does have an interest in the maintenance of the storm sewer system located in the jurisdiction of City of Edmonds on 228°' St SW and 92 Ave W. We are particularly interested in the drainage connection point between Snohomish County MS4 and City of Edmonds MS4 at the cross culvert (Pipe #8742 per Edmonds data records) across 228" St SW and our ditch on the northside of 228d' St SW at the 92"d street intersection. Our understanding is this storm pipe is currently owned and operated by the City of Edmonds and will continue to be owned, operated and maintained by City of Edmonds. We strongly recommend this connection point stays under City of Edmonds responsibility to ensure there are no blockages or failures that would create a road safety hazard along the main arterial of 228t' St SW. For the downstream part of the storm conveyance system that resides within the 92' Ave W roadway, we recommend City of Edmonds at a minimum be granted a drainage facility maintenance convent for the property, that would allow the Public Works Department to inspect and maintain the system if the owners fail to do so properly. Since this road right-of-way is outside the county's legal jurisdiction, it would not be practical or appropriate for Snohomish County to secure a maintenance convent or public drainage easement. However, even with a convent, since there are no facilities on site that require inspection under the City of Edmonds Phase II NPDES, we are concerned that there is no proactive mechanism to ensure that maintenance takes place. City of Edmonds is advised to access that potential risk and consult their Stormwater Utility Division prior to approving this application. In addition, there are several parcels within the county that would become landlocked due to this vacation. If and when those parcel develop, they will need to show proper ingress and egress in their building permit application to Snohomish County. We request that those land owners be notified of this application and given the opportunity to provide comments. Please contact me with any questions you may have on this issue and thank you again for consulting Snohomish County- SWM on this application. Sincerely, - Laura B. Frolich, Public Works Supervisor III Surface Water Management Phone: (425) 388-6691 Email: Laura. frolich'u.�snoco.or Cc: Karen Kerwin, P.E. Engineering Manager- SWM; James Egge, James Egge & Associates Attachmel Packet Pg. 626 10.2.b Date: To: From: Subject MEMORANDUM October 27, 2016 Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager PLN20160032 - Westgate Chapel Street Vacation - 92nd Ave W, south of 228th St SW Engineering has reviewed the application from Westgate Chapel requesting vacation of 92nd Ave W right-of-way, south of 228th St SW. The information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. The Engineering Division recommends approval of the street vacation with the following conditions of approval: 1) The Transportation Comp Plan has identified a project for street improvements along 228th St SW between SR 99 and 95th PI W. In an effort to maintain sufficient right-of-way through the 92nd Ave W intersection, the right-of-way alignment on the north edge of 92nd Ave needs to be adjusted from what the applicant has shown. The northern line of that portion of 92nd Ave W to be vacated shall be shown as a continuation of the southern boundary line of 2281h St SW as shown east of 92nd Ave. With this revision, the area shown in red below (an area 10-feet by 30-feet) would remain City right-of-way. --IIII I L1 1 ' II_160'16EI' 36 I 31 130PINECR — I 42� 41 40 e0.E 82t37 01 IpRT THWAS07 11 \ 35 34 I 33 02 T � 32 ]tl 70' I L I 47 43 I 14 �45 IS -SO'13'09'E - I � T— ^� _ I ��. `b'13'G9'E 2n p1 � a m � _ — _ — _ — _ . I I I SBB'22'55-E— �'iS88'41'25`E 30.02' a 30.01' �AESTB4 I LHtiPELL — — I o4 I 05 I 03 DSI 5t I 02 01 .�— LOt 11 fill(_ 2, RIACRES O TnM p06+Q6xoD0a�m / $ o T. 20J23 SF / PANEL A. CITY OF i] 0391W000OfisO I `ea 2 1 / FOUNDS LOT WE ADO / K NO. 100711j0V23001 � b iF% s Y \ / YOD3910000a090G I i 4 �f 31 \ 4 T SBI'49'47'W ux 10 33.96' // 4007910O9WIW0� 5 � 8 1 7 _ c / � N4'13'0914 IL \ ' I N86'42'29'W 30.01' City of Edmonds Attachmell Packet Pg. 627 10.2.b 2) The City releases all ownership interest in the stormwater facilities located upon or within the vacated 92nd Ave Street right-of-way, as well as the stormwater facilities located through the Westgate Chapel property at 22901 Edmonds Way. Westgate Chapel shall assume ownership and maintenance responsibilities for these facilities and provide easements to abutting property owners as needed. Ownership of the stormwater facilities within the intersection of 92n and 228d' will remain under the ownership of the City of Edmonds as this portion of right-of-way is not being vacated. Background information regarding the stormwater facilities is provided below. 3) The Olympic View Water and Sewer District currently owns and maintains water and sewer facilties through the subject 92nd Ave W right-of-way. Easements shall be provided to OVWSD accordingly. 4) Other dry utilities such as power, gas, phone and cable may also exist within the subject right-of-way. Easements shall be provided to all entities as required to allow for continued ownership and maintenance of any such facilities. Background Information on Stormwater Facilities: The City currently has stormwater facilities within the subject 92nd Ave W right-of-way and through the Westgate Chapel property at 22901 Edmonds Way, as shown highlighted on the map below. Most of the stormwater runoff draining through this storm system is from upstream properties located within Snohomish County jurisdiction and/or from the Westgate Chapel property at 22901 Edmonds Way. As such, upon vacation of 92nd Ave W, the City no longer needs to maintain ownership and maintenance of these stormwater facilities. --- - - 228TH 5 ' Pp25;0 � w ry � 2287 9 a° P ° ® I I 22903 ° q pm"o OD In response to the City's initial comments on the street vacation proposal, the applicant made contact with Snohomish County to determine their interest in the storm system. Snohomish County provided a written response to the City (see attachment in the staff report) stating "Since this road right-of-way is outside the county's legal jurisdiction, it would not be Attachmell Packet Pg. 628 10.2.b practical or appropriate for Snohomish County to secure a maintenance covenant or public drainage easement". The County had concerns about the City's ability to inspect the stormwater system, however, Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.30.090 requires property owners to maintain their stormwater facilities and allows for city access to private stormwater facilities to ensure they are properly operated and maintained. Attachmell Packet Pg. 629 r ' r• ..PLANTZ ADD T ON .... SECTION 36, TWR 27 N 7 R 3 EWok r .r' ti.....�. 7 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON ' �•''' �' • „rti• . SCA L E Z I" = 100' - S-228- TWIN - NJ N.% ti Aoao ., N 4w. low lot Ao Cal do I .i . DESCRIPTION T/rir /af of ,01,o YTZ d for/iod of Axe /Y. E. �4 of scc%rv� ��, 7".Y� Z7 /Y, .PBE, /J'/I/ .Srroifornif/i lan�, %iresifiiry/os, d'escri6ec� ds �//o�.r: Bd9�iririn� df //ld /Y. E. comer o`' sdid' Scc/%va -3�,• iritircc SD%71J'�" d/o�9 //fs eas/ /ird of sdid' sec�brr /B99B �/,• /rlence s'.�B�/.a/�!' �oo...s.� �f fo //id /rorir%ds/erg rddryir� oi' Socoirvrdry Sfd/d .���ii�-sy /l�o. /-,OY� ii%�►cc /YB.�'�/o7i1�' d/on9 sdid' /yidr9iir, /�5� �f A d Roza/ of cared /o Axe A -A,, /4ffw a roa✓ivs oi-QdD.1B /,• //fence o bny said' carve /.fro y,6 d cew/ra/ any/e of "owf;r7, o/' Z"Aa ff,• /i%.rad /YD'/�':Sd "E /27y7 Al ro Al e Ave of sdio1 Bv,• /�ew-e nor/ii /ird al, S�s�fi /o //is �oirr/ ®� 6d9.aniny. RESTRICTIONS /1v /o/ or o/' a /o/ %r %i%r /e/ si%/J' 6c dne/ so/ir or rcro%r ar oirnBrsr% c�ldny� o•- ,frdzs�rreor ��%rBy /.fe oir.,Errs.�� of d� �/;n of ��lcf �/d/ sfa// 6e /srs /won /i% vsc �f/ric/ s/af`d' on /ife /v .•� TREASURER'S CERTIFICATE r /y irEoe Treasurer o��noiforn% Cwair/s h'dsifir9fa��► -AM/ d� /d.+2ls oo Ae d6ore r/escri6eo/ f/•dc/ DT /d/ro/ /rdro fo dno/ /mac/vo✓iry file yedr- Lc— Tredsare/•'•..Sno�lo�„�s,��irn.►� DC�o dsarer .Snoaos�r%sf-Cvrio� ;�.+ r � � • •���• .� , r• DEDICATION ' ' '.!'�I'O/i''L rJ1ErY'Y Tif/ESE r�iPE.SEi1'T-f Pilaf srs //e vnorers9�►ao/ o�,ocrs is fed .since/ of r /�fc /d/ror /i�re6y /d//co/ o✓ iferc6 �cc/drd soil /o-/ d/!o� Oeo//ca><c /o lie y6/� rcrci •; d// /odo/s dnd' �r�s rr /icrcon, �i/.f f/% /-!9�1/ �o ,rvd,Fe d% A. -I /v1s o/' /dna/ _ao rm► ao AiX/6-,00a-// '� %/! //1d ledtond6/e D/'/�/%1d/ Q/do�n9 of'd// /'�'�s s�oirn /creme►. Timid Csun or �ti • • . ram' saccd��s, ..s�// /idre {c r9�1/ � d'rvin d% /od�.r direr s/rde/s ovdr dno/ '' . dcros.S , ,any �/ or �/s IvildrB Is�d/cr Ini��i/ /d.�c d /fd/ard/ cocrsc df�cr //je _ /-odors'' d�`':s/r��/s- dre yradco! � /diro/ oi-dining said// 6c o�rdr/cor /o �a6/c • • -' •dodo! .T'iy/i/s of is►d� �►or slid% i/ 6d 6/oc•Eed' l oin droinin9 d/vn9 ifs .0,7 / corrr.�e, fir ---Inc/v. it o19oAainoy,f A-d/eis in ca/r�r/s o/- orrains oi- i-d-i-oar<i� LAND SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE dc,�•oss �s -mod d>� cX��ns� o'���` o""ndrs / /rr /Y/TdEss `j1yE,pEoF we i%re scf our 40W-Ir dn�.tcd,G /iiis "�Pd� of - u�cisf _ /�fS / rP. rPvse'iv F/SHf:P, .Pdyis/cred' Ldoc%�arryor, oo i%rc6� cci-/i� /ifd/ /,6is �' /a'/ /••d�resen�%r do do/va/ .surrey ond' .Sl/6d'rI'%J%On of /i% more �Bscri�Bo/ .. . //•dc/ oi' /dno/ d�►o/ rf�d/ Ae �s/dr�c`� dnd' �oarses dre dccard/% si%�ra, /o/ ..... — ,�CtM► cor/rdrs /%re 6e" s/d•Feo/ 00,/ concrd/e /nonvinenfs sci ors iiro✓cd/ea! I GBrfi ca/e A/O.2077 ooe low •••••- r' ACKNOWLEDGMENT v'itiL LAND S 4/v// .STi�TE DF fY�s///rY6rOrY ' '� APPROVALS %/t%f /s TO cCr/%/�°' '�/�d� O/�' 'f/!%S �n�•' d'�y -O� - ��/-QG/.Sf - - /�.�5 IJ�cTO/"C /!!c Exanineor dnvr duo roved' r//iis _ .% _ dd o���Y�L� fir= _ /ys••s f/fe v/r�Brf9�'ed. d' iYa,•fdy �a�.�, �oBrsoii% d��cdrd�, E.9/PL oO1.9/Y7-Z anal -/ 641f EVE IY, 4Z- f'L A /Y �-Z hi:; •'w:fc;r' ro :..ol� ,Fnois-a /0 6e lie e,+caa/eor fle iri/�lir �e i�d o/�� 'daa' .014ne' >< ,o� /oW /.ol�v -s�jropov and Ae fdove ds /r�dir va,�`rii,/dry dCii'ono' �/eo'1� f'ar /r% uses aro��ar�osas /jfcrdrir no/ia�►ris lunyireer /l7Bn�%nBo! t''- h/i"iJ'Ess /!jy Avow" dnw/ E,rdinineor d/jd' d��rordd' fins N. C/iairrrroo, Barora�o la�ri�ry iui�nors /Yo%i- �v6/c in anon orI�:Sadsi�./io (Y b t; / /idra6y aerfiT Pilaf /,6c /ri/rii�►/df o/' /�L,�/YTI /SOD/T/DAY %r Dory r , -• t��' d��roveo' 6� / _Snor%►itrl y P/da/�iiry lie�rrsian �,6ir 7 _ d'oy of r, ti fY/ , RECORDING CERTIFICATE Fi9vds/ 1• r 1• / or .f Dorn /./. or Sir lam► d "" ti ,. ,' 1 d N O) 0 r- O L O am cu 4) V Cu O r- 0 r- O 7 0 N a) N y �a r O a N M 0 0 to 0 N Z J 0. C a) L a Attachment Packet Pg. 630 �£9 13d 40MOed r � • I •. r• r •ti Section 31 Tvvp. 27 N. R.4 E. 1N. M 9 5r)oh om i s � Co, Wr). aw^0917er1 46;4rWi7e.