2016-11-22 City Council - Full Agenda-17911.
2.
3.
4.
5
6.
o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
NOVEMBER 22, 2016, 7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2016
2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of November 15, 2016
3. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.
4. Authorization for Mayor to sign an Ordinance Adopting the 2016 Traffic Impact Fees and new
Section 3.36 of ECC
5. Resolution Declaring a Substantial Need for a 1% Property Tax Increase
6. Ordinance Adopting a 1% Property Tax Levy Increase
7. Ordinance Adopting the 1% EMS Levy
8. Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element
9. Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program
10. Adoption of Water Utility Tax Ordinance
11. Ordinance Amending Utility Rates
12. Resolution adopting the 2017 Development Fee Schedule
13. Ordinance assuming the duties of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District
14. Authorization to release the salvage of unit 779-POL to Evergreen Adjustment Service
AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON
THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing on the 2017 Proposed City Budget and Potential Adoption (30 min.)
7. STUDY ITEMS
8
9
1. Review of 2016 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (10 min.)
2. Renewal of Inmate Housing Agreement with Yakima County DOC (10 min.)
3. Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with David Evans & Associates for the 76th and
212th Intersection Improvements Project (10 minutes)
4. Continued Deliberations on the 2017 Proposed City Budget (60 min.)
REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Edmonds City Council Agenda
November 22, 2016
Page 1
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(1)
12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE
SESSION.
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
November 22, 2016
Page 2
4.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/22/2016
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2016
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
11-01-2016 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 3
4.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
NOVEMBER 1, 2016
The City Council Special Meeting was called to order at 6:20 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the
Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
Elected Officials Present
Kristiana Johnson, Council President
Mike Nelson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Tom Mesaros, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Mayor Dave Earling
Others Present
Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION
The City Council adjourned to the Jury Meeting Room to discuss collective bargaining per RCW
42.30.140(1)(A) and potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).
A n_rnr TR N
The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2016
Page 1
Packet Pg. 4
4.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/22/2016
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of November 15, 2016
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
11-15-2016 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 5
4.2.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
November 15, 2016
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Kristiana Johnson, Council President
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
K. Ploeger, Police Sergeant
Al Compaan, 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
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Leif Bjorback, Building Official
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS„ TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 2016
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 1
Packet Pg. 6
4.2.a
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
5. STUDY ITEM
2017 CONTINUED BUDGET REVIEW DISCUSSION
Mayor Earling thanked Council President Johnson for having the courage to schedule a potentially 4-hour
meeting and urged Councilmembers to be judicious in their comments. He was concerned the Council
needed to complete several items this year and the goal was to complete meetings by the second week in
December.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she had spoken to nearly every director and several
Councilmembers regarding the amendments she planned to propose.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO CHANGE "COUNCIL MISCELLANEOUS" ON PAGE 33 OF THE BUDGET
BOOK TO "COUNCIL CONTINGENCY." MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO CHANGE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FROM $12,000 TO $6,000 ON PAGE
143 OF THE BUDGET BOOK (PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE).
Councilmember Buckshnis explained she confirmed with Public Works Director Phil Williams that the
Decision Package was $6,000 and the amount reflected in the Budget Book was inaccurate.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Williams advised there were three items that were double -entered, once as a decision package and
again in the base budget.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO CHANGE TRAVEL FROM $3,000 TO $1,000 ON PAGE 143 OF THE BUDGET
BOOK (PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE).
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what the travel budget has been in the past. Councilmember
Buckshnis answered zero.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO CHANGE RENTAL/LEASE FROM $10,000 TO $5,000 ON PAGE 143 OF THE
BUDGET BOOK (PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE).
Council President Johnson observed this had increased from a few hundred dollars to $10,000.
Councilmember Buckshnis comments the motion was to correct the amount; further discussion regarding
the rational could occur when the decision package was discussed. Mr. Williams answered the rationale is
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 2
Packet Pg. 7
4.2.a
in the decision package budget. The funds will be used to rent/lease specialized equipment from a local
vendor instead of purchasing equipment. The correct amount for the 2017 budget is $5,000.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO CHANGE MISCELLANEOUS ON PAGE 143 OF THE BUDGET BOOK
(PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE) FROM $13,000 TO $5,000. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the total of those changes is $21,000 which could be added to the
$100,000 in the budget for Council discretionary spending.
Finance Director Scott James displayed the following Council Requested Budget Changes:
Item #
Budget Book
Page
Description
Cash Increase
GENERAL FUND
1
New Item
Add Social Worker
$ 50,000
2
New Item
Add Parking Enforcement Officer
82,300
3
New Item
Add Arborist
122,600
4
New Item
Add Traffic Officer
120,600
5
New Item
Pedestrian Safety Training
15,000
6
New Item
Pedestrian Safety Corridor — Pine Street
20,000
7
New Item
Health District Contribution
41,000
8
New Item
Historic Preservation Si na e
10,000
9
New Item
Veteran's Plaza Contribution
0
10
New Item
Student Saving Salmon Initiative
2,500
11
New Item
Increase Annual Senior Center
Contribution
15,000
12
New Item
1 2 Radar Speed Indicator Trailers
22,000
Impacts to General Fund
$501,000
FUND 126 REET 1
13
New Item Land Bank Contribution
5005000
Impacts to Fund 126 Ending Cash
$505000
Item 1: Add Social Worker - $50,000
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADD A SOCIAL WORKER TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROPOSED BUDGET.
Councilmember Tibbott asked how a social worker would be utilized, whether they would be aligned with
the Police Department or an outside agency. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the social worker
would be similar to Lynnwood's arrangement with the Y who have expressed interest in providing a
social worker for Edmonds. As the Police Department has indicated they do not have the capacity to
supervise this individual, she requested the individual be supervised by Lynnwood and assigned to
Edmonds and provide services similar to those provided in Lynnwood. She commented in Lynnwood, the
social worker is supervised by the Police Department as well as the Social and Health Services
Committee.
Mr. James said he spoke with Lynnwood's Commander Steichen who supervises the social worker and is
in the process of proposing a full-time position to their Council. Lynnwood currently contracts with
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 3
Packet Pg. 8
4.2.a
Verdant for this position. Mr. James did not envision $50,000 would provide adequate funding.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said her intent was a part-time social worker to deal with the homeless
issue. She suggested the contract arrangement could be determined after the budget is approved. She
agreed the perfect place would be the Police Department where the social worker could contact and build
relationships with the homeless. If the Police Department does not have the capacity to supervise the
position, other arrangements can be considered. She suggested coordinating with Lynnwood, Verdant and
the Y. She clarified her request was funding for a contract social worker.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Item 2: Add Parking Enforcement Officer - $82,300
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented on the lack of parking enforcement, explaining it is more
than just parking in the downtown core, it includes abandoned cars, people sleeping in motorhomes on
residential streets, etc. The City currently has 2 FTE allocated to animal control and parking enforcement.
She has been told they spend 75% of their time on animal control and only 25% (0.5 FTE) on parking
enforcement. Although there have been recent discussions about this issue, it has been a long-term
problem and it is the Economic Development Commission's (EDC) top priority. She referred to an email
from 2011 regarding complaints about parking and nothing has been done because there is inadequate
parking. She summarized 0.5 FTE for a city Edmonds size is not enough. The reason the EDC has made it
their top priority is because it affects businesses which in turn affects the City's revenues as well as the
City's vibrancy. She was uncertain whether the Council's interest was to fund a permanent position or a
one year position.
Police Chief Al Compaan commented the Police Department has had staffing issues after the retirement
of one FTE assigned to parking/animal control. The Department has temporarily increased its downtown
parking enforcement efforts; approximately half of what they encounter is overtime parking and half other
types of violations. The advertisement for the second FTE position closes in the next 1-2 weeks and the
goal is to rapidly fill the position and train the person. As an alternate strategy, he suggested the Council
allow the Department six months to hire, train and deploy the person and if there is still concern with
parking enforcement after that time, an increase could be considered. He acknowledged the difficulty
allocating the 2 FTE to animal control and parking enforcement. Alternately if the Council wanted to
increase parking enforcement immediately, he suggested 0.5 FTE dedicated strictly to parking.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested assigning one FTE to parking enforcement and one FTE to
animal control. She appreciated the offer to reevaluate in six months but was uncertain what would
change if the personnel continued to be allocated as they were today. She suggested hiring parking
enforcement and then in six months consider whether that level of enforcement was still needed. As there
were several businesses and residents present to make comment regarding the need for parking
enforcement, she suggested the Council hear their concerns before making a decision.
Councilmember Teitzel relayed he has spoken with several businesses in the downtown core who stated
they have seen parking tickets on windshields, indicating enforcement was occurring. He agreed with
Chief Compaan's suggestion to evaluate the situation in six months.
Council President Johnson said parking has been an issue as long as she has been on the Council.
Although enforcement has increased recently, that level had not been provided during the past six years.
She recalled during the EDC's presentation, they identified three primary issues, parking was one of
them. The BID (Ed!) also identified parking as one of their main issues. She preferred not to wait and to
work with the Police Department to hire a person to do parking enforcement. She viewed parking
enforcement as a high priority and wanted it funded in the 2017 budget.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 4
Packet Pg. 9
4.2.a
Councilmember Nelson agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas regarding the need for parking
enforcement, relaying his research found the number of parking tickets issued during the last year was
less than three per day. However, he was concerned with funding an additional position, as he has only
heard suggestions to cut funding from other positions to fund this position. Although he agreed parking
enforcement was needed, he was uncomfortable adding it until a different way to fund it could be
identified.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Decision Package 10, additional administrative support in the
Police Department, and suggested a parking enforcement position was more important. She recalled a
Police Department administrative support person was added a couple years ago. If the Council was
agreeable to funding a parking enforcement instead of an administrative support person, the net difference
was $4,000. Mayor Earling explained he asked directors to submit reasonable requests for staffing in their
departments; the proposed budget has 4 additional FTE. He expressed concern with Council questioning
the Chief s recommendation for a position to accomplish work that needs to be done in the department,
telling him how to run his department.
Council President Johnson raised a point of order, relaying her understanding that Mayor Earling
presented the budget to Council but it was now up to the Council how to proceed. Mayor Earling agreed it
was the Council's budget but if changes were suggested that he felt comprised the budget, staff s work
and the needs of the City, he should be able to speak.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to Chief Compaan's indication that he is adding staff to assist with
parking enforcement. Councilmember Nelson's research that found only an average of three tickets a day
are being issued indicates either parking is turning over within the time limit or not enough tickets are
being issued. He asked Chief Compaan to comment on the number of tickets as well as Councilmember
Buckshnis' suggestion to replace the request for an administrative position with parking enforcement.
Chief Compaan responded parking tickets have averaged about 1,000/year over the past 5-6 years. The
appropriate level of enforcement is a policy discussion with feedback from business owners, residents and
downtown visitors. With 2 FTE assigned to animal control, parking enforcement and ordinance
enforcement, it may be possible to issue slightly more than 1,000 citations/year. After one of the FTE
retired, she returned on a part-time basis through the end of the year and emphasis on downtown parking
enforcement has increased but that level will not be sustainable next year. If Council wants a more
concentrated effort on parking enforcement, the Police Department's business model may need to be
reconsidered as it relates to the level of enforcement. He did not envision his suggested alternative would
increase the average of 1,000 citations/year by a huge amount. If the Council wanted to provide increased
parking enforcement and the City's finances allow, a compromise may be a 0.5 FTE dedicated solely to
parking.
Councilmember Mesaros said he may be willing to proceed with Compaan's suggestion for a 0.5 FTE but
he was unwilling fund it from the requested administrative support position. Chief Compaan assured he
would not have requested an additional administrative support position if it was not needed.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed there had been an increase in the number of parking tickets
issued due to the Police Department assigning a part-time person to that activity. However, that does not
address abandoned vehicles, people living in motorhomes or other parking issues in the City. Frequent
public comments at Council meetings related to parking issues indicates there is a need for parking
enforcement throughout the City. She agreed nothing would change unless the amount of staff allocated
for parking enforcement changed. She was satisfied with not taking the funding from another request; it
could be funded from ending fund balance. The Council has discussed parking enforcement for years and
nothing has changed. She preferred to take public comment during the public hearing before making a
decision.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 5
Packet Pg. 10
4.2.a
Council President Johnson felt parking enforcement was a priority, commenting she served on the
Parking Committee in the past where this was a frequent issue. Unless the Police Department business
model was changed, the average three tickets/day was likely to continue once the new staff person is
hired. She was flexible with how it was accomplished, either via a part-time or a full-time person but it
needs to be addressed.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
TO CONSIDER THE COUNCIL'S REQUESTED BUDGET CHANGES FROM THE BOTTOM
OF THE LIST. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Item 12: 2 Radar Speed Indicator Trailers, $22,000
Councilmember Buckshnis said funding only one for $11,000 was an option.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO PURCHASE ONE RADAR SPEED INDICATOR TRAILER FOR $11,000.
Council President Johnson recalled two radar speed indicator trailers were purchased last year. Mr.
Williams advised five poles were installed and two radar feedback signs were purchased with a plan to
move the signs around to the various poles. The requested item is mobile trailers which are typically
operated by the Police Department. Council President Johnson asked how many radar signs were in the
City. Mr. Williams answered five.
Councilmember Nelson said the rationale for the trailers was they were mobile, the display was at the
driver's height, and they track speeds long before the driver it. The City currently only has one trailer that
is rotated throughout the City. The intent of requesting funding for two trailers was to increase the number
of trailers in an effort to slow down drivers.
Councilmember Teitzel asked the cost difference between a pole mounted radar feedback sign and a radar
speed indicator trailer. Mr. Williams answered the cost was approximately the same. The pole mounted
signs are outside the roadway; a trailer can have a modest impact on parking depending on its location.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented an advantage of the trailer was its mobility, the ability to
move the trailer around to address speeding in specific areas.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO TWO RADAR SPEED INDICATOR TRAILERS.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON AND
FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, MESAROS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
MAIN MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
Item 11: Increase Annual Senior Center Contribution - $15,000
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO INCREASE THE ANNUAL SENIOR CENTER CONTRIBUTION BY $15,000.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained this increase would increase the City' funding to the senior center to
match the $75,000 provided by Snohomish County which the County Council approved today. Mayor
Earling clarified this was an increase in the senior center's operations budget.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 6
Packet Pg. 11
4.2.a
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her understanding Senior Center Executive Director Farrell
Fleming made this request to Mayor Earling after the budget process began so it was referred to this
process. Mayor Earling said the the funding is to address the senior center's operational needs. He was
agreeable to the request but because it was late to the budget process, it was proposed as a Council
requested budget change.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Item 10: Student Saving Salmon (SSS) Initiative - $2,500
Councilmember Buckshnis said she will withdraw this request and will request funding via the Council
Contingency in 2016 for a piece of equipment. The SSS recently received $15,000 for operating. The
$2,500 already included in the budget will remain.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO WITHDRAW THE REQUEST FOR THE STUDENT SAVING SALMON
INITIATIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Item 9: Veterans Plaza Contribution - $0
Councilmember Buckshnis advised this will also be funded from the Council Contingency.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO WITHDRAW THE REQUEST FOR THE VETERANS PLAZA
CONTRIBUTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Item 8: Historic Preservation Sig_nage - $10,000
Councilmember Buckshnis advised this will be funded via the Council Contingency in 2016, presented by
Councilmember Teitzel.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
TO WITHDRAW THE REQUEST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION SIGNAGE. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Item 7: Health District Contribution
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she, Mayor Earling and Council President Johnson met with the
Health District last week to discuss their request and having better communication between the Health
District and the City. Those presented at the meeting agreed the $41,000 contribution, $1/capita (instead
of the $2/capita the Health District requested) would be a productive use of funds.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
JOHNSON, TO PROVIDE $41,000 TO THE SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT.
Council President Johnson commented this represents a trend in Snohomish County; the southern cities
have agreed to $1/capita and are working to convince neighboring cities. This is a one-time appropriation
to help the Health District. The District will work more closely with the cities, perhaps adopting an
Interlocal Agreement. The Health District currently has a number of unfunded positions that will remain
unfunded in order to operate on a lean budget. She express support for the contribution.
Councilmember Buckshnis express support for the contribution, noting this would negate the need for
Agenda Item 6.2.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Item 6: Pedestrian Safety Corridor - Pine Street - $20,000
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 7
Packet Pg. 12
4.2.a
Councilmember Mesaros said he lives in the Pine Street area at Pt. Edwards; several residents have
spoken to him about how dark the corridor is, particularly this time of year. As he was driving yesterday
the corridor yesterday, he saw a 6-point buck crossing the street, fortunately he has his high beams on or
may not have seen him. The streetlights will benefit pedestrians as well as drivers. The $20,000 includes
undergrounding the wires; aboveground wiring would be less expensive.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
ADD $20,000 TO THE BUDGET FOR LIGHTING ON PINE STREET.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how many lights the funding represented and where they would
be located. Mr. Williams answered four and they would be located on the south side of Pine Street
between the intersection with SR-104 and westward for several hundred feet where there were no lights.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the east side of Pine. Mr. Williams said there are some
lights there. The new HAWK signal 200 feet north of the intersection has resulted in a lot of pedestrian
traffic. It is well lit on SR-104 but quite dark for first few hundred feet on Pine Street.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if any study had been done to identify other streets that needed
improved lighting. Mr. Williams answered no, most of the 270 lights in the City are owned/operated by
Snohomish County PUD. When the City receives requests for lights, PUD typically responds favorably
by installing the light and adding it to the City's bill. Lights are usually added by installing a mast arm on
an existing PUD pole. When the City installs lights, the code generally guides toward undergrounding
power. In this case since the lighting is not associated with a new development, it is not required to be
underground.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas envisioned there could be 10 other area that lack adequate lighting and
asked whether the cost would be $20,000 for each one. Mr. Williams answered not necessarily, the City
and PUD respond to citizens' requests for lighting, usually utilizing a nearby power pole.
Councilmember Teitzel commented there may be competing interests in this location; he was sympathetic
to the ability for pedestrians to walk safely on Pine Street but was concerned the lights may impact
wildlife and birds in the marsh who enjoy darkness. Mr. Williams commented in this case the lights
would be installed on the south side of Pine Street east of the marsh with the entire Pine Street right-of-
way between. The lights are would be well -shielded LED and light only the right-of-way with little light
visible from above or the immediate vicinity. Councilmember Teitzel observed the hatchery and the
demonstration garden were on the north edge of Pine Street and he anticipated there would be some light
spillage into that area. He wanted to be very careful before proceeding.
Council President Johnson commented the sighting of a 6-point buck was a good sign for those who have
not observed any mammals in the marsh. She asked whether this lighting could be a condition for the
development on Pine Street. Mr. Williams answered some lights will be replaced as part of the
development of Building 10; they are not responsible for installing lights on this portion of Pine Street.
Council President Johnson asked whether consideration had been given to shorter pedestrian lights that
may be less expensive and less intrusive such as bollard lighting. Mr. Williams said there is a sidewalk on
the north side of Pine Street but not on the south side. Bollard lights have to be very close to the edge of
the walkway and would not be successful unless associated with a sidewalk. Shorter lights require many
more lights; four streetlights could illuminate this area due to their height; the lower the lighting source,
the more lights are required. Council President Johnson said she was not convinced this project was
needed this year.
To Councilmember Teitzel's comments about protecting wildlife, Councilmember Mesaros said he would
rather have lights to see wildlife cross the road than not see them without lights.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 8
Packet Pg. 13
4.2.a
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE ON THE CALL FOR THE
QUESTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON AND MESAROS
VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-
MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
Item 3: Add Arborist
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
TO WITHDRAW THE REQUEST FOR AN ARBORIST.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the City already has an arborist on staff and after speaking with Ms. Hite
and Ms. Hope, she was satisfied that was sufficient.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. James commented the Council approved four additions to the budget without identifying a funding
source. He had hoped the Council would identify which items they planned to fund from the $100,000
allocated to Council.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the $100,000 allocated to Council was increased to $121,000 by
the corrections the Council approved. The Council has not yet reviewed the decision packages which may
also increase expenditures.
6. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS
1. SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY PROCLAMATION
Mayor Earling commented everyone is supportive of the businesses in the City, many of whom are small
businesses. He valued their input and the dollars they generate and he was proud of the high quality
businesses throughout Edmonds on Highway 99, Westgate, Five Corners and downtown Edmonds. The
businesses will soon begin advertising Small Business Saturday.
Mayor Earling read a proclamation proclaiming November 25, 2016 as Small Business Saturday and
urged resident of our community and communities across the country, to support small businesses and
merchants on Small Business Saturday and throughout the year. He presented the proclamation to Robert
Boehlke, President, Edmonds Downtown Alliance, and Kimberly Koenig, President, Downtown
Edmonds Merchants Association. Mr. Boehlke commented Edmonds is the personification of a small
business community with many independent merchants that offer a variety of goods and services. Shop
Small Business Saturday will be a busy day in downtown Edmonds with businesses stocked and
decorated, the holiday farmers market, the annual tree lighting sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce
at 3:30 p.m. and the free holiday trolley that will continue Saturdays in December. He invited the public
to visit downtown downtown Edmonds to enjoy the holidays.
2. SNOHOMISH COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT PARTICIPATION
Heather Thomas, Public & Government Affairs Manager, Snohomish Health District, thanked the
Council for supporting the Health District and being a leader in south Snohomish County. She looked
forward to a continued partnership in 2017 and more frequently sharing of the work the Health District
does on behalf of Edmonds residents with the Council.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 9
Packet Pg. 14
4.2.a
Don Hall, Edmonds, provided an update on the Cascadia Art Museum at 190 Sunset:
• "Vintage Handmade Christmas cards by Northwest Artists" — now through January 8
• "A Spirit Unbound: The Art of Peggy Strong" — now through January 8
• "Northwest Painting and Studio Ceramics: A Regional Perception" — now through August 27
Mr. Hall advised the museum will be on open 5-8 p.m. on Thursday for Third Thursday Art Walk;
admission is free and 10% off purchases at the museum store.
Marlin Phelps, Edmonds, commented today is the anniversary of his brother's funeral. At the funeral, at
a clubhouse on a lake in Kitsap County, he told a story of catching a lot of fish with his brother using
orange rapala and his brother asking why they worked so well. During their trip, a fisherman on the dock
asked about using the orange rapala, recalling his brother had showed them to him at Kitsap Sports. In
response to his brother's question, he visited the Squamish Trout Hatchery, and learned the staff wear
orange raingear when feeding the small fry trout, leading them to associate orange with food. He used this
story as a metaphor, explaining Mayor Earling is the orange rapala, and questioned Mayor Earling has not
done his fair duty to get a special prosecutor in the court. He envisioned it was the same reason children
have gone missing from Edmonds.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, relayed the Illinois Supreme Court stated the legislative powers of the city must
be exercised for the public benefit but that does not authorize a municipality to sell or bargain legislation
as a means of obtaining revenue. It would be a novel proposition to hold that the city as a condition
precedent to the exercise of its lawful power and authority to vacate a street or alley no longer needed for
public use could demand and receive from private parties a sum of money for its action. Such a holding
would be dangerous in principle, contrary to good morals and against public policy. Minnesota believes
that as a general rule a municipality has no proprietary interest in a public street, rather the city holds an
easement in favor of the public granting a right to travel the street. The city does not hold a fee interest in
the street and cannot ask a petitioner to pay compensation as a condition for granting a street vacation. In
Washington State, Puget Sound Alumni of Kappa Sigma Inc v. City of Seattle, determined a city may not
require payment of one-half appraised value of property in connection with street vacations because the
city merely holds easements. Edmonds has not sought compensation for 14 of the last 22 street vacations
identified by staff back to 1998; there were actually 15 vacation procedures, not 12 as indicated in the
agenda packet. Since 1998 compensation has not be requested the majority of time and the maximum
compensation was only requested 20% of the time. He hoped the City never chose to obtain revenue in
this manner. The applicant has already paid a steep application fee of $6,355, paid for an appraisal before
Council discussed the need for compensation, will assume stormwater maintenance, and will provide
multiple easements as well as prepare and execute easement documents. Staff has recommended
maximum compensation of $92,610 for the street vacation in Agenda Item 10.2. He urged the Council to
refuse to barter or sell its legislation as a means of obtaining revenue.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled in 1995 the Council formed the Transportation Facility Oversight
Committee to discuss a solution and funding for a multimodal transportation facility. At the conclusion of
their work, the City had a purchase and sale agreement with Unocal for the right-of-way over the tracks
and along the Port. Unfortunately a city park is planned there. After studying several options on the
waterfront, nothing better than Unocal was identified and Washington State Ferries purchased the Unocal
site. He felt the At -Grade Crossing Task Force did an excellent job of studying all the sites and
developing good answers. He supported the option of a land bridge at the end of Edmonds Street which is
similar to a land bridge in Vancouver, Washington, that crosses two lanes of highway. He congratulated
the members of the Task Force on the great product they produced.
Karen Wiggins, Chair of former Edmonds Parking Committee for 15-20 years, said the same parking
issues existed during that time, not enough enforcement. When Officer Dawson leaves permanently and
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 10
Packet Pg. 15
4.2.a
even if the City hires another animal control/parking/ordinance enforcement officer, the situation will
continue. She suggested if a 0.5 FTE worked only half days, they would be able to mark vehicles but not
have enough time to return to see if vehicles had been moved. She pointed out businesses, who generate
sales tax revenue for the City, take a risk coming to Edmonds and the City owes it to them to reduce that
risk. A parking space can generate $ 1 00,000/year in sales tax revenue. She proposed having a full-time
employee dedicated to parking enforcement and enlarging the restricted parking area; commuter parking
affects residents' visitor parking and enlarging the area would generate more revenue to help pay the
officer's salary. She noted the employee parking permitted areas are also being used for all -day parking.
She summarized the City needed to improve parking enforcement for the benefit of businesses as well as
residents.
Pam Stuller, Walnut Street Coffee, representing downtown businesses, relayed support for increasing
parking enforcement in downtown Edmonds. Although there has been discussion about increased
enforcement, she has yet to see a white stripe on cars on her street or neighboring streets. She questioned
the ability to understand whether there was a parking problem without knowing whether the 3-hour
parking was effective and that could only be determined via enforcement. It is imperative to get a handle
on parking enforcement and get traffic and parking moving. She was excited the EDC did a parking study
and that parking enforcement was first on their list. She recommended enforcing the current limits before
changing the time limits or expanding the restricted parking area.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
8. PUBLIC MEETING
PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AT -GRADE RAIL
CROSSINGS ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Mr. Williams introduced Rick Schaefer, Tetra Tech, who presented the results of the At -Grade Rail
Crossing Alternatives Analysis to the Council last week. Today is the advertised public meeting to receive
comments on that report. He displayed a photograph of the intersection of Main Street crossing,
identifying conflicts that include ferry loading/unloading, 40 trains/day, pedestrian and commercial
traffic, etc. He recognized members of the Task Force who were present including Phil Lovell, Kurt
Greiner and Councilmember Nelson. Mr. Williams reviewed:
• Public meetings
November 18th
January 27th
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
Level 1 outcomes
o 51 concepts/variants
■ 6 early recommendations
■ 13 advancing concepts
- 10 Level 2 alternatives*
* 1 Ph alternative was added during the Level 2 evaluation (Edmonds Crossing)
Level 2 Alternative Evaluation Criteria
o Purpose and Need
1. Reliable emergency response
2. Reduce ferry delays
3. Reduce delays & conflicts at crossings
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 11
Packet Pg. 16
4.2.a
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
MidblockOverpass
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. build
Relocation
'Using WSDOT and Sound Transit unit cost bases2
2Point Edwards previous estimate was developed in 2009 as part of the minimum build report
As the ferry options are not affordable, Ferries is not pursuing any large scale project in the near future
and at least for 20 years, the Task Force's recommends the Edmonds Street Overpass. He displayed
several renderings of the Edmonds Street overpass, explaining the intent was a 16-foot wide at -grade
structure that would accommodate a full-size pumper truck or aid car, protected by bollards at each end.
Use of the overpass would be primarily pedestrian bicycle non -motorized access but in an emergency, the
bollards could be removed to allow emergency vehicles to reach the waterfront.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about using the overpass to offload the ferry in an emergency
such as a train stopped on the tracks. Mr. Williams answered if the emergency condition lasted more than
a few minutes, it could be activated as an emergency route, using Ferry and City personnel to flag the
route. Depending on how long the emergency lasted, the overpass could also be used to load the next
ferry. As soon as the emergency condition was abated, the overpass would return to non -motorized traffic.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed the tracks have been blocked 1-2 times/year in the past. Mr.
Williams agreed, recalling the last time the tracks were blocked, people on the west side were evacuated
through open box cars. With the overpass, pedestrians could easily cross the tracks. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas asked if vehicles offloaded from the ferry in an emergency using the overpass would
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 12
Packet Pg. 17
4.2.a
drive up Edmonds Street. Mr. Williams agreed that would be the route; flaggers could be used to direct
drivers.
Councilmember Nelson recalled he neglected last week to properly thank Mr. Williams and Mr. Doherty,
key City staff who attended very Task Force meeting, kept the Task Force on track, and provide answers
to questions. In response to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' comments, he said ferry offloading would
only occur in an emergency that resulted in trains stopped for several hours; the day-to-day use of the
connector would be for pedestrian and bicycles. He was happy with the Task Force's work and their
recommendation.
Recognizing that response time in an emergency was critical, Councilmember Teitzel asked if the
bollards could be designed to retract electronically. Mr. Williams answered that technology is available;
the bollards could be lowered by public safety personnel via a remote or manually. Councilmember
Teitzel expressed concern with additional response time if the bollards had to be removed manually. Mr.
Williams answered that aspect has yet to be designed; the technology exists to have them retract
electronically.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the overpass would connect to the Sunset walkway or would that
neighborhood be further disrupted. Mr. Williams agreed there would be disruption during construction.
The overpass has not been designed; compatibility of the walkway with the flyover and the angle from
Edmonds Street, clearance over the tracks, etc. will be considerations. He assured the goal of the design
would be to not interfere with that connection. The flyover would provide a great connection from Sunset
to the beach. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Mr. Williams reference to the overpass as a flyover
and asked for confirmation that it will be kept as low as possible so it does not impede views. Mr.
Williams agreed the intent was to go up as little as possible, that location was high enough above the
tracks that vertical elements can be minimized.
Public Comment
Phil Lovell, Edmonds, member of the Task Force, said his remarks were extracted from a memo he sent
to the entire Task Force early July 2016. He expressed support for the Task Force's recommendations of
an Edmonds Street flyover concept as the best waterfront access solution to the overall challenge. This
solution recognizes emergency crossing of the tracks should be the high priority in terms of results to be
achieved. He did not believe it was the Task Force's responsibility to support an omnibus track -crossing
solution for motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. Traffic will continue to use at -grade crossings at
Main and Dayton; reconfiguring the ferry terminal to facilitate railroad track crossing does not make
sense, particularly given major challenges of cost and time associated with such a solution. The Edmonds
Street flyover makes the most sense for the following reasons:
• Likely the lowest cost vehicle and pedestrian/bicycle solution for emergency access over the
tracks
• Provides for emergency unloading of the ferry in case of train blockage
• Should emergency conditions require, ferry loading could be accommodated by extending the
current access route a few 100 feet onto Sunset and turning left onto the flyover ramp (not
currently recommended by the Task Force)
• Provides permanent bike and pedestrian link between Sunset Avenue and the Edmonds waterfront
• Design could incorporate a pedestrian -accessible mini park at the top of the ramp structure with
seating, planting, viewpoint, etc.
• Ramp would only be open vehicle access during emergency conditions under police control,
otherwise always open for bikes and pedestrians
• Design could be similar to the overview area incorporated into the Haines Wharf Park
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 13
Packet Pg. 18
4.2.a
• Solution will be disruptive to the current configuration of Bracketts Landing Park and likely will
necessitate reconfiguration of parking and restroom access. May be opportunity to
enhance/upgrade restroom facility to serve general public and not just divers
• This solution has virtually no impact on Main or Dayton view corridors or waterfront use from
the downtown waterfront area
Bob Rinehart, Edmonds, thanked the Council for being so conscientious about addressing this and many
other issues. He also commended the Council for absorbing the occasional slings and arrows. Mr.
Reinhart recognized the at -grade crossing was a complex issue and it was important to frame the core
issues and priorities; the Task Force did a wonderful job focusing on critical issues. He had the bad
fortune of being one of the people stranded on the west side of the tracks for 2-3 hours when the tragic
accident occurred. He was able to observed firsthand the enormous challenge of getting an emergency to
the west side of the tracks. As a good friend of the City's former Fire Chief Tom Tomberg, he recalled
Chief Tomberg often saying was impractical and cost prohibitive to site station on the west side of the
tracks. He echoed Mr. Lovell comments and expressed his full and unequivocal support for the Task
Force `s recommendation.
Jim Cutts, Edmonds, echoed Mr. Lovell's comments and expressed support for the Edmonds Street
overpass as it was the least obtrusive of the three options considered and it would work well. It also
appears to be cost efficient, provides a good connection for pedestrians and will accommodate emergency
vehicles.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented this is best new solution that has been identified. In addition to
safety, this option is an economic driver because it provides a tourist attraction and opportunity to view
the waterfront. The land bridge could be designed to be wider than 18 feet or to include a bulb out
viewpoint. The overpass would be a great extension of the trail system and provides emergency vehicle
access over the railroad tracks if the tracks were blocked. To the concern expressed about the height of
the railing, he suggested a glassed -in structure like the ferry overhead loading. He envisioned the view
from the overpass would be as good as any that could be found in the Puget Sound area.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed public comment. He commented on the importance of
moving this project along as staff is beginning to meet with State legislators and as well as Congressional
staff and representatives. He was told by City Attorney Jeff Taraday that this project would need to be
added to the CIP.
Council President Johnson commented everyone has been thanked except the consultant; she thanked Mr.
Schaefer for his leadership in guiding the City through the process. She expressed support for the project,
finding it an excellent project, the best design for the City with the least impact.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the at -grade crossing analysis was already on the CIP/CFP. Mr.
Williams answered the analysis is on the CrP but that process has now been completed and the report
delivered. A definitive project needs to be added to the CIP so the City can seek funding.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
TO ADD THE AT -GRADE CONNECTOR TO THE CIP.
Councilmember Nelson recalled he thanked Mr. Schaefer last week; Mr. Schaefer is not only a
phenomenal consultant; he is also a citizen of Edmonds.
Councilmember Teitzel asked for clarification, this is the Edmonds Street connector; the Task Force also
assessed a mid -block crossing between Main and Dayton. He asked if that was a longer range project
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 14
Packet Pg. 19
4.2.a
funded by BNSF in the future when double tracking is completed. Mr. Williams answered something like
that will have to be constructed by BNSF and/or Sound Transit when double tracking is completed. The
estimated cost is $6 million. Councilmember Teitzel summarized that was a conversation for another day.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Earling also thanked Mr. Schaefer.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 2017 BUDGET REVENUES, INCLUDING PROPERTY TAX LEVIES
Finance Director Scott James reviewed the 2017 Regular Property Tax Levy
• 2017 budget includes I% property tax increase
• Assessor shows City of Edmonds assessed values increasing 11.4%
• New construction adds $39,277,000 assessed value
• 2017 Regular Property Tax Calculation
Description Amount
2016 Levy Amount $10,064,874
Add New Construction 53,646
Add Allowance for Adjustments 10,030
2017 Starting Point $10,128,550
Add 1% of 2016 Levy 100,650
Total 2017 Levy $10,229,200
Graph of Assessed Value History 2008-2017
0 2008: $7,615,549,203
0 2009: $7,709,209,490
0 2013: $5,545,239,847
0 2017: $8,208,433,390
Graph of Tax Rate History 2008-2017
0 2008: $1.1894
0 2013: $1.7614
0 2017: $1.2461
Mr. James reviewed the 2008-2017 EMS Tax Levy:
• 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 3 1 %
• EMS Levy cannot exceed $0.50
• In a declining AV environment, the City's EMS Levy also declines
• Proposing in 2017 to use the remaining banked capacity
• Comparison of EMS Tax Levy 2009-2017:
Year Action EMS Levy
Levy Savings
2009 $0.50 Permanent EMS Levy becomes effective $3,854,605
$0
2010 Declining Assessed Values start a 4 year skid 3,477,741
376,864
2011 EMS Levy Declines 3,216,629
637,976
2012 EMS Levy Declines 2,897,322
957,283
2013 EMS Levy Declines 2,772,620
1,081,985
2014 EMS Levy Increases 3,051,206
803,399
2015 EMS Levy Increases 3,395,376
466,862
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 15
Packet Pg. 20
4.2.a
2016 EMS Levy Increases
Total Levy Savings through 2016
2017 EMS Levy Increases
Total Levy Savings through 2017
Graph of the EMS Levy Rate per $1,000 AV history
0 2008: $0.32
0 2009: $0.50
0 2017: $0.48
2017 EMS Tax Levy Calculation
Description Amount
2016 Levy Amount $3,684,514
Add New Construction 19,640
Add Allowance for Adjustments 3,500
Add Refunds 56,980
2017 EMS Levy Starting Point $3,764,634
Add "Banked Capacity" 170,090
Add 1% of 2016 Ley 38,546
Total 2016 Levy $3,973,270
Mr. James described the impact of the tax increases:
• 2016 Average Residence Value is $428,400
• 1% Regular Tax Levy Increase = $5.89
$3,692,091 170,901
$4,494,460
3,973,270 (118,665)
$4,375,795
• Keeping EMS Levy at $0.48 = $16.82
• Average residence would pay $22.71 in 2017 or about $1.89 per month extra
Mr. James relayed Council motions:
Approve Resolution No. XXXX Finding Substantial Need to Levy Property Taxes Using a Limit
Factor of 101% Notwithstanding a Lower National Inflation Rate.
Approve Ordinance No. XXXX Levying 1% Regular Property Tax Increase for 2017 and
Levying 5.7% EMS Tax Increase.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not recall the 1% property tax increase had been combined with the
EMS levy in the same ordinance in the past. Mr. James responded that was has been done in the past; it
could be divided into separate ordinances. He explained when the permanent EMS levy was passed in
2008 it was at $0.50 and has not dropped below below $0.50. This year the banked capacity is limited to
$70,000 providing an opportunity to utilize the 1% increase. Even with the proposed increase, the EMS
levy is below $0.50. Citizens voted in 2008 to keep the EMS levy at $0.50 but the 1% cap prevents the
City from raising the levy to $0.50. If the levy gets too far below $0.50 another vote is required unless the
legislature amends the RCW.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented that was a pretty big ask, she may have to vote against it due
to her concern with the 5.7% increase in the EMS tax levy. Mr. James explained EMS levy revenues have
been declining since 2009 and as a result citizens received approximately $4.5 million in savings. The
City is still behind in collecting the EMS revenues that citizens approved which provides justification for
the increase. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was not debating the EMS levy itself, she
preferred to separate the property tax from the EMS levy.
Councilmember Teitzel said if Sound Transit 3 which includes a property tax and sales tax increase had
not passed, he would be comfortable with the proposed increases. He was concerned about the cumulative
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 16
Packet Pg. 21
4.2.a
effects on Edmonds citizens of ST3, the proposed 1% as well as the proposed utility rate increase. He
asked if the 1% could be banked and utilized next year. Mr. James said the increase can be banked; he
recommended if the Council did not approve the 1 % increase, it be banked.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if $1.89/month included the EMS levy. Mr. James agreed it did.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the impact of Sound Transit Proposition 1 (ST3). Mr. James
relayed per the voter's pamphlet, the proposition costs $14/month per adult. Councilmember Buckshnis
asked how much revenue the EMS tax levy increase generated. Mr. James estimated $38,546.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Don Hall, Edmonds, agreed with Councilmember Teitzel. He said the Council talks about low income
housing but it seems like every week the Council talks about adding more taxes. Although $1.89/month
does not sound like much, combined with ST3, utility taxes increases, etc. a lot people cannot afford it.
He did not support continuing to tax and tax citizens and although he recognized the city needed the
money, he recommended squeezing a little.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Mayor Earling said the cumulative effect of the EMS levy and property tax increase was $138,000/year. If
the Council did not approve the increases, there would need to be $138,000 in reductions.
Mr. James relayed information regarding voter passed initiatives/propositions:
• Initiative 1433 (Minimum Wage) was Passed by Citizens last week
o 64% of Edmonds Voters —Voted for 1433
Sound Transit Prop 1 received 54% of Edmonds voters
o Sound Transit is Authorized to levy or impose:
■ An additional 0.5% sales and use tax
■ A property tax of $0.25 or less per $1,000 of assessed valuation, and
■ Additional 0.8% motor -vehicle excise tax
■ According to voters pamphlet, cost is $14/month/adult
Council President Johnson commented some years the Council has approved the 1% increase and some
years it has been banked. She asked asked how many years can be banked. Mr. James answered there is
no time constraint on banking. Council President Johnson asked if the banked capacity could be unbanked
at any time. Mr. James said the City has the opportunity to use banked capacity once a year. Council
President Johnson said the Council has four public hearings scheduled tonight and a tight budget; she
preferred to place the resolution and ordinance on the Consent Agenda which would give the Council
time to consider public comments.
Councilmember Nelson pointed out the difference between a statewide initiative that voters approved and
a tax the Council is being asked to impose. At the end of the day citizens will pay all the additional taxes
but ST3 was approved by the voters not the Council. He was more concerned about the utility rate
increase of $29/month, over $300/year than this property tax increase.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas how much surplus there was in the budget. Mr. James referred to
estimates in the budget book, commenting the budget book indicates the City was spending more than its
budget authority primarily because the third quarter budget amendment was not approved before the
budget was presented. He summarized it would be very close this year, typically there is 1-2% of the
budget left; he expected to use most of the budget this year.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 17
Packet Pg. 22
4.2.a
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about reserves. Mr. James referred to the Council Contingency
Reserve (budget book page 60) which was estimated to end 2017 with slightly under $5.5 million. The
Risk Management Reserve is estimated to be $975,000 at the end of 2017. The Risk Management Reserve
was supposed to be approximately 2% of ongoing revenues. The range for the Council Contingency is 8-
16%, the $5.5 million is less than 16%. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what the $5.5 million
reserve would be used for. Mr. James answered the uses are identified in the ordinance that created the
fund, primarily for emergencies or economic downturns.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas summarized the $5.5 million was just in case something happens, a
catastrophe, slide, earthquake, etc. Mr. James said when he came to Edmonds he was excited about the
level of reserves; as the Mayor stated in his budget message, economic recovery is in year 9 in 2017; that
usually begins to level off in year 10 and begins to decline. Reserves are important in the event of a
decline to prevent budget cuts that dramatically impact of level of service, stress on staff, infrastructure
decline, etc. He summarized a healthy reserve helps mitigate those declines. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas said she also wanted to have healthy reserves but agreed with Councilmember Teitzel that the
more citizens are taxed, the less personal reserves they have.
Without separate ordinances for the property tax and EMS levy tax, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said
would not support it. Mr. James asked if she would be more comfortable if the increase in property tax
and the EMS tax levy were in separate ordinances. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said that was her
personal preference. Mr. James said it would be easy to provide separate ordinances.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Nelson's comments. She preferred to discuss the
increase in utility taxes first. The utility tax increase of $33/month per household has a larger impact than
the proposed $1.89/month increase for property and EMS tax levy. She would be able to identify
$138,000 in the budget if the Council did not approve the 1% increase and she preferred not to use
reserves.
Mr. James commented on mandatory increases that necessitate raising taxes:
• Public Defender (page 57) $17,500
• WCIA Insurance (page 57) $66,410
• FD1 (page 57) $188,000
• SERS (page 57) $9,700
• SNOCOM (page 57) $41,930
• Prosecutor (New Item ) $50,000
• Total $373,540
Mr. James pointed out the Council also approved several additions to the budget and identified $22,000 in
funding:
• Social Worker
$50,000
• Radar trailer
$11,000
• Senior Center
$15,000
• Health District
$41,000
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION.
Mr. Taraday recalled earlier discussion about moving the staff recommended motions to the Consent
Agenda. If the motion was to approve the staff recommendation, he requested separate motions for each.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 18
Packet Pg. 23
4.2.a
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
TO MOVE TO CONSENT A RESOLUTION 1374 FINDING SUBSTANTIAL NEED TO LEVY
THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES AND THE EMS PROPERTY TAX USING A LIMIT
FACTOR OF 101% NOTWITHSTANDING A LOWER NATIONAL INFLATION RATE.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL VOTING NO. [Note: The resolution
number was later removed and assigned to another resolution.]
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT,
TO MOVE TO CONSENT ORDINANCE NO. 4048 LEVYING 1% REGULAR PROPERTY TAX
INCREASE FOR 2017. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED Y COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
TO MOVE TO CONSENT APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE LEVYING AN EMS PROPERTY
TAX INCREASE OF 5.7%. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY VOTING
NO.
Mr. Taraday observed the Council moved two ordinances to the Consent Agenda; it was his
understanding the Council wanted the ordinance in the packet divided and both placed on the Consent
Agenda. Council agreed that was the intent of the motion.
2. PUBLIC HEARING & DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 2017 PROPOSED CITY
BUDGET
Finance Director Scott James identified the following changes:
• New Decision Packet for prosecutor contract - $50,000
• Lodging Tax — no net change
• Move Historic Preservation Signage to Council Contingency - $10,000
Mr. James requested the Council identify which of the changes requested in Agenda Item 5.1 would be
funded by the $100,000 allocated to Council. Mayor Earling advised some of the Council requested
changes will be funded from Council Contingency and will not impact the $100,000. Councilmember
Buckshnis summarized the Social Worker - $50,000, Radar Trailer - $11,000, Senior Center - $15,000,
and Health District - $40,000 leaves $5,000 of the $121,000 allocated to Council. Mr. James observed the
Council has not made a decision on the Parking Enforcement Officer - $82,300, Traffic Officer -
$120,600, or Pedestrian Safety Training - $15,000.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, said the Council has heard anecdotal evidence about parking but the issue
has not been studied. The EDC listed parking as its #1 priority but to his knowledge the EDC has not
proposed how to solve the issue. The Council also controls Ed!'s budget and work plan. He suggested the
Council utilize these two advisory group to provide more than anecdotal evidence before tinkering with
the Police Department's budget. He reminded the Police Department has the community's public safety
as well as its statutory responsibilities in mind. When the Police Department requests administrative
support to comply with increasing public records requests, the Council should accept that as a fact. When
the Police Department says it's important to have a School Resource Officer at Edmonds-Woodway and
have partnered with the School District to reduce the cost, the Council needs take that information as fact.
He encouraged the Council to adopt the Police Department budget and decision packages as presented
and utilize advisory groups to provide the Council advice regarding the parking issue using direction
provided by the Council.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 19
Packet Pg. 24
4.2.a
3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ASSUMPTION OF DUTIES OF THE EDMONDS
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained tonight is the date selected and advertised for the public
hearing. Last month the Council adopted a resolution expressing the Council's intent to evaluate the
option of absorbing the duties, responsibilities, assets and liabilities of the Transportation Benefit District
into the City's general government. He recommended the Council absorb the TBD; there are no changes
in the finances, revenues or use of the revenues. This simplifies the administration function of the TDB
which currently functions as a separate government with the same seven as officers for the TBD and the
City Council.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation of the public hearing. There was no one present who
wished to provide comment and Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO FORWARD THIS TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
Council President Johnson recalled a resolution or ordinance attached to the initial TBD that specified the
first $20 would be used for operation and maintenance; she asked if that would be retained under the new
configuration. Mr. Williams did not recall that was changed in the proposed ordinance. How the TBD
revenues are spent is up to the Council; he recommended continuing to allocate the revenues to Fund 111
for street maintenance. City Attorney Jeff Taraday offered to research whether that was addressed in the
proposed ordinance.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE UTILITY RATE ANALYSIS
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the City has been embarked on what began as a six -year
effort to use current revenues for pipe replacement for water, sewer and stormwater. The City is halfway
through that cycle; this discussion last occurred during the 2014 budget discussions in late 2013 when the
Council approved increases for 2014, 2015 and 2016. The current proposal is to continue the increases for
the next three years. Projections for the first three years have been quite accurate. If the City wants to be
independent of debt and save the $50 million in interest incurred by borrowing between now and 2033,
pipe replacement needs to be paid using current revenues instead of borrowing.
Mr. Williams said the only other choice is to reduce the investment in pipe replacements which is
currently 1% per year. Replacing all the pipes will take 100 years and when complete, replacement/rehab
will likely begin again. He acknowledged no one likes to raise rates. He displayed a comparison of
Edmonds' total utility bill with 12 other cities for a customer using 1000 cf of water per month, noting the
average Edmonds customer uses 750 c£
City
Current
2019 projected at 3% for all cities
except Edmonds. Edmonds projected
at recommended rates
Seattle
$227.50
$ 248.60
Kirkland
$159.63
$ 195.83
Lake Forest Park
$162.82
$ 177.92
Shoreline
$154.60
$ 168.93
Woodinville
$150.13
$ 164.05
Arlington
$129.77
$ 141.80
Edmonds
$ 132.25
Mukilteo
$117.60
$ 128.50
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 20
Packet Pg. 25
4.2.a
Redmond
$114.99
$ 125.65
Edmonds
$103.28
Everett
$102.36
$ 111.85
Mountlake Terrace
$ 97.85
$ 106.92
Lynnwood
$ 90.69
$ 99.10
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to a question she submitted to staff about a lower rate increase. Mr.
Williams recalled Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about a 9.5% increase, explaining that would result
in funding going negative in the near future. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the Council consider
the increase next year when things have settled down and the impact of ST3 is known. She suggested
waiting until next year would provide more time to study possibly reducing the increase and borrowing a
little. She expressed concern citizens were being taxed and taxed. Mr. Williams clarified these are rates, a
fee for specific utility services, it is not a tax. The rates include utility taxes which go into the General
Fund. There is a proposal to reduce the water utility tax from 18.7% to 10% over the next 5 years which
will reduce the amount rate payers pay. Most cities adjust their rates annually based on budget discussions
in the fourth quarter but it could be done at any time.
Councilmember Buckshnis envisioned the conversation would be different next year as the Council may
return to committees who can more closely study issues and resolve citizens' concerns. She suggested
waiting until next year, recognizing there may not be four votes to proceed. She asked what happens if the
proposed rate increase was not approved. Mr. Williams answered staff was in the process of developing
the 2017 projects for replacement of water and sewer lines so the discussion is timely. He pointed out the
rate increases are the same as were proposed three years ago. Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged
that, pointing out the City still has bonding capacity. She appreciated the intent to fund pipe replacement
with current revenue but there may not be the votes on Council for the increase.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to chart, observing the $29.97 increase was over a 3-year period, a 3%
increase each year. Mr. Williams clarified the 3% was the amount assumed each other entity would
increase their rates each of the 3 years and that amount was used to compare to Edmonds' rate in 3 years
when Edmonds' rate has been increased more than 3%/year. Edmonds' rates are increasing 9%/year for
water, 9.5%/year for sewer and 10%/year for stormwater. Councilmember Mesaros summarized the total
utility bill for an Edmonds resident using 1000 cf water/month would increase the second year from $103
to approximately $113. Mr. Williams agreed, noting there was a fixed fee for water and a volumetric rate,
using less water only results in a savings in the volumetric rate.
Councilmember Mesaros agreed the City has borrowing capacity but that will cost the City more in the
long run. Replacing 1% of the pipes will not keep up with the demand and he envisioned over 25-30
issues will arise because the pipes are not being replaced faster. He recalled pipes have been dug up in the
City that were much older than originally thought. Mr. Williams said debt is a great tool for large capital
projects but should be used for something other than what is a long term maintenance project to replacing
buried lines. He recalled the Council had agreed funding pipe replacement with debt did not make sense.
Councilmember Tibbott recalled hearing from citizens over the past several months that they appreciate
the City's investment in stormwater infrastructure and the budget includes $4 million in improvements in
2017, near 4 times the amount spent on street resurfacing. Citizens also appreciate the investment the City
is making in other systems such as waste water treatment which all contribute to a better environment,
cleaner water entering Puget Sound, etc. This is an investment the citizens have said they appreciate and
want to prioritize. He supported the philosophical shift supported by the previous Council and
recommended continuing with that course. If the proposed rate increase is approved, the increase in 2017
is $10/month or about $120/year.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 21
Packet Pg. 26
4.2.a
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There was no one present
who wished to provide comment and Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the hearing.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
TO ADD THIS TO NEXT WEEK'S CONSENT AGENDA AND IF ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION
WAS NECESSARY, A COUNCILMEMBER COULD PULL IT FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not support the motion. Edmonds' population has a very high
percentage of seniors, many on fixed incomes and many households are considered the working poor.
Social Security is giving seniors a $4-5/month raise. She realized for some Councilmembers $10/month
was not a lot to spend on something as important as this but she viewed it as a regressive tax that affects
the working poor, the disabled, seniors and those who simply cannot afford it. She did not support this tax
at this time.
At Council President Johnson request, Mr. Williams advised there is a low-income discount available;
customers whose income qualifies can get a significant discount on their utility bill.
To Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' comment that this is a tax, Councilmember Mesaros clarified this is
actually a fee for usage. The assumption on is 1000 cf of water/month; most citizens use 700 cf
water/month and likely many use less than that so the increase would be less than $10/month. Citizens
with economic challenges have the opportunity to apply for the low-income discount. Borrowing money
creates an even greater burden on taxpayers. Mr. Williams commented water usage depends on family
size; a family of 2 may use 400 cf/month instead of 700.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas appreciated Councilmember's views and the fact that there is a discount.
However, the discount does not make utilities free for seniors, people with disabilities and low income
families. In view of the passage of the Sound Transit proposition, the property tax increase the Council
approved and the fact that seniors will receive only a $4-5/month increase, she could not support the
proposed increase.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, MESAROS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday clarified the motion was to move to Consent. There are two ordinances related to this item;
his assumption both were referred to the Consent Agenda. Mayor Earling confirmed.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
10. ACTION ITEMS
1. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW FOR THE MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE PLAY
STRUCTURE VARIANCE (PLN20160043)
Mayor Earling explained the purpose of this closed record hearing is for the City Council to consider the
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on an application for the setback variance for the Meadowdale
Clubhouse play structure. This variance review is a Type IIIB decision; when public projects like this
require a variance, the Hearing Examiner holds a public hearing and makes recommendation to the City
Council. Tonight the Council holds a closed record review and makes the final decision on the variance.
Mayor Earling opened the closed record hearing. The parties of record would normally include the
applicant and any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application and any
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 22
Packet Pg. 27
4.2.a
person who individually submitted written comments concerning the application at the open record public
hearing. In this case the applicant was the City's Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department,
represented by Carrie Hite. Senior Planner Kernen Lien presented the staff report to the Hearing
Examiner on behalf of the Development Services Department. No one else spoke at the open record
public hearing; therefore only Ms. Hite and Mr. Lien will be allowed to present.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires that this hearing be fair in form, substance and appearance.
The hearing must not only be fair but also must appear to be fair. Mayor Earling asked whether any
member of the decision -making body had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents
regarding the issues in this matter outside the hearing process. Councilmembers Nelson, Fraley-Monillas,
Buckshnis, Teitzel, Mesaros, and Tibbott, Council President Johnson and Mayor Earling advised they
have had no communications with either party.
Mayor Earling asked if any member of the decision -making body had a conflict and believed he/she could
not hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner. Councilmembers Nelson, Fraley-
Monillas, Buckshnis, Teitzel, Mesaros, and Tibbott, Council President Johnson and Mayor Earling
advised they had no conflicts and could hear it in a fair and impartial manner.
Mayor Earling asked if any audience member objected any Councilmember's or his participation as a
decision -maker in the hearing. No objections were voiced.
Mayor Earling described the hearing procedures: staff and the applicant would each have five minutes to
present.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE THE PROPOSED HEARING PROCEDURES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Staff
Senior Planner Kernen Lien displayed a site plan of the Meadowdale Clubhouse located on the corner of
N Meadowdale Road and 68th Avenue. He also identified 164th Place SW. There has been a play structure
at the site for 20 years. The structure was non -confirming and was removed. Whatever a non -conforming
structure is removed, the replacement must conform to the zoning standards. As a corner lot, there are 25-
foot street setbacks from N Meadowdale Road, 58th Avenue and the terminus of 164th Place SW. He
reviewed variance criteria:
1. Special circumstances existing
2. Will not be a grant of special privilege
3. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan
4. Consistent with Zoning Ordinance
5. Not detrimental
6. Minimum necessary
Other locations on the site will not work for siting the play structure due to trees and slopes. The structure
was moved as far from the property line as possible and still accommodate the play structure's fall zone.
The variance sites the play structure in the same location it has existed for the past 20 years and there
have been no complaints. The staff report identifies how the application meets the six criteria and the
Hearing Examiner's recommendation details how he felt it met the criteria.
Applicant
Carrie Hite, representing Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department, explained an application was
submitted for a variance for the Meadowdale Clubhouse play equipment. The Department removed the
existing equipment that was deteriorating and unsafe before preschool students started school in
September. The Department applied for a variance on September 2, 2016 and a hearing was scheduled on
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 23
Packet Pg. 28
4.2.a
October 13, 2016. The play area serves the preschool as well as the local neighborhood. It has been in
place for 24 years; the City issued the same variance in 1993 for this same location. There is no other
suitable location on the site. Replacement of the play structure is in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Plan as well as in this year's CIP. The playground provides opportunity for youth to be active, creative,
work as a team, cooperate, have fund and build life skills. She requested the Council accept the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation and approve the variance.
Councilmember Teitzel asked about siting the play structure west of the club house. Mr. Lien answered
that is a critical area, the slopes are approximately 20%. Siting the play structure in that area would
require clearing trees and leveling the space. The trees provide a buffer to the surrounding neighborhood,
making that location more detrimental.
Councilmember Tibbott inquired about the materials used for padding below the play structure. Ms. Hite
answered it is a product called EverLawn and contains no crumb rubber. It is a new playground padding
specifically for preschoolers that is softer and more aesthetic and adds fall protection in fall zones. It is a
pervious surface. Councilmember Tibbott observed the dead-end street to the north provides additional
buffer north of the property line. Mr. Lien said there are no residences at the terminus of 164th Place. He
identified the houses closest to the play structure.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1374, 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. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO VACATE A PORTION 92ND AVENUE WEST STREET
VACATION
Senior Planner Kernen Lien recalled the Council held a public hearing on November 1, 2016 and
requested he return for further discussion regard compensation for properties being vacated. He reviewed:
• ECDC 20.70.140 and RCW 35.79.030 allow the City to seek compensation up to one-half of the
appraised value of the area to be vacated.
• Series of vacations initiated by the City n 1998 (Ordinances 3197-3208) noted that the public
interest outweighed the necessity to require compensation
• 10 vacations since 1998 were identified
0 8 required compensation
■ 5 half the assessed value
■ 3 less than half value due to other site restricts
0 2 did not require compensation
■ Civic Field right-of-way
■ Between 8th & 9th Avenues
He provided the following examples:
• Ordinance 3565 - $67,731
o Area of 219th St SW Street vacation
o City required half of assessed value
• Ordinance 3551 - $62,500
o Daley Street and 8th, subdivided after vacation and residence constructed
o City required half of assessed value
• Ordinance No. 3647 - $7,500
o 8th & Sprague street
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 24
Packet Pg. 29
4.2.a
o City required less than half as property largely undevelopable due to critical area
The resolution of intent in the Council packet includes monetary compensation for half the assessed
value.
Councilmember Mesaros asked the fee the applicant paid for City review. Mr. Lien answered it was
$6,355 which included a SEPA fee of $610 which was refunded as it was exempt from SEPA.
Councilmember Mesaros asked if the fee was ever incorporated in the compensation. Mr. Lien said that
was not specifically identified in the ordinances he researched.
Council President Johnson requested Mr. Taraday comment on the testimony provided by Mr. Reidy
regarding street vacations in Washington. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said during public comment Mr.
Reidy referenced a case, Puget Alumni of Kappa Sigma v. City of Seattle which criticized the City of
Seattle for requiring compensation to offset a street vacation. That case was decided in January 1967 and
at the time RCW 35.79.030 did not provide the express authority it currently does for cities to take
compensation for street vacations. Later in 1967, shortly after that case was decided, RCW 35.79.030 was
amended by the State legislature to expressly provide the authority to require compensation. Cities clearly
have the authority in Washington state to require compensation. From a public policy standpoint, he
pointed out if cities did not have the authority to require compensation, most cities would likely never
vacate streets because there would be very little incentive to do so as well as concern about possibly
needing it in the future. This is the bargaining the legislature has provided, cities are allowed to request
compensation which keeps properties being used efficient because cities no longer have the incentive to
hold onto unused streets.
Council President Johnson said she was concerned the City may need that street in the future. She asked
the church's intended use of the property. The applicant, Westgate Chapel's consultant. Jim Egge, said
the church has no current plans for the right-of-way. The church has been accumulating properties around
its perimeter for a number of years, some of which was converted into additional parking. As the
appraisal indicates there are a number of utilities in the right-of-way so physically nothing can be done
with the property unless the utilities, including a City storm drain system, are moved. The only thing the
church could do would be to accumulate that area into the value and density allowed by ordinance to
increase the yield allowed on the site.
If the intent for the property was to expand parking, Council President Johnson asked if there was any
other arrangement the City could make for parking that would not require vacating the street. Mr. Lien
commented the church expanded parking on the north side some years ago. An analysis of the church's
parking requirements or whether they are meeting the requirements has not been done. Generally parking
is required to be within 500 feet of the use. The church obtained a CUP or variance in the past when they
expanded the parking to 228th. He was not aware of the church's plans for the street proposed to be
vacation. He identified parcels the church owns and a parcel for which they have a first right of refusal.
Councilmember Teitzel relayed his understanding there were 12 vacations in 1998 for which the City
required no compensation because the public interest outweighed the necessity to require compensation.
Mr. Lien agreed there were 12 as well as 2 before those 12 that were initiated by the City Engineer, one
for right-of-way adjacent to the Edmonds Cemetery and the other for 237th Street where Edmonds abuts
Woodway where the right-of-way was vacated but easements were retained for a stormwater facility. No
compensation was required for those two vacations. Of the 10 vacations since 1998, 3 were City initiated,
compensation was required on 1 City -initiated vacation.
Councilmember Teitzel asked if there was any public interest with regard to the proposed vacation such
as the property owner maintaining the stormwater system once the vacation is complete. Mr. Lien said the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 25
Packet Pg. 30
4.2.a
public interest supporting the vacation is the ongoing maintenance responsibilities with the church
assuming ownership of the stormwater facilities and the right-of-way. The appraisal also included a
valuation of the existing pavement on 92°d Avenue and that was not included in staff s recommendation
for compensation. State law would allow the City to seek compensation for the utilities. Mr. Taraday said
State law would also allow the City to recover full value of the property, not just half. Staffs
recommendation is half the appraised value.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the value of the property. Mr. Lien referred to the appraisal in the
packet which considered the number of units based on the RM 1.5 zoning pre and post vacation. He
described the monetary compensation:
• Appraisal based on multi -family as a highest and best use
• Pre -vacation
0 171,191 square feet
0 114 multi -family units (RM-1.5 zone)
o Appraised value of $2,166,000
• Post Vacation
0 191,514 square feet
0 127 multi -family units (RM-1.5 zone)
o Appraised Value $2,355,000
• Staff recommends not vacating the north 1 Ox30 area
• Difference in appraised value is $185,000
If Westgate chose to build housing, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the street could be used as a
driveway. Mr. Lien answered one of the criteria for vacation is that no property will be denied direct
access. He identified a property that has access from 92nd Avenue as well as properties owned by the
church that have access from 92"d Avenue as well as through the church parking lot. If the area were
redeveloped in the future, access easements may need to be established and the vacated area could be
used as a driveway. One of the conditions in the staff report and the resolution is related to fire access
which would be reviewed with any future development.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas supported staff s recommendation as the public policy appeared to treat
everyone in same manner.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1375, 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 CONDITIONS. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON
VOTING NO.
11. STUDY ITEMS
1. DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2017
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the existing fees were determined several years
ago based on a study of the typical times that review of permits took and recognizing some things for
which the Council wanted to provide a lower fee as a public policy. The proposed changes to the fee
schedule considered increases in costs, primarily salaries and benefits and did not include a study of the
time required to process the permit. She highlighted the primary changes:
• Organizational changes to make the fee schedule clearer
• Hourly rate changed from $90 to $100
o Puts Edmonds about in the middle of other cities
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 26
Packet Pg. 31
4.2.a
• Convenience fee of 3% to recover credit card transaction fees
• technology fee increased from $25/permit to $35/permit
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the projected increase in overall revenue and whether it was
included in the 2017 budget. Ms. Hope answered the convenience fee was estimated to provide $15,000
and the additional revenue generated by the fees was included in the 2017 budget. Planning Manager Rob
Chave commented the increases vary; planning fees are based on staff time; revenues are projected to
increase as much as 10%. Building fees which are based on a valuation table are estimated to increase 3-
5%. He commented building revenues are usually more predictable than discretionary permits which vary
wildly from year to year. Most development revenue is from building fees which have less variation.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the $125 sign fee and asked if the efficiency to the City of a permit is
considered in the fee. For example, the City could not previously enforce A -board signs; the permit makes
it easier to enforce, thus is an efficiency for the City. Ms. Hope said State law requires the City to
consider cost recovery and not what enforcement would cost. Councilmember Teitzel summarized there
was no way under State law to net out the efficiency gain. Ms. Hope said under State law the City is
restricted in how the fee is calculated.
Councilmember Mesaros how many people use credit cards to pay their fees. Ms. Hope answered a
sizable portion. She estimated $20,000 in credit card fees were paid from General Fund last year as it was
not included in the budget which also set a limit on the amount that could be charged. With the proposed
convenience fee, customers can charge as much as they want.
Councilmember Mesaros asked if the City paid a fee to deposit a check. Mr. James answered yes, a
minimal amount, 5-6 cents. Councilmember Mesaros asked if customers ever pay in cash. Ms. Hope
answered occasionally for small permit but it was rare. Councilmember Mesaros observed although a fee
is not charged for cash, processing cash required more time than processing a credit card. Ms. Hope said
the City is charged directly for credit card transactions. Councilmember Mesaros suggested because
electronic payment made processing more efficient, the fee for using a credit card be incorporated into the
fee structure rather than charging more to use a credit card. He suggested that be considered for the
future; not penalizing those who make the process more efficient.
Council President Johnson asked if there was a sliding technology fee. She observed a sign code
application would now have a $35 technology fee, the same as a large project. Ms. Hope said large
projects have numerous permits, each with a technology fee.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE THE RESOLUTION FOR THE 2017 FEE SCHEDULE TO CONSENT.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
EXTEND FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE THE SALVAGE OF UNIT 779-POL TO EVERGREEN
ADJUSTMENT SERVICE
Mr. Williams said this is a wrecked police car and this is the necessary step to release the salvage.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
TO FORWARD THIS TO NEXT WEEK'S CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 27
Packet Pg. 32
4.2.a
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported on the successful opening of the holiday market on Saturday even with the
inclement weather. The market will be open on Saturdays through Christmas. He commented on the
holiday lights downtown and encouraged the pubic to visit downtown and enjoy lights.
13. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Teitzel wished Councilmember Mesaros Happy Birthday.
Council President Johnson thanked Councilmembers for agreeing to come an hour early tonight,
especially Councilmember Mesaros who missed his birthday dinner.
Council President Johnson relayed the upcoming agendas are very full and asked Councilmembers to
inform her if they planned to be absent from any meetings for the remainder of the year.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Halloween Howl was great despite the inclement weather. She
relayed the founder of Students Saving Salmon, Rondi Nordal was honored by the Snohomish County
Conservation District as a young environmental leader of the year. Students Savings Salmon received a
$12,000 grant from the Rose Foundation Puget Sound Migration and Restoration Fund for water quality
testing lab costs, lessons by educators, field trips and planting of 400+ trees in Edmonds.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she attended the holiday market. She relayed the League of
Women Voters is hosting a film and discussion regarding Snohomish County and sex trafficking at the
Edmonds Unitarian Universal Church at 8109 244t` Street SW on Thursday, November 17 at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmember Nelson reported on Veteran's Day he was invited to the Fallen Heroes Project dinner by
Michael Reagan, a Vietnam veteran and artist who draws portraits of fall soldiers; he is trying to draw
every soldier killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. He has been doing this for 13 years, has drawn 4,634 portraits,
drawing 2 portraits a day. He is an amazing individual, one of Edmonds finest.
14. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
15. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
16. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 15, 2016
Page 28
Packet Pg. 33
4.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/22/2016
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #222818 through #222898 dated November 17, 2016 for $300,020.91.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #62391 through #62398 and #62405 for $521,613.96,
benefit checks #62399 through #62404 and wire payments of $559,554.49 for the pay period November
1, 2016 through November 15, 2016.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.
Fiscal Impact
Claims $300,020.91
Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $521,613.96
Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $559,554.49
Total Payroll $1,081,168.45
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 11-17-16
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 11-17-16
payroll summary 11-15-16a
payroll summary 11-15-16b
payroll summary 11-15-16c
payroll benefit 11-15-16
Packet Pg. 34
4.3.a
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
222818 11/17/2016 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL
377816
WWTP: 11/14/16 PEST CONTROL
Pest Control Service for:
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Total
222819 11/17/2016 075470 ACCELA INC
INV-ACC19247
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE
001.000.25.514.30.48.00
INV-ACC25212
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE
001.000.25.514.30.48.00
INV-ACC25213
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE
001.000.25.514.30.48.00
INV-ACC25214
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE
001.000.25.514.30.48.00
INV-ACC25215
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE
001.000.25.514.30.48.00
INV-ACC25216
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE
001.000.25.514.30.48.00
INV-ACC25217
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE
001.000.25.514.30.48.00
INV-ACC25728
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGE
001.000.25.514.30.48.00
Total
222820 11/17/2016 072189 ACCESS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
1673317
STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 11/01/1
STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 11/01/2
Page:
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun N
0
a
m
U
73.0(
=a
7.1! :a
80.1! c
m
c
c�
1,350.0( o
0
a
1,350.0(
U
1,350.0( o
0
L
1,350.0( a
1,350.0( coo
m
1,350.0(
r
r
1,350.0( Y
E
1,350.0(
10,800.0(
c
m
E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 35
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
222820 11/17/2016 072189 ACCESS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (Continued)
PO # Description/Account
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
4.3.a
Page: 2
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
U)
0
a
85.0(
Total :
85.0( +.
a�
222821
11/17/2016 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT
10016
MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER Cl-
MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER Cl-
.•
421.000.74.534.80.33.00
111,502.2E
Total :
111,502.2!
222822
11/17/2016 065568 ALLWATER INC
110916039
FINANCE DEPT WATER
c
Water
f°
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
41.4E o
110916040
WWTP: 11/9/16 DRINKING WATER;
Water services (plus rental/supplies
0'
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
42.5E ,
Total:
84.0E f°
U
222823
11/17/2016 074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC
4527401
LEOFF 1 MEDICARE SUPPLEMENT,
w
0
LEOFF 1 Medicare supplemental insL
>
617.000.51.517.20.23.00
1,130.E 1 o
LEOFF 1 Medicare supplemental inSL
a
009.000.39.517.20.23.10
8,373.6� Q
Total :
9,504.3E rn
to
222824
11/17/2016 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC
1600943
WWTP: NPDES TESTING-AMMONV
NPDES TESTING: AMMONIA, FILTEI
m
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
r
180.0( rz.
Total :
180.0( r
r
222825
11/17/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
1988872841
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
Y
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
1.6' .
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT:
f°
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
6.1'
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT:
y
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
6.1' E
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 36
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222825 11/17/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT
4.3.a
Page: 3
�
T:
T:
E
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
a)6.1'
�
6.1' =a
+'
6.0E c
m
0.1E
c�
0.6( 0
CU
0.6( a
E
0.6( 'ca
z
w
0.6( 0
0.5� o
L 0'
a
i
E
5.1( co
0)co
115.9E
m
r
0.5( r4.
r
11.31
�
49.7(
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 37
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222826 11/17/2016 072577 BAURECHT, MAGRIT
222827 11/17/2016 002258 BENS EVER READY
222828 11/17/2016 071348 BERGERABAM
222829 11/17/2016 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC
222830 11/17/2016 066673 BILLS BLUEPRINT INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
1221
`[cZiI:�
316871
8152
8226
8294
8295
539799
4.3.a
Page: 4
c
ca
lid
U
a�
PO # Description/Account Amoun };
U)
BUSINESS RECRUITMENT AD DESI 0
Economic Development business -0)
001.000.61.558.70.41.00 295.0(
Total: 295.0(
INV#13062 - EDMONDS PD
SERVICED 6-5# FIRE EXTINGUIS
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
CLEANED/RECHARGED 4 OF TH
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
Tota
E4MB.SERVICES THRU 11/11/16
E4MB.Services thru 11/11/16
016.000.66.518.30.41.00
Tota
ESGA.SERVICES THRU 10/21/16
ESGA.Services thru 10/21/16
423.200.75.594.35.41.00
E6GA.SERVICES THRU 10/21/16
E6GA.Services thru 10/21/16
423.200.75.594.35.41.00
ESGB.SERVICES THRU 10/21/16
ESGB.Services thru 10/21/16
423.200.75.594.35.41.00
ESJB.SERVICES THRU 10/21/16
ESJB.Services thru 10/21/16
421.200.74.594.34.41.00
Tota
E3DD.COPIES OF CONTRACT DO
E3DD.Copies of Contract Docs
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
E
L
4-
HE
76.0(
( �
60.0(
0
13.3<
I : 149.3: a
E
U
556.8< c
1 : 556.& 0
0
a
Q.
135.9( Q
00
rn
co
8,692.5' "
m
r
r
2,522.1 i r
N
U
1,896.0� E
1 : 13,246.61,
C
m
401.9( t
U
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 38
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
222830
11/17/2016 066673 BILLS BLUEPRINT INC
(Continued)
540617
E3DD.2 SETS OF PLANS
E3DD.2 Sets of Plans
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
Tota
222831
11/17/2016 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC
12529
E6FB.SERVICES THRU OCTOBE
4.3.a
Page: 5
R
FIE
r
Q
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 39
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222836 11/17/2016 075849 CARTER, JEANNE
222837 11/17/2016 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC
222838 11/17/2016 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE
222839 11/17/2016 071389 COASTAL WEAR PRODUCTS INC
222840 11/17/2016 004095 COASTWIDE LABS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
Tota
451503-1610
E4GB.SERVICES THRU OCTOBE
6403 FLEET - TUBE BROOM
Fleet - Tube Broom
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Gutter Brooms (60)
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
4.3.a
Page: 6
R
R
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
0-
2,000.0( a)
I: 2,000.0(
a�
5,867.3( c
: m
957.3( r-
I: 6,824.6( o
0
2 >'
c�
2( 0'
15.8( ,
1 : 15.8E
4-
0
n:
450.0( o
a
Q.
1,323.0( Q
ao
173.7:
Total : 1,946.7! "
m
r
GW2908355-1 FAC MAINT - CLEANING SUPPLIES
Fac Maint - Cleaning Supplies
r
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
r
170.6E
9.8% Sales Tax
Y
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
16.7<
NW2908355 FAC MAINT CLEANING SUPPLIES
Fac Maint Cleaning Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
221.0z
9.8% Sales Tax
m
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
21.6(
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 40
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
222840 11/17/2016 004095 COASTWIDE LABS (Continued)
N W 2908921
222841 11/17/2016 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 54814
222842 11/17/2016 072848 COPIERS NW 1470178
1470179
PO # Description/Account
FAC MAINT POWER RELAY
Fac Maint Power Relay
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Tota
EDMONDS CITY CODE ELECTRO
EDMONDS CITY CODE SUPPLEM
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
Tota
INV#1470178 ACCT#HMH636 - ED
LEASE #IRC5045 10/05 TO 11/04/1
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
INV#1470179 ACCT#HMH636 - ED
5,743 B/W COPIES 10/5 TO 11/04/
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
3,356 COLOR COPIES 10/5 TO 11/
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
Tota
222843 11/17/2016 005965 CUES INC 466874 SEWER CAMERA REPAIRS
Sewer Camera Repairs
423.000.75.535.80.48.00
Tota
222844 11/17/2016 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3318856 E6JC.RFQ ADVERTISEMENT
E6JC.RFQ Advertisement
4.3.a
Page: 7
c
ca
lid
U
a�
_ Amoun };
0
a
am
77.7z 0)
L
=a
7.6,
1 : 515.4 i
m
NI
El
c�
756.0( o
74.0� a
I : 830.0�
M
6 w
0
226.7 1
0
22.2, a
M Q-
1E00
Q
45.9z rn
4/ to
157.7:
r
19.9( r
1 : 472.6: r
N
E
1,420.0( 'M
I: 1,420.0(
r
c
m
E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 41
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222844 11/17/2016 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
222845 11/17/2016 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY
222846 11/17/2016 064531 DINES, JEANNIE
222847 11/17/2016 075468 DRAMA KIDS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
421.200.74.594.34.41.00
3319086 E6MA.INVITATION TO BID AD
E6MA.Invitation to Bid Ad
132.000.64.594.76.41.00
4.3.a
Page: 8
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
U)
0
a
409.5(
a�
L
733.2( 'a
Total : 1,142.7(
a�
OPCERT4--JMcKenzie WWTP: JEANNE MCKENZIE GROUI a0i
Group IV Operator Certification -0
423.000.76.535.80.49.71 50.0(
Total : 50.0( —
0
L
16-3711 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 11/07/201( >'
0
11/07/2016 CITY COUNCIL MINUTE: 0'
5028 DRAMA KIDS
222848 11/17/2016 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 001899
222849 11/17/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001910
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 310.2( ,
Total: 310.2( f°
5028 DRAMA KIDS
5028 DRAMA KIDS
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
PM: SUPPLIES
CLEANING SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM: SUPPLIES
PM: 8 PK BATTERIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Tota
Tota
5-00080 IRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LIN
IRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
U
4-
0
90.0(
90.0( a
Q
00
rn
co
19.9E
m
r
1.9( rZ.
r
r
15.9E Y
1.51 M
I : 39.5( 6
r
�
m
E
t
41.1 1
.r
r
Q
Page: 8
E
Packet Pg. 42
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222849 11/17/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
5-10351 INTERURBAN TRAIL
INTERURBAN TRAIL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
222850 11/17/2016 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR54734
222851 11/17/2016 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
222852 11/17/2016 011900 FRONTIER
222853 11/17/2016 075846 FRONTIER PRECISION INC
4.3.a
Page: 9
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
Total : 82.31 'a
ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02 a
Maintenance for printers 10/21/16 -
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 307.2(
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 30.1' --
Tota
EDH728320
E6JC.RFQ ADVERTISMENT
E6JC.RFQ Advertisement
421.200.74.594.34.41.00
EDH729166
CITY RESOLUTIONS NO. 1372
CITY RESOLUTION NO. 1372
001.000.25.514.30.41.40
EDH729323
LEGAL AD PLN20160046
LEGAL AD PLN20160046
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
Tota
425-712-0423
WWTP: 11/7-12/6/16 AFTER HOU
337.3'
c�
a
E
178.8£ TU
w
0
R
M
295.8z c
a
Q.
63.6z Q
1 : 538.3E 00
co
LI t°
r
71.1E �
r
r
/11
N
83.1.
E
w
AM
1 : 218.7E
m
YS E
t
R
.r
r
a
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 43
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
222853
11/17/2016 075846 FRONTIER PRECISION INC
(Continued)
Centimeter Accurate GPS System
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
Centimeter Accurate GPS System
422.000.72.531.40.49.00
Centimeter Accurate GPS System
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
Tota
222854
11/17/2016 012560 HACH COMPANY
10186543
WWTP: DPD CHLORINE,CHLORI
DPD CHLORINE,CHLORINE
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Tota
222855
11/17/2016 074814 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES INC
32588
E3DB.SERVICES THRU 8/31/16
E3DB.Services thru 8/31/16
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
32744
E3DB.SERVICES THRU 9/30/16
E3DB.Services thru 9/30/16
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
32767
E3FH.SERVICES THRU 9/30/16
E3FH.Services thru 9/30/16
422.200.72.594.31.41.00
Tota
222856
11/17/2016 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL
39343
TREE BOARD CONSULTING
Tree Board Consulting
001.000.62.524.10.41.00
Tota
222857
11/17/2016 074966 HIATT, ELLEN
COE 2016 1109
HOLIDAY WEBSITE DESIGN
Holiday website design
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
Tota
4.3.a
Page: 10
c
ca
lid
U
W
Amoun };
0
a
a)
4,783.9,
a)
L
4,783.9. =5
4-
4,783.9: c
1 : 14,351.71 M
NE C
M
0
3,485.5(
c�
a
341.6'
3,827.11 5
4-
0
M
1,432.6' c
L
a
0.
Q
805.0E • -
ao
rn
to
7,018.4E
9,256.11 r
r
r
N
1,222.3E
1,222.31 E
.5
c
1,000.0( m
I: 1,000.0(
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 44
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222858 11/17/2016 075119 HOPE, SHANE
222859 11/17/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
222860 11/17/2016 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
oct16 TRAVEL/MILEAGE/FOOD
Mileage for 5 meetings
001.000.62.524.10.43.00
food at conference
001.000.62.524.10.43.00
Tota
2878978 WWTP: BIC BLUE MED. PT GEL P
BIC BLUE MED. PT GEL PENS
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
2878999 CLOCK, RECEIPT PAPER, CALEN
Wall Clock, Business Source Recei
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
2879002 POST IT NOTEPADS. TELEPHON
Softalk Microban Telephone Should
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
300-10012841 UNIT E119PR - LED'S
Unit E119PR - LED's
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
300-10015695 SHOP SUPPLIES
Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
300-10015917 UNIT E107PO - SUPPLIES
Unit E107PO - Supplies
4.3.a
Page: 11
E
ca
lid
U
a�
_ Amoun };
0
a
am
278.4,
a�
L
14.9� =a
1 : 293.4'
w
c
El
26.3E cm
0
2.5E
D, ca
a
pt
96.7 0
9.5( o
: 0
er 0
0
47.4E m
Q
4.61
00
Total : 187.3, M
to
r
275.7( r
27.0, to
E
15.4E ca
U
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 45
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222860 11/17/2016 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
222861 11/17/2016 070250 IRON MOUNTAIN 201123211
222862 11/17/2016 075348 JON E OSTLUND, ATTORNEYAT LAW JUNE-SEPT 2016
222863 11/17/2016 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER
222864 11/17/2016 067568 KPG INC
5155 KIDZ LOVE SOCC
5156 KIDZ LOVE SOCC
5157 KIDZ LOVE SOCC
5158 KIDZ LOVE SOCC
92816
222865 11/17/2016 075848 KUOW PUGET SOUND PUBLIC RADIO IN-1161025601
PO # Description/Account
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Tota
10-16 OFF SITE DATA STORAGE
Oct-2016 Off site data storage servi
001.000.31.518.88.41.00
Tota
PUBLIC DEFENSE OBSERVATION
PUBLIC DEFENSE OBSERVATION
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
Tota
5155 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTR
5155 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTR
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
5156 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTR
5156 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTR
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
5157 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTR
5157 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTR
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
5158 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTR
5158 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INSTR
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
Tota
E3DB.SERVICES THRU 9/25/16
E3DB.Services thru 9/25/16
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
4.3.a
Page: 12
c
ca
lid
U
W
_ Amoun };
0
0-
446.3:
43.7z aa)
L
1 : 809.7,
SE d
c
cE
212.7i
1 : 212.7(
U
U
U(
U(
0
0
2,437.5(
1 : 2,437.5( .
ns
U( U
w
U( 0
765.0( >
U( o
( a
340.2( Q
U ( 00
( coo
756.0( "
�
�
r
529.2( r
I: 2,390.4( w
v
E
ca
2,532.1E U
Total: 2,532.1E
m
BUSINESS RECUITMENT RADIO AE E
Business recruitment radio ads for
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 46
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
222865 11/17/2016 075848 KUOW PUGET SOUND PUBLIC RADIO (Continued)
222866 11/17/2016 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC
222867 11/17/2016 073968 MAGER, SARAH
222868 11/17/2016 069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD
222869 11/17/2016 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
222870 11/17/2016 075770 NEOFUNDS BY NEOPOST
PO # Description/Account
001.000.61.558.70.41.40
Tota
20265 expenses
09-16 REIMBURSEMENT FOR EX
09-16 reimbursement for expenses
001.000.36.515.31.41.00
Nov-16
11-16 LEGALS FEES
11-16 Legal fees
001.000.36.515.31.41.00
Tota
Nov 2016
CAFR TRAINING & MILEAGE REI
CAFR Training mileage and per die
001.000.31.514.23.43.00
Tota
16802
LARGE FORMAT SCANNING
Large Format Scanning
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
Large Format Scanning
422.000.72.531.40.49.00
Large Format Scanning
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
Tota
0598178-IN
FLEET FILTER INVENTORY
Fleet Filter Inventory
511.000.77.548.68.34.40
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.40
4.3.a
Page: 13
PE
M
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun
};
_
0
4,000.0(
0-
a)
I: 4,000.0(
a�
_
104.2f
4"
c
m
42,640.0(
r-
I: 42,744.2E
o
0
E
>'
c�
m
0'
143.0<
E
I : 143.W
4-
0
n:
121.4z
a
Q.
121.4z Q
ao
rn
121.4z
1 : 364.3, "
m
r
r
r
32.9E
N
1Z
Total : 36.2•W
12251158 7900044080303286 POSTAGE 10/2C
POSTAGE ADDED TO POSTAGE MP 0
m
001.000.25.514.30.42.00 2,000.0( E
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 47
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222870 11/17/2016 075770 075770 NEOFUNDS BY NEOPOST
222871 11/17/2016 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
Tota
0550173541
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0550173542
YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCK
YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCK
4.3.a
Page: 14
E
Y
Y
Y
c
ca
U
a�
Amoun };
I: 2,000.0( 0
m
m
587.6, 15
ET .•
T a
c
309.2' a)UC
UC
218.7E o
K1
KE a
113.8E
U
113.8E c
I �
YE >
0
113.8E a
E Q-
00
E Q
113.8E
B tO
B
111.61 r
B
r
B r
111.6E w
E
1,394.2: .2
Y
Y c
113.8E E
O �
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 48
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
222871 11/17/2016 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC (Continued)
PO # Description/Account
4.3.a
Page: 15
c
ca
lid
U
a�
_ Amoun };
0
0-
CIVIC FIELD (6TH & EDMONDS) HO
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
113.8E
0550173553 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY
L
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
111.6E
0550173554 MAIN STREET HONEY BUCKET
c
MAIN STREET HONEY BUCKET (PL
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
150.0(
0550173555 MEADOWDALE RD HONEY BUCKE'
MEADOWDALE RD HONEY BUCKE'
o
222872 11/17/2016 075542 NORTHWEST LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 1292
222873 11/17/2016 073896 OLYMPIC BRAKE SUPPLY 2-369111
2-369115
2-369438
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 179.6< j,
PM: SUPPLIES
PM: SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Tota
Tota
UNIT 39 - BRAKE PARTS
Unit 39 - Brake Parts
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
UNIT 39 - OIL SEAL, BRAKE ROT
Unit 39 - Oil Seal, Brake Rotor
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
FLEET RETURNS
Fleet Returns
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
3,857.5, a
E
U
57.0( 0
5.5� o
62.5t a
Q.
Q
OF
00
rn
136.8(
m
13.4' r
r
r
103.0( w
10.1( E
-80.21 c
m
E
-7.8(
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 49
4.3.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 16
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM City of Edmonds
ca
lid
Bank code : usbank
U
W
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun };
222873 11/17/2016 073896 073896 OLYMPIC BRAKE SUPPLY (Continued)
Total:
175.21 a
222874 11/17/2016 075494 OREGON MILITARY DEPT ARB 00967
INV#ARB 00967 - EDMONDS PD (S�
m
2 KOSKI SUITE @ $50 - 5 DAYS
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
500.0(
16 KOSKI FULL @ $40 - 5 DAYS
=
4
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
3,200.0( c
15 KOSKI TWIN @ $30 - 5 DAYS
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
2,250.0(
STARSHIP CLASSROOM @ $50- 4 1
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
200.0( _
(40 PAX) RANGE $ 49 - 4 HOUR
o
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
196.0( a
(40 PAX) RANGE @ $25 - 4 HOUR
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
100.0(
(40PAX) RANGE @ $49 - 8 HOUR
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
390.0( o
(40 PAX) RANGE @ $25 - 8 HOUR
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
195.0( o
(40PAX) RANGE @ $49 - 6 HOUR
a
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
294.0( Q
(40 PAX) RANGE @ $25 - 6 HOUR
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
00
150.0( cco
(40 PAX) RANGE @ $49 - 4 HOUR
v
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
196.0( w
(40 PAX) RANGE @ $25 - 4 HOUR
T"
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
100.0( r
Total :
7,771.0(
222875 11/17/2016 075494 OREGON MILITARY DEPT ARDF0525
INV#ARDF0525 - EDMONDS PD (SV
N
190 BREAKFASTS @ $9.49 9/19-9/,-
E
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
1,803.1( 12
152 LUNCHES @ $9.49 9/19-9/23/1E
r
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
1,442.4£
m
Total: 3,245.51 E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 50
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222876 11/17/2016 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS
222877 11/17/2016 060945 PACIFIC POWER BATTERIES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
3685-236039
UNIT 66 - V BELT
Unit 66 - V Belt
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
3685-238668
FLEET RETURNS
Fleet Returns
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
3685-238670
UNIT 138 - ANTENNA
Unit 138 - Antenna
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
3685-240492
UNIT 400 - BULB
Unit 400 - Bulb
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
3685-240610
UNIT 106 - PARTS
Unit 106 - Parts
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
3685-240621
UNIT 23 - DISC PAD SET
Unit 23 - Disc Pad Set
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
19005807
UNIT E124PO - SUPPLIES
Unit E124PO - Supplies
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
9.8% Sales Tax
Tota
4.3.a
Page: 17
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
59.9E
a�
L
5.8E =a
4-
w
c
4.7E
0
L
0.4 1 Q
Q
00
51.9E 0
5.0E m
r
r
88.7,
N
8.6(
207.7, •�
c�
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 51
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222877 11/17/2016 060945 PACIFIC POWER BATTERIES
222878 11/17/2016 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC
222879 11/17/2016 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC
222880 11/17/2016 075703 PETERSEN, DOUG
222881 11/17/2016 071983 PICKLEBALL STUFF LLC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
19005969
111915
20150296.000-5
110316
19084
222882 11/17/2016 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC K373150
PO # Description/Account
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
UNIT 35 - SUPPLIES
Unit 35 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Tota
UNIT 779 TOWING
Unit 779 Towing
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
Tota
E6CA.SERVICES THRU 10/2/16
E6CA.Services thru 10/2/16
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
Tota
ARBOR DAY TREE PLANTING EVE
Arbor day tree planting event
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
Tota
PICKLEBALL SUPPLIES
SHIPPING AND HANDLING
001.000.64.571.25.31.00
3 JUGS BULLDOG POLYBALL, W
001.000.64.571.25.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.25.31.00
4.3.a
Page: 18
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
1.5' -0a
U
17.0'
4
1.60c
35.5i
c
c�
166.0(
ca
a
16.2
182.21
w
0
�
H
to
270.0( o
1 : 270.0( a
Q.
Q
00
CD76.2(
I: 76M "
m
r
r
r
6.8E
I- Y
39.6(
M
4.5E 6
Total: 51.0(
m
SEWER - STORAGE UNIT ELECT SI E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 52
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222882 11/17/2016 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
222883 11/17/2016 072440 SCORDINO, JOE
222884 11/17/2016 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
Sewer - Storage Unit Elect Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
K381687
SEWER - STORAGE UNIT ELECT
Sewer - Storage Unit Electrical Sup
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
K409601
SEWER - STORAGE UNIT ELECT
Sewer - Storage Unit Elect Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
Freight
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
K685867
WWTP: LIQTIT-100 FT
LIQTIT-100 FT
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
SCO2085
SVC FEES
Svc Fees
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
Tota
7
E7FG.REIMBURSEMENT OF STU
E7FG.Reimbursement of Students
001.000.39.554.90.49.00
Tota
S3-1316829
UNIT 24 - PARTS
Unit 24 - Parts
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
4.3.a
Page: 19
110.0' 'D
RI 4-
p[ c
43.1'
4.2, c�a
SI o
L
1,330.4, a
E
25.9E 'M
U
45
130.3E 0
c�
0
L
124.3, a
Q
12.1E co
CDco
19.9z m
r
2,923.0, �
r
DE
S� Y
280.3E
1 : 280.3i ,E
c�
r
c
m
38.4E E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 53
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
222884 11/17/2016 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC (Continued)
S3-1316897
S3-1321710
S3-1337410
S3-1343057
S3-1343706
S3-1346705
S3-1353432
PO # Description/Account
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
UNIT 24 - TRANS OIL
Unit 24 - Trans Oil
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
UNIT 796 - SPARKPLUG WIRE KIT
Unit 796 - SparkPlug Wire Kit
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
UNIT 51 - PARTS
Unit 51 - Parts
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
UNIT 447 - PULLEY, V BELT
Unit 447 - Pulley, V Belt
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
UNIT 447 - IDLER PULLEY ASSEM
Unit 447 - Idler Pulley Assembly
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
UNIT 51 - FUEL FILTER
Unit 51 - Fuel Filter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
FLEET RETURNS
Fleet Returns
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
4.3.a
Page: 20
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
3.71 4)
U
a�
L
47.4(
4
4.6,
m
68.7(
0
6.7z
ca
a
E
20.0�
1.91 o
c�
0
L
63.8E a
Q
6.2(
00
B rn
to
c
m
-33.9( E
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 54
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
222884 11/17/2016 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC (Continued)
S3-1362881
S3-1383882
S3-1387876
S3-1394856
222885 11/17/2016 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0206758-IN
0206763-IN
PO # Description/Account
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
FLEET PARTS
Fleet Parts
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
UNIT 81 - RESISTOR
Unit 81 - Resistor
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
FLEET RETURNS
Fleet Returns
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
FLEET BRAKE PARTS INVENTOR
Fleet Brake Parts Inventory
511.000.77.548.68.34.40
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.40
Tota
UNIT E108PO - INTERIOR PARTS
Unit E108PO - Interior Parts
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Freight
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
UNIT 183 - FLATLIGHTER
Unit 183 - Flatlighter
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Freight
4.3.a
Page: 21
c
ca
lid
U
W
Amoun };
0
a
am
-3.3,
5D
9.0( 4-
W
c
0.8� M'
c
c�
37.5( o
L
3.6E a
E
-w
0
-5.4;
Y o
a
Q.
215.1E Q
00
21.0E 0
1 : 496.4E
m
r
r
2,404.9
N
Y
511.2(
E
285.7�
r
c
m
196.3( E
R
.r
r
a
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 55
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222885 11/17/2016 068489 SIRENNET.COM
222886 11/17/2016 060889 SNAP -ON INDUSTRIAL
222887 11/17/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
0206987-IN UNIT E124PO - REAR SEAT
Unit E124PO - Rear Seat
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Freight
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Tota
ARV/30407257
FLEET - SMALL TOOLS
Fleet - Small Tools
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
Tota
2002-0255-4
WWTP: 10/5-11/3/16 FLOW METE
WWTP: FLOW METER 2400 HIGH
423.000.76.535.80.47.62
2006-5085-1
CITY PARK RESTROOMS
CITY PARK RESTROOMS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2008-6924-6
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD BLEA
4.3.a
Page: 22
c
ca
lid
U
a�
_ Amoun };
0
a
15.3E
20.7z 4)
L
229.5(
m
41.2E
c�
26.5< o
I: 3,731.65
c�
a
E
243.8. U
4-
0
23.8(
I : 267.7' c
L
Q
R Q-
w a
16.8E 0)
to
m
19.5E r
CF
CF
r
r
40.5E w
E
112.4z .to
6
r
c
16.8E E
S
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 56
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222887 11/17/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
222888 11/17/2016 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
222889 11/17/2016 039775 STATEAUDITOR'SOFFICE
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHT
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2019-2988-2
WWTP: 10/5-11/3/16 FLOW METE
10/5-11/3/16 WWTP FLOW METE
L117248 10-16 AUDIT FEES
10-16 Audit Fees
001.000.39.514.20.51.00
10-16 Audit Fees
111.000.68.543.30.51.00
10-16 Audit Fees
421.000.74.534.80.51.00
10-16 Audit Fees
422.000.72.531.90.51.00
10-16 Audit Fees
423.000.75.535.80.51.00
10-16 Audit Fees
423.000.76.535.80.51.00
10-16 Audit Fees
511.000.77.548.68.51.00
Tota
4.3.a
Page: 23
R
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
S -0)
308.1E
R m
L
£
16.8E
E L
c
E L
34.6,
91 M
9' o
17.4, j,
1 : 583.3' a
E E
U
2,693.0( 0
I: 2,693.0(
0
a
Q.
355.0z Q
00
0)
10.4�
m
129.Z r
r
69.4( r
N
182.7<
E
47.8£ 12
U
r
18.3(
1 : 813.1' E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 57
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.3.a
Page: 24
c
(a
lid
U
a�
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun j
222890
11/17/2016 060167 TEREX UTILITIES
2374552
UNIT 100 - ANNUAL INSPECTION FI
o
Unit 100 -Annual Inspection Fees
a
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
1,576.5<
9.6% Sales Tax
a�
L
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
151.3E =a
Total:
1,727.81
w
222891
11/17/2016 075850 TURLEY, DAVE
Nov 2016
CAFR TRAINING & MILEAGE REIME
CAFR Training mileage and per diem
001.000.31.514.23.43.00
273.8, c�
Total:
273.81 o
222892
11/17/2016 070902 ULVESTAD, KAREN
5068 DIGITAL PHO 201
5068 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY 201
L
5068 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY 201
Q"
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
112.5( .
Total:
112.5( f°
222893
11/17/2016 062693 US BANK
1865
HOME DEPOT - FAC MAINT - BROO
w
Home Depot - Fac Maint - Broom
>
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
5.2( a
Amazon - City Hall - Lighting
Q.
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
45.8' Q
Grainger - Restroom Warning Signs
00
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
188.8: w
Conduit Repair System - Grand Stan(
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
86.1E m
Svc Fees
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
r
5.8( r
1865
AMAZON CREDIT
w
Amazon Credit
Y
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
-55.91 E
1865
W DL -ABSTRACT J SOMERS
(a
W DL -Abstract J Somers
001.000.66.518.30.49.00
13.0(
W DL - Abstract S Brinkley
E
001.000.66.518.30.49.00
13.0(
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 58
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222893 11/17/2016 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
Global Industrial - MCH - Security Ga
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
L&I Permit - PW Yard
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
Svc Fees
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
5179 DIGICERT - SSL PLUS CERTIFICATI
Digicert - SSL Plus Certificate for
001.000.31.518.88.49.00
Reservations. com - Processing fee fc
001.000.31.518.88.49.00
Cisco Learning Network Premium CC
001.000.31.518.88.49.00
ACCIS - Faill conference reservation
001.000.31.518.88.49.00
Reservations. com - Hotel at ACCIS
001.000.31.518.88.43.00
CDW-G - Microsoft Surface Pro, Docl
001.000.31.514.23.35.00
CDW-G - Complete accident protecti(
001.000.31.514.23.35.00
Newegg.com - Premier 12 month mei
001.000.31.518.88.49.00
Bulkregister.com - Domain Name
001.000.31.518.88.49.00
Semiahmoo Resort Hotel - Resort fee
001.000.31.518.88.43.00
BulkRegister.com - Domain Name
001.000.31.518.88.49.00
Newegg.com - Apple TV for IT
001.000.31.518.88.35.00
Newegg.com - WASABI-MANGO ZEP
001.000.31.518.88.35.00
CWD-G - Cisco Aironet 1702i Control
4.3.a
Page: 25
c
(a
hd
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
220.0(
135.3( =5
2.7( c
m
419.0( (tea
0
14.9�
(a
a
450.0(
.5
225.0( U
0
195.6�
0
L
1,700.2£ a
Q
416.2( CO
rn
to
49.9c
m
r
46.2 1
r
16.2£
N
17.9£ E
.5
64.9�
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 59
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222893 11/17/2016 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.31.514.23.35.00
Newegg.com - Intel NUC BOXNUC61!
421.000.74.534.80.35.00
Newegg.com - WASABI-MANGO ZEP
421.000.74.534.80.35.00
Newegg.com - ORICO M31-14 High Sr
421.000.74.534.80.35.00
Digicert - WildCard Plus Certificate
001.000.31.518.88.49.00
Newegg.com - Kingston ValueRAM 81
421.000.74.534.80.35.00
Newegg.com - TRIPP LITE DWM174;
001.000.64.571.21.35.00
Newegg.com - StarTech MSTDP123F
001.000.64.571.21.35.00
Newegg.com - Microsoft Wireless Dis
001.000.64.571.21.35.00
BulkRegister.com - Domain Name
001.000.31.518.88.49.00
Newegg.com - Nippon Labs High SIDE
421.000.74.534.80.35.00
Newegg.com - WASABI-MANGO ZEP
001.000.64.571.23.35.00
Newegg.com - Apple TV for Parks
001.000.64.571.21.35.00
5923 DIVERSITY COMMISSION SUPPLIE
OfficeSpace website for November 2(
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
Diversity Commission refreshments f(
001.000.61.557.20.49.00
Posters for Holiday Market
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
Tourism landing page website for
120.000.31.575.42.49.00
4.3.a
Page: 26
c
(a
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
529.2E -a)
566.9E aa)
L
=a
459.1E
a�
c
14.9E
1,425.0( (tea
0
50.Z L>%
M
a
44.9E
142.31 u
4-
0
74.2� >
0
L
32.3. a
Q
34.9E co
rn
co
409.5�
m
r
74.1 � rz.
r
100.0(
53.0'
38.8 0
m
74.5( t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 60
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222893 11/17/2016 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
8017
222894 11/17/2016 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 6100130
222895 11/17/2016 075496 VALERIE INC
222896 11/17/2016 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC
11142016
PO # Description/Account
ENG CREDIT CARD OCTOBER 20
Hague.Pavement Mgmt Conference
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
E31DD.Construction Notice
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
CAFR REPORTING, GASB SUBSC
GFOA- CAFR reporting
001.000.31.514.23.49.00
GASB - Governmental Accounting
001.000.31.514.23.49.00
MyPlaceToLearn Inc - Government
001.000.31.514.23.49.00
Tota
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCH
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCK
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCK
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCK
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
Tota
MANAGEMENT HOLIDAY MARKE
Management of Holiday Market thru
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
56640 UNIT 779 TOWING
Unit 779 Towing
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
Tota
Tota
4.3.a
Page: 27
Re
T
c
ca
lid
U
a�
_ Amoun };
0
a
1( -0a
283.1(
L
=a
63.0z
R
c
m
505.0(
c�
470.0( o
L
60.0( a
1 : 10,192.2(
TI U
TI 0
73.6:
TI 0
0
73.6: m
TI Q'
Q
75.8 1
I : 00
223.1 i to
l.,
m
r
1,600.0( r
1 : 1,600.0(
N
E
166.0( 'ca
16.2
1 : 18121
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 61
vchlist
11/17/2016 2:11:11PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
222897 11/17/2016 073552 WELCO SALES LLC
222898 11/17/2016 064213 WSSUATREASURER
81 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
81 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
7195
OFFICE SUPLIES
3X WHITE 1" BINDERS
001.000.22.518.10.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.31.00
7202
PAPER FOR NON RES RENEWAL
EARTHCHOICE, 67LB IVORY PAP
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
7204
INV#7204 - EDMONDS PD
PRINTING 3 SETS OF CARDS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
SET UP 2 NAMES
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
Tota
422
NOV 16' SOFTBALL OFFICIALS
18X MENS GAMES
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
4.3.a
Page: 28
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
12.0(
a�
L
1.1£ =a
S
E I
c
40.7z
3.9£ c�a
0
L
60.7: a
E
24.0(
w
8.3' 0
1 : 150.9 i
0
L
a
0.
Q
630.0(
00
Total : 630.0( co
Bank total : 300,020.9' m
r
Total vouchers : 300,020.9' T
N
Y
V
E
V
r
C
d
E
t
V
R
r
Q
Page: 28
Packet Pg. 62
4.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
STM
12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
c484
E5FE
STR
15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
c424
E3DC
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 11/17/2016 Packet Pg. 63
4.3.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 11/17/2016 Packet Pg. 64
4.3.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 11/17/2016 Packet Pg. 65
4.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Protect
Protect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
E5AB
2015 Traffic Calming
STIR
E5CA
c463
2015 Overlay Program
E5CB
Epw
2015 Waterline Overlays
SWR
E5CC
i007
2015 Sewerline Overlays
c474
Bikelink Project
General
E5DB
c478
Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM
E5FB
c467
Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
rSTM
E5FC
1W
Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
STM
E5FD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
STM
E5FE
c48
2th Ave & Sierra StormwatdWstem Improvements
SWR
E5GA
c469
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
SWR
E5GB
0
ke Ballinger Trunk Sewer Stu
WWTP
E5HA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR
E5JA
c468
2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
WTR
E5J13
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
FAC
E5LA
c476
A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers
UTILITIES
E5NA
tandard Details Updates
STIR
E6AA
s014
SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th)
STIR
llff'i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STIR
E6CA
i008
2016 Overlay Program
WTR
i009 7r
2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR
E6CC
i010
2016 Sewerline Overlays
STIR
E6DA
c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STIR
E6DB
s016
ADA Transition Plan
STIR
E6DC
i016
2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STM
E6FA
i011
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
WTA c486
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
STM
E6FC
i012
3rd Ave Rain Gardens
KTM
s017
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
STM
E6FE
c491
183rd PI SW Storm Repairs
WR
i013
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
SWR
c492
2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project
UTILITIES
E6JA
s013
Utility Rate Update
WTR
E6,113
i014
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects ilk
WTR
E6JC
c493
2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project
PRK
E6MA
c480
Veteran's Plaza
PRK
E6MB
c477
FAC Band Shell Replacement
0
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
ayton Street Plaza
PM
E8MA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
Revised 11/17/2016 Packet Pg. 66
4.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Protect
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
PM
E7MA
c276
Dayton Street Plaza
PM
E8MA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STR
E1AA
c342
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STIR
E1 DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STIR
ElCA
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STM
E1 FM
c374
Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM
E1 FIN
c376
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STM
E2FA
c378
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM
E2FB
c379
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM
E2FC
c380
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
SWR
E2GB
c390
2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STIR
E2AA
c391
Transportation Plan Update
STIR
E2AB
c392
9th Avenue Improvement Project
SWR
E3GA
c398
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
STIR
E2AD
c405
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM
E3FC
c408
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM
EYE
c410
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
PRK
E4MA
c417
City Spray Park
WTR
E3JB
c418
224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC
E3LB
c419
ESCO III Project
STIR
E3DB
c423
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STIR
E3DC
c424
15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STIR
E3DD
c425
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STIR
E3DE
c426
ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STIR
E3AB
c427
SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STM
E3FG
c429
Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM
E3FH
c430
SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM
E4FA
c433
2014 Drainage Improvements
STM
E4FB
c434
LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM
E4FC
c435
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM
E4FD
c436
2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STIR
E4CA
c438
2014 Overlay Program
WTR
E4J13
c440
2015 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR
E4GA
c441
2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
FAC
E4MB
c443
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
FAC
E4LA
c444
Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
STIR
E4CB
c451
2014 Chip Seals
WTR
E4CC
c452
2014 Waterline Overlays
STIR
E4DA
c453
Train Trench - Concept
STIR
E4DB
c454
SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing
STM
E4FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR
E4GB
c456
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
STM
E4FF
c459
Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
WTR
E4JC
c460
2016 Water Comp Plan Update
SWR
E4GC
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
Revised 11/17/2016 Packet Pg. 67
4.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
STIR
E4CD
c462
220th Street Overlay Project
STIR
E5CA
c463
2015 Overlay Program
STM
E5FA
c466
2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM
E5FB
c467
Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
WTR
E5JA
c468
2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
SWR
E5GA
c469
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
STIR
E5AA
c470
Trackside Warning System
STIR
E5AB
c471
2015 Traffic Calming
STM
E5FC
c472
Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
WTR
E5KA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
STIR
E5DA
c474
Bikelink Project
WTR
E5CB
c475
2015 Waterline Overlays
FAC
E5LA
c476
AN Upgrades - Council Chambers
PRK
E6MB
c477
FAC Band Shell Replacement
General
E5DB
c478
Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
STM
E5FD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
PRK
E6MA
c480
Veteran's Plaza
WWTP
E5HA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR
E5J13
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STM
E5FE
c484
12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
STIR
E6DA
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STM
E6FB
c486
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
STM
E6FE
c491
183rd PI SW Storm Repairs
SWR
E6GC
c492
2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR
E6JC
c493
2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project
STIR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
SWR
E5CC
i007
2015 Sewerline Overlays
STIR
E6CA
i008
2016 Overlay Program
WTR
E6CB
i009
2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR
E6CC
i010
2016 Sewerline Overlays
STM
E6FA
i011
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM
E6FC
i012
3rd Ave Rain Gardens
SWR
E6GA
i013
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
WTR
E6JB
i014
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
STIR
E6AB
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STIR
E6DC
i016
2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
UTILITIES
E5NA
solo
Standard Details Updates
SWR
E5GB
s011
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
UTILITIES
E6JA
s013
Utility Rate Update
STIR
E6AA
s014
SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th)
STIR
E6DB
s016
ADA Transition Plan
STM
E6FD
s017
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
Revised 11/17/2016 Packet Pg. 68
4.3.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 11/17/2016 Packet Pg. 69
4.3.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Protect Title
Number
Number
STIR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
ElCA
STR
9th Avenue Improvement Project
c392
E2AB
STIR
ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
c426
E3DE
STR
ADA Transition Plan
s016
E6DB
STR
Bikelink Project
c474
E5DA
STR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
i015
E6AB
STR
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
c342
E1AA
STR
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
c405
E2AD
STR
SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
c427
E3AB
STR
SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing
c454
E4DB
STR
SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th)
s014
E6AA
STR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STR
Trackside Warning System
c470
E5AA
STR
Train Trench - Concept
c453
E4DA
STR
Transportation Plan Update
c391
E2AA
SWR
2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
c390
E2GB
SWR
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
c398
E3GA
SWR
2015 Sewerline Overlays
i007
E5CC
SWR
2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
c441
E4GA
SWR
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
c469
E5GA
SWR
2016 Sewerline Overlays
i010
E6CC
SWR
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
i013
E6GA
SWR
2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project
c492
E6GC
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
c456
E4GB
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
c488
E6GB
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
s011
E5GB
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
E5NA
UTILITIES
Utility Rate Update
s013
E6JA
WTR
2014 Waterline Overlays
c452
E4CC
WTR
2015 Waterline Overlays
c475
E5CB
WTR
2015 Waterline Replacement Program
c440
E4JB
WTR
2016 Water Comp Plan Update
c460
E4JC
WTR
2016 Waterline Overlays
i009
E6CB
WTR
2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
c468
E5JA
WTR
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
014
E6JB
WTR
2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project
c493
E6JC
WTR
224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
c418
E3J13
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
E5JB
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
E5KA
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
WWTP
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
E5HA
Revised 11/17/2016 Packet Pg. 70
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 787 (11/01/2016 to 11/15/2016)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
-ed2
REGULAR HOURS
Educational Pay Correction
0.00
-156.28
111
ABSENT
NO PAY LEAVE
40.00
0.00
112
ABSENT
NO PAY NON HIRED
72.00
0.00
121
SICK
SICK LEAVE
715.25
25,587.66
122
VACATION
VACATION
1,045.77
41,299.04
123
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY HOURS
94.75
3,237.80
124
HOLIDAY
FLOATER HOLIDAY
20.00
565.89
125
COMP HOURS
COMPENSATORY TIME
173.98
6,112.36
129
SICK
Police Sick Leave L & 1
141.00
5,487.78
131
MILITARY
MILITARY LEAVE
80.00
2,629.10
132
JURY DUTY
JURY DUTY
24.00
528.14
141
BEREAVEMENT
BEREAVEMENT
41.00
1,791.43
150
REGULAR HOURS
Kelly Day Used
85.00
2,930.36
155
COMP HOURS
COMPTIME AUTO PAY
70.02
2,766.54
157
SICK
SICK LEAVE PAYOFF
168.38
4,165.54
158
VACATION
VACATION PAYOFF
316.31
7,825.16
160
VACATION
MANAGEMENT LEAVE
5.00
239.30
190
REGULAR HOURS
REGULAR HOURS
15,692.58
563,798.18
196
REGULAR HOURS
LIGHT DUTY
107.00
4,144.85
210
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -STRAIGHT
113.65
4,654.28
215
OVERTIME HOURS
WATER WATCH STANDBY
60.00
2,916.26
216
MISCELLANEOUS
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT
15.00
1,423.84
220
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME 1.5
241.50
14,947.11
225
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -DOUBLE
4.50
336.98
410
MISCELLANEOUS
WORKING OUT OF CLASS
0.00
923.14
411
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
0.00
742.56
602
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP
57.00
0.00
603
COMP HOURS
Holiday Comp 1.0
36.00
0.00
604
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP TIME
90.50
0.00
606
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP TIME
10.00
0.00
900
VACATION
ACCRUED VACATION
21.48
0.00
acc
MISCELLANEOUS
ACCREDITATION PAY
0.00
24.95
acs
MISCELLANEOUS
ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT
0.00
145.56
boc
MISCELLANEOUS
BOC II Certification
0.00
84.53
11/17/2016 Packet Pg. 71
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 787 (11/01/2016 to 11/15/2016)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
colre
MISCELLANEOUS
Collision Reconstructionist
0.00
142.14
cpl
MISCELLANEOUS
TRAINING CORPORAL
0.00
147.28
crt
MISCELLANEOUS
CERTIFICATION III PAY
0.00
626.36
ctr
MISCELLANEOUS
CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM
0.00
75.00
det
MISCELLANEOUS
DETECTIVE PAY
0.00
102.75
det4
MISCELLANEOUS
Detective 4%
0.00
989.84
ed1
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 2%
0.00
793.44
ed2
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 4%
0.00
891.06
ed3
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 6%
0.00
5,126.37
fmla
ABSENT
FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAID
46.25
0.00
fmly
VACATION
Family Medical Leave Vacation
19.00
500.24
hol
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY
1,220.80
44,416.50
k9
MISCELLANEOUS
K-9 PAY
0.00
102.75
Iq1
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2%
0.00
888.29
Ig10
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY 5.5%
0.00
396.36
Ig11
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2.5%
0.00
737.53
Iq2
LONGEVITY PAY
LONGEVITY PAY 4%
0.00
842.56
Iq3
LONGEVITY PAY
LONGEVITY 6%
0.00
5,893.68
Iq4
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1 %
0.00
218.33
Iq6
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv .5%
0.00
275.57
Iq7
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1.5%
0.00
967.22
Iq9
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 3.5%
0.00
82.46
mela
ABSENT
Medical Leave Absent (unpaid)
27.47
0.00
mels
SICK
Medical Leave Sick
72.00
2,923.46
melv
VACATION
Medical Leave Vacation
31.05
953.38
mtc
MISCELLANEOUS
MOTORCYCLE PAY
0.00
200.57
pds
MISCELLANEOUS
Public Disclosure Specialist
0.00
47.12
phv
MISCELLANEOUS
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY
0.00
1,972.40
prof
MISCELLANEOUS
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SER
0.00
157.56
sd2.5%
MISCELLANEOUS
SPECIAL DUTY PAY 2.5%
0.00
153.41
sdp
MISCELLANEOUS
SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5%
0.00
207.68
sqt
MISCELLANEOUS
ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT
0.00
157.56
slb
SICK
SICK LEAVE BUY BACK
80.00
3,667.38
str
MISCELLANEOUS
STREET CRIMES
0.00
418.92
11/17/2016 Packet Pg. 72
Hour Type Hour Class
traf MISCELLANEOUS
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 787 (11/01/2016 to 11/15/2016)
Description
TRAFFIC
Hours Amount
0.00 323.67
21, 038.24
Total Net Pay:
$774,550.90
$519,252.61
4.3.c
11/17/2016 Packet Pg. 73
Hour Type Hour Class
191 REGULAR HOURS
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 846 (11/01/2016 to 11/01/2016)
Description
FIRE PENSION PAYMENTS
Hours
Amount
0.00
0.00
1,886.58
$1, 886.58
Total Net Pay: $1,886.58
4.3.d
11/17/2016 Packet Pg. 74
Hour Type Hour Class
190 REGULAR HOURS
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 847 (11/17/2016 to 11/17/2016)
Description
REGULAR HOURS
Hours
Amount
20.00
20.00
572.76
$572.76
Total Net Pay: $474.77
4.3.e
11/17/2016 Packet Pg. 75
4.3.f
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 787 - 11/01/2016 to 11/15/2016
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Check #
Date
Payee #
Name
Check Amt
62399
11/18/2016
chap1
CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE
900.00
62400
11/18/2016
epoa2
EPOA-POLICE
3,042.00
62401
11/18/2016
epoa3
EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT
388.00
62402
11/18/2016
flex
NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
739.99
62403
11/18/2016
teams
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763
4,720.00
62404
11/18/2016
icma
VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884
2,149.81
11,939.80
Bank: wire - US BANK
Check #
Date
Payee #
Name
Check Amt
2474
11/18/2016
awc
AWC
323,883.33
2477
11/18/2016
wadc
WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER
20,326.70
2478
11/18/2016
us
US BANK
109,580.34
2479
11/18/2016
mebt
WTRISC FBO #N3177131
87,310.66
2482
11/18/2016
pb
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION
5,708.16
2483
11/18/2016
flex
NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
158.00
2484
11/18/2016
oe
OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
647.50
547,614.69
Grand Totals: 559,554.49
11/17/2016
.r
.y
O
Direct Deposit
0.00
0.00
i
0.00
0.00
0.00
c
0.00
c
0.00
0
L
Q
Direct Deposit
E
M
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
L
a
0.00
Q
0.00
Go
am
0.00
W
v
co
0.00
r
a+
N
C
d
O
L
Q
d
E
t
V
a
Q
Packet Pg. 76
4.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/22/2016
Authorization for Mayor to sign an Ordinance Adopting the 2016 Traffic Impact Fees and new Section
3.36 of ECC
Staff Lead: Phil Williams
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On November 2, 2015, the City Council had further discussion on the proposed 2015 traffic impact fees.
On October 13, 2015, staff presented the updated 2015 Traffic Impact Fees to Council.
On September 20, 2016, staff presented the updated 2016 Traffic Impact Fees to Council.
On November 1, 2016, a public hearing was held on the 2016 Traffic Impact Fees.
Staff Recommendation
Authorize the Mayor to sign an Ordinance Adopting the 2016 Traffic Impact Fees and new Section 3.36
of ECC.
Narrative
As part of the presentation on November 1, 2016, staff provided the following recommendations based
on City Council direction from previous meetings:
Raise Impact fee to $5,530 per PM peak hour trip
Fee to be phased over 3 equal annual steps through 2019
$2,543 in 2017
$4,037 in 2018
$5,530 in 2019
Implement a low income housing discount program up to 80% for qualified projects.
The attached red -lined ordinance (Exhibit B) provides a low-income housing discount of 80% on
transportation impact fees. To qualify for the discount, low-income housing is defined as "housing
affordable to, and occupied by, a household whose income does not exceed eighty (80) percent of area
median income as reported by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for
the Seattle -Bellevue metropolitan area." Snohomish County is in the Seattle -Bellevue Metropolitan
Statistical Area for establishing area median incomes.
Affordable in the low-income housing definition is defined as "the combined monthly cost of the
housing, including rent, utilities, and other charges for the applicable unit, may not exceed thirty -
percent of the household's monthly income, adjusted for family size."
Packet Pg. 77
4.4
A developer who uses the discount will be required to record a covenant that prohibits using the low-
income housing units for any purpose other than for low-income housing. The covenant will also
require the property owner to submit an annual report to the City that shows the low-income units
being rented in compliance with the low-income provisions.
BACKGROUND:
The traffic impact fee rate is updated during the adoption of the Transportation Plan (approximately
every six years). The rate is determined by identifying all the intersections operating below the City's
Level of Standards (LOS D), determining their total costs, and identifying the total number of projected
growth trips. In 2010 following the adoption of the 2009 Transportation Plan, a traffic impact fee of
$1,049.41 per trip was adopted. The 2015 Transportation Plan was adopted in 2015 and the proposed
updated fee was $5,530 per trip. During the November 2, 2015 Council meeting, this rate was compared
with nearby jurisdictions and several alternatives were presented on how this new rate could be
implemented. As shown in the new section of the ECC (modified from Section18.82 to Section 3.36), a
phased increase over a 3-year period (_> increase of $1,493.60 / year) is being proposed, reaching the
calculated amount of $5,530 per trip by 2019.
The traffic impact fees for the most commonly used land use categories in Edmonds are provided in a
table in Section 3.36.125. For all properties within the Downtown Business District (BD zone), the
Specialty Retail ITE land use category will now apply when calculating the traffic impact fees (Land Use
Code 814). Previously a business within this zone might have been identified as a sit-down restaurant,
general office, specialty retail, or other. This change provides a unified approach to charging impact fees
throughout the downtown core. City Code Section 3.36.040 Exemptions was revised to clarify that the
exemption from impact fees applied when a structure is replaced with a structure of similar size when a
building permit application is submitted to the City within 12 months of demolition. The previous code
language stated the 12 month period of time was from demolition of the structure to replacement of
the structure.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance
Exhibit B - Redlined Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance
Packet Pg. 78
4.4.a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADDING THE IMPACT FEE PROVISIONS TO
THE NEW SECTION 3.36 OF THE ECC; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Section 18.82 of the Edmonds City Code ("Traffic Impact Fee"
Section) has been moved to a new Section of the Edmonds City Code (Section 3.36);
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds updated the Transportation Plan in 2015 and a
revised traffic impact fee is being proposed with a phased increase over the next three years;
WHEREAS, the land use category for any property in the Downtown Business (BD)
zone used for the purpose of calculating the traffic impact fee will be Specialty Retail (ITE Land
Use Code of 814); NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. New Section 3.36 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "IMPACT FEES," will
read as follows (text added to previous Section ECC 18.82 is shown as underlined; deleted text is
shown as stfikethfoug ):
Chapter 3.36
IMPACT FEES
Sections:
3.36.010
Findings and authority.
3.36.020
Definitions.
3.36.030
Assessment and payment of impact fees.
3.36.040
Exemptions.
3.36.050
Credits.
3.36.060
Tax adjustments.
3.36.070
Appeals.
3.36.080
Establishment of impact fee accounts.
3.36.090
Refunds.
-1-
Packet Pg. 79
4.4.a
3.36.100 Use of funds.
3.36.110 Review.
3.36.120 Park impact fee rates.
3.36.125 Street impact fee rates.
3.36.130 Independent fee calculations.
3.36.140 Existing authority unimpaired.
3.36.150 Procedures guide.
3.36.160 Deferral system for single-family residences.
3.36.010 Findings and authority.
The city council of the city of Edmonds (the "council") hereby finds and determines that new growth and
development in the city of Edmonds will create additional demand and need for public facilities in the city of
Edmonds, and the council finds that new growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of new
facilities needed to serve the new growth and development.
The city of Edmonds has conducted extensive studies documenting the procedures for measuring the impact of new
developments on public facilities, has prepared the rate study and procedures guide for park impact fees, has prepared
the rate study and procedures guide for transportation impact fees, and hereby incorporates these studies into this title
by reference. Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW, the council adopts the ordinance codified in this chapter to
assess impact fees for parks and streets. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed in order to carry
out the purposes of the council in establishing the impact fee program. These fees can and will only be applied to
projects resulting from city-wide development growth. These fees cannot be used to mitigate existing shortfalls of the
park system or street system. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013].
3.36.020 Definitions.
The following words and terms shall have the following meanings for the purposes of this chapter unless the context
clearly requires otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined herein shall be defined pursuant to RCW 82.02.090 and
ECDC Title 21 or given their usual and customary meaning.
A. "Accessory dwelling unit" is defined in ECDC 21.05.015.
B. "Building permit" means an official document or certification which is issued by the building official and which
authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection,
demolition, moving or repair of a building or structure.
C. "Capital facilities plan" means the capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive plan adopted by the city of
Edmonds pursuant to Chapter 36.70A RCW, and such plan as amended. There are many references in state statutes to
the "capital facilities plan" (CFP) as the basis for projects that are eligible for funding by impact fees. The parks
element of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan fulfills the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 et seq., pertaining to
a "capital facilities plan," and is considered to be the "capital facilities plan" (CFP) for the purpose of Edmonds'
impact fees for parks. The transportation element of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan fulfills the requirements
of RCW 82.02.050 et seq., pertaining to a "capital facilities plan," and is considered to be the "capital facilities plan"
(CFP) for the purpose of Edmonds' impact fees for streets. Depending on the context, references to a CFP in the
impact fee chapter, rate study, and procedures guide are interpreted as referring to either the parks element of the city
of Edmonds comprehensive plan or the transportation element of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan, including
the projects eligible for impact fees listed in Appendix C of the procedures guide for the transportation impact fees.
D. "City" means the city of Edmonds.
E. "Council" means the city council of the city of Edmonds.
F. "Department" means the development services department.
G. "Development activity" means any construction, expansion, or change in the use of a building or structure that
creates additional demand and need for public facilities.
H. "Development approval" means any written authorization from the city of Edmonds which authorizes the
commencement of a development activity.
I. "Director" means the director designated by the mayor to administer the impact fee program or that director's
designee.
J. "Dwelling unit" is defined in ECDC 21.20.050.
K. "Encumbered" means to reserve, set aside, or otherwise earmark the impact fees in order to pay for commitments,
contractual obligations, or other liabilities incurred for public facilities.
L. "Feepayer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated association, or any other similar entity, or
department or bureau of any governmental entity or municipal corporation commencing a land development activity
which creates the demand for additional capital facilities, and which requires the issuance of a building permit.
"Feepayer" includes an applicant for an impact fee credit.
-2-
Packet Pg. 80
4.4.a
M. Reserved.
N. "Hearing examiner" is defined in ECDC 21.40.010.
O. "Impact fee" means a payment of money imposed by the city of Edmonds on development activity pursuant to this
chapter as a condition of granting development approval in order to pay for the public facilities needed to serve new
growth and development. "Impact fee" does not include a reasonable permit fee, an application fee, the administrative
fee for collecting and handling school impact fees, the cost of reviewing independent fee calculations or any other
charge or fee based upon the administrative costs of processing a development application.
P. "Impact fee account" or "account" means the account(s) established for each type of public facility for which
impact fees are collected. The accounts shall be established pursuant to ECC 3.36.080 and 3.36.090 and comply with
the requirements of RCW 82.02.070.
Q. "Independent fee calculation" means the impact fee calculation and/or economic documentation prepared by a
feepayer to support the assessment of an impact fee other than by the use of the rates listed in ECC 3.36.120 and
3.36.125, or the calculations prepared by the director where none of the fee categories or fee amounts in ECC
3.36.120 and 3.36.125 accurately describe or capture the impacts of the new development on public facilities.
R. "Interest" means the average interest rate earned in the last fiscal year by the city of Edmonds.
S. "Low-income Housing" means housing affordable to, and occupied by, a household whose income does not
exceed eighty (80) percent of area median income as reported by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development for the Seattle -Bellevue metropolitan area. To be considered affordable, for the purpose of this
definition, the combined monthly cost of the housing, including rent, utilities, and other charges for the applicable
unit, may not exceed thirty -percent of the household's monthly income, adjusted for family size.
T. "Occupancy permit" means the permit issued by the city of Edmonds authorizing the building to be occupied
where a development activity results in a change in use of the preexisting structure, or the creation of a new use
where none previously existed.
U. "Owner" means the owner of record of real property, or a person with an unrestricted written option to purchase
property; provided, that if the real property is being purchased under a recorded real estate contract, the purchaser
shall be considered the owner of the real property.
V. "Procedures guide" means the administrative guidance document prepared by the director pursuant to ECC
3.36.150.
W. "Project improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service
for a particular development or users of the project and are not system improvements. No improvement or facility
included in a capital facilities plan adopted by the council shall be considered a project improvement.
X. "Public facilities" means the public parks, open space and recreation facilities owned by the city of Edmonds or
other governmental entities in the context of the park impact fee and means the public streets and roads owned by the
city of Edmonds or other governmental entities in the context of the street impact fee.
Y. "Rate study" means the "Rate Study for Impact Fees for Parks, Open Space and Recreation Facilities," city of
Edmonds, dated July 12, 2013, in the context of the park impact fee and means the "Rate Study for Impact Fees for
Roads," city of Edmonds, dated October 29, 2009, in the context of the street impact fee.
Z. "Residential" or "residential development" means all types of construction intended for human habitation. This
shall include, but is not limited to, single-family, duplex, triplex, and other multifamily development. This also
includes the residential portion of mixed -use developments.
AA. Reserved.
BB. "Service area" means the entire corporate limits of the city of Edmonds.
CC. "Significant past tax payment" means taxes exceeding five percent of the amount of the impact fee, and which
were paid prior to the date the impact fee is assessed and were earmarked or proratable to the same system
improvements for which the impact fee is assessed.
DD. Reserved.
EE. "State" means the state of Washington.
FF. Reserved.
GG. "System improvements" means public facilities that are included in the city of Edmonds capital facilities plan
and are designed to provide service to service areas within the community at large, in contrast to project
improvements. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013].
3.36.030 Assessment and payment of impact fees.
A. Required. The city shall collect impact fees, based on the rates in ECC 3.36.120 and 3.36.125, from any applicant
seeking development approval from the city for any development activity within the city as provided herein,
including the expansion of existing structures or uses or change of existing uses that creates additional demand for
public facilities.
-3-
Packet Pg. 81
4.4.a
1. For the purposes of this chapter, development activity shall not include miscellaneous improvements that do
not add any demand for public facilities, including, but not limited to, fences, walls, swimming pools accessory
to a residential use, and signs.
2. For the purposes of this chapter, development activity shall not include replacement of a residential structure
with a new residential structure of the same type at the same site or lot when such replacement occurs within 12
months of the demolition or destruction of the prior residential structure. Replacement of a residential structure
with a new residential structure of the same type shall be interpreted to include any residential structure for
which there is no increase in the number of residential units.
3. For the purposes of this chapter, development activity shall not include alterations, expansions, enlargement,
remodeling, rehabilitation or conversion of an existing dwelling unit where no additional dwelling units are
created and the use is not changed. Note: accessory dwelling units (ADU) are not considered to create additional
dwelling units because ECDC 20.21.020 does not consider ADUs as increasing the overall density of a single-
family residential neighborhood.
B. Timing and Calculation of Fees. Impact fees shall be assessed based upon the impact fee rates in effect at the time
of issuance of the building permit, including but not limited to change of use permit or remodel permit.
1. For a change in use of an existing building or dwelling unit, including any alteration, expansion, replacement
or new accessory building, the impact fee shall be the applicable impact fee for the new use, less an amount
equal to the applicable impact fee for the prior use.
2. For mixed use developments, impact fees shall be imposed for the proportionate share of each land use based
on the applicable measurement in the impact fee rates set forth in ECC 3.36.120 and 3.36.125.
3. Where the impact fees imposed are determined by the square footage of the development, the building official
will establish the gross floor area created by the proposed development.
4. Applicants that have been awarded credits prior to the submittal of the complete building permit application
pursuant to ECC 3.36.050 shall submit, along with the complete building permit application, a copy of the letter
or certificate prepared by the director pursuant to ECC 3.36.050 setting forth the dollar amount of the credit
awarded.
5. Applicants shall pay an administrative fee that covers the cost of staff time in administering the impact fee
program. The amount of the administrative fee shall be established and updated from time to time by resolution
of the city council.
C. Payment. Unless deferred pursuant to ECC 3.36.160, impact fees shall be paid at the time the building permit or
business license is issued by the city. The department shall not issue the required building permit or business license
or other approval unless and until the impact fees set forth in ECC 3.36.120 and 3.36.125 have been paid in the
amount that they exceed exemptions or credits provided pursuant to ECC 3.36.040 or 3.36.050; provided, that
building permits may be issued without impact fee payment when payment is deferred in accordance with ECC
3.36.160. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013].
3.36.040 Exemptions.
A. Except as provided for below, the following shall be exempted from the payment of all impact fees under this
chapter:
1. Alteration of an existing nonresidential structure that does not involve a change in use and does not expand
the usable space or add any residential units;
2. Miscellaneous improvements that do not expand usable space or add any residential units, including, but not
limited to, fences, walls, swimming pools, and signs;
3. Demolition or moving of a structure;
4. Expansion of an existing structure that results in the addition of 100 square feet or less of gross floor area;
5. Replacement of a structure with a new structure of the same size and use at the same site or lot when a
building permit application for such replacement is submitted to the City within 12 months of the demolition or
destruction of the prior structure. Replacement of a structure with a new structure of the same size shall be
interpreted to include any structure for which the gross square footage of the building will not be increased by
more than 100 square feet; or
6. Alterations, expansions, enlargement, remodeling, rehabilitation or conversion of an existing dwelling unit
where no additional dwelling units are created and the use is not changed (accessory dwelling units (ADU) are
not considered to create additional dwelling units because ECDC 20.21.020 does not consider ADUs as
increasing the overall density of a single-family residential neighborhood, and because the city's traffic model
does not assign additional trips to the network as a result of ADUs).
B. Low-income housing units shall be exempt from paying eighty percent of the street impact fees to the extent the
units satisfy this subsection. Such exemption shall be conditioned upon the developer recording a covenant that
Q
Packet Pg. 82
4.4.a
prohibits using the low-income housing units for any purpose other than for low-income housing. At a minimum, the
covenant must address price restrictions and household income limits for the low-income housing development, and
that if the property is converted to a use other than for low-income housing, the property owner must pay the
applicable impact fees in effect at the time of conversion. The covenant shall also require the owner to submit an
annual report to the city along with supporting documentation that shows that the low-income units are continuing to
be rented in compliance with the covenant. The covenant shall be an obligation that runs with the land upon which
the housing is located. The covenant shall be in a form acceptable to the city attorney and shall be recorded upon the
developer's payment of the remaining twenty percent of the street impact fee.
C. Except as provided for below, the following shall be exempted from the payment of park impact fees under this
chapter:
1. Low-income housing provided by nonprofit organizations such as, but not limited to, Habitat for Humanity.
Owners of low-income single-family dwelling units, condominiums and other low-income housing shall execute
and record a lien against the property, in favor of the city, for a period of 10 years guaranteeing that the dwelling
unit will continue to be used for low-income housing or that impact fees from which the low-income housing is
exempted, plus interest, shall be paid. The lien against the property shall be subordinate only to the lien for
general taxes. In the event that the development is no longer used for low-income rental housing, the owner shall
pay the city the impact fee from which the owner or any prior owner was exempt, plus interest at the statutory
rate. Any claim for an exemption for low-income owner occupied housing must be made no later than the time
of application for a building permit. Any claim not so made shall be deemed waived.
CD. The director shall be authorized to determine whether a particular development activity falls within an exemption
identified in this section, in any other section, or under other applicable law. Determinations of the director shall be in
writing and shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ECC 3.36.070. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord.
3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013].
3.36.050 Credits.
A. Pursuant to the requirement of RCW 82.02.060(4), a feepayer shall be entitled to a credit for the value of any
dedication of land for, improvement to, or new construction of any system improvements provided by the feepayer, to
facilities that are identified in the capital facilities plan and that are required by the city as a condition of approving
the development activity.
B. The director shall determine if requests for credits meet the criteria in subsection (A) of this section.
C. For each request for a credit or credits, the director shall select an appraiser or the feepayer may select an
independent appraiser acceptable to the director.
D. The appraiser must be prequalified by the city and shall not have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property
being appraised. A description of the appraiser's certification shall be included with the appraisal, and the appraiser
shall certify that he/she does not have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised.
E. The appraiser shall be directed to determine the total value of the dedicated land, improvements, and/or
construction provided by the feepayer on a case -by -case basis.
F. The feepayer shall pay for the cost of the appraisal or request that the cost of the appraisal be deducted from the
credit which the director may be providing to the feepayer, in the event that a credit is awarded.
G. After receiving the appraisal, the director shall provide the applicant with a letter or certificate setting forth the
dollar amount of the credit, the reason for the credit, the legal description of the site donated where applicable, and
the legal description or other adequate description of the project or development to which the credit may be applied.
The applicant must sign and date a duplicate copy of such letter or certificate indicating his/her agreement to the
terms of the letter or certificate, and return such signed document to the director before the impact fee credit will be
awarded. The failure of the applicant to sign, date, and return such document within 60 calendar days shall nullify the
credit.
H. No credit shall be given for project improvements required of the development by city code and/or SEPA; only
dedications in excess of those required by law are eligible for credit. In no event shall this provision be interpreted to
authorize cash payment. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to limit the discretion of the city council to decline to
accept any proposed dedication.
I. A feepayer can request that a credit or credits for impact fees be awarded to him/her for significant past tax
payments. For each request for a credit or credits for significant past tax payments for impact fees, the feepayer shall
submit receipts and a calculation of past tax payments earmarked for or proratable to the particular system
improvement. The director shall determine the amount of credits, if any, for significant past tax payments for public
facilities.
J. Any claim for credit must be made no later than 20 calendar days after the submission of an application for a
building permit. The failure to timely file such a claim shall constitute a final bar to later request any such credit.
-5-
Packet Pg. 83
4.4.a
K. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in
ECC 3.36.070.
L. A feepayer may, in the alternative, appeal an assessment or mitigation requirement which he believes exceeds the
total which may lawfully be imposed. See ECDC 18.50.020(C). [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh.
A), 2013].
3.36.060 Tax adjustments.
Pursuant to and consistent with the requirements of RCW 82.02.060, the rate study has provided adjustments for
future taxes to be paid by the new development which are earmarked or proratable to the same new public facilities
which will serve the new development. The impact fee rates in ECC 3.36.120 and 3.36.125 have been reasonably
adjusted for taxes and other revenue sources which are anticipated to be available to fund public improvements. [Ord.
4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013].
3.36.070 Appeals.
A. Any feepayer may pay the impact fees imposed by this chapter under protest in order to obtain a building permit.
B. Appeals regarding the amount of the impact fee imposed on any development activity may only be filed by the
feepayer of the property where such development activity will occur. This provision shall control over any other
provisions of city ordinance.
C. The feepayer must first file a request for review regarding impact fees with the director, as provided herein:
1. The request shall be in writing on the form provided by the city;
2. The request for review by the director shall be filed within 14 calendar days of the feepayer's payment of the
impact fees at issue. The failure to timely file such a request shall constitute a final bar to later seek such review;
3. An administrative fee will be imposed for the request for review by the director; this shall be the same as that
imposed for a request for reconsideration of a staff decision;
4. The director shall issue his/her determination in writing within 14 days from the receipt of a request for
review.
D. Determinations of the director with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity,
the availability or value of a credit, or the director's decision concerning the independent fee calculation which is
authorized in ECC 3.36.130, or the fees imposed by the director pursuant to ECC 3.36.120 and 3.36.125, or any other
determination which the director is authorized to make pursuant to this chapter, can be appealed to the hearing
examiner.
E. The decision of the director may be appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II decision. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att.
A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013].
3.36.080 Establishment of impact fee accounts.
A. Impact fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and deposited in special interest -bearing accounts.
B. There is hereby established a separate impact fee account for the park impact fees collected pursuant to this
chapter, the park impact account. There is also hereby established a separate impact fee account for the street impact
fees collected pursuant to this chapter, the street impact account. Funds withdrawn from these accounts must be used
in accordance with the provisions of ECC 3.36.100 and applicable state law. Interest earned on the fees shall be
retained in the respective accounts and expended for the purposes for which the impact fees were collected.