- If Fiscfie. Inc. Eny�.t Jet J/ �e erec certa.f�„r that the Dlat 01 se ;acres is based aocn at. actual sur-ey rindsubdlvi3lon of -jeC. 1, 27 ii., ., W.;'.'.. that t:.e 'L'CVarc:s and courses Ja ar4-les are s low n thereor, correctly. • �;� rt,r. r yrA+ hav^ b 1-1, er, svt and lot ..0i c4 c--r,,ners 3taiccd. , u'(-� �'0'lr�C�. liar drier, mar .er & Fischer, Inc . y' 4M.a J.iYe�.l azid. a n i li ed W.hi zth r {' e 1 n _•.egem ber—h.:t. ��.� . nLy;zneer X aT �...�"I I v' � ri 'S� K'.i .j V a :I rl 14J d a Jr V 4 C� OQ I �.., Y"'�3 ;,parr o �Oun y u o I y,,i 3s- 3riers . IlLi or ri;cord at 4- r c q• of ri. eta: sr, ararFr r ische.r i'.c .,. past 42.fig��L dnutej r `reC/J. rtE� .o< v.47/� _ of Plats, �w's%i�r�•.2i+. ree.c_r�`3 v;' ono :,pr.,:sn Coon �, �iC4�d: f�.`JY:• I, D. Carl Pectr500. Treasurer of Snob o- I mish County Wash. do hereby certify that all -taxes oo t h e above described property. hare. wy id, up �o and including the year Co.- -for. V%j beeq 1`uil3l pg � I 1919. ,1 Couhfy Treasurer. .SCi9L E /� 2Gl� This plat of Ridge Acres embraces thefolk Wi described tract of (4 of 1.7j) f Section 31, Towns'►:ip ..7 "'orth of Ranvre 4 Fast of t ae "'i llsmette Meridian. .ill r'itances are as silo n on this plat in feet. ,. T I IT ,. �_ !J Mn, ow all me:, l. •;- -..resents thhat the Boulder lRealty Company, a ,'ornoration the utate of :ton, bei,n�- o?mner in fee simple of the land shover. in the annexed plat anF, r.-,ore -oarticularly described the3: i/ 'rs f_ 11 L U J .:.. - 1 5 �� �, '.4V e s h V r V 'A V- Yi .. a�i.v an . -aesl� a e 3aio 31at as 1ho n 4- hyarici 7-nP e 'A L?•r rAc 1 nV'_4 V£ �{�i ' r old .: ii St `ets, ave=l e an alleys as aU,T'": Qn said'', lau tO +be 'x"'riic f0re•.tc:r, r r+rj i�, � � Fes+ � ♦rG;: Ir �r�tre r .,rem:" s��icaider e=1yt:. /, •Pas ca,ae itQ c r"}or y e "^;8 tUg V '�'+•��.Ly li. . crcun sbs�r;' r = -d it p�}-peal 13 Yxce sI^ - v s �e c r e -17 , rea3urer rluAn eIF . 1 press KING ) this �-'�� 4" 77 .� . efore ;e , _ o Lar� ��,i�c lr. ^ , or sa is .r y,. • I ' vO..:�'�'rJ- '1rr_�vnq� i�.: an-)eared-JO�ZiLL._,ksEydv_. erPrdegl to n.e Known .o b'e tEe resi- rE _r, reaecUzve�y o€•'t'.c Roulder :.ca1', . �•' + : v3Mna-' t1i_ne s :-'o+r±.7*-!^orr.. at _���+��� eX� a+d �h� for�o.1r� - anc..-acfh;urleged eikid ir.stru}pert tc be the act a nrr' dFF of Rai r', sir tone 1.`-es )-'rl n-r' ,ces therein "neii : � ? r;^ ue v.i S a e a"i %0 L:1E' "iere stM;-Lvrx4ed tC e .,;cUwe sa1� _.. s rume t m"and, fiat, the seal affixed is the c:orromit,e Seal: of sai4 Cor-joration.. i.r: `if; 1.4' : " w1iereof have iereur:to set I,. '%. � '-rear d iK!si ai`f ibed.-fill vf?iC l seal the .- . yr, • f ^ C i'7'7 I.. . • .. •ate WRng ='U11 ; in `and or 6uh rtX Seal td, �r• '�•tip. •. • r' .' _ L 1.. r a. r' o Attachment 17 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/15/2016 Development Fee Schedule for 2017 (10 min.) Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Development Services Director Department: Planning Division Preparer: Rob Chave Background/History This is a periodic update to the City's development fees. The last comprehensive update was effective in January, 2014. Staff Recommendation Direct the City Attorney to prepare a Resolution adopting the 2017 fee schedule for the next available consent agenda. Narrative The City periodically updates its schedule of development fees, the last major update coinciding with the beginning of 2014. (See Exhibit 2.) Chapter 15.00.020 of the Edmonds Community Development Code authorizes the City Council to adopt development fees by resolution. Ordinance #2604, adopted in 1987 (Exhibit 3), established the long-time City policy of 100% cost recovery for building fees. Other development fees have generally followed this rule, although the Council from time to time does choose to incentivize or subsidize certain costs to achieve a policy goal (an example is the choice to not recover the full cost of appeals). The new update (Exhibit 1) retains the same approach to fees, which is based on the cost of providing development review services. Costs over the past three years have increased, primarily as a result of incremental increases in staff salaries and overhead. The calculated staff -based hourly rate for service has increased from $90/hour in 2013 to $100/hour this year. This has meant that some fees would increase as much as 10%. Building fees are different, in that most building permit fees (in terms of revenue) are based on project valuation which is determined by a regularly updated valuation table published by the International Code Council. Nearly all fee types have been carried forward from the last major fee update with most changes reflecting the relatively modest rate increases as described above. Items to note include: An organizational change consolidating "general" fees that apply across departments into a new "General" fee category. New fees recovering the cost of credit card transactions are included here, as well as explicit rules for fee refunds. The previous "City Surcharge" of $25 per permit has been increased to $35 per permit; this has been renamed the "City Technology Fee" to more accurately describe what it is being charged for (e.g. electronic permit tracking system, GIS, electronic plan review). Consolidation of all fees related to impact fees and impact fee deferments into a new "Impact Packet Pg. 632 Fees" category. Modification of Critical Areas -related fees to reflect lower staff time estimates (esp. for updated critical area evaluations required under the new critical areas code) and the new "Contingent Review" process under ECDC 23.40.195. As mentioned before, appeal fees do not recover 100% of the costs of processing appeals. This has been a Council policy so as not to overly limit citizen access. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Draft Fees for 2017 Exhibit 2: Current Fee Schedule (2014) Exhibit 3: Ordinance 2604 Packet Pg. 633 Permit Type Notes Fee General Credit Card Transaction Fee Applied to total charge amount 3% City Technology Fee (charged per permit) Charge for each permit applied for $35 Hourly Charge Rate If a charge/rate is not otherwise listed $100 Preapplication Meeting 1/2 refunded to Building Permit fee $1,000 DRC Meeting Development Review Committee $0 Development Project Peer Review Charged for projects requiring outside peer review $100/hr (min. 1 hr) + actual cost of peer view Other (fee not categorized) Billed at staff hourly rate $100/hr The Mayor or designee may authorize the refunding of: 1. 100% of any fee erroneously paid or collected. 2. Up to 80% of the permit fee paid when no work has been done under a permit issued according to the Edmonds Community Development Code. 3. Up to 80% of the plan review fee paid when an application for a permit is withdrawn or canceled before any plan review work has been done. 4. A fee may not be authorized for refunding except on written application filed by the original permittee, and not later than 180 days after the date of fee payment. Impact Fees Transportation Impact Fee Fee per Ordinance or as determined by independent fee calculation. Fee per Ordinance Transportation Impact Fee Review - Independent Fee Calculation Fee charged when an independent fee calculation is submitted to the City for review. $240 Transportation Impact Fee Admin: Single Family When Transportation Impact Fees apply $50 Transportation Impact Fee Admin: Commercial/MF When Transportation Impact Fees apply $100 Transportation Impact Fee Deferral Only for IRC structures $50 Parks Impact Fee Fee per Ordinance. Fee per Ordinance Parks Impact Fee Admin: Single Family When Parks Impact Fees apply $50 Parks Impact Fee Admin: Commercial/MF When Parks Impact Fees apply $100 Parks Impact Fee Deferral Only for IRC structures $50 ti 0 N `0 as a� U co m 0 u_ c W E 0M 0 m a� 0 Q Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 1 Packet Pg. 634 Permit Type Notes Fee Building Fire Alarm (Alteration) up to 5 initiating devices No plans. Subject to field inspection. Does not include replacement of FACP. $165 Fire Alarm (Alteration) 6 or more initiating devices $100 + COE Table 1 Fire Alarm (New) $100 + COE Table 1 Distributed Antenna Radio System (DAS) $100 + COE Table 1 Fire Connection permit $500 Fire Damage COE Table 1 Fire Inspection Fee Per Hour $100 Fire Operational permit $60 Firework Display permit $30 Fire Plan Review fee Per Hour $100 Fire Sprinkler Commercial (Alteration) up to 5 sprinklers Applies to Commercial and Multifamily $200 Fire Sprinkler Commercial (Alteration) more than 5 sprinklers Applies to Commercial and Multifamily $150 + Table 1 Fire Sprinkler Commercial (New) Applies to Commercial and Multifamily $300 + Table 1 Fire Sprinkler Residential (Alteration) Applies to IRC structures $200 Fire Sprinkler Residential (New) Applies to IRC structures $400 Fire Protection System permit $315 Underground Tank 600 gallons or less (fill or remove) $100 Underground Tank 600 gallons or less (new installation) $150 Underground Tank more than 600 gallons (fill, remove, install) $300 Accessory Structure (Greenhouse/Shed) Table 1 ADU Compliance $405 Adult Family Home $500 Appeal of Building Official Interpretation $810 Base Building Permit Processing Fee $100 Building Inspection $100 Cell Communications/ Cellular Facilities Table 1 Change of Use $510 Changes to Approved Plans $100/hr Commercial New Construction 1 Table 1 Deck, Stair, Ramp Table 1 Demolition (Primary) $300 ti 0 N Lo 4- m a) U co m d u_ c W E Q. 0 m W 0 Q Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 2 Packet Pg. 635 Permit Type Notes Fee Demolition (Secondary) $150 Dock/Marina/Floats $200 + Table 1 Fence $60 Garage / Carport Table 1 Grading/Fill Table 2 + peer review Grease Interceptor $700 Grease Trap $200 Hot Tub/Spa (Commercial) Table 1 Hot Tub/Spa (Single -Family) $200 Hydronic Heating $135 Manufactured Coach -Commercial (Federal HUD Label) $500 Manufactured Home Installation (Federal HUD Label) $550 ESLHA Administrative Processing Fee $2 385 ESLHA Minor Project Administrative Processing Fee $300 ESLHA Consultant Review Full cost of peer review ESLHA Packets No labor in current fee $15 Mechanical Permit Table 4 Parking Lot $200 + Table 1 Plumbing Permit Table 3 Re -inspection Fee (Building) $100 Relocation of Building $500 + $100/hr outside city Re -roof (Commercial) Table 1 Re -roof (Single-family) Includes sheathing. $100 Residential - New Construction Table 1 Residential -Addition/Remodel Table 1 Re -Submittal Plan Review after 3rd review $100/hr Retaining Wall (Commercial) $675 + peer review Retaining Wall (Residential) I i $265 + peer review i ti 0 N I.