C. On an annual basis, the finance director shall provide a report to the council on the impact fee accounts showing
the source and amount of all monies collected, earned, or received, and the public improvements that were financed
in whole or in part by impact fees.
D. Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered within 10 years of receipt, unless the council identifies in written
findings extraordinary and compelling reason or reasons for the city to hold the fees beyond the 10-year period.
Under such circumstances, and prior to the expiration of the 10-year period, the council shall establish the period of
time within which the impact fees shall be expended or encumbered. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1
(Exh. A), 2013].
3.36.090 Refunds.
A. If the city fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within 10 years of when the fees were paid or, where
extraordinary or compelling reasons exist, such other time periods as established pursuant to ECC 3.36.080, the
current owner of the property on which impact fees have been paid may receive a refund of such fees. In determining
whether impact fees have been expended or encumbered, impact fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on
a first -in, first -out basis.
B. The city shall notify potential claimants by first class mail that they are eligible for an impact fee refund. This
notification shall be done by first class mail deposited with the United States Postal Service at the last known address
of such claimants. A potential claimant must be the owner of the property.
Q
Packet Pg. 84
C. Owners seeking a refund of impact fees must submit a written request for a refund of the fees to the director within
one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever is later.
D. Any impact fees for which no application for a refund has been made within this one-year period shall be retained
by the city and expended on the appropriate public facilities.
E. Refunds of impact fees under this section shall include any interest earned on the impact fees by the city.
F. When the city seeks to terminate any or all components of the impact fee program, all unexpended or
unencumbered funds from any terminated component or components, including interest earned, shall be refunded
pursuant to this section. Upon the finding that any or all fee requirements are to be terminated, the city shall place
notice of such termination and the availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two times and
shall notify all potential claimants by first class mail at the last known address of the claimants. All funds available
for refund shall be retained for a period of one year.
At the end of one year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the city, but must be expended for the appropriate
public facilities. This notice requirement shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered balances within
the account or accounts being terminated.
G. The city shall also refund to the current owner of property for which impact fees have been paid, including interest
earned on the impact fees, if the development activity for which the impact fees were imposed did not occur;
provided, that if the city has expended or encumbered the impact fees in good faith prior to the application for a
refund, the director can decline to provide the refund. If within a period of three years, the same or subsequent owner
of the property proceeds with the same or substantially similar development activity, the owner can petition the
director for an offset. The petitioner must provide receipts of impact fees previously paid for a development of the
same or substantially similar nature on the same property or some portion thereof. Determinations of the director
shall be in writing and shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ECC 3.36.070. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Art. A),
2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013].
3.36.100 Use of funds.
A. Pursuant to this chapter, impact fees:
1. Shall be used for public improvements that will reasonably benefit new development; and
2. Shall not be imposed to make up for deficiencies in public facilities serving existing developments; and
3. Shall not be used for maintenance or operations.
B. Impact fees may be spent for public improvements, including, but not limited to, planning, engineering, surveying,
land acquisition, right-of-way acquisition, site improvements, necessary off -site improvements, construction,
architectural, permitting, financing, and administrative expenses, applicable impact fees or mitigation costs, and any
other expenses which can be capitalized.
C. Impact fees may also be used to recoup public improvement costs previously incurred by the city to the extent that
new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed improvements or incurred costs.
D. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are or have been issued for the advanced provision of public
improvements for which impact fees may be expended, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or
similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities or improvements provided are consistent with the
requirements of this section and are used to serve the new development. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1
(Exh. A), 20131.
3.36.110 Review.
The fee rates set forth in ECC 3.36.120 and 3.36.125 may be reviewed and adjusted by the council as it deems
necessary and appropriate in conjunction with the annual update of the capital facilities plan element of the city's
comprehensive plan. The fee rates may be adjusted 12 months after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this
chapter, or 12 months after the most recent review by the council.
The council may determine the amount of any adjustment up or down and revise the fee rates set forth in ECC
3.36.120 and 3.36.125. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013].
3.36.120 Park impact fee rates.
The park impact fee rates in this section are generated from the formula for calculating impact fees set forth in the
rate study, which is incorporated herein by reference. Except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations
in ECC 3.36.130, exemptions in ECC 3.36.040 and credits in ECC 3.36.050, all new developments in the city will be
charged the park impact fee applicable to the type of development as follows:
A. Effective October 1, 2014:
1. Single-family house: $2,734.05 per dwelling unit.
2. Multifamily residential housing: $2,340.16 per dwelling unit.
3. Nonresidential development: $1.34 per square foot. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Art. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A),
2013].
-7-
Packet Pg. 85
4.4.a
3.36.125 Street impact fee rates.
The street impact fee rates in this section are generated from the formula for calculating impact fees set forth in the
rate study, which is incorporated herein by reference. Except as otherwise provided for herein, all new developments
in the city will be charged the street impact fee applicable to the type of development as follows in the table below.
For properties zoned BD - Downtown Business, an ITE Land Use Code of 814 - Specialty Retail shall be applied.
2016
2017
2018
(w/
(with
(w/
2019 and
$1,049.41
$2,543.01
4,036.61
beyond (w/
Fee
cost per
cost per
cost per
$5,530.21
ITE Land Use Code - Description
Calculation
trip)
trip)
trip)
cost per trip)
per square
110 - Light Industrial
foot
$1.50
$3.64
$5.77
$7.91
per square
140 - Manufacturing
foot
$1.12
$2.72
$4.32
$5.92
per square
151 - Mini -warehouse
foot
$0.40
$0.97
$1.54
$2.10
per dwelling
210 - Single-family house
unit
$1,196.33
$2,873.60
$4,561.37
$6,249.14
per dwelling
220 - Apartment
unit
$776.56
$1,881.83
$2,987.09
$4,092.36
per dwelling
230 - Condominium
unit
$629.65
$1,525.81
$2,421.97
$3,318.13
per dwelling
240 - Mobile home
unit
$671.62
$1,627.53
$2,583.43
$3,539.33
per dwelling
251-Senior Housing
unit
$157.41
$584.89
$928.42
$1,271.95
320 - Motel
per room
$629.65
$1,525.81
$2,421.97
$3,318.13
per boat
420 - Marina
berth
$188.89
$457.74
$726.59
$995.44
444 - Movie theater
per screens
$13,166.00
$31,905.90
$50,645.37
$69,384.85
per square
492 - Health/fitness club
foot
$2.78
$6.74
$10.98
$14.66
per square
530 - High school
foot
$0.82
$1.98
$3.15
$4.31
per square
560 - Church
foot
$0.69
$1.68
$2.67
$3.65
per square
565 - Day care center
foot
$6.57
$15.77
$25.02
$34.29
620 - Nursing home
per bed
$199.39
$483.17
$766.96
$1,050.74
per square
710 - General office
foot
$2.07
$5.01
$7.95
$10.89
per square
720 - Medical office
foot
$3.81
$9.54
$15.14
$20.74
per square
820 - Shopping center
foot
$1.34
$3.26
$5.17
$7.08
per square
826 - Specialty retail
foot
$0.93
$2.06
$3.27
$4.48
per square
850 - Supermarket
foot
$4.80
$10.50
$16.84
$22.84
per square
850 - Convenience market 15-16hrs
foot
$5.80
$14.07
$22.38
$30.58
per square
912 - Drive-in bank
foot
$7.00
$15.97
$25.41
$34.73
Packet Pg. 86
4.4.a
per square
932 - Restaurant: sit-down
foot
$4.70
$10.04
$15.95
$21.84
per square
933 - Fast food, no drive -up
foot
$9.19
$22.28
$35.36
$48.44
per square
934 - Fast food with drive -up
foot
$11.23
$26.24
$41.66
$57.07
936 - Coffee/donut shop, no drive-
per square
UP
foot
$5.73
$13.88
$22.04
$30.19
938 - Coffee/donut shop, drive -up,
per square
no indoor seating
foot
$10.55
$25.56
$40.37
$55.58
945 - Gas station with convenience
per vehicle
$3,347.62
fueling
position
1
1 $6,916.99
1 $10,979.58
1 $15,042.18
3.36.130 Independent fee calculations.
A. If in the judgment of the director, none of the fee categories or fee amounts set forth in ECC 3.36.120 and/or
3.36.125 accurately describe or capture the impacts of a new development on parks and/or streets, the department
may ask the applicant to conduct independent fee calculations and the director may impose alternative fees on a
specific development based on those calculations. The alternative fees and the calculations shall be set forth in
writing and shall be agreed to by the director and the feepayer. The documentation submitted shall show the basis
upon which the independent fee calculation was made.
B. Any feepayer submitting an independent fee calculation will be required to pay the city of Edmonds a fee to cover
the cost of reviewing the independent fee calculation. A fee is required by the city for conducting the review of the
independent fee calculation plus the actual cost of outside consultant review if required by the city, unless otherwise
established by the director, and shall be paid by the feepayer prior to initiation of review.
C. While there is a presumption that the calculations set forth in the rate study are valid, the director shall consider the
documentation submitted by the feepayer, but is not required to accept such documentation or analysis which the
director reasonably deems to be inaccurate or not reliable, and may, in the alternative, require the feepayer to submit
additional or different documentation for consideration. The director is authorized to adjust the impact fees on a case -
by -case basis based on the independent fee calculation, the specific characteristics of the development, and/or
principles of fairness. The fees or alternative fees and the calculations shall be set forth in writing and shall be mailed
to the feepayer.
D. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section may be appealed to the office of the hearing examiner
as set forth in ECC 3.36.070. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013].
3.36.140 Existing authority unimpaired.
Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the city from requiring the feepayer or the proponent of a development activity
to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of a specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act,
Chapter 43.21C RCW, based on the environmental documents accompanying the underlying development approval
process, and/or Chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions; provided, that the exercise of this authority is
consistent with the provisions of Chapters 43.21C and 82.02 RCW. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1
(Exh. A), 2013].
3.36.150 Procedures guide.
The director is authorized to develop a procedures guide to facilitate the city's administration and enforcement of this
chapter. The procedures guide shall be consistent with the provisions of this chapter, shall be for the sole convenience
of the city, and shall not vest any rights in or for any other person. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh.
A), 2013].
3.36.160 Deferral system for single-family residences.
A. An applicant for a building permit for a single-family detached or attached residence may request a deferral of the
full impact fee payment until final inspection. The building official may withhold certification of final inspection
until the impact fees have been paid in full.
B. The amount of impact fees that may be deferred under this section must be determined by the fees in effect at the
time the applicant applies for a deferral.
C. The term of an impact fee deferral under this section may not exceed 18 months from the date of building permit
issuance.
�2
Packet Pg. 87
4.4.a
D. An applicant seeking a deferral under this section must grant and record a deferred impact fee lien against the
property in favor of the city in the amount of the deferred impact fee. The deferred impact fee lien, which must
include the legal description, tax account number, and address of the property, must also be:
1. In a form approved by the city attorney;
2. Signed by all owners of the property, as demonstrated by a current title report, with all signatures
acknowledged as required for a deed;
3. Recorded with the Snohomish County auditor's office;
4. Binding on all successors in title after the recordation; and
5. Junior and subordinate to one mortgage for the purpose of construction upon the same real property granted
by the person who applied for the deferral of impact fees.
E. If impact fees are not paid in accordance with a deferral authorized by this section, the city may institute
foreclosure proceedings in accordance with Chapter 61.12 RCW.
F. In addition to the administrative fee collected pursuant to ECC 3.36.030(B)(5), the city shall collect an additional
reasonable administrative fee to implement this section from permit applicants who are seeking to delay the payment
of impact fees under this section. The amount of the administrative fee shall be established and updated from time to
time by resolution of the city council.
G. The section shall be construed to be consistent with state law and RCW 82.02.050, in particular. [Ord. 4037 § 1
(Att. A), 2016].
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
-10-
Packet Pg. 88
4.4.a
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect upon the
latter of five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title and January 1, 2017.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
:•
JEFFREY B. TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING
-11-
Packet Pg. 89
4.4.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2016, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADDING THE IMPACT FEE PROVISIONS
TO THE NEW SECTION 3.36 OF THE ECC; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of , 2016.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
-12-
Packet Pg. 90
4.4.b
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADDING THE IMPACT FEE PROVISIONS TO
THE NEW SECTION 3.36 OF THE ECC; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Section 18.82 of the Edmonds City Code ("Traffic Impact Fee"
Section) has been moved to a new Section of the Edmonds City Code (Section 3.36);
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds updated the Transportation Plan in 2015 and a
revised traffic impact fee is being proposed with a phased increase over the next three years;
WHEREAS, the land use category for any property in the Downtown Business (BD)
zone used for the purpose of calculating the traffic impact fee will be Specialty Retail (ITE Land
Use Code of 814); NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. New Section 3.36 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "IMPACT FEES," will
read as follows (text added to previous Section ECC 18.82 is shown as underlined; deleted text is
shown as strip):
Chapter 3.36
IMPACT FEES
Sections:
3.36.010
Findings and authority.
3.36.020
Definitions.
3.36.030
Assessment and payment of impact fees.
3.36.040
Exemptions.
3.36.050
Credits.
3.36.060
Tax adjustments.
3.36.070
Appeals.
3.36.080
Establishment of impact fee accounts.
3.36.090
Refunds.
-1-
Packet Pg. 91
4.4.b
L)
0
W
3.36.100 Use of funds.
C
3.36.110 Review.
co
M
3.36.120 Park impact fee rates.
3.36.125 Street impact fee rates.
C
3.36.130 hidependent fee calculations.
r
3.36.140 Existing authority unimpaired.
3.36.150 Procedures guide.
CO)
3.36.160 Deferral system for single-family residences.
3
3.36.010 Findings and authority.
_
The city council of the city of Edmonds (the "council") hereby finds and determines that new growth and
development in the city of Edmonds will create additional demand and need for public facilities in the city of
Edmonds, and the council finds that new growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of new
facilities needed to serve the new growth and development.
y
The city of Edmonds has conducted extensive studies documenting the procedures for measuring the impact of new
developments on public facilities, has prepared the rate study and procedures guide for park impact fees, has prepared
LL
+,
the rate study and procedures guide for transportation impact fees, and hereby incorporates these studies into this title
by reference. Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW, the council adopts the ordinance codified in this chapter to
Q.
assess impact fees for parks and streets. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed in order to carry
E
out the purposes of the council in establishing the impact fee program. These fees can and will only be applied to
v
projects resulting from city-wide development growth. These fees cannot be used to mitigate existing shortfalls of the
park system or street system. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013].
3.36.020 Definitions.
H
The following words and terms shall have the following meanings for the purposes of this chapter unless the context
clearly requires otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined herein shall be defined pursuant to RCW 82.02.090 and
p
ECDC Title 21 or given their usual and customary meaning.
N
A. "Accessory dwelling unit" is defined in ECDC 21.05.015.
N
B. `Building permit" means an official document or certification which is issued by the building official and which
r. I
tO
authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection,
�
demolition, moving or repair of a building or structure.
v
C. "Capital facilities plan" means the capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive plan adopted by the city of
v
Edmonds pursuant to Chapter 36.70A RCW, and such plan as amended. There are many references in state statutes to
the "capital facilities plan" (CFP) as the basis for projects that are eligible for funding by impact fees. The parks
C
element of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan fulfills the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 et seq., pertaining to
a "capital facilities plan," and is considered to be the "capital facilities plan" (CFP) for the purpose of Edmonds'
0
impact fees for parks. The transportation element of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan fulfills the requirements
y
of RCW 82.02.050 et seq., pertaining to a "capital facilities plan," and is considered to be the "capital facilities plan"
LL
(CFP) for the purpose of Edmonds' impact fees for streets. Depending on the context, references to a CFP in the
+,
impact fee chapter, rate study, and procedures guide are interpreted as referring to either the parks element of the city
V
of Edmonds comprehensive plan or the transportation element of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan, including
Q.
the projects eligible for impact fees listed in Appendix C of the procedures guide for the transportation impact fees.
E
D. "City" means the city of Edmonds.
V
E. "Council" means the city council of the city of Edmonds.
F. "Department" means the development services department.
i
G. "Development activity" means any construction, expansion, or change in the use of a building or structure that
H
creates additional demand and need for public facilities.
H. "Development approval" means any written authorization from the city of Edmonds which authorizes the
commencement of a development activity.
I. "Director" means the director designated by the mayor to administer the impact fee program or that director's
designee.
J. "Dwelling unit" is defined in ECDC 21.20.050.
K. "Encumbered" means to reserve, set aside, or otherwise earmark the impact fees in order to pay for commitments,
contractual obligations, or other liabilities incurred for public facilities.
L. "Feepayer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated association, or any other similar entity, or
t
department or bureau of any governmental entity or municipal corporation commencing a land development activity
k
W
which creates the demand for additional capital facilities, and which requires the issuance of a building permit.
"Feepayer" includes an applicant for an impact fee credit.
C
E
-2-
s
M
.r
Q
Packet Pg. 92
4.4.b
L)
0
w
M. Reserved.
4-
C
N. "Hearing examiner" is defined in ECDC 21.40.010.
W
O. "Impact fee" means a payment of money imposed by the city of Edmonds on development activity pursuant to this
cM
chapter as a condition of granting development approval in order to pay for the public facilities needed to serve new
C
growth and development. "impact fee" does not include a reasonable permit fee, an application fee, the administrative
r
fee for collecting and handling school impact fees, the cost of reviewing independent fee calculations or any other
charge or fee based upon the administrative costs of processing a development application.
M
P. "Impact fee account" or "account" means the account(s) established for each type of public facility for which
3
impact fees are collected. The accounts shall be established pursuant to ECC 3.36.080 and 3.36.090 and comply with
=
the requirements of RCW 82.02.070.
Q. "Independent fee calculation" means the impact fee calculation and/or economic documentation prepared by a
feepayer to support the assessment of an impact fee other than by the use of the rates listed in ECC 3.36.120 and
3.36.125, or the calculations prepared by the director where none of the fee categories or fee amounts in ECC
y
3.36.120 and 3.36.125 accurately describe or capture the impacts of the new development on public facilities.
R. "Interest" means the average interest rate earned in the last fiscal year by the city of Edmonds.
LL
+,
S. n gep,,.a"Low-income Housing" means housing affordable to, and occupied by, a household whose income does
not exceed eighty (80) percent of area median income as reported by the United States Department of Housing and
Q.
Urban Development for the Seattle -Bellevue metropolitan area. To be considered affordable, for the purpose of this
E
definition, the combined monthly cost of the housing, including rent, utilities, and other charges for the applicable
V
unit, may not exceed thirty -percent of the household's monthly income, adjusted for family size.
T. "Occupancy permit" means the permit issued by the city of Edmonds authorizing the building to be occupied
where a development activity results in a change in use of the preexisting structure, or the creation of a new use
H
where none previously existed.
tO
U. "Owner" means the owner of record of real property, or a person with an unrestricted written option to purchase
p
property; provided, that if the real property is being purchased under a recorded real estate contract, the purchaser
C14
shall be considered the owner of the real property.
N
V. "Procedures guide" means the administrative guidance document prepared by the director pursuant to ECC
I-
3.36.150.
v
W. "Project improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service
for a particular development or users of the project and are not system improvements. No improvement or facility
v
included in a capital facilities plan adopted by the council shall be considered a project improvement.
X. "Public facilities" means the public parks, open space and recreation facilities owned by the city of Edmonds or
C
other governmental entities in the context of the park impact fee and means the public streets and roads owned by the
city of Edmonds or other governmental entities in the context of the street impact fee.
L
Y. "Rate study" means the "Rate Study for Impact Fees for Parks, Open Space and Recreation Facilities," city of
Edmonds, dated July 12, 2013, in the context of the park impact fee and means the "Rate Study for Impact Fees for
LL
Roads," city of Edmonds, dated October 29, 2009, in the context of the street impact fee.
+,
Z. "Residential" or "residential development" means all types of construction intended for human habitation. This
V
shall include, but is not limited to, single-family, duplex, triplex, and other multifamily development. This also
Q.
includes the residential portion of mixed -use developments.
E
AA. Reserved.
V
BB. "Service area" means the entire corporate limits of the city of Edmonds.
CC. "Significant past tax payment" means taxes exceeding five percent of the amount of the impact fee, and which
i
were paid prior to the date the impact fee is assessed and were earmarked or proratable to the same system
H
improvements for which the impact fee is assessed.
DD. Reserved.
EE. "State" means the state of Washington.
.a
FF. Reserved.
GG. "System improvements" means public facilities that are included in the city of Edmonds capital facilities plan
and are designed to provide service to service areas within the community at large, in contrast to project
improvements. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013].
3.36.030 Assessment and payment of impact fees.
Z
A. Required. The city shall collect impact fees, based on the rates in ECC 3.36.120 and 3.36.125, from any applicant
M
seeking development approval from the city for any development activity within the city as provided herein,
k
W
including the expansion of existing structures or uses or change of existing uses that creates additional demand for
public facilities.
C
E
s
M
-3-
.r
Q
Packet Pg. 93
4.4.b
L)
0
w
1. For the purposes of this chapter, development activity shall not include miscellaneous improvements that do
4-
C
not add any demand for public facilities, including, but not limited to, fences, walls, swimming pools accessory
M
to a residential use, and signs.
2. For the purposes of this chapter, development activity shall not include replacement of a residential structure
C
with a new residential structure of the same type at the same site or lot when such replacement occurs within 12
r
months of the demolition or destruction of the prior residential structure. Replacement of a residential structure
with a new residential structure of the same type shall be interpreted to include any residential structure for
CO)
which there is no increase in the number of residential units.
d
3. For the purposes of this chapter, development activity shall not include alterations, expansions, enlargement,
remodeling, rehabilitation or conversion of an existing dwelling unit where no additional dwelling units are
=
created and the use is not changed. Note: accessory dwelling units (ADU) are not considered to create additional
dwelling units because ECDC 20.21.020 does not consider ADUs as increasing the overall density of a single-
family residential neighborhood.
y
B. Timing and Calculation of Fees. Impact fees shall be assessed based upon the impact fee rates in effect at the time
of issuance of the building permit, including but not limited to change of use permit or remodel permit.
LL
+,
1. For a change in use of an existing building or dwelling unit, including any alteration, expansion, replacement
or new accessory building, the impact fee shall be the applicable impact fee for the new use, less an amount
Q.
equal to the applicable impact fee for the prior use.
E
2. For mixed use developments, impact fees shall be imposed for the proportionate share of each land use based
v
on the applicable measurement in the impact fee rates set forth in ECC 3.36.120 and 3.36.125.
3. Where the impact fees imposed are determined by the square footage of the development, the building official
will establish the gross floor area created by the proposed development.
H
4. Applicants that have been awarded credits prior to the submittal of the complete building permit application
W
pursuant to ECC 3.36.050 shall submit, along with the complete building permit application, a copy of the letter
p
or certificate prepared by the director pursuant to ECC 3.36.050 setting forth the dollar amount of the credit
N
awarded.
N
5. Applicants shall pay an administrative fee that covers the cost of staff time in administering the impact fee
I -
program. The amount of the administrative fee shall be established and updated from time to time by resolution
of the city council.
v
C. Payment. Unless deferred pursuant to ECC 3.36.160, impact fees shall be paid at the time the building permit or
v
business license is issued by the city. The department shall not issue the required building permit or business license
or other approval unless and until the impact fees set forth in ECC 3.36.120 and 3.36.125 have been paid in the
C
amount that they exceed exemptions or credits provided pursuant to ECC 3.36.040 or 3.36.050; provided, that
building permits may be issued without impact fee payment when payment is deferred in accordance with ECC
0
3.36.160. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013].
y
3.36.040 Exemptions.LL
d
A. Except as provided for below, the following shall be exempted from the payment of all impact fees under this
chapter:
V
1. Alteration of an existing nonresidential structure that does not involve a change in use and does not expand
Q.
the usable space or add any residential units;
E
2. Miscellaneous improvements that do not expand usable space or add any residential units, including, but not
V
limited to, fences, walls, swimming pools, and signs;
3. Demolition or moving of a structure;
4. Expansion of an existing structure that results in the addition of 100 square feet or less of gross floor area;
H
5. Replacement of a structure with a new structure of the same size and use at the same site or lot when a
building permit application for such replacement is submitted to the Cityeeeurs within 12 months of the
demolition or destruction of the prior structure. Replacement of a structure with a new structure of the same size
.a
shall be interpreted to include any structure for which the gross square footage of the building will not be
increased by more than 100 square feet; or
6. Alterations, expansions, enlargement, remodeling, rehabilitation or conversion of an existing dwelling unit
m
where no additional dwelling units are created and the use is not changed (accessory dwelling units (ADU) are
not considered to create additional dwelling units because ECDC 20.21.020 does not consider ADUs as
increasing the overall density of a single-family residential neighborhood, and because the city's traffic model
z
does not assign additional trips to the network as a result of ADUs).
k
W
B. Low-income housing units shall be exempt from paving eighty percent of the street impact fees to the extent the
units satisfy this subsection. Such exemption shall be conditioned upon the developer recording a covenant that
C
E
s
M
-4-
.r
Q
Packet Pg. 94
4.4.b
annual report to the city along with supporting documentation that shows that the low-income units are continuing to
be rented in compliance with the covenant. The covenant shall be an oblieation that runs with the land upon which
the housing is located. The covenant shall be in a form acceptable to the city attorney and shall be recorded upon the
developer's payment of the remaining twenty percent of the street impact fee.
14C. Except as provided for below, the following shall be exempted from the payment of park impact fees under this
chapter:
1. Low-income housing provided by nonprofit organizations such as, but not limited to, Habitat for Humanity.
Owners of low-income single-family dwelling units, condominiums and other low-income housing shall execute
and record a lien against the property, in favor of the city, for a period of 10 years guaranteeing that the dwelling
unit will continue to be used for low-income housing or that impact fees from which the low-income housing is
exempted, plus interest, shall be paid. The lien against the property shall be subordinate only to the lien for
general taxes. In the event that the development is no longer used for low-income rental housing, the owner shall
pay the city the impact fee from which the owner or any prior owner was exempt, plus interest at the statutory
rate. Any claim for an exemption for low-income owner occupied housing must be made no later than the time
of application for a building permit. Any claim not so made shall be deemed waived.
CD. The director shall be authorized to determine whether a particular development activity falls within an exemption
identified in this section, in any other section, or under other applicable law. Determinations of the director shall be in
writing and shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ECC 3.36.070. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord.
3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013].
3.36.050 Credits.
A. Pursuant to the requirement of RCW 82.02.060(4), a feepayer shall be entitled to a credit for the value of any
dedication of land for, improvement to, or new construction of any system improvements provided by the feepayer, to
facilities that are identified in the capital facilities plan and that are required by the city as a condition of approving
the development activity.
B. The director shall determine if requests for credits meet the criteria in subsection (A) of this section.
C. For each request for a credit or credits, the director shall select an appraiser or the feepayer may select an
independent appraiser acceptable to the director.
D. The appraiser must be prequalified by the city and shall not have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property
being appraised. A description of the appraiser's certification shall be included with the appraisal, and the appraiser
shall certify that he/she does not have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised.
E. The appraiser shall be directed to determine the total value of the dedicated land, improvements, and/or
construction provided by the feepayer on a case -by -case basis.
F. The feepayer shall pay for the cost of the appraisal or request that the cost of the appraisal be deducted from the
credit which the director may be providing to the feepayer, in the event that a credit is awarded.
G. After receiving the appraisal, the director shall provide the applicant with a letter or certificate setting forth the
dollar amount of the credit, the reason for the credit, the legal description of the site donated where applicable, and
the legal description or other adequate description of the project or development to which the credit may be applied.
The applicant must sign and date a duplicate copy of such letter or certificate indicating his/her agreement to the
terms of the letter or certificate, and return such signed document to the director before the impact fee credit will be
awarded. The failure of the applicant to sign, date, and return such document within 60 calendar days shall nullify the
credit.
H. No credit shall be given for project improvements required of the development by city code and/or SEPA; only
dedications in excess of those required by law are eligible for credit. In no event shall this provision be interpreted to
authorize cash payment. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to limit the discretion of the city council to decline to
accept any proposed dedication.
I. A feepayer can request that a credit or credits for impact fees be awarded to him/her for significant past tax
payments. For each request for a credit or credits for significant past tax payments for impact fees, the feepayer shall
submit receipts and a calculation of past tax payments earmarked for or proratable to the particular system
improvement. The director shall determine the amount of credits, if any, for significant past tax payments for public
facilities.
J. Any claim for credit must be made no later than 20 calendar days after the submission of an application for a
building permit. The failure to timely file such a claim shall constitute a final bar to later request any such credit.
-5-
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
L)
0
Lu
4-
0
Co
M
M
C
O
r
c�
N
CO)
C
c0
N
N
LL
r�
V
cc
0M
E
V
M
H
to
O
N
Q
Packet Pg. 95
4.4.b
L)
0
w
K. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in
4-
C
ECC 3.36.070.
M
L. A feepayer may, in the alternative, appeal an assessment or mitigation requirement which he believes exceeds the
total which may lawfully be imposed. See ECDC 18.50.020(C). [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh.
C
A), 2013].
C
r
3.36.060 Tax adjustments.
Pursuant to and consistent with the requirements of RCW 82.02.060, the rate study has provided adjustments for
W
future taxes to be paid by the new development which are earmarked or proratable to the same new public facilities
3
which will serve the new development. The impact fee rates in ECC 3.36.120 and 3.36.125 have been reasonably
=
adjusted for taxes and other revenue sources which are anticipated to be available to fund public improvements. [Ord.
4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013].
3.36.070 Appeals.
A. Any feepayer may pay the impact fees imposed by this chapter under protest in order to obtain a building permit.
y
B. Appeals regarding the amount of the impact fee imposed on any development activity may only be filed by the
feepayer of the property where such development activity will occur. This provision shall control over any other
LL
+,
provisions of city ordinance.
C. The feepayer must first file a request for review regarding impact fees with the director, as provided herein:
Q.
1. The request shall be in writing on the form provided by the city;
E
2. The request for review by the director shall be filed within 14 calendar days of the feepayer's payment of the
V
impact fees at issue. The failure to timely file such a request shall constitute a final bar to later seek such review;
3. An administrative fee will be imposed for the request for review by the director; this shall be the same as that
imposed for a request for reconsideration of a staff decision;
H
4. The director shall issue his/her determination in writing within 14 days from the receipt of a request for
cO
review.
D. Determinations of the director with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity,
p
N
the availability or value of a credit, or the director's decision concerning the independent fee calculation which is
N
authorized in ECC 3.36.130, or the fees imposed by the director pursuant to ECC 3.36.120 and 3.36.125, or any other
determination which the director is authorized to make pursuant to this chapter, can be appealed to the hearing
v
examiner.
E. The decision of the director may be appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II decision. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att.
v
A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013].
C
3.36.080 Establishment of impact fee accounts.
C
A. Impact fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and deposited in special interest -bearing accounts.
B. There is hereby established a separate impact fee account for the park impact fees collected pursuant to this
0
chapter, the park impact account. There is also hereby established a separate impact fee account for the street impact
y
fees collected pursuant to this chapter, the street impact account. Funds withdrawn from these accounts must be used
LL
in accordance with the provisions of ECC 3.36.100 and applicable state law. Interest earned on the fees shall be
+,
retained in the respective accounts and expended for the purposes for which the impact fees were collected.
V
C. On an annual basis, the finance director shall provide a report to the council on the impact fee accounts showing
Q.
the source and amount of all monies collected, earned, or received, and the public improvements that were financed
E
in whole or in part by impact fees.
V
D. Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered within 10 years of receipt, unless the council identifies in written
findings extraordinary and compelling reason or reasons for the city to hold the fees beyond the 10-year period.
i
Under such circumstances, and prior to the expiration of the 10-year period, the council shall establish the period of
H
time within which the impact fees shall be expended or encumbered. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1
(Exh. A), 2013].
3.36.090 Refunds.
.a
A. If the city fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within 10 years of when the fees were paid or, where
extraordinary or compelling reasons exist, such other time periods as established pursuant to ECC 3.36.080, the
current owner of the property on which impact fees have been paid may receive a refund of such fees. In determining
whether impact fees have been expended or encumbered, impact fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on
a first -in, first -out basis.
Z
B. The city shall notify potential claimants by first class mail that they are eligible for an impact fee refund. This
z
notification shall be done by first class mail deposited with the United States Postal Service at the last known address
k
L J
of such claimants. A potential claimant must be the owner of the property.
rJ
C
0
E
-6-
s
M
.r
Q
Packet Pg. 96
4.4.b
c)
0
W
C. Owners seeking a refund of impact fees must submit a written request for a refund of the fees to the director within
4-
C
one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever is later.
M
D. Any impact fees for which no application for a refund has been made within this one-year period shall be retained
by the city and expended on the appropriate public facilities.
C
E. Refunds of impact fees under this section shall include any interest earned on the impact fees by the city.
r
F. When the city seeks to terminate any or all components of the impact fee program, all unexpended or
unencumbered funds from any terminated component or components, including interest earned, shall be refunded
CO)
pursuant to this section. Upon the finding that any or all fee requirements are to be terminated, the city shall place
3
notice of such termination and the availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two times and
=
shall notify all potential claimants by first class mail at the last known address of the claimants. All funds available
for refund shall be retained for a period of one year.
At the end of one year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the city, but must be expended for the appropriate
public facilities. This notice requirement shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered balances within
y
N
the account or accounts being terminated.LL
N
G. The city shall also refund to the current owner of property for which impact fees have been paid, including interest
earned on the impact fees, if the development activity for which the impact fees were imposed did not occur;
provided, that if the city has expended or encumbered the impact fees in good faith prior to the application for a
Q.
refund, the director can decline to provide the refund. If within a period of three years, the same or subsequent owner
E
of the property proceeds with the same or substantially similar development activity, the owner can petition the
V
director for an offset. The petitioner must provide receipts of impact fees previously paid for a development of the
same or substantially similar nature on the same property or some portion thereof. Determinations of the director
shall be in writing and shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ECC 3.36.070. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Art. A),
H
2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013].
to
3.36.100 Use of funds.
O
A. Pursuant to this chapter, impact fees:
N
1. Shall be used for public improvements that will reasonably benefit new development; and
N
2. Shall not be imposed to make up for deficiencies in public facilities serving existing developments; and
r`
3. Shall not be used for maintenance or operations.
B. Impact fees may be spent for public improvements, including, but not limited to, planning, engineering, surveying,
v
land acquisition, right -of --way acquisition, site improvements, necessary off -site improvements, construction,
v
architectural, permitting, financing, and administrative expenses, applicable impact fees or mitigation costs, and any
C
other expenses which can be capitalized.
C
C. Impact fees may also be used to recoup public improvement costs previously incurred by the city to the extent that
new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed improvements or incurred costs.
0
D. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are or have been issued for the advanced provision of public
y
improvements for which impact fees may be expended, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or
LL
similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities or improvements provided are consistent with the
+,
requirements of this section and are used to serve the new development. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Art. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1
v
(Exh. A), 20131.
Q.
3.36.110 Review.
E
The fee rates set forth in ECC 3.36.120 and 3.36.125 may be reviewed and adjusted by the council as it deems
V
necessary and appropriate in conjunction with the annual update of the capital facilities plan element of the city's
comprehensive plan. The fee rates may be adjusted 12 months after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this
chapter, or 12 months after the most recent review by the council.
H
The council may determine the amount of any adjustment up or down and revise the fee rates set forth in ECC
3.36.120 and 3.36.125. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Art. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013].
3.36.120 Park impact fee rates.
.a
The park impact fee rates in this section are generated from the formula for calculating impact fees set forth in the
a)
rate study, which is incorporated herein by reference. Except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations
in ECC 3.36.130, exemptions in ECC 3.36.040 and credits in ECC 3.36.050, all new developments in the city will be
charged the park impact fee applicable to the type of development as follows:
A. Effective October 1, 2014:
1. Single-family house: $2,734.05 per dwelling unit.
t
2. Multifamily residential housing: $2,340.16 per dwelling unit.
k
W.
3. Nonresidential development: $1.34 per square foot. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A),
.
2013].
C
4)
E
-7-
s
M
.r
Q
Packet Pg. 97
4.4.b
3.36.125 Street impact fee rates.
The street impact fee rates in this section are generated from the formula for calculating impact fees set forth in the
rate study, which is incorporated herein by reference. Except as otherwise provided for herein, independent -fee
,., leuleti..ns in ECC 3.36.130, exemptions n ECC 2 36 040 and er-edits in ECC 3.36.050, all new developments in the
city will be charged the street impact fee applicable to the type of development as follows in the table below.=
For properties zoned BD - Downtown Business an ITE Land Use Code of 814 - Specialty Retail shall be applied.
ITE Land Use Code - Descri lion
Fee
Calculation
2016
$1,049.41
cost per
trip -I
2017
with
$2,543.01
costyeY
trip -I
2018
(W/
4,036.61
cost per
Lripl
2019 and
beyond (w/
$5,530.21
cost ver trip),
110 - Light Industrial
gerLg1jare foot
1.50
S3.64
$5.77
$7.91
140 - Mm facturin
er s uare foot
$1.12
$2.72
$4.32
$5.92
151 - Mini -warehouse
nerLquare foot
$0.40
$0.97
$1.54
$2.10
210 - Single-family house
per dwelling_
$1,196.33
$2,873.60
$4,561.37
$6, 449.14
unit
220 - Apartment
per dwelling
$776.56
$1,881.83
$2,987.09
4 092.36
unit
230 - Condominium
per dwelling
$629.65
$1,525.81
$2,421.97
$3, 118.13
unit
240 - Mobile home
per dwelling
J671.62
$1,627.53
$2,583.43
$3, 339.33
unit
251 - Seniorliousing
per dwellinz
$157.41
$584.89
$928.42
$1271.95
unit
320 - Motel
er room
$629.65
$1,525.81
$2, 221.97
$3, 118.13
420 - Marina
ger boat berth
$188.89
$457.74
$726.59
$995.44
444 - Movie theater
er screens
$13, 666.00
$31, 005.90
50 645.3
$69, 884.85
7
492 - Health/fitness club
per square foot
2.78
S6.74
$10.98
14.66
530 - Hieh school
per square foot
SO.82
L98
3.15
4.31
560 - Church
er s uare foot
0.69
SI.68
$2.67
3.65
565 - Day care center
gars uare foot
$6.57
$15.77
$25.02
$34.29
620- Nursing home
perbed
$199.39
$483.17
$766.96
$1,050.74
710 - General office
JZ.07
5.01
$7.95
10.89
720 - Medical office
per square foot
$3.81
$9.54
$15.14
$20.74
820 - Shopging center
ggLLqjLare foot
1.34
$3.26
$5.17
7.08
826 - Specialty retail
gerLqmare foot
$0.93
$2.06
$3.27
$4.48
850 - Supermarket
gerLqmare foot
$4.80
$10.50
$16.84
$22.84
850 - Convenience market 15-16hrs
er s uare foot
$5.80
$14.07
$22.38
$30.58
912 - Drive-in bank
nerLqujare foot
$7.00
$15.97
$25.41
$34.73
932 - Restaurant: sit-down
per square foot
J4.70
$10.04
$15.95
JLI.84
933 - Fast food no drive-ug
er s uare foot
9.19
$22.28
$35.36
48.44
934 - Fast food with drive-u
er s uare foot
11.23
J26.24
$41.66
$57.07
936 - Coffee/donut shop, no drive-
er s uare foot
JL73
J13.88
22.04
30.19
-8-
Comment [Al]: Cost per trip in 2016 -
$1,049.41.
Cost per trip in 2017 and beyond: annual in
$1493.60 (to max of $5530.21)
Formatted Table
Packet Pg. 98
4.4.b
938 - Coffee/donut shop, drive -up,
Der s uare foot
$10.55
$25.56
$40.37
JL5J8
no indoor seatin
945 - Gas station with convenience
per vehicle
fueling positio
$3, 447.62
$6, 116.99
$10,979.5
$15, 442.18
8
(Att. A), 20161.
3.36.130 Independent fee calculations.
A. If in the judgment of the director, none of the fee categories or fee amounts set forth in ECC 3.36.120 and/or
3.36.125 accurately describe or capture the impacts of a new development on parks and/or streets, the department
may ask the applicant to conduct independent fee calculations and the director may impose alternative fees on a
specific development based on those calculations. The alternative fees and the calculations shall be set forth in
writing and shall be agreed to by the director and the feepayer. The documentation submitted shall show the basis
upon which the independent fee calculation was made.
B. Any feepayer submitting an independent fee calculation will be required to pay the city of Edmonds a fee to cover
the cost of reviewing the independent fee calculation. TEA fee is required by the city for conducting the review of
the independent fee calculation plus the actual cost of outside consultant review if required by the
city, unless otherwise established by the director, and shall be paid by the feepayer prior to initiation of review.
C. While there is a presumption that the calculations set forth in the rate study are valid, the director shall consider the
documentation submitted by the feepayer, but is not required to accept such documentation or analysis which the
director reasonably deems to be inaccurate or not reliable, and may, in the alternative, require the feepayer to submit
additional or different documentation for consideration. The director is authorized to adjust the impact fees on a case -
by -case basis based on the independent fee calculation, the specific characteristics of the development, and/or
principles of fairness. The fees or alternative fees and the calculations shall be set forth in writing and shall be mailed
to the feepayer.
-9-
c)
0
Lu
4-
0
m
M
M
C
0
r
t)
N
M
C
t0
N
N
LL
r�
V
to
E
V
M
L
to
r
0
N
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 99
4.4.b
c)
0
w
D. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section may be appealed to the office of the hearing examiner
M_
C
as set forth in ECC 3.36.070. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013].
W
3.36.140 Existing authority unimpaired.
Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the city from requiring the feepayer or the proponent of a development activity
C
to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of a specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act,
r
Chapter 43.21C RCW, based on the environmental documents accompanying the underlying development approval
process, and/or Chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions; provided, that the exercise of this authority is
W
consistent with the provisions of Chapters 43.21C and 82.02 RCW. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1
3
(Exh. A), 20131.
Gs
3.36.150 Procedures guide.
_
The director is authorized to develop a procedures guide to facilitate the city's administration and enforcement of this
chapter. The procedures guide shall be consistent with the provisions of this chapter, shall be for the sole convenience
of the city, and shall not vest any rights in or for any other person. [Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh.
y
N
A), 2013].
3.36.160 Deferral system for single-family residences.
LL
+,
A. An applicant for a building permit for a single-family detached or attached residence may request a deferral of the
full impact fee payment until final inspection. The building official may withhold certification of final inspection
Q.
until the impact fees have been paid in full.
E
B. The amount of impact fees that may be deferred under this section must be determined by the fees in effect at the
V
time the applicant applies for a deferral.
C. The term of an impact fee deferral under this section may not exceed 18 months from the date of building permit
issuance.
H
D. An applicant seeking a deferral under this section must grant and record a deferred impact fee lien against the
to
property in favor of the city in the amount of the deferred impact fee. The deferred impact fee lien, which must
p
include the legal description, tax account number, and address of the property, must also be:
N
1. In a form approved by the city attorney;
N
2. Signed by all owners of the property, as demonstrated by a current title report, with all signatures
acknowledged as required for a deed;
3. Recorded with the Snohomish County auditor's office;
v
4. Binding on all successors in title after the recordation; and
v
5. Junior and subordinate to one mortgage for the purpose of construction upon the same real property granted
by the person who applied for the deferral of impact fees.
C
E. If impact fees are not paid in accordance with a deferral authorized by this section, the city may institute
foreclosure proceedings in accordance with Chapter 61.12 RCW.
0
F. In addition to the administrative fee collected pursuant to ECC 3.36.030(B)(5), the city shall collect an additional
y
reasonable administrative fee to implement this section from permit applicants who are seeking to delay the payment
LL
of impact fees under this section. The amount of the administrative fee shall be established and updated from time to
+,
time by resolution of the city council.
v
G. The section shall be construed to be consistent with state law and RCW 82.02.050, in particular. [Ord. 4037 § 1
Q.
(Art. A), 2016].
E
t�
M
L
Nd
LPL
t
X
W
c�
i
-10-
is
Q
Packet Pg. 100
4.4.b
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect upon the
latter of five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title and January 1, 2017.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING
-11-
Packet Pg. 101
4.4.b
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
m
JEFFREY B. TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
-12-
Packet Pg. 102
4.4.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, ADDING THE IMPACT FEE PROVISIONS
TO THE NEW SECTION 3.36 OF THE ECC; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of 12016.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
ORE
Packet Pg. 103
4.5
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/22/2016
Resolution Declaring a Substantial Need for a 1% Property Tax Increase
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Scott James
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. On November
15t", Council held two Public Hearings; one on the 2017 Budget Revenues, Including Property Taxes and
a second Public Hearing & Discussion regarding the 2017 Proposed City Budget.
Staff Recommendation
The recommendation is for Council to make a motion to approve Substantial Need Resolution XXXX.
Narrative
OVERVIEW OF 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.
Attachments:
2017 Resolution for Substantial Need to Increase both the Regular Property Tax and EMS Property Tax
Packet Pg. 104
4.5.a
RESOLUTION NO.
r_
0
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
W
c
WASHINGTON, FINDING SUBSTANTIAL NEED TO LEVY BOTH
REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES AND THE EMS PROPERTY TAXES USING
A LIMIT FACTOR OF ONE HUNDRED ONE PERCENT
cm
0
1-
NOTWITHSTANDING A LOWER NATIONAL INFLATION RATE.
v
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 fa ctor 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 (IPD) 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. 105
4.5.a
WHEREAS, given this low national rate of inflation, this resolution of substantial need is required r-
to be able to use a property tax levy limit factor of one hundred one percent (a 1% increase); and
0
WHEREAS, according to the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, the annual CPI- m
U for the Seattle -Tacoma -Bremerton area as of June 2016 was 1.8%, which seems to indicate that
W
N
local inflation is higher than the national rate of 0.953%; and ti
T
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. 106
n
X
F40]
F-Q4
Attachment: 2017 Resolution for Substantial Need to Increase both the Regular Property Tax and EMS Property Tax (1702 : Resolution
4.6
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/22/2016
Ordinance Adopting a 1% Property Tax Levy Increase
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Scott James
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. On November
15t", Council held two Public Hearings; one on the 2017 Budget Revenues, Including Property Taxes and
a second Public Hearing & Discussion regarding the 2017 Proposed City Budget.
Staff Recommendation
The 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 4.7%
Narrative
The 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 $170,090 which is a percentage increase of 4.7%, 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 $3,934,720.
Attachments:
2017 Property Tax EMS Levy Ordinance with 1%
Packet Pg. 108
4.6
Attachments:
2017 Property Tax EMS Levy Ordinance
Packet Pg. 109
4.6.a
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 $3,934,720, 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 4.7%, 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. 110
4.6.a
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 $170,090 which is a percentage increase of 4.7%, 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 $3,934,720.
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. 111
4.6.a
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. 112
4.6.a
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 $3,934,720, 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. 113
4.6.a
FDEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE
WASH{HGTOH 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: $3,934,720 (Includes $56,973.11) for refunds)
Signature
Date
2017 Property Tax Ordinance Page 5 of 5
Packet Pg. 114
4.7
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/22/2016
Ordinance Adopting the 1% EMS Levy
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Scott James
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. On November
15t", Council held two Public Hearings; one on the 2017 Budget Revenues, Including Property Taxes and
a second Public Hearing & Discussion regarding the 2017 Proposed City Budget.
Staff Recommendation
The recommendation is for Council to make a motion to approve Ordinance XXXX for the EMS Property
Tax Levy increase of 1.0%
Narrative
The 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 EMS 1% levy increase for collection in 2017 is $38,550. Adding this 1% increase
of $38,550 plus an increase of $170,090 which is a percentage increase of 4.7%, 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 EMS Levy Ordinance with 1%
Attachments:
2017 EMS Property Tax Ordinance with 1%
Packet Pg. 115
4.7.a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY
BY INCREASING THE EMS PROPERTY TAX LEVY BY THE
CURRENT 101 % LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY LEVYING AN
ESTIMATED 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
$3,684,514 for EMS levy, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined by separate Substantial Need
Resolution following public hearing to increase the EMS 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 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) levy by 1 %, 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
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
2017 Property Tax Ordinance Page 1 of 5
Packet Pg. 116
4.7.a
Section 1. The limit factor for the EMS 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
property taxes that could have been levied in the City in any year since 1985.
Section 2. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) property tax levy. The 2016
EMS property tax levy increase for collection in 2017 is $38,550 which is a percentage increase
of 1% for an estimated total levy of $3,973,270.
Section 3. The levy contained in section 2 is subject to amendment upon receipt
of 2016 assessed valuation from Snohomish County.
Section 4. 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 levy on the State Department of Revenue standardized form
REV 64 0100 attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 5. 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 6. 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
2017 Property Tax Ordinance Page 2 of 5
Packet Pg. 117
4.7.a
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, JEFFREY TARADAY
IM
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. 118
4.7.a
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 EMS PROPERTY TAX LEVY BY THE
CURRENT 101% LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY LEVYING AN ESTIMATED 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. 119
4.7.a
FDEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE
WASH{HGTOH 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, 1, 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.
EMS Levy: $3,973,266
Signature
Date
2017 Property Tax Ordinance Page 5 of 5
Packet Pg. 120
4.8
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/22/2016
Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On October 25, 2016, the 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan was presented to the City Council for review
and discussion.
On November 1, 2016, a public hearing was held for this item.
On November 7, 2016, the item was pulled from the consent agenda for further discussion.
Staff Recommendation
Approve the 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan and include the document in the 2016 Comprehensive
Plan Amendments scheduled for the December 6, 2016 City Council meeting.
Narrative
The Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) was pulled from the November 7th consent agenda and re -scheduled for
the November 22nd City Council meeting.
The City Council approved the addition of the Edmonds Street Overpass to the Capital Improvement
Program at the November 15th City Council meeting. Staff also added this project to the Capital
Facilities Plan.
The 2017-2022 CFP will be included in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, which is scheduled
for the December 6, 2016 City Council meeting.
Background:
The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is a document updated annually and identifies capital
projects for at least the next six years which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. The CFP contains a
list of projects that need to be expanded or will be new capital facilities in order to accommodate the
City's projected population growth in accordance with the Growth Management Act. Thus, capital
projects that preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These preservation projects
are identified within the six -year capital improvement program (CIP) along with capital facility plan
projects which encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects.
CIP vs. CFP
The CFP and CIP are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to
different needs. While the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying
Packet Pg. 121
4.8
those projects to the various City funds and revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital
needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City levels of service standards. The CFP is also required to be
consistent with the other elements (transportation, parks, etc) of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are
restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022
Exhibit 2: CFP-CIP Comparison (2016-2017)
Exhibit 3: Planning Board Minutes 09/28/16
Exhibit 4: Planning Board Minutes 10/12/16
Packet Pg. 122
=�E
&IM
N
O
J
l 1
y
r
r
y
b
r
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1700 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element)
n
y
�C
C
Ot
PO
Su
bo
iu
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1700 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element)
G�
z
n
It
It
FO
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1700 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element)
bo
iu
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1700 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element)
4.8.a
01
Current
Grant
Project
(2017-2022)
Project Name
Purpose
Opportunity
Phase
Total Cost
Revenue Source
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Aquatic Facility
Meet citizen needs for an Aquatics
$0
Public Vote
Center (Feasibility study complete
Unknown
Conceptual
$0
G.O. Bonds
August 2009).
$0
$0
Total
5-$23 M
Civic Center Development
City master plan in progress
$0
Public Vote
RCO Land
Conceptual
$135,000
REET 1 / Grants
$135,000
Acquisition
$0
G.O. Bonds
$135000
Total
$135,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$3,135,000
Community Park / Athletic Complex -
In cooperation with ESD#15 develop
$0
Capital Campaign
Old Woodway High School: Phase 2 and 3
a community park and athletic
ROO
Phasel
$0
REET 2
complex.
Complete
$0
School District
$0
Foundation
so
Grants
$0
Total
Unknown
Parks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations
Replace / Renovate deteriorating
$0
Public Vote
Building
building in City Park.
Unknown
Conceptual
$0
G.O. Bonds
$0
$0
Total
$3-4M
Waterfront Redevlopment/Walerfront Walkway
Rehabilitate grounds, parking, beach
$1,600,000
REET / Grants
$1,600,000
Completion
access and area around Senior
Unknown
Conceptual
$0
G.O. Bonds
Center, walkway access.
$500,000
Park Impact Fees
$500,000
$0
Private Partnership
$2,100,000
Total
$2,100,000
Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry / Mutimodal
Relocate ferry terminal to Marina
EIS
$0
Federal (Unsecured)
Facility
Beach.
US DOT
Completed
$0
Stale Funds
$0
Total
Unknown
Public Market (Downtown Waterfront)
Acquire and develop property for a
—1
year round public market.
Unknown
�
Conceptual
SO
Grants
�
s0
Total
Unknown
Total CFP $2,235,000 Annual CFP Totals $2,100,000 $0 $0 $0 1 $1,500,000 1 $1,500,000
y+
_
d
E
G1
w
_
a
N
d
U.
M
Q
ci
N
N
O
N
ti
r
O
N
w
O
M
O
L
CL
Q
ZI
Q
Packet Pg. 127
bo
iu
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1700 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element)
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Facility ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 -
$23,000,000
Man
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study
completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the
consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the
summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of
its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of
Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the
current pool.
SCHEDULE: 2021-2037
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$5m - $23m
x all or part of this Project may quality for 1% for the Arts
N
N
O
N
ti
0
N
a
U
r
x
w
r
c
a�
E
CU
a
7
Packet Pg. 129
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Development ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,135,000
/ Stadium Demolition
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition.
As part of the Master planning process for Civic, and in consideration of the current condition of
the stadium, it is being recommended to demolish the current stadium. The City also has some
grant funds available to assist with this. In addition, develop a signature downtown park at this
site.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition.
The Civic Master plan will be complete by early 2017. Funds will be set aside, and grant funds
applied for in order to develop the master plan. This is a high priority in the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Construction
$135,000
$0
$0
$0
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
TOTAL
$135,000
$0
$0
$0
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
Packet Pg. 130
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
Complex at the Former Woodway High School
10 R.-
.►x
ra CIA HOGAN
5 f5-0n
.
14a. 1- 6 IF
FORMER WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL
ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS
PR E PAnto fOX THE E DMON DS SCHOOL DISH ICf
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted
or unlighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District,
community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon
successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project for all 3 phases.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and under maintained
facility with great potential as community multi -use active park. Site has existing controlled
access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized
area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees.
Phase 1 was completed in 2015 for $4.2M, Phases 2 & 3 will be completed in the future for an
additional $6-8M.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2037
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-
COST
2037
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
1 % for Art
TOTAL
Unknown
" all or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the Arts
N
N
0
N
ti
0
N
a
LL
U
x
w
c
a�
E
�a
a
E
Packet Pg. 131
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million
Maintenance & Operations Building
Existing Building Outline
Yard Fu Mo
4
0
o ,
100
L adirtg T..�
New One S,
1,600 sf 6,600 s#
Building
Driveway — 15,800�
Yard Functions � 11,910 If
Perimeter zone — 4,200 st
Existing Fence Line
0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 40 year old maintenance building in City Park is reaching the
end of its useful life and is in need of major renovation or replacement.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this
existing facility and need additional work areas and fixed equipment in order to maintain City
parks and Capital facilities for the long term.
SCHEDULE: Contingent on finding additional sources of revenue from general and real
estate taxes.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$3m - $4m
a
'all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
10
Packet Pg. 132
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,100,000
/ Waterfront Walkway Completion
• rn
To Bncn }- �--------------
®R.--�
�
kYr�4
Prapvwd Rmw4
W arerlront Ganrer
j
;I
;rrra5:
r �Mw ww
r
1
_ - ftioge.ed oaF�.s
"Fnr rw rarer,
raecnrwr tdnn
v BFa Wa � �y! I 4yEFY w'4'tr Re'�
��aewa wwe.rr
- mEy�.rw trnn
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot
and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access
to the waterfront. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to Olympic
Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Provide anew Senior and Community Center and
provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up
beach -front access.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
$100,000
Construction
$2,000,000
$0
$0
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$2,100,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
N
N
O
N
ti
0
N
a
LL
U
x
w
r
c
a�
a
11
Packet Pg. 133
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Crossing ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
WSDOT Ferry / Multimodal Facility
011114*�M*
Modified
Pt. Edwards Alternative
p
-
uHacu
paf of�'s„y,�
�.r
ym ee mnmaol
A1r4r
IMrJ�
yQy„
w.nvwr
��
mom am
•.w
Edw��.ls
.e+.s..nm
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Crossing is multimodal transportation center that will
provide the capacity to respond to growth while providing improved opportunities for connecting
various forms of travel including rail, ferry, bus, walking and ridesharing.
NOTE: The design of Marina Beach Park is a separate project.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide an efficient point of connection between
existing and planned transportation modes.
SCHEDULE: 2023-2037
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-
2037
Engineering &
Administration
of Way
—Right
Construction
1 % for Art
TOTAL
Unknown
N
N
O
N
ti
0
N
a
LL
x
w
c
a�
E
a
all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
12
Packet Pg. 134
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
Waterfront)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to establish a public
market, year around, on the downtown waterfront area.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The project will help to create a community
gathering area, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a
valuable asset to Edmonds.
SCHEDULE:
This project depends on the ability to secure grant funding, and community partners
willing to work with the city to establish this. This potentially can be accomplished
by 2018.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1 % for Art
TOTAL
Unknown
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
13
Packet Pg. 135
bo
iu
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1700 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element)
n
ITI
It
FO
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1700 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element)
bo
iu
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1700 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element)
0)
City of Edmonds
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
Transportation Projects
(2017-2022)
Grant
(2017.2022)
Project Name
Pu se
Opportunity
Project Phase
Total Cost
Funding Source
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Safetv / Capacity Analvsis
228th St. SW Corridor Safety
Realign highly skewed intersection to
$25,000
(Federal or State secured)
$25,000
Improvements
address safety and improve
$0
(Federal or Stale unsecured)
operations; create new east -west
corridor between SR-99 and 1-5.
Construction
$0
(Unsecured)
$0
(Local Funds)
$0
Total
228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th PI.
Install two-way left turn lanes and
$0
(Federal or State secured)
W
sidewalks to improve capacity and
$375,000
(Federal or State unsecured)
$75,000
$300,000
$8,690,00
pedestrian safety (project split with
Snohomish County)
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$0
(Local Funds)
$1,356,00
$375,000
Total
$75,000
$300,000
$10,046,00
76th Av. W @ 212th St. SW
Intersection improvements to improve
$3,006,500
(Federal or State secured)
$2,920,000
$86,500
Intersection Improvements
intersection delay and level of service
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
(LOS).
Construction
$0
(Unsecured)
$2,086,663
(Local Funds)
$2,073,163
$13,500
$5,093,163
Total
$4,993,163
$100,000
Highway 99 Gateway / Revitalization
Install gateway elements and safety
$10,000,000
(Federal or State secured)
$5,000,000
$5,000,00
improvements along SR-99 Corridor.
$2,600,000
(Federal or State unsecured)
$1,600,000
$1,000,000
$72,400,00
State
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
Appropriation
$300,000
(Local Funds)
$300,000
$12,900,000
Total
$300,000
$6,600,000
$6,000,000
$72,400,00
SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave W
Improve intersection safety by
$0
(Federal or State secured)
Intersection Improvements
converting a stop controlled
$744,500
State
$122,000
$87,500
$535,000
intersection for NB and SB
(Federal or unsecured)
movements to a signalized
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
intersection.
$158,500
(Local Funds)
$71,000
$87,500
$903,000
Total
$193,000
$175,000
$535,000
Main St. and 9th Ave S
Install traffic signal to improve
$0
(Federal or State secured)
intersection delay and Level of Service
$894,000
State
$118,000
$776,000
(mini roundabout is an alternative
(Federal or unsecured)
solution).
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$17,000
(Local Funds)
$17,000
$911,000
Total
$135,000
$776,000
76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW
Convert split phasing operation for EB
$0
(Federal or State secured)
Intersection Improvements
and WB movements to concurrent
$5,637,450
(Federal or Stale unsecured)
$285,450
$1,557,000
$3,795,00
through movements, with protected /
permissive LT phasing.
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$287,550
(Local Funds)
$44,550
$243,000
$5,925,000
Total
$330,000
$1,800,000
$3,795,00
Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection
Widen 212th St. SW to add a
$0
(Federal or Stale secured)
Improvements
westbound left turn lane for 200'
$2,783,000
(Federal or Stale unsecured)
$152,000
$1,091,000
$1,540,00
storage length and an eastbound left
turn lane.
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$23,000
(Local Funds)
$23,000
$2,806,000
Total
$175,000
$1,091,000
$1,540,00
UtD Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1700 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element)
City of Edmonds
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
Transportation Projects
(2017-2022)
Grant
(2017.2022)
Project Name Purpose
Opportunity
Project Phase
Total Cost
Funding Source
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection
Widen 216th St. SW to add a left turn
$0
(Federal or State secured)
Improvement
lane for eastbound and westbound
movements.
$2,313,000
(Federal or State unsecured)
$142,000
$334,000
$1,837,000
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$22,000
(Local Funds)
$22,000
$2,335,000
Total
$164,000
$334,000
$1,837,00
Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection
Widen 220th St. SW and Hwy 99 to
$0
(Federal or State secured)
Improvement
add a westbound right turn lane (for
325'storage length) and a soutbound
$3,192,000
(Federal or State unsecured)
$152,000
$1,085,000
$1,955,00
left turn lane (for 275' storage length).
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$23,000
(Local Funds)
$23,000
$3,215,000
Total
$175,000
$1,085,000
$1,955,00
SR-104 @ 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW
Extend left turn storage area for WB
$0
(Federal or State secured)
Intersection Improvements
movement on SR-104 w/ various
bicycle and pedestrian improvements.
$179,000
(Federal or State unsecured)
$15,000
$164,000
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$15,000
(Local Funds)
$15,000
$194,000
Total
$30,000
$164,000
SR-104 @ 95th PI. W Intersection
Convert EB and WB LT along SR-104
$0
(Federal or State secured)
Improvements
to protected LT phasing; upgrade ADA
$485,000
(Federal or State unsecured)
$65,000
$420,000
curb ramps; and add C-Curb for
access management
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$10,000
(Local Funds)
$10,000
$495,000
Total
$75,000
$420,000
SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection
Install traffic signal to improve
$0
(Federal or State secured)
Improvements
vehicular and pedestrian safety; revise
geometry to allow for safer turns.
$1,311,000
(Federal or State unsecured)
$173,000
$1,138,000
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$27,000
(Local Funds)
$27,000
$1,338,000
Total
$200,000
$1,138,000
Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W
Install traffic signal to reduce the
$0
(Federal or State secured)
Intersection Improvements
intersection delay and improve Level
of Service.
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
$1,183,000
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$0
(Local Funds)
$0
Total
$1,183,000
84th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th St.
Install two-way left turn lanes and
$0
(Federal or State secured)
SW)
sidewalk to improve capacity and
pedestrian safety (split with
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
$15,441,000
Snohomish County)
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$0
(Local Funds)
$0
Total
$15,441,000
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1700 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element)
City of Edmonds
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
Transportation Projects
(2017-2022)
Grant
(2017.2022)
1
Project Name
Purpose
Opportunity
Project Phase
Total Cost
Funding Source
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
SR-104 @ 100th Ave. W Intersection /
Implement Westgate Circulation
$0
(Federal or State secured)
Westgate Area Improvements
Access Plan, midblock pedestrian
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
$1,017,468
crossings along 100th Ave. W, and
rechannelization with bike lanes /
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
sharrows along 100th Ave. W.
$0
(Local Funds)
$0
Total
$1,017,468
SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W Intersection
Add a 2nd WB left turn lane (split with
$0
(Federal or State secured)
Improvements
Shoreline).
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
$3,017,000
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$0
(Local Funds)
$0
Total
$3,017,000
Olympic View Dr. @ 174th St. SW
Install traffic signal to improve Level of
$0
(Federal or State secured)
Intersection Improvements
Service and intersection delay.
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$610,000
$0
(Local Funds)
$0
Total
$610,000
Non -motorized Pedestrian /Bicycle Projects
Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to
Provide walkway on the west side of
$157,121
(Federal or State secured)
$157,121
Caspers St.
Sunset Ave, with various utility
upgrades.
Possible
$1,870,000
(Federal or State unsecured)
$1,870,000
RCO / TIB Grant
Design
$0
(Unsecured)
for construction
$751,129
(Local Funds)
$26,129
$725,000
$2,778,250
Total
$183,250
$2,595,000
Dayton St. between 7th Ave. S to 8th
Provide safe sidewalk along short
$0
(Federal or State secured)
Ave. S Walkway
missing link.
$37,500
(Federal or State unsecured)
$37,500
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$37,500
(Local Funds)
$37,500
$75,000
Total
$75,000
232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to SR
Improve pedestrian safety along
$0
(Federal or State secured)
104
232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. to
SR-104.
$1,205,000
(Federal or State unsecured)
$100,000
$1,105,00
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$100,000
(Local Funds)
$100,000
$1,305,000
Total
$200,000
$1,105,00
238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to
Improve pedestrian safety along 238th
$12,000
(Federal or State secured)
$12,000
104th Ave. W
St. SW from 100th Ave. to 104th Ave.
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
Construction
$0
(Unsecured)
$0
(Local Funds)
$12,000
Total
$12,000
236th St SW from Edmonds Way (SR-
Improve pedestrian safety along 236th
$50,600
(Federal or State secured)
$50,600
104) to Madrona Elementary
St. SW, creating a safe pedestrian
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
connection from SR-104 to Madrona
school.
Construction
$0
(Unsecured)
$38,000
(Local Funds)
$38,000
$88,600
Total
$88,600
236th St SW from Edmonds Way
Improve pedestrian safety along 236th
$0
(Federal or State secured)
(SR-104) to 97th Ave. W
St. SW, creating a safe pedestrian
connection from SR-104.
$1,288,500
(Federal or State unsecured)
$106,500
$1,182,000
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$106,500
(Local Funds)
$106,500
$1,395,000
Total
$213,000
$1,182,000
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1700 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element)
to
City of Edmonds
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
Transportation Projects
(2017-2022)
Grant
(2017.2022)
Project Name
Purpose
Opportunity
Project Phase
Total Cost
Funding Source
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
84th Ave. W from 238th St. SW to
Improve pedestrian safety along 84th
$0
(Federal or State secured)
234th St. SW
Ave. W. from 238th St. SW to 234th
$90,000
State
$90,000
$495,000
St SW.
(Federal or unsecured)
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$0
(Local Funds)
$90,000
Total
$90,0001
$495,000
80th Ave. W from 212th St SW to 206th
Improve pedestrian safety along 80th
$0
(Federal or State secured)
St. SW
Ave. W, within proximity to Edmonds-
Woodway High School.
$1,439,000
(Federal or State unsecured)
$210,000
$1,229,000
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$0
(Local Funds)
$1,439,000
Total
$210,000
$1,229,000
2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St.
Provide safe sidewalk along short
$0
(Federal or State secured)
Walkway
missing link.
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$30,000
(Local Funds)
$30,000
$30,000
Total
$30,000
Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th
Provide safe sidewalk, connecting to
$0
(Federal or State secured)
St. SW
ex. sidewalk along 200th St. SW
(direct link to Maplewood Elementary
$1,591,000
(Federal or State unsecured)
$230,000
$681,000
$650,000
School).
Possible grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$0
(Local Funds)
$1,591,000
Total
$230,000
$681,000
$680,000
95th PI. W from 224th St. SW to 220th
Provide sidewalk on one side of 95th
$0
(Federal or State secured)
St. SW
PI. W from 224th St. SW to 220th St.
$409,000
(Federal or State unsecured)
$84,000
$325,000
SW completing missing link)
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$141,000
(Local Funds)
$21,000
$120,000
$550,000
Total
$105,000
$445,000
218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th
Provide safe sidewalk along a missing
$0
(Federal or State secured)
Ave. W
link of 218th St. SW. from 76th Ave. to
$978,000
(Federal or State unsecured)
$100,000
$878,000
84th Ave.
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$327,000
(Local Funds)
$100,000
$227,000
$1,305,000
Total
$200,000
$1,105,00
Walnut St from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. S
Provide short missing link.
$0
(Federal or State secured)
Walkway
$105,000
(Federal or State unsecured)
$105,000
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$0
(Local Funds)
$105,000
Total
$105,000
216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to
Provide sidewalk on north side of
$0
(Federal or State secured)
72nd Ave W
216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd
$137,000
(Federal or State unsecured)
$137,000
Ave W (completing missing link)
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$20,000
(Local Funds)
$20,000
$157,000
Total
$157,000
238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy. 99
Provide sidewalk on north side of
$316,800
(Federal or State secured)
$316,800
238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy. 99
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
(completing missing link)
Design
$0
(Unsecured)
$96,200
(Local Funds)
$96,200
$413,000
Total
$413,000
15th St. SW from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave.
Provide sidewalk on south side of 15th
$0
(Federal or State secured)
S
St. SW from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
(completing missing link)
$200,000
(Federal or State unsecured)
$200,000
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$30,000
(Local Funds)
$30,000
$230,000
Total
$30,000
$200,000
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1700 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element)
10
City of Edmonds
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
Transportation Projects
(2017-2022)
Grant
(2017.2022)
Project Name
Purpose
Opportunity
Project Phase
Total Cost
Funding Source
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Elm Way from 8th Ave. S to 9lh Ave. S
Provide sidewalk on one side of Elm
$0
(Federal or State secured)
Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
$789,000
(Federal or State unsecured)
$156,000
$633,000
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$0
(Local Funds)
$789,000
Total
$156,000
$633,000
Minor Sidewalk Program
Complete short sidewalk stretches
$0
(Federal or State secured)
throughout the City (annual program)
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$320,000
(Local Funds)
$70,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$700,000
$320,000
Total
$70,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$700,000
191st St. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th
Provide sidewalk on one side of 191th
$0
(Federal or State secured)
Ave. W
St. SW from 80th Ave. to 76th Ave.
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
$630,000
(completing missing link)
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$0
(Local Funds)
$0
Total
$630,000
104th Ave. W / Robinhood Lane from
Provide sidewalk on west side of
$0
(Federal or State secured)
238th St. SW to 106th Ave. W
104th Ave. from 238th St. SW to 106th
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
$990,000
Ave. W (completing missing link)
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$0
(Local Funds)
$0
Total
$990,000
80th Ave. W from 218th St. SW to
Provide sidewalk on one side of 80th
$0
(Federal or State secured)
220th St. SW
Ave. W from 218th St. SW to 220th St.
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
$315,000
SW (completing missing link)
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$0
(Local Funds)
$0
Total
$315,000
84th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to
Provide sidewalk on one side of 84th
$0
(Federal or State secured)
186th St. SW
Ave. W from 188th St. SW to 186th St.
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
$315,000
SW
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$0
(Local Funds)
$0
Total
$315,000
236th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave.
Provide sidewalk on one side of 236th
$0
(Federal or State secured)
W
St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
$765,000
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$0
(Local Funds)
$0
Total
$765,000
238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave.
Provide sidewalk on one side of 238th
$0
(Federal or State secured)
W
St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave W
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
$1,170,000
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$0
(Local Funds)
$0
Total
$1,170,000
UAttachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1700 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element)
City of Edmonds
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
Transportation Projects
(2017-2022)
Grant
(2017.2022)
Project Name
Purpose
Opportunity
Project Phase
Total Cost
Funding Source
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
80th Ave. W / 180th St. SW from 188th
Provide sidewalk on one side of 80th
$0
(Federal or State secured)
St. SW to OVD
Ave. W / 180th St. SW from 188th St.
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
$1,350,000
SW to OVD
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$0
(Local Funds)
$0
Total
$1,350,000
189th PI. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th
Provide sidewalk on one side of 189th
$0
(Federal or State secured)
Ave. W
PI. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave.
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
$585,000
W
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$0
(Local Funds)
$0
Total
$585,000
Ferrv/Railroad
Ferry Storage Improvements from Pine
Improve ferry queueing by extending
$0
(Federal or State secured)
St. to Dayton St.
ferry storage area along SR-104
(striping changes).
$357,000
(Federal or State unsecured)
$357,000
Possible Grant
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
$0
(Local Funds)
$357,000
Total
$357,000
Traffic Plannina Proiects
Trackside Warning System at Dayton
Install wayside horns at both crossings
$0
(Federal or State secured)
St. and Main St. Railroad Crossings
to reduce noise from train horns.
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
Design /
$0
(Unsecured)
Construction
$10,000
(Local Funds)
$10,000
$10,000
Total
$10,000
Edmonds Street Overpass
Install grade -separated overcrossing
$23,820,000
(Federal or State unsecured)
$350,000
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$2,470,OOC
$19,500,000
over the railroad tracks as an
extension of Edmonds Street
Conceptual
$0
(Unsecured)
connecting to Brackett's Landing North
$150,000
(Local funds)
$150,000
park.
$23,970,000
Total
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$2,470,000
$19,500,000
ir Total CFP $49,300,013 1 Annual CFP Totals 1 $6,570,013 1 $650,000 1 $50,000 1 $6,260,000 1 $18,778,000 1 $21,462,000 1 $130,529,468
Revenue Summary by Year
Totals
Source
2017
T2018
1 2019
1 2020
1 2021
2022
1 2023.2037
$13,568,021
Total Federal & State (Secured
$3,481,521
$86,500
$0
$0
$5,000,000
$5,000,0001
$0
$30,809,950
Total Federal & State Unsecured
$350,0001
$500,0001
$0
$5,017,4501
$13,077,5001
$16,185,0001
$127,863,468
$0
Unsecured
$0
$01
$0
$01
$0
$0
$610,000
$4,947,042
LocalFundsl
$2,763,4921
$63,5001
$50,0001
$1,242,5501
$700,5001
$277,0001
$2,056,000
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1700 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element)
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 228t St. SW Corridor ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7,300,000
Safety Improvements
J
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1) Extend 228th St across the unopened right-of-way to 76th Avenue West 2)
Signalize the intersection of 228th St SW @ SR99 and 228th St. SW @ 76th Ave. West 3) Construct a raised
median in the vicinity of 76th Avenue West. 4) Add illumination between 224th St SW and 228th St SW on SR 99 5)
Overlay of 228th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to — 2,000' east of 76th Ave. W.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will improve access / safety to the 1-5 / Mountlake Terrace
Park & Ride from SR99. This east / west connection will reduce demand and congestion along two east -west
corridors (220th Street SW and SR104). Roadway safety will also be improved as SR 99/ 228th Street SW will
become a signalized intersection. 228th St. SW is being overlaid from 80th Pl. W to -- 1,000 LF east of 72"d Ave. W.
as well as 76th Ave. W from 228th St. SW to Hwy. 99. The project consists of various utility upgrades.
SCHEDULE: Construction began in 2015 and substantial completion was obtained in May 2016. Physical
completion is scheduled to be reached in October 2016. The only remaining task in 2017 is the completion of the
Federal documentation. Federal and State grants were secured for the construction phase. This project was
combined into one construction contract with the Hwy. 99 (Phase 3) Lighting project.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering,
Administration, and
ROW
Construction
$25,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$25,000
All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the arts
22
Packet Pg. 145
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 228 th St. SW from Hwy. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,421,000
99 to 95th PI. W
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 228 th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 95 th PI. W to three lanes
with two-way left turn lane), with curb and gutter, sidewalk, and bike lanes.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety and traffic
flow along this corridor.
SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2021 (pending funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$75,000
$300,000
Construction
$9,821,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$75,000
$300,000
$9,821,000
23
Packet Pg. 146
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 76 Ave W @ 212 St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,500,000
Intersection Improvements
1
EDMONDS-WOODWAY
HIGH SCHOOL
I
OFFICE
W
a
R
.. G"
1301
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a northbound and southbound left -turn lane to convert the signal
operation for those approaches from split phasing to protected -permissive phasing. Add a right -turn
lane for the westbound, southbound, and northbound movements. The project also consists of
various utility upgrades and conversion of overhead utilities to underground.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the existing level
of service to LOS C.
SCHEDULE: Design was completed in May 2016. The project was advertised in June 2016 but the
lowest bid was rejected since it was - approx. $1.3 Million over budget. The project is scheduled to be
re -advertised in early 2017. A TIB grant to cover the possible shortfall was submitted in August 2016.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
Construction
$4,993,163
$100,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$4,993,163
$100,000
N
N
O
N
ti
0
N
a.
w
U
x
w
c
a�
E
0
M
Q
24
Packet Pg. 147
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $85,000,000
Gateway/Revitalization
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would include, among other features, wider
replacement sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center
medians for access control and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better
stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead
utilities, landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access
management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved.
SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2017 (pending approval of the 2017
decision package).An HSIP grant was also submitted in July 2016 for this project. The
construction phase is scheduled to begin in 2021 (pending additional funding / $10M from
Connecting Washington allocation has been secured).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Engineering &
$300,000
$6,600,000
Administration
& ROW
Construction
$6,000,000
$72,400,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$300,000
$6,600,000
$6,000,000
$72,400,000
25
Packet Pg. 148
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: SR-524 (196t" St. SW)/ 88t" ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $903,000
Ave. W Intersection Improvements I
3
w
a
SEVEN DAY
ADVENl1ST
CHURCH
196TH Sf SW
L
IRP 1-1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196 th St. SW @ 88 th Ave. W.
The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan indicated that restricting northbound and
southbound traffic to right -turn -only (prohibiting left -turn and through movements) would also
address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This is same alternative as one
concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be
implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are
met. The ex. LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D). This project was ranked #6 in the
Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the
intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase the delay along 196t" St. SW.
SCHEDULE: The intersection LOS must meet MUTCD traffic signal warrants and be approved
by WSDOT since 196t" St. SW is a State Route (SR524). No funding is currently allocated to this
project (pending grant funding).
COST
BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
$193,000
$175,000
Administration &
ROW
Construction
$535,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$193,000
$175,000
$535,000
N
N
O
N
0
N
IL
v
x
w
c
a�
E
a
26
Packet Pg. 149
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Main Stand 9th Ave. S :1 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $911,000
BELL Sr
I �
LLF -� �' W
a _ a
MAIN St
I _ I WADE JAM ES
_ — THEATER
W '
a J
S
H -
DAYTON 5 ,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a traffic signal (or mini -roundabout is an alternative
solution).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The existing intersection is stop -controlled for all
approaches and the projected intersection LOS in 2035 is LOS F (below the City's
concurrency standards: LOS D). The installation of a traffic signal would improve the
intersection delay to LOS B. The project ranked #4 in the Roadway Project Priority of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2020 and 2021 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$135,000
Construction
$776,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$135,000
$776,000
27
Packet Pg. 150
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 220" St SW @ 76t" Ave W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
Intersection Improvements $5,925,000
2,9rH sr sw
J
21919
J
J J
3 14
I' Lri
,a
Ui
in
J _J
1 2215TPLSW
ll!�U QIM
TOP FOODS JSTARBU KS
J
220TH ST SW -
1
r
LYNWOOD
HONDA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right
turn lane. Change eastbound and westbound phases to provide protected -permitted phase for
eastbound and westbound left turns. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement during
southbound left turn phase. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY #1 in 2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The
projected LOS in 2035 would be improved from LOS F to LOS D.
SCHEDULE: Engineering, ROW, and construction scheduled between 2020 and 2022
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering & ROW
$330,000
$1,800,000
Administration
Construction
$3,795,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$330,000
$1,800,000
$3,795,000
' All or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the arts
28
Packet Pg. 151
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212 St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,806,000
intersection improvements
21 g sw:T I
i
W
W Paalung
sign
Shop
/
n
7313
P.U.B
3 Edmonds
Edmonds
/
W Family Clinic ei
ADD Publm%Torks
KENNEL
21 1 21114 /
f Arbor Apt
Q
�az
211 /
ofNlla
Ramps
21109 /
n
he Box /
212TH ST Sw
7,.5�•
a
T'2"215TH
LTW
9RI
PLANT
AEGIS
W SWEDISH
k�MDNnSCAM— '
ALLIED /
ROOFING /
/
/
B&M /
CON ST
21414 /
21448 /
/
/
NCOONRLD' Q(
/ 01
1ALUE /
PILLAGE /
16TH ST/SW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 212 th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200'
storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300' storage length. Provide protected left
turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements. (ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in
2015 Transportation Plan: #4)
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2020 and 2022 (unsecured funding).The
project cost is split between Lynnwood and Edmonds since half the project is in Lynnwood.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering,
ROW, &
Administration
$175,000
$1,091,000
Construction
$1,540,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$175,000
$1,091,000
$1,540,000
N
N
0
N
ti
0
N
a
w
U
r
x
w
c
a�
E
a
29
Packet Pg. 152
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216 St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,335,000
intersection improvements
w
c
W 21401 { r
o
04
N
LU
>
Mun
V01
2i43�
�z
r
215 AEGIS
21558
VALUE
VILLAGE
ST SW
•
216 Tli
S,
21600
{� 21619
KRUGER
f
CLINIC
21632
01
-
�
�
��I19e
21405
an
SW
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 216t St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for and an
eastbound left turn lane. Provide protected -permissive left turn phases for eastbound and
westbound movements. This project ranked #3 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2020 and 2022 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
ROW &
Administration
$164,000
$334,000
Construction
$1,837,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$164,000
$334,000
$1,837,000
a
30
Packet Pg. 153
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220 St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,215,000
intersection improvements
19TH ST SW
21919
f,ill
7514
221 ST PL SW
I
I
I
13
-- a
n
I
FEi
FZ/
TOP FOODS
220TH Sr SW
LYNWOOD
HONDA a
_ iL
FUNTASIA
H'S IN N
L7
w .F 7223'J'
n
7391 'HA Jo
aH¢ nm
M. r
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 220th St. SW to add Westbound right turn lane for 325'
storage length. Widen SR-99 to add 2nd Southbound left turn lane for 275 storage length.
(ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #1).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce intersection delay and improve traffic flow and
safety.
SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2020 and 2022 (unsecured funding for all
phases).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
COST
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
& ROW
$175,000
$1,085,000
Construction
$1,955,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$175,000
$1,085,000
$1,955,000
N
N
0
N
ti
0
N
IL
U
x
w
a�
E
31
Packet Pg. 154
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 226 1h St. SW / ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $194,000
15t" St. SW Intersection Improvements
14TH WAY SW
226TH ST SW
uJ 226TH PL SW
M
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Extend the left turn lane for the westbound movement on SR-104.
Complete various pedestrian and bicycle intersection improvements. This project was
identified in the SR-104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve non -motorized transportation safety at the
intersection and improve traffic flow along the SR-104 corridor.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2021 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$30,000
Construction
$164,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$30,000
$164,000
32
Packet Pg. 155
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 95" PI. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $495,000
Intersection Improvements
r
W 06
a
Ln
al
en Cn
'H ST SW
1
WESTGATI C APE
PARKING
■
1
WESTGATE
CHAPEL
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrade all ADA Curb Ramps; and add C-Curb for access
management.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety for pedestrians and vehicles.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2021 unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$75,000
Construction
$420,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$75,000
$420,000
N
N
0
N
ti
T
0
N
a
w
U
x
w
c
as
E
33
Packet Pg. 156
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 238" St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,338,000
Intersection Improvements
To Hwy 99
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The warrants are met for such an installation.
This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in
2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2021 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$200,000
Construction
$1,138,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$200,000
$1,138,000
34
Packet Pg. 157
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 76 Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
W Intersection Improvements $1,183,000
N
SEAVIEW
PARK
3
PLSW
186TH ST SW
ml I m—I
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for
all movements). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #11).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. The
projected Level of Service is LOS F in 2035, which is below the City's concurrency standards
(LOS D). The project will improve the Level of Service to LOS B.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2023 and 2037
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$200,000
Construction
$983,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$1,183,000
35
Packet Pg. 158
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 84" Ave. W (212 St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $15,441,000
to 238t" St. SW)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 84 th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and
sidewalk on each side of the street. (part of this project was ranked #6 in the Long Walkway list
of the 2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve overall safety of the transportation system along
this collector street: 1) the sidewalk and bike lanes would provide pedestrians and cyclists with
their own facilities and 2) vehicles making left turn will have their own lane, not causing any
back-up to the through lane when insufficient gaps are provided.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2023 and 2037
(unsecured funding). The project cost is split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since
half the project is in Esperance.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Engineering &
$2,000,000
Administration
Construction
$13,441,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$15,441,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
36
Packet Pg. 159
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 100t Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,017,468
Intersection Improvements
—J
EDMONDS WAY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement Westgate Circulation Access Plan, install mid -block
pedestrian crossing along 100t" Ave. W, and re -striping of 100t" Ave. W with the potential
addition of bike lanes. This project was identified in the SR-104 Completed Streets Corridor
Analysis (completed in 2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and
improve non -motorized transportation safety.
SCHEDULE: 2023-2037 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$150,000
Construction
$867,468
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$1,017,468
37
Packet Pg. 160
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76 Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,017,000
Intersection Improvements
x
M1
M1
}
W
dM1
- P^1
--En&WW Dri 1ELA.Y-_--------_LAKE BALLING €RWAY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DESCRIPTION: Add a 2 nd left turn lane along SR-104. This project was identified
in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and
improve non -motorized transportation safety.
SCHEDULE: 2023-2037. The project cost would be split between Shoreline and Edmonds
since half the intersection is in Shoreline.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$453,000
Construction
$2,564,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$3,017,000
38
Packet Pg. 161
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 174t" St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $610,000
SW Intersection Improvements
u�gti
II'llm ��il��
oil
sso' St. Thomas Moore
°ffp Catholic School
I B Ilfield
y
I-"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane for 50'
storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration lane for
eastbound left turns. Install traffic signal to increase the LOS and reduce intersection delay.
(ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #13)
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers
accessing either street.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2023 and 2037
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$100,000
Construction
$510,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$610,000
a
39
Packet Pg. 162
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,000,000
from Bell St to Caspers St.
♦ ♦ �� I■� 11111■0 I
♦ ♦ OW
�♦
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a walkway on the west side of the street, facing
waterfront (— 1/2 mile / more recent project).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Temporary improvements have been installed to evaluate the alignment of the
proposed walkway. Additional modification to the temporary improvements will be completed
in 2017 (since construction isn't scheduled to occur until 2019 / 2020 when utility
improvements are scheduled along this stretch). No grant funding has yet been secured for
the construction phase. The design phase will be completed in 2017.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
COST
Planning/Study
Engineering &
$183,250
Administration
Construction
$2,595,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$183,250
$2,595,000
all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
N
N
O
N
ti
O
N
a
U-
U
r
x
w
r
c
a�
E
CU
a
40
Packet Pg. 163
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Dayton St Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $75,000
between 7t" Ave. S and 8t" Ave. S
MAIM ST
z NO -ISLE FRANCES ANDERSON 4v0 tA
W
❑ Q �
660 701
DAYTOM ST
w MAPLE 5T
-T77
T � a
k
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 250') on
Dayton St. between 7t" Ave. S and 8t" Ave. S (ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in
2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2020 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$75,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$75,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
41
Packet Pg. 164
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 232 nd St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,305,000
from 100t" Ave. W to SR-104
EDMONDS WAY
W SANK
iwnRs
LLI
L !
Ell
2 .
■ ■ Qy -
1
�i
IF Al. 10
UUT H '
CHURCH, (jr
■ ■
■ , Uj
7 , ■
AW �I
o
�0 c� 2
ODW' ' I ESTATES AY OLy I _ PR
RK
\29 9 Dorn 98 7 6 5
' 30 2 15
3 14 7•
J \32 45 32
■ r
jr
`2q
7 1
nm (0)
1 � ■ � e
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 232"d St. SW from 100t Ave. W to SR-104.
This project ranked #3 in the Long Walkway List of 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$200,000
Construction
$1,105,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$200,000
$1,105,000
N
N
0
N
ti
T
0
N
IL
LL
U
x
w
c
d
E
0
Q
42
Packet Pg. 165
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 238 St. SW Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,400,000
100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W and Stormwater
Improvements
BASEBALL
FIELD
HICKMAN PARK
23
V
2
COMM
wn
m
LIBRARY
�
a
23 TO 42
OLD WOODWAYHIGH SCHOOL
3
a
236TH
PL SW
Z
0
3
3
J
LU
F
Q
O
F
a
Q
Q
4
a
238TH ST SW
O
� M -
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of -- 1,200' of sidewalk on the north side of 238t St. SW
from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W. as well as sharrows. Stormwater improvements will also be
incorporated into the project.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and create a safe pedestrian
connection between 100th Ave. W and 104th Ave. W.
SCHEDULE: Construction is complete. The project was funded by the Safe Routes to School
grant program. Stormwater improvements were funded by the Stormwater Utility Fund 422.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$12,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$12,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
N
N
0
N
I-
T
0
N
a
LLM
x
w
c
as
E
Q
43
Packet Pg. 166
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 236t" St. SW Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $900,000
Edmonds Way to Madrona Elementary School
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct an — 800' sidewalk on the south side of 236 th St. SW
from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary as well as the addition of sharrows along that stretch.
(This is only part of a stretch of Walkway project, which ranked #1 in the Long Walkway list in
the 2009 Transportation Plan)
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route near
Madrona Elementary School and along 236t" St. SW.
SCHEDULE: Construction is scheduled to start in Fall 2016 and be completed by Spring
2017. The project is funded through the Safe Routes to School Grant program, Fund 422 for
stormwater improvements, and REET funds for the pavement reconstruction.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
Construction
$88,600
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$88,600
44
Packet Pg. 167
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 236 th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,395,000
from Madrona Elementary to 97t" Ave. W
Lrl�l��
233Ro:
pm
■ IL
` 235f1
6
2367H ST SW
1 J1
- 2367H PC SIN
237TH PL SW ti
01 � r
ON IN
sw.
7MMOM
2 34THTSV S W X�
4
T SIR+ 9
-
�_ ~• 232NUPL SW-
i
■n i
� W
PL,5W !
0.
W
■ m
■Elm
o
a
23GTH-Si_SW
IIr
1
snip !
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk with curb and gutter along 236 nd St. SW from
Madrona Elementary to 97t" Ave. W. This project ranked #4 in Long Walkway list of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2021 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$213,000
Construction
$1,182,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$213,000
$1,182,000
45
Packet Pg. 168
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 841Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000
From 238th St. SW to 234th ST. SW
L
PARK
EonnoNos SAL GALLL
APTS m
w
w LL
CH RIST LNTH E RAN CH N RCH O
PARK
& RIDE
OFFICE
236:1 4SUHSET
23603 SAFEWAY $23605 WH L KJIHG R23607 23619 0
P
���R AURORAS MARKETPLACET
N
239TH ST SW
W SEOUL
23821 PLAZA
2
23827
TRAVEL LODGE
0"
NORTH
ry HAVEN z
n MANOR w
a �
R p
r~ }
n•1L LO'N
13ROCK
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84 th Ave. W from 238 th St .SW to 234 th St.
SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: Begin design in 2022 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$90,000
Construction
$495,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$90,000
$495,000
a
46
Packet Pg. 169
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 801Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,439,000
from 206t" St. SW to 212t" ST. SW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 206 th St. SW to 212 th St.
SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked #1 in Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The improvements will improve non -motorized
transportation safety.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2022 (funding unsecured). A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program grant to fund
the design phase was submitted in May 2016 (response scheduled for Spring 2017).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$210,000
Construction
$1,229,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$210,000
$1,229,000
47
Packet Pg. 170
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 2nd Ave. S Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000
James St. to Main St.
4t
3�
<1 NG
4
F5
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
2nd Ave. S between Main St.
2015 Transportation Plan).
Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 100') on
and James St. (Ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: 2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$30,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$30,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
N
N
O
N
ti
T
0
N
IL
U
x
w
c
a�
E
48
Packet Pg. 171
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,591,000
from Main St. to 200th St. SW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct sidewalk on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200t St.
SW (- 2,700'). A sidewalk currently exists on 200th St. SW from Main St. to 76th Ave. W,
adjacent to Maplewood Elementary School (rated #22 in the Long Walkway list of the 2015
Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood
Elementary School on 200th St. SW and Main St., by encouraging kids to use non -motorized
transportation to walk to / from school.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2020 and construction in 2022 (funding unsecured).
A grant application through Safe Routes to School Program was submitted in May 2016 for
design funding (response scheduled for Spring 2017).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
$230,000
Administration
Construction
$681,000
$680,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
1
$230,000
$681,000
$680,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
49
Packet Pg. 172
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 95 1h PI. W Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $550,000
2241" ST. SW to 220t" St. SW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 95 th PI. W from 224 th ST. SW to 220th ST.
SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #9 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2020 and construction in 2021 (funding unsecured).
A TIB grant application was submitted in August 2016 to fund this project (response scheduled
for November 2016).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2036
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$105,000
Construction
$445,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$105,000
$445,000
50
Packet Pg. 173
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 21 8thSt. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,305,000
from 76t" Ave. W to 84t" Ave. W
■■■■N� ���■■ mom
oENT ER
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 218t St. SW from 76t Ave. W to 84 th Ave.
W with curb and gutter. This project ranked #2 in Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The improvements will improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$200,000
Construction
$1,105,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$200,000
$1,105,000
N
N
0
N
ti
T
0
N
a
w
U
Z
x
w
c
as
E
0
M
Q
51
Packet Pg. 174
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. Walkway from 3r ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $105,000
Ave. S to 4t" Ave. S
ARTS
W ENTER
a
Z UNDOW NEI
N
ALDER
ALDER ST
346
414 412 410
arking
5
5
LA
UJ
o SOUND VIEW
o:
HOWELL WAY
W
a
x
v
DAYTON ST
OLD
MILLTOWN
MAPLE ST
TRIC
ALDER ST
N
W
a FBECKWT'S
z
BAN K
T-
409 530Pancak
407 540 Hau s
4003 546 0
401 w
a
WALNUT Sr
--F
GREGORY
e
H
525
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 350') on
Walnut St. between 3rd Ave. S and 4t" Ave. S (ranked #3 in Short Walkway Project list in 2015
Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2020 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$10,000
Construction
$95,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$105,000
all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
52
Packet Pg. 175
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 216 St. SW Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $157,000
Hwy. 99 to 72"d Ave. W
7200
PARK & RIDE
7309
5TEVE N
MAN oa
M1 rlao
21407
21507
21511
J y
IL
0 211 52
M STEVEN
C{} ll RT
21527
2767H
120
EVENS
FILION
��
21500
AEGIS
S
21600
KRUGER
CLINIC
210
B &M40
CONS
21410 21408 0.
21401 21412 r
21420
21�MCDONALD'
Ln
Ilk
{4
21558
VALUE
VILLAGE
216 TIl
{ 21619
A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 150' sidewalk on north side of 216 th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to
72nd Ave. W (completing a missing link on north side of stretch). This project ranked #4 in the
Short Walkway List (from 2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2020 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$30,000
Construction
$127,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$157,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
N
N
0
N
ti
0
N
IL
LL
U
r
x
w
a�
E
CU
a
53
Packet Pg. 176
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 238 St. SW Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $491,000
Hwy. 99 to SR-104
i
1
L
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #12 in Long Walkway list from 2015 Transportation Plan.
Install 5' sidewalk on the north side of 238t" St. SW.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating
safe pedestrian connection between Hwy. 99 and 76t" Ave. W.
SCHEDULE: The design phase is underway and will be completed by early 2017. Construction
is scheduled for 2017. A TIB grant was secured to fund the design and construction phases.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$413,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$413,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
54
Packet Pg. 177
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 15 St. SW Walkway from 8 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $240,000
Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
_ AY=L 813
723 ,
� 805 811
1439 807 909
PI
144
!� 1445 �:._ qq^. 4 Iq 9ts
982
1452
9906 9832
226W
I a' W.;.
Edmonds Memorial Cemetery
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add missing sidewalk link along 15 St. SW from 8t Ave. S to 9t
Ave S
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and providing
pedestrian connection from 9th Ave. S.
SCHEDULE: The design phase will be completed in 2017.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$30,000
Construction
$200,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$30,000
$200,000
all or part of this project may quality for 1 % for the Arts.
N
N
O
N
ti
O
N
a
U
x
w
r
c
a�
E
CU
a
55
Packet Pg. 178
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Elm Way Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $789,000
8t" Ave. S to 9t" Ave. S
4
�^
W
■
I
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along Elm Way from 8t Ave. S to 9t Ave. S. This
project ranked #6 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2021 (funding unsecured). A Safe Routes to School grant application was
submitted in May 2016 to fund the design and construction phases of this project (response
scheduled for Spring 2017.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$156,000
Construction
$633,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$156,000
$633,000
a
56
Packet Pg. 179
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Minor Sidewalk Program ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: varies
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete missing sidewalk along short segments throughout the
City.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: annual program
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
Construction
$60,000
$45,000
$45,000
$45,000
$45,000
$45,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$70,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
57
Packet Pg. 180
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 191th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $630,000
from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W
1�
192ND PL 5W
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 191th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76 th Ave.,
with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation
Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2023-2037
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$90,000
Construction
$540,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$630,000
58
Packet Pg. 181
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 104 th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $990,000
from 238t" St. SW to 106t" Ave. W
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 104 th Ave. W from 238t ST. SW to 106t
Ave. W, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #10 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2023-2037
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$150,000
Construction
$840,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$990,000
59
Packet Pg. 182
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 801h Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $315,000
from 218t" St. SW to 220t" St. SW
❑
2
CA
Golden
n
,
5TEVE
HEAL
°0
'
Leaves
i
EVENS
A K
'
Ir
m
x
LEGEND
ESTATES
WES1
ISLE
.
'
J
218TH ST SW
NMI
Elm
a
■
7a
IN
219TH ST SW
ME
r
�
m
— -------�T---------
Iti
--- ---- _220THSTSW_
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80t Ave. W from 218t ST. SW to 220t ST.
SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #7 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2023-2037
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$55,000
Construction
$260,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
1315,000
60
Packet Pg. 183
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 841Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $315,000
from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW
ME T Jr r
Sw r .} F i L
■ ` a ■ r r ri
186TH ST w m
w _
�i i� ■� r ■
18 TH 5 5w ■
z�BrN 5
L
7
1
r5w
LE
SFAMF W
4E
1
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84 th Ave. W from 188 th St. SW to 186 th St.
SW., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in Short Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2023-2037
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$60,000
Construction
$255,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$315,000
a
Packet Pg. 184
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 236 th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $765,000
from Hwy 99 to 76t" Ave. W
■
PARK
& RIDE
236TH ST SWN
23607
23603 SAFEN
23605 � KJI
23607 NON
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 236t St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76t Ave. W.
This project ranked #11 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2023-2037
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$115,000
Construction
$650,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$765,000
62
Packet Pg. 185
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 238thSt. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,170,000
from Hwy 99 to 76t" Ave. W
1
PARK
r
.•nrIRL
NA LN
'
, ■ '
EOMONOs
APTS
BALL
' •
•
1
��r�
W
w
Ov
NORTH
m
CH RIST LH THE RAN CHURCH
S
N
PARK
& RIDE
R
n -
2
TH T
OFFICE
■
d `�
,4
,
W
r
SAFEWAY
�
L KJIHG
FC,�
I
'
L • .
SUNSET
'•n•1L LO•n:
CEj
BROOK
■
AURORA-
MARKETPLACE
FAMILYPANCAKEr
j7'
�
1 ■
238TH 5T 5W
"'
■
■
■
23827
seouL
PLAZAMEN
'
■ ►
1
Will
x
11
23827,
TRAVEL
LODGE
2397 ■
-MISISON TACO TIM
■
ST. FRA NCIS
MOTEL
WHSE ■ME
. .
.
- ■
■ ■
_+
K&EMOTEL
1
1
■
■
� I,
1:11 RIl RIl III F
1 ■
■ ■
�
,
IN
■
■
:yA
■
■
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 238t St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76t Ave. W
This project ranked #12 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2023-2037
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$175,000
Construction
$995,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$1,170,000
N
N
O
N
ti
0
N
a
U
x
w
c
as
E
0
M
Q
63
Packet Pg. 186
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 80 Ave. W / 180 St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,350,000
SW Walkway from 188" St. SW to OVD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 188 th St. SW to OVD. This
project ranked #13 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2023-2037
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$270,000
Construction
$1,080,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$1,350,000
64
Packet Pg. 187
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: 189thPI. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000
from 80t" Ave. W to 76t" Ave. W
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 189t PI. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76 th Ave.
W. This project ranked #14 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2023-2037
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023-2037
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$115,000
Construction
$470,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$585,000
65
Packet Pg. 188
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Ferry Storage ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $357,000
Improvements from Pine St. Dayton St.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Modify existing lane channelization on SR104 to add vehicle
storage for ferry users.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce conflicts between ferry storage and access to
local driveways.
SCHEDULE: 2020 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$50,000
Construction
$307,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$357,000
66
Packet Pg. 189
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Trackside Warning System ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $350,000
@ Dayton and Main St. RR Crossing
■
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install Trackside Warning System @ Dayton and Main St.
Railroad Crossings.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce noise from train horns at both intersections.
SCHEDULE: Construction is scheduled to be completed by late 2016 or early 2017.
COST
BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$10,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$10,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
67
Packet Pg. 190
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Street Overpass ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $24,000,000
•f�� lf:L ra..��w 4i[ �r .ca�j�
c
a�
E
w
a.
U)
r
U
R
LL
R
U
N
N
O
N
ti
O
N
O
R
O
L
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project builds a grade -separated overcrossing over the railroad
tracks as an extension of Edmonds Street connecting to Brackett's Landing north park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Provide access for emergency vehicles, pedestrians, and
ti
N
0
N
Q
a
a
0
0
N
N
ti
O
N
w
U
t
w
x
c
a�
E
ca
68
Packet Pg. 191
bo
iu
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1700 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element)
0
n
ITI
It
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1700 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element)
FO
bo
iu
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1700 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element)
4.8.a
Project Name
Purpose
Grant Opportunity
Grant/Date
Current Project
Phase
(2017-2022)
Total Cost
2017
201
2019
2020
2021
2022
Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage
Add lift station and other new infrastructure to reduce
$0
(Federal or State secured)
Improvements.
intersection flooding.
Design
$0
(Federal or State unsecured)
$1,950,000
(DebUStormwater Fees)
$1,900,000
$50,000
$1,950,000
Total
$1,900,000
$50,000
Willow Creek/Daylighting
Daylight channel to allow better connnectivity with the Puget
RCO SRF Grant
$0
(Federal or State secured)
Sound to benefit fish and reduce flooding.
Possible Grant/TBD
Study
$4,200,000
(Federal or State unsecured)
$225,000
$225,000
$1,800,000
$1,950,000
$1,420,000
(DebUStormwater)
$75,000
$75,000
$600,000
$650,000
$20,(
$5,620,000
Total
$300,000
$300,000
$2,400,000
$2,600,000
$20,(
Perrinville Creek High Flow
Find solution to high peak stream flows caused by excessive
Ecology Grant
$510,375
(Federal or State secured)
$510,375
Reduction/Management Project -
stormwater runoff that erodes the stream, causes flooding
Possible Grant/TBD
Design
$1,087,500
(Federal or State unsecured)
$337,500
$375,000
$375,000
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
and has negative impacts on aquatic habitat.
$582,625
(DebUStormwater Fees)
$170,125
$112,500
$125,000
$125,000
$50,(
$2,180,500
Total
$680,500
$450,000
$500,000
$500,1)
$50,(
Total CFP $9,750,500 Annual CFP Totals $2,880,500 1 $800,000 1 $2,900,000 1 $3,100,000 1 $0 $70,OOC
v
N
Revenue Summary by Year
Totals
Source
2017
1 2018
1 2019
2020
2021
2022
$510,375
Total Federal& State (Secured)
$510,375
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,287,500
Total Federal & State
(Unsecured)
$225,000
$562,500
$2,175,000
$2,325,000
$0
$3,952,625
Debt/ Stormwater Fees
$2,145,125
$237,500
$725,000
$775,000
$0
$70,(
Packet Pg. 195
bo
iu
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1700 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element)
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Dayton St and Hwy 104 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,227,700
Drainage Improvements
e
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add lift station in the Beach Place parking lot and other new
infrastructure.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To reduce flooding at the intersection of Dayton St and
State Hwy 104.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2019
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
$100,000
Construction
$1,800,000
$50,000
1% for Art
$10,000
TOTAL
$1,900,000
$50,000
74
Packet Pg. 197
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Willow Creek Daylighting ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,825,000
Edmonds Marsh as seen from the viewing platform.
Previously restored section of Willow Creek. Source:
www.unocaledmonds.info/clean-u /n aallery_php
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Building on the studies completed in 2013 and 2015 that assessed the
feasibility of daylighting the Willow Creek channel, this project will likely construct a new tide gate and
1,100 linear ft of new creek channel lined with an impermeable membrane. Funds will be used for
design and construction but exact breakdown cannot be assessed at this time.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The daylighting of Willow Creek will help reverse the negative
impacts to Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped in the early
1960s. This project will provide habitat for salmonids, including rearing of juvenile Chinook. This project,
along with its companion CIP projects "Edmonds Marsh Channel Improvements" and "Dayton Street
Pump Station," will also help reduce the flooding problem at the intersection of SR-104 and Dayton
Street.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
$459,278
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
Construction
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$459,278
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
75
Packet Pg. 198
4.8.a
PROJECT NAME: Perrinville Creek High Flow ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,532,950
Reduction/Management Project
Talhot
Frederick
a
C
n
m
1 4t
185th 00
M
U
87th
04 1
4Q7{L
172n
w
173 d Nc
a
Perrinville d4
Creek th
:i
78th
77th+ 1
78th
-w
1 Oth m
181s
to
m a
�RRfL n n
t
Perrinville Creek Channel illustrating the channel incision that
will be addressed by restoration.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A flow reduction study for the Perrinville Creek basin was
completed in 2014. This study recommended a number of flow control and water quality
projects to improve the conditions in Perrinville Creek. The City applied for and won a grant
from the Department of Ecology for $633,750 to design and construct a stormwater infiltration
facility in Seaview Park. The 2017 budget is for that facility. The dollars allocated in the out
years are to implement additional water quality and flow control projects in the Perrinville Creek
basin as recommended by the Flow Reduction Study.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Urbanization of the Perrinville Creek Basin has increased
flows in the creek, incision of the creek, and sedimentation in the low -gradient downstream
reaches of the creek. Before any habitat improvements can be implemented, the flows must be
controlled or these improvements will be washed away.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
COST
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
$35,000
$50,000
50000
50000
$50,000
$50,000
Construction
$944,000
$400,000
$450,000
$450000
1% for Art
$3,950
$1,125
$1,250
$1,250
TOTAL
$982,950
$451,125
$501,250
$501,250
$50,000
$50,000
N
N
O
N
h
0
N
a
w
U
x
w
r
c
a�
E
a
76
Packet Pg. 199
UP / CIP COMPARISON (2016 TO 2017)
4.8.b
ADDED PROJECTS
FUND I PROJECT NAME I CFP I DESCRIPTION
112
84th Ave. W Overlay from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW
Complete overlay along 84th Ave. W from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW
112
220th St. SW Traffic Signal Coordination from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W
Improve traffic flow along 220th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W with the
installation of coordination system
112
236th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W
X
Improve pedestrian safety along 236th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W
112
238th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W
X
Improve pedestrian safety along 238th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W
112
80th Ave. W / 180th St. SW Walkway from 188th St. SW to OVD
X
Improve pedestrian safety along 80th / 180th St. SW from 188th St. SW to OVD
112
189th PI. W Walkway from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave W
X
Improve pedestrian safety along 89th Pl. W from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W
112
15th St. SW Walkway from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
X
Improve pedestrian safety along 15th St. SW from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
112
Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th St. SW
X
Improve pedestrian safety along Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW
112
95th PI. W Walkway from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW
X
Improve pedestrian safety along 95th PI. W from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW
112
Citywide Crossing Enhancement
Improve safety at various pedestrian crossings throughout the City
016
Museum exterior door replacements
Replace non -historic doors to comply with historic registry specifications
016
Museum East window replacement
double hung sash approved by State Historic Architect
016
Library West deck water seal and repair parking ceiling
Waterproof deck and repair pan -deck ceiling at covered parking
016
FAC metal flashing replacement and repair
Remove and replace failed metal flashing as needed to eliminate water intrusion
016
PW replace failed insulated window units
Replace glazing at failed window units
016
CH replace failed insulated window units
Replace glazing at failed window units
016
FAC add building controls to both boiler systems
Add Alerton building controls to existing boilers
016
FAC steam radiator retrofits
Retrofit steam radiators as needed to replace abandoned or leaking radiators
016
Exterior building washing, sealing and painting
Wash seal and paint building exteriors
016
Replace carpeting and flooring
I Replace warn carpeting and flooring as necessary
016
CH electrical infastructure survey and replacement
Survey and replace electrical infastructure at CH, phase 1 of 5
016
Clean and maintenance City facility roofs
Cleand inspect and maintain roofs of all City Facilities
016
CH Planned maintenance and replacemnet of HVAC
Replace failed HVAC unit and maintain all existing end of life HVAC infastructure.
Yearly program
016
Retro comission City building
Retro Commission a City building to bring HVAC operation to engineered
specifications and optimize DDC system and energy performance.
016
CH heat tape installation
Add freeze protection to uninsulated vulnerable water pipes
016
Museum structural analysis of upper fagade
Analysis of upper fagade structrure since previous stop gap repair measure
016
Failed sash and glazing replacement
Replace failed window sash and glazing at various non -historic locations
016
MCH replace damaged and warn flooring at kitchen and entry
Replace existing damaged and warn flooring at Kitchen and entry
2
0
0
ti
r
0
N
cD
0
N
c
O
N
CL
E
O
V
a_
V
d
LL
U
N
t
K
W
c
d
E
t
v
R
r
r
Q
Page 1 of 4 Packet Pg. 200
125
Civic Center Grand stand removal
x
Consistent with Civic planning process, master plan
125
Community Garden
Consistent with PROS plan.
125
City Park Storage buidling
Replacement from fire.
125
Waterfront Redevelopment/Walkway completion
Consistent with PROS plan.
125
Upgrade Curb Ramps to ADA Stds
2017 Project budget will be funded by REET 2 revenue.
125
Audible Pedestrian Signals
2017 Project budget will be funded by REET 2 revenue.
125
Minor Sidewalk Program
2017 Project budget will be funded by REET 2 revenue.
126 Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization (Access Management) 1 12017 Project budget will be funded by REET 1 revenue.
126 220th St. Signal Coordination 1 12017 Project budget will be funded by REET 1 revenue.
132
Civic Stadium Demolition
Consistent with PROS plan, master plan
132
Waterfront Revel opment/Walkway Completion
Consistient with PROS plan
132
Community Garden
Consistent with PROS plan.
132
City Park Storage buidling
Replacement from fire.
421 2023 Replacement Program Estimated future costs for waterline replacements.
421 2017 Waterline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to waterline replacements.
423 2023 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements Estimated future costs for sewerline replacements/rehab/impr.
423 2017 Sewerline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to sewerline repl/rehab/impr.
4.8.b
Page 2 of 4 Packet Pg. 201
UP / CIP COMPARISON (2016 TO 2017)
4.8.b
DELETED PROJECTS
I
CFP
I
DESCRIPTION
FUND
PROJECT NAME
112
Five Corners Roundabout
X
Completed in 2016
112
Arterial Street Signal Coordination
Identified as 220th St. SW Traffic Signal Coordination from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W.
112
Citywide Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
Completed in 2016
112
Type 2 Pavement Markers
Project to be addressed as part of future overlay projects
112
15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave. S
X
Completed in 2016
112
Transportation Plan Update
Completed in 2015
112
SR-104 Transportation Corridor Study
lCompleted in 2015
112
Traffic Calming Program
X
I Non -growth related project
113 Multimodal Transportation Fund X Fund Deleted per City Council action on October 18, 2016
016
Council/Court Chamber AV upgrade
Audio Visual upgrade project
016
MCH gutter replacement
Replacement of rain gutters
016
Estimate of CH security needs
Estimate and survey of necessary security upgrades
016
FAC spot flooring replacement in Beach Ranger office
Replace carpeting at Ranger offices
016
FS16 Generator replacement
Replace emergency generator at FS
421 2014 Replacement Program I lCompleted in 2015.
421 2015 Waterline Overlays I lComoleted in 2015.
422
Improvements - Dayton 3rd to 9th
This project was combined with the waterline/sewerline project that covers that
same area.
422
Storm System Video Assessment
Deleted. This project will be covered as part of operations and maintenance.
Operations and maintenance will do this work as part of their operations and
maintenance tasks.
423
2015 Sewerline Overlays
Completed in 2015.
423
Lift Stations 3,4,5,9,10,11,12,14,15
Completed in 2015.
423
Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer Replacement
Completed in 2015.
423
Phase 2 Sanitary Sewer Replacement
Completed in 2015.
Page 3 of 4 Packet Pg. 202
CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2016 TO 2017)
4.8.b
CHANGED PROJECTS
FUND PROJECT NAME CFP CHANGE
016 1
CH security upgrades SecurityUpgrades on hold until recommendations and estimate arrive.
423.76
Repair and Replacement
The Secondary Clarifier #3 Structural Repair contract was awarded in 2016. The
contractor will not be able to complete the work by the Oct. 2016 so the project
may need to be extended. Pagoda repairs have been placed on hold for time
being.
423.76
Upgrades
Offsite Flow Telemetry project was completed in 2016. The Control System
Upgrade will replace aging control system equipment, provide for redundancy and
upgrade the operating platform. The 600 PLC is the final element and is
scheduled for spring 2017. The project completion was pushed back in order to
coordinate work with Phase 5 Energy Project. The SSI project is on hold awaiting
EPA approval to install and test the mercury modules. We continue to report
compliance status on a monthly basis. The Phase 4 energy improvement project
is in close out. The Phase 5 Energy Improvement project has been started. By the
end of 2016 the solids conveyor and sludge hopper should be upgraded and the
new 126 HP blower has been installed. The project has given us the opportunity
Ito optimize the aeration control system.
423.76
Studies and Consulting
In the future we will be to study Peracetic Acid disinfection however this may put
off until 2018.
Page 4 of 4 Packet Pg. 203
4.8.c
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 28, 2016
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 — 5`' Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Alicia Crank
Nathan Monroe
Valerie Stewart
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Daniel Robles (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 BE APPROVED AS
CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Lovell referred to Page 3, which contains a brief update on the Waterfront Access Study. He clarified that a second
public meeting was recently held, and his understanding is that the Task Force will be making a recommendation to the City
Council via Mayor Earling sometime in October.
PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED 2017-2022 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) AND CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
Mr. English started his presentation by providing a diagram to illustrate the components of the CIP and CFP, particularly
noting differences between the two documents and where they overlap. He explained that both plans identify the six -year
capital projects with funding sources, but the CIP also identifies six -year maintenance projects with funding sources and the
Packet Pg. 204
4.8.c
CFP identifies long-range (20 year) capital project needs. The CFP is divided into three project sections: General (parks,
buildings and regional projects), Transportation (safety/capacity and pedestrian bicycle projects), and Utilities. The CIP is
organized based on the City's financial funds and provides a description of each of the capital projects identified for the six -
year period. He summarized that the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, linking those
projects to the various City funds and revenues, and the CFP is intended to identify longer -term capital needs (not
maintenance) and be tied to City level -of -service standards. The CFP is also required to be consistent with other elements of
the Comprehensive Plan, (i.e. transportation, parks, etc.), and there are restrictions on how often a CFP can be amended.
There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP. He reviewed each of the funds as follows:
• Fund 112 — Transportation. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department.
• Fund 116 — Building Maintenance. This fund is also managed by the Public Works Department.
• Fund 125 — Capital Projects. This fund is managed by the Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments.
Money for this fund comes from the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET), and the dollars are split between the two
departments.
• Fund 126 — Special Capital/Park Acquisition. This fund is supported by REET funds and is managed by the Parks and
Recreation Department.
• Fund 129 — Special Projects. This fund is currently idle and was last used for the Highway 99 International District
Lighting Project that was completed a few years ago. Any new capital project would program into this fund.
• Fund 132 — Parks Construction (Grant Funding). This fund is managed by the Parks and Recreation Department.
• Fund 421— Water Projects. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department.
• Fund 422 — Storm Projects. This fund is also managed by the Public Works Department.
• Fund 423 — Waste Water Treatment Plant. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department.
Next, Mr. English recapped some of the larger projects that have been completed or the City is working towards completion
of in 2016:
• The 228`h Street Corridor Improvement Project started in May of 2015 and reached substantial completion in March of
2016. The project included a new signalized intersection that connects 2281h Street east to west across Highway 99 and
into Mountlake Terrace, providing a new east/west connection to Interstate 5.
• Safety improvements were completed with a median down Highway 99 to eliminate the left turns from south bound
Highway 99 to 76`h Avenue West. This should help reduce accidents and provide safety turning movements.
• A sidewalk improvement project on 238th Street between 100th and 104`h Streets was completed via a Safe Routes to
Schools Grant. Stormwater funds were used to improve drainage, including bio-retention rain gardens in key locations.
The street was also overlaid using funds from the Pavement Restoration Program.
• Sewer mains were replaced on Walnut Street, and the project also included new pavement via the Pavement Restoration
Program.
• On September 271h, the City Council approved a contract for a project on the south side of 2361h Street between SR-104
and Madrona School. The project will include a new sidewalk, with a five-foot path to cross over to school, and curbs
and gutters will also be installed. The pavement is in poor condition, so the roadway will be rebuilt. The project will
include stormwater and water main work, as well. The City is coordinating with the School District's plan to rebuild the
school starting in 2017 to provide a sidewalk leading into the school property.
• As part of the Pavement Preservation Program, 9.6 lane miles of roadway were repaved, and pedestrian curb ramp
upgrades were completed.
• REET dollars (125 and 126 Funds) were used to fund the 2016 Pavement Preservation Program, single cabinet upgrades,
traffic calming program, curb ramp upgrades, and an ADA transition plan update.
Mr. English reviewed the projects that will be funded in 2017 via the 112 Fund as follows:
Planning Board Minutes
September 28, 2016 Page 2
Packet Pg. 205
4.8.c
The 76th Avenue West and 212th Street Intersection Improvement Project was bid out in May. However, given the
bidding climate, the bids came in much higher than the engineer's estimate. Only two bids were received and both were
high. The City elected to reject both bids and rebid the project during the winter months. That means the project would
likely start in the spring of 2017. In the meantime, the City has applied for additional grant funding from the
Transportation Improvement Board, but won't know the outcome of the application until November. This large project
will add capacity to the intersection and underground utilities.
Chair Lovell pointed out that the project is identified in the CIP as being unfunded at this time. Mr. English said the City
has secured federal funding for the project, and has applied for additional grant funding, as well. Chair Lovell referred to
the spreadsheet on Page 9 and said it is unclear how much grant funding has been secured in 2016 and how much needs
to be secured in 2017. Mr. English agreed to revisit the numbers and update them accordingly. He suggested that
perhaps the labels needed to be corrected to more clearly reflect the intent. He said that in addition to grant funding for
the project, additional funding will come from the water and storm utility funds, since infrastructure needs to be replaced
in the intersection prior to pavement work being done.
• Citywide bicycle improvements will continue in 2017. For example, a striping project will occur on 76th Avenue West to
add bicycle lanes and change a four -lane facility into a 3-lane facility. This project will likely be bid in conjunction with
the intersection improvements to get some economy.
• The 238th Street Walkway Project from SR-104 to SR-99 will also be completed in 2017. The City received a grant from
the State Transportation Improvement Board and design work has been started.
• The City received federal funding to move forward with an overlay of 84th Avenue from 200th Street to 212th Street
during the summer of 2017.
• REET dollars will be used to install Trackside Warning Systems at Main and Dayton Streets to reduce the sound
footprint that the current train horns have. The warning systems will be permanently installed at the intersections, and
the horns will blow whenever a train is passing through Edmonds in either direction. The noise from the horns will be
more focused at the intersections so there will be less impact to surrounding properties.
Mr. English summarized that the Water Utility Fund (421) supported the replacement of 4,850 feet of water main in 2016,
and 3,400 feet of street affected by waterline replacements was overlaid. In 2017 it is anticipated that 7,300 feet of water
main will be replaced and 8,200 feet of street affected by waterline replacement will be overlaid.
Mr. English also reviewed that the Stormwater Utility Fund (422) supported the 238th Street drainage improvements that were
completed in 2016, as well as the new pipe and infiltration gallery in southwest Edmonds between 106th and 105th Street.
The 2017 projects include the Seaview infiltration project, further design of the Willow Creek/Edmonds Marsh project, an
update of the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan, and installation of the Dayton Street Pump Station. He explained that the
Seaview project is funded via a grant and will help reduce the number of surges from stormwater flowing into Perrinville
Creek. The Willow Creek/Edmonds Marsh project is ongoing, and it is anticipated that final design work and permitting can
move forward in 2017. He explained that during heavy rain events and high tide, the intersection at Dayton Street and SR-
104 floods. Given its proximity to the marsh, Willow Creek, the outfall, and the tide, the solution is complicated. As
proposed, a lift station will be installed off of Dayton Street in the fishing pier parking lot as a first step to solve the flooding
problems at the intersection.
Lastly, Mr. English reviewed that in 2016 the Sewer Utility Fund (423) supported the replacement of 2,000 feet of sewer
main and the rehabilitation of 6,400 feet of sewer main using the cured -in -place process (CIPP). In addition, it funded 1,075
of pavement overlay on streets affected by the sewer main replacement projects. It is anticipated that 2,900 feet of sewer
main will be replaced in 2017, with 3,000 feet of CIPP rehabilitation and pavement overlay on 8,600 feet of street affected by
sewer main replacement. A large wastewater treatment project is in process near the ferry holding lanes where the secondary
clarifier is being replaced. The project should be completed in October.
Planning Board Minutes
September 28, 2016 Page 3
Packet Pg. 206
4.8.c
Chair Lovell asked if the Edmonds Waterfront Analysis relates to the work being done by the Railroad Crossing Task Force.
Ms. Hite answered affirmatively. Chair Lovell asked why no funding has been set aside for this project in the next four
years. Mr. English said there is still momentum to move a crossing project forward, and the task force will continue its work.
The Mayor is currently working on the 2017 budget, which will be presented to the City Council in October. They will know
more about funding after the draft budget has been released. In addition, the City has applied for some transportation grants
to continue the work. At this point, it is too early to know if there will be funding for the project, and it was included in the
CFP as a placeholder.
Mr. English summarized that staff begins working on the CIP and CFP updates in July, and a preliminary draft is typically
presented to the Planning Board in September. A public hearing on the CIP and CFP is scheduled for October 12' , after
which the Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. Updated documents will be provided at the hearing,
including more detailed information to outline the differences between 2016 and 2017. Staff is scheduled to make an initial
presentation to the City Council on October 18th, with a public hearing on November I". Using the Board's input and public
comments, the City Council will discuss the draft documents and make revisions. It is anticipated that final adoption will
occur in November or December. Once adopted, the CFP will be included as part of the next batch of Comprehensive Plan
Amendments.
Board Member Monroe requested more information about the Citywide Capital Renewal Program, which is listed on Page 11
of the CIP. Ms. Hite said this program is managed by the Facilities Division. She explained that, in years past, the program
has had minimal funding, and many infrastructure renewal projects have been deferred. This year, Mayor Earling is
proposing that a lump sum be set aside for doing renewal of the City's capital assets. The Capital Facilities Manager has
prepared a list of needs, and the projects will be funded by the $1.5 million set aside for the Capital Renewal Program. The
intent is to chip away at the projects each year. For example, there are numerous needs at the Frances Anderson Center that
have been deferred from previous years.
Board Member Stewart said she is excited to see the projects that have been accomplished during the year, as well as projects
that will happen going forward. She asked if staff could provide the Board and City Council with a copy of the list of
projects associated with the Capital Renewal Project. Ms. Hite agreed to provide the list as an attachment for the public
hearing.
Board Member Stewart asked if City staff works to coordinate infrastructure projects so they can be done simultaneously.
For example, are sewer and water main replacements coordinated so they are completed before a street is overlaid. Mr.
English answered affirmatively. Once a significant project has been identified, City staff inspects the condition of other
elements, such as water and sewer mains. If needed, the pro�ects can be done simultaneously. For example, he referred to
the Dayton Street Project that took place between P and 9 Avenues, which was initiated as a stormwater improvement.
After doing a comprehensive review of the other utilities, the project was expanded to include water and sewer main
improvements, as well. The project at the 212th Street intersection is another example of a combined project. It initially
started as a transportation capacity project, but after evaluating the condition of the utilities, replacement of the sewer and
stormwater mains were incorporated into the project.
Board Member Stewart reviewed that frontage improvements, including sidewalks, are required for any new development in
the City. She voiced concern that, sometimes the improvements that are made are torn up just a few years later to
accommodate a City improvement project. She asked if it is possible for City staff to help developers anticipate the future
improvements and perhaps postpone or defer the frontage improvements until the City's larger project moves forward. Mr.
English said City staff has more control when it comes to coordinating City projects, but it is more difficult for private
development. A good example is the 200th Street Overlay Project. A developer found out about the project via the
notification process and the City worked with the developer to get the connections made to the City's systems before the
overlay project moved forward. He said staff tries to coordinate city projects and development proposals through the
building permit application. Ideally, the City can hold off on a project to allow a developer to get his/her work done, but he
acknowledged that is not always the case. Board Member Stewart summarized that the City should do its part to help
property owners by allowing them to postpone the improvements until they can be coordinated with larger, planned City
projects.
Planning Board Minutes
September 28, 2016 Page 4
Packet Pg. 207
4.8.c
Board Member Stewart asked if Planning Board Members would have an opportunity to provide feedback relative to the
fitness stations that are proposed for City parks. Ms. Hite answered that she would love to have feedback from the Board as
the project moves forward.
Board Member Stewart asked if funding for open space acquisition is included in the CIP. Ms. Hite answered that she
programs $200,000 into each year's budget for open space acquisition. She agreed it is important to include this in the yearly
discussions, and she will add it to her presentation for the public hearing. She said it would be helpful to have feedback from
the Board as to whether they support rolling this funding over from year-to-year until an opportunity comes up. Board
Member Stewart observed that, as land continues to be developed, the City should remain open to opportunities to acquire
open space. Once land is developed, the opportunity will be lost.
Board Member Cheung asked how the City prioritizes the capital improvement projects. Mr. English explained that, from a
pavement preservation standpoint, staff evaluates the condition of the pavement each year and places a rating on the streets.
They also try to coordinate the work with needed utility replacement projects. For example, a street overlay may be
postponed if the City knows that a water or sewer main project will be needed in the near future so that the two projects can
be coordinated and completed at the same time. As far as capital project prioritization, there is very limited funding, and the
City typically uses grant opportunities as a way to prioritize these projects. First, they look at the prioritized list of projects in
the 2015 Transportation Improvement Plan. As grant opportunities come up, staff selects the most competitive projects that
fit the particular grant requirements. Typically, the transportation capital infrastructure budget is very small (between
$140,000 and $150,000). Additional funding for capital projects comes from grants and from traffic impact fees. On the
other hand, Mayor Earling has made pavement preservation a priority for the past few years.
Board Member Cheung asked how citizens can recommend transportation improvement projects for inclusion in the
Transportation Improvement Plan. Mr. English explained that, from a planning standpoint, staff uses the list that is included
in the Transportation Improvement Plan, which an adopted element of the Comprehensive Plan. Adoption of the
Transportation Improvement Plan included an extensive public process that allowed the public to identify projects they felt
were most important. During the most recent update, a sidewalk committee was formed to evaluate each street and identify
where sidewalks are needed. Citizens can contact the Public Works or Engineering Department to provide feedback on
potential projects, and staff will evaluate the situation to determine what the appropriate solution might be. Vice Chair
Rubenkonig added that the Police Department also takes note of situations were a high number of accidents are occurring.
Board Member Crank said she appreciates the work that was done at the intersection of 228th Street and Highway 99.
However, some people are questioning the design of the median, which appears to have benches where people can sit. Mr.
English advised that the design was intended to provide relief to the median's appearance. There are a lot of design options
to choose from, but it was felt that the concrete or grass median was not very aesthetically pleasing for this location. Given
the speed of traffic along the corridor, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) also felt that the taller
median was needed for safety reasons. The center section of the median has a colored concrete stamp that was intended to
provide an aesthetic element to the median as opposed to a concrete covered center.
Board Member Crank referred to the new flashing traffic signal that was installed at Edmonds Way and 232nd Street. She
asked if the area is currently being monitored and if there has been an uptick in traffic volumes as a result of the new
marijuana business and proposed new residential development. Mr. English agreed to looking into the issue and provide a
better answer about traffic volumes at the public hearing. He recalled that the SR-104 Corridor Analysis that was recently
completed looked at the entire corridor through Edmonds. It identified several recommendations for capital improvement
projects to make the corridor more pedestrian friendly and safe.
Board Member Crank asked if there have been any reports of traffic accidents associated with the newly installed Luminous
Forest. Ms. Hite advised that the Police Department had some concerns when the it was first installed, and the artist advised
that after the installation has been on for one month, the surface will become scratched and dim. She hasn't heard of any
accidents on 4tb Avenue to date.
Board Member Crank said she would love to see the community garden concept come to fruition. It would be a very
attractive amenity for apartment dwellers. Ms. Hite agreed, but explained that the City has had a difficult time finding an
appropriate location. It was originally planned for the south side of the Old Woodway High School site, but because of
Planning Board Minutes
September 28, 2016 Page 5
Packet Pg. 208
4.8.c
controversy surrounding the athletic fields, staff decided against pursuing that location. She expressed her belief that the park
in Esperance would be good location for a community garden, and she will continue to work with Snohomish County to
make that happen.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she has had a long-standing concern about the intersection at 76th Avenue and 212th Street for a
number of years. The last time the CIP was before the Board, she requested that the City consider placing an "all walk"
crossing at this intersection. She lives in the area and is at the intersection often. It seems like an all walk would make it
faster for the students to get across the road. She asked if this could be included in the 2016 CIP. Mr. English said the
concept has been discussed by staff and it comes down to finding a balance between pedestrian safety and getting vehicles
through the intersection. He agreed to talk to the Transportation Engineer to get more information about the concept and then
report back to the Board at their next meeting.
Chair Lovell observed that this is the first time that neither the CIP nor CFP identifies funding for the Edmonds Crossing
Project. He assumes that staff will provide an explanation for this change and indicate whether the funds that were
previously allocated would be used elsewhere. Mr. English said there have been no changes associated with the Edmonds
Crossing Project. The project is currently identified as unknown based on WSDOT's current planning horizon for the multi -
modal terminal, which is beyond 2035 or even 2040. Although the project is still included on WSDOT's list of future
improvements, it remains unfunded, and the City does not know when funding will be allocated for it to move forward.
When the capital plan for the ferry is updated in the future, the City may have more information about the project's timing.
Chair Lovell commented that it is good to see that there are a lot of projects taking shape to meet the needs and cravings of
the citizens. Things are moving towards the betterment of the City's infrastructure overall. He asked if there has been any
interface between various City departments and the Tree Board, particularly in regard to street trees. The impact that some
species of street trees can have on sidewalk infrastructure is becoming a big concern, as repair and/or replacement is often
required. He noted that concern has also been raised about the types of trees that are planted at the Civic Center Field, which
could end up blocking views. Ms. Hite said managing trees requires a joint effort, and the Parks, Planning and Public Works
staff all work with the Tree Board, depending on the topic. Chair Lovell said he has heard that effort is being made to ensure
that new trees are selected to be the right species, size and growth pattern to protect the City's infrastructure.
Chair Lovell announced that a public hearing on the draft CIP and CFP is scheduled for October 12th. He encouraged Board
Members to forward any outstanding questions directly to staff so they can be answered at the public hearing.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Lovell reviewed the updated Extended Agenda, noting that a public hearing on the CIP and CFP is scheduled for
October 12th. Staff will also present an update on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments pertaining to parks, Highway 99,
street trees and water. On October 26th, the agenda will include a presentation on the University of Washington/Forterra Plan
that was prepared for Five Corners, a discussion on the land use procedures code update, and an update on the Highway 99
Subarea Plan.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Crank reported that she and Vice Chair Rubenkonig attended the City's Volunteer Dinner.
Board Member Monroe reported on his attendance at the September 21st meeting of the Edmonds Citizens Economic
Development Commission where they put together a list of recommendations related to the Civic Field Master Plan. Most of
the recommendations were driven by economic development. For example, they want to see a playfield that can attract users
who will presumably shop in downtown Edmonds. The list was presented to the City Council on September 27th.
Planning Board Minutes
September 28, 2016 Page 6
Packet Pg. 209
4.8.d
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 12, 2016
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 — 5`' Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Alicia Crank
Daniel Robles
Valerie Stewart
Malia Clark, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Nathan Monroe (excused)
Todd Cloutier (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
Chair Lovell introduced Malia Clark, the Board's new Student Representative, who is a senior at Edmonds Woodway High
School and also participates in the group, Students Saving Salmon.
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that the presentation and dialogue provided at the Board's last meeting by the City
Engineer, Rob English, and the Parks, Recreational and Cultural Services Director, Carrie Hite, was well document in the
minutes. They provided an excellent orientation to the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Capital Improvement Program
(CIP).
BOARD MEMBER CRANK MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience.
Ms. Hite invited the Board Members to attend an open house on October 19"" from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. in the Library Plaza
Room, where the hybrid plan for Civic Park Master Plan will be unveiled. After the plan has been presented, the public will
be invited to provide feedback. An on-line open house will follow for two weeks to solicit additional public feedback. At
Packet Pg. 210
4.8.d
the close of the on-line open house, the hybrid design will be presented to the Planning Board for a public hearing and
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will also conduct a public hearing before making a final decision on
the master plan design.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Lovell referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. He reported
that he and Vice Chair Rubenkonig met recently with Mayor Earling and received an update on the Sustainable Cities
Partnership, a collaboration between Western Washington University and the City of Edmonds. Mayor Earling advised that
there is currently a lot of activity and the students are moving forward with the projects identified as part of the program. He
spoke very positively about the experience thus far.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2017-2022 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) AND CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
Chair Lovell reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing, which would start with a staff report by Mr. English
and Ms. Hite.
Mr. English started his presentation by providing a diagram to illustrate the components of the CIP and CFP, particularly
noting the differences between the two documents and where they overlap. The CFP is a planning document that includes
the 20-year projects and 6-year projects to address roads. The CIP identifies the short-term horizon projects that include both
capital and maintenance projects over the next six years. The overlap is where the six -year capital projects relate to growth;
these projects will be in both plans. The CFP is divided into three project sections: General (parks, buildings and regional
projects), Transportation (safety/capacity and pedestrian bicycle projects), and Utilities. The CIP is organized based on the
City's financial funds and provides a description of each of the capital projects identified for the six -year period. He
reviewed each of the funds as follows:
• Fund 112 — Transportation. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department.
• Fund 116 — Building Maintenance. This fund is also managed by the Public Works Department.
• Fund 125 — Capital Projects. This fund is managed by the Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments.
Money for this fund comes from the Real Estate Excise Tax (BEET), and the dollars are split between the two
departments.
• Fund 126 — Special Capital/Park Acquisition. This fund is supported by REET funds and is managed by the Parks and
Recreation Department.
• Fund 129 — Special Projects. This fund is currently idle and was last used for the Highway 99 International District
Lighting Project that was completed a few years ago. Any new capital project would program into this fund.
• Fund 132 — Parks Construction (Grant Funding). This fund is managed by the Parks and Recreation Department.
• Fund 421— Water Projects. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department.
• Fund 422 — Storm Projects. This fund is also managed by the Public Works Department.
• Fund 423 — Waste Water Treatment Plant. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department.
Next, Mr. English recapped some of the larger projects that have been completed or the City is working towards completion
of in 2016:
• The 228 h Street Corridor Improvement Project started in May of 2015 and reached substantial completion in March of
2016. The project included a new signalized intersection that connects 228th Street east to west across Highway 99 and
into Mountlake Terrace, providing a new east/west connection to Interstate 5.
• The 228`h Street Sidewalk Improvement Project connects 1001h Street to 104`h Street with sidewalks on the north side.
This project was funded by a Safe Routes to Schools Grant.
• The Pavement Restoration Program is a program that Mayor Earling has prioritized and funded for the fourth year in a
row using Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenue from the 126 Fund.
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 2
Packet Pg. 211
4.8.d
• A walkway project will start soon on 236 h Street, from SR-104 to Madrona School. This project will also be funded by
a Safe Routes to Schools Grant.
Mr. English reviewed some of the projects that will be funded in 2017:
• The 76th Avenue West and 212th Street Intersection Improvement Project was bid out in May. However, given the
bidding climate, the bids came in much higher than the engineer's estimate. The City elected to reject the bids and rebid
the project during the winter months. That means the project would likely start in the spring of 2017. In the meantime,
the City has applied for additional grant funding from the Transportation Improvement Board, but won't know the
outcome of the application until November.
• Citywide bicycle improvements will continue in 2017. For example, a striping project will occur on 76t' Avenue West in
conjunction with the intersection improvements described above. As proposed, the roadway would change from four to
three lanes, and a bicycle lane would be added.
• The 238th Street Walkway Project from SR-104 to SR-99 will also be completed in 2017. The City received a grant from
the State Transportation Improvement Board and design work has been started.
• The City received federal funding to move forward with an overlay of 84th Avenue from 200th Street to 2121h Street
during the summer of 2017.
• REET dollars will be used to install Trackside Warning Systems on Railroad Avenue at the Main and Dayton Street
intersections to reduce the sound footprint that the current train horns have. The warning systems will be permanently
installed at the intersections, and the horns will blow whenever a train is passing through Edmonds in either direction.
The noise from the horns will be more focused at the intersections so there will be less impact to surrounding properties.
Mr. English advised that, since the Board's last meeting, the Mayor approved his "decision package, which identifies projects
that staff identified for 2017. The package includes:
• Funding of $1.1 million for the Pavement Preservation Program, which is a critical piece of the City's ability to maintain
infrastructure.
• Funding for pre -design work for the access management on SR-99 between 2161h and 2241h Streets. The City has
observed a higher accident problem along this stretch of roadway related to the two-way left turn lane on SR-99. The
intent is to go forward with pre -design of the improvements in 2017.
• In coordination with Mountlake Terrace, the City has applied for a grant to coordinate the signals on 2201h Street, which
is badly needed. If the grant application is successful, the 2017 budget includes the matching funds to move the project
forward.
• $150,000 has been set aside to match grant dollars to continue to pursue alternatives for a waterfront at -grade crossing.
The committee will present the results of their study to the Mayor soon, and a presentation will be made to the City
Council in late October or early November.
• The proposed 2017 budget includes funding to replace 7,300 feet of water main and 2,900 feet of sewer main. It also
includes funding to rehabilitate 3,000 feet of sewer main.
Ms. Hite reviewed the 2016 projects that were completed by the Parks and Recreation Department in 2016 as follows:
• The City acquired the Civic Field property and is currently in the process of completing a master plan for its
redevelopment. The consultant is working on a hybrid plan that will be unveiled at a public open house on October 19th
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 3
Packet Pg. 212
4.8.d
• The spray park at City Park was opened in the spring and had a very successful summer.
• The Dayton Street Plaza is nearly completed and it is already heavily used. They are currently in the last stages of
landscaping.
• The temporary art installation (Luminous Forest) on 4th Avenue was completed, and wayfinding signs were installed
throughout the City.
• The Marina Beach Park Master Plan was completed in early 2016, and the intent is to formally adopted the plan into the
City's Comprehensive Plan before the end of the year.
• The Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project is nearing completion, and it expected to open with a ribbon -cutting ceremony on
November 15''.
• The Downtown Public Restroom Project is currently under construction near City Hall.