- 0 m a) U CO m m u_ c a) E Q. 0 m a) 0 Q Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 3 Packet Pg. 636 Permit Type Notes Fee Sign (Per Sign) Excluding specific sign categories listed below $150 Sign (Blade Sign) Includes all blade signs in proposal $75 Sign (Pedestrian Sign) Includes all pedestrian signs in proposal $125 Sign (Pole Sign) $750 Solar/Photovoltaic (Residential) $120 Solar/Photovoltaic (Commercial) Valuation does not include cost of solar panels or inverters Table 1 State Building Code Surcharge Fee $4.50 Swimming Pool (Pre -Manufactured Above Ground) $120 Swimming Pool (In -Ground) Table 1 Tenant Improvement Table 1 Violation Compliance Fee $240 or up to 5 times permit fee $240 or 5x permit fee Window Replacement (Single Family) $150 ti 0 N I.- 0 m CD U CO m 0 u_ c W E Q. 0 m CD 0 u� ti co ti 0 N L 0 d d U_ M L r r X W E U 2 Y Y Q Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 4 Packet Pg. 637 Permit Type Notes Fee Planning Type 1 Staff decisions, no notice $250 Type 2 (A or B) Staff decisions w/ notice $880 Type 3A Hearing Examiner $1,820 + HE* Type 3A - Specific Applications Outdoor dining; Amateur radio $250 Type 3B Hearing Examiner / ADB $1,820 + HE* Type 4A Subdivision / PRD final approval $3,720 Type 4B Rezone $6 350 Type 5 Plan, ECDC amendments $6,350 ADB Design Review - Signs ADB consideration of departure from sign standardper code $880 Staff Design Review if project exceeds SEPA threshold $880 Lot Line Adjustment $950 Short Subdivision $2,930 Short Subdivision Final Approval $1 440 Subdivision Prelim Approval (+ HE) Staff time plus actual HE cost billed to aDDlicant $5,920 + HE* Subdivision Final Approval Same as Type 4A $3,720 Modification Request $880 Minor change to approved plat $100/hr Major change to approved plat Same as original application See Note PRD Preliminary Approval $5,920 PRD Final Approval $3,720 SEPA Review $670 EIS Review Cost Critical Areas Checklist $100 Critical Areas Checklist Update $50 Critical Areas Study Admin $100/hr (min. 1 hr) Critical Areas Contingent Review See ECDC 23.40.195 for more detail on applicable fees $880 Critical Areas Var / Reasonable Use Staff time plus actual HE cost billed to applicant $6 945 + HE* Appeal of Staff Decision (1 or 2) $400 Appeal of Type 3B Decision $500 Appeal of Notice of Civil Violation $880 Request for Reconsideration $250 Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 5 Packet Pg. 638 Permit Type Notes Fee Planning Inspection Fee Landscape plan inspection bsed on estimated cost of landscape installation 1% of est. Recording Fee Recording documents w/ County $100 + cost *When permit application is heard by Hearing Examiner (HE), cost of HE hearing is billed to applicant. ti 0 N I.- 0 d U CO CD d U- C w E Q 0 d 0 ui ti r ti r O N L O U) d d U- M L r r X W C 0 E M U 2 Y Y Q Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 6 Packet Pg. 639 Permit Type Notes Fee Engineering Alley Disruption/ Closure Fee Fee charged for closure of alley in excess of $200 base fee plus ROW 72hrs. Closure fee based on (assessed value permit fee plus closure per square foot of abutting property) x fees (right-of-way area (SF)). Backflow Prevention Compliance Fee Fee to assist in ensuring voluntary $125 compliance with backflow prevention program & ECC 7.20 Developers Agreements $300 Application Fee plus $100/hr staff time plus City Attorney Fees Development Project Peer Review $300 base fee plus Cost of Peer Review Drainage Permit (pool, hot tub, jacuzzi) This permit is for drainage of pools, hot tub, $50 jacuzzi and other facilities designed or intended to hold more than 50 gallons of water. Encroachment Permit $300 application fee plus recording fees 1 Engineering Inspection Fee (Single Family, Fee is charged per inspection. $100 each Existing Comm/MF, right of way) Engineering Inspection Fees - Civil Site Engineering inspection during construction 3.3% of Bond Amount Improvements (subdivisions, commercial, of site improvements for all multi -family) subdivisions/short plats, commercial and multi -family. This fee is charged in addition to the applicable Engineering Review or other building permit fees . Subdivision - Civil Review Engineering review of civil plans for $4,265 construction of site improvements for subdivision. ti 0 N L0 m a� U co m m u_ c a) E Q. 0 m a� 0 u� ti co ti 0 N L 0 m a� u_ M L r r X W c a� E M U M Q Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 7 Packet Pg. 640 Permit Type Notes Fee Short Subdivision -Civil Review Engineering review of civil plans for $2,785 construction of site improvements for short subdivision. Latecomers Agreement $300 Application Fee plus $100/hr and City Attorney Fees LID Sewer Fees (Outside of LID Map) $300 Application Fee plus $100/hr and City Attorney Fees Parking Disruption/ Closure Fee Fee applies to any activity that occupies or $200 base fee plus ROW closes parking space(s), parking lanes(s) or permit fee plus closure other paved area of a street/road for more fees than 72 hours. Monthly portion of Fee [$ per month] _ (1% of assessed value per square foot of abutting property) x (right of way area [SF] disrupted/closed). If disruption/closure affects any portion of the area of a parking space, the area of disruption/closure is calculated based upon the area of a full parking space. Re -Inspection Fee $100 each Right -of -Way Construction Permit $300 application fee plus inspection fees Right of Way Minor Construction Permit Applies to smaller projects that cause only $100 application fee minor disturbance to the right of way e.g. plus inspeciton fees residential driveway replacement, tree trimming Sewer General Facility Charge r Ordinance Side Sewer (Commercial & Multi -Family) Sanitary sewer installation - new plication fee commercial or multi -family. neral facility rcharge er Ordinance Side Sewer (All Single Family & Sanitary sewer installation - new or repair. $100 application fee Commercial/Multi-family repairs) plus general facility charge per Ordinance ti 0 N I.- 0 4- CD t U co m 0 u_ c W E Q. 0 m a� 0 Q Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 8 Packet Pg. 641 Permit Type Notes Fee Side Sewer - Special Conditions e.g. grinder Fee charged in addition to side sewer $200 application fee pumps, ejectors.. permit fee when special conditions exist, plus $120/hr for Utility such as grinder pumps, sewer ejector Engineer review systems, etc. Sidewalk Disruption or Closure Fee charged for closure of sidewalk in $200 base fee plus ROW excess of 72hrs. Closure fee based on permit fee plus closure (assessed value per square foot of abutting fees property) x (right-of-way area (SF)). Stormwater Engineer Review Stormwater reivew by P.E. Fee will also be $120/hr applied for review of storm drainage for SFR construction of any type (e.g. new construction, remodel, additions, sealed decks, etc.) Stormwater Permit Fee for review of stormwater regulated $300 application fee activity when another permit (building plus inspection fees permit, subdivision, right-of-way, etc.) is not required. Storm System General Facility Charge General Facility Charge per Ordinance Street Restoration for Water Meter Fee charged when City performs street $1000 plus Street Installation restoration after water service and meter Overlay Cut Fee if install. applicable Street Overlay Cut Fee Fee for cutting into a road that was overlaid $200 base fee plus ROW within the last S years. permit fee plus addt'I per SgYd charge times overlay cut multiplier Street Use Permit This fee is applied to any use of public right- $100 application fee of -way in a temporary nature (not covered plus Bistro Dining fees by Encroachment permit or ROW per Ordinance if construction permit) applicable. Transportation Engineer Review Transportation review by P.E. $120/hr Utility Engineer Review Water or sewer utility review by P.E. $120/hr Utility Company Agreement Fee charged for review time associated with $100/hr (min. 1 hr) plus agreements such as Franchise, Master Use, City Attoney Fees and Lease. Variance from Underground Wiring Fee charged for each request for variance $300 application fee from underground wiring requirement. plus $100/hr plus City Attorney Fees ti 0 N L 0 m a) U co m 0 u_ c a) E Q. 0 m a) 0 Q Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 9 Packet Pg. 642 Permit Type Notes Fee Water Meter General Facility Charge Fee per Ordinance Water Meter Fee (Based on Size) New service line and meter installation charges 3/4" $2,920 1" $2,970 1 1.5" $6,220 2" $6 390 ti 0 N I.- 0 d U co CD d U- r- CD E Q 0 d CD 0 Y Q Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 10 Packet Pg. 643 CITY OF EDMONDS BUILDING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE — TABLE 1 Based on building construction valuation Effective January 1, 2017 $1-$500 $30 $501 to $2000 $30 for the first $500 plus $3 for each additional $100, or fract thereof to and including $2000 $2001 to $25,000 $75 for the first $2000 plus $14 for each additional $1,000 fraction thereof to and including $25,000 $25,001 to $50,000 $400 for the first $25,000 plus $10 for each additional $1,000 fraction thereof to and including $50,000 $50,001 to $100,000 $650 for the first $50,000 plus $7 for each additional $1,000 fraction thereof to and including $100,000 $100,001 to $500,000 $1000 for the first $100,000 plus $6 for each additional $1,000 fraction thereof to and including $500,000 $500,001 to $1,000,000 $3,400 for the first $500,000 plus $5 for each additional $1,000 fraction thereof to and including $1,000,000 $1,000,001 and up $5,900 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4 for each additional $1000 fraction thereof. Other Fees: 1. Plan review fees in addition to building permit fees are assessed at a rate of 85% of the calculated building permit fee (includes Building, Planning and Engineering for commercial/multi-family reviews and Building/Planning for residential reviews). 