• The Yost Spa Project is currently in progress. However, the project had to be redesigned in order to meet current code
requirements.
• The Frances Anderson Center Stage Replacement Project is currently in progress.
• The design work for the Veteran's Project was completed. The City received two bids that were higher than the
engineer's estimate, and the project is being rebid.
• The playground equipment at Marina Beach Park has been replaced, and they are currently working to replace the
equipment at the Meadowdale Preschool playground.
Next, Ms. Hite reviewed the proposed 2017 projects as follows:
• The Edmonds Marsh and Daylighting of Willow Creek Project is ongoing. The City has obtained grant funding to
continue the feasibility study, and they have applied for other competitive grants, as well.
• Parklet Projects will move forward in 2017, as will the Outdoor Fitness Zone Project
• Gateway replacement is ongoing and in process.
• The City is partnering with the City of Lynnwood to rehabilitate the Meadowdale Playfields.
• The City's storage building burned down earlier in the year, and the City has received reimbursement from its insurance
company. Considering the storage needs of both the Facilities and Parks and Recreation Departments, staff is proposing
that the building be rebuilt to a size that is nearly 2.5 times larger but in the same location.
• There is funding left from the state grant that was used to acquire Civic Field, and the City has received permission from
the State to use the funds to demolish the grandstands.
• Funding was set aside in the 2016 CIP for a community garden, and staff is working with Snohomish County regarding
the possibility of partnering to create a community garden as Esperance Park.
• The bids received for the Veteran's Plaza were rejected, and the City will go out to bid again soon. They expect to break
ground in early 2017 and open the plaza in May of 2017.
• The Senior Center is undertaking a capital program to redevelop the site into a Waterfront Center, and the City has
discussed the opportunity to redevelop the waterfront at the same time. This will involve removing the existing creosote
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 4
Packet Pg. 213
4.8.d
pilings, reconfiguring the park, adding a bioswale and raingardens to filter runoff from the parking lot before it goes into
the Sound, adding a hand boat launch, providing more access to the beach, and adding a picnic area with a natural access
to the senior center. In addition, the City is currently in discussions with the owners of the Ebb Tide Condominiums to
complete the waterfront walkway in front of their building within the City's 10-foot easement. The City has applied for
two $50,000 grants, and the project has scored high on both. The City has also set aside park impact fee dollars for the
proj ect.
• Land acquisition is a high priority in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, and the proposed budget sets
aside an additional $200,000 for this purpose. The intent is to having matching funds for grants available when
opportunities to acquire land come about.
Ms. Hite said staff is recommending that the Cultural Arts Facilities Needs Study be deleted from the CFP. While the study
could still be done, it would be more of an operational project than a capital project. If a study determines that the City needs
a facility at some point in the future, it can be added to the CFP. Also, the Downtown Restroom Project should be completed
by the end of the year and can be removed from the 2017 CFP.
Ms. Hite advised that, since the last meeting, the CIP was updated to highlight "land acquisition" as a goal.
As requested by the Board at their last meeting, Mr. English provided a handout that lists the needs that were identified by the
Capital Facilities Manager for the 2017 Citywide Capital Renewal Program. He explained that, in past years, the budget for
capital facilities maintenance has been about $55,000. The Capital Facilities Manager requested that this amount be
increased up to $400,000 to quick start the program of investing in and maintaining the City's existing facilities. The projects
include roof repairs, painting, carpeting, seal coating, etc.
Mr. English recalled that the Board also asked him to provide more information about traffic volumes on SR-104. He
advised that the State does a number of traffic counts along the highway starting from the Ferry Terminal all the way to
Interstate 5. While the 2016 counts are not available, the 2015 counts can be compared to previous years. The counts
conclude that there was no increase in traffic volume from the ferry to 238th Street, but there was a small increase of 2% from
240th Street to Interstate 5. At their last meeting, Board Member Crank asked how new development along SR-104 might
impact traffic volumes. He learned that the new development she referred to was actually permitted by Snohomish County so
the City does not have any transportation data. However, it is likely that the development had very little impact to the overall
traffic volumes on the highway.
Mr. English recalled that, at their last meeting, Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked about the possibility of adding an "all -walk"
phase at the intersection of 212th Street and 76th Avenue to provide a safer pedestrian access for high school students. He
acknowledged that the concept has been used in select locations across the country, and it amounts to adding another phase to
the signal timing that closes the movement of traffic on all four lanes of the intersection to allow pedestrians to cross. He
explained that the City's current Level of Service (LOS) Standard for arterials is LOS D or better, and the proposed project
would improve the intersection to LOS D. If an all -walk phase were added, the standard at the intersection would change to
LOS E. He reminded the Board that the City secured a $3.96 million grant from the Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) Fund, and the purpose of the grant was to improve air quality by reducing emissions and congestion. As currently
proposed, the intersection project would reduce emissions for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon and oxides of
nitrogen. The benefit of the project is that reducing congestion will bring down emissions and that is why the City received
the funding. It would be difficult to change the project to add an all -walk phase because it would reduce the LOS standard
and increase emissions. Staff is proposing that the project be constructed as currently designed.
Mr. English summarized his presentation by reviewing that after the public hearing the Board will be asked to forward a
recommendation to the City Council. The CIP and CFP, along with the Board's recommendation, will be presented to the
City Council for a study session, followed by a public hearing on November 1st
Chair Lovell opened the public portion of the hearing. However, there was no one in the audience, and the public portion of
the hearing was subsequently closed.
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 5
Packet Pg. 214
4.8.d
Board Member Crank asked if the overlay project on 84th Avenue between 220th Street and 2121h Street would take place
while school is in session. Mr. English said that, if all goes well, the intent is to do the work during the summer when school
is on break.
Board Member Crank said she is glad to hear that the City's goal is to do the Waterfront Redevelopment Project in tandem
with the Senior Center's Waterfront Center Project. She said she serves on the Senior Center Board, and the plan to talk
about fundraising and strategies at their upcoming retreat.
Board Member Crank referred to the funding set aside for land acquisition and asked if there are targeted properties the City
is looking to acquire. Ms. Hite answered that the PROS Plan identifies areas of the City that are not as well served by parks
and open space, and the City will look for opportunities to acquire additional land to serve these neighborhoods. In addition,
the City is always looking for opportunities to acquire properties along Shell Creek and other properties that run parallel to
the watersheds. However, the City must also consider the need to maintain the park space it already has. It requires a
balancing act.
Board Member Crank thanked Mr. English for providing data about traffic volumes on SR-104. She appreciates that data is
needed to make a case for improvements, and she looks forward to comparing 2016 data to previous years to determine the
impact of new development. She noted that, just tonight, the light stopped blinking because there was an emergency vehicle
coming through the intersection. People are accustomed to the light blinking, and a car was almost hit when it did not stop at
the light. She said she hopes new data will support the need for a study to see if mitigation is needed.
Board Member Cheung asked if the Traffic Engineer's analysis of an all -walk phase at the intersection of 212`h Street and
76`h Avenue considered that the phase would only need to be activated during certain times of the day (when students arrive,
when students leave, and when students go to lunch). Mr. English acknowledged that the phase could be timed to only
activate during certain times of the day, but the morning period when students are arriving at school is also during the peak
commute period. Board Member Cheung asked if LOS D could be maintained with an all -walk phase that only operate
during certain times of the day as described above. Mr. English said more traffic modeling would be needed to answer that
question.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that adding an all -walk phase at the intersection of 76th Avenue and 212`h Street would
minimize the pedestrians' exposure to pollution. Mr. English agreed that is possible, but it would depend on when the
pedestrian reaches the intersection. Depending on the phase of the light, a pedestrian may have to wait longer if an all -walk
phase were added. He also voiced concern that students may get impatient waiting for the signal and cross against traffic.
Chair Lovell asked if the Traffic Engineer has solicited feedback from the Edmonds School District relative to the proposed
changes at the intersection of 76th Avenue and 212th Street. Mr. English answered that the City has worked closely with the
school district to coordinate the phasing of the intersection improvements, and the school district has voiced support for the
proposed changes. The district has not requested an all -walk phase.
Ms. Clark said she uses the intersection at 76th Avenue and 212'h Street often, and it could use some work. She often has to
wait about five minutes to cross the street, and she knows that some students become impatient and jay walk. Mr. English
explained that, currently, the intersection lacks turning movement, which means it takes longer for cars and pedestrians to get
through the sequence. With the proposed changes, the left turn lanes going north/south will go at the same time, which
allows the light to cycle faster. The same would be done for the east/west lanes.
Board Member Cheung asked if the intersection improvements would include left turns on a blinking light. Mr. English said
they have not made a firm decision on this option because it could lead to conflicts with the high school. A left -turn arrow
would hold up pedestrians. With a flashing yellow light for left turns, there is a potential that a student could be hit while
using a crosswalk if a driver sees a break in traffic and initiates the turn. Staff will continue to evaluate the option, but his
first thought is that it would not be appropriate in this location. Board Member Cheung asked if it would be possible to time
the lights so that the flashing turn is available only when school is not in session. Mr. English agreed that is a possibility.
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 6
Packet Pg. 215
4.8.d
Chair Lovell thanked Ms. Hite and Mr. English for providing responses to the issues and concerns raised by the Board at
their last meeting. He asked that these responses also be conveyed to the City Council for consideration in their review of the
CIP and CFP.
Chair Lovell requested clarification on the funding that is currently available for the Veteran's Plaza. Ms. Hite answered that
the City will contribute $30,000 to the project, and the remaining portion of the $550,000 cost will come from fundraising.
Chair Lovell asked if the City is contemplating that work will start on the Waterfront Center and Waterfront Redevelopment
Projects in 2017. Ms. Hite said the goal is to do the projects in tandem. However, it is possible that the Senior Center will
not reach its funding goal in time to complete the project during the fish window, and the Waterfront Center Project will have
to be postponed until 2018. Based on grant funding, it may be necessary for the City to move forward with the Waterfront
Redevelopment Project in 2017. Again, she said the City's goal is to move the two projects forward in 2017, hoping that the
Senior Center will be ready, as well. Board Member Crank advised that the Senior Center's target is to break ground on the
project in September of 2017. Ms. Hite emphasized that there is a fish window that limits when waterfront development can
occur, and it happens to be during the summer months. Ms. Crank said the Senior Center Board's goal is to meet that
window.
Board Member Robles asked for clarification of the small boat launch that is proposed as part of the waterfront
redevelopment project. Ms. Hite said this would be a hand launch facility that is not meant for large boats. She referred to
the proposed design of the project and noted the location of the boat launch. She explained that the ramp would serve a dual
purpose for launching small watercraft (kayaks, paddleboards, etc.) and providing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
access.
Board Member Stewart referred to Page 150 of the Staff Report that describes the Edmonds Marsh Feasibility and
Restoration/Walkway Project, which is estimated to cost $155,000. She asked if the project would include a new walkway
around the marsh. Ms. Hite said the project includes restoration of the current walkway, which is queued up for 2017.
However, the work done by the Western Washington University Students as part of the Sustainable Cities Project will
include consideration of a boardwalk all the way around the marsh. Several community citizens have volunteered to
participate on a focus group to discuss the concept further.
Board Member Stewart asked if the walkway that is proposed in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums would be ADA
accessible. Ms. Hite answered that there would be two sections of stairs to provide broader accessibility, but the boardwalk
would all be accessible. The boardwalk proposed in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums would connect the north and south
portions of the existing boardwalk together.
Board Member Stewart noted that there are redundancies in the CIP, as some projects appear to be listed twice, and the dollar
amounts do not match up. Ms. Hite said the redundancy has to do with the different funds that are used for the projects. In
many cases, funding will come from a variety of sources and/or funds.
Board Member Stewart said she is glad that the documents identify certain properties the City is keeping an eye on for park
acquisition. There is forest land in the northern portion of the City that has been on and off the market for quite some time
and is part of the Perrinville Creek Drainage Basin. There is a real desire in the neighborhood for the City to acquire this
property, and it can only happen if funding is available. She suggested that the City allocate a significantly larger amount in
2017 to allow the City to competitively bid for the property. Ms. Hite commented that this would be difficult. She explained
that Mayor Earling weighs out all of the priorities for the City and attempts to balance all needs when allocating the REET
dollars in the 126 Fund. For example, the 126 Fund is also used to support the Street Preservation and Facilities Restoration
Programs, which both have a backlog of projects. In addition to acquiring more park and open space, it is also important for
the City to adequately maintain their existing properties. However, she agreed to make note of Board Member Stewart's
request when presenting the CIP and CFP to the City Council. Board Member Stewart commented that the City could
establish a donor program to provide funding support for future park and open space acquisition. Ms. Hite agreed and said
that she has been working with Council Member Mesaros to pursue this option further. Board Member Stewart agreed to
assist in the effort.
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 7
Packet Pg. 216
4.8.d
Vice Chair Rubenkonig requested clarification relative to the schedule for the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project, which is
described on Page 58 of the Staff Report. Mr. English reviewed that staff provided a report to the City Council in August
relative to the concept of building a walkway on the west side of Sunset Avenue. Currently, there is temporary striping that
designates a walkway area, but there has been quite a lot of discussion about where the parking should be located, what kind
of parking should be provided, etc. Parallel with the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project is a utility improvement project. The
City is considering options for improving the lift station on Sunset Avenue south of Caspers Street to install a new gravity
line to take sewage to the treatment plant rather than having to pump it. A waterline also needs to be replaced. No
permanent walkway or designated parking would be constructed until after the utility work has been completed in 2017. He
agreed to clarify the schedule in the project description.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig observed that the proposed sidewalk project on 232nd Street SW from 100th Avenue W to SR-104
(Page 60 of the Staff Report) would provide the fastest walking route to Westgate from the intersection with SR-104, and the
City should encourage people to use it as such. She also suggested that the CIP and CFP should include a listing of the
sources recommending action to help citizens know how long a project has been in the making, and the embedded vicinity
maps may be easier to navigate if compass points were included. While providing footage of the sidewalk projects has
begun, it could be completed, and highlighting project areas could assist the reader in identifying the size and location of the
proposed work.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked for clarification about the Pine Ridge Forest Management Study, which is described on
Page 105 of the Staff Report. In particular, she asked if the City has done similar studies for other parks in the past. Ms. Hite
explained that the Public Works, Planning and Parks Departments are coordinating an effort to complete an Urban Forestry
Management Plan for the entire City in 2016 and 2017, but there are a lot of older trees in Pine Ridge Park that warrant an
evaluation to assess the City's liability, etc.
Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the acronym WWTP (Page 117 of the Staff Report) should be spelled out as the Waste
Water Treatment Plant. She also referred to the Table that lists the publicly -owned facilities in Edmonds and other nearby
areas and suggested that the Civic Center Playfield should be removed from the list of school district properties and added to
the list of City -owned properties.
VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (CIP) AND CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) FOR 2016 THROUGH 2O22 TO THE CITY
COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL BASED ON THE COMMENTS PROVIDED BY THE
BOARD. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THE BOARD RECESSED THE MEETING FOR A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK AT 8:20 P.M. THE MEETING
RECONVENED AT 8:27 P.M.
2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
Mr. Chave reviewed that the most recent Comprehensive Plan update was completed in 2015, and included a major review as
required by the Growth Management Act. Typically, the City undertakes relatively minor amendments in intervening years.
This year's amendments will include the following:
Amending the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the updated CFP.
Amending the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan to include the adopted Marina Beach Master Plan as
a new "Appendix D." Appendix A would also be amended to acknowledge and reflect the Marina Beach Master
Plan.
Amending the Capital Facilities Element to add an implementation action that would read, "Develop level of service
standards for key public facilities by the end of 2017 and consider including the standards in the Comprehensive
Plan."
In addition to the amendments listed above, Mr. Chave advised that two more substantial amendments are currently being
developed: The Water Comprehensive Plan and the Street Tree Plan. Drafts of each of the plans are due before the end of
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 8
Packet Pg. 217
4.8.d
2016, and approval is scheduled for the first quarter of 2017. Any specific references to the current plans will need to be
updated, as well. The two plans will be ready for the Planning Board's consideration after the first of the year.
Mr. Chave summarized that the Board has completed its public hearing and recommendation to the City Council relative to
Amendment 1, and the public hearings for Amendments 2 and 3 are scheduled for November 9"h.
Chair Lovell asked if the City plans to hire a consultant to assist staff in preparing an Urban Forestry Management Plan. Mr.
Chave answered affirmatively and noted that funding has been allocated for the project, and staff is working on a Request for
Proposals. However, the Street Tree Plan is separate and will precede the Urban Forestry Management Plan.
Chair Lovell said his understanding is that the Marina Beach and Civic Field Master Plans, once adopted into the
Comprehensive Plan, will represent what the community wants programmatically for the two sites, but they should not be
considered final designs. Ms. Hite agreed that the master plans should not be considered design or construction documents.
Instead, they are schematic designs that represent the community's thoughts and desires. It is always good practice to
officially adopt the master plans into the Comprehensive Plan so there are no questions about the process. Once adopted into
the Comprehensive Plan, Parks staff will have a green light to put together a financial package for future implementation.
Chair Lovell asked if the consultant who creates the final park designs would be obligated to prepare design documents that
are consistent with the Master Plans. Ms. Hite answered yes, but commented that the master plans are quite broad and
design decisions will need to be made throughout the process. The City will go through a competitive bidding process for
design consultants, and it is likely this effort will involve a citizen's committee, as well. Sometimes, the entity that created
the schematic design is the one most qualified to do the final design work. For example, the current contract with Walker
Massey for the Civic Field Master Plan also includes language for them to amend the contract to go into design development
if the City so chooses. That was not the case with the Marina Beach Master Plan contract, since development of the park is
three to five years out.
Board Member Stewart requested clarification of the proposed amendment to Goal 4, Policy 4.H of the PROS Plan. Ms. Hite
reviewed that when the Marina Beach Master Plan was created, numerous people voiced support for the dog park to remain
as an element of the park. Goal 4 was added to the PROS Plan to address the concern about potential impacts to sensitive
areas. Staff is suggesting the language be amended to make it more powerful and applicable to all parks in the City. The
new language would read, "Ensure uses in environmentally sensitive areas are consistent with critical area regulations and the
Shoreline Master Program." She summarized that the proposed language is intended to make the City pay attention to
potential impacts in all design and develop a balance.
Board Member Stewart asked for specific language in the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and Shoreline Master Program
(SMP). Although she acknowledged that the dog park is well -loved by the community, the community must also be made
aware of what is happening to the land as a result of the non -conforming use (dog park). Although dog owners do a good job
of cleaning up their pets' feces, Keeley O'Connell, restoration biologist on contract with the City, previously pointed out to
the Board that the urine is what completely decimates the marine flora on the shoreline. She said she has been a naturalist for
years at Discovery Park where there is a diverse display of habitat, but less so on the Edmonds beaches. If you walk through
Marina Beach Park, there is a noticeable wasteland effect as you walk through the dog park and habitat returns as you walk
further south along the beach. As habitat improvements occur down the road and conversations and public education
continues to evolve, people will become aware that there could be better alternatives. She said she hopes that this will be part
of the conservation going forward, and she questioned if the proposed amendment to Goal 4 would provide adequate
protection for the area.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if developing LOS standards for key public facilities would be a Planning Board responsibility.
Mr. Chave answered yes, but only to the extent that they are included in the planning documents. Many of the standards are
already in place, such as transportation.
Mr. Chave advised that the draft amendments are scheduled for a public hearing before the Board on November 9t'.
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 9
Packet Pg. 218
4.8.d
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Lovell reviewed that the Board's October 26th agenda includes an update by the consultant on the Highway 99 Subarea
Plan and a presentation by representatives from Sound Transit relative to the Sound Transit 3 initiative that will be on the
November ballot. The November 9"b agenda will include a public hearing on the Civic Center Master Plan and a Public
Hearing on the 2016 Comprehensive Plan amendments. The November 23`d meeting has been cancelled. The December 14th
meeting tentatively includes a public hearing on the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, as well as election of officers and a
presentation of the Five Corners Plan that was prepared by students from the University of Washington and Forterra. The
December 28th meeting has been cancelled.
Chair Lovell reported that he and Vice Chair Rubenkonig met with Mayor Earling recently and learned that the terms of four
Board Members will expire at the end of 2016. Board Members who want to be reappointed for another term should notify
the Mayor as soon as possible. After further discussion, Chair Lovell indicated he would notify the Mayor that he and Board
Members Crank and Rubenkonig want to be reappointed for another term, but Board Member Stewart does not.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Stewart announced that Students Saving Salmon will be meeting with stream -side property owners and
residents on Saturday, October 15th, to discuss how they can improve conditions along the waterways for salmon habitat.
They will be asking if salmon has been spotted and help them understand how to identify them and become more vigilant.
The students will report their findings to the press and City Council in a timely manner.
Board Member Robles gave a shout out to Perrinville, which now has an anchor restaurant and no franchise businesses. All
of the businesses are community based, and the area is very well done.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the fitness station that is located in the plaza/garden of the Waste Water Treatment Center is
an example of the proposed new fitness zones. Ms. Hite said the fitness station at the plaza/garden only has three elements,
and the proposed new fitness zones will have eight to ten components that will be more dynamic and have various functions.
She recalled that Board Members Monroe and Stewart agreed to work with staff to select the fitness zone components.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig announced that there will be an open house regarding the Highway 99 Subarea Plan on November
10`h from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. on the 4`' Floor at Swedish Hospital, and Chair Lovell indicated his plan to attend. She also
reminded the Board of the public open house relative to the Civic Center Master Plan that is scheduled for October 19th from
6:00 to 7:30 p.m. in the Library Plaza Room. Board Member Crank indicated her plan to attend that event. Lastly, she
advised that on November 2"d, the City Attorney will provide training to the Architectural Design Board regarding quasi-
judicial meetings, etc. She suggested that those who missed the training that was provided previously to the Board should
consider attending the November 2nd meeting.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked Mr. Chave to explain the impact of the City Council's recent decision to establish a larger
buffer for the Edmonds Marsh than what was recommended by the Department of Ecology (DOE). Mr. Chave explained
that, in general, the Planning Board's recommendation relative to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) was passed on to the
DOE for review. However, the Council approved greater buffers for critical areas. The DOE notified the City that they did
not like a few things in the Council approved SMP, including the increased buffer requirement, and they provided a list of
mandatory and recommended changes. Most recently, the City Council walked through the DOE's recommendations and
requirements and suggested some alternative versions. The alternatives will be presented back to the DOE, and the City will
await a response that identifies where the discrepancies lie. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the higher buffer requirement is
unusual compared to other jurisdictions. Mr. Chave answered that the buffer requirement is not necessarily unusual, but the
length of time the City has spent going back and forth with the DOE is a big unusual. He said he suspects the issue will
eventually end up before the Growth Hearings Board.
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 10
Packet Pg. 219
Board Member Crank reported on her attendance at the recent Candidates Forum that was sponsored by the Chamber. One
of the questions given to the state candidates was about ST3, and their response helped feed her a perspective for the next
round of discussions.
Board Member Crank said she listened to the October l lth City Council meeting where there was significant input from
downtown business owners about the recent sign code amendments. She voiced concern that the issue seems to be focused
on a -frame signs, and the Board's recommendation that the City consider a directional sign program has gotten lost in the
translation. This has created a lot of discord from downtown business owners. She asked what the Board could do to clarify
the amendments. Mr. Chave answered that the City Council will do something to address the concern, and there is nothing
the Board can do at this time. However, they will likely become involved at some point in the future. He encouraged Board
Members to take every opportunity to talk to the downtown business owners and provide more information about the Board's
recommendation.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 11
Packet Pg. 220
4.9
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/22/2016
Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On October 25, 2016, the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program was presented to the City Council
for review and discussion.
On November 1, 2016, a public hearing was held for this item.
On November 7, 2016, this item was pulled from the consent agenda for further discussion.
Staff Recommendation
Approve the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program.
Narrative
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) was pulled from the November 7th consent agenda and re-
scheduled for the November 22nd City Council meeting.
The City Council approved the addition of the Edmonds Street Overpass to the Capital Improvement
Program at the November 15th City Council meeting. The CIP has been updated to include this project.
Background:
The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is a document updated annually and identifies capital
projects for at least the next six years which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. The CFP contains a
list of projects that need to be expanded or will be new capital facilities in order to accommodate the
City's projected population growth in accordance with the Growth Management Act. Thus, capital
projects that preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These preservation projects
are identified within the six -year capital improvement program (CIP) along with capital facility plan
projects which encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects.
CIP vs. CFP
The CFP and CIP are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to
different needs. While the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying
those projects to the various City funds and revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital
needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City levels of service standards. The CFP is also required to be
consistent with the other elements (transportation, parks, etc) of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are
restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP.
Packet Pg. 221
4.9
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: CIP 2017-2022
Exhibit 2: CFP-CIP Comparison (2016-2017)
Exhibit 3 - Planning Board Minutes 09/28/16
Exhibit 4: Planning Board Minutes 10/12/16
Packet Pg. 222
:E
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CIP 2017-2022 (1701 : Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program)
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CIP 2017-2022 (1701 : Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program)
4.9.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2017-2022)
Table of Contents
GENERAL
016
Building
Maintenance
Public Works
7
112
Transportation
Public Works
9
125
Capital
Projects Fund
Parks & Recreation/
Public Works
12
126
Special Capital /
Parks Acquisition
Parks & Recreation/
Public Works
14
129
Special Projects
Parks & Recreation
16
132
Parks Construction
(Grant Funding)
Parks & Recreation
17
421
Water Projects
Public Works
19
422
Storm Projects
Public Works
20
423
Sewer Projects
Public Works
22
423.76
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Public Works
24
PARKS — PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Capital
Parks & Recreation/
125
Projects Fund
Public Works
27
Special Capital /
Parks & Recreation/
126
Parks Acquisition
Public Works
61
Parks Construction
132
Grant Funding)
Parks & Recreation
64
Packet Pg. 225
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CIP 2017-2022 (1701 : Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program)
G�
z
n
00
It
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CIP 2017-2022 (1701 : Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program)
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CIP 2017-2022 (1701 : Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program)
4.9.a
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 016 - Buildina Maintenance
Proiects for 2017-2022
PROJECT NAME
CFP
2016
E
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
(20Total
2)
ADA Improvements- City Wide
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$20,000
Anderson Center Accessibility
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$20,000
Anderson Center Interior Painting
$20,000
$30,000
$50,000
Anderson Center Exterior Painting
$15,000
$15,000
Anderson Center Radiator Replacement
$25,000
$85,000
$110,000
Anderson Center Exterior Repairs
$75,000
$75,000
Anderson Center Exterior Flashing
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$20,000
Anderson Center Blinds
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$20,000
Anderson Center HVAC control install
$20,000
$5,000
$25,000
Anderson Center Steam Radiator Retrofits
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$20,000
Anderson Center Asbestos Abatement
$20,000
$20,000
$40,000
Anderson Center Flooring/Gym
$25,000
$25,000
$50,000
Anderson Center Countertop Replacement
$20,000
$20,000
$40,000
Anderson Center Carpeting
$7,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$37,000
Anderson Center Oil Tank Decommissioning
$30,000
$30,000
Anderson Center Elevator Replacement
$225,000
$225,000
Anderson Center Roof Replacement
$350,000
$25,000
$375,000
Cemetery Building Gutter Replacement
$8,000
$8,000
City Hall Carpet Replacement
$25,000
$50,000
$25,000
$75,000
City Hall Window Failed Window Seal Replacements
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$20,000
City Hall Elevator Replacement
$225,000
$225,000
City Hall Exterior Cleaning and Repainting
$85,000
$20,000
$105,000
City Hall Roof Repairs
$15,000
$100,000
$115,000
City Hall HVAC
$5,000
$5,000
$20,000
$20,000
$25,000
$25,000
$95,000
City Hall Security Measures
$5,000
$30,000
$10,000
$40,000
City Park Maint. Bldg. Roof
$25,000
$25,000
ESCO III Project
$0
ESCO IV Project
$0
ESCO _ Project
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$370,000
Fishing Pier Rehab
$1,870,650
$2,000
$2,000
Fire Station #16 Painting
$10,000
$10,000
Fire station #16 Generator
$43,000
$5,000
$48,000
Fire Station #16 Carpet
$20,000
$10,000
$30,000
Fire Station #16 HVAC Replacement
$30,000
$30,000
Fire Station #17 Ceiling repairs
$25,000
Fire Station #17 Carpet
$12,000
$12,000
Fire Station #17 Interior Painting
$15,000
$15,000
Fire Station #20 Carpet
$15,000
$15,000
Fire Station #20 Interior Painting
$10,000
$10,000
Fire Station #20 Stairs and Deck Replacement
$40,000
$40,000
Grandstand Exterior and Roof Repairs
$0
Library Plaza Appliance Replacement
$15,000
$5,000
$20,000
Library Plaza Brick Fagade Addition
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
Library Wood Trim
$10,000
$5,000
$15,000
Library West Deck Waterproofing and Garage Repair
$20,000
$5,000
$25,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Roof Replacement
$50,000
$50,000
Meadowdale Flooring Replacement
$25,000
$25,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Gutter Replacement
$15,000
$10,000
$10,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Ext. Surface Cleaning
$5,000
$5,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Flooring Replacement Partial
$15,000
$10,000
$10,000
$35,000
E
<a
L
O
t1
C
d
E
d
O
L
E
Q
O
V
N
N
O
N
I-
O
N
d
t
O
O
Q-
O.
El
T-
O
ti
N
N
O
N
f`
O
N
d
v
t
K
W
C
d
E
t
v
O
a
Packet Pg. 229
4.9.a
W
Meadowdale Clubhouse Fire Alarm Replacement
$25,000
$25,000
Misc. Fire Sprinkler System Repairs
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$15,000
$15,000
$60,000
Museum East Window Replacement
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$100,000
Museum Exterior Door Replacement
$5,000
$5,000
$10,000
City Wide Capital renewal
$300,000
$300,000
$350,000
$350,000
$400,000
$400,000
$2,100,000
Misc. / Unanticipated Buliding Maintenance
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$25,000
$20,000
$20,000
$10,000
$120,000
Public Safety/Fire Station #17 Soffit Installation
$4,000
$4,000
Public Safety Exterior Painting
$25,000
$25,000
Public Safety Council Chamber Carpet
$20,000
$5,000
$25,000
Public Safety HVAC Repairs & Maintenance
$10,000
$10,000
Public Works Failed Window Seal Replacement
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$15,000
Public Works Decant Improvements
$0
Senior Center Misc Repairs & Maintenance
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$40,000
Senior Center Siding/ Sealing (CDBG)
$0
Total Projects
$2,010,650 $907,000 $877,000 $1,040,000 $782,000 $1,090,000 $665,000 $5,361,000
Revenues and Cash Balances 2016-2022
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Beginning Cash Balance(January 1st
$52,400
$80,000
$75,000
$98,000
-$42,000
$76,000
-$114,000
Interest Earnings
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Contribution from Gen Fund #001 and other
$56,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
Contribution from REET Fund #126
$300,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
Contribution from REET Fund #125
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
Unsecured Funding
$0
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
WA Dept. of Ecology Grant
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
WDFW & RCO Grants for Fishing Pier Secured
$1,770,650
$2,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Reimbursement from 125 Fund for Fishing Pier
$100,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Utility Grant Funding Estimated
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
WA State HCPF Grant Funding Secured
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total Revenues
$1,979,050 $982,000 $975,000 $998,000 $858,000 $976,000 $786,000
Total Revenue
$1,979,050
$9$9082,000
$975,000
$998,000
$858,000
$976,000
$786,000
Total Project
($2,010,650)
7,000
($877,000)
($1,040,000)
($782,000)
($1,090,000)
($665,000)
Ending Cash Balance
I
I -$31,600
1 $75,0001
$98,000
-$42,000
$76,000
-$114,000
$121,000
C
ti
Packet Pg. 230
0
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 112 - Transportation Projects 2016 Projects for 2017-2022
PROJECT NAME CFP Estimate 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 (2017-2022
01
Annual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc.
$1,162,764
$1,091,200
$1,420,000
$2,900,000
$2,060,000
$3,120,000
$2,350,000
$12,941,200
220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave W to 84th Ave W
$215,000
$10,000
$10,000
84th Ave. W Overlay from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW
$900,000
$900,000
Citywide - Signal Improvements
$325,000
$325,000
$650,000
Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades
$75,000
$425,000
$500,000
Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave @ 238th St. SW
$750,000
$750,000
Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades
$75,000
$300,000
$375,000
Cafun. r`an-ifw Anawck
212th St. SW / 84th Ave Five Corners Roundabout
X
$9,791
$0
228th St. SW Corridor Safety Improvements
X
$1,129,944
$25,000
$25,000
228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th PI. W
X
$75,000
$300,000
$375,000
76th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
X
$376,051
$4,993,163
$100,000
$5,093,163
Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization
X
$300,000
$6,600,000
$6,000,000
$12,900,000
SR 524 196th St. SW / 88th Ave. W - Intersection Improvements
X
$193,000
$175,000
$535,000
$903,000
Main St. @ 9th Ave.
X
$135,000
$776,000
$911,000
220th St SW @ 76th Ave. W - Intersection Improvements
X
$330,000
$1,800,000
$3,795,000
$5,925,000
Hwy 99 @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements
X
$175,000
$1,091,000
$1,540,000
$2,806,000
Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements
X
$164,000
$334,000
$1,837,000
$2,335,000
Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
X
$175,000
$1,085,000
$1,955,000
$3,215,000
SR-104 @ 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW Intersection Improvements
X
$30,000
$164,000
$194,000
SR-104 @ 95th PI. W Intersection Improvements
X
$75,000
$420,000
$495,000
SR-104 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements
X
$200,000
$1,138,000
$1,338,000
Cit ide Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
$20,000
$0
220 St. SW Traffic Signal Coordination from Hwy 99 to 76 Ave
$300,000
$300,000
Sunset Ave Walkwa from Bell St. to Cas ers St.
X
$2,000
$183,250
$2,595,000
$2,778,250
Dayton St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway
X
$75,000
$75,000
232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. to SR-104
X
$200,000
$1,105,000
$1,305,000
238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W
X
$455,661
$12,000
$12,000
236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona Elementary
X
$791,841
$88,600
$88,600
236th St. SW from Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. W
X
$213,000
$1,182,000
$1,395,000
84th Ave. W from 238th St. SW to 234th St. SW
X
$90,000
$90,000
80th Ave. W from 212th St. SW to 206th St. SW
X
$210,000
$1,239,000
$1,449,000
2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway
X
$30,000
$30,000
218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W
X
$200,000
$1,105,000
$1,305,000
Walnut St. from 3rd Ave. to 4th Ave. Walkway
X
$105,000
$105,000
216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W
X
$157,000
$157,000
238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy. 99
X
$67,000
$413,000
$413,000
Citywide Crossing Enhancement
$120,000
$940,000
$1,060,000
Elm Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
X
$156,000
$633,000
$789,000
Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW Walkway
X
$230,000
$681,000
$680,000
$1,591,000
ADA Curb Rams Improvements
$25,000
$25,000
$50,000
$50,000
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$1,625,000
Audible Pedestrian Signals
$20,000
$20,000
95th PI. W Walkway from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW
X
$105,000
$445,000
$550,000
15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S
X
$50,535
$0
15th St. SW from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
X
$10,000
$30,000
$200,000
$230,000
Hwy 99 Enhancement Phase 3
$140,011
$8,000
$8,000
Minor Sidewalk Program
X
$40,000
$70,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$320,000
ADA Curb Ramps along 3rd Ave S from Main St to Pine St
$512
$500
$500
Verdant Citywide Bicycle Improvements
$89,687
$652,5001
1
1
$652,500
Traffic Calming Projects
Traffic Calming Program / non -motorized transportation safety I 1$20,0001 $20,0001 $20,0001 $20,0001 $20,0001 $20,0001 $20,0001 $120,000
Ferry Projects
Ferry Storage Improvements from Pine St. to Dayton St. I X I 1 1 $357,000 $357,000
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CIP 2017-2022 (1701 : Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program)
O
Total Projects
$4,989,077
$9,712,213
$2,140,000
$3,020,000
$10,310,000
$24,193,000
$24,632,000 $89,037,213
Debt Service
Debt Service on Loan 1 220th St Design
18,687
18,596
19,506
18,415
18,325
18,325
18,325
Debt Service on Loan (2) 220th St Construction
22,023
21,917
21,8111
$Zl,tutjl
$Z1,494l21,494
$21,494
Debt Service on Loan 3 100th Ave Road Stabilization
34,525
$34,3til
34,196
34,032
33,868
33,868
331868
Total Debt
$75,235
$74,874
$75,513
$74,153
$73,687
$73,687
$73,687
Revenues and Cash Balances 2016-2022
2016
Estimate
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Beginning Cash Balance
$9 000
$17,233
$163,030
$314,017
$479,864
$228,627
$99,940
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
Multi -Modal Revenue
$50,000
$110,000
$110,000
$110,000
$110,000
$110,000
$110,000
Reimbursement - Fund 125 Annual Street Preservation Program
$186,000
$305,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
Reimbursement - Fund 126 Annual Street Preservation Program
$880,000
$786,200
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
Contribution - General Fund for Annual Street Preservation Program
$96,764
Reimbursement - Fund 126 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th to 84th
$29,025
$1,350
Reimbursement - Fund 126 84th Ave. W Overlay from 212th to 220th
$208,800
Reimbursement - Fund 423 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement
$150
Reimbursement - Mountlake Terrace for 228th St. SW Improvements (Overlay)
$3,725
Reimbursement - Fund 421 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements
$6,690
$776,475
Reimbursement - Fund 422 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements
$7,926
$450,528
Reimbursement - Fund 423 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements
$4,866
$718,685
Reimbursement - Wave / Comcast for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements
$127,475
Reimbursement - Fund 126 for Citywide Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
$20,000
Reimbursement - Fund 126 for 220th St. SW Traffic Signal Coordination from Hwy. 99 to 76th
$47,000
Reimbursement - Fund 126 for Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization
$300,000
Reimbursement - Fund 421 for Sunset Ave. Walkway
$575,000
Reimbursement - Fund 423 for Sunset Ave. Walkway
$150,000
Reimbursement - Fund 422 for 238th St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W
$274,824
Reimbursement - PSE for 238th St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W
$55,159
Reimbursement - Fund 422 for 236th St. SW Walkway from SR-104 to Madrona School
$189,475
$25,000
Reimbursement - General Fund for pavement work in 236th St. SW Walkway
$250,270
Reimbursement - Fund 126 for 15th St. SW from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
$10,000
Reimbursement - Fund 125 for 15th St. SW from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
$30,000
Reimbursement - Fund 126 for Minor Sidewalk Program
$40,000
Reimbursement - Fund 125 for Minor Sidewalk Program
$70,000
Reimbursement - Fund 126 ADA Curb Ramp Improvements
$25,000
Reimbursement - Fund 125 ADA Curb Ramp Improvements
$25,000
Reimbursement - Fund 125 Audible Pedestrian Signals
$20,000
Reimbursement - Fund 125 - Hwy 99 Lighting Phase 3
$30,000
Reimbursement - Fund 126 for Traffic Calming Program
$20,000
$20,000
Reimbursement - Fund 126 for Citywide ADA Transition Plan
$50,000
$60,000
Reimbursement - General Fund for Trackside Warning System
$43,280
Reimbursement - Fund 126 Trackside Warning System
$290,000
$10,000
Reimbursement - Fund 126 Edmonds Street Overpass
$150,000
Reimbursement - Fund 422 STORMWATER
$0
Traffic Impact Fees
$150,000
$100,000
$100,0001
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
Total Revenues $2,872,154 $4,508,746 $1,223,030 $1,374,017 $2,264,864 $1,288,627 $1,159,940
<D
!v
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CIP 2017-2022 (1701 : Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program)
Grants 2016-2022
2016
Estimate
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
(Federal) for 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave to 84th Ave
185,975
8,650
Federal for 84th Ave. W Overlay from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW
691,200
Federal for 212th 84th Five Corners Roundabout
3,949
Federal for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
838,514
25,000
(State) for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
238,565
Federal for 76th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
$141,587
$2,920,000
$86,500
(State) Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization
5,000,000
5,000,000
Federal Sunset Ave. Walkwayfrom Bell St. to Cas ers St.
1,730
157,121
(State) for 238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy. 99
55,520
316,800
State 238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W
125,678
12,000
(State) 15th St. SW from Edmonds Wayto 8th Ave S
44,588
Federal 236th St. SW from Edmonds Way/ SR-104 to Madrona Elementary359,460
50,600
Federal Hwy 99 Enhancement Phase 3)
110,011
4,500
Federal ADA Curb Rampsalon 3rd Ave. S from Main St. to Pine St.
14,127
(Verdant) Verdant Citywide Bicycle Improvements
89,687
$652,500
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $2,209,391 $4,838,371 $86,500 $0 $0 $5,000,000 $5,000,000
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Grants 2016-2022 Estimate
a".nfai i ..... Rnunhf / F.mdinn n.M A. ..... dl
Annual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc
$720,000
$1,300,000
$1,360,000
$1,420,000
$1,650,000
Annual Street Preservation Program Federal Funds(Ovedays, Chip Seals, Etc)
$900,000
$1,000,000
Citywide Safety Improvements - Signal Cabinet
$325,000
$325,000
Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades
$75,000
$425,000
Signal Upgrades -100th Ave W @ 238th St SW
$750,000
Main St @ 3rd Ave Signal Upgrades
$37,500
$300,000
228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th PI. W
$75,000
$300,000
Hw . 99 gateway / Revitalization
$1,600,000
$1,000,000
220 St. SW Traffic Signal Coordination from Hwy 99 to 76 Ave
$253,000
196th St SW @ 88th Ave W - Intersection Improvements
$122,000
$87,500
$535,000
Main @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements
$118,000
$776,000
76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
$285,450
$1,800,000
$3,795,000
Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
$152,000
$1,091,000
$1,540,000
Hwy 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements
$142,000
$334,000
$1,837,000
Hwy 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
$152,000
$1,085,000
$1,955,000
SR-104 @ 226th / 15th Intersection Improvements
$15,000
$164,000
SR-104 @ 95th PI. W Intersection Improvements
$65,000
$420,000
SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements
$1,138,000
Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St to Caspers St
Dayton St. Walkwayfrom 7th to 8th Ave.
232nd St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. to SR-104
t$210,000
$100,000
$1,105,000
236th St. SW Walkwayfrom Madrona Elementaryto 97th PI. W
$1,182,000
84th Ave. W Walkway from 238th to 234th
$90,000
80th Ave. W Walkwayfrom 212th to 206th
$1,239,000
218th St. SW Walkway from 76th to 84th
$200,000
$878,000
Walnut St. Walkway from 3rd to 4th
$105,000
216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 72nd Ave W
$137,000
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
$120,000
$940,000
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
$156,000
$633,000
15th St. SW Walkway from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
$200,000
Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th
$230,000
$681,000
$680,000
ADA Curb Ramps Improvements
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
95th Pl. W Walkway from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW
$84,000
$325,000
Ferry Storage Improvements
$357,000
Edmonds Street Overpass
1 $350,0001
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$2,470,000
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought / Funding (not secured) $0 $603,000 $1,220,000 $2,200,000 $8,347,450 $18,078,000 $18,635,000
Grant / Not Secured Funding Subtotal $2,209,391 $5,441,371 $1,306,500 $2,200,000 $8,347,450 $23,078,000 $23,635,000
Total Revenues & Grants
$5,081,545
$9,950,117
$2,529,530
$3,574,017
$10,612,314
$24,366,627
$24,794,940
Total Pro'ects
($4,989,077)
($9,712,213)
($2,140,000)
($3,020,000)
($10,310,000)
($24,193,000)
($24,632,000)
Total Debt
($75,235)
($74,874)
($75,513)
($74,153)
($73,687)
($73,687)
($73,687)
Ending Cash Balance
$17,233
$163,030
$314,017
$479,864
$228,627
$99,940
$89,253
A
is
io
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CIP 2017-2022 (1701 : Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program)
4.9.a
N
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 125 - Capital Projects Fund
Projects for 2017-2022
PROJECT NAME
CFP
E tomate
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
(20Total 2)
Park Development Projects*
Anderson Center Field / Court / Stage
$191,870
$5,000
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$25,000
Brackett's Landing Improvements
$50,000
$100,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$115,000
City Park Improvements
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$75,000
Civic Center Improvements/Grandstand demolition
X
$100,000
$5,000
$10,000
$10,000
$500,000
$500,000
$1,125,000
Sunset Avenue Walkway
$0
Fishing Pier & Restrooms
$100,000
$75,000
$5,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$120,000
Community Garden
X
$0
$155,000
$155,000
Maplewood Park Improvements
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$15,000
Marina Beach Park Improvements
$100,000
$325,000
$500,000
$500,000
$5,000
$1,330,000
Mathay Ballinger Park
$0
$20,000
$5,000
$5,000
$30,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Grounds
$75,000
$5,000
$5,000
$10,000
Meadowdale Pla ields
$0
$500,000
$500,000
Pine Ridge Park Improvements
$5,000
$5,000
$10,000
Seaview Park Improvements
$50,000
$10,000
$5,000
$65,000
Sierra Park Improvements
$70,000
$70,000
Waterfront Redevelopment / Waterfront Walkway Completion
X
$425,000
$425,000
Yost Park / Pool Improvements
$120,000
$40,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$25,000
$30,000
$245,000
Parklet development, 4th Ave cultural corridor
$10,000
$30,000
$40,000
$70,000
City Gateway replacements
$10,000
$30,000
$30,000
City Park Storage Building
$200,000
$200,000
Veteran's Plaza
$30,000
$30,000
Outdoor Fitness Zones
$0
$75,000
$75,000
Citvwide Park Improvements*
Citywide Beautification
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$126,000
Flower Pole Replacement
$0
$20,000
$20,000
Misc Paving
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$40,000
Citywide Park Improvements/Misc Small Projects
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$240,000
Sports Fields Upgrade / Playground Partnership
$20,000
$5,000
$25,000
$25,000
$55,000
S ecialized Projects*
A vatic Center Facility (dependent upon successful capital campaign) X $0
Trail Development*
Misc Unpaved Trail / Bike Path Improvements 1 $10,0001 1 $10,0001 1 1 $20,000
Planning
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility & Restoration
X
$32,150
$80,000
$30,000
$30,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$155,000
Edmonds Cemetery Mapping Project
$0
Civic Center Master Plan
$80,000
$20,000
$20,000
Waterfront Development / Waterfront Waiw-a-y
$25,000
$100,000
$100,000
Pine Ridge Park Forest Management Study
$40,000
$40,000
Total Parks Projects $895,020 $2,026,000 $746,000 $726,000 $746,000 $651,000 $641,000 $5,536,000
T-
O
t`
Packet Pg. 234
D..hlir W-4- P-i-f.
Pavement Preservation Program
$186,000
$305,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$1,555,000
Highway 99 Lighting Phase 3
$30,000
$0
Upgrade Curb Ramps to ADA Stds
$25,000
$25,000
Audible Pedestrian Signals
$20,000
$20,000
Minor Sidewalk Program
$100,000
$100,000
Building Maintenance
$0
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$500,000
Total Public Works Projects $216,000 $450,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $2,200,000
Total Project Costs (Parks & Public Works) $1,111,020 $2,476,000 $1,096,000 $1,076,000 $1,096,000 $1,001,000 $991,000 $7,736,000
Raimhursamanfs
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Waterfront Redevelopment/Walkway Completion)
$525,000
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Veteran's Plaza)
$30,000
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 Outdoor Fitness Zones
$75,000
Reimburesement to Park Fund 132 City Park Storage rebuild
$200,000
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 Civic Grandstand demo
$100,000
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Dayton St Plaza
Reimbursement to Building Maintenance Fund 016(Fishing Pier
$100,000
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132(Community Garden
X
$155,000
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 Pavement Preservation Program)
$186,000
$305,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (Highway 99 Lighting Phase 3
$30,000
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (Upgrade Curb Ramps to ADA Stds)
$25,000
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 Audible Pedestrian Signals)
$20,000
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 Minor Sidewalk Program)
$100,000
Reimbursement to Street Fund 016(Building Maintenance
$0
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
Total Reimbursements
w Total Projects & Reimbursements
$316,000 $1,535,000 $3501000 $3501000 $3501000 $3501000 $3501000
$1,427,020 $4,011,000 $1,446,000 $1,426,000 $1,446,000 $1,351,000 $1,341,000
Revenues and Cash Balances 2016-2022
2016
Estimate
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Beginning Cash Balance(January 1st
$ 1,629,534
$ 1,865,814
$ 701,714
$ 818,414
$ 855,414
$ 772,914
$ 786,714
Real Estate Tax 1/4%
$ 1,335,000
$ 1,300,000
$ 1,200,000
$ 1,100,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,000,000
Donations
Investment Interest
$ 12,300
$ 11,900
$ 12,700
$ 13,000
$ 13,500
$ 14,800
$ 14,000
Total Revenues $ 2,976,834 $ 3,177,714 $ 1,914,414 $ 1,931,414 $ 1,868,914 $ 1,787,714 $ 1,800,714
Total Revenue
1
1 $ 2,976,834
$ 3,177,714
1 $ 1,914,414
1 $ 1,931,414
1 $ 1,868,914
1 $ 1,787,714
1 $ 1,800,714
Total Projects
1
1 -$1,111,020
-$2,476,000
-$1,096,000
-$1,076,000
-$1,096,000
-$1,001,000
-$991,000
IlEncling Cash Balance
1
1 $ 1,865,814
$ 701,714
1 $ 818,414
1 $ 855,414
1 $ 772,914
1 $ 786,714
1 $ 809.714
*Projects in all categories may be eligible for 1%for art with the exception of planning projects.
T-
O
ti
N
N
O
N
ti
O
N
d
v
t
K
W
C
tv
E
t
a
Packet Pg. 235
4.9.a
Capital Improvements Program
P.-i 19A . A...inl r-ifal/Pant. A-,iaifi-
P-i-fa f- qn1 Z9n99
PROJECT NAME
CFP
Estimate
lma
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Total
(2017-2022)
Debt Service on City Hall
$0
Debt Service Marina Bch/Library Roof
$83,228
$82,028
$80,828
$79,628
$83,428
$325,912
Debt Service on PSCC Purchase
$56,198
$60,298
$54,298
$53,398
$52,498
$138,725
$140,275
$499,492
Debt Service on FAC Seismic retrofit
$29,957
$29,621
$29,640
$29,630
$29,981
$29,887
$29,763
$178,522
Total Debt $169,383 $171,947 $164,766 $162,656 $165,907 $168,612 $170,038 $1,003,926
Parks Projects
Total Parks Projects $492,180 $275,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,275,000
P..hlir W-k. Prni-fc
Annual Street Preservation Program
$880,000
$995,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$3,245,000
220th St Overlay
$29,025
$1,350
$1,350
Trackside Warning System
$290,000
$10,000
$10,000
Signal Cabinet Upgrades
$70,000
$0
Upgrade Curb Ramps to ADA Stds
$25,000
$0
ADA Transition Plan
$50,000
$60,000
$60,000
Traffic Calming Program
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
Protective/Permissive Traffic Signal Conv
$20,000
$0
Minor Sidewalk Program
$50,000
$0
Hwy 99 Gateway/Revitalization (Access Management)
$300,000
$300,000
220th St Signal Coordination
$47,000
$47,000
Building Maintenance
$300,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$1,300,000
Total Public Works Projects
Total Project Cost (Parks and Public Works)
RA-h..,-.nfs
$1,434,025 $1,733,350 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $4,983,350
$1,926,205 $2,008,350 $850,000 $850,000 $850,000 $850,000 $850,000 $6,258,350
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Annual Street Preservation Program
$880,000
$995,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$3,245,000
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for 220th St Overlay
$29,025
$1,350
$1,350
Reimbursement to Fund 132 for Land/Civic Acquisition
$492,180
$0
Reimbursement to Fund 132 for Waterfront Redevelopment
$75,000
$75,000
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Trackside Warning System
$290,000
$10,000
$10,000
Reimbursement to Fund 111 for Signal Cabinet Upgrades
$70,000
$0
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Upgrade Curb Ramps to ADA Stds
$25,000
$0
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for ADA Transition Plan
$50,000
$60,000
$60,000
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Traffic Calming Program
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
Reimbursement to Fund 112 Protective/Permissive Traffic Signal Conv
$20,000
$0
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Minor Sidewalk Program
$50,000
$0
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for SR99 Access Management
$300,000
$300,000
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for 220th St Signal Coordination
$47,000
Reimbursement to Fund 016 for Building Maintenance
$300,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$1,300,000
Total Project & Reimbursements
$1,926,205 $1,808,350 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $5,011,350
T-
CD
ti
N
N
CD
N
I`
O
N
d
t
K
W
C
0)
E
t
v
M
a
Packet Pg. 236
4.9.a
Revenues and Cash Balances 2016-2022
2016
Estimate
2017
2018
9114a
2020
ML2021
2
Beginning Cash Balance(January 1st
$2,239,006
$1,495,118
$629,221
$827,255
$926,199
$919,892
$912,880
Real estate Tax 1/4%/1 st Qtr %
$1,335,000
$1,300,000
$1,200,000
$1,100,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Interest Earnings
$16,700
$14,400
$12,800
$11,600
$9,600
$11,600
$11,000
Total Revenues $3,590,706 $2,809,518 $1,842,021 $1,938,855 $1,935,799 $1,931,492 $1,923,880
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Grants 2016-2022 Estimate
Grants/ Loans Souaht (not Secured)
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenue & Grants & Subsidy
$3,590,706
$2,809,518
$1,842,021
$1,938,855
$1,935,799
$1,931,492
$1,923,880
Total Debt
($169,383)
($171,947)
($164,766)
($162,656)
($165,907)
($168,612)
($170,038)
Total Project & Reimbursements
($1,926,205)
($2,008,350)
($850,000)
($850,000)
($850,000)
($850,000)
($850,000)
Ending Cash Balance
$1,495,118
$629,221
$827,255
$926,199
$919,892
$912,880
$903,842
to
T—
CD
I`
Packet Pg. 237
4.9.a
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 129 - Special Projects
Projects for 2017-2022
PROJECT NAME
CFP
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
E
(20Total
2)
$0
Total Projects
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Revenues and Cash Balances 2016-2022
Estimate
Beginning Balance(January 1st
$17,922
$17,922
$17,922
$17,922
$17,922
Investment Interest
Total Revenues $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $0 $0
2016 1
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Grants 2016-2022
Estimate
k
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total Grants $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenues & Grants
1 $17,922
$17,9221
$17,922
$17,922
$17,922
$0
$0
Total Construction Projects
1 $0
$0
1 $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Ending Cash Balance
1 $17,922
$17,9221
$17,922
$17,922
$17,922
$0
$0
8
T-
0
ti
N
N
O
N
ti
O
N
IL
v
t
K
IJJ
C
d
E
t
a
Packet Pg. 238
4.9.a
Capital Improvements Program
Flinn 112 - Parks r�nnstmr-tlnn
Prniarts fnr 2n17-7n77
PROJECT NAME
CFP
2016
Estimate
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Total
(20 2)
4th Ave Corridor Enhancement
$1,425,000
$2,900,000
$4,325,000
Cultural Heritage Tour and Way -Finding Signage
$0
Dayton Street Plaza
$130,000
$30,000
$30,000
Civic Center Acquisition/Development/Stadium demo
$992,180
$135,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$3,135,000
Waterfront Redevelopment / Waterfront Walkway Completion
$25,000
$2,100,0001
1
$2,100,000
City Park Revitalization
$192,805
$0
Community Garden
$155,000
$155,000
Wetland Mitigation
$0
Edmonds Marsh/Daylighting Willow Creek/Marina Beach
$200,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$3,200,000
Fishing Pier Rehab
$0
Public Market (Downtown Waterfront)
X
$0
Outdoor Fitness Zones
1
$175,000
$175,000
City Park Maintenance Storage Building
1
1 $250,0001
1
1
$250,000
Veteran's Plaza
I
1
1 $550,0001
1
1
1 $550,000
Total Projects
$1,339,985 $3,595,000 $1,425,000 $4,400,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $13,920,000
Revenues and Cash Balances 2016-2022
2016
Estimate
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
022
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)
$560,500
$1,422,185
$2,327,526
$2,527,526
$1,877,526
$1,577,526
$2,677,526
Beg Balance Park Impact Fees
$336,920
$815,855
Park Impact Fees
$478,935
$119,486
Beginning Cash Balance Milltown
Beginning Cash Balance Cultural Heritage Tour
Reimbursement from Fund 125 Waterfront development
$525,000
Reimbursement from Fund 126 for Waterfront development
$75,000
Park Impact Fees/Waterfront development
$500,000
Reimbursement from Fund 117-200 for Cultural Heritage Tour
Reimbursement from Fund 120 for Cultural Heritage Tour
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for City Park Storage Building
$200,000
Reimbursement from Fund 127-200 for Cultural Heritage Tour
Reimbursement from Fund 120 for Way -Finding Signage Grant Match
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Outdoor Fitness Zones
$75,000
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Veteran's Plaza
$30,000
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Civic Demolition
$100,000
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Community Garden
$155,000
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Waterfront Redevelopment
$0
Reimbursement from Fund 126 for Civic Acquisition
$492,180
Contribution from 01 for Edmonds Marsh
$200,000
$200,000
$200,0001
$200,0001
$200,0001
$200,000
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Marsh/Marina Beach
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Fishing Pier
Investment Interest
$830
iotai Kevenues
�Z,UtI'J,3tlb �4,Z7/,bZ6 �1,5L/,bZ6 �Z,/Z/,bZ6 �j,V//,bZ6 fit,///,b16 �Z,G//,'J1G
Packet Pg. 239
4.9.a
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Grants 2016-2022 Estimate
Grants/ Loans (Secured)
4th Ave / Cultural Heritage Tour Preserve America/National Park Service
Dayton Street Plaza (Arts Fest. Found./Hubbard Trust/Ed in Bloom)
Interurban Trail (Federal CMAQ)
RCO City Park
$192,805
Fire Insurance City park storage
$50,000
RCO State grant /Civic Acquisition ( $1 M directly to escrow)
Snohomish County Tourism for Way -Finding
Conservation Futures/Civic Acquisition
$500,000
Wetland Mitigation
RCO/Civic Demolition
$35,000
Outdoor Fitness Zones grant
Veterans Plaza: various donations/grants
$520,000
RCO/Fishing Pier
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured
Grants/ Loans Sought (not Secured)
$692,805 $605,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
4th Ave Corridor Enhancement (state, federal, other)
$1,425,000
$2,900,000
Outdoor Fitness Zones
$100,000
RCO Waterfront Development ( Sr Ctr)
$1,000,000
Edmonds Marsh/Marina Beach
$650,000
$1,000,000
Veterans Plaza
Civic Development
$2,400,000
Bond funding/Civic
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought (not secured)
Grants Subtotal
w
$0 $1,100,0001 $1,425,0001 $3,550,0001 $1,000,0001 $2,400,000 $0
$692,80511 $1,705,0001 $1,425,0001 $3,550,0001 $1,000,0001 $2,400,000 $0
Total Revenues & Cash Balances & Grants
$2,762,170
$5,922,5261
$3,952,526
$6,277,526
$3,077,526
$4,177,526
$2,677,526
Total Construction Projects
(1,339,985)
($3,595,000)
($1,425,000)
($4,400,000)
($1,500,000)
($1,500,000)
($1,500,000)
EndingCash Balance
$1,422,185
$2,327,5261
$2,527,526
$1,877,5261
$1,577,526
$2,677,526
$1,177,526
'Projects may be partially eligible for 1 % for Art T—
O
I`
Packet Pg. 240
4.9.a
Z8
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 421 - Water Proiects
Proiects for2017-2022
PROJECT NAME
CFP
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Esti16 mate
(20Total 2)
2015 Replacement Program
$634,176
$0
2016 Replacement Program
$1,416,688
$30,000
$30,000
2016 Waterline Overlays
$62,072
$0
Dayton Ave 3rd to 9th Utility Improvements
$327,000
$311,000
$311,000
2017 Replacement Program
$302,948
$2,288,815
$2,288,815
2017 Waterline Overlays
$210,000
$210,000
2018 Replacement Program
$400,000
$2,003,080
$2,403,080
2019 Replacement Program
$299,079
$2,200,664
$2,499,743
2020 Replacement Program
$328,580
$3,013,510
$3,342,090
2021 Replacement Program
$449,946
$3,134,050
$3,583,996
2022 Replacement Program
$467,944
$3,259,412
$3,727,356
2023 Replacement Program
$486,661
$486,661
Five Corners Reservoir Recoating
$114,412jr
$1,885,588
$1,885,588
2016 Water System Plan Update
$144,500
1 $4,0001
1
1
1
1
1 $4,000
Total Projects
Reimbursements & Contributions
$3,001,796 $5,129,403 $2,302,159 $2,529,244 $3,463,456 $3,601,994 $3,746,073 $20,772,329
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (228th Project) 1
$2
$0
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (212th & 76th Improvements)
$6,690
$776,8151
$776,815
$0
Reimbursement to Fund 117 1 % Arts (2017 Watermain)
$0
Total Reimbursements
Total Water Projects
$6,692 $776,815 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $776,815 =
a
$3,008,488 $5,906,218 $2,302,159 $2,529,244 $3,463,456 $3,601,994 $3,746,073 $21,549,144
Revenues & Cash Balances 2016-2022
2016
Estimate
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Beginning Balance (January 1st)
Connection Fee Proceeds
$301,400
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
Interfund Reimbursement from Fund 423 (Dayton 3rd to 9th)
$100,000
$100,000
Interfund Reimbursement from Fund 422 (Dayton 3rd to 9th)
$137,500
$100,000
2015 Bond
General Fund Fire Hydrant Improvements
$51,006
$70,000
1 $123,900
1 $128,856
1 $134,010
1 $139,370
Total Secured Revenue (Utility Funds, Grants Loans, misc) $589,906 $370,000 $223,900 $228,856 $234,010 $239,370 $100,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Unsecured Revenue 2015-2021 Estimate
New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers
Total Unsecured Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenues
Total Projects & Reimbursements
Ending Cash Balance
C
r-
N
N
O
N
n
0
N
a_
U
t
x
W
r
C
d
E
U
M
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 241
4.9.a
10
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 422 Storm Projects for 2017-2022
PROJECT NAME CFP 2016 2 17 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
Estimate (2017-2022)
SW Edmonds Basin Study Implementation Projects
105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project. 1 $654,7411 $2,0001 1 1 1 1 1$2,000
Edmonds Marsh Related Projects
Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements- Dayton St Pump Station
(See Note1)
X
$267,700
$1,900,000
$50,000
1
1
1
$1,950,000
Willow Cr - Final Feasibility Study / Design/Construction (See Note 1 and
Note 2)
X
$38,698
$459,278
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
"$300,000
$1,959,278
Edmonds Marsh Channel Improvements
1
1
$200,000
$500,000
$50,000
$750,000
Willow Creek Pipe Rehabilitation
$82,500
$82,500
$550,000
$715,000
Northstream Projects
Northstream Culvert Abandonment South of Puget Dr - Assessment /
Stabilization 1 1 $36,595 $153,530 $153,530
Rehab/Re lace of Northstream Culvert under Puget Dr 113 215 $432,5601 $5,0001 1 1 $437,560
Perrinville Creek Basin Projects
Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects - Seaview Infiltration (See
Note1
X
$116,000
$979,000
$979,000
Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects (See Note 2)
X
1
$450,000
$500,000
$500,000
$50,000
$50,000
$1,550,000
Storm Drainage Im rovement Projects
Im rovements - 88th Ave W and 194th St SW
$4,195
1
1
1
1
1
$0
Improvements - Sierra PI- 12th Ave N to Olympic
1 $522,75111
$2,0001
1
1
1
1
1 $2,000
Annually Funded Projects
Ci -wide Draina a Replacement Projects
$306,900
$150,000
$2,050,000
$1,250,000
$1,800,000
$1,800,000
$1,872,000
$8,922,000
Lake Ballinger Associated Proiects
$17,000
4,0001
$66,0001
$68,0001
$68,0001
$70,0001
$70,000
$406,000
$0
Compliance -Related Projects
Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan (including asset
management Ian
$25,000
$195,000
1
1
1
$195,000
Total Project $2,102.795 $4.619.868 $3.503.500 $2.718.000 $2.668.000 $2.220.000 $2.292.000 $18.021.368
T-
O
tL
Packet Pg. 242
4.9.a
Estimate 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 (20Total 2)
Reimbursements
Tn 112 -Street Fund
SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Drainage portion of 238th SW
Sidewalk project (connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park
Infiltration System)
$362,053
$0
76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
$7,926
$450,528
$450,528
236th SW Walkwav Project
$214,500
$0
UtilitV Replacements Da on btwn 3rd & 9th Ave
$137,500
$100,000
$100,000
$0
Total Reimbursements to 112 Fund $721.979 $550.528 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $550.528
Tn 117 - Arte
105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project
$4,923
$0
City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects
$1,443
$500
$500
Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects - Seaview Infiltration
$3,950
$3,950
Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects
$1,125
$1,250
$1,250
$3,625
Edmonds Marsh/Shellabar er Cr/Willow Cr - Feasibility Study/Marsh
$0
76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
$4,505
$4,505
Improvements - Sierra PI- 12th Ave N to Olympic
$3,598
$0
236th SW Walkwav Project
$1,150
$0
Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements- Dayton St Pump Station
$10,000
$10,000
Total Reimbursements to 117 Fund
Total Reimbursements
Total Project & Reimbursements
N
$11,114 $18,955 $1,125 $1,250 $1,250 $0 $0 $22,580
$733.093 $569.483 $1.125 $1.250 $1.250 $0 $0 $573.108
$2,835,888 $5,189,351 $3,504,625 $2,719,250 $2,669,250 $2,220,000 $2,292,000 $18,594,476
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Revenues and Cash Balances 2016-2022
Estimate
is
3eginning Balance(January 1st
Proceeds of Long-term debt Bonds
Estimated Connection Fees (capital facilities charge)
$31,975
$30,000
$31,000
$32,000
$33,000
$34,000
$35,000
Grants (Secured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr - Final
Feasibility Study/Marsh Restoration See Note 1
$31,500
$384,505
Grants (Secured) - Perrinville Creek Flow Management -Seaview Infiltration
See Note 1
X
$87,000
$546,750
Total Secured Revenues
$150,475 $961,255 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $35,000
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Unsecured Revenue 2015-2021
Estimate
Proceeds of Long-term debt Bonds
Grants (Unsecured) - Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects (See
Note 2)
X
$337,500
$375,000
$375,000
$37,500
$37,500
Grants (Unsecured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr-
Feasibility Study/Marsh Restoration See Note 2
X
$225,000
$225,000
$225,000
$225,000
$225,000
Grants (Unsecured) - Dayton St & Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements (See
Note 3
X
$950,000
$25,000
Total Unsecured Revenues $0 $950,000 $587,500 $600,000 $600,000 $262,500 $262,500
Total Revenue
Total Project & Transfers
Endin Cash Balance
Notes:
1. All or part of this project funded bV secured grants or grants will be pursued, see Revenue section for details.
2 Assumes grant funding is 75 % of total project costs per year beginning 2018
3. Assumes grant funding is 50 % of total project costs per year beginning 2017
T-
CD
ti
N
N
CD
N
ti
O
N
d
t
K
W
y.i
C
d
E
t
ti
y+
y+
a
Packet Pg. 243
4.9.a
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 423 - Sewer Proiects
Proiects for2017-2022
PROJECT NAME
CFP
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022ima
Est
(2017-2022)
Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitations
$0
Sewer Main Replacement and CIPP
$0
$0
2015 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements
$88,000
$0
2016 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements
$1,520,362
$11,000
$11,000
2016 Sewerline Overlays
$217,250
$0
2017 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements
$245,750
$1,364,905
$1,364,905
2017 Sewerline Overlays
1
$220,000
$220,000
2018 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements
$287,113
$1,598,462
$1,885,575
2019 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements
$295,726
$1,646,416
$1,942,142
2020 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements
$304,598
$1,695,809
$2,000,406
2021 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements
$313,736
$1,746,683
$2,060,419
2022 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements
1 $323,148
1 $1,816,550
$2,139,698
2023 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements
1
1 $336,074
$336,074
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
$1,182,263
$312,0001
$424,360
1 $437,091
1 $450,204
1 $463,710
1 $482,258
1 $2,569,622
Infiltration & Inflow Study & Projects
Lift Station 1 Metering & Flow Stud $185,000 $0
N Lake Ballinger er Trunk Sewer Stud $124,000 $166,000 $166,000
N
Total Projects $3,562,625 $2,361,018 $2,318,548 $2,388,105 $2,459,748 $2,533,541 $2,634,882 $14,695,841
Reimbursements & Contributions
Reimbursement to Fund 421 (Dayton 3rd to 9th $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Reimbursement to Fund 112 228th Project $150 1 1 1 1 1 $0
Reimbursement to Fund 112 (212th & 76th Improvements) 1 1 $4,866 $718,6851 1 1 1 1 1 $718,685
Total Reimbursements $105,016 $818,685 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $818,685
Total Projects, Transfers & Reimbursements $3,667,641 $3,179,703 $2,318,548 $2,388,105 $2,459,748 $2,533,541 $2,634,882 $15,514,526
T-
0
ti
N
N
O
N
ti
O
N
IL
v
t
K
W
C
d
E
t
a
Packet Pg. 244
4.9.a
and Cash Balances 2016-2022
2016
Estimate
2017
019
2020 2021Revenues
Be innin Balance Janua 1stSewer
Connection Fees
$310,200
$100,000j2E018
$100,000
$100,000 $100,000 $100,000
2015 Bond
Total Secured Revenue (Utility Funds, Grants Loans, misc) $310,200 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Unsecured Revenue 2016-2022
Estimate
New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total Unsecured Revenue
Total Revenues
Total Projects & Reimbursements
Ending Cash Balance
N
W
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
r
O
ti
Packet Pg. 245
4.9.a
N
Capital Improvements Program
Fiinrl d91 7R - Wnctownfor Trantmant Plant
Prniartc Mr 91317-9n99
PROJECT NAME
CFP
16
E 20mate
2
2019
2020
2021
2022
(20Total 2)
Repair and Replacement
$250,000
$250,000
$330,000
$330,000
$250,000
$1,410,000
Construction Projects - In House
$20,000
$20,000
$40,000
Construction Projects Contracted
$3,112,120
$2,125,000
$250,000
$250,000
$300,000
$600,000
$250,000
$3,775,000
Debt Service - Principle and Interest
$257,516
$256,163
$255,371
$255,929
$256,371
$256,902
$222,847
$1,503,583
Total Project
Projects less revenue from outside partnership
$3,369,636 $2,381,163 $755,371 $755,929 $906,371 $1,206,902 $722,847
$3,321,586 $2,346,113 $740,321 $740,879 $891,321 $1,191,852 $722,847
Revenues and Cash Balances 2016-2022
2016
stimate
2019
2020
2021
2022
Beginning Cash Balance(January 1st
$200,000
$200,000
-&�
$200,000
$550,000
$550,000
$550,000
$550,000
Intergovernmental
$3,321,586
$2,346,113
$740,321
$740,879
$891,321
$1,191,852
$722,847
Interest Earnings
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
Miscellaneous biosolids, Lynnwood, etc
$40,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
Grants, Incentives and Rebate for Engergy Eff. Projects
$8,000
$20,000
Subtotal $3,569,636 $2,581,163 $955,371 $1,305,929 $1,456,371 $1,756,902 $1,272,847
Total Revenue
$3,569,636
$2,581,163
$955,371
$1,305,929
$1,456,371
$1,756,902
$1,272,847
Total Project
($3,369,636)
($2,381,163)
($755,371)
($755,929)
($906,371)
($1,206,902)
($722,847)
Ending Cash Balance
1
$200,00011
$200,0001
$200,000
$550,0001
$550,000
$550,000
$550,000
Interest earned estimated at 0.75 % per year
Contribution breakdown by agency
2016
Estimate
2017 2
2019
20
20
Edmonds
50.79%
$1,686,934
$1,191,520 $375,987
$376,270
$452,675
$605,306
$367,112
Mountlake Terrace
23.17%
$769,744
$543,688 $171,562
$171,691
$206,555
$276,200
$167,513
OI m is View Water & Sewer District
16.55%
$549,756
$388,305 $122,531
$122,623
$147,523
$197,263
$119,638
Ronald Sewer District
9.49%
$315,152
$222,599 $70,242
$70,295
$84,569
$113,083
$68,584
TOTALS
1 100.00%
$3,321,586
$2,346,113 $740,321
$740,879
$891,321
$1,191,852
$722,847
*In 2019 per the agreement, fund balance will increase to $550,000.