2. Commercial Permits: All permits relating to other than residential permits as described below shall be calculated al the rate established in the amended Building Permit Fee Schedule based on 120% of above valuation chart. The determination of value or valuation shall be based on the Building Valuation Data table, published by the International Code Council, on file with the City Building Official. The Building Valuation Data table shall be updated on January lst of each year to the latest version as published by ICC. 3. Residential Permits: Permits for the construction (including remodels and additions) of single-family residences. including accessory structures shall be calculated at the rate established in the amended Building Permit Fee Schedule based on the above valuation chart. The determination of value or valuation shall be based on the Building Valuation Data, published by the International Code Council, on file with the City Building Official. The Building Valuation Data table shall be updated on January 1st of each year to the latest version as published by ICC. 4. Decks, stairs, ramps, covered porches with open exterior sides, and trellises are assessed at $20 per square foot for valuation purposes. 5. Unheated sunrooms are assessed at $28 per square foot for valuation purposes. 6. After the 3'd review is complete on a permit application, additional reviews are charged at $100 per hour per reviewing division/department. 7. Base building permit processing fee is $100 per permit. 8. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans $100 per hour (minimum charge one hour) per reviewing department/division. 9. Building Inspections outside of normal business hours $100 per hour (minimum charge one hour). IO.Re-inspection fees and inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated, are charged at $100 per hour (minimum charge one hour). 11.Development Project Peer Review: $100 per staff hour plus cost of consultant review fee charged for outside consultant peer review services when City staff lacks the expertise to review a specific project or aspect of a project. 12. City Technology fee of $35 assessed for each development permit the City issues. 13. State Building Code Council surcharge fee $4.50 per building permit, plus $2.00 per each dwelling unit. 14.Pre-Application Meeting $1000, 50% applied toward future plan check fee for that specific project only. * The above table is based on the 1997 Uniform Building Code Table 1-A amended. ti r O N I.- 0 4- m a� t U m m u_ c a� E Q. 0 m a� 0 LO ti m 0 N L 0 m a� u_ r t K w c a� E t U CU Q L:AFees\2016 Building Permit Fee Schedule_final.doc Packet Pg. 644 CITY OF EDMONDS GRADING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE - TABLE 2 Effective January 1, 2017 GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES 50 cubic yards (38.2 m3) or less, when located in a designated critical area........................................................................ $ 30.00 51 to 100 cubic yards (40 m3 to 76.5 m3)................................................................................................................................... $ 60.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards (77.2m3 to 764.6 m3)...........................................................................................................................$120.00 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards (765.3 m3 to 7645.5 m3)................................................................................................................. $240.00 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards (7646.3 m3 to 76 455 m3)--$240.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5 m3), plus $100.00 for each additional 10,000 yards 7645.5 m3 or fraction thereof. 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards (76 456 m3 to 152 911 m3)--$1140.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards (76 455 m3), plus $100.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5m3) or fraction thereof. 200,001 cubic yards (152 912 m3) or more--$2040.00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards (152911m3), plus $100.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards 7645.5 m3 or fraction thereof. Other Fees: Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans....................................$100.00 per hour (minimum charge - one -hour) GRADING PERMIT FEES Basepermit fee.............................................................................................................................................................................. $30.00 50 cubic yards (38.2m3) or less, when located in a designated critical area............................................................................. $60.00 51 to 100 cubic yards (40 m3 to 76.5m3)....................................................................................................................................... $60.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards (77.2m3 to 764.6 m3)--$120.00 for the first 100 cubic yards (76.5 m3) plus $20.00 for each additional 100 cubic yards 76.5 m3 or a fraction thereof. 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards (765.3 m3 to 7645.5 m3)--$300.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m3), plus $40.00 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m3) or fraction thereof. 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards (7646.3 m3 to 76 455 m3)--$660.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards (7645.4 m3), plus $60.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards 7645.5 m3 or fraction thereof. 100,001 cubic yards (76 456 m3) or more--$1200.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards (76 455 m3), plus $90.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5 m3) or fraction thereof. Other Inspections and Fees: 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge - one hour)...............................................$100.00 per hour 2. Re -inspection fees assessed under provisions of UBC Section 108.8..............................................................$100.00 per hour 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated minimum charge - one-hour...................................$100.00 per hour L:Atemp\building\fees\2014 fees\2014 grading fee schedule Q Packet Pg. 645 CITY OF EDMONDS PLUMBING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE - TABLE 3 Effective January 1, 2017 Base Permit Fee for Processing 1. For the issuance of each plumbing permit...........................................................................................$40.00 Unit Fee Schedule (NOTE: Base permit issuing fee not included) 1. For each plumbing fixture on one trap or a set of fixtures on one trap (including water, drainage piping)..................................................................................................................................................$12.00 2. For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping or water piping, each fixture .......................$12.00 3. For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer (does not include trunk or LID charges) $60.00 4. Rainwater systems - per drain (within footprint of building)........................................................$12.00 5. For each cesspool (where permitted).................................................................................................$50.00 6. For each private sewage disposal system..........................................................................................$60.00 7. For each water heater, including expansion tank............................................................................$12.00 8. For each gas -piping system of one to five outlets.............................................................................$24.00 9. For each additional gas piping system outlet, per outlet.................................................................$ 2.00 10. For each installation or alteration of water treating equipment....................................................$30.00 11. For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter incl. backflow protection devices thereof ........... NC 12. For atmospheric -type vacuum breakers not included in item 11: 1 to 5.....................................................................................................................................................$12.00 over5, each...........................................................................................................................................$ 2.00 13. For each backflow protective device other than atmospheric type vacuum breakers: 2 inch diameter and smaller...............................................................................................................$30.00 over2 inch diameter...........................................................................................................................$40.00 14. For each graywater system or reclaimed water system (in addition to fixture fees as above) ..... $60.00 15. For each annual cross -connection testing of a reclaimed water system (excluding initial test) ... $30.00 16. For each medical gas piping system serving one to five inlet(s)/outlet(s) for a specific gas .......$100.00 17. For each additional medical gas inlet(s)/outlet(s).............................................................................$12.00 18. For each grease trap ... ..................................................................................................................... $200.00 19. For each grease interceptor..............................................................................................................$700.00 20. For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, except kitchen - type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps (oil/water separator, etc.) ........................$100.00 Other Inspections and Fees 1. Re -inspection fee..................................................................................................................................$100.00 2. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated.......................................................................$100.00 3. Plan review fee per hour charge (minimum charge - one hour)..........................................................$100.00 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans, per hour charge(minimum charge-one-hour)...............................................................................................$100.00 L:\temp\building\fees\2014 fees\2014 plumbing fee schedule ti r 0 N L 4° as W z U U) W a) w c as E Q. 0 as W 0 ti co r O N L ,° W as as w M L r x w c W E U n: a Packet Pg. 646 CITY OF EDMONDS MECHANICAL PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE - TABLE 4 Effective January 1, 2017 Base Permit Fee for Processing 1. For the issuance of each mechanical permit..................................................................................................................... $40.00 Unit Fee Schedule (Note: Base permit fee for processing not included.) 