T-
C
ti
N
N
O
N
f`
O
N
d
v
t
K
W
C
d
E
t
0
to
a
Packet Pg. 246
N
CJl
n
00
It
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CIP 2017-2022 (1701 : Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program)
Attachment: Exhibit 1: CIP 2017-2022 (1701 : Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program)
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Anderson Center ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $25,000
Field/Court/Stage
700 Main Street, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
2.3 acres; zoned public neighborhood park/openspace field
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrades to youth sports field, picnic and playground amenities
and children's play equipment.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: As a neighborhood park, the Frances Anderson Center
serves the community with various sports, playground and field activities including various
special events. Upgrade and additions essential to meet demand for use.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Stud
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
$5,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
$5,000
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
Q
27
Packet Pg. 249
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Brackett's Landing ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $115,000
Improvements
South: Main Street and Railroad Avenue south of Edmonds Ferry Terminal on Puget Sound
North: 2.7 acres with tidelands and adjacent to Department of Natural Resources public tidelands with Underwater Park
South: 2.0 acres with tidelands south of ferry terminal. Regional park/Zoned commercial waterfront. Protected as public park
through Deed -of -Right; partnership funding IAC/WWRC/LWCF /DNR-ALEA & Snohomish Conservation Futures
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Landscape beautification, irrigation, furnishings/bench
maintenance, exterior painting, repairs, jetty improvements/repair, north cove sand, habitat
improvement, fences, interpretive signs, structure repairs, sidewalk improvements, restroom
phased rehabilitation in 2018.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Retention of infrastructure for major waterfront park,
regional park that serves as the gateway to Edmonds from the Kitsap Peninsula.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$0
$100,000
$5,000
$5,000
$0
$5,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$0
$100,000
$5,000
$5,000
$0
$5,000
' all or part of this project may quality for 1 % for the Arts
0
N
N
0
N
r
0
N
a
r
Z
x
w
r
a�
E
U
M
a
28
Packet Pg. 250
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: City Park Improvements I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $75,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
City Park.
Continued pathway, access improvements and ongoing upgrades to
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Make ongoing upgrades to City Park as referenced in the
PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$0
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$0
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the arts
r
a
29
Packet Pg. 251
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,325,000
Improvements / Stadium Demolition
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Civic Center Improvements / Stadium Demolition
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Civic Center Improvements / Stadium Demolition. As part
of the Master planning process for Civic, and in consideration of the current condition of the
stadium, it is being recommended to demolish the current stadium. The City also has some
grant funds available to assist with this.
SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Construction
$100,000
$5,000
$10,000
$10,000
$600,000
$600,000
TOTAL
$100,000
$5,000
$10,000
$10,000
$600,000
$600,000
r
Q
30
Packet Pg. 252
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Sunset Avenue Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ See
Transportation CIP
dobw -0111111111",
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a multi -use path on the west side of Sunset Ave with
expansive views of the Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. The multi -use path will connect
the downtown business district, surrounding neighborhoods, water access points, and the
existing parks and trails system.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This multi -use path has been a priority for the City of
Edmonds for several years. It is included in 5 different City plans, the Transportation
Improvement Plan, Non -Motorized Section; the Parks Recreation and Open Plan; the City
comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan; the Capital Improvement Plan; and the Shoreline
Master Program. Specifically, the Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan identified Sunset
Avenue Overlook priorities, namely improved connectivity and multi -modal access, complete the
bicycle and pedestrian route system, identify scenic routes and view areas, and landscape
improvements.
SCHEDULE:
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
a
31
Packet Pg. 253
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms I ESTIMATED COST: $120,000
LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fishing pier parking lot landscape improvements. Re -tile and
renovate restroom facilities.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and
enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$75,000
$5,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$75,000
$5,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
r
Q
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
32
Packet Pg. 254
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Community Garden ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $155,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Locate and develop a community garden site.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This was formerly planned for the Former Woodway HS
site. This is adopted as part of the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$155,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
a
all or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the Arts
33
Packet Pg. 255
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park ESTIMATED COST: $15,000
Improvements
89t" Place West and 197t" Street SW, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County
12.7 acres (10.7 acres Open Space & 2 acres Neighborhood Park) Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the picnic, roadway, parking, play area and
natural trail system to Maplewood Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the
neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$0
$0
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$0
$0
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
Q
34
Packet Pg. 256
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park ESTIMATED COST: $1,330,000
Improvements
South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
4.5 acres / Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront, marina beach south purchased with
federal transportation funds.
WWRC / IAC Acquisition Proiect; Protected through Deed -of -Right RCW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
2018-2020.
Begin development of Master plan, daylighting Willow Creek in
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the regional
waterfront park system.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$0
$325,000
$500,000
$500,000
$5,000
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$0
$325,000
$500,000
$500,000
$5,000
$0
'all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
35
Packet Pg. 257
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000
78th Place W. & 2415t St. at Edmonds City Limits. 1.5 acres/Neighborhood Park/Zoned Public.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Improvements to Mathay Ballinger Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset in the
neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Stud
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$20,000
$0
$5,000
$0
$5,000
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$20,000
$0
$5,000
$0
$5,000
$0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
T
0
ti
N
N
0
N
0
N
IL
v
x
w
d
E
Q
36
Packet Pg. 258
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Clubhouse ESTIMATED COST: $10,000
Grounds
6801 N. Meadowdale Road, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County o
1.3 acres / Neighborhood Park / Zoned RS20 77
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the parking area, wooded area, trail system and
landscaping of exterior clubhouse at Meadowdale Clubhouse site.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset with installation
that provides community use of the facility and north Edmonds programming for day care,
recreation classes and preschool activities.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$0
$5,000
$0
$5,000
$0
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$0
$5,000
$0
$5,000
$0
$0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
37
Packet Pg. 259
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Playfields I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $500,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with City of Lynnwood and Edmonds School District to
renovate Meadowdale Playfields..
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Partnership to leverage funds, renovate two multi use
athletic fields and softball fields. Increase field accessibility and use for Edmonds citizens.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$500,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$500,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
E
L
O
L
a.
E
>
O
L
Q
E
.Q
U
N
N
O
N
O
N
N
t
O
O
L
Q
Q
ZI
a
38
Packet Pg. 260
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000
Improvements
83`d Avenue West and 2041" St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County
22 acres (20 acres zoned openspace/2 acres neighborhood park) Zoned Public; Adopted Master Plan
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Forest improvements, habitat improvements, tree planting, wildlife
habitat attractions, trail improvements, signs, parking. Natural trail links under Main Street
connecting to Yost Park. Forest Management Study in 2018
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Retention of natural open space habitat site and regional
trail connections.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
40000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$0
$0
$5,000
$0
$5,000
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$0
$40000
$5,000
$0
$5,000
$0
New additions meet the 1 % for the Arts Ordinance requirements
Q
39
Packet Pg. 261
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park ESTIMATED COST: $65,000
Improvements
ppr
L
801h Street West and 186`h Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public; Purchased and developed with LWCF funds through IAC; protected with Deed -
Of -Right
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annual repair and upgrade to facilities and fields. Maintenance of
tennis courts, pathway improvements, and play area. Replace roof on restrooms.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children's play
area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, restroom facilities, basketball court,
parking and tennis courts.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$50,000
$0
$10,000
$0
$5,000
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$50,000
$0
$10,000
$0
$5,000
$0
" all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
0
ti
N
N
0
N
0
N
a
v
x
w
r
c
m
E
Q
40
Packet Pg. 262
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Sierra Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $70,000
LACE LEA FJAPAN ESF MAPLE
{Acrr pol—lum di —cure)
ihlkdecld unus shrub or t—Ts.seise to Jipan and Dore . l!
is uruslly many elemmep and Is lice moll a1r.' end drllrm i¢ ut
all mopies. Its leaves ire 7 to a inches in t-Zh ire flaeip cul
Inrn rhrsadllke aryl lam. -cmf color .m Ott Lp sat" hui l6r
uet common colon core hrlphi V,..n and red, •1'hrsirrn
his¢ a mnuaJed rm nlrh x'eepinµ Lrinehes. The, e cmn h<
g-- In tubs and are —Item for hummL
i
f
74
801h Street West and 1911h Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improve pathways and interpretive braille signs. Field renovation
to include field drainage for turf repair.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children's play
area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, portable restroom facilities,
basketball hoops, parking and Braille interpretive trail for the blind.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$0
$70,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
1 $0
1 $70,000
1 $0
I $0
$0
$0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
0
r,
e—
N
N
0
N
r
0
N
a
r
x
w
r
a�
E
U
2
a
41
Packet Pg. 263
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $525,000
/ Waterfront Walkway Completion
------------
A—
Propvwd Edmonds
Wam(from Garver
Arws;
-ycox ww •a u.v�
r ,o. yyr .wo r
r,ce w careha •••r+•• s+� w.ra.
swv. - •su •n•
-•
.
�H•WWIw��
r
M[YJf.W Rv.p
& t.R. �
rswq'i0°�"
C•�eou aewm bi��•
U++d VM.y
M9gwed Tbrn pfl w
Yom'MVronwb •..
gran W ran p.ur� a
6e�d.
wipf..d Mc`+.{4 P."
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot
and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access
to the waterfront. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to Olympic
Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Provide anew Senior and Community Center and
provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up
beach -front access.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
$100,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$425,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$525,000
1 $0
1 $0
$0
$0
$0
'all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
0
I-
r
N
N
O
N
ti
T-
0
N
a
U
x
w
E
w
r
Q
42
Packet Pg. 264
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Yost Park / Pool ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $245,000
Improvements
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pool replastering, tile work, and annual anticipated and
unanticipated repairs. Add in -pool play amenities. Park site improvements and repairs to trails
and bridges, picnicking facilities, landscaping, parking, tennis/pickleball courts and erosion
control. ADA improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Beautiful natural area serves as upland area for
environmental education programs as well as enjoyable setting for seasonal Yost Pool users.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$40,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$25,000
$30,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$40,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$25,000
$30,000
all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
Q
43
Packet Pg. 265
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Parklet Development, 4"' ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $70,000
Avenue Cultural Corridor
A parklet is a small urban park that is made by creating a sidewalk extension that provides
more space and amenities for people using the street. Usually parklets are installed on top of
parking lanes and use one or more parking spaces, but do not permanently impact the
underlying street. Parklets typically extend out from the sidewalk at the level of the sidewalk to
the width of the adjacent parking space creating a patio and seating area, often including
plantings. Parklets are public space and open to everyone.
10
A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop one or more parklets on the 4 th Avenue Cultural Corridor.
The first parklet will be created on 4t" Avenue adjacent to the ECA. The design will be
developed with Parks crew and an artist/landscape consultant.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Provide a small urban park along the 4 th Avenue Cultural
Corridor with views of Puget Sound and seating on a popular walking route. Parklets are a
resting and a gathering space and highlight the social function integral to streets. The
importance of additional small gathering spaces is referred to in both the Community Cultural
Plan and the PROS Plan.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Construction
$30,000
$0
$0
$40,000
$0
$0
TOTAL
$30,000
$0
$0
$40,000
$0
$0
r
a
44
Packet Pg. 266
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: City Gateway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000
Replacements
1 �,r • •.ti� !
-i
`` 'lj ,•�
(.
���:;
try.
f'
1,
ot
th
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Design and construct new gateway elements at SR 104 and 5
Ave. S and at Sunset and Main St. to replace aging and deteriorated signage.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The PROS Plan, Community Cultural Plan and Streetscape
Plan all refer to the importance of these visual "gateways" to the City of Edmonds. New signage
with artistic elements will enhance the gateways and reinforce Edmonds reputation as a cultural
destination for visitors.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Repairs &
Maintenance
$30,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL
$30,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
r
r
N
N
O
N
ti
0
N
d
U
x
w
r
a�
E
w
a
45
Packet Pg. 267
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: City Park Storage Building I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $200,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a new City Park Storage Building
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Construct a new City Park storage building to replace the
previous storage building which was destroyed by fire in 2016.
SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Construction
$200,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL
$200,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
r
Q
46
Packet Pg. 268
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $550,000
Veteran's Plaza
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The establishment of a Veteran's Plaza was unanimously
approved by the City Council in 2014. It will serve as a tribute to the patriotic and courageous
men and women who served this nation. The Plaza will reflect the bravery, sacrifice and
strength they gave our country. The design will accommodate flagpoles (in their existing
location), space for display of military seals and a Plaza, seating areas for reflection, some
educational monuments or placards, and existing hardscape and significant trees. The
address is 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 and is adjacent to the Edmonds Public
Safety Building.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The Veteran's Plaza will serve as a focal point which
raises awareness of the contributions made by veterans and illustrates the high respect the
citizens of Edmonds have for the men and women who have defended the rights and
freedoms of this nation. It will provide a tribute for the men and women who have served and
are serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. The Plaza will establish a central site
for the citizens of Edmonds to conduct official observances, activities and ceremonies to honor
veterans including Veterans Day.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
-Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$30,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$30,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
'all or part of this Project may quality for 1% for the Arts
47
Packet Pg. 269
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Outdoor Fitness Zones I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $75,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create outdoor fitness zones by adding fitness equipment within
the park system.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Provide outdoor places to exercise to improve the health
and wellness of citizens and park users, which provides adults the opportunity to exercise while
their children play.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Construction
$75,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL
$75,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
a
48
Packet Pg. 270
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $126,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include Library, Senior Center, outdoor
plazas, City Park, corner parks, irrigation, planting, mulch, FAC Center, vegetation, tree
plantings, streetscape/gateways/street tree planting, flower basket poles.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve beautification citywide and provide
comprehensive adopted plan for beautification and trees.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
E
L
O
L
a.
E
>
O
L
Q
E
.Q
U
N
N
O
N
O
N
N
t
O
O
L
Q
Q
ZI
a
49
Packet Pg. 271
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Flower Pole Replacement I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $20,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Flower Poles in various places as needed
throughout City.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Replacement of Flower Poles in various places as needed
throughout City.
SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Construction
$20,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL
$20,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
r
a
50
Packet Pg. 272
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Paving I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 40,000
F
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Includes miscellaneous small paving and park walkway
improvements citywide.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Capital improvement needs citywide in park system.
SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Construction
$10,000
$0
$10,000
$0
$10,000
$10,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$10,000
$0
$10,000
$0
$10,000
$10,000
all or a portion of these projects may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
Q
51
Packet Pg. 273
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $240,000
Improvements / Misc Small Projects
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Citywide park facility and public landscaping improvements
including signage, interpretive signs, buoys, tables, benches, trash containers, drinking
fountains, backstops, bike racks, lighting, small landscaping projects, play areas and
equipment. Landscape improvements at beautification areas and corner parks, public gateway
entrances into the city and 4t" Avenue Corridor from Main St. to the Edmonds Center for the
Arts, SR 104, street tree and streetscape improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for citywide park facilities
and streetscape improvements in public areas.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering / Administration
Construction
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
0
ti
r
N
N
0
N
ti
0
N
a
U
x
w
r
a�
E
U
2
w
r
Q
52
Packet Pg. 274
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Sports Field Upgrade / ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $55,000
Playground Partnerships
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with local schools, organizations, or neighboring
jurisdictions to upgrade additional youth ball field or play facilities or playgrounds to create
neighborhood park facilities at non -City facilities.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Annual partnerships with matching funds to create
additional facilities.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$5,000
$25,000
$0
$25,000
$0
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$5,000
$25,000
$0
$25,000
$0
$0
a
53
Packet Pg. 275
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Unpaved ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 20,000
Trail / Bike Path Improvements
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete portions of designated trail through public parks to meet the
goals of the Bicycle Plan and Pathway Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Walking and connections was listed as a high priority in the
comprehensive Park Plan from public survey data. Creating trails, paths and bike links is essential to
meet the need for the community. Provides for the implementation of the citywide bicycle path
improvements and the elements and goals of the citywide walkway plan. Linked funding with
engineering funding.
SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$0
$10,000
$0
$10,000
$0
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$0
$10,000
$0
$10,000
$0
$0
* all or part of these projects may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
a
54
Packet Pg. 276
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Cultural Arts Facility ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $unk
Needs Study
- - 4it,
Al
W-1
_ [R
J
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Initiate feasibility study of providing and promoting Cultural / Arts
facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high
priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008
update process.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for
public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority
creates the need to study performance, management and long term potential for arts related
facilities.
SCHEDULE:
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1 % for Art
TOTAL
' all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
a
55
Packet Pg. 277
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh Feasibility ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $155,000
& Restoration / Walkway
South of Dayton Street and Harbor Square, east of BSNF railroad, west of SR 104, north of UNOCAL
23.2 acres; Natural Open Space / Zoned Open Space
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the
comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water
impacts. Continue to support daylighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Continue to
maintain current sidewalk / pathway/boardwalk. For 2018, a section of the boardwalk will be
replaced. Continue to work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, Earthcorps and others in the
rejuvenation and management of the marsh.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh
water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird
sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co -fund the completion of design of daylighting Willow Creek
using Storm Water Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management
Plan, as well as grant funds available through various agencies and foundations.
SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
COST
Professional
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
Services
Construction
$50,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL
$80,000
$30,000
$30,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
a
56
Packet Pg. 278
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Cemetery ESTIMATED COST: $ 100,000
Mapping
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Memorial Cemetery was deeded to the City in 1982.
The City has been operating the cemetery with no markings, rows, aisles, or surveyed
mapping. It is essential that the City survey/map/and mark the cemetery so as to effectively
manage the plots.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Operations of a public cemetery, with effective and
accurate stewardship.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
$100,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$0
$100,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
0
N
N
0
N
r
O
N
a
r
a+
x
w
a�
E
U
M
r
a
57
Packet Pg. 279
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Master Plan I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $20,000
6t" Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County o
8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Civic property was purchased from the Edmonds School
District in 2016. A Master Plan process is underway to develop a long term plan for the
property.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To determine the best use and future plans for
redevelopment at Civic Center.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/StudyPlanning/Study
$20,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$20,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
58
Packet Pg. 280
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $525,000
/ Waterfront Walkway Completion
------------
A—
Propvwd Edmonds
Wam(from Garver
Arws;
-ycox ww •a u.v�
r ,o. yyr .wo r
r,ce w careha •••r+•• s+� w.ra.
swv. - •su •n•
-•
.
�H•WWIw��
r
M[YJf.W Rv.p
& t.R. �
rswq'i0°�"
C•�eou aewm bi��•
U++d VM.y
M9gwed Tbrn pfl w
Yom'MVronwb •..
gran W ran p.ur� a
6e�d.
wipf..d Mc`+.{4 P."
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot
and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access
to the waterfront. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to Olympic
Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Provide anew Senior and Community Center and
provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up
beach -front access.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
$100,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$425,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$525,000
1 $0
1 $0
$0
$0
$0
'all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
0
I-
r
N
N
O
N
ti
T-
0
N
a
U
x
w
E
w
r
Q
59
Packet Pg. 281
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000
Improvements
83`d Avenue West and 2041" St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County
22 acres (20 acres zoned openspace/2 acres neighborhood park) Zoned Public; Adopted Master Plan
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Forest improvements, habitat improvements, tree planting, wildlife
habitat attractions, trail improvements, signs, parking. Natural trail links under Main Street
connecting to Yost Park. Forest Management Study in 2018
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Retention of natural open space habitat site and regional
trail connections.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
40000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$0
$0
$5,000
$0
$5,000
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$0
$40000
$5,000
$0
$5,000
$0
New additions meet the 1 % for the Arts Ordinance requirements
Q
60
Packet Pg. 282
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,003,926
Capital Projects and Acquisitions
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on:
Marina Beach / Library Roof: $82,028
PSCC (Edmonds Center for the Arts): $60,298
Anderson Center Seismic Retrofit: $29,621
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST
BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1 % for Art
Principal &
Interest
$171,947
$164,766
$162,656
$165,907
$168,612
$170,038
TOTAL
$171,947
$164,766
$162,656
$165,907
$168,612
$170,038
" all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
a
61
Packet Pg. 283
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Open ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,200,000
Space / Land
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of properties when feasible that will benefit citizens that
fit the definitions and needs identified in the Parks Comprehensive Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Fulfills needs of citizens for parks, recreation and open
space.
SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
$2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Land
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200000
62
Packet Pg. 284
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $75,000
/ Waterfront Walkway Completion
rti
t
At%
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Redevelop waterfront to secure access to Puget Sound for public
use as indentified in the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Public ownership of waterfront and tidelands on Puget
Sound.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$75,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$75,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Q
63
Packet Pg. 285
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: 4" Avenue ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,325,000
Corridor Enhancement
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin 4 th Avenue site development with temporary and/or moveable
surface elements and amenities to begin drawing attention and interest to the corridor and create
stronger visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Possible
projects may include surface art, interpretive signage and wayfinding, or low level lighting.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will
encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will
enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the
downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for
the Arts. Timing for 30% design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will
assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the total project
implementation phase.
SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$0
$1,425,000
$2,900,000
$0
$0
$i
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$0
$11425,000
$21900,000
$0
$0
$1
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
Q
64
Packet Pg. 286
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Cultural Heritage Tour and ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: TBD
Way -Finding Signage
: 191LVAl0]►10I•y9I91►i►Ii1(GAT1►[ato1MtoI1k; 0 G : I : I:]IETC Iatell] V
(Proposed sites)
N
2
2'r qS
ti y
�
a
F
Z
a
r
® D
I
C
Oa[t. 5[
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create a downtown Edmonds walking tour highlighting a dozen historic
sites with artist made interpretive markers, and add way -finding signage for the downtown area.
Completed.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Promote tourism and economic development in the core
downtown. The walking tour and interpretive signage focuses on local history and as unique artist
made pieces also reflect the arts orientation of the community. Improved way -finding signage which
points out major attractions and services/amenities such as theaters, museums, beaches, train station,
shopping, dining and lodging promotes both tourism and economic vitality in the downtown /waterfront
activity center.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST
BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
Construction
1 % for Art
TOTAL
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
r
0
N
N
0
N
r-
r
0
N
a
c.�
r
x
w
E
U
M
a
65
Packet Pg. 287
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Dayton Street Plaza ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Renovate small park and plaza at north end of old public works
building, 2nd & Dayton Street. Improve landscaping, plaza, and accessibility.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Capital improvements to public gathering space and
creation of additional art amenities and streetscape improvements in downtown on main
walking route. Financial support from Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation, Hubbard Foundation
and Edmonds in Bloom.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$30,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$30,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
66
Packet Pg. 288
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Development ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,135,000
/ Stadium Demolition
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition.
As part of the Master planning process for Civic, and in consideration of the current condition
of the stadium, it is being recommended to demolish the current stadium. The City also has
some grant funds available to assist with this. In addition, develop a signature downtown park
at this site.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition.
The Civic Master plan will be complete by early 2017. Funds will be set aside, and grant
funds applied for in order to develop the master plan. This is a high priority in the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Construction
$135,000
$0
$0
$0
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
TOTAL
$135,000
$0
$0
$0
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
r
Q
67
Packet Pg. 289
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,100,000
/ Waterfront Walkway Completion
------------
A—
Propvwd Edmonds
Waterfront Genrer
ArUS;
-ycox ww •a u.v�
r ,o. yyr .wo r
r,ce w careha •••r+•• s+� w.ra.
swv. - •su •n•
f
-•
.
�H•WWIw��
r
M[YJf.W Rv.p
& t.R. �
rswq'i0°�"
C•�eou aewm bi��•
U++d VM.y
M9gwed Tbrn pfl w
Yom'MVronwb •..
gran W ran p.ur� a
6e�d.
wipf..d Mc`+.{4 P."
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot
and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access
to the waterfront. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to Olympic
Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Provide anew Senior and Community Center and
provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up
beach -front access.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
$100,000
Construction
$2,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$2,100,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
T—
O
ti
N
N
0
N
ti
0
N
a
U
x
w
a�
E
w
Q
68
Packet Pg. 290
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Community Garden ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $155,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Locate and develop a community garden site.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This was formerly planned for the Former Woodway HS
site. This is adopted as part of the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$155,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
a
all or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the Arts
69
Packet Pg. 291
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Wetland Mitigation I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: TBD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive
management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to
support day -lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation
of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Work with Friends of the
Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the
marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and freshwater
marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary.
Protection is vital. Co -fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as
defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available
through various agencies and foundations.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
1 % for Art
TOTAL
1 $0
1 $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
a
70
Packet Pg. 292
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh / Willow ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,200,000
Creek Daylighting
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive
management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to
support day -lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation
of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Work with Friends of the
Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the
marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water
marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary.
Protection is vital. Co -fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as
defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available
through various agencies and foundations.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$200,000
$0
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$0
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
1 $200,000
$0
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$0
$0
all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
Q
71
Packet Pg. 293
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
Waterfront)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to establish a public
market, year around, on the downtown waterfront area.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The project will help to create a community
gathering area, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a
valuable asset to Edmonds.
SCHEDULE:
This project depends on the ability to secure grant funding, and community partners
willing to work with the city to establish this. This potentially can be accomplished
by 2017.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022-2027
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1 % for Art
TOTAL
0
ti
r
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.72 Packet Pg. 294
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: Outdoor Fitness Zones I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create outdoor fitness zones by adding fitness equipment within
the park system.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Provide outdoor places to exercise to improve the health
and wellness of citizens and park users, which provides adults the opportunity to exercise while
their children play.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Construction
$175,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL
$175,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
a
73
Packet Pg. 295
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: City Park Storage Building I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $250,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a new City Park Storage Building
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Construct a new City Park storage building to replace the
previous storage building which was destroyed by fire in 2016.
SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Construction
$250,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL
$250,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
r
Q
74
Packet Pg. 296
4.9.a
PROJECT NAME: ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $550,000
Veteran's Plaza
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The establishment of a Veteran's Plaza was unanimously
approved by the City Council in 2014. It will serve as a tribute to the patriotic and courageous
men and women who served this nation. The Plaza will reflect the bravery, sacrifice and
strength they gave our country. The design will accommodate flagpoles (in their existing
location), space for display of military seals and a Plaza, seating areas for reflection, some
educational monuments or placards, and existing hardscape and significant trees. The
address is 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 and is adjacent to the Edmonds Public
Safety Building.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The Veteran's Plaza will serve as a focal point which
raises awareness of the contributions made by veterans and illustrates the high respect the
citizens of Edmonds have for the men and women who have defended the rights and
freedoms of this nation. It will provide a tribute for the men and women who have served and
are serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. The Plaza will establish a central site
for the citizens of Edmonds to conduct official observances, activities and ceremonies to honor
veterans including Veterans Day.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Planning/Study
-Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$550,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$550,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
'all or part of this Project may quality for 1% for the Arts
75
Packet Pg. 297
UP / CIP COMPARISON (2016 TO 2017)
4.9.b
ADDED PROJECTS
FUND I PROJECT NAME I CFP I DESCRIPTION
112
84th Ave. W Overlay from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW
Complete overlay along 84th Ave. W from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW
112
220th St. SW Traffic Signal Coordination from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W
Improve traffic flow along 220th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W with the
installation of coordination system
112
236th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W
X
Improve pedestrian safety along 236th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W
112
238th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W
X
Improve pedestrian safety along 238th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W
112
80th Ave. W / 180th St. SW Walkway from 188th St. SW to OVD
X
I Improve pedestrian safety along 80th / 180th St. SW from 188th St. SW to OVD
112
189th PI. W Walkway from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave W
X
Improve pedestrian safety along 89th Pl. W from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W
112
15th St. SW Walkway from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
X
Improve pedestrian safety along 15th St. SW from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
112
Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th St. SW
X
Improve pedestrian safety along Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW
112
95th PI. W Walkway from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW
X
Improve pedestrian safety along 95th PI. W from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW
112
Citywide Crossing Enhancement
Improve safety at various pedestrian crossings throughout the City
016
Museum exterior door replacements
Replace non -historic doors to comply with historic registry specifications
016
Museum East window replacement
double hung sash approved by State Historic Architect
016
Library West deck water seal and repair parking ceiling
Waterproof deck and repair pan -deck ceiling at covered parking
016
FAC metal flashing replacement and repair
Remove and replace failed metal flashing as needed to eliminate water intrusion
016
PW replace failed insulated window units
Replace glazing at failed window units
016
CH replace failed insulated window units
Replace glazing at failed window units
016
FAC add building controls to both boiler systems
Add Alerton building controls to existing boilers
016
FAC steam radiator retrofits
Retrofit steam radiators as needed to replace abandoned or leaking radiators
016
Exterior building washing, sealing and painting
Wash seal and paint building exteriors
016
Replace carpeting and flooring
Replace warn carpeting and flooring as necessary
016
CH electrical infastructure survey and replacement
Survey and replace electrical infastructure at CH, phase 1 of 5
016
Clean and maintenance City facility roofs
Cleand inspect and maintain roofs of all City Facilities
016
CH Planned maintenance and replacemnet of HVAC
Replace failed HVAC unit and maintain all existing end of life HVAC infastructure.
Yearly program
016
Retro comission City building
Retro Commission a City building to bring HVAC operation to engineered
specifications and optimize DDC system and energy performance.
016
CH heat tape installation
Add freeze protection to uninsulated vulnerable water pipes
016
Museum structural analysis of upper fagade
Analysis of upper fagade structrure since previous stop gap repair measure
016
Failed sash and glazing replacement
Replace failed window sash and glazing at various non -historic locations
016
MCH replace damaged and warn flooring at kitchen and entry
Replace existing damaged and warn flooring at Kitchen and entry
El
0
ti
ti
0
N
to
O
C
O
N
M
O.
E
O
U
d
U
d
LL
U
N
t
K
W
r
c
d
E
t
v
tv
r
r
Q
Page 1 of 4 Packet Pg. 298
125
Civic Center Grand stand removal
x
Consistent with Civic planning process, master plan
125
Community Garden
Consistent with PROS plan.
125
City Park Storage buidling
Replacement from fire.
125
Waterfront Redevelopment/Walkway completion
Consistent with PROS plan.
125
Upgrade Curb Ramps to ADA Stds
2017 Project budget will be funded by REET 2 revenue.
125
Audible Pedestrian Signals
2017 Project budget will be funded by REET 2 revenue.
125
Minor Sidewalk Program
2017 Project budget will be funded by REET 2 revenue.
126 Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization (Access Management) 1 12017 Project budget will be funded by REET 1 revenue.
126 220th St. Signal Coordination 1 12017 Project budget will be funded by REET 1 revenue.
132
Civic Stadium Demolition
Consistent with PROS plan, master plan
132
Waterfront Revel opment/Walkway Completion
Consistient with PROS plan
132
Community Garden
Consistent with PROS plan.
132
City Park Storage buidling
Replacement from fire.
421 2023 Replacement Program Estimated future costs for waterline replacements.
421 2017 Waterline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to waterline replacements.
423 2023 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements Estimated future costs for sewerline replacements/rehab/impr.
423 2017 Sewerline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to sewerline repl/rehab/impr.
4.9.b
Page 2 of 4 Packet Pg. 299
UP / CIP COMPARISON (2016 TO 2017)
4.9.b
DELETED PROJECTS
I
CFP
I
DESCRIPTION
FUND
PROJECT NAME
112
Five Corners Roundabout
X
Completed in 2016
112
Arterial Street Signal Coordination
Identified as 220th St. SW Traffic Signal Coordination from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W.
112
Citywide Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
Completed in 2016
112
Type 2 Pavement Markers
Project to be addressed as part of future overlay projects
112
15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave. S
X
Completed in 2016
112
Transportation Plan Update
Completed in 2015
112
SR-104 Transportation Corridor Study
lCompleted in 2015
112
Traffic Calming Program
X
I Non -growth related project
113 Multimodal Transportation Fund X Fund Deleted per City Council action on October 18, 2016
016
Council/Court Chamber AV upgrade
Audio Visual upgrade project
016
MCH gutter replacement
Replacement of rain gutters
016
Estimate of CH security needs
Estimate and survey of necessary security upgrades
016
FAC spot flooring replacement in Beach Ranger office
Replace carpeting at Ranger offices
016
FS16 Generator replacement
Replace emergency generator at FS
421 2014 Replacement Program I lCompleted in 2015.
421 2015 Waterline Overlays I lComoleted in 2015.
422
Improvements - Dayton 3rd to 9th
This project was combined with the waterline/sewerline project that covers that
same area.
422
Storm System Video Assessment
Deleted. This project will be covered as part of operations and maintenance.
Operations and maintenance will do this work as part of their operations and
maintenance tasks.
423
2015 Sewerline Overlays
Completed in 2015.
423
Lift Stations 3,4,5,9,10,11,12,14,15
Completed in 2015.
423
Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer Replacement
Completed in 2015.
423
Phase 2 Sanitary Sewer Replacement
Completed in 2015.
Page 3 of 4 Packet Pg. 300
CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2016 TO 2017)
4.9.b
CHANGED PROJECTS
FUND PROJECT NAME CFP CHANGE
016 1
CH security upgrades SecurityUpgrades on hold until recommendations and estimate arrive.
423.76
Repair and Replacement
The Secondary Clarifier #3 Structural Repair contract was awarded in 2016. The
contractor will not be able to complete the work by the Oct. 2016 so the project
may need to be extended. Pagoda repairs have been placed on hold for time
being.
423.76
Upgrades
Offsite Flow Telemetry project was completed in 2016. The Control System
Upgrade will replace aging control system equipment, provide for redundancy and
upgrade the operating platform. The 600 PLC is the final element and is
scheduled for spring 2017. The project completion was pushed back in order to
coordinate work with Phase 5 Energy Project. The SSI project is on hold awaiting
EPA approval to install and test the mercury modules. We continue to report
compliance status on a monthly basis. The Phase 4 energy improvement project
is in close out. The Phase 5 Energy Improvement project has been started. By the
end of 2016 the solids conveyor and sludge hopper should be upgraded and the
new 126 HP blower has been installed. The project has given us the opportunity
Ito optimize the aeration control system.
423.76
Studies and Consulting
In the future we will be to study Peracetic Acid disinfection however this may put
off until 2018.
0
ti
Page 4 of 4 Packet Pg. 301
4.9.c
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 28, 2016
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 — 5`' Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Alicia Crank
Nathan Monroe
Valerie Stewart
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Daniel Robles (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES r
0
ti
BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 BE APPROVED AS
CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. m
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Lovell referred to Page 3, which contains a brief update on the Waterfront Access Study. He clarified that a second
public meeting was recently held, and his understanding is that the Task Force will be making a recommendation to the City
Council via Mayor Earling sometime in October.
PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED 2017-2022 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) AND CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
Mr. English started his presentation by providing a diagram to illustrate the components of the CIP and CFP, particularly
noting differences between the two documents and where they overlap. He explained that both plans identify the six -year
capital projects with funding sources, but the CIP also identifies six -year maintenance projects with funding sources and the
Packet Pg. 302
4.9.c
CFP identifies long-range (20 year) capital project needs. The CFP is divided into three project sections: General (parks,
buildings and regional projects), Transportation (safety/capacity and pedestrian bicycle projects), and Utilities. The CIP is
organized based on the City's financial funds and provides a description of each of the capital projects identified for the six -
year period. He summarized that the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, linking those
projects to the various City funds and revenues, and the CFP is intended to identify longer -term capital needs (not
maintenance) and be tied to City level -of -service standards. The CFP is also required to be consistent with other elements of
the Comprehensive Plan, (i.e. transportation, parks, etc.), and there are restrictions on how often a CFP can be amended.
There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP. He reviewed each of the funds as follows:
• Fund 112 — Transportation. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department.
d
• Fund 116 — Building Maintenance. This fund is also managed by the Public Works Department.
0
• Fund 125 — Capital Projects. This fund is managed by the Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments.
0.
Money for this fund comes from the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET), and the dollars are split between the two
E
departments.
• Fund 126 — Special Capital/Park Acquisition. This fund is supported by REET funds and is managed by the Parks and
Recreation Department.
C)
• Fund 129 — Special Projects. This fund is currently idle and was last used for the Highway 99 International District
N
Lighting Project that was completed a few years ago. Any new capital project would program into this fund.
0
• Fund 132 — Parks Construction (Grant Funding). This fund is managed by the Parks and Recreation Department.
• Fund 421— Water Projects. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department.
N
• Fund 422 — Storm Projects. This fund is also managed by the Public Works Department.
t
• Fund 423 — Waste Water Treatment Plant. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department.
4-
0
Next, Mr. English recapped some of the larger projects that have been completed or the City is working towards completion
>
of in 2016:
a
a
• The 2281h Street Corridor Improvement Project started in May of 2015 and reached substantial completion in March of Q
2016. The project included a new signalized intersection that connects 228th Street east to west across Highway 99 and c
into Mountlake Terrace, providing a new east/west connection to Interstate 5.
• Safety improvements were completed with a median down Highway 99 to eliminate the left turns from south bound
Highway 99 to 761h Avenue West. This should help reduce accidents and provide safety turning movements.
• A sidewalk improvement project on 2381h Street between 1001h and 104t' Streets was completed via a Safe Routes to
Schools Grant. Stormwater funds were used to improve drainage, including bio-retention rain gardens in key locations.
The street was also overlaid using funds from the Pavement Restoration Program.
• Sewer mains were replaced on Walnut Street, and the project also included new pavement via the Pavement Restoration
Program.
• On September 27th, the City Council approved a contract for a project on the south side of 236th Street between SR-104
and Madrona School. The project will include a new sidewalk, with a five-foot path to cross over to school, and curbs
and gutters will also be installed. The pavement is in poor condition, so the roadway will be rebuilt. The project will
include stormwater and water main work, as well. The City is coordinating with the School District's plan to rebuild the
school starting in 2017 to provide a sidewalk leading into the school property.
• As part of the Pavement Preservation Program, 9.6 lane miles of roadway were repaved, and pedestrian curb ramp
upgrades were completed.
• REET dollars (125 and 126 Funds) were used to fund the 2016 Pavement Preservation Program, single cabinet upgrades,
traffic calming program, curb ramp upgrades, and an ADA transition plan update.
Mr. English reviewed the projects that will be funded in 2017 via the 112 Fund as follows:
Planning Board Minutes
September 28, 2016 Page 2
Packet Pg. 303
4.9.c
The 76th Avenue West and 212th Street Intersection Improvement Project was bid out in May. However, given the
bidding climate, the bids came in much higher than the engineer's estimate. Only two bids were received and both were
high. The City elected to reject both bids and rebid the project during the winter months. That means the project would
likely start in the spring of 2017. In the meantime, the City has applied for additional grant funding from the
Transportation Improvement Board, but won't know the outcome of the application until November. This large project
will add capacity to the intersection and underground utilities.
Chair Lovell pointed out that the project is identified in the CIP as being unfunded at this time. Mr. English said the City
has secured federal funding for the project, and has applied for additional grant funding, as well. Chair Lovell referred to
the spreadsheet on Page 9 and said it is unclear how much grant funding has been secured in 2016 and how much needs
to be secured in 2017. Mr. English agreed to revisit the numbers and update them accordingly. He suggested that
perhaps the labels needed to be corrected to more clearly reflect the intent. He said that in addition to grant funding for
the project, additional funding will come from the water and storm utility funds, since infrastructure needs to be replaced
in the intersection prior to pavement work being done.
• Citywide bicycle improvements will continue in 2017. For example, a striping project will occur on 76th Avenue West to N
add bicycle lanes and change a four -lane facility into a 3-lane facility. This project will likely be bid in conjunction with N
the intersection improvements to get some economy.
r�
• The 238th Street Walkway Project from SR-104 to SR-99 will also be completed in 2017. The City received a grant from
0
d
the State Transportation Improvement Board and design work has been started.
z
0
• The City received federal funding to move forward with an overlay of 84th Avenue from 200th Street to 212th Street
during the summer of 2017.
0
a
a
• REET dollars will be used to install Trackside Warning Systems at Main and Dayton Streets to reduce the sound
4
footprint that the current train horns have. The warning systems will be permanently installed at the intersections, and
r
the horns will blow whenever a train is passing through Edmonds in either direction. The noise from the horns will be
Q
more focused at the intersections so there will be less impact to surrounding properties.
0
Mr. English summarized that the Water Utility Fund (421) supported the replacement of 4,850 feet of water main in 2016,
00
and 3,400 feet of street affected by waterline replacements was overlaid. In 2017 it is anticipated that 7,300 feet of water
w
main will be replaced and 8,200 feet of street affected by waterline replacement will be overlaid.
o
d
Mr. English also reviewed that the Stormwater Utility Fund (422) supported the 238th Street drainage improvements that were
completed in 2016, as well as the new pipe and infiltration gallery in southwest Edmonds between 106th and 105th Street.
The 2017 projects include the Seaview infiltration project, further design of the Willow Creek/Edmonds Marsh project, an
update of the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan, and installation of the Dayton Street Pump Station. He explained that the
o
Seaview project is funded via a grant and will help reduce the number of surges from stormwater flowing into Perrinville
o0
Creek. The Willow Creek/Edmonds Marsh project is ongoing, and it is anticipated that final design work and permitting can
move forward in 2017. He explained that during heavy rain events and high tide, the intersection at Dayton Street and SR-
104 floods. Given its proximity to the marsh, Willow Creek, the outfall, and the tide, the solution is complicated. As
proposed, a lift station will be installed off of Dayton Street in the fishing pier parking lot as a first step to solve the flooding
a
problems at the intersection.
Lastly, Mr. English reviewed that in 2016 the Sewer Utility Fund (423) supported the replacement of 2,000 feet of sewer
t
main and the rehabilitation of 6,400 feet of sewer main using the cured -in -place process (CIPP). In addition, it funded 1,075
w
of pavement overlay on streets affected by the sewer main replacement projects. It is anticipated that 2,900 feet of sewer
};
main will be replaced in 2017, with 3,000 feet of CIPP rehabilitation and pavement overlay on 8,600 feet of street affected by
sewer main replacement. A large wastewater treatment project is in process near the ferry holding lanes where the secondary
E
clarifier is being replaced. The project should be completed in October.
Planning Board Minutes
September 28, 2016 Page 3
Packet Pg. 304
4.9.c
Chair Lovell asked if the Edmonds Waterfront Analysis relates to the work being done by the Railroad Crossing Task Force.
Ms. Hite answered affirmatively. Chair Lovell asked why no funding has been set aside for this project in the next four
years. Mr. English said there is still momentum to move a crossing project forward, and the task force will continue its work.
The Mayor is currently working on the 2017 budget, which will be presented to the City Council in October. They will know
more about funding after the draft budget has been released. In addition, the City has applied for some transportation grants
to continue the work. At this point, it is too early to know if there will be funding for the project, and it was included in the
CFP as a placeholder.
Mr. English summarized that staff begins working on the CIP and CFP updates in July, and a preliminary draft is typically
presented to the Planning Board in September. A public hearing on the CIP and CFP is scheduled for October 12' , after
which the Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. Updated documents will be provided at the hearing,
including more detailed information to outline the differences between 2016 and 2017. Staff is scheduled to make an initial
presentation to the City Council on October 18th, with a public hearing on November I". Using the Board's input and public
comments, the City Council will discuss the draft documents and make revisions. It is anticipated that final adoption will
occur in November or December. Once adopted, the CFP will be included as part of the next batch of Comprehensive Plan
Amendments.
Board Member Monroe requested more information about the Citywide Capital Renewal Program, which is listed on Page 11
of the CIP. Ms. Hite said this program is managed by the Facilities Division. She explained that, in years past, the program
has had minimal funding, and many infrastructure renewal projects have been deferred. This year, Mayor Earling is
proposing that a lump sum be set aside for doing renewal of the City's capital assets. The Capital Facilities Manager has
prepared a list of needs, and the projects will be funded by the $1.5 million set aside for the Capital Renewal Program. The
intent is to chip away at the projects each year. For example, there are numerous needs at the Frances Anderson Center that
have been deferred from previous years.
Board Member Stewart said she is excited to see the projects that have been accomplished during the year, as well as projects Q.
that will happen going forward. She asked if staff could provide the Board and City Council with a copy of the list of Q
projects associated with the Capital Renewal Project. Ms. Hite agreed to provide the list as an attachment for the public
hearing.
Board Member Stewart asked if City staff works to coordinate infrastructure projects so they can be done simultaneously. W
For example, are sewer and water main replacements coordinated so they are completed before a street is overlaid. Mr. T-
English answered affirmatively. Once a significant project has been identified, City staff inspects the condition of other N
elements, such as water and sewer mains. If needed, the pro�ects can be done simultaneously. For example, he referred to 0
the Dayton Street Project that took place between P and 9 Avenues, which was initiated as a stormwater improvement.
After doing a comprehensive review of the other utilities, the project was expanded to include water and sewer main
improvements, as well. The project at the 212th Street intersection is another example of a combined project. It initially
started as a transportation capacity project, but after evaluating the condition of the utilities, replacement of the sewer and
stormwater mains were incorporated into the project.
Board Member Stewart reviewed that frontage improvements, including sidewalks, are required for any new development in
the City. She voiced concern that, sometimes the improvements that are made are torn up just a few years later to
accommodate a City improvement project. She asked if it is possible for City staff to help developers anticipate the future
improvements and perhaps postpone or defer the frontage improvements until the City's larger project moves forward. Mr.
English said City staff has more control when it comes to coordinating City projects, but it is more difficult for private
development. A good example is the 200th Street Overlay Project. A developer found out about the project via the
notification process and the City worked with the developer to get the connections made to the City's systems before the
overlay project moved forward. He said staff tries to coordinate city projects and development proposals through the
building permit application. Ideally, the City can hold off on a project to allow a developer to get his/her work done, but he
acknowledged that is not always the case. Board Member Stewart summarized that the City should do its part to help
property owners by allowing them to postpone the improvements until they can be coordinated with larger, planned City
projects.
Planning Board Minutes
September 28, 2016 Page 4
Packet Pg. 305
4.9.c
Board Member Stewart asked if Planning Board Members would have an opportunity to provide feedback relative to the
fitness stations that are proposed for City parks. Ms. Hite answered that she would love to have feedback from the Board as
the project moves forward.
Board Member Stewart asked if funding for open space acquisition is included in the CIP. Ms. Hite answered that she
programs $200,000 into each year's budget for open space acquisition. She agreed it is important to include this in the yearly
discussions, and she will add it to her presentation for the public hearing. She said it would be helpful to have feedback from
the Board as to whether they support rolling this funding over from year-to-year until an opportunity comes up. Board
Member Stewart observed that, as land continues to be developed, the City should remain open to opportunities to acquire
open space. Once land is developed, the opportunity will be lost.
Board Member Cheung asked how the City prioritizes the capital improvement projects. Mr. English explained that, from a
pavement preservation standpoint, staff evaluates the condition of the pavement each year and places a rating on the streets.
They also try to coordinate the work with needed utility replacement projects. For example, a street overlay may be
postponed if the City knows that a water or sewer main project will be needed in the near future so that the two projects can
be coordinated and completed at the same time. As far as capital project prioritization, there is very limited funding, and the
City typically uses grant opportunities as a way to prioritize these projects. First, they look at the prioritized list of projects in
the 2015 Transportation Improvement Plan. As grant opportunities come up, staff selects the most competitive projects that
fit the particular grant requirements. Typically, the transportation capital infrastructure budget is very small (between
$140,000 and $150,000). Additional funding for capital projects comes from grants and from traffic impact fees. On the
other hand, Mayor Earling has made pavement preservation a priority for the past few years.
Board Member Cheung asked how citizens can recommend transportation improvement projects for inclusion in the —
Transportation Improvement Plan. Mr. English explained that, from a planning standpoint, staff uses the list that is included
in the Transportation Improvement Plan, which an adopted element of the Comprehensive Plan. Adoption of the p
Transportation Improvement Plan included an extensive public process that allowed the public to identify projects they felt Q.
were most important. During the most recent update, a sidewalk committee was formed to evaluate each street and identify Q
where sidewalks are needed. Citizens can contact the Public Works or Engineering Department to provide feedback on
potential projects, and staff will evaluate the situation to determine what the appropriate solution might be. Vice Chair Q
Rubenkonig added that the Police Department also takes note of situations were a high number of accidents are occurring.
Board Member Crank said she appreciates the work that was done at the intersection of 228th Street and Highway 99.
However, some people are questioning the design of the median, which appears to have benches where people can sit. Mr.
English advised that the design was intended to provide relief to the median's appearance. There are a lot of design options
to choose from, but it was felt that the concrete or grass median was not very aesthetically pleasing for this location. Given
the speed of traffic along the corridor, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) also felt that the taller
median was needed for safety reasons. The center section of the median has a colored concrete stamp that was intended to
provide an aesthetic element to the median as opposed to a concrete covered center.
Board Member Crank referred to the new flashing traffic signal that was installed at Edmonds Way and 232nd Street. She
asked if the area is currently being monitored and if there has been an uptick in traffic volumes as a result of the new
marijuana business and proposed new residential development. Mr. English agreed to looking into the issue and provide a
better answer about traffic volumes at the public hearing. He recalled that the SR-104 Corridor Analysis that was recently
completed looked at the entire corridor through Edmonds. It identified several recommendations for capital improvement
projects to make the corridor more pedestrian friendly and safe.
Board Member Crank asked if there have been any reports of traffic accidents associated with the newly installed Luminous
Forest. Ms. Hite advised that the Police Department had some concerns when the it was first installed, and the artist advised
that after the installation has been on for one month, the surface will become scratched and dim. She hasn't heard of any
accidents on 4t" Avenue to date.
Board Member Crank said she would love to see the community garden concept come to fruition. It would be a very
attractive amenity for apartment dwellers. Ms. Hite agreed, but explained that the City has had a difficult time finding an
appropriate location. It was originally planned for the south side of the Old Woodway High School site, but because of
Planning Board Minutes
September 28, 2016 Page 5
Packet Pg. 306
4.9.c
controversy surrounding the athletic fields, staff decided against pursuing that location. She expressed her belief that the park
in Esperance would be good location for a community garden, and she will continue to work with Snohomish County to
make that happen.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she has had a long-standing concern about the intersection at 76th Avenue and 212th Street for a
number of years. The last time the CIP was before the Board, she requested that the City consider placing an "all walk"
crossing at this intersection. She lives in the area and is at the intersection often. It seems like an all walk would make it
faster for the students to get across the road. She asked if this could be included in the 2016 CIP. Mr. English said the
concept has been discussed by staff and it comes down to finding a balance between pedestrian safety and getting vehicles
through the intersection. He agreed to talk to the Transportation Engineer to get more information about the concept and then
report back to the Board at their next meeting.
Chair Lovell observed that this is the first time that neither the CIP nor CFP identifies funding for the Edmonds Crossing
Project. He assumes that staff will provide an explanation for this change and indicate whether the funds that were
previously allocated would be used elsewhere. Mr. English said there have been no changes associated with the Edmonds
Crossing Project. The project is currently identified as unknown based on WSDOT's current planning horizon for the multi -
modal terminal, which is beyond 2035 or even 2040. Although the project is still included on WSDOT's list of future
improvements, it remains unfunded, and the City does not know when funding will be allocated for it to move forward.
When the capital plan for the ferry is updated in the future, the City may have more information about the project's timing.
Chair Lovell commented that it is good to see that there are a lot of projects taking shape to meet the needs and cravings of
the citizens. Things are moving towards the betterment of the City's infrastructure overall. He asked if there has been any
interface between various City departments and the Tree Board, particularly in regard to street trees. The impact that some o
species of street trees can have on sidewalk infrastructure is becoming a big concern, as repair and/or replacement is often E
required. He noted that concern has also been raised about the types of trees that are planted at the Civic Center Field, which p
could end up blocking views. Ms. Hite said managing trees requires a joint effort, and the Parks, Planning and Public Works Q.
staff all work with the Tree Board, depending on the topic. Chair Lovell said he has heard that effort is being made to ensure Q
that new trees are selected to be the right species, size and growth pattern to protect the City's infrastructure.
T
0
Chair Lovell announced that a public hearing on the draft CIP and CFP is scheduled for October 12th. He encouraged Board
Members to forward any outstanding questions directly to staff so they can be answered at the public hearing.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Lovell reviewed the updated Extended Agenda, noting that a public hearing on the CIP and CFP is scheduled for
October 12th. Staff will also present an update on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments pertaining to parks, Highway 99,
street trees and water. On October 26th, the agenda will include a presentation on the University of Washington/Forterra Plan
that was prepared for Five Corners, a discussion on the land use procedures code update, and an update on the Highway 99
Subarea Plan.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Crank reported that she and Vice Chair Rubenkonig attended the City's Volunteer Dinner.
Board Member Monroe reported on his attendance at the September 21st meeting of the Edmonds Citizens Economic
Development Commission where they put together a list of recommendations related to the Civic Field Master Plan. Most of
the recommendations were driven by economic development. For example, they want to see a playfield that can attract users
who will presumably shop in downtown Edmonds. The list was presented to the City Council on September 27th.
Planning Board Minutes
September 28, 2016 Page 6
Packet Pg. 307
4.9.d
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 12, 2016
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 — 5`' Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Alicia Crank
Daniel Robles
Valerie Stewart
Malia Clark, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Nathan Monroe (excused)
Todd Cloutier (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
Chair Lovell introduced Malia Clark, the Board's new Student Representative, who is a senior at Edmonds Woodway High
School and also participates in the group, Students Saving Salmon.
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that the presentation and dialogue provided at the Board's last meeting by the City
Engineer, Rob English, and the Parks, Recreational and Cultural Services Director, Carrie Hite, was well document in the
minutes. They provided an excellent orientation to the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Capital Improvement Program
(CIP).
BOARD MEMBER CRANK MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience.
Ms. Hite invited the Board Members to attend an open house on October 19"" from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. in the Library Plaza
Room, where the hybrid plan for Civic Park Master Plan will be unveiled. After the plan has been presented, the public will
be invited to provide feedback. An on-line open house will follow for two weeks to solicit additional public feedback. At
0
ti
Packet Pg. 308
4.9.d
the close of the on-line open house, the hybrid design will be presented to the Planning Board for a public hearing and
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will also conduct a public hearing before making a final decision on
the master plan design.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Lovell referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. He reported
that he and Vice Chair Rubenkonig met recently with Mayor Earling and received an update on the Sustainable Cities
Partnership, a collaboration between Western Washington University and the City of Edmonds. Mayor Earling advised that
there is currently a lot of activity and the students are moving forward with the projects identified as part of the program. He
spoke very positively about the experience thus far.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2017-2022 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) AND CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
Chair Lovell reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing, which would start with a staff report by Mr. English
and Ms. Hite.
Mr. English started his presentation by providing a diagram to illustrate the components of the CIP and CFP, particularly
noting the differences between the two documents and where they overlap. The CFP is a planning document that includes
the 20-year projects and 6-year projects to address roads. The CIP identifies the short-term horizon projects that include both
capital and maintenance projects over the next six years. The overlap is where the six -year capital projects relate to growth;
these projects will be in both plans. The CFP is divided into three project sections: General (parks, buildings and regional
projects), Transportation (safety/capacity and pedestrian bicycle projects), and Utilities. The CIP is organized based on the
City's financial funds and provides a description of each of the capital projects identified for the six -year period. He
reviewed each of the funds as follows:
• Fund 112 — Transportation. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department.
• Fund 116 — Building Maintenance. This fund is also managed by the Public Works Department.
• Fund 125 — Capital Projects. This fund is managed by the Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments.
v
Money for this fund comes from the Real Estate Excise Tax (BEET), and the dollars are split between the two
to
departments.
N
• Fund 126 — Special Capital/Park Acquisition. This fund is supported by REET funds and is managed by the Parks and
c
Recreation Department.
• Fund 129 — Special Projects. This fund is currently idle and was last used for the Highway 99 International District
d
Lighting Project that was completed a few years ago. Any new capital project would program into this fund.
• Fund 132 — Parks Construction (Grant Funding). This fund is managed by the Parks and Recreation Department.
• Fund 421— Water Projects. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department.
• Fund 422 — Storm Projects. This fund is also managed by the Public Works Department. M
0
• Fund 423 — Waste Water Treatment Plant. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department. 00
Next, Mr. English recapped some of the larger projects that have been completed or the City is working towards completion
of in 2016:
• The 228 h Street Corridor Improvement Project started in May of 2015 and reached substantial completion in March of
2016. The project included a new signalized intersection that connects 228th Street east to west across Highway 99 and
into Mountlake Terrace, providing a new east/west connection to Interstate 5.
• The 228`h Street Sidewalk Improvement Project connects 1001h Street to 104`h Street with sidewalks on the north side.
This project was funded by a Safe Routes to Schools Grant.
• The Pavement Restoration Program is a program that Mayor Earling has prioritized and funded for the fourth year in a
row using Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenue from the 126 Fund.
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 2
Packet Pg. 309
4.9.d
• A walkway project will start soon on 236 h Street, from SR-104 to Madrona School. This project will also be funded by
a Safe Routes to Schools Grant.
Mr. English reviewed some of the projects that will be funded in 2017:
2
L
• The 76t" Avenue West and 212th Street Intersection Improvement Project was bid out in May. However, given the
Im
a
bidding climate, the bids came in much higher than the engineer's estimate. The City elected to reject the bids and rebid
the project during the winter months. That means the project would likely start in the spring of 2017. In the meantime,
m
the City has applied for additional grant funding from the Transportation Improvement Board, but won't know the
m
outcome of the application until November.
c
L
• Citywide bicycle improvements will continue in 2017. For example, a striping project will occur on 76t' Avenue West in
Q.
conjunction with the intersection improvements described above. As proposed, the roadway would change from four to
yo
three lanes, and a bicycle lane would be added.
Q.
c�
V
• The 238th Street Walkway Project from SR-104 to SR-99 will also be completed in 2017. The City received a grant from
N
the State Transportation Improvement Board and design work has been started.
N
• The City received federal funding to move forward with an overlay of 84th Avenue from 200th Street to 212th Street
ti
N
during the summer of 2017.
m
s
• REET dollars will be used to install Trackside Warning Systems on Railroad Avenue at the Main and Dayton Street
o
intersections to reduce the sound footprint that the current train horns have. The warning systems will be permanently
installed at the intersections, and the horns will blow whenever a train is passing through Edmonds in either direction.
o
The noise from the horns will be more focused at the intersections so there will be less impact to surrounding properties.
Q-
a
Q
Mr. English advised that, since the Board's last meeting, the Mayor approved his "decision package, which identifies projects
that staff identified for 2017. The package includes:
ti
• Funding of $1.1 million for the Pavement Preservation Program, which is a critical piece of the City's ability to maintain
infrastructure.
• Funding for pre -design work for the access management on SR-99 between 2161h and 2241h Streets. The City has
observed a higher accident problem along this stretch of roadway related to the two-way left turn lane on SR-99. The
intent is to go forward with pre -design of the improvements in 2017.
• In coordination with Mountlake Terrace, the City has applied for a grant to coordinate the signals on 2201h Street, which
is badly needed. If the grant application is successful, the 2017 budget includes the matching funds to move the project
forward.
• $150,000 has been set aside to match grant dollars to continue to pursue alternatives for a waterfront at -grade crossing.
The committee will present the results of their study to the Mayor soon, and a presentation will be made to the City
Council in late October or early November.
• The proposed 2017 budget includes funding to replace 7,300 feet of water main and 2,900 feet of sewer main. It also
includes funding to rehabilitate 3,000 feet of sewer main.
Ms. Hite reviewed the 2016 projects that were completed by the Parks and Recreation Department in 2016 as follows:
• The City acquired the Civic Field property and is currently in the process of completing a master plan for its
redevelopment. The consultant is working on a hybrid plan that will be unveiled at a public open house on October 19th
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 3
Packet Pg. 310
4.9.d
• The spray park at City Park was opened in the spring and had a very successful summer.
• The Dayton Street Plaza is nearly completed and it is already heavily used. They are currently in the last stages of
landscaping.
• The temporary art installation (Luminous Forest) on 4th Avenue was completed, and wayfinding signs were installed
throughout the City.
• The Marina Beach Park Master Plan was completed in early 2016, and the intent is to formally adopted the plan into the
City's Comprehensive Plan before the end of the year.
• The Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project is nearing completion, and it expected to open with a ribbon -cutting ceremony on
November 15''.
• The Downtown Public Restroom Project is currently under construction near City Hall.
• The Yost Spa Project is currently in progress. However, the project had to be redesigned in order to meet current code
requirements.
• The Frances Anderson Center Stage Replacement Project is currently in progress.
• The design work for the Veteran's Project was completed. The City received two bids that were higher than the
engineer's estimate, and the project is being rebid.
• The playground equipment at Marina Beach Park has been replaced, and they are currently working to replace the
equipment at the Meadowdale Preschool playground.
Next, Ms. Hite reviewed the proposed 2017 projects as follows: c
ti
• The Edmonds Marsh and Daylighting of Willow Creek Project is ongoing. The City has obtained grant funding to '-
continue the feasibility study, and they have applied for other competitive grants, as well. 7-
• Parklet Projects will move forward in 2017, as will the Outdoor Fitness Zone Project
• Gateway replacement is ongoing and in process.
• The City is partnering with the City of Lynnwood to rehabilitate the Meadowdale Playfields.
• The City's storage building burned down earlier in the year, and the City has received reimbursement from its insurance
company. Considering the storage needs of both the Facilities and Parks and Recreation Departments, staff is proposing
that the building be rebuilt to a size that is nearly 2.5 times larger but in the same location.
• There is funding left from the state grant that was used to acquire Civic Field, and the City has received permission from
the State to use the funds to demolish the grandstands.
• Funding was set aside in the 2016 CIP for a community garden, and staff is working with Snohomish County regarding
the possibility of partnering to create a community garden as Esperance Park.
• The bids received for the Veteran's Plaza were rejected, and the City will go out to bid again soon. They expect to break
ground in early 2017 and open the plaza in May of 2017.
• The Senior Center is undertaking a capital program to redevelop the site into a Waterfront Center, and the City has
discussed the opportunity to redevelop the waterfront at the same time. This will involve removing the existing creosote
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 4
Packet Pg. 311
4.9.d
pilings, reconfiguring the park, adding a bioswale and raingardens to filter runoff from the parking lot before it goes into
the Sound, adding a hand boat launch, providing more access to the beach, and adding a picnic area with a natural access
to the senior center. In addition, the City is currently in discussions with the owners of the Ebb Tide Condominiums to
complete the waterfront walkway in front of their building within the City's 10-foot easement. The City has applied for
two $50,000 grants, and the project has scored high on both. The City has also set aside park impact fee dollars for the
proj ect.
• Land acquisition is a high priority in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, and the proposed budget sets
aside an additional $200,000 for this purpose. The intent is to having matching funds for grants available when
opportunities to acquire land come about.
Ms. Hite said staff is recommending that the Cultural Arts Facilities Needs Study be deleted from the CFP. While the study
could still be done, it would be more of an operational project than a capital project. If a study determines that the City needs
a facility at some point in the future, it can be added to the CFP. Also, the Downtown Restroom Project should be completed
by the end of the year and can be removed from the 2017 CFP.
Ms. Hite advised that, since the last meeting, the CIP was updated to highlight "land acquisition" as a goal.
As requested by the Board at their last meeting, Mr. English provided a handout that lists the needs that were identified by the
Capital Facilities Manager for the 2017 Citywide Capital Renewal Program. He explained that, in past years, the budget for
capital facilities maintenance has been about $55,000. The Capital Facilities Manager requested that this amount be
increased up to $400,000 to quick start the program of investing in and maintaining the City's existing facilities. The projects
include roof repairs, painting, carpeting, seal coating, etc.
Mr. English recalled that the Board also asked him to provide more information about traffic volumes on SR-104. He o
advised that the State does a number of traffic counts along the highway starting from the Ferry Terminal all the way to a
Interstate 5. While the 2016 counts are not available, the 2015 counts can be compared to previous years. The counts Q
conclude that there was no increase in traffic volume from the ferry to 238th Street, but there was a small increase of 2% from
240th Street to Interstate 5. At their last meeting, Board Member Crank asked how new development along SR-104 might o
impact traffic volumes. He learned that the new development she referred to was actually permitted by Snohomish County so
the City does not have any transportation data. However, it is likely that the development had very little impact to the overall to
traffic volumes on the highway.
Mr. English recalled that, at their last meeting, Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked about the possibility of adding an "all -walk"
phase at the intersection of 212th Street and 76th Avenue to provide a safer pedestrian access for high school students. He
acknowledged that the concept has been used in select locations across the country, and it amounts to adding another phase to
the signal timing that closes the movement of traffic on all four lanes of the intersection to allow pedestrians to cross. He
explained that the City's current Level of Service (LOS) Standard for arterials is LOS D or better, and the proposed project
would improve the intersection to LOS D. If an all -walk phase were added, the standard at the intersection would change to
LOS E. He reminded the Board that the City secured a $3.96 million grant from the Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) Fund, and the purpose of the grant was to improve air quality by reducing emissions and congestion. As currently
proposed, the intersection project would reduce emissions for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon and oxides of
nitrogen. The benefit of the project is that reducing congestion will bring down emissions and that is why the City received
the funding. It would be difficult to change the project to add an all -walk phase because it would reduce the LOS standard
and increase emissions. Staff is proposing that the project be constructed as currently designed.
Mr. English summarized his presentation by reviewing that after the public hearing the Board will be asked to forward a
recommendation to the City Council. The CIP and CFP, along with the Board's recommendation, will be presented to the
City Council for a study session, followed by a public hearing on November 1st
Chair Lovell opened the public portion of the hearing. However, there was no one in the audience, and the public portion of
the hearing was subsequently closed.
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 5
Packet Pg. 312
4.9.d
Board Member Crank asked if the overlay project on 84th Avenue between 220th Street and 2121h Street would take place
while school is in session. Mr. English said that, if all goes well, the intent is to do the work during the summer when school
is on break.
Board Member Crank said she is glad to hear that the City's goal is to do the Waterfront Redevelopment Project in tandem
with the Senior Center's Waterfront Center Project. She said she serves on the Senior Center Board, and the plan to talk
about fundraising and strategies at their upcoming retreat.
a
Board Member Crank referred to the funding set aside for land acquisition and asked if there are targeted properties the City
m
is looking to acquire. Ms. Hite answered that the PROS Plan identifies areas of the City that are not as well served by parks
E
and open space, and the City will look for opportunities to acquire additional land to serve these neighborhoods. In addition,
c
the City is always looking for opportunities to acquire properties along Shell Creek and other properties that run parallel to
a
the watersheds. However, the City must also consider the need to maintain the park space it already has. It requires a
E
balancing act.
Board Member Crank thanked Mr. English for providing data about traffic volumes on SR-104. She appreciates that data is
.Q
V
needed to make a case for improvements, and she looks forward to comparing 2016 data to previous years to determine the
N
impact of new development. She noted that, just tonight, the light stopped blinking because there was an emergency vehicle
o
coming through the intersection. People are accustomed to the light blinking, and a car was almost hit when it did not stop at
N
ti
the light. She said she hopes new data will support the need for a study to see if mitigation is needed.
c
N
Board Member Cheung asked if the Traffic Engineer's analysis of an all -walk phase at the intersection of 212`h Street and
CD
76`h Avenue considered that the phase would only need to be activated during certain times of the day (when students arrive,
—
when students leave, and when students go to lunch). Mr. English acknowledged that the phase could be timed to only
-
activate during certain times of the day, but the morning period when students are arriving at school is also during the peak
o
commute period. Board Member Cheung asked if LOS D could be maintained with an all -walk phase that only operate
a
during certain times of the day as described above. Mr. English said more traffic modeling would be needed to answer that
Q
question.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that adding an all -walk phase at the intersection of 76th Avenue and 212`h Street would
0
minimize the pedestrians' exposure to pollution. Mr. English agreed that is possible, but it would depend on when the
to
pedestrian reaches the intersection. Depending on the phase of the light, a pedestrian may have to wait longer if an all -walk
phase were added. He also voiced concern that students may get impatient waiting for the signal and cross against traffic.