1. Furnaces For the installation/relocation of each forced -air or gravity -type furnace or burner, including ducts and appliance vent up to and including 100,000 Btu/h (29.3kW)............................................................................................................... $20.00 For the installation/relocation of each forced -air or gravity -type furnace or burner, including ducts and appliance vent over 100,000 Btu/h(29.3kW)....................................................................................................................................... $30.00 For the installation/relocation of each floor furnace, including vent.................................................................................... $20.00 For the installation/relocation of each suspended heater, recessed wall heater or floor -mounted unit heater ...................... $25.00 2. Appliance Vents For the installation, relocation/replacement of each appliance vent installed (i.e., Type B, BW, L gas vent, etc.) .............. $10.00 3. Repairs or Additions For the repair, alteration or addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls ............................... $15.00 4. Boilers, Compressors and Absorption Systems/Air Conditioning Systems, including Heat Pumps For the installation/relocation of each boiler or compressor up to and including 3 horsepower (I0.6kW), or each absorption system up to and including 100,000 Btu/h (29.3kW)......................................................................................... $20.00 For the installation/relocation of each boiler or compressor over 3 horsepower (10.6KW) up to and including 15 horsepower (52.7kW), or each absorption system over 100,000 Btu/h (29.3kW) up to and including 500,000 Btu/h (146.6kW)............................................................................................................................................................................ $30.00 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower (52.7kW) up to and including 30 horsepower (105.5kW), or each absorption system over 500,000 Btu/h (146.6kW) to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h (293.1 kW)............................................................................................................................................................................ $40.00 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower (105.5kW) up to and including 50 horsepower (176 kW), or each absorption system over 1,000,000 Btu/h (293.1 kW) to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h (512.9 kW)........................................................................................................................................................................... $60.00 For the installation or relocation or each boiler or compressor over 50 horsepower (176 kW), or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h (512.9 kW)............................................................................................................................. $95.00 5. Air Handlers For each air -handling unit up to and including 10,000 (cfm) (4719 L/s), including ducts (i.e., diffusers, blowers, etc.)..... $20.00 For each air -handling unit over 10,000 cfm (4719 L/s) including ducts.............................................................................. $30.00 6. Evaporative Coolers For each evaporative cooler other than portable type........................................................................................................... $15.00 7. Ventilation and Exhaust For each ventilation fan connected to single duct (i.e., bath, laundry, kitchen exhaust, etc.) ............................................... $10.00 For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air-conditioning system authorized by a permit........ $10.00 For the installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood (i.e. Type 1 and Type 2 hoods, fume hoods, etc.).................................................................................................................................................. $100.00 8. Incinerators For the installation or relocation of each domestic type incinerator..................................................................................... $20.00 For the installation or relocation of each commercial or industrial -type incinerator............................................................ $50.00 9. Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the IMC for which no other fee is listed (i.e. fire dampers, ductless mini - splitsystems, etc.)................................................................................................................................................................ $20.00 Other InMections and Fees 1. Re -inspection fees assessed at a per hour charge (minimum charge -one hour).................................................................. $100.00 2. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated, per hour charge (minimum charge -one -hour) ............................... $100.00 3. Plan review fee per hour charge (minimum charge - one hour).........................................................................................$100.00 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans or to plans for which an initial review has been completed per hour charge (minimum charge -one hour).................................................................................... $100.00 L:\temp\building\fees\2014 fees\2014 mechanical fee schedule I Packet Pg. 647 Exhibit A: Development Fees Permit Type Notes Fee Building Fire Alarm (Alteration) up to 5 initiating devices No plans. Subject to field inspection. $165 Fire Alarm (Alteration) 6 or more initiating devices $90 + COE Table 1 Fire Alarm (New) $90 + COE Table 1 Fire Connection permit Includes Engineering @ $90 $500 Fire Damage COE Table 1 Fire Inspection Fee Per Hour $90 Fire Operational permit $40 Firework Display permit $30 Fire Plan Review fee Per Hour $90 Fire Sprinkler Commercial (Alteration) up to 5 sprinklers Applies to Commercial and Multifamily. No Plans; field check only. $180 Fire Sprinkler Commercial (Alteration) more than 5 sprinklers Applies to Commercial and Multifamily $135 + COE Table 1 Fire Sprinkler Commercial (New) Applies to Commercial and Multifamily $270 + COE Table 1 Fire Sprinkler Residential Applies to IRC structures. Keep low. $360 Fire Protection System permit For cooking systems, standpipes ... PreviouslFire Suppression $315 Underground Tank 600 gallons or less (fill, remove install) Previous breakpoint was 10,000 gallons. Keep low. $90 Underground Tank more than 600 gallons fill remove install $270 Accessory Structure (Greenhouse/Shed) Table 1 ADU Compliance $405 Adult Family Home $450 Appeal of Building Official Interpretation $810 Base Building Permit Processing Fee $100 Building Inspection $90 Cell Communications/ Cellular Facilities Table 1 Change of Use $450 Changes to Approved Plans 90/hr City Surcharge Fee $25 Commercial New Construction Table 1 Deck, Stair, Ramp Table 1 Demolition (Primary) $270 FINAL Page 1 Rev July 2014 Packet Pg. 648 Permit Type Notes Fee Demolition (Secondary) $135 Dock/Marina/Floats $190 + Table 1 Fence $60 Garage / Carport Table 1 Grading/Fill Table 2 + Peer Review Grease Interceptor $630 Grease Trap $180 Hot Tub/Spa (Commercial) Table 1 Hot Tub/Spa (Single -Family) $180 Hydronic Heating $135 Manufactured Coach -Commercial (Federal HUD Label) $450 Manufactured Home Installation (Federal HUD Label) $540 ESLHA Administrative Processing Fee $2,385 ESLHA Minor Project Administrative Processing Fee New category $270 ESLHA Consultant Review Full cost of peer review ESLHA Packets No labor in current fee $15 Mechanical Permit Table 4 Parking Lot 180 + Table 1 Plumbing Permit Table 3 Re -inspection Fee (Building) $90 Relocation of Building 500 + 90 hr outside city Re -roof (Commercial) Table 1 Re -roof (Single-family) $90 Residential - New Construction Table 1 Residential -Addition/Remodel 1$265 Table 1 Re -Submittal Plan Review after 3rd review $90/hour Retaining Wall (Commercial) $675 + peer review Retaining Wall (Residential) + peer review Sign (Per Sign) $125 Sign - Blade Sign Includes all blade signs in proposal $90 Solar/Photovoltaic (Residential) $120.00 Solar/Photovoltaic (Commercial) Table 1 State Building Code Surcharge Fee $4.50 Structural Review Fee $90/hr + consultant Swimming Pool ( Pre Manufactured Above Ground) $120 Swimming Pool (In -Ground) Table 1 Tenant Improvement Table 1 Violation Compliance Fee $240 or up to 5 times permit fee $240 or 5x Permit Fee a FINAL Page 2 Rev July 2014 Packet Pg. 649 Permit Type Notes Fee Planning Type 1 Staff decisions, no notice $225 Type 2 Staff decisions w/ notice $795 Type 3A Outdoor dining, amateur radio $225 Type 3B Hearing Examiner / ADB (+HE) $1,637 + HE Type 4A Subdivision / PRD final approval $3,355 Type 4B Rezone $5,720 Type 5 Plan, ECDC amendments $5,720 ADB Design Review - Signs ADB consideration of departure from sign standardper code $795 Signs (Planning review) Traditionally kept low to reflect relative cost of si na e $0 Pole or reader board signs Code "discourages" and are more costly to review $225 Lot Line Adjustment $855 Short Subdivision $2,645 Short Subdivision Final Approval $1,300 Subdivision Prelim Approval (+ HE) Staff time plus actual HE cost billed to applicant $5,355 + HE Subdivision Final Approval Type 4A $3,355 Modification Request $795 Minor change to approved plat $90/hr Major change to approved plat Same as original application PRD Preliminary Approval $5,335 PRD Final Approval $3,355 SEPA Review $610 EIS Review Cost Critical Areas Checklist $1S5 Critical Areas Var / Reasonable Use Staff time plus actual HE cost billed to applicant $6,260 + HE Preapplication Meeting $655 DRC Meeting $0 Appeal of Staff Decision (1 or 2) HE Appeal fees traditionally kept low by Council Policy $400 Appeal of Type 3B decision to CC Appeal fees traditionally kept low by Council Policy $500 Appeal of Notice of Civil Violation Appeal fees traditionally kept low by Council Policy 705 Request for Reconsideration ITraditionally kept low by Council policy $225 Planning Inspection Fee Landscape plan inspection 1 1% of est. Q FINAL Page 3 Rev July 2014 Packet Pg. 650 Permit Type Notes Fee Recording Fee Recording documents w/ County $90 + cost Other (fee not categorized above) $90/hr When permit is heard by HE, cost of HE hearing is billed to applicant. LO ti tD O N d 7 L V d LL C d L L U N r L X LU C d E t Q FINAL Page 4 Rev July 2014 Packet Pg. 651 Permit Type Notes Fee Engineering This fee applies to any closure or disruption o an improved/developed alley for construction $180 plus Closure fees Alley Disruption/ Closure Fee activity such as field trailer, material storage, (ROW Permit also scaffolding, equipment, etc. which prevents full required) Backflow Prevention Compliance Fee Fee for review and inspection of backflow $125 prevention installations $360 Application Fee Developers Agreements Review: $90 per hour plus City Attorney Fees Development Project Peer Review For review of any reports or plans that require $270 plus Cost of Peer outside consultant review Review This permit is for drainage of pools, hot tubs, Drainage Permit (pool, hot tub, jacuzzi) jacuzzi and other facilities designed or intended $40 to hold more than 50 gallons of water. Encroachment Permit For any encroachment of a permanent nature in $270 plus recording fees ROW, City easement or City property. Fee charged for each Engineering on -site inspection not specifically covered or included Engineering Inspection Fee (Single Family, in a separate permit or inspection fee. Fee is $90 each Existing Comm/MF, right of way) charged per inspection. This fee is charged in addition to the applicable Building Permit or other permit fee. Engineering inspection during construction of Engineering Inspection Fees - Civil Site site improvements for all subdivisions/short 3.3% of Bond Amount for Improvements (subdivisions, new commercial Plats, commercial and multi -family. This fee is ROW and Private multi -family) charged in addition to the applicable Improvements Engineering Review or other building permit fees. JEngineering Review Fee Engineering staff review per hour $90/hr ti 0 N m d s 0 co m m UM _ d E 0M 0 m d G Q FINAL Page 5 Rev July 2014 Packet Pg. 652 Permit Type Notes Fee Subdivision - Civil Review - Site Improvements Engineering review of civil plans for - 5 or more lots construction of site improvements for $3,920 subdivision (5 or more lots). Short Subdivision -Civil Review - Site Engineering review of civil plans for Improvement - 4 or less lots construction of site improvements for short plats $2,570 (4 or less lots). Latecomers Agreement Fee for review of proposed latecomers $360 Application Fee agreements by staff and City Attorney Review: $90 per hour plus City Attorney Fees This fee applies to proposals of private property $360 Application Fee LID Sewer Fees (Outside of LID Map) owners to connect to the City Review: $90 per hour plus City Attorney Fees fee applies to any activity that occupies or 1This closes parking space(s), parking lanes(s) or other paved area of a street/road for more than 72 hours. When this fee applies to construction - related activities, it will be charged monthly in addition to the ROW Construction Permit fee. $180 plus Closure fees Parking Disruption/ Closure Fee Closure fee = 1% of assessed land value per (ROW Permit also square foot of abutting property x area [SF] of required) parking area disrupted/closed. (If disruption/closure affects any portion of the area of a parking space, the area of disruption/closure is calculated based upon the area of a full parking space). Fee assessed when additional inspections are Re -Inspection Fee necessary due to work not ready for inspection $90 each or work requiring corrections issued for non- compliant work. Permit required for any work in the right of Right -of -Way Construction Permit way/public property that does not fall under the $270 plus inspection fees Minor Right of Way permit ti 0 N L Q d t 0 co d LL d 0M 0 m a� 0 Ln ti m 0 N d 3 m t co 0 d w m L U N s x w m E s c� Q FINAL Page 6 Rev July 2014 Packet Pg. 653 Permit Type Notes Fee Permit for smaller projects that cause only Right of Way Minor Construction Permit minor disturbance to the right of way e.g. $90 plus inspeciton fees residential driveway replacement, tree trimming New commercial or multi -family side sewer installation. For new connections to Side Sewer (Commercial & Multi -Family) the sewer system General Facility Charges plus inspection fees plus GFC when applicable. (GFC) may apply per Edmonds City Code 17,30,030, New Single Family side sewer installation. Side Sewer (Single Family) For new connections to the sewer system $90 plus inspection fees General Facility Charges (GFC) may apply plus GFC when applicable. per Edmonds City Code 7.30.030 Side Sewer Repair Only Single family, commercial or multi -family side $90 plus inspection fees sewer repairs or replacement in same location. Side Sewer - Special Conditions e.g. grinder $270 um s, ejectors.. Sidewalk Disruption or Closure $180 plus ROW permit plus closure fees Special Agreements for Private Utilities in City $90/hr plus City Attorney Right of Way Fees Review of storm drainage plans for sites proposing > 5,000 SF new impervious surface Stormwater Engineer Review Fee or in critical area or Meadowdale. This fee is $120/hr charged in addition to Building Permit or other permit fees. Permit for stormwater drainage installations or Stormwater Permit repairs on private property not requiring any $270 plus inspection fees other Building or Engineering permit. New connections to the public storm water Connection Fee per Storm System Development Charge system. General Facility Charge (GFC) applies, Edmonds City Code see Edmonds City Code 17.50.070 for current 17.50.070 fee. Fee for Public Works Department Operations $1000 plus Street Overlay Street Restoration for Water Meter Installation crews to complete right of way restoration for Cut Fee if applicable private development projects. Fee applies to asphalt cuts in the right of way Street Overlay Cut Fee that are in areas that have been overlayed in the Per Street Overlay Cut Fee previous 5 years. The Fee is determined per Matrix Street Overlay Cut Fee Matrix. This fee is applied to any use of public street of a temporary nature (not covered by $90 plus insp fees (Bistro Street Use Permit Encroachment permit or ROW construction Dining fees per ordinance permit) Outdoor Bistro Dining Fees per if applicable) Ordinance if applicable. ti 0 N L Q m d s 0 co m m u_ d 0M 0 m d G Ln ti m 0 N d 3 m t co 0 d w m L U Z s x w m E s 0 2 Q FINAL Page 7 Rev July 2014 Packet Pg. 654 Permit Type I Notes Fee Review of traffic plans and reports for Traffic Engineer Review Fee commercial, multi family and subdivisions. $120/hr This fee is charged in addition to Building Permit or other permit fees. Traffic Impact Fee Fee per ECDC 18.82 or as determined by Fee Per ECDC 18.82 or independent fee calculation. Independent Calculation Traffic Impact Fee Review - Independent Traffic Engineer review of Traffic Impact $240 Calculation Independent Calculation Reports Variance from Underground Wiring Fee charged for each request for variance from $720 underground wiring requirement. New connections to the public water system. Connection Fee per ECC Water Meter Connection Fee General Facility Charge (GFC) applies, see Edmonds City Code 17.30.030 for current fee. 17.30.030 Fee charged for new water service line from Water Meter Fee main to meter, and meter installation per Edmonds City Code 7.30.030. Meter Size Cost 3/4" $ 2920 1" $ 2970 1.5" $ 6220 2" $ 6390 ti 0 N L Q d s CO am m a_ d E a 0 m d G Q FINAL Page 8 Rev July 2014 Packet Pg. 655 CITY OF EDMONDS BUILDING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE — TABLE 1 Based on building construction valuation Effective January 1, 2014 $1-$500 $30 $501 to $2000 $30 for the first $500 plus $3 for each additional $100, or fract thereof to and including $2000 $2001 to $25,000 $75 for the first $2000 plus $14 for each additional $1,000 fraction thereof to and including $25,000 $25,001 to $50,000 $400 for the first $25,000 plus $10 for each additional $1,000 fraction thereof to and including $50,000 $50,001 to $100,000 $650 for the first $50,000 plus $7 for each additional $1,000 fraction thereof to and including $100,000 $100,001 to $500,000 $1000 for the first $100,000 plus $6 for each additional $1,000 fraction thereof to and including $500,000 $500,001 to $1,000,000 $3,400 for the first $500,000 plus $5 for each additional $1,000 fraction thereof to and including $1,000,000 $1,000,001 and up $5,900 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4 for each additional $1000 fraction thereof. Other Fees: 1. Plan review fees in addition to building permit fees are assessed at a rate of 85% of the calculated building permit fee (includes Building, Planning and Engineering for commercial/multi-family reviews and Building/Planning for residential reviews). 2. Commercial Permits: All permits relating to other than residential permits as described below shall be calculated at the rate established in the amended Building Permit Fee Schedule based on 120% of above valuation chart. The determination of value or valuation shall be based on the Building Valuation Data, published in January of each year in the Building Safety Journal published by the International Code Council, on file with the City Building Official. 3. Residential Permits: Permits for the construction (including remodels and additions) of single-family residences. including accessory structures shall be calculated at the rate established in the amended Building Permit Fee Schedule based on the above valuation chart. The determination of value or valuation shall be based on the Building Valuation Data, published in January of each year in the Building Safety Journal published by the International Code Council. on file with the City Building Official. 4. Decks, stairs, ramps, covered porches with open exterior sides, and trellises are assessed at $20 per square foot for valuation purposes. 5. Unheated sunrooms are assessed at $28 per square foot for valuation purposes. 6. After the 3rd review is complete on a permit application, additional reviews are charged at $90 per hour per reviewing division/department. 7. Base building permit processing fee is $100 per permit. 8. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans $90 per hour (minimum charge one hour) per reviewing department/division. 9. Building Inspections outside of normal business hours $90 per hour (minimum charge one hour). IO.Re-inspection fees and inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated, are charged at $90 per hour (minimum charge one hour). 11.Development Project Peer Review: $90 per staff hour plus cost of consultant review fee charged for outside consultant peer review services when City staff lacks the expertise to review a specific project or aspect of a project. 12. City Surcharge fee is $25 assessed for each development permit the City issues. 