0
Chair Lovell asked if the Traffic Engineer has solicited feedback from the Edmonds School District relative to the proposed
T_
w
changes at the intersection of 76th Avenue and 212th Street. Mr. English answered that the City has worked closely with the
school district to coordinate the phasing of the intersection improvements, and the school district has voiced support for the
S
proposed changes. The district has not requested an all -walk phase.
L
Ms. Clark said she uses the intersection at 76th Avenue and 212'h Street often, and it could use some work. She often has to
m
wait about five minutes to cross the street, and she knows that some students become impatient and jay walk. Mr. English
explained that, currently, the intersection lacks turning movement, which means it takes longer for cars and pedestrians to get
5
through the sequence. With the proposed changes, the left turn lanes going north/south will go at the same time, which
allows the light to cycle faster. The same would be done for the east/west lanes.
`cc
a
Board Member Cheung asked if the intersection improvements would include left turns on a blinking light. Mr. English said
they have not made a firm decision on this option because it could lead to conflicts with the high school. A left -turn arrow
would hold up pedestrians. With a flashing yellow light for left turns, there is a potential that a student could be hit while
w
using a crosswalk if a driver sees a break in traffic and initiates the turn. Staff will continue to evaluate the option, but his
first thought is that it would not be appropriate in this location. Board Member Cheung asked if it would be possible to time
the lights so that the flashing turn is available only when school is not in session. Mr. English agreed that is a possibility.
E
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 6
Packet Pg. 313
4.9.d
Chair Lovell thanked Ms. Hite and Mr. English for providing responses to the issues and concerns raised by the Board at
their last meeting. He asked that these responses also be conveyed to the City Council for consideration in their review of the
CIP and CFP.
Chair Lovell requested clarification on the funding that is currently available for the Veteran's Plaza. Ms. Hite answered that
the City will contribute $30,000 to the project, and the remaining portion of the $550,000 cost will come from fundraising.
Chair Lovell asked if the City is contemplating that work will start on the Waterfront Center and Waterfront Redevelopment
Projects in 2017. Ms. Hite said the goal is to do the projects in tandem. However, it is possible that the Senior Center will
not reach its funding goal in time to complete the project during the fish window, and the Waterfront Center Project will have
to be postponed until 2018. Based on grant funding, it may be necessary for the City to move forward with the Waterfront
Redevelopment Project in 2017. Again, she said the City's goal is to move the two projects forward in 2017, hoping that the
Senior Center will be ready, as well. Board Member Crank advised that the Senior Center's target is to break ground on the
project in September of 2017. Ms. Hite emphasized that there is a fish window that limits when waterfront development can
occur, and it happens to be during the summer months. Ms. Crank said the Senior Center Board's goal is to meet that
window.
Board Member Robles asked for clarification of the small boat launch that is proposed as part of the waterfront
redevelopment project. Ms. Hite said this would be a hand launch facility that is not meant for large boats. She referred to
the proposed design of the project and noted the location of the boat launch. She explained that the ramp would serve a dual
purpose for launching small watercraft (kayaks, paddleboards, etc.) and providing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
access.
Board Member Stewart referred to Page 150 of the Staff Report that describes the Edmonds Marsh Feasibility and Fa
Restoration/Walkway Project, which is estimated to cost $155,000. She asked if the project would include a new walkway o
around the marsh. Ms. Hite said the project includes restoration of the current walkway, which is queued up for 2017. a
However, the work done by the Western Washington University Students as part of the Sustainable Cities Project will 0
include consideration of a boardwalk all the way around the marsh. Several community citizens have volunteered to
participate on a focus group to discuss the concept further. c
ti
Board Member Stewart asked if the walkway that is proposed in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums would be ADA to
accessible. Ms. Hite answered that there would be two sections of stairs to provide broader accessibility, but the boardwalk
04
would all be accessible. The boardwalk proposed in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums would connect the north and south
portions of the existing boardwalk together. c
Board Member Stewart noted that there are redundancies in the CIP, as some projects appear to be listed twice, and the dollar
amounts do not match up. Ms. Hite said the redundancy has to do with the different funds that are used for the projects. In
many cases, funding will come from a variety of sources and/or funds.
Board Member Stewart said she is glad that the documents identify certain properties the City is keeping an eye on for park
acquisition. There is forest land in the northern portion of the City that has been on and off the market for quite some time
and is part of the Perrinville Creek Drainage Basin. There is a real desire in the neighborhood for the City to acquire this
property, and it can only happen if funding is available. She suggested that the City allocate a significantly larger amount in
2017 to allow the City to competitively bid for the property. Ms. Hite commented that this would be difficult. She explained
that Mayor Earling weighs out all of the priorities for the City and attempts to balance all needs when allocating the REET
dollars in the 126 Fund. For example, the 126 Fund is also used to support the Street Preservation and Facilities Restoration
Programs, which both have a backlog of projects. In addition to acquiring more park and open space, it is also important for
the City to adequately maintain their existing properties. However, she agreed to make note of Board Member Stewart's
request when presenting the CIP and CFP to the City Council. Board Member Stewart commented that the City could
establish a donor program to provide funding support for future park and open space acquisition. Ms. Hite agreed and said
that she has been working with Council Member Mesaros to pursue this option further. Board Member Stewart agreed to
assist in the effort.
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 7
Packet Pg. 314
4.9.d
Vice Chair Rubenkonig requested clarification relative to the schedule for the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project, which is
described on Page 58 of the Staff Report. Mr. English reviewed that staff provided a report to the City Council in August
relative to the concept of building a walkway on the west side of Sunset Avenue. Currently, there is temporary striping that
designates a walkway area, but there has been quite a lot of discussion about where the parking should be located, what kind
of parking should be provided, etc. Parallel with the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project is a utility improvement project. The
E
City is considering options for improving the lift station on Sunset Avenue south of Caspers Street to install a new gravity
line to take sewage to the treatment plant rather than having to pump it. A waterline also needs to be replaced. No
a
permanent walkway or designated parking would be constructed until after the utility work has been completed in 2017. He
agreed to clarify the schedule in the project description.
E
Vice Chair Rubenkonig observed that the proposed sidewalk project on 232°d Street SW from 100th Avenue W to SR-104
m
c
(Page 60 of the Staff Report) would provide the fastest walking route to Westgate from the intersection with SR-104, and the
a
City should encourage people to use it as such. She also suggested that the CIP and CFP should include a listing of the
E
sources recommending action to help citizens know how long a project has been in the making, and the embedded vicinity
maps may be easier to navigate if compass points were included. While providing footage of the sidewalk projects has
Q.
begun, it could be completed, and highlighting project areas could assist the reader in identifying the size and location of the
V
proposed work.
N
N
O
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked for clarification about the Pine Ridge Forest Management Study, which is described on
N
ti
Page 105 of the Staff Report. In particular, she asked if the City has done similar studies for other parks in the past. Ms. Hite
c
explained that the Public Works, Planning and Parks Departments are coordinating an effort to complete an Urban Forestry
N
Management Plan for the entire City in 2016 and 2017, but there are a lot of older trees in Pine Ridge Park that warrant an
CD
evaluation to assess the City's liability, etc.
o
Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the acronym WWTP (Page 117 of the Staff Report) should be spelled out as the Waste
o
Water Treatment Plant. She also referred to the Table that lists the publicly -owned facilities in Edmonds and other nearby
a
areas and suggested that the Civic Center Playfield should be removed from the list of school district properties and added to
Q-
Q
the list of City -owned properties.
VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
0
PROGRAM (CIP) AND CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) FOR 2016 THROUGH 2O22 TO THE CITY
to
COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL BASED ON THE COMMENTS PROVIDED BY THE
BOARD. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
04
0
THE BOARD RECESSED THE MEETING FOR A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK AT 8:20 P.M. THE MEETING
T_
w
RECONVENED AT 8:27 P.M.
2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
Mr. Chave reviewed that the most recent Comprehensive Plan update was completed in 2015, and included a major review as
required by the Growth Management Act. Typically, the City undertakes relatively minor amendments in intervening years.
This year's amendments will include the following:
Amending the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the updated CFP.
Amending the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan to include the adopted Marina Beach Master Plan as
a new "Appendix D." Appendix A would also be amended to acknowledge and reflect the Marina Beach Master
Plan.
Amending the Capital Facilities Element to add an implementation action that would read, "Develop level of service
standards for key public facilities by the end of 2017 and consider including the standards in the Comprehensive
Plan."
In addition to the amendments listed above, Mr. Chave advised that two more substantial amendments are currently being
developed: The Water Comprehensive Plan and the Street Tree Plan. Drafts of each of the plans are due before the end of
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 8
Packet Pg. 315
4.9.d
2016, and approval is scheduled for the first quarter of 2017. Any specific references to the current plans will need to be
updated, as well. The two plans will be ready for the Planning Board's consideration after the first of the year.
Mr. Chave summarized that the Board has completed its public hearing and recommendation to the City Council relative to
Amendment 1, and the public hearings for Amendments 2 and 3 are scheduled for November 9".
Chair Lovell asked if the City plans to hire a consultant to assist staff in preparing an Urban Forestry Management Plan. Mr.
Chave answered affirmatively and noted that funding has been allocated for the project, and staff is working on a Request for
Proposals. However, the Street Tree Plan is separate and will precede the Urban Forestry Management Plan.
Chair Lovell said his understanding is that the Marina Beach and Civic Field Master Plans, once adopted into the
Comprehensive Plan, will represent what the community wants programmatically for the two sites, but they should not be
considered final designs. Ms. Hite agreed that the master plans should not be considered design or construction documents.
Instead, they are schematic designs that represent the community's thoughts and desires. It is always good practice to
officially adopt the master plans into the Comprehensive Plan so there are no questions about the process. Once adopted into
the Comprehensive Plan, Parks staff will have a green light to put together a financial package for future implementation.
Chair Lovell asked if the consultant who creates the final park designs would be obligated to prepare design documents that
are consistent with the Master Plans. Ms. Hite answered yes, but commented that the master plans are quite broad and
design decisions will need to be made throughout the process. The City will go through a competitive bidding process for
design consultants, and it is likely this effort will involve a citizen's committee, as well. Sometimes, the entity that created
the schematic design is the one most qualified to do the final design work. For example, the current contract with Walker
Massey for the Civic Field Master Plan also includes language for them to amend the contract to go into design development
if the City so chooses. That was not the case with the Marina Beach Master Plan contract, since development of the park is
three to five years out.
Board Member Stewart requested clarification of the proposed amendment to Goal 4, Policy 4.H of the PROS Plan. Ms. Hite Q-
Q
reviewed that when the Marina Beach Master Plan was created, numerous people voiced support for the dog park to remain
as an element of the park. Goal 4 was added to the PROS Plan to address the concern about potential impacts to sensitive c
areas. Staff is suggesting the language be amended to make it more powerful and applicable to all parks in the City. The
new language would read, "Ensure uses in environmentally sensitive areas are consistent with critical area regulations and the to
Shoreline Master Program." She summarized that the proposed language is intended to make the City pay attention to
04
potential impacts in all design and develop a balance.
Board Member Stewart asked for specific language in the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and Shoreline Master Program
(SMP). Although she acknowledged that the dog park is well -loved by the community, the community must also be made
aware of what is happening to the land as a result of the non -conforming use (dog park). Although dog owners do a good job
of cleaning up their pets' feces, Keeley O'Connell, restoration biologist on contract with the City, previously pointed out to
the Board that the urine is what completely decimates the marine flora on the shoreline. She said she has been a naturalist for
years at Discovery Park where there is a diverse display of habitat, but less so on the Edmonds beaches. If you walk through
Marina Beach Park, there is a noticeable wasteland effect as you walk through the dog park and habitat returns as you walk
further south along the beach. As habitat improvements occur down the road and conversations and public education
continues to evolve, people will become aware that there could be better alternatives. She said she hopes that this will be part
of the conservation going forward, and she questioned if the proposed amendment to Goal 4 would provide adequate
protection for the area.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if developing LOS standards for key public facilities would be a Planning Board responsibility.
Mr. Chave answered yes, but only to the extent that they are included in the planning documents. Many of the standards are
already in place, such as transportation.
Mr. Chave advised that the draft amendments are scheduled for a public hearing before the Board on November 9t'
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 9
Packet Pg. 316
4.9.d
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Lovell reviewed that the Board's October 26th agenda includes an update by the consultant on the Highway 99 Subarea
Plan and a presentation by representatives from Sound Transit relative to the Sound Transit 3 initiative that will be on the
November ballot. The November 9t" agenda will include a public hearing on the Civic Center Master Plan and a Public
Hearing on the 2016 Comprehensive Plan amendments. The November 23`d meeting has been cancelled. The December 14th
a)
meeting tentatively includes a public hearing on the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, as well as election of officers and a
a
presentation of the Five Corners Plan that was prepared by students from the University of Washington and Forterra. The
},
December 28th meeting has been cancelled.
E
Chair Lovell reported that he and Vice Chair Rubenkonig met with Mayor Earling recently and learned that the terms of four
m
c
Board Members will expire at the end of 2016. Board Members who want to be reappointed for another term should notify
a
the Mayor as soon as possible. After further discussion, Chair Lovell indicated he would notify the Mayor that he and Board
E
Members Crank and Rubenkonig want to be reappointed for another term, but Board Member Stewart does not.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
.Q
V
Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments.
N
N
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
ti
c
N
Board Member Stewart announced that Students Saving Salmon will be meeting with stream -side property owners and
residents on Saturday, October 15th, to discuss how they can improve conditions along the waterways for salmon habitat.
—
They will be asking if salmon has been spotted and help them understand how to identify them and become more vigilant.
Fa
The students will report their findings to the press and City Council in a timely manner.
o
L
Board Member Robles gave a shout out to Perrinville, which now has an anchor restaurant and no franchise businesses. All
CL
Q
of the businesses are community based, and the area is very well done.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the fitness station that is located in the plaza/garden of the Waste Water Treatment Center is
0
.I
an example of the proposed new fitness zones. Ms. Hite said the fitness station at the plaza/garden only has three elements,
to
and the proposed new fitness zones will have eight to ten components that will be more dynamic and have various functions.
She recalled that Board Members Monroe and Stewart agreed to work with staff to select the fitness zone components.
04
0
Vice Chair Rubenkonig announced that there will be an open house regarding the Highway 99 Subarea Plan on November
m
10`h from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. on the 4`' Floor at Swedish Hospital, and Chair Lovell indicated his plan to attend. She also
reminded the Board of the public open house relative to the Civic Center Master Plan that is scheduled for October 19th from
S
6:00 to 7:30 p.m. in the Library Plaza Room. Board Member Crank indicated her plan to attend that event. Lastly, she
advised that on November 2"d, the City Attorney will provide training to the Architectural Design Board regarding quasi-
judicial meetings, etc. She suggested that those who missed the training that was provided previously to the Board should
C
a
consider attending the November 2nd meeting.
c
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked Mr. Chave to explain the impact of the City Council's recent decision to establish a larger
buffer for the Edmonds Marsh than what was recommended by the Department of Ecology (DOE). Mr. Chave explained
a
that, in general, the Planning Board's recommendation relative to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) was passed on to the
DOE for review. However, the Council approved greater buffers for critical areas. The DOE notified the City that they did
not like a few things in the Council approved SMP, including the increased buffer requirement, and they provided a list of
Z
mandatory and recommended changes. Most recently, the City Council walked through the DOE's recommendations and
w
requirements and suggested some alternative versions. The alternatives will be presented back to the DOE, and the City will
await a response that identifies where the discrepancies lie. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the higher buffer requirement is
unusual compared to other jurisdictions. Mr. Chave answered that the buffer requirement is not necessarily unusual, but the
E
length of time the City has spent going back and forth with the DOE is a big unusual. He said he suspects the issue will
eventually end up before the Growth Hearings Board.
y
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 10
Packet Pg. 317
4.9.d
Board Member Crank reported on her attendance at the recent Candidates Forum that was sponsored by the Chamber. One
of the questions given to the state candidates was about ST3, and their response helped feed her a perspective for the next
round of discussions.
Board Member Crank said she listened to the October l lth City Council meeting where there was significant input from
downtown business owners about the recent sign code amendments. She voiced concern that the issue seems to be focused
on a -frame signs, and the Board's recommendation that the City consider a directional sign program has gotten lost in the
translation. This has created a lot of discord from downtown business owners. She asked what the Board could do to clarify
the amendments. Mr. Chave answered that the City Council will do something to address the concern, and there is nothing
the Board can do at this time. However, they will likely become involved at some point in the future. He encouraged Board
Members to take every opportunity to talk to the downtown business owners and provide more information about the Board's
recommendation.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
0
ti
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 11
Packet Pg. 318
4.10
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/22/2016
Adoption of Water Utility Tax Ordinance
Staff Lead: Phil Williams
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On October 11, 2016, staff presented the Utility Rate Analysis to Council.
On November 15, 2016, a Public Hearing was held and Council forwarded this item to the November
22nd consent agenda for approval.
Staff Recommendation
Contingent on approval of New Utility Rate Ordinance, authorize the mayor to sign the water tax
Ordinance.
Narrative
A public hearing was held on November 15, 2016 to receive comments on the proposed
recommendation to:
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 tax decrease
proposed by staff will take effect over a 5 year period (2017 to 2021) and is contingent on approval of
the new utility rate ordinance.
Attachments:
Proposed Ordinance - Water Tax Decrease
Packet Pg. 319
4.10.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. 320
4.10.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. 321
4.10.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. 322
4.10.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. 323
4.11
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/22/2016
Ordinance Amending Utility Rates
Staff Lead: Phil Williams
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On October 11, 2016, staff presented the Utility Rate Analysis to Council.
On November 15, 2016, a Public Hearing was held and Council forwarded the item to the November
22nd consent agenda for approval.
Staff Recommendation
Authorize the Mayor to sign the Ordinance.
Narrative
A public hearing was held on November 15, 2016 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
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 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 - Utility Rate Increase
Sewer Rate Model
Stormwater Rate Model
Water Rate Model
Packet Pg. 324
4.11.a
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. 325
4.11.a
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. 326
4.11.a
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
m
U
c
M
c
=a
L
L�
m
$ 27.53 $ 30.01 $ 32.71
Y
N�
1/1/2017
1/1/2018
1/1/2019
$ 37.80
$ 41.20
$ 44.91
+,
$ 76.95
$ 83.88
$ 91.43
-
$ 142.30
$ 155.11
$ 169.07
c
$ 216.95
$ 236.48
$ 257.76
a
$ 468.02
$ 510.15
$ 556.06
-0a
$ 662.96
$ 722.63
$ 787.66
Q
$ 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. 327
4.11.a
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. 328
4.11.a
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. 329
4.11.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2016, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE 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. 330
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
Gr`C (;Rnl IP Fr—rlc (Z—A—r KAn 4l 1 - AMitinn l r`onitol 9ni'2 m 4r 1 o to 4r 4 to 7n77 vle
Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
A
i5
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
D]
0
X
CD
rt
�= FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx
W (425) 867-1802 Assumptions
C4
P' Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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.
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 %
fl1
0
W
0)
rt
�= FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx
W (425) 867-1802 Assumptions
W
W Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
Page 3
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
W
W s
� Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Existing Debt Input
Existing Debt Service - PWTF Loans
PWTF LOAN 02-691-019 2002
Annual Interest Payment
Annual Principal Payment
Total Annual Payment
2005 PWTF LOAN 05-691-015
Annual Interest Payment
Annual Principal Payment
Total Annual Payment
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$ 1,276 $ 1,094 $ 911 $ 729 $ 547 $ 365 $ 182 $ - $ - $ -
36.450 36,450 36,450 36,450 36,450 36,450 36,450 - - -
$ 37,726 $ 37,544 $ 37,361 $ 37,179 $ 36,997 $ 36,815 $ 36,632 $ - $ - $ -
$ 3,615 $ 3,253 $ 2,892 $ 2,530 $ 2,169 $ 1,807 $ 1,446 $ 1,084 $ 723 $ 361
72,295 72,295 72,295 72,295 72,295 72,295 72,295 72,295 72,295 72,295
$ 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
P'
3
3
Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
W (425) 867-1802 Treatment Existing Debt - 411
W
Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
P.
Page 6 3
iT
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 (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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.
Cp[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
P'
3
3
J"4
Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
City of Edmonds
Sewer Utility
Treatment Plant Operating Expenditure Forecast
Treatment Plant Expenditures
FORECAST BASIS
Actual
2015
Budget
2016
Projection
2017
Projection
2018
Projection
2019
Projection
2020
Projection
2021
Projection
2022
Projection
2023
Projection
2024
Projection
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
1
58,227
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
fl1
0
lD
rt
FCS GROUP
Edmonds
Sewer Model
- Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx
ot
W
(425) 867-1802
Treatment O&M
Pagc 9
JAttachment: Sewer Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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 (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
P'
3
3
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
D]
0
W
CD
rt
FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx
W (425) 867-1802 CIP Input
3 Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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 (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
Page 12
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
0
X
CD
rt
C4 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx
W (425) 867-1802 Capital Funding
Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
Page 13
A
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
W (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
A
Capital Funding
Page 14
Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
130,2031[
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
3
W
(425) 867-1802
Tests
Page 15
3
J"' Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
0
lD
rt
C4 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx
W (425)867-1802 Tests
Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
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
f>1
0
lD
rt
�= FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx
W (425)867-1802 Funds
4 Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
W
(425) 867-1802
414 Existing
Debt
00
Attachment: Sewer Rate
Model (1691
: Adoption
of Utility
Rate Increase
Ordinance)
Page 18
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
D]
0
W
CD
rt
�= FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx
W (425) 867-1802 414 Existing Debt
t° Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - Additional Capital 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx
(� (425) 867-1802 414 CIP Input
Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
Page 20
A
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
W (425) 867-1802 414 CIP Input
3 Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
A
L
i7
Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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 - - -
fl1
0
x
`D n
W
s
w Attachment: Sewer Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
W
(425) 867-1802
Fund 414
U1
Attachment:
Sewer Rate Model
(1691 :
Adoption
of Utility
Rate Increase Ordinance)
Page 24
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
w (425) 867-1802
U1
$ 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 (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
Page 1
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%
Frimnrvic CTnrm\eloYoY KAnriol _ ArJrliYi-1 (`oniYnl OMR mnriol vlev �
Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
-
$ -
m
0
c�
rt
(Q
W r:r Q r-Inni IQ
V
Frimnrvic CTnrm\eloToY KAnriol _ ArJrliYi-1 (`oniTnl OMR mnriol vlev n
Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
(Q
�
W
�
Frc r_oni io F.I..,,,n.le cr,,.,.,,.ro.
nn„aoi _
o,Iairi-i rnnirni Onia
..,,,,poi ..iov
CO Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
�
w
�
ire �o�i io
nn...a..i
n.J.J:a:--- i r.,..:a.,i
nni c ..,...a..i .,i..., ..
JAttachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
(Q �
W
� ire r_oni io ca......,.,.,a.., nn...a..i n.a.a;a;--- i r.,..;a.,i nni c ..,,..a..i
Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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 (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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 & 106th 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 Proje
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-RealetlProlecls
0
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stonn and Sunwe Water Cornwel,-ire Plan (including asset management plan)
50
0%
214,320
25,000
189,320
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
50
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
RembursemenfstoSurest 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 - Additional Cap0a12016 mode.xlsx
(� (425)867-1802 CIP Input
Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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 106th 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 Northstream Culver) under Puget DR.
50
0%
550,77:
113,215
432,560
5,000
50
0%
Perrinville 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 %
-
Improvemenis - Sierra pl -12th 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
(i
rt
(Q
FCS GROUP Edmonds Sm-ater Model -Additional Capital 2016 modelAsx
(� (425)867-1802 CIP Input
Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
0
w
CD
rt
�= FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - Additional Capital 2016 model.xlsx
W (425) 867-1802 Capital Funding
-N Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
W (425) 867-1802 Capital Funding
"' Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
Page 11
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
3
°'
Attachment: Stormwater
Rate
Model
(1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate
Increase Ordinance)
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
3
4 Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
W (425)867-1802 Funds
0)
00 Attachment: Stormwater Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
Page 14
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
w (425) 867-1802
m
$ 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 (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
Page 1
A
Q
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 ==> $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
- $
-
fl1
0
X
`D n
F-4 Attachment: Water Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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%
P'
3
3
Q
Attachment: Water Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
0
lD
rt
C4 FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model - Additional Capital (9-14-16) 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx P.
W (425) 867-1802 Existing Debt Page 4 3
4 Q
�' Attachment: Water Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
W 1 (425) 867-1802
V
W
$ 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
Page 5
P.
3
3
Q
Attachment: Water Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
`D n
� A
tQ
W FAttachment: Water Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
n
F-,4 Attachment: Water Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
Attachment: Water Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
(D
rt
FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model - Additional Capital (9-14-16) 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx
(� (425) 867-1802 CIP Input
V
Attachment: Water Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
Page 9
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
fl1
0
w
`D n
F-4 Attachment: Water Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
fl1
0
w
`D n
W
V iZ
t° Attachment: Water Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
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
W 1 (425) 867-1802
1
Edmonds Water Model - Additional Capital (9-14-16) 2013 model extended to 2022.xlsx
Tests
Attachment: Water Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
Page 12
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
W 1 (425) 867-1802 Tests
JAttachment: Water Rate Model (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
Page 13
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 (1691 : Adoption of Utility Rate Increase Ordinance)
P'
3
3
Q
4.12
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/22/2016
Resolution adopting the 2017 Development Fee Schedule
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Rob Chave
Background/History
The City Council reviewed the draft development fee schedule for 2017 on November 15, 2016, and
approved it for Consent agenda.
Staff Recommendation
Approve the draft Resolution establishing the 2017 development fee schedule (Exhibit 1).
Narrative
This is a periodic update to the City's fees for development services. The fees are approved by the
Council in the form of a Resolution. The proposed schedule was reviewed by the Council on November
15, 2016, and moved to the Consent agenda for approval.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Resolution for 2017 fee schedule
Packet Pg. 383
4.12.a
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE FEE
SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT -RELATED
FESS AND CHARGES FOR SERVICES, INCLUDING A
SAVINGS CLAUSE, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, ECDC 15.00.020 provides for the establishment and amendment of
certain fees charged by the City by resolution; and
WHEREAS, extensive effort has been made by City Staff to analyze the full costs
associated with City permitting and service activities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously established and affirms as its goal
that permit fees shall be set to cover the costs of processing and issuing permits and requests for
service; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does, however, desire that parties utilizing the
City's administrative appeals procedures bear a smaller burden of the costs of processing those
appeals in order to afford access to the appeals process; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The fees and charges for services set forth in the schedule attached as
Exhibit A to this Resolution are hereby adopted, along with the referenced tables which are also
included therein, and shall be effective on and after January 1, 2017.
Section 2. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution or any fee or
charge for service adopted or amended hereby 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, or any fee or charge
adopted or amended hereby.
Packet Pg. 384
4.12.a
RESOLVED this day of November, 2016.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
Packet Pg. 385
4.12.a
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
3
m
U
Cn
0
m
u_
a�
E
a
0
as
as
0
ti
0
N
d
t
a�
c
0_
0
0
c
0
r
0
0
U)
a�
r
Q
Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 1 Packet Pg. 386
4.12.a
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
Table 1
Deck, Stair, Ramp
Table 1
Demolition (Primary)
$300
3
m
U
Cn
m
m
u_
a�
E
a
0
a�
m
0
ti
0
N
m
a�
c
a
0
0
c
0
0
U)
a�
ti
00
W
m
0
m
N
a)
m
0
N
`o
c
0
0
m
r
x
w
r
c
m
E
t
0
Q
Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 2 Packet Pg. 387
4.12.a
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)
$265 + peer review
'm
ti
CO
W
m
m
N
a)
m
0
N
L
0
c
0
0
m
r
0
x
w
r
c
m
E
t
r
Q
Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 3 Packet Pg. 388
4.12.a
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)
1$240
Table 1
1
Tenant Improvement
Table 1
Violation Compliance Fee
or up to 5 times permit fee
$240 or 5x permit fee
Window Replacement (Single Family)
$150
m
ti
CO
W
m
0
m
N
d
r
O
N
L
0
O
0
N�
r
t
X
W
r
C
d
E
t
v
R
.r
r
Q
Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 4 Packet Pg. 389
4.12.a
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
applicant
$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*
I
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
3
m
U
Cn
m
m
u_
a�
E
a
0
as
m
0
ti
0
N
m
t
a�
c
0_
0
0
c
0
r
0
0
U)
a�
ti
CO
W
m
0
m
t
N
a�
m
r
O
N
L
�0
c
0
0
0
m
r
t
x
w
c
m
E
t
0
r
Q
Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 5 Packet Pg. 390
4.12.a
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.
'm
r
Q
Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 6 Packet Pg. 391
4.12.a
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
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.
3
m
M
U
Cn
m
m
u_
a�
E
a
0
as
m
0
ti
0
N
d
t
aI
c
a
0
0
c
0
r
0
0
U)
a�
r
Q
Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 7 Packet Pg. 392
4.12.a
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
Fee per Ordinance
Side Sewer (Commercial & Multi -Family)
Sanitary sewer installation - new
$200 application fee
commercial or multi -family.
plus general facility
charge per 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
m
ti
0
W
m
0
m
N
r
0
N
I.-
0
c
0
0
m
r
x
w
r
c
m
E
t
.r
Q
Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 8 Packet Pg. 393
4.12.a
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
m
ti
0
W
m
0
m
t
N
a)
m
0
N
L
0
c
0
0
m
r
x
w
r
c
m
E
t
r
Q
Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 9 Packet Pg. 394
4.12.a
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
m
r
Q
Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 10 Packet Pg. 395
4.12.a
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.
L:AFees\2016 Building Permit Fee Schedule_final.doc
Packet Pg. 396
4.12.a
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
Packet Pg. 397
4.12.a
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:
Ito 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
Packet Pg. 398
4.12.a
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. 399
4.13
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/22/2016
Ordinance assuming the duties of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District
Staff Lead: Phil Williams
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
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. 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 was held November 15, 2016, with no public comments provided. The City Council directed that
an ordinance assuming the duties of the TBD be included on the next meeting's consent agenda.
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 Assumption Ordinance PHW
Packet Pg. 400
4.13.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. 401
4.13.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 stfi ethfoug ):
ASSUMPTION OF EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
DISTRICT
Sections:
3.65.010 Assumption of Edmonds transportation benefit district
3.65.010 Establishing transportation benefit distriet.
3.65.020 Governing body board
3.65.030 Functions of the Eity distriEt.
3.65.040 Transportation improvements funded.
3.65.050 Dissolution vfDistr-1Ct
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 ever. 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. 402
4.13.a
3.65.020 Governing bodLboaM
�. ,s
A. The gevo-e �� tr-anr�p�4�tien�e�eft di�stric ill �e th
Edmonds City Council ae ing in an ex offieie and independent eapaeity, which
shall have the be vested with the authority to exercise the -all statutory powers set
forth in Chapter 36.73 RCW and this Chapter.
B.-R-The beard Edmonds City Council shall develop 'm lement [PTlla material
change policy to address major plan changes that affect project delivery or the
ability to finance the plan, pursuant to the requirements set forth in RCW
36.73.160(1). At a minimum, if a transportation improvement exceeds its original
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.-. The Bear-d-Edmonds City Council shall issue an annual report, pursuant to
the requirements of RCW 36.73.160(2).
3.65.030 Functions of the ai�e City.
A. The City, by a majority vote of the City Council, Too istr�,,,.a may
authorize a motor vehicle license fee of up to$20.00 per- vehiele—as eaby RGW 82.80.140. When atMer-ized by the voters pufstiant to the requirements
of Chapter- 3F.:� RCW, other —taxes, fees, Ehharges and tells or- iner-e-ases in these
r-evenue sour-ees may be assessed for- the pur-poses pr-ovided for- in the subseetions
of this seetion. as follows:
i. Pufsu fA te- the initial a-uther-i2atie ee 3707, the districz
bear-d may and has auther-ized a vehicle fee of up to $20.00 per vehicle as
provided for by RCW 82.80.140;for- the purpose of the pr-eservatien-,
2. a vehicle fee of up to $40.00 as provided in RCW 82.80.140 if a vehicle
fee of S20.00 has been imposed for at least 24 months: or-A&-authofized
Packet Pg. 403
4.13.a
Ma"11111MIN'"IM
M.
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,..,,,sper-t.,tie ; o its may be added t the ffinetions f
the distriet upon eemp lian-c�I tl-Glanter3H73 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
CityWon compliance with Chapter 36.73 RCW.
E D. The beard City shall have and may exercise all powers and functions
provided for by Chapter 36.73 RCW in order to fulfill the dens purposes of
Chapter 36.73 RCW and this Chapter. t�a distr-iet. [Ord. 3804 § 1, 2010; Ord.
3707 § 2, 2008].
3.65.040 Transportation improvements funded.
Two sepafate sets of ftmetions have been established by or-dinanee for- the
t spertatieabenefit distriet. The funds generated by vehicle fees of up to
$20nn pe f- ,o,. iele authorized by the beard 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. 404
4.13.a
Funds raised by the exercise of powers granted in Section 3.65.030 and/or
Chapter 36.73 RCW ftem either -revenue souflee-may be utilized for any lawful
purpose under Chapter 36.73 RCW, but all funds raised thfough the 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].
Era
WON
Packet Pg. 405
4.13.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, an®ulations 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. 406
4.13.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. 407
4.14
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/22/2016
Authorization to release the salvage of unit 779-POL to Evergreen Adjustment Service
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. 408
6.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/22/2016
Public Hearing on the 2017 Proposed City Budget and Potential Adoption (30 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.
The recommendation is for Council to make a motion to approve Ordinance XXXX adopting the 2017
Budget as amended.
Narrative
During tonight's Council Meeting:
1) Open Public Hearing. This is the third and final Public Hearing on the 2017 Proposed Budget.
2) The public will be invited to comment on the Proposed 2017 Budget.
3) Council can continue their deliberations on the Proposed 2017 Budget.
4) Council can choose to adopt the 2017 Budget.
Attachments:
Budget Changes
2017 Recommended Budget Ordinance for Agenda Bill
Packet Pg. 409
6.1.a
Staff Recommended Changes to the Budget
STAFF'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET CHANGES
Budget Budget
Book Increase Yes
Item # Page # Description (Decrease) No
GENERAL FUND
1 43 Increase budget for Prosecutor contract $50,000
Impacts to General Fund Budget $50,000
HOTEL/MOTEL FUND
2 95 Increase budget for Snohomish County Tourism ($200)
2 95 Decrease budget for Miscellaneous $200
Impacts to Fund 120 Budget $0
.r
Q
Packet Pg. 410
6.1.a
Council Requested Changes to the Budget
COUNCIL'S REQUESTED BUDGET CHANGES
Budget Budget
Book Increase Yes
Item # Page # Description (Decrease) No
GENERAL FUND
1
New Item
Add Social Workers
$50,000
Yes
as
'
m
2
New Item
Add Parking Enforcement Officer'
$82,300
?
3
New Item
Add Traffic Officers
$120,600
?
4
New Item
Pedestrian Safety Training
$15,000
?
c
5
New Item
Health District Contribution
$41,000
Yes
o
6
New Item
Increase Annual Senior Center Contribution)
$15,000
Yes
ti
7
New Item
1 Radar Speed Indicator Trailer
$11,000
Yes
N
8
Page 33
Change Miscellaneous to Council Contingency
$0
Yes
9
Page 143
Reduce Professional Services Budget From $12,000 to $6,000
($6,000)
Yes
10
Page 143
Reduce Travel Budget From$3,000 to $1,000
($2,000)
Yes
°
11
Page 143
Reduce Rental Budget From $10,000 to $5,000
($5,000)
Yes
as
12
Page 143
Reduce Misc. Budget From $13,000 to $5,000
($8,000)
Yes
13
New Item
Historic Preservation Intern
$6,000
?
_
Impacts to General Fund Budget
$319,900
$0
a
Fund 126 REET 1
LO
Cn
14
New Item
Land Bank Contribution
$500,000
Impacts to Fund 126 Budget
$500,000
a�
z
U
Total Councilmember Requested Changes
819,900
r
m
3
m
sPlease see Attachment
for these on -going costs
r
c
m
E
.r
.r
Q
Packet Pg. 411
6.1.a
Ongoing Costs for Council Requested Changes to the Budget
COUNCIL'S REQUESTED 2017 BUDGET CHANGES
Budget
Budget
Book
Increase
Item #
Page #
Description
(Decrease)
GENERAL FUND
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
1
New Item
Add Social Workers
$50,000
$52,500
$55,130
$57,890
$60,780
2
New Item
Add Parking Enforcement Officers
$82,300
$86,420
$90,740
$95,280
$100,040
3
New Item
Add Traffic Officers
$120,600
$126,630
$132,960
$139,610
$146,590
4
New Item
Pedestrian Safety Training
$15,000
5
New Item
Health District Contnbution
$41,000
6
New Item
Increase Annual Senior Center Contnbution1
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
7
New Item
1 Radar Speed Indicator Trailer
$11,000
8
Page 33
Change Miscellaneous to Council Contingency
$0
9
Page 143
Reduce Professional Services Budget From $12,000 to $6,000
($6,000)
10
Page 143
Reduce Travel Budget From $3,000 to $1,000
($2,000)
11
Page 143
Reduce Rental Budget From $10,000 to $5,000
($5,000)
12
Page 143
Reduce Misc. Budget From $13,000 to $5,000
($8,000)
13
New Item
Historic Preservation Intern
$6,000
Impacts to General Fund Budget
$319,900
$280,550
$293,830
$307,780
$322,410
Fund 126 REET 1
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
13
New Item
Land Bank Contribution
$500,000
Impacts to Fund 126 Budget
$500,000
Total Councilmember Requested Changes
IThese are on -going costs
819,900 280,550 293,830 307,780 322,410
Packet Pg. 412
6.1.b
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2017 AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, on or before the first business day in the third month prior to the
beginning of the fiscal year of 2017, the Finance Director submitted to the Mayor the
estimates of revenues and expenditures for the next fiscal year as required by law; and,
WHEREAS, the Mayor reviewed the estimates and made such revisions and/or
additions as deemed advisable and prior to sixty days before January 1, 2017, filed the said
revised preliminary budget with the City Clerk together with a budget message, as
recommendation for the final budget, and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk provided sufficient copies of such preliminary budget
and budget message to meet the reasonable demands of taxpayers therefore and published and
posted notice of filing and the availability of said preliminary budget together with the date of a
public hearing for the purpose of fixing a final budget, all as required by the law, and
WHEREAS, the City Council scheduled hearings on the preliminary budget for
the purpose of providing information regarding estimates and programs, and
WHEREAS, the City Council did meet on November 1, 2016 which was on or
before the first Monday of the month next preceding the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year, for
the purpose of fixing a final budget at which hearing all taxpayers were heard who appeared for
or against any part of said budget, and
2017 Budget Ordinance
Page 1
Packet Pg. 413
6.1.b
WHEREAS, following the conclusion of said hearing the City Council made such
adoptions and changes as it deemed necessary and proper, NOW, THEREFORE;
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Attached hereto and identified as Exhibit A, in summary form, are
the totals of estimated revenues and appropriations for each separate fund and the aggregate
totals for all such funds combined, and by this reference said Exhibit A is incorporated herein as
if set forth in full and the same is hereby adopted in full. The Finance Director is authorized to
update year-end fund balances in the final budget document as projected prior to printing the
final budget document.
Section 2. A complete copy of the final budget for 2017, as adopted, together
with a copy of this adopting ordinance shall be transmitted by the City Clerk to the Division of
Municipal Corporations of the Office of the State Auditor and to the Association of Washington
Cities.
Section 3. This ordinance is a legislative act delegated by statute to the City
Council of the City of Edmonds, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect January 1,
2017.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
2017 Budget Ordinance Page 2
Packet Pg. 414
6.1.b
CITY ATTORNEY, JEFFREY TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
2017 Budget Ordinance
Page 3
Packet Pg. 415
6.1.b
On the
passed Ordinance No.
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
day of , 2016, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2017; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; 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
2017 Budget Ordinance
2016.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Page 4
Packet Pg. 416
EXHIBIT "A" 2016 BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND
Fund No.
Fund Description
Revenue
Expenditure
Difference (Rev -
Exp) *
001
General Fund
$ 37,753,480
$ 39,658,740
$ (1,905,260)
009
LEOFF Medical Insurance Reserve Subfund
278,630
293,460
(14,830)
011
Risk Management Reserve Subfund
6,800
-
6,800
012
Contingency Reserve Subfund
44,650
-
44,650
014
Historic Preservation Gift Fund
5,030
5,400
(370)
016
Building Maintenance Subfund
452,000
482,000
(30,000)
104
Drug Enforcement Fund
130,000
76,030
53,970
111
Street Fund
1,772,200
1,910,760
(138,560)
112
Street Construction Fund
5,933,570
5,962,970
(29,400)
117
Municipal Arts Acquisition Fund
137,200
181,880
(44,680)
118
Memorial Tree Fund
110
-
110
120
Hotel/Motel Tax Fund
91,200
89,700
1,500
121
Employee Parking Permit Fund
24,600
26,880
(2,280)
122
Youth Scholarship Fund
1,800
2,000
(200)
123
Tourism Promotional Arts Fund
30,450
34,700
(4,250)
125
FEET 2
1,311,900
2,476,000
(1,164,100)
126
Special Capital/Parks Acquisition
1,314,400
2,180,310
(865,910)
127
Gifts Catalog Fund
50,390
51,220
(830)
129
Special Projects Fund
280
-
280
130
Cemetery Maintenance/Imp.Fund
177,820
217,020
(39,200)
132
Parks Construction Fund
2,616,940
2,935,000
(318,060)
136
Parks Trust Fund
1,070
-
1,070
137
Cemetery Maintenance Fund
22,880
-
22,880
138
Sister City Commission Fund
10,010
10,500
(490)
139
Transportation Benefit District Fund
-
-
-
211
LID Control Fund
14,400
16,450
(2,050)
213
LID Guaranty Fund
-
-
231
2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund
695,830
695,830
232
2014 Debt Service Fund
-
-
421
Water Utility Fund
8,469,570
12,745,260
(4,275,690)
422
Water Utility Fund
4,770,970
7,495,330
(2,724,360)
423
Water Utility Fund
11,663,700
14,995,780
(3,332,080)
424
Water Utility Fund
1,988,700
1,989,720
(1,020)
511
Equipment Rental Fund
1,628,910
1,873,000
(244,090)
512
Technology Rental Fund
946,040
890,430
55,610
617
Firemen's Pension Fund
66,000
72,070
(6,070)
Totals
$ 82,411,530
$ 97,368,440
$ (14,956,910)
* Amount represents a contribution of (use of) fund balance
2017 Budget Ordinance
Page 5
Packet Pg. 417
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/22/2016
Review of 2016 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (10 min.)
Staff Lead: Shane Hope / Carrie Hite
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Rob Chave
Background/History
The Planning Board held a public hearing on the proposed plan amendments on November 9, 2016. The
current comprehensive plan was adopted in December 2015.
Staff Recommendation
No action is required at this time; a public hearing is scheduled for December 6, 2016.
Narrative
The most recent comprehensive plan update was completed in 2015, which was a major review
required by the Growth Management Act. Typically, the City undertakes relatively minor amendments in
intervening years.
The Capital Facilities Plan is reviewed and updated each year and is being considered separately by
Council. This year there are also a few minor amendments (see the summary in Exhibit 1). Amendments
1a, 1b and 1c involve minor amendments to the Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan.
Amendment 2 is an amendment to the text of the Capital Facilities Element which would add an
implementation action (similar to other plan elements).
In addition to this year's amendments there are a couple of more substantial amendments that are
being developed; these will be ready for Planning Board and City Council consideration after the first of
the year (i.e. in early 2017). These are also indicated in the attached summary.
The additional Exhibits show the actual drafts of the current amendment proposals. The Planning Board
reviewed these and held a public hearing on November 9, 2016, and voted to forward the proposals to
the City Council for approval. The Board also noted minor updates/corrections which are contained in
Exhibit 6.
Exhibits:
Exhibit 1: Summary of 2016 Comprehensive Plan Updates
Exhibit 2: PROS Plan Amendment 1a (new Appendix D)
Exhibit 3: PROS Plan Amendment 1b (Appendix A)
Exhibit 4: PROS Plan Amendment 1c (Policy 4.1-1)
Exhibit 5: Capital Facilities Element implementation action
Packet Pg. 418
7.1
Exhibit 6: Errata - additional minor corrections recommended by the Planning Board
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Summary of 2016 Comprehensive Plan Updates
Exhibit 2: PROS Plan Amendment 1a (new Appendix D)
Exhibit 3: PROS Plan Amendment 1b (Appendix A)
Exhibit 4: PROS Plan Amendment 1c (Policy 4.1-1)
Exhibit 5: Capital Facilities Element implementation action
Exhibit 6: Plan Text Errata/Corrections
Exhibit 7: Planning Board Minutes
Packet Pg. 419
7.1.a
2016-2017 Comprehensive Plan Updates
1. Parks Plan amendments recognizing the Marina Beach Master Plan.
a. Include the adopted Marina Beach Master Plan as a new "Appendix D" to the PROS Plan.
b. Modify the PROS Plan, Appendix A, pg. 39, as follows:
Under "Site considerations," replace the last bullet with
"See Appendix D, Marina Beach Master Plan"
Under "Planned Improvements," replace the first bullet with
"Implement the Master Plan"
c. Modify PROS Plan, Goal 4, Policy 4.1-1, pg. 4-8, to reflect adopted plans and codes:
Current: "Relocate incompatible uses from sensitive areas (i.e., waterfront dog park at Marina
Beach Park)."
Replace with: "Ensure uses in environmentally sensitive areas are consistent with critical area
regulations and the Shoreline Master Program."
2. Capital Facilities Element
Add an implementation action to the Capital Facilities Element (Comprehensive Plan pg. 144):
"Develop level of service standards for key public facilities by the end of 2017 and consider including the
standards in the Comprehensive Plan."
3. Water Comprehensive Plan
Plan is being developed with a draft due before the end of the year (2016). Approval is scheduled for
first quarter 2017. Any specific references to the current (2010) plan will also need to be updated.
4. Street Tree Plan
Plan is being developed with a draft due around the end of the year (2016). Approval is scheduled for
first quarter 2017. Any specific references to the current plan will also need to be updated.
Packet Pg. 420
Z
D
M
D
Z
v
rr
Attachment: Exhibit 2: PROS Plan Amendment 1a (new Appendix D) (1688 : Review of 2016 Comprehensive Plan Amendments)
n
Q
CD
D
CL
0
r+
r�
v
00
r�
U)
r+
r�
r�
r�
n
N rAttachment: Exhibit 2: PROS Plan Amendment 1a (new Appendix D) (1688 : Review of 2016 Comprehensive Plan Amendments)
City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan
7.1.c
Marina Beach Park
Regional Park
200 400
Feet
I
s
Park Features
• 3.37 Acres
• 0.5 Miles walking trail
• Playground
• Sand volleyball court
• Small boat launch (ramp)
• View point
• Portable restrooms (3)
• Shoreline access, gravel beach
• Off -leash dog area
Site considerations
Replace with: "See Appendix D, Marina Beach Master Plan"
• Zoned Commercial Waterfront
• Marine Protected Area
• 31 additional parking stalls provided
by Port of Edmonds under SEPA/SMP
approval permit
• Likely to be improved by creek
daylighting
Planned Improvements
Replace with: "Implement Master Plan" • Site master plan and implementation
• Restroom (large)
• Replace play area (large)
• Continued maintenance
Appendix A: Existing System A-39
Packet Pg. 423
7.1.d
City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan
3.J Use the opportunity of upgrades and maintenance at the Senior
Center site to integrate the property more completely with the rest of
the waterfront.
3.K Secure ongoing funding for the Beach Ranger program, recognizing
the important role in tourism, building a connection to the shoreline
and expanding appreciation for natural resources and habitat
conservation.
Goal 4: Natural Resource and Habitat Conservation
4.A Inventory and classify natural resources and habitat areas within of
the park system.
4.B Conduct a city tree inventory and map to create a baseline of
information to enhance tree canopy.
4.0 Connect new generations of residents and visitors to natural resources
in Edmonds through Discovery Programs utilizing ranger naturalists.
4.D Collaborate on public information programs to help property owners
(including the City) identify and remove invasive vegetation.
4.E Collaborate with various organizations in invasive plant removal and
native vegetation planting in accord with landscaping plans for parks
within the city limits. Suggest park maintenance projects that would
be good candidates for the annual Arbor Day event sponsored by the
Tree Board.
4.F Provide low impact access to natural resource areas to allow for
enjoyment and interaction with nature.
4.G Steward the urban forest using appropriate maintenance of street and
park trees, clear removal and replacement policies and providing
information about urban forestry to property owners.
4. H Relocate incompatible uses from sensitive areas (i.e. waterfront dog
park at Marina Beach Park).
4.1 Consider expanding the function and facilities around the Willow
Creek Hatchery to create a more expansive interpretive center that
includes the Edmonds Marsh.
4.H Ensure uses in environmentally sensitive areas are consistent with critical
area regulations and the Shoreline Master Program.
4-8 Chapter 4: Action Plan
Packet Pg. 424
7.1.e
Capital Facilities Element
Background
General. The Capital Facilities Element identifies the City's existing and needed capital facilities to
support the delivery of public services to the community and its visitors. It also provides related
goals and standards for meeting the community's needs. Capital facilities include land and buildings
for public purpose. In addition to serving existing residents, capital facilities are planned to meet the
community's needs as new development occurs in the future. Because Edmonds is a mature city with
a full complement of facilities and services, most capital facility planning is targeted to maintaining
existing level of service standards and expanding the quality of life of its citizens with new or
expanded facilities.
Service standards are described in the transportation, utility and parks elements. These service
standards are used to assist in developing both short and long range capital improvements projects.
The capital facilities element identifies these projects and their funding sources for a six -year period.
This schedule will be updated on an annual basis and integrated with the City's budget process. The
element also identifies public facility needs for the 20-year planning period. Funding sources will
vary as specific projects are developed, and will include a variety of public and private sources. The
City coordinates on the siting of essential public facilities with its neighboring cities and the county.
Coneurreney Management. Introduced in 1990 by the Washington State Legislature with the
enactment of the Growth Management Act, the term "concurrency management" is specifically
required for transportation facilities and is defined as the process that cities use to ensure that no
development or permit is approved by the city unless the necessary capital facilities are in place or
that funding is adequate to complete the required improvements within six years. Concurrency for
transportation systems is tied to established level -of -service standards. The City has also established
an impact fee system for parks in order to provide for growth -related facilities. Other facilities, such
as water and sewer systems, are funded and maintained through utility plans and fee structures, as
well as grant -supported projects.
Inventory. Publicly owned capital facilities in the City are comprised primarily of those owned by
the City of Edmonds. A few of these facilities, while owned by the City, are operated by other
entities. For example, fire stations are currently owned by the City but operated by Fire District 1.
Other facilities are owned by different governmental agencies, such as the Port of Edmonds and the
Edmonds School District.
Following is a map and list of public -owned capitial facilities, as identified in 2015. This inventory
focuses on larger properties and buildings; it does not include transportation or utility facilities, since
these are discussed, repectively, in the Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element and in
functional plans referenced in the Comprehensive Plan's Utilities Element.
Capital Facilities 137
Packet Pg. 425
7.1.e
Note: While City -owned parks are included in this Element's inventory, more specific details about them can be found in the Parks Recreation
and Open Space Plan, which is also adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan.
City of Edmonds
Public Capital ap i I M I
p
Legend
— City 8—dary
Police
Fire Staflon
• City Hall
Edmonds Public Facilities Distnct
Central Puget Sound Regional Transit
-Cty Pales
Other Public Parks
Edmonds School District PlayiIields
- Pon of Edmonds
Puget Sound
s'ae
/
- Sta—s Hospital ,� s
- Public Hospital District $2
- Dept- of Nalural Resources 8
- Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
- City of Edmonds Property
- SnoCo Housing Authority P
Edmonds C.—irity College Pi
s OF
i
E
0 0-25 0.5 1 Miles
I I
Figure 41: Public Capital Facilities Map
Capital Facilities
138
Packet Pg. 426
7.1.e
Following is a 2015 map of facilities owned by the Edmonds School District (ESD).
{ �.. City of Edmonds
e
School Facilities Map
EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTIES OTHER EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
Elementary Schools 22 - St. Thomas
23 - Maplewood Park Elementary
1 - Meadowdale Elementary 24 - Melody Hill
2 - Seaview Elementary 25 - Woodway Elementary
1
3 - Chase Lake Elementary 26 - Holy Rosary
4 - Edmonds Elementary 27 - Edmonds Community College
:13 15.
5 - Sherwood Elementary j
6 - Maplewood Parent Cooperative (K-8)
7 - Madrona School (K-8)
` ro
8- Westgate Elementary
22
9- Lynndale Elementary
10 - College Place Elementary
11 - Maplewood Center (K-12)
'-
t% 23
12 - Edmonds Homeschool Resource Center (K-12)
Middle Schools
13 - Meadowdale Middle School
-
14 - College Place Middle School
High Schools j 2
t9
15 - Meadowdale High School
16 - Edmonds-Woodway High School
17 - Schriber Lake High School
Other Properties Z4
18 - Civic Center Playfield �...,,. e a 6:11
.27
19 - Chase Lake Natural Area
20 - Meadowdale Rayfields .:26
21- Administrative Services
M.
:10 21
�3
16
24
r2
7
t r
25
0
0 1 0.5 1 Miles
I I i i i
Legend
City Boundary Z School
Figure 42: School Facilities Map
Capital Facilities
Public School Sites = ESD 15 Playfields
139
Packet Pg. 427
7.1.e
Following is a list ofpublicly-ownedfacilities in Edmonds and other nearby areas.
x
P
x
6
m
9
t
m
V
_E
t
Name
Neighborhood Parks
9
m'
C
p3
Name
Other City Owned Facilities
m'
C
p
Elm Street Park
1.85
CoE
Log Cabin Visitor Center/Chamberof Commerce
0.03
372
CoE
Frances Anderson Center Field
1.94
CoE
City Hall
0.59
34,074
CoE
Haines Wharf
0.69
CoE
Edmonds Historical Museum
0.12
2,084
CoE
Hickman Park
5.6
CoE
Edmonds Library and Plaza Room
3.03
19,520
CoE
Hummingbird Hill Park
1.22
CoE
Fire Station#16
10,700
CoE
Mathay Ballinger Park
0.51
CoE
Fire Station #17
9,800
CoE
Pine Street Park
1.47
CoE
Fire Station #20
6,400
CoE
Seaview Park
6.05
CoE
Fishing Pier Ranger Station
1,200
CoE
Sierra Park
5.52
CoE
Fishing Pier Restroom
918
CoE
Subtotal
24.85
Frances Anderson Center
Karlsten House
0.22
55,000
2,250
CoE
CoE
Community Parks
City Park
13.96
CoE
"Old" Public Works
3.94
14,100
CoE
Yost Memorial Park
44.14
CoE
Sewage Treatment Plant
115,200
CoE
Pool
4,808
CoE
Public Safety Complex
2.61
30,940
CoE
Subtotal
58.1
4.808
Public Works Operation and Maintenance Center
4.35
28,000
CoE
Wade James Theatre
2.34
6,289
CoE
Regional Parks
144 Railroad Ave Tidelands
0.9
CoE
Subtotal
Edmonds School District Properties in Edmonds
17.23
336,847
Brakett's Landing North
5.11
CoE
Civic Center Playfield
7.92
ESD 15
Brakett's Landing South
2.22
CoE
Edmonds Senior Center
2.63
CoE
Boys and Girls Club
6,856
ESD 15
Marina Beach Park
3.37
CoE
Stadium
7,140
ESD 15
Olympic Beach Park
2.82
CoE
Skate Park
6,000
ESD 15
SubtotalI
17.05L
Chase Lake Elementary School
Edmonds Elementary School
10.26
8.58
57,697
34,726
ESD 15
ESD 15
Special- Parks
Centenial Plaza
0.08
CoE
Edmonds-Woodway High School
30.19
208,912
ESD 15
Dayton Street Plaza
0.1
CoE
Former Woodway High School
39.75
148,740
ESD 15
Edmonds Library & Plaza Room
1.29
CoE
Edmonds Homeschool Resource(K-12)
Edmonds Memorial Cemetary and Columbarium
6.63
CoE
Schriber Lake High School
Anderson Center Field
1.62
CoE
Madrona School(K-8)
31.3
85,505
ESD 15
Hazal Miller Plaza
0.09
CoE
I
Maplewood Parent Cooperative (K-8)
7.41
76,554
ESD 15
Interurban Trail
4.88
CoE
Maplewood Center(K-12)
ESD 15
Lake Ballinger Access
0.19
CoE
Seaview Elementary
8.28
49,420
ESD 15
Meadowdale Community Clubhouse
0.99
3,232
CoE
Sherwood Elementary
13.19
43,284
ESD 15
Richard F. Anway Park
0.17
CoE
Westgate Elementary
8.34
44,237
ESD 15
Ocean Avenue Viewpoint
0.2
CoE
Woodway Elementary
9.89
37,291
ESD 15
Point Edwards Scenic Overlook(easement)
0.1
CoE
ubtotal
175.11
769,071
Stamm Overlook Park
0.36
CoE
Edmonds School District Properties Near Edmonds
hase Lake Natural Area
10.8
ESD 15
Sunset Ave. Overlook
1.14
CoEJo
Willow Creek Hatchery and Interpretive Center
1.68
CoEollege
Place Elementary
9
48,180
Subtotal
19.52
3,232llege
Place Middle School
18.7
87,031
Open Space
Lynndale Elementary School
10
39,043
Edmonds Marsh/Walkway
23.37
CoE
Meadowdale High School
39.56
197,306
ESD 15
Edmonds Marsh East
0.85
CoE
Meadowdale Middle School
19.38
102,925
ESD 15
H.O. Hutt Park
4.53
CoE
Meadowdale Elementary
8.78
57,111
ESD 15
Haines Tdelands
0.44
CoE
Meadowdale Playfields
24.09
ESD 15
Maplewood Hill Park
9.96
CoE
Subtotal
140.31
531,596
Meadowdale Natural Area
1.07
CoE
Other Publicly Owned Facilities in Edmonds
Edmonds Centerforthe Arts
2.54
PFD
Olympic View Open Space
0.49
CoE
Pine Ridge Park
23.78
CoE
Edmonds Conference Center
0.33
11,252
EDCC
Seaview Corridor
1.31
CoE
Edmonds Fishing Pier
0.61
WDFW
Shell Creek Open Space
1.04
CoE
Edmonds Underwater Park and Higgins Trails
33.21
DNR
Wharf Street
0.12
CoE
Olympic View Water District Maintenance Facility
0.83
7,480
OVWD
Willow Creek Park
2.25
CoE
Public Utility District#1
0.68
PUD
Subtotal
Port of Edmonds Properties
69.21
Subtotal
Other Publicly Owned Facilities Near Edmonds
38.2
18,732
Marina
8.1
PoE
Ballinger Playfield and Former Golf Course
52.59
MLT
Waterfront Businesses
14.22
Po
Esperance County Park
9.59
SnoCo
Harbor Square Business Complex
15.11
PoE
Meadowdale Beach County Park
144.34
SnoCo
Subtotal
37.43
South County Park
118.55
SnoCo
Subtotal
325.07
Figure 43: List of Publicly -owned Capital Facilities
Capital Facilities 140
Packet Pg. 428
7.1.e
Future Needs
Future capital facility needs and projects have been identified for the City in a special section "Capital
Facilities Projects" at the end of this element. The section is divided into three subsections: General,
Transportation, and Stormwater. Within each subsection is a table of capital projects and their
anticipated financing over a six -year period. Each section also contains information on longer -term
capital projects, for which funding may not yet be available. Some of the projects in the latter
category have been considered for an extended period of time and their exact descriptions/costs have
not been recently updated.
The Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan,
includes more information on future capital facility needs for parks, recreation, and open space.
Capital Facilities Goals & Policies
This section identifies key goals for the City in managing its capital facilities.
Each key goal in this element (or section) is identified by an alphabet letter (for example, "D").
Goals are typically followed by associated policies and these are identified by the letter of the goal
and a sequential number (for example, "D.2")
Capital Facilities Goal A. Establish service standards for all city -provided services in order to
provide public facilities and services that meet citizens' needs and enhance the community's
quality of life.
A.1 Provide capital facility improvements in order to meet or exceed established
service standards.
A.2 Coordinate and set service standards that meet the goals and policies of the
comprehensive plan.
A.3 Evaluate and prioritize capital facility projects according to how they achieve
established criteria and the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. Examples
of typical criteria include the following:
A.3.a. Whether the project is needed to achieve or maintain a service standard.
A.3.b. Whether the facility will contribute to the elimination of a public hazard
or safety concern.
A.3.c. Whether the facility is financially feasible.
A.3.d. The extent to which the facility will impact annual and long-term
budgets.
A.3.e. Whether the facility is consistent with future facility needs and site
considerations.
A.3.f. The extent to which the facility will impact natural and cultural
resources.
Capital Facilities 141
Packet Pg. 429
7.1.e
Capital Facilities Goal B. Evaluate and coordinate the provision of capital facility improvements
with both annual budgeting and long-term financial planning.
B.1. Capital budget decisions will be made consistent with the Edmonds comprehensive
plan in accordance with RCW 36.70A.120.
B.2. If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, the comprehensive plan
shall be re-examined to review how additional funding will be raised, or how land
use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that established service standards will
be met.
B.3. Capital improvements will be planned to achieve fiscal responsibility, maintenance
of existing facilities, and protect the quality of life of the community.
B.4. The City will continue to adopt multi -year budgets and six -year capital
improvement programs as part of its annual budget and planning process.
B.5. Six -year capital improvement programs will be coordinated with long-term (at least
20-year) capital needs
Capital Facilities Goal C. Seek to use a coordinated array of mechanisms and sources of
revenue to fund needed capital facilities.
C.1. Make use of the City's budget and structure of funds to identify adequate funding
sources for capital facilities.
C.2. Seek grants and cooperative funding agreements to supplement internal City
funding of capital facilities that benefit the general public or that are required to
meet needs not generated solely by Edmonds residents.
C.3. Make use of regulatory and incentive programs to assist in achieving service
standards for City services.
Capital Facilities Goal D. Strategically locate new facilities to complement the delivery of
services and provide for efficient and convenient access.
D.1. The location of new or improved capital facilities should take into account existing
service delivery systems and the location and access of service populations.
D.2. Ensure that the siting of essential public facilities is not precluded by the
implementation of this Comprehensive Plan.
Capital Facilities Goal E. Essential public facilities are necessary to support orderly growth and
the delivery of public services. The City's goal is to ensure that these facilities are sited in an
efficient, timely manner while acknowledging and mitigating any community impacts created by
these facilities.
E.I. Essential public facilities are those defined by state law, through the City's
planning process or on application of a service provider.
Capital Facilities 142
Packet Pg. 430
7.1.e
E.2. Sponsors of essential public facilities should be encouraged to consult with the City
prior to choosing a site in order to seek information about potential sites, provide
information concerning project proposals, identify potential community impacts,
and propose possible siting incentives or mitigation measures.
E.3. The City shall assure adequate public notice and participation in the siting of
essential public facilities by reviewing these facilities through a conditional use
process, allowing the identification of community impacts and mitigation
measures. Because the City's normal notification requirements may not provide for
adequate public notice to the project's impact area, the project sponsor shall
develop a public participation plan designed to encourage early public involvement
in the siting decision and identification of impacts and mitigation measures.
EA. The City shall develop decision criteria for the siting of essential public facilities
which allow the sponsor to demonstrate:
EA.a. the need for the facility,
EA.b. its consistency with adopted plans and policies,
EA.c. its location is designed to serve its service population,
EA.d. its location criteria is compatible with the siting of other essential public
facilities,
EA.e. the site is physically suitable for the facility, and
EA.f. the project is able to mitigate community impacts.
E.5. City policies and procedures — including any conditional use process — shall be
interpreted and administered in accordance with the admonition contained in the
Growth Management Act that no development plan or development regulation may
preclude the siting of essential public facilities.
Concurrency Management Goal F. Provide a system of concurrency management that will
assure that the facilities needed to support city services are provided in a timely and coordinated
manner.
F.1. For transportation facilities, assure that the facilities or services needed to meet
level -of -service standards are in place at the time of development, or assure that a
financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within
six years. These facilities or services must be provided by either the City or the
appropriate public or private developer.
F.2 For park facilities, new growth or development will create additional demand for
park facilities. Fees collected from the "Park Impact Fee" can only be appied to
projects resulting from city-wide development growth and cannot be used to
mitigate existing shortfalls of the parks system.
Capital Facilities 143
Packet Pg. 431
7.1.e
Implementation Actions and Performance Measures
Implementation actions are steps that are intended to be taken within a specified timeframe to address
high priority sustainability goals. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan contains a small number
performance measures (no more than one per element) that can be used to monitor and annually
report on the implementation and effectiveness of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan contains a small number performance measures (no more than one per
element) that can be used to monitor and annually report on the implementation and effectiveness of
the Comprehensive Plan. Performance measures, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, are
specific, meaningful, and easily obtainable items that relate to sustainability and can be reported on an
annual basis. They are intended to help assess progress toward achieving the goals and policy
direction of each major Comprehensive Plan element.
The measure identified below is specifically called out as matching the above criteria and being
important to capital facilities goals and will be reported annually, along with performance measures
for other Comprehensive Plan elements. It is not intended to be the only measure that the City may
use for capital facilities purposes.
Implementation Action: Develop level of service standards for key public facilities by
the end of 2017 and consider including the standards in the Comprehensive Plan.
Performance Measure: Project delivery results - based on comparing projects in the
Capital Facilities Plan to what is actually done on the projects.
Capital Facilities 144
Packet Pg. 432
7.1.f
Following is a list ofpublicly-owned facilities in Edmonds and other nearby areas.
QIFm H Q m N
Name m' o Name m' o
Elm St Park
1.85
CoE
Frances Anderson Center Field
1.94
CoE
Haines Wharf
0.69
CoE
Hickman Park
5.61
CoE
Hummingbird Hill Park
1.22
CoE
Mathay Ballinger Park
0.51
CoE
Pine Street Park
1.47
CoE
Seaview Park
6.05
CoE
Sierra Park
5.52
CoE
Subtotal 24.86
Civic Center Playfield
Boys and Girls Club
Stadium
Skate Park
City Park
Yost Memorial Park
Pool
Subtotal
7.92
13.96
44.14
66.02
CoE
6,856 CoE
7,140 CoE
6,000 CoE
CoE
CoE
4,808�
24,804
Regional Parks
144 Railroad Ave Tidelands
0.9
CoE
Brackett's Landing North
5.11
CoE
Brackett's Landing South
2.22
CoE
Marina Beach Park
3.37
CoE
Olympic Beach
2.82
CoE
Senior Center
2.63
CoE
Subtotal
17.05
Special Use Parks
Centennial Plaza
0.08
CoE
Dayton Street Plaza _
0.1
CoE
Edmonds Library and Plaza Room
1.29
CoE
Edmonds Memorial Cemetery and Columbarium
6.63
CoE
Anderson Center Field
1.62
CoE
Hazel Miller Plaza
0.09
CoE
Interurban Trail _
4.88
CoE
Lake Ballinger Access
0.19
CoE
Meadowdale Community Clubhouse
0.99
3,232 CoE
Ocean Ave Viewpoint
0.2
CoE
Point Edwards Scenic Overlook (easement)
0.1
CoE
Richard F. Anway Park
0.17
CoE
Stamm Overlook
0.36
CoE
Sunset Ave
1.14
CoE
Willow Creek Hatchery
1.68
CoE
Subtotal
19.52
3.232
Edmonds Marsh
23.37
CoE
Edmonds Marsh Open Space
0.85
CoE
Haines Tidelands _
0.44
CoE
Hutt Park _
4.53
CoE
Maplewood Hill Park
9.96
CoE
Meadowdale Natural Areas
1.07
CoE
Olympic View Open Space
0.49
CoE
Pine Ridge Park
23.78
CoE
Seaview Reservoir
1.31
CoE
Shell Creek Open Space
1.04
CoE
Wharf Street
0.12
CoE
Willow Creek Park
2.25
CoE
Subtotal 69.21
Marina
Waterfront Businesses
Harbor Square Business Complex
Subtotal
8.1
14.22
15.11
37.43
PoE
PoE
PoE
Ither City Owned Facilities
Log Cabin Visitor Center/Chamber of Commerce
372 CoE
City Hall
_0.03
_0.59
34,074 CoE
Edmonds Historical Museum
0.12
2,084 CoE
Edmonds Library and Plaza Room
3.03
19,520 CoE
Fire Station #16
10,700 CoE
Fire Station #17
9,800 CoE
Fire Station #20
_
6,400 CoE
Fishing Pier Ranger Station
1,200 CoE
Fishing Pier Restroom
918 CoE
Frances Anderson Center
55,000 CoE
Karlsten House
0.22
2,250 CoE
'Old' Public Works
3.94
14,100 CoE
Sewage Treatment Plant
115,200 CoE
Public Safety Complex
2.61
30,940 CoE
Public Works Operation and Maintenance Center
4.35
28,000 CoE
Wade James Theatre
2.34
6,289 CoE
Subtotal
17.23
336.847
Chase Lake Elementary
10.26
57,697 ESD 15
Edmonds Elementary School
8.58
34,726 ESD 15
Edmonds-Woodway High School
30.19
208,912 ESD 15
Former Woodway High School
39.75
148,740 ESD 15
Edmonds Homeschool Resource (K-12)
ESD 15
Schriber Lake High School
ESD 15
Madrona School (K-8)
31.3
85,505 ESD 15
Maplewood Parent Cooperative (K-8)
7.41
76,554 ESD 15
Maplewood Center (K-12)
ESD 15
Seaview Elementary
8.28
49,420 ESD 15
Sherwood Elementary
13.19
43,284 ESD 15
Westgate Elementary
8.34
44,237 ESD 15
Woodway Elementary
9.89
37,291 ESD 15
Subtotal
167.19
786,366
Chase Lake Natural Area
College Place Elementary
College Place Middle School
Lynndale Elementary School
Meadowdale High School
Meadowdale Middle School
Meadowdale Elementary School
Meadowdale Playfields
10.8
ESD 15
9
48,180
18.7
87,031
10
39,043
39.56
197,306 ESD 15
19.38
102,925 ESD 15
8.78
57,111 ESD 15
24.09
ESD 15
Subtotal 140.31
531,596
Edmonds Center for the Arts
2.54
PFD
Edmonds Conference Center
0.33
11,252 EDCC
Edmonds Fishing Pier
0.61
WDFW
Edmonds Underwater Park and Higgins Trails
33.21
DNR
Olympic View Water District Maintenance Facility
0.83
7,480 OVWD
Public Utility Water District #1
0.68
PUD
Subtotal
38.2
18,732
Ballinger Playfield and Former Golf Course
Esperance County Park
Meadowdale Beach County Park
South County Park
Figure 43: List of Publicly -owned Capital Facilities
Capital Facilities
52.59
MLT
9.59
SnoCo
144.34
SnoCo
118.55
SnoCo
Subtotal 325.07
140
Packet Pg. 433
7.1.f
City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan
Civic Center Playfields & Skate Park Other Parks and Facilities
Park Features
• 7.92 Acres
• 0.3 miles of walking trail
• Playground
• Basketball courts (2)
• Tennis courts (2)
• Football field (1 youth)
• Soccer fields (1 adult, 1 youth)
Site considerations
• Owned by Edmonds School District
• Operated by City of Edmonds
• Zoned Public Use
Feet
• Skate park
• Portable restrooms (2)
• Petanque courts (4)
• Cinder track (.25 miles)
• Stadium
• This site used for 4t" of July Fireworks display,
Taste of Edmonds, Wenatchee Youth Circus
Planned Improvements
• Acquisition, master planning and development
• Add large play area
• Continued maintenance
A-20 Appendix A: Existing System
Packet Pg. 434
7.1.g
Mr. Jones explained that moving the tennis courts to the northeast corner could be an option, but it would block the view for
a different set of homeowners. The southwest corner is the entry of the park from downtown, and they probably don't want a
fenced edge in that location. If they are moved to the southeast corner, there will be concern that the tennis courts are taking
away other opportunities for active recreation. He pointed out that they are in a location that has generally worked, and views
can be addressed as they move forward with final design. He emphasized that the City does not intend to put up a chain link
fence with slats along the perimeter of the tennis courts as shown in the picture that was submitted during the hearing.