13. State Building Code Council surcharge fee $4.50 per building permit, plus $2.00 per each dwelling unit. 14.Pre-Application Meeting $655, 50% applied toward future plan check fee for that specific project only. * The above table is based on the 1997 Uniform Building Code Table 1-A amended. ti 0 N `o 4- m m t U N m m LL c m E 0. 0 a� m u0 ti m C:AUsers\chave\Documents\Stats\Fees\2013fees\2014 Building Permit Fee Schedule NoWatermark final.doc Packet Pg. 656 CITY OF EDMONDS GRADING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE - TABLE 2 Effective January 1, 2014 GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES 50 cubic yards (38.2 m3) or less, when located in a designated critical area........................................................................ $ 30.00 51 to 100 cubic yards (40 m3 to 76.5 m3)................................................................................................................................... $ 60.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards (77.2m3 to 764.6 m3)...........................................................................................................................$120.00 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards (765.3 m3 to 7645.5 m3)................................................................................................................. $240.00 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards (7646.3 m3 to 76 455 m3)--$240.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5 m3), plus $100.00 for each additional 10,000 yards 7645.5 m3 or fraction thereof. 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards (76 456 m3 to 152 911 m3)--$1140.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards (76 455 m3), plus $100.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5m3) or fraction thereof. 200,001 cubic yards (152 912 m3) or more--$2040.00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards (152911m3), plus $100.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards 7645.5 m3 or fraction thereof. Other Fees: Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans......................................$90.00 per hour (minimum charge - one -hour) GRADING PERMIT FEES Basepermit fee.............................................................................................................................................................................. $30.00 50 cubic yards (38.2m3) or less, when located in a designated critical area............................................................................. $60.00 51 to 100 cubic yards (40 m3 to 76.5m3)....................................................................................................................................... $60.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards (77.2m3 to 764.6 m3)--$120.00 for the first 100 cubic yards (76.5 m3) plus $20.00 for each additional 100 cubic yards 76.5 m3 or a fraction thereof. 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards (765.3 m3 to 7645.5 m3)--$300.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m3), plus $40.00 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m3) or fraction thereof. 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards (7646.3 m3 to 76 455 m3)--$660.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards (7645.4 m3), plus $60.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards 7645.5 m3 or fraction thereof. 100,001 cubic yards (76 456 m3) or more--$1200.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards (76 455 m3), plus $90.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5 m3) or fraction thereof. Other Inspections and Fees: 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge - one hour).................................................$90.00 per hour 2. Re -inspection fees assessed under provisions of UBC Section 108.8................................................................$90.00 per hour 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated minimum charge - one-hour.....................................$90.00 per hour * The above tables are based on the 1997 Uniform Building Code Table A-33-A Amended. L:\temp\building\fees\2014 fees\2014 grading fee schedule 0 N L 0 4- m m t U N m m u_ c m E 0. 0 a� m u� ti m r Packet Pg. 657 CITY OF EDMONDS PLUMBING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE - TABLE 3 Effective January 1, 2014 Base Permit Fee for Processing 1. For the issuance of each plumbing permit...........................................................................................$40.00 Unit Fee Schedule (NOTE: Base permit issuing fee not included) 1. For each plumbing fixture on one trap or a set of fixtures on one trap (including water, drainage drainage piping and backflow protection).......................................................................................$10.00 2. For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer (does not include trunk or LID charges) ...$60.00 3. Rainwater systems - per drain (inside building)................................................................................$30.00 4. For each cesspool (where permitted)....................................................................................................$50.00 5. For each private sewage disposal system.............................................................................................$60.00 6. For each water heater and/or vent and each expansion tank............................................................$10.00 7. For each gas -piping system of one to five outlets................................................................................$20.00 8. For each additional gas piping system outlet, per outlet....................................................................$ 2.00 9. For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, except kitchen - type grease inceptors functioning as fixture traps...........................................................................$30.00 10. For each installation, alteration or repair of water piping and/or water treating equipment, each $30.00 11. For each repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture.............................................$10.00 12. For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter including backflow protection devices thereof$30.00 13. For atmospheric -type vacuum breakers not included in item 12: 1 to 5.....................................................................................................................................................$10.00 over5, each...........................................................................................................................................$ 2.00 14. For each backflow protective device other than atmospheric type vacuum breakers: 2 inch (51 mm) diameter and smaller................................................................................................$30.00 over2 inch (51 mm) diameter............................................................................................................$40.00 15. For each graywater system....................................................................................................................$60.00 16. For initial installation and testing for a reclaimed water system......................................................$60.00 17. For each annual cross -connection testing of a reclaimed water system (excluding initial test) ...... $30.00 18. For each medical gas piping system serving one to five inlet(s)/outlet(s) for a specific gas ............$90.00 19. For each additional medical gas inlet(s)/outlet(s)................................................................................$10.00 20. For each grease trap ... ........................................................................................................................ $180.00 21. For each grease interceptor.................................................................................................................$630.00 Other Inspections and Fees 1. Re -inspection fee....................................................................................................................................$90.00 2. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated.........................................................................$90.00 3. Plan review fee per hour charge (minimum charge - one hour)........................................................$90.00 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans per hour charge(minimum charge-one-hour).................................................................................................$90.00 * The above tables are based on the 1997 Uniform Plumbing Code Table 1-1 Amended. L:Atemp\building\fees\2014 fees\2014 plumbing fee schedule 0 N `0 a a� U as as U_ c CD E 0. 0 W CD 0 LO ti r Packet Pg. 658 CITY OF EDMONDS MECHANICAL PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE - TABLE 4 Effective January 1, 2014 Base Permit Fee for Processing 1. For the issuance of each mechanical permit..................................................................................................................... $40.00 Unit Fee Schedule (Note: Base permit fee for processing not included.) 1. Furnaces For the installation/relocation of each forced -air or gravity -type furnace or burner, including ducts and appliance vent up to and including 100,000 Btu/h (29.3kW)............................................................................................................... $20.00 For the installation/relocation of each forced -air or gravity -type furnace or burner, including ducts and appliance vent over 100,000 Btu/h(29.3kW)....................................................................................................................................... $30.00 For the installation/relocation of each floor furnace, including vent.................................................................................... $20.00 For the installation/relocation of each suspended heater, recessed wall heater or floor -mounted unit heater ...................... $25.00 2. Appliance Vents For the installation, relocation/replacement of each appliance vent installed (i.e., Type B, BW, L gas vent, etc.) .............. $10.00 3. Repairs or Additions For the repair, alteration or addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls ............................... $15.00 4. Boilers, Compressors and Absorption Systems/Air Conditioning Systems For the installation/relocation of each boiler or compressor up to and including 3 horsepower (I0.6kW), or each absorption system up to and including 100,000 Btu/h (29.3kW)......................................................................................... $20.00 For the installation/relocation of each boiler or compressor over 3 horsepower (10.6KW) up to and including 15 horsepower (52.7kW), or each absorption system over 100,000 Btu/h (29.3kW) up to and including 500,000 Btu/h (146.6kW)............................................................................................................................................................................ $30.00 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower (52.7kW) up to and including 30 horsepower (105.5kW), or each absorption system over 500,000 Btu/h (146.6kW) to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h (293.1 kW)............................................................................................................................................................................ $40.00 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower (105.5kW) up to and including 50 horsepower (176 kW), or each absorption system over 1,000,000 Btu/h (293.1 kW) to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h (512.9 kW)........................................................................................................................................................................... $60.00 For the installation or relocation or each boiler or compressor over 50 horsepower (176 kW), or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h (512.9 kW)............................................................................................................................. $95.00 5. Air Handlers For each air -handling unit up to and including 10,000 (cfm) (4719 L/s), including ducts (i.e., diffusers, blowers, etc.)..... $20.00 For each air -handling unit over 10,000 cfm (4719 L/s) including ducts.............................................................................. $30.00 6. Evaporative Coolers For each evaporative cooler other than portable type........................................................................................................... $15.00 7. Ventilation and Exhaust For each ventilation fan connected to single duct (i.e., bath, laundry, kitchen exhaust, etc.) ............................................... $10.00 For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air-conditioning system authorized by a permit........ $10.00 For the installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood ..................... $30.00 8. Incinerators For the installation or relocation of each domestic type incinerator..................................................................................... $20.00 For the installation or relocation of each commercial or industrial -type incinerator............................................................ $50.00 9. Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the IMC for which no other fee is listed (i.e. fire dampers, etc.)... $20.00 Other InMections and Fees 1. Re -inspection fees assessed at a per hour charge (minimum charge -one hour).................................................................... $90.00 2. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated, per hour charge (minimum charge -one -hour) ................................. $90.00 3. Plan review fee per hour charge (minimum charge - one hour)...........................................................................................$90.00 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans or to plans for which an initial review has been completed per hour charge (minimum charge -one hour)...................................................................................... $90.00 * The above tables are based on the 1997 Uniform Mechanical Code Table 1-A Amended. 0 N `o m d t co a) a) LL c d E Q. 0 m d C Ln ti m L:\temp\building\fees\2014 fees\2014 mechanical fee schedule I Packet Pg. 659 0004.04011 WSS/naa 2/18/87 ORDINANCE NO. -_9604 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ECDC 15.00.020(C) IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR FOR A 10% INCREASE IN BUILDING PERMIT FEES; ESTABLISHING A POLICY TO RECAPTURE 100% OF THE CITY'S COSTS INCURRED IN BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW AND ISSUANCE PROCESS AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE c SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE N L 0 WHEREAS, the 1985 version of Uniform Building Code has a� provided for increased fees over and above those established by cn the City; and a� a� a_ c a� WHEREAS, the City wishes to increase its fees in an E 0 attempt to recapture its costs but believes the current fees > a� 0 established by the 1985 edition of the Uniform Building Code are LO ti in excess of those necessary to recapture its current costs; and 77, WHEREAS, the City wishes to establish a policy of full v N cost recovery within its building permit review process; and a� c WHEREAS, the Council believes that only reasonable costs o incurred should be considered and affirms its instruction that the process of building permit review and issuance should be prompt x w and be responsive to the needs of both the builder and the public E health, safety and welfare; NOW, THEREFORE, �a THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS r Q FOLLOWS: Section 1. ECDC 15.00.020(C) relating to the fees established for the City's Building Division is hereby amended to read as follows: - 1 - Packet Pg. 660 15.00.020 APPLICATION FEES. C. Building Division. 1. Building Permit and Plan Check Fees: Building permit fees are hereby set at a rate equal to 110% of the fees established by the 1982 edition of the Uniform Building Code as set forth therein. Plan check fees shall be charged at a rate equal to 65% of the fees established by Section 304 of the 1985 edition of the Uniform Building Code, adopted by Title 19 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. 2. Relocation of Building: $25 if within 25 miles of the City; $50 if located outside of that perimeter (see Section 19.35.020). 3. Housing Compliance Inspection: One unit - $25; 2-9 - units $100; and 10 units and above - $200. 4. Fence Permit: $10 provided, however, that if pre -inspection is required under the terms of the Uniform Building Code, a fee of $25 shall be charged. If a plan check fee is required under the terms of the Uniform Building Code, that plan check fee shall be in addition to the fees herein established. 51. The determination of value evaluation under the provisions of the Uniform Building Code shall be based on the latest edition of the planning standards published by the International Conference of Building Officials. 6. Demolition Permit: $25 per building. 7. Grading Permit: $10. 8. Retaining Wall or Rockery: No additional fee to that imposed by the Uniform Building Code. 9. Street Use Permit: Central Business District $25 per year; any other area - $10 per year. Renewals - $10 per year. 10. Satellite Television and Antenna: In addition to any fee imposed by ECDC 16.20.030 and in lieu of the fee imposed by the Uniform Building Code, a flat fee of $30 shall be charged to the inspections of satellite television and antenna installations. - 2 - Packet Pg. 661 Section 2. The Council hereby establishes as its policy that the reasonable costs incurred by the City in its building permit review and plan check process shall be recovered at a rate equal to the costs incurred. The Community Services Director is instructed to provide information to the Mayor in the course of preparation of the annual budget message in order that a permit and plan check fee shall be proposed annually to the Council at a rate equal to that required to recapture the reasonable costs of administration of the department, provided, however, that administrative overhead such as the salaries of the Community Services Director, Planning Director and any legal costs incurred shall not be used in calculating the proposed fees. The Council states that it is its intent in establishing this cost recapture policy that the building permit process and plan review process may be professionally administered without unreasonable delay. Section 3. This ordinance, being an administrative action, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after publication of the attached summary which is hereby approved. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: C Y CLERK, ACQUELINE PARRETT — 3 — Packet Pg. 662 APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: February 24, 1987 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: March 3, 1987 PUBLISHED: March 8, 1987 EFFECTIVE DATE: March 13, 1987 ORDINANCE NO. ?rn4 — 4 — Packet Pg. 663 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, Affidavit of Publication The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice------- ---------- ----------------------- SUnIJARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 2604 -------------------------------------- ----------------------------------....... ---------------------- -----------............................................. -------------...--------------------------------- ----------I--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------------------------------------- a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: MARCH 8th, 1987 ---------------------------................... ................. ----------•------................... ----------------------•-------------------------------------------------------................ -------------- ------- and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said a iod. - -r Principal Clerk 6th Subscribed and sworn to before me this ............................ APRIL dayof ----------- ... .. ........................ 1987.... =Z� ------- -= 1= No Pubh'c n and for the State of Washington, r g at E erett, Snohomish County. B-2-1 Packet Pg. 664 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/15/2016 Authorization to release the salvage of unit 779-POL to Evergreen Adjustment Service (5 min.) Staff Lead: Phil Williams & Mike Adams Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Royce Napolitino Background/History Evergreen Adjustment Services was contacted to receive the salvaged remains of a vehicle (Unit 779- POL, 2016 Ford Taurus VIN# 1FAHP2MK5GG113679) totaled in an accident on 10/07/16. Insurance has agreed to pay the city to replace the vehicle. Staff Recommendation Authorize the release of the salvage of unit 779-POL to Evergreen Adjustment. Narrative Unit 779-POL, 2016 Ford Taurus VIN# 1FAHP2MK5GG113679 was involved in an accident on 10/07/16. The damage was enough to total the vehicle. Insurance will pay to replace. Evergreen Adjustment will take the salvage. Packet Pg. 665