A member of the audience suggested that perhaps one tennis court could be eliminated from the plan, and a new tennis court
could be constructed in the southwest corner of City Park. Chair Lovell responded that the plan has gone through an
extensive public process to arrive at the two tennis courts that have been proposed. Concerns about view blockage have been
raised, and the design team has indicated that is possible to address the concerns.
Another member of the audience explained that those who spoke about a fence along the northern edge of the park are simply
interested in having a barrier incorporated into the plan to discourage people from leaving the park and entering directly onto
the narrow alley. Chair Lovell said the design team understands the challenges in this location and will address safety and
access issues as part of the final design, whether it be fencing or landscaping.
Board Member Cheung asked if the proposed picnic area could be reserved for group activities. Mr. Jones said the plan does
not address this level of detail.
Board Member Robles asked if the master plan would identify parking for park users who do not live close to the park. Ms.
Hite answered that there would be no parking on the park site. The public made it clear that they did not want any of the park
space to be used for parking. However, there is parking on 6th and 7th Avenues. The design team has proposed some parking
upgrades for both of these streets, but the upgrades will not be part of the actual park development.
UPON REVIEW OF THE PACKAGE SUBMITTED FOR THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND UPON HEARING AND
READING THE PUBLIC COMMENTS PROVIDED, VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD
FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF THE MASTER PLAN OF THE CIVIC CENTER TO
THE CITY COUNCIL, LETTING THE RECORD SPEAK TO THE COMMUNITY'S CONCERNS. HOWEVER,
CERTAIN ISSUES WARRANT FURTHER ATTENTION SUCH AS:
• ADDRESS THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE ALLEY BARRIER FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY.
• MAINTAIN THE MATURE TREE IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.
• INCREASE THE MULTI -PURPOSE ACTIVITY IF POSSIBLE WITHIN DESIGN CONSTRAINTS.
• KEEP THE VISION OF A SIGNATURE PARK.
• PROVIDE FUTURE DESIGNATED DROP-OFF AREAS ON 6TH AND 7TH AVENUES.
• INTRODUCE OTHER ELEMENTS INTO THE TENNIS COURTS.
BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING ON 2016 COMPRENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
Mr. Chave advised that only minor amendments have been proposed for the Comprehensive Plan in 2016. These include
amendments to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan to recognize and incorporate the Marina Beach Master
Plan, and an amendment to the Capital Facilities Element to add an implementation action. In addition, a couple of more
substantial amendments are being developed relative to the Water Comprehensive Plan and Street Tree Plan. These will be
ready for the Planning Board's consideration after the first of the year.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the list of City -owned parks needs to be updated to include Civic Park.
Chair Lovell opened the public hearing. There was no one in the audience to participate in the hearing, and the hearing was
subsequently closed.
Planning Board Minutes
November 9, 2016 Page 13
Packet Pg. 435
7.1.g
Board Member Monroe referred to the proposed amendment to the PROS Plan that would replace the existing language in
Policy 4.H with the following: "Ensure uses in environmentally sensitive areas are consistent with critical area regulations
and the Shoreline Master Program. " He asked how the proposed amendment would impact the dog park that is identified in
the Marina Beach Master Plan. Ms. Hite explained that Policy 4.H was adopted prior to the Marina Beach Master Plan. She
reviewed that, based on community feedback, the dog park was included in the master plan. This decision made the master
plan inconsistent with the current language in Policy 4.H, which reads, "Relocate incompatible uses from sensitive areas. "
CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR THE 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED. BOARD
MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Lovell reviewed that the Board's November 23`d meeting has been cancelled. The agenda for their December 14th
meeting will include a public hearing on the draft Highway 99 Area Plan and election of officers for 2017. The December
28'b meeting has been cancelled.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell reported that he and Vice Chair Rubenkonig met with Mayor Earling, who indicated that the sign code may be
coming back to the Board for additional review.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked staff to provide an update on the City Council's decision to place a moratorium on the sign
code. Mr. Chave said the City Council passed a resolution suspending enforcement of the pedestrian sign aspects of the sign
code. They will form a task group to come up with some potential solutions to concerns that have been raised.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
November 9, 2016 Page 14
Packet Pg. 436
7.1.g
Vice Chair Rubenkonig requested clarification relative to the schedule for the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project, which is
described on Page 58 of the Staff Report. Mr. English reviewed that staff provided a report to the City Council in August
relative to the concept of building a walkway on the west side of Sunset Avenue. Currently, there is temporary striping that
designates a walkway area, but there has been quite a lot of discussion about where the parking should be located, what kind
of parking should be provided, etc. Parallel with the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project is a utility improvement project. The
City is considering options for improving the lift station on Sunset Avenue south of Caspers Street to install a new gravity
line to take sewage to the treatment plant rather than having to pump it. A waterline also needs to be replaced. No
permanent walkway or designated parking would be constructed until after the utility work has been completed in 2017. He
agreed to clarify the schedule in the project description.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig observed that the proposed sidewalk project on 232nd Street SW from 100th Avenue W to SR-104
(Page 60 of the Staff Report) would provide the fastest walking route to Westgate from the intersection with SR-104, and the
City should encourage people to use it as such. She also suggested that the CIP and CFP should include a listing of the
sources recommending action to help citizens know how long a project has been in the making, and the embedded vicinity
maps may be easier to navigate if compass points were included. While providing footage of the sidewalk projects has
begun, it could be completed, and highlighting project areas could assist the reader in identifying the size and location of the
proposed work.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked for clarification about the Pine Ridge Forest Management Study, which is described on
Page 105 of the Staff Report. In particular, she asked if the City has done similar studies for other parks in the past. Ms. Hite
explained that the Public Works, Planning and Parks Departments are coordinating an effort to complete an Urban Forestry
Management Plan for the entire City in 2016 and 2017, but there are a lot of older trees in Pine Ridge Park that warrant an
evaluation to assess the City's liability, etc.
Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the acronym WWTP (Page 117 of the Staff Report) should be spelled out as the Waste
Water Treatment Plant. She also referred to the Table that lists the publicly -owned facilities in Edmonds and other nearby
areas and suggested that the Civic Center Playfield should be removed from the list of school district properties and added to
the list of City -owned properties.
VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (CIP) AND CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) FOR 2016 THROUGH 2O22 TO THE CITY
COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL BASED ON THE COMMENTS PROVIDED BY THE
BOARD. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THE BOARD RECESSED THE MEETING FOR A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK AT 8:20 P.M. THE MEETING
RECONVENED AT 8:27 P.M.
2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
Mr. Chave reviewed that the most recent Comprehensive Plan update was completed in 2015, and included a major review as
required by the Growth Management Act. Typically, the City undertakes relatively minor amendments in intervening years.
This year's amendments will include the following:
Amending the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the updated CFP.
Amending the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan to include the adopted Marina Beach Master Plan as
a new "Appendix D." Appendix A would also be amended to acknowledge and reflect the Marina Beach Master
Plan.
Amending the Capital Facilities Element to add an implementation action that would read, "Develop level of service
standards for key public facilities by the end of 2017 and consider including the standards in the Comprehensive
Plan."
In addition to the amendments listed above, Mr. Chave advised that two more substantial amendments are currently being
developed: The Water Comprehensive Plan and the Street Tree Plan. Drafts of each of the plans are due before the end of
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 8
Packet Pg. 437
7.1.g
2016, and approval is scheduled for the first quarter of 2017. Any specific references to the current plans will need to be
updated, as well. The two plans will be ready for the Planning Board's consideration after the first of the year.
Mr. Chave summarized that the Board has completed its public hearing and recommendation to the City Council relative to
Amendment 1, and the public hearings for Amendments 2 and 3 are scheduled for November 9"h.
Chair Lovell asked if the City plans to hire a consultant to assist staff in preparing an Urban Forestry Management Plan. Mr.
Chave answered affirmatively and noted that funding has been allocated for the project, and staff is working on a Request for
Proposals. However, the Street Tree Plan is separate and will precede the Urban Forestry Management Plan.
Chair Lovell said his understanding is that the Marina Beach and Civic Field Master Plans, once adopted into the
Comprehensive Plan, will represent what the community wants programmatically for the two sites, but they should not be
considered final designs. Ms. Hite agreed that the master plans should not be considered design or construction documents.
Instead, they are schematic designs that represent the community's thoughts and desires. It is always good practice to
officially adopt the master plans into the Comprehensive Plan so there are no questions about the process. Once adopted into
the Comprehensive Plan, Parks staff will have a green light to put together a financial package for future implementation.
Chair Lovell asked if the consultant who creates the final park designs would be obligated to prepare design documents that
are consistent with the Master Plans. Ms. Hite answered yes, but commented that the master plans are quite broad and
design decisions will need to be made throughout the process. The City will go through a competitive bidding process for
design consultants, and it is likely this effort will involve a citizen's committee, as well. Sometimes, the entity that created
the schematic design is the one most qualified to do the final design work. For example, the current contract with Walker
Massey for the Civic Field Master Plan also includes language for them to amend the contract to go into design development
if the City so chooses. That was not the case with the Marina Beach Master Plan contract, since development of the park is
three to five years out.
Board Member Stewart requested clarification of the proposed amendment to Goal 4, Policy 4.H of the PROS Plan. Ms. Hite
reviewed that when the Marina Beach Master Plan was created, numerous people voiced support for the dog park to remain
as an element of the park. Goal 4 was added to the PROS Plan to address the concern about potential impacts to sensitive
areas. Staff is suggesting the language be amended to make it more powerful and applicable to all parks in the City. The
new language would read, "Ensure uses in environmentally sensitive areas are consistent with critical area regulations and the
Shoreline Master Program." She summarized that the proposed language is intended to make the City pay attention to
potential impacts in all design and develop a balance.
Board Member Stewart asked for specific language in the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and Shoreline Master Program
(SMP). Although she acknowledged that the dog park is well -loved by the community, the community must also be made
aware of what is happening to the land as a result of the non -conforming use (dog park). Although dog owners do a good job
of cleaning up their pets' feces, Keeley O'Connell, restoration biologist on contract with the City, previously pointed out to
the Board that the urine is what completely decimates the marine flora on the shoreline. She said she has been a naturalist for
years at Discovery Park where there is a diverse display of habitat, but less so on the Edmonds beaches. If you walk through
Marina Beach Park, there is a noticeable wasteland effect as you walk through the dog park and habitat returns as you walk
further south along the beach. As habitat improvements occur down the road and conversations and public education
continues to evolve, people will become aware that there could be better alternatives. She said she hopes that this will be part
of the conservation going forward, and she questioned if the proposed amendment to Goal 4 would provide adequate
protection for the area.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if developing LOS standards for key public facilities would be a Planning Board responsibility.
Mr. Chave answered yes, but only to the extent that they are included in the planning documents. Many of the standards are
already in place, such as transportation.
Mr. Chave advised that the draft amendments are scheduled for a public hearing before the Board on November 9t'.
Planning Board Minutes
October 12, 2016 Page 9
Packet Pg. 438
7.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/22/2016
Renewal of Inmate Housing Agreement with Yakima County DOC (10 min.)
Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead}
Department: Police Services
Preparer: Don Anderson
Background/History
Council approved original contract with Yakima County DOC for inmate housing in 2014 and have
authorized renewal of that agreement for 2015 and 2016.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends forwarding for approval via consent agenda at the December 6, 2016 Business
Meeting authorizing the Mayor to sign the 2017 Inmate Housing Agreement Addendum.
Narrative
The Edmonds Police Department currently has contracts with multiple jail facilities for the housing of
both short and long-term prisoners. Jail capacities vary and at times facilities are unable to
accommodate our needs for booking prisoners. In addition, costs vary from facility to facility with those
on the east side of the state generally being less expensive, especially for long-term commitments. In
order to have additional options for the incarceration of prisoners, as well as to ensure that we are
being as financially responsible as we can be, we entered into an interlocal agreement with the Yakima
County Jail in June of 2014, for the housing of long-term commitments, similar to what we previously
had in place with Okanogan County. The agreement with Yakima County is set to expire on December
31, 2016. This contact has been renewed by addendum in 2015 and 2016 with no housing rate
increases. Staff wishes to continue our agreement with the Yakima County Jail for the housing of long-
term commitments.
This agreement may be renewed for another one year period by written addendum. This Inmate
Housing Agreement Addendum is attached reflecting the amended duration period of January 1, 2017
through December 31, 2017. Prisoner bed rates are being increased by 4.5% with the new fees reflected
on the sliding scale on the attached addendum. The city attorney has reviewed the previously executed
agreement and the attached Inmate Housing Agreement Addendum and it has been approved as to
form. Staff requests that Council approve this matter authorizing the Mayor to sign the Agreement
addendum for continued services beginning January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.
Attachments:
Yakima County Inmate Housing Agreement -Addendum for 2017
Yakima County Inmate Housing Agreement
Packet Pg. 439
7.2.a
Inmate Housing Agreement Addendum
This Agreement Addendum is made and entered into between the CITY OF EDMONDS, a
municipal corporation with its principal offices at 121 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 and YAKIMA
COUNTY DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS located at 111 North Front Street, Yakima WA 98901.
In consideration of the mutual benefits and covenants contained herein, the parties agree that
their Inmate Housing Agreement executed on June 24t", 2014 shall be amended as follows:
1. Section 26: Duration of Agreement shall be amended effective January 1, 2017 through December
31, 2017. This agreement is subject to earlier termination as provided under Section 30 of the
original agreement and may be renewed for successive periods by written addendum under such
terms and conditions as the parties determine.
2. Compensation (BED RATES): In consideration of Yakima County's commitment to house City
Inmates, the City shall pay the County based on the Monthly Average Daily Population (MADP)
sliding scale:
Mon thly A vej-alg-e Daily Pop ula Lion
(MADP)
Daily Rate Per Inmate
151 —above
$51.20
126-150
$52.20
101-125
$53.20
76-100
$54.20
51-75
$55.20
26-50
$56.20
0-25
$57.20
Except as expressly provided in this Agreement Addendum, all other terms and conditions of the original
agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
Executed this day of
City of Edmonds
City Mayor/Manager
2016.
ATTEST:
By: City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney
Packet Pg. 440
Yakima Board of County Commissioners
7.2.a
Michael D. Leita, Chairman
Kevin J. Bouchey, Commissioner
J. Rand Elliott, Commissioner
Constituting the Board of County Commissioners
for Yakima County, Washington
ATTEST:
Tiera Girard, Clerk of the Board
Approved as to Form:
Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Packet Pg. 441
7.2.b
Inmate Housing Agreement Addendum
This Agreement Addendum is made and entered into between the CITY OF EDMONDS, a
municipal corporation with its principal offices at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 and YAKIMA
COUNTY DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS located at 111 North Front Street, Yakima WA 98901.
In consideration of the mutual benefits and covenants contained herein, the parties agree that
their Inmate Housing Agreement originally executed on June 24th, 2014 shall be amended as follows:
1. Section 26: Duration of Agreement shall be amended effective January 1, 2016 through December
31, 2016. This agreement is subject to earlier termination as provided under Section 30 of the
original agreement and may be renewed for successive periods by written addendum under such
terms and conditions as the parties determine.
2. Compensation (BED RATES) shall remain the same.
Except as expressly provided in this Agreement Addendum, all other terms and conditions of the original
agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
Executed this
Cityy,Edmonds
V��
City Mayor
Uti0*11
By: City Clerk
Ap ved as to Form:
City Attorney
day of Oaembw 2015.
BOARD OF YAKIMA COUNTY COMMISSIONEF
J. RW Elliott, Chairman
!Michael D. Leita, Commissioner
ll '
Ke J ouchey, Commissioner
Cot rur,ir he Board of County Commissioners
f �aktm County. Washington
Approved as for Form:
��) IQ�Zate
Senior Deputy Prosecuting -Attorney
Tiera Girard, Clerk of the Board
BOCC399-2015
Dece
Packet Pg. 442
7.2.b
Inmate Housing Agreement Addendum
This Agreement Addendum is made and entered into between the CITY OF EDMONDS, a
municipal corporation with its principal offices at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 and
YAKIMA COUNTY DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS located at 111 North Front Street, Yakima WA 98901.
In consideration of the mutual benefits and covenants contained herein, the parties agree that
their Inmate Housing Agreement executed on June 24th, 2014 shall be amended as follows:
1. Section 26: Duration of Agreement shall be amended effective January 1, 2015 through December
31, 2015. This agreement is subject to earlier termination as provided under Section 30 of the
original agreement and may be renewed for successive periods by written addendum under such
terms and conditions as the parties determine.
2. Compensation (BED RATES) shall remain the same.
Except as expressly provided in this Agreement Addendum, all other terms and conditions of the original
agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
Executed this /g./- day of 2014.
City of Edmonds
AQ
City Mayor
ATTEST:
By: Ci y Clerk
A ved as to Form:
C 0A0ftW--'W
City Attorney
BOARL OF YAKIMA COUNTY COMMISSIONER
lb -
Ke . J uchey, Chairman
J. R e lliott, Commissioner
, .ichael D. Leita, Commissioner
Constituting the Board ojCouni,v Commissioners
jor Yakima County, Washington
Approved as for Form:
hi�f
Senior Deputy Prasec ing Attorney
Tiera Girard, Clerk of the Board
BOCC542-2014
December 16, 2014
Packet Pg. 443
7.2.b
AGREEMENT FOR INMATE HOUSING 2014
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR INMATE HOUSING (hereinafter "Agreement") is made and
entered into by and between Yakima County (hereinafter the "County") and the City of
Edmonds (hereinafter the "City'.
WHEREAS, RCW Chapters 39.34 and RCW 70.48 authorize the City and the County to
enter into a contract for inmate housing, and
WHEREAS, the City desires to transfer custody of certain of its inmates to the County to
be housed in the County's corrections facilities during those inmates' confinement, and to
compensate the County for housing such inmates, and
WHEREAS, the County desires to house inmates who would be otherwise in the City's
custody on the terms agreed herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions, and promises
contained herein, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
1. Purpose. The purpose and intent of this Agreement is to establish the terms under
which the County will house City inmates during the calendar year 2014.
2. Definitions.
Business day means Monday though Friday excluding Yakima County standard holidays.
Committing Court means the court that issued the order or sentence that established the
City's custody of a City Inmate.
Detainer — A legal order authorizing or commanding another agency a right to take custody of
a person.
City Inmate means a person subject to City custody who is transferred to County custody
under this Agreement
3. General Provisions. The County shall accept City Inmates according to the terms of
this Agreement and shall provide housing, care, and custody of those City Inmates in the same
manner as it provides housing, care and custody to its own inmates.
The County shall manage, maintain, and operate its corrections facilities in compliance with all
applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
4. Right to Refuse or Return Inmate. To the greatest extent permitted by law, the
County shall have the right to refuse to accept a City Inmate or to return a City Inmate to the
City, if the Inmate has a current illness or injury that is listed in Attachment A - Medical
Acceptability. The County shall provide notice to the City at least one business day prior to
transport.
5. Inmate Transport. County Transported: The County shall transport Inmates to and
from the County's corrections facilities except when weather or other conditions beyond the
County's control prevent transport. Inmate transport dates will be determined by the
amount of inmates the City has housed with the County.
3
Q
J
U
0
0
0
U
Y
M
Agreement for Inmate Housing -- 2014
Page 1 1 Packet Pg. 444
7.2.b
The County will pick up and drop off Inmates at a mutually agreed upon destination. In the
event the City wishes the County to pick up and/or drop off a City Inmate at another detention
or correction facility, the City shall notify the County of the location of the Inmate for pick up
and/or drop off.
The City shall provide a written inmate transport list to the County the business day prior to
transport. At the time of scheduling transport if possible, but no later than transport pickup, the
City shall provide to the County the warrant or court order detaining or committing the Inmate,
as well as any order that specifies the Inmate's next court date or sentence to confinement.
The City shall provide a complete copy of each Inmate's records in its possession to the County
prior to transferring custody of the Inmate to the County. The County will not assume custody
of any inmate without a warrant or court order that commits the Inmate to confinement.
City Transported-, The City will provide the County a written transport list to the County
the business day prior to delivery. At the time of delivery, the City shall provide the County the
warrant or court order detaining or committing the inmate as well as any order that specifies
the Inmate's next court date or sentence to confinement.
The City shall provide a complete copy of each Inmate's records in its possession to the County
prior to transferring custody of the Inmate to the County. The County will not assume custody
of any inmate without a warrant or court order that commits the Inmate to confinement.
6. Inmate Records. The City shall provide all medical records in its possession to the
County's transport officers prior to the Inmate's departure from the City's detention or
designated detention facility. In the event the Inmate is transported by the City, the City shall
provide all medical records in its possession to the County's booking officer. In the event
additional information is requested by the County regarding a particular Inmate, the County and
City will mutually cooperate to provide the additional information needed.
7. Inmate Property. The County shall accept and transport Inmate property in
accordance with Attachment B — Property, and shall be responsible only for inmate property
actually delivered into County possession. The County shall hold and handle each Inmate's
personal property in the same manner -it -holds and handles property -of other County inmates.
In the event a City Inmate is being transported from a City designated detention or correction
facility, it will be the responsibility of the City to dispose of the Inmate's property not delivered
and accepted into County possession. When returning Inmates to the City, the County shall
transport Inmate property according to the provisions of Attachment B — Property, and it shall
be the responsibility of the County to dispose of any of the Inmate's property not transported
with the Inmate.
8. Booking. Inmates shall be booked pursuant the County's booking policies and
procedures. Inmates transported by the City that are not acceptable at booking, will be the
responsibility of the City to transport back to City.
Pursuant to RCW 70.48.130, and as part of the booking procedure, the Department of
Corrections shall obtain general information concerning the Inmate's ability to pay for medical
care, including insurance or other medical benefits or resources to which a City Inmate is
entitled. The information is to be used for third party billing.
The County and City will attempt to develop a process at City detention facilities for pre -booking
Inmates who are being transferred to the custody of the County.
Q
J_
U
0
0
0
U
Y
M
Agreement for Inmate Housing -- 2014
Page 2 Packet Pg. 445
7.2.b
9. Classification. Inmates shall be classified pursuant to the County's classification
policies and procedures, and within the sole discretion and judgment of the County. The City
shall provide information identified in Attachment C — Classification, of this Agreement.
10. Housing. Inmates shall be assigned to housing pursuant to the County's policies and
procedures, and within the sole discretion and judgment of the County. Provided however, that
generally, if a City Inmate's classification qualifies him/her to be housed in the Yakima County
Corrections Center, and there is a bed available at the Yakima County Corrections Center, the
Inmate shall be housed in the Yakima County Corrections Center. Exceptions to this general
provision include circumstances such as: 1) No women are housed at the Yakima County
Corrections Center; 2) Inmates assigned to certain work crews must be housed in the Main Jail
or Annex; 3) Certain programs are available only to Inmates housed in the Main Jail or Annex;
4) Inmates who will be housed for less than one week will usually be housed in the Main Jail or
Annex.
11. Inmate Work Programs. The County may assign Inmates to work programs such as
inside and outside work crews, kitchen and facility duties, and other appropriate duties.
12. Health Care. The County shall provide in -facility medical care commonly associated
with county corrections operations as guided by American Correctional Association or National
Commission on Correctional Health Care standards.
Inmates shall be responsible for co -payment for health services according to County policy. The
City shall not be responsible to the County for Inmate co -payments. No Inmate shall be denied
necessary health care because of an inability to pay for health services.
The County shall notify the City's designee(s) via e-mail or fax if a City Inmate requires medical
or dental treatment at an outside medical or health care facility. The City shall be responsible to
promptly notify the County of any changes in its designee(s).
The City shall pay for all medical, mental health, dental or any other medical services that are
required to care for the City's Inmates outside YCDOC facilities. Except, the County shall bear
the expense of any such medical care necessitated by improper conduct of the County, or of its
officers or agents. -
The County shall notify the City as soon as reasonably possible before the Inmate receives
medical and/or dental treatment outside of YCDOC facilities. The City acknowledges that such
notice may not be reasonably possible prior to emergency care. Lack of prior notice shall not
excuse the City from financial responsibility for related medical expenses, and shall not be a
basis for imposing financial responsibility for related medical expenses on the County.
Outside medical expenses for Inmates housed for more than one jurisdiction shall be divided
equally among those jurisdictions.
13. Inmate Discipline. The County shall discipline Inmates according to the same policies
and procedures under which other County inmates are disciplined. However, nothing contained
herein shall be construed to authorize the imposition of a type of discipline that would not be
imposed on a comparable County inmate, up to and including the removal of earned early
release credits as approved by the City.
14. Removal from County Facilities. Except for work programs or health care, and
during emergencies, Inmates shall not be removed from County facilities without written
authorization from the City or by the order of any court having jurisdiction. Other jurisdictions
a
J_
U
0
0
0
U
R
E
Y
LO
r
Agreement for Inmate Housing -- 2014
Page 3 1 Packet Pg. 446
7.2.b
may "borrow" a City Inmate only according to the provisions of Attachment D — Borrowing.
In the event of the Inmate"s emergency removal, the County shall notify the City by email or fax
as soon as reasonably possible. No early release or alternative to incarceration, including
furloughs, home detention, or work release shall be granted to any Inmate without written
authorization by the committing court.
15. Visitation. The County shall provide scheduled visitation for attorneys, spouses, family
and friends of Inmates. Such visitation may be accomplished as provided in Section 24 of this
Agreement.
16. Inmate -Attorney Communication. Confidential telephones or visitation rooms shall
be available to inmates to communicate with their attorneys.
17. Inmate Accounts. The County shall establish and maintain an account for each
Inmate. The County shall ensure family members and others have a reasonable process to add
funds to a City Inmate's account,
Upon returning custody of a City Inmate to the City, the County shall transfer the balance of
that Inmate's account that is not subject to charges, to the Inmate or to the City in the form of
a check or a debit card in the name of the Inmate.
In the event the County contracts with a company/business that furnishes technology for
wireless inmate account crediting (such as Keefee or JPAY) the City may allow the County (or
County's contracted representative) to install the equipment necessary for use of the system.
The City shall not be financially responsible for any aspect of the system, including but not
limited to installation or maintenance costs. The City shall not receive any compensation or
profits for such a system.
18. Detainers. Inmates in a "Detainer" status shall be handled according to Attachment E
— Detainers.
19. Releases. The City shall be responsible for computing and tracking all sentence time
calculations, good time, court dates and release dates. Inmates will be released in accordance
with Attachment F — Inmate Release.
The County shall not transfer custody of a City Inmate housed pursuant to this Agreement to
any party other than the City, except as provided in this Agreement or as directed by the City.
20. Escape. If a City Inmate escapes County custody, the County shall notify the City as
soon as reasonably possible. The County shall use all reasonable efforts to pursue and regain
custody of escaped City Inmates, and shall assume all costs connected with the recapture of the
City Inmate.
21. Death. If a City Inmate dies in County custody, the County shall notify the City as soon
as reasonably possible. The Yakima County Coroner shall assume custody of the City Inmate's
body. Unless another agency becomes responsible for investigation, YCDOC shall investigate
and shall provide the City with a report of its investigation. The City may participate in the
investigation. If another agency becomes responsible for investigation, YCDOC shall liaison or
otherwise facilitate the City's communication with and receipt of reports from the other agency.
The City shall provide the County with written instructions regarding the disposition of the City
Inmate's body. The City shall pay for all reasonable expenses for the preparation and shipment
of the body. The City may request in writing that the County arrange for burial and all matters
related or incidental thereto and the City shall be responsible for all costs associate with this
Agreement for Inmate Housing -- 2014
Page 4 1 Packet Pg. 447
7.2.b
request. Except, the County shall bear such expenses necessitated by improper conduct of
County, or its officers or agents.
22. Reporting Requirements. Ordinarily on business days, the County will deliver the
following reports to the JAG, which will disseminate them to the City:
Here Now Report - a report detailing City inmates in YCDOC custody.
Housing Report — a report detailing which city inmates are housed at the Yakima County
Corrections Center.
Custody Report — a report of total inmate populations confined at all YCDOC facilities. It
includes current and historical safety and population data.
Special Housing Report — Identifies city inmates who are in special housing assignments.
23. City's Right of Inspection. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable advance
notice, to inspect County correction facilities where City Inmates are housed at reasonable
times. During such inspections, the City may interview its Inmates and review its Inmates'
records. The City shall have no right to interview inmates housed for other jurisdictions or to
review their medical records, unless it is properly authorized to do so by the inmate or the other
jurisdiction.
24. Technology. The County and City may each permit the other continuous access to its
computer database regarding all City Inmates housed by the County. This continuous access
feature may be accomplished through a computer link between a computer(s) designated by
the City and appropriate computer(s) of the County.
By separate mutual agreement, the County and City may provide video conference capabilities
for personal visiting, professional visiting, pre-trial conferences, arraignments and other court
and conferencing needs.
Bed Rate. In consideration of Yakima County's commitment to house City Inmates, the City
shall pay the County based on the Monthly Average Daily Population (MADP) sliding scale:
Mon thly A vei ag e Daily Pop ula tion
(MADP)
151 - above
126-150
101-125
76-100
51-75
26-50
0-2 5
Daily Rate Per Inmate
$48.75
$49.7 5
$50.75
$51.75
$52.75
$53.75
$54.75
Agreement for Inmate Housing -- 2014
Page 5 1 Packet Pg. 448
7.2.b
The Bed Rate includes all in -facility medical, dental (if available), and mental health services. In
the event an inmate requires out of facility medical, dental or mental health services, the City
shall be responsible for the cost of the services.
The County shall not charge a booking fee in connection with housing the City's Inmates.
The City may purchase additional beds, as available, at the then- existing bed rate; however,
the County shall have the right to refuse to accept custody of or house inmates in excess of the
City's minimum bed commitment.
The Daily Fee for inmates housed for more than one jurisdiction shall be divided equally among
those jurisdictions.
25. Billing and Payment. The County shall provide the City with monthly statements
itemizing the name of each City Inmate, the number of days of housing, including the date and
time booked into the County and date and time released from the County and itemization of any
additional charges including a description of the service provided, date provided and reason for
service.
The County shall provide said statement for each month on or about the loth day of the
following month. Payment shall be due to the County within (30) days from the billing date.
The County may bill the City electronically. Payments not received by the 30th day shall bear
interest at the rate of 1% per month until payment is received.
The Daily Fee for City Inmates housed for more than one jurisdiction shall be divided equally
among those jurisdictions.
26. Duration of Agreement. The duration of this Agreement shall be from January 1,
2014, at 1200 A.M. and shall end at 11:59 P.M., on December 31 2014 unless otherwise
terminated in accordance with Section 31 of this Agreement. This Agreement may be renewed
for any successive period by written addendum under terms and conditions acceptable to the
County and City.
27. Independent Contractor. In providing services under this Agreement, the County is
an independent contractor and neither it nor its officers, nor its agents nor its employees are
employees of the City for any purpose, including responsibility for any federal or state tax,
industrial insurance, or Social Security liability. Neither shall the provision of services under this
Agreement give rise to any claim of career service or civil service rights, which may accrue to an
employee of the City under any applicable law, rule or regulation. Nothing in this Agreement is
intended to create an interest in or give a benefit to third persons not signing as a parry to this
Agreement.
28. Hold Harmless, Defense, and Indemnification,. The County shall hold harmless,
defend, and indemnify the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents from and
against any and all suits, actions, claims, liability, damages, judgments, costs and expenses
(including reasonable attorney's fees) (also including but not limited to claims related to false
arrest or detention, alleged mistreatment, injury, or death of any City Inmate, or loss or damage
to City Inmate property while in County custody) that result from or arise out of the acts or
omissions of County, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents in connection with or
incidental to the performance or non-performance of the County's services, duties, and
obligations under this Agreement.
3
Q
J
U
O
0
0
U
M
E
Y
fC
LO
Agreement for Inmate Housing -- 2014
Page 6 1 Packet Pg. 449
7.2.b
The City shall hold harmless, defend, and indemnify the County, its elected officials, officers,
employees, and agents from and against any and all suits, actions, claims, liability, damages,
judgments, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) (also including but not
limited to claims related to false arrest or detention, alleged mistreatment, injury, or death of
any City Inmate, or loss or damage to City Inmate property while in County custody) that result
from or arise out of the acts or omissions of the City, its elected officials, officers, employees,
and agents in connection with or incidental to the performance or non-performance of the City's
services, duties, and obligations under this Agreement.
In the event the acts or omissions of the officials, officers, agents, and/or employees of both
the City and the County in connection with or incidental to the performance or non-performance
of the City's and or County's services, duties, and obligations under this Agreement are the
subject of any liability claims by a third party, the City and County shall each be liable for its
proportionate share of fault in any resulting suits, actions, claims, liability, damages, judgments,
costs and expenses and for their own attorney's fees.
Nothing contained in this Section or this Agreement shall be construed to create a right in any
third party to indemnification or defense.
The County and City hereby waive, as to each other only, their immunity from suit under
industrial insurance, Title 51 RCW. This waiver of immunity was mutually negotiated by the
parties hereto.
The provisions of this section shall survive any termination or expiration of this Agreement.
29. Insurance. The County and City shall provide each other with evidence of insurance
coverage, in the form of a certificate or other competent evidence from an insurance provider,
insurance pool, or of self-insurance sufficient to satisfy the obligations set forth in this
Agreement.
The County and City shall each maintain throughout the term of this Agreement coverage in
minimum liability limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and two million
dollars ($2,000,000) in the aggregate for its liability exposures, including comprehensive general
liability, errors and omissions, auto liability and police professional liability. The insurance policy
shall provide coverage on an occurrence basis.
30. Termination.
A. Mutual Agreement: This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent
between the County and City with ninety (90) days written notice to the other party and to the
State Office of Financial Management as required by RCW 70.48.090 stating the grounds for
said termination and specifying plans for accommodating the affected City Inmates.
B. Imperiling Conditions: The City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement where:
1) conditions and/or circumstances at Yakima's facilities present an imminent risk of serious
injury or death to the City's Inmates [Imperiling Conditions]; 2) the City has sent County written
notice by certified mail, return receipt requested describing with reasonable specificity_the
Imperiling Conditions; and 3) the County has failed to cure the Imperiling Conditions within a
reasonable period of time, which, unless the parties agree in writing to a longer period, shall be
no more than 30 days after the County receives the City's notice. Termination under this
provision shall be effective if and when: 1) after at least 30 days, the County has not cured the
Imperiling Condition(s); and 2) the City has removed its Inmates; and 3) the City has given the
Agreement for Inmate Housing -- 2014
Page 7 1 Packet Pg. 450
7.2.b
County formal written notice of final termination under this provision. After Termination under
this provision the City shall have no further financial obligations under this Agreement.
C. Material Breach: Either party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement if: 1) the
other party is in material breach of any term of this Agreement; 2) the terminating party has
sent the breaching parry written notice of its intent to terminate this Agreement under this
section by certified mail, return receipt requested describing with reasonable specificity the
basis for the termination; and 3) the breaching party has failed to cure the breach within ninety
(90) days, unless the parties agree in writing to a longer cure period. Termination shall be
effective upon and the City shall have no further financial obligations under this Agreement
from the date of removal of its Inmates from the Yakima Facility or County's receipt of final
notice that City is terminating the Agreement after the expiration of the cure period, whichever
occurs last.
31. Real or Personal Property. It is not anticipated that any real or personal property will
be acquired or purchased by the parties solely because of this Agreement.
32. Equal Opportunity. Neither party shall discriminate against any person on the grounds
of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, political affiliation or belief
or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap in violation of any applicable federal
law, Washington State Law Against Discrimination (RCW chapter 49.60) or the Americans with
Disabilities Act (42 USC 12110 et seq.). In the event of the violation of this provision, the other
party may terminate this Agreement immediately.
33. Assignment. This Agreement, or any interest herein, or claim hereunder, shall not be
assigned or transferred in whole or in part by the County to any other person or entity without
the prior written consent of the City. In the event that such prior written consent to an
assignment is granted, then the assignee shall assume all duties, obligations, and liabilities of
County stated herein.
34. Non -Waiver. The failure of either party to insist upon strict performance of any
provision of this Agreement or to exercise any right based upon a breach thereof or the
acceptance of any performance during such breach shall not constitute a waiver of any right
under this Agreement.
35. Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is changed per mutual Agreement or any
portion is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
36. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Washington. Any actions, suit, or judicial or administrative
proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement shall be brought and tried in the Federal or
Superior Court for the State of Washington in Thurston County
37. Approval and Filing. Each party shall approve this Agreement by resolution, ordinance
or otherwise pursuant to the laws of the governing body of each party. The attested signatures
of the City, Manager or Mayor and the Yakima County Commissioners below shall constitute a
presumption that such approval was properly obtained. A copy of this Agreement shall be filed
with the Yakima County Auditor's Office pursuant to RCW 39.34.040.
38. General Provisions. Unless otherwise agreed in writing executed by both parties, on
and after January 1, 2015, and so long as this Agreement remains in effect, this document
constitutes the entire Agreement between the City and the County under which the County
a
J
U
O
0
U
R
E
Y
LO
r
Agreement for Inmate Housing -- 2014
Page 8 1 Packet Pg. 451
7.2.b
houses City Inmates, and no other oral or written agreements between the parties shall affect
this Agreement.
No changes or additions to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon either party unless
such change or addition be in writing and executed by both parties.
The County shall not delegate its duties pertaining to housing City Inmates without the written
consent of the City, which consent shall not be withheld unreasonably.
Any provision of this Agreement that is declared invalid or illegal shall in no way affect or
invalidate any other provision.
In the event the County or City defaults on the performance of any terms of this Agreement and
files a lawsuit, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of its reasonable attorney fees, W
costs and expenses.
This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts. o
39. Notices. Unless stated otherwise herein, all notices and demands shall be in writing and
sent or hand -delivered to the parties to their addresses as follows: o
U
R
TO CITY: Jim Lawless, Assistant Chief of Police E
11C
Edmonds Police Department
250 5th Ave N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
r
TO COUNTY: Ed Campbell, Director
Yakima County Department of Corrections
111 North Front Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Alternatively, to such other addresses as the parties may hereafter designate in writing. Notices
- and/or demands -shall be sent by registered or certified mail, postage- prepaid, or hand -
delivered. Such notices shall be deemed effective when mailed or hand -delivered at the
addresses specified above.
Agreement for Inmate Housing -- 2014
Page 9 1 Packet Pg. 452
7.2.b
3
m
C
a�
Q
J_
U
O
C
0
U
M
E
Y
fC
LO
It
t0
a+
C
N
E
0
0
L
Q
0)
C
0
0
d
E
C
0
U
E
r
C
a�
E
t
t�
ca
Q
Agreement for Inmate Housing -- 2014
Page 10 1 Packet Pg. 453
7.2.b
ATTACHMENT A
MEDICAL ACCEPTABILITY
The County shall determine the medical and mental acceptability of inmates for transport using
the following excluding criteria:
1. Blood or fluid present at an open wound site or bleeding from an open wound.
2. Signs of untreated broken bones or dislocated joints.
3. Any injury or illness requiring immediate or emergency medical treatment.
4. Unconsciousness.
5. Inmates unable to stand and walk under their own power.
6. Wheel chair bound individuals.
7. Signs of alcohol toxicity and signs of current or recent use of any intoxicants.
8. Signs of alcohol and/or drug withdrawal.
9. Bed bound individuals.
10. Individuals with attached IV or requiring IV medications.
11. Individuals requiring the use of oxygen tanks.
12. AMA (Against Medical Advice) from the hospital.
13. Individuals having had major invasive surgery within the last 72 hours. Non-invasive
surgery such as oral surgery, laser -eye surgery and minor surgery may be evaluated on a
case by case basis.
14. Post -operative persons who have follow up appointments within the next four weeks.
15. Wounds with drainage tubes attached.
16. Persons with permanent catheters.
17. Open and/or oozing bedsores.
18. Individuals requiring nebulizers who cannot obtain one.
19. Persons with Alzheimer's, dementia or other psychological conditions to the point where
the inmate cannot perform activities of daily living ("ADL's") or who do not have the
capacity to function safely within a correctional environment.
20. Persons who are diagnosed as developmentally delayed and who do not have the
capacity to function safely within a correctional environment or who cannot perform
ADL's.
21. Female inmates more than 5 months pregnant. Or any female inmate considered a high -
risk pregnancy.
22. Persons undergoing chemotherapy and/or radiation treatment.
23. Persons undergoing dialysis.
3
rY
Q
J
U
0
0
0
U
M
E
Y
fC
LO
It
to
Agreement for Inmate Housing -- 2014
Page 11 1 Packet Pg. 454
7.2.b
24. Persons with the following untreated medical conditions:
a) Heart disease
b) Seizures disorders
c) Insulin dependent diabetes
d) Cancer
e) Asthma
f) Psychosis
g) HIV Positive or AIDS
25. Persons who are HIV positive or have AIDS and are taking anti -viral medications.
26. Persons taking Methadone, or Suboxone, a substitute for Methadone.
27. Persons with suicidal ideations or gestures within the past 72 hours.
28. Person, if prescribed, have not taken psychotropic medications for at least 72 hours.
29. Persons who have attempted suicide within the last 30 days.
30. Persons who have attempted suicide by overdose or ligature strangulation during current
incarceration.
31. Persons displaying current psychotic episode.
32. Persons requiring CPAP machines as prescribed must be transported with the machine.
a
J_
U
0
0
0
U
M
E
Y
LO
Agreement for Inmate Housing -- 2014
Page 12 1 Packet Pg. 455
7.2.b
ATTACHMENT B
PROPERTY
County transport personnel will only accept Inmate property as follows:
1. The property shall be sealed in a single property bag no larger than a common paper
grocery bag.
2. Money, valuables, and medications shall be placed in a clear envelope and sealed within
the Inmate's property bag.
3. Checks and documents (court, warrants, etc) shall be attached to the outside of the
property bag.
4. The transporting officer shall account for the property bag and funds being transported.
Yakima County Department of Corrections transport personnel will not accept or
transport the following:
a) Backpacks, suitcases, etc.
b) Unpackaged food products or food products in packaging that has been opened.
c) Any type of weapon (includes pocketknives).
d) Liquids.
e) Any items that will not fit into the property bag.
f) Material deemed to be contraband.
Yakima County will limit property returned with the Inmate to the City according to these
criteria.
a
J
U
0
0
0
U
R
E
Y
R
LO
r
Agreement for Inmate Housing -- 2014
Page 13 1 Packet Pg. 456
7.2.b
ATTACHMENT C
CLASSIFICATION
The City shall supply the County with the following Classification related information, if it known
to or in possession of the City:
1. If the City Inmate has been classified to a special housing unit and/or if the City Inmate
has been classified as protective custody.
2. If the City Inmate is a violent offender or has displayed violent behavior during present
or past incarcerations.
3. If the City Inmate is an escape risk.
Agreement for Inmate Housing -- 2014
Page 14 1 Packet Pg. 457
7.2.b
ATTACHMENT D
BORROWING
One contracting city may "borrow" another contracting city's inmate as follows:
1. If a City requests the transport of another contracting City's Inmate from the County the
requesting City must notify each agency with rights to custody of the Inmate, and if each
agency with rights to custody of the Inmate notifies the County in writing (e-mail) of its
approval, the County shall provide the requested transport. The County will complete a
custody transfer form that lists all outstanding detainers. The custody transfer
paperwork will accompany the inmate.
2. Once custody of the City Inmate has been transferred to another agency, it is the
responsibility of the requesting City to determine whether the City Inmate shall be
returned to the custody of the County, and if so, the requesting City shall make all
necessary and proper arrangements with the County and any agency with rights to
custody of the Inmate, for the Inmate's return according to the terms of this agreement.
3. The County will not track the City Inmate once he or she has left the County's facility.
4. If the Inmate is returned to the custody of the County, the requesting City shall provide
the County with sentencing/charge information. The City shall supply all pre -sentence,
and post -sentence paperwork from agreeing agencies that authorized the borrowing of
the Inmate. This will aid Yakima County in determining split billing and release dates.
5. If the agency requesting to borrow a City Inmate is not in the "Contracting Agency," the
requesting agency will be responsible to make all transport arrangements including all
legal paperwork for the transport with the City of jurisdiction.
6. The County will transport the City Inmate only to a King County city that also contracts
with the County for Inmate housing.
7. Inmates transported by the City, cannot be borrowed out of YCDOC. -
3
J_
U
0
0
0
U
M
E
Y
fC
LO
It
to
Agreement for Inmate Housing -- 2014
Page 15 1 Packet Pg. 458
7.2.b
ATTACHMENT E
This attachment only applies to Inmates transported by the YCDOC.
WARRANTS/OTHER COURT ORDERS/DETAINERS
1. The following shall apply to City Inmates who are subject to warrants from other
jurisdictions or to other court orders for confinement or detainers. When receiving a City 3
Inmate, the Transport Officers shall review all paperwork provided by the City for all 42
grounds to hold the Inmate and ensure that this information is entered into the County's wo
JMS and is routed to the Out of County Transport Section Office Specialist.
2. Prior to releasing a City Inmate, the County shall check the NCIC and WACIC systems to 0
determine if the Inmate is subject to any valid warrants or other detainers.
a) If the Inmate is subject to a warrant that is limited to King County, YCDOC will, o
upon receiving written permission (e mail) from the City, transport the Inmate to L)
the custodial agency for the jurisdiction that issued the warrant. However, Yakima E
County will not assume responsibility to serve any such warrants.
b) If the City Inmate is subject to a warrant from a western Washington jurisdiction LO
outside King County, YCDOC will release the Inmate at the location determined by
written (e mail) agreement of the YCDOC and the City under Section 5 of this
Agreement. E
N
c) If the City Inmate is subject to a warrant from an eastern Washington jurisdiction, 2
YCDOC will send the Inmate to the custodial agency for that jurisdiction on the a
Mini -Chain.
d) If, upon return from YCDOC to the City, the Inmate is subject to a warrant that
provides for statewide extradition, YCDOC will either transport the Inmate to the
detention/correction facility in King County designated by the agency/jurisdiction
that issued the warrant if it is in King County, or will send the Inmate to the
agency/jurisdiction that issued the warrant on the Mini -Chain.
3. City Inmates who have or are subject to Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE)
detainers shall be returned to the City, unless the County and City agree in writing
(email) to some other course of action.
Agreement for Inmate Housing -- 2014
Page 16 Packet Pg. 459
7.2.b
ATTACHMENT F
INMATE RELEASE
County transport personnel will release City Inmates as follows:
1. Inside a staffed correction or detention facility (jail).
2. Inside a staffed police agency (sally port or other secured area).
3. Outside of a Law Enforcement Agency when agency personnel, telephone access, and
weather protection (lobby areas) are available to the released Inmate. J
4. The County does not transport on Mondays. o
5. City Inmates for whom bail is posted, or who otherwise have a right to be released may,
by signed written waiver, choose to remain in custody and return to City by the regularly 3
scheduled transport, or to be released to a family member or friend, or to the streets of 0
Yakima. E
6. Inmates transported by City must be picked up at least 12-(twelve) hours prior to the
inmate's scheduled release date and time. If the inmate is not picked up before the
scheduled release time, the Inmate will be automatically scheduled to be transported, at
the City's cost to include the addition of transport fees for all days served, on the next
r
available transport to the City.
Agreement for Inmate Housing -- 2014
Page 17 1 Packet Pg. 460
7.2.b
Agreement for Inmate Housing - City of Edmonds
BOARD OF YAKIMA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
X)
K i 6uchey, Chairman
J. Ran E iott, Commissioner
Excused
Michael D. Leita, Commissioner
Constituting the Board of County Commissioners
for Yakima County, Washington
r�
ATTEST this Q uh day of
,201Lk
Tiera L. Girard Mandy Burkett
Clerk of the Board Deputy Clerk of the Board
rrf
,,r�rrrrrrr+..
Approved as to form:
Stefanie Weigand, Attorney
Corporate Counsel Division
a
BOCC246-2014
June 24, 2014
Packet Pg. 461
7.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/22/2016
Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with David Evans & Associates for the 76th and 212th
Intersection Improvements Project (10 minutes)
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On February 2, 2016, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #7 with David
Evans & Associates.
Staff Recommendation
Forward the item to the consent agenda for the December 6th City Council meeting.
Narrative
76th Ave at 212th Street is one of the busiest signalized intersections in the City and is served by two
federally classified minor arterial streets. The intersection experiences long queues during peak
commute and school hours due to the limited capacity of the intersection. Both approaches of 76th Ave
have two shared lanes with no dedicated left turn lane. The left turn volumes are very high, and are
timed independently by split phasing signal timing. The proposed improvement will provide dedicated
left turn lanes on 76th Ave and concurrent turning movements during the protected left turn phase. This
project will increase the capacity and improve intersection signal operation, traffic flow, vehicle delay,
and air quality by reducing vehicle emissions. Various utility upgrades and overhead utility conversion
are being incorporated in the project. Bike lanes will also be added on all approaches as part of this
project, extending approximately 300' from the intersection. This project is being combined with the
Bike2Health project, consisting of adding bike lanes and wayfinding signs at various locations
throughout the City.
The supplement adds the following tasks:
Design Phase
- Additional Utility Design based on comments from the utility companies (for
underground utility conversion work);
- Modified bid package to address City review comments;
- Update bid package for WSDOT Specifications and Details; and
- Assistance during bidding period.
ROW phase
- Staking of ROW line within the areas where PUD is installing new poles along 76t"Ave as
part of this project (on the SW corner of the intersection at the High School and on the
NW corner of the intersection in front of Romeo's parcel). This work will allow PUD to
Packet Pg. 462
7.3
complete the installation of their poles prior to the start of construction and reduce
potential field conflicts while PUD and the contractor are working in the same area.
Construction phase
- Attendance at pre -construction / coordination meetings;
- Field meetings:
- Respond to contractor request for information;
- Constructability issues / plan clarifications;
- Approval of shop drawings;
- Geotechnical support, and
- Preparation of As -Built Record Drawings.
The supplement also includes $10,000 in management reserve.
The total cost of the Supplement is $122,864 and will be funded by the federal grant, utility funds and
traffic impact fees. The project will be re -advertised for construction bids in early 2017, in order for
construction to begin in Spring 2017. The City applied for a $2M Washington State Transportation
Improvement Board (TIB) grant to fund the estimated shortfall, based on the bids received in 2016. TIB
is expected to announce the 2017 grant awards in late November.
Attachments:
DEA Supplement Scope & Fee
Packet Pg. 463
7.3.a
Exhibit A-1
761h Avenue W and 212th Street SW
Intersection Improvements Project
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Supplement No. 8
Prepared for:
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5th Avenue N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Prepared by:
DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
415 - 118th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98005-3518
(425) 519-6500
November 15, 2016
Packet Pg. 464
7.3.a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Description.......................................................................................................1
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY CONTROL .................................. 1
SECTION5.0 SURVEY.......................................................................................................... 1
5.7 Right -of -Way Staking....................................................................................................1
SECTION 8.0 UTILITY COORDINATION............................................................................... 2
8.4 Utility Design for Overhead to Underground Conversion...............................................2
SECTION 9.0 PS&E DESIGN................................................................................................ 2
9.5 Final Design (Bid Set Completion Level)......................................................................2
SECTION 13.0 CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES....................................................... 3
13.1 Preconstruction Meeting and Coordination Meetings....................................................3
13.2 Site Meetings................................................................................................................3
13.3 Requests for Information(RFIs)....................................................................................3
13.4 Constructability Issues/Plan Clarifications.....................................................................3
13.5 Approval of Shop Drawings/Submittals.........................................................................3
13.6 Geotechnical Support...................................................................................................3
13.7 Prepare As -Built Record Drawings...............................................................................4
P:IcICOED000000041000000N10030ContractlSupplement 8 - Re -Advertise, On -Call SupportlExhibitA-IDEA Scope_76th 212th_2016-11-15.docx
City of Edmonds i Scope of Services, Supp. No. 8
76"' Ave. W and 212`h St. SW Project November Packet Pg. 465
7.3.a
City of Edmonds
76t" Avenue W and 2121" Street SW
Intersection Improvements Project
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Supplement No. 8
Section 1.0 Project Description
Introduction
Supplement No. 8 modifies the original agreement dated February 23, 2012 with the following revisions.
1.1 Project Description
The work included within this supplemental Scope of Services is to provide additional design and
consulting services to the City of Edmonds (CITY) for the 76th Avenue W and 212th Street SW
Intersection Improvements Project (PROJECT). The additional design and consulting services to be
provided by David Evans and Associates, Inc. (CONSULTANT) are associated with providing added
revisions to the alignment of the joint utility trench (JUT), revising the proposed waterline to
accommodate a shallower depth of facility, incorporating the City's Bike2Health project design
documents that were prepared by another consultant into the construction bid set, and updating the
construction bid set for current WSDOT standards and specifications for project advertisement.
The work included within this supplemental Scope of Services is also for the CONSULTANT to provide
on -call support services to the CITY during construction of the PROJECT.
Section 2.0 Project Management and Quality Control
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional Project Management and Quality Control services that
correspond to the services described in the following sections of this supplemental Scope of Services as
required for the completion of the PROJECT.
Section 5.0 Survey
5.7 Right -of -Way Staking
The CONSULTANT shall provide right-of-way staking for the CITY right-of-way acquired on the west
side of 76th Avenue West along the Burger King, Romeo's, and Edmonds-Woodway High School
properties to aid the CITY with locating its right-of-way limits and for positioning of new utility poles set
by utility providers as part of the project.
P.,IcICOED000000041000000N10030ContractlSupplement8-Re-Advertise,On-Call SupportlExhibitA-1_DEA Scope 76th 212th_2016-11-15.docx
City of Edmonds 1 Scope of Services, Supp. No. 8
76`' Ave. W and 212th St. SW Project November packet Pg. 466
7.3.a
Section 8.0 Utility Coordination
8.4 Utility Design for Overhead to Underground Conversion
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional consulting services for the overhead to underground utility
conversion not originally anticipated during the development of Supplement No. 7 and after the design
was substantially complete for advertisement in June 2016. Following consensus of the location of the
joint utility plan and sections, several utility companies required additional design changes that were
required to be incorporated into the final bid documents.
Additional potholes of existing underground utilities included as part of the project development resulted
in additional costs incurred by a third party vendor, Applied Professional Services, Inc. (APS). These
costs have been added under Direct Expenses.
Section 9.0 PS&E Design
9.5 Final Design (Bid Set Completion Level)
Modify Bid Package after June Advertisement
At the request of the CITY, the construction bid package was modified by the CONSULTANT after the
project was advertised for construction bids in June 2016 to address additional review comments provided
by the CITY. The revised documents were incorporated into an addendum to the bid package.
Update Bid Package to Include Bike2Health Project
The CONSULTANT shall update the bid package as requested by the CITY to incorporate the CITY's
Bike2Health project, which was developed by another consultant. The Bike2Health project plans are
anticipated to be added to the bid package as a separate stand-alone document. The Bike2Health project
specifications are anticipated to be incorporated into the 76th/212th project specifications. The
Bike2Health project cost estimate is anticipated to be incorporated into the 76th/212th project estimate as a
separate bid schedule.
Update Bid Package for WSDOT Specifications and Details
The CONSULTANT shall update the bid package for updated WSDOT specifications and details that
have been updated since June 2016. Review of the complete bid package for conformance with the
updated WSDOT Local Programs PS&E requirements will be required and included.
Update Bid Package per City input
The CONSULTANT shall update the bid package for minor modifications requested by the CITY. It is
not anticipated that significant changes to the bid package will be required.
Assistance During Bidding Period
The CONSULTANT shall assist the CITY during the bid period to answer questions that arise concerning
the PS&E documents and will assist the CITY in preparing addenda required. It is anticipated that 2 to 3
addenda will be needed for the project and will require preparation and coordination with the CITY for it
to post information on Builder's Exchange.
P.,IcICOED000000041000000N10030ContractlSupplement8-Re-Advertise,On-Call SupportlExhibitA-1_DEA Scope_76th 212th_2016-11-15.docx
City of Edmonds 2 Scope of Services, Supp. No. 8
76th Ave. W and 212th St. SW Project November Packet Pg. 467
7.3.a
The CONSULTANT will not charge the City for preparing information in an addendum, if the
information is needed to correct or clarify a failure to meet the standard of care in the bid package.
Section 13.0Construction Support Services
The CONSULTANT shall provide professional services to support the CITY during the construction of
the PROJECT. It is assumed that construction will occur during a 7-month period plus weather delay days
beginning in April 2017. This work shall include the following design construction support services:
13.1 Preconstruction Meeting and Coordination Meetings
As requested by the CITY, the CONSULTANT will attend the pre -construction meeting and contractor
coordination meetings during the construction period. For budgetary purposes, it is assumed the
CONSULTANT will attend the pre -construction meeting and other contractor coordination meetings in
person (as requested by the City and with consideration of the allocated budget for this task).
13.2 Site Meetings
The CONSULTANT shall attend site visits (as requested by the City and with consideration of the
allocated budget for this task) and record observations made.
13.3 Requests for Information (RFIs)
The CONSULTANT shall provide responses in a timely manner. Generally, the CITY will need RFI
responses within three business days of the request, however more or less time may be allocated for this
task depending on the issue.
13.4 Constructability Issues/Plan Clarifications
The CONSULTANT will provide input and guidance on constructability issues (as requested by the City
and with consideration of the allocated budget for this task). This includes on -site visits, design revisions
based on field conditions, or suggested plan changes by CITY staff. The CITY will provide a minimum
of 48 hours' notice for the CONSULTANT to perform the initial site visit to gather information to
review. The CONSULTANT shall provide written review and input in a timely manner so that the CITY
Contractor's work flow is not unnecessarily disrupted. This may necessitate the CONSULTANT
providing direction at the time of the field visit. Nothing herein shall require the CONSULTANT to
provide services in a manner that would precipitate performance below the generally accepted standard of
care for the CONSULTANT's industry.
13.5 Approval of Shop Drawings/Submittals
The CONSULTANT shall evaluate shop drawings, and proposals for substitutions of materials and
procedures as submitted by the Contractor for general conformance with the project requirements and
intent. The CONSULTANT shall provide review and approval of shop drawings and other submittals
within five business days.
13.6 Geotechnical Support
The CONSULTANT shall be available to observe the excavation for the detention vault. We estimate that
1 to 2 two-hour visits will be needed during excavation. The CONSULTANT will provide an engineering
geologist or geotechnical engineer to observe the excavation and verify that the base of the excavation has
adequate bearing capacity prior to construction of the base slab. We estimate an additional 3 to 4 site
visits (with approximately one hour on site) may be required to observe and test backfill operations at the
site.
P.,IcICOED000000041000000N10030ContractlSupplement8-Re-Advertise,On-Call SupportlExhibitA-1_DEA Scope_76th 212th_2016-11-15.docx
City of Edmonds 3 Scope of Services, Supp. No. 8
76`' Ave. W and 212th St. SW Project November packet Pg. 468
7.3.a
Upon completion of the inspections, the CONSULTANT shall provide a field report for each site visit.
A separate supplement will be prepared if additional inspections or environmental consultation services
are required during construction.
13.7 Prepare As -Built Record Drawings
It is assumed the CITY will provide one complete, consolidated set of redlines for the CONSULTANT to
use in the as -built drawing preparation. The CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft 11"x17" as -built record
drawing for the CLIENT'S review prior to finalizing. As -built mylars will not be prepared.
DELIVERABLES:
• Invoices with Progress Report (10 total)
• RFI Responses
• Signed and Stamped Approval of Shop Drawings
• As -Built Drawings - 11 "x17" and 22 "x34"paper, Electronic PDF and Electronic CAD
files —1 copy each of Draft and Final
• Geotechnical Support (Field Reports)
P.,IcICOED000000041000000N10030ContractlSupplement8-Re-Advertise,On-Call SupportlExhibitA-1_DEA Scope_76th 212th_2016-11-15.docx
City of Edmonds 4 Scope of Services, Supp. No. 8
76`' Ave. W and 212th St. SW Project November Packet Pg. 469
7.3.a
Exhibit E-1: Consultant Fee Determination - Fixed Fee
76th Ave W and 212th Street SW Intersection Improvement Project
City of Edmonds
Supplement No. 8
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Classification
Direct
Rate
Hours
Cost
1
Project Manager (PMGR)
$
64.00
220
$14,080
2
Managing Professional Engr/QC (MGPE)
$
64.00
60
$3,840
3
Professional Engineer (PFEN)
$
48.00
158
$7,584
4
Design Engineer (DEEN)
$
31.00
84
$2,604
5
Sr. CADD Technician (SCAD)
$
39.50
90
$3,555
6
Survey Manager (SVYM)
$
61.00
2
$122
7
Prof. Land Surveyor (PLSU)
$
36.00
4
$144
8
Party Chief (PCHF)
$
35.50
8
$284
9
Instrument Person (INST)
$
24.00
8
$192
10
Administrative Assistant (ADMA)
$
30.00
28
$840
11
Exec. Administrator (EXAD)
$
33.90
14
$475
Total Hours
676
Salary Cost
$33,720
Overhead Cost @ 184.46% of Direct Labor $62,199
Net Fee @ 28.20% of Direct Labor $9,509
Total Overhead & Net Fee Cost $71,708
Direct Expenses Unit Each No. Cost
Mail/Deliveries/Fed Ex @ $22 4 $88
Potholing (APS, Inc.) @ $2,024 1 $2,024
Mileage miles @ $0.54 /mile 600 $324
Subtotal $2,436
David Evans and Associates Total $107,864
Subconsultants: Costs
GeoEngineers, Inc. (On -Call Geotechnical) $5,000
Subconsultant Totals $5,000
Total Costs - Supplement No. 8 $112,864
Management Reserve Fund $10,000
Total Contract Amount $122,864
Page 1 of 2
Printed: 11 /15/2016
P:\c\COED00000004\OOOOCON\0030Contract\Supplement 8 - Re -Advertise, On -Call Support\Exhibit E-1_DEA Budget_76th & 212th_2016-11-15.x1 Packet Pg. 470
7.3.a
Exhibit E-1: Consultant Fee Determination - Summary Sheet
76th Ave W and 212th Street SW Intersection Improvement Project
City of Edmonds
Supplement No. 8
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
10 11
U
Q
`C
c
W
tL
�
Q
m
a
`i
w
U
_
a
v~
i
c
as
w
C
W
�
Z
•..-
y
d
O
"N
m
C
t6
'U
T
ll
C
t0
O
d
aNi
c
a`)
t
Z
U
y
`m
n
Q
o
a
W
m
'ot
e
H
m
CO
a
d
a)
>
.m
w
'�
as
c �.
d
cO
W c
Q
m
-a
=
m
t
>.
N
?
C
Q
Work
a)N
N
a)
J
V
Element
Work Element
a
2 2
d
0
U)
1n
a
d
c
Q
w
DEA
DEA
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total $
hrs
hrs
hrs
hrs
hrs
hrs
hrs
hrs
hrs
hrs
hrs
hrs
2.0
Proj. Management and Quality Control
2.1
Project Management and File Management (Design Phase)
16
2
2
20
$3,60
2.1
Project Management and File Management (Constr. Support)
32
4
2
38
$6,99
2.4
Monthly Progress Reports and Invoices (Design Phase)
3
3
3
9
$1,20
2.4
Monthly Progress Reports and Invoices (Constr. Support)
7
7
7
21
$2,79
Work Element 2.0 Total
58
16
14
88
$14,59
5.0
Survey
5.7
ROW Staking
2
4
8
8
22
$2,32
Work Element 5.0 Total
2
4
8
8
22
8.0
Utility Coordination
8.4
Utility Design for Overhead to Underground Conversion
8.4.1
Joint Utility Trench Coordination Meetings, Prep and Notes
4
4
$80
8.4.2
Joint Utility Trench Design Coordination
8
8
$1,60
8.4.3
Joint Utility Trench Plan, Sections, Specifications
4
8
10
4
26
$3,46
ork Element 8.0 Total
16
8
10
4
38
$5,86
9.0
PS&E Design
9.5
Construction Documents (Bid Set Completion Level)
9.5.1
Modify Bid Package After June Advertisement
8
12
20
20
16
8
84
$11,66
9.5.2
Update Bid Package to Include BikeLink
16
2
4
8
1
31
$5,07
9.5.3
Update Bid Package for WSDOT Spec/Detail Updates
16
2
4
2
2
26
$4,42
9.5.4
Update Bid Package per City Input
8
2
6
8
8
1
33
$4,75
9.5.5
Assistance During Bidding Period
10
2
10
10
8
40
$5,85
Work Element 9.0 Total
58
20
36
46
12
214
$31,78
13.0
Construction Support Services
13.1
Preconstruction Meeting and Coordination Meetings (4 est.)
16
8
8
32
$6,00
13.2
Site Meetings (4 est.)
16
8
8
32
$6,00
13.3
Requests for Information (RFIs)
16
12
24
20
72
$11,14
13.4
Constructability Issues/Plan Clarifications
20
8
40
8
12
88
$13,86
13.5
Approval of Shop Drawings/Submittals
8
4
20
32
$5,40
13.6
Geotechnical Support Coordination
4
4
$80
13.7
Prepare As -Built Record Drawings
8
14
32
54
$7,65
Work Element 13.0 Total
88
40
114
28
314
$50,87
Direct Expenses
$7,43
PROJECT WORK ELEMENTS TOTALS
1220
60
158
84
90
2
4
8
8
28
14
676
$112,86
d
N
LIL
08
N
rL
O
v
G7
C
d
E
N
!Z
I.
7
07
a
W
�.i
C
d
E
z
v
M
a
P:\c\COED00000004\OOOOCON\003OConhact\Supplement 8 - Re -Advertise, Or Call Support\Exhibit E-1_DEA Budget_76th & 212th_2016-11-15.xls
Pri Packet Pg. 471
7.3.a
Exhibit "E"
Summary of Payments
Basic
Suppl. #1
Suppl. #6
Authorized
Agreement
(Date Mod.)
Suppl. #2
Suppl. #3
Suppl. #4
Suppl. #5
(Date Mod.)
Suppl. #7
by City on
Suppl. #8
Total
5/23/16
Direct Salary Cost
$17,768
$61,974
$4,971
$25,874
$15,398
$26,377
$6,269
$33,720
$192,351
OverhPayroll ad (includingines
$32,774
$114,318
$9,169
$47,727
$28,404
$48,655
$11,563
$62,199
$354,809
Payroll Additives)
Direct Non -Salary Cost
$2,367
$27,012
$6,459
$67,714
$21,300
$20,130
$400
$7,436
$152,818
Fixed Fee
$5,010
$17,477
$1,401
$7,296
$4,342
$7,438
$1,768
$9,509
$54,241
Management Reserve
$22,000
($22,000)
$20,000
$0
$0
($20,000)
$10,000
$10,000
Fund
Total
$57,919
n/a
$242,781
$0
$168,611
$69,444
n/a
$102,600
$0
$122,864
$764,219
MANAGEMENT RESERVE RELEASES
The following management reserve releases have been issued and are now incorporated as part of the contract.
MRR #1 - Suppl. #3 8/9/2013 $ 22,000.00 Air Quality Report, PFE, Stormwater Report, PS&E docs
MRR #2 - Via Email 5/23/2016 $ 20,000.00 Utility Coordination, PS&E docs, On -Call Construction Support
Management Reserve Budget: $ 10,000.00
Management Reserve Balance: $ 10,000.00
DOT Form 140-063 EF
Revised 9/2005
Packet Pg. 472
7.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/22/2016
Continued Deliberations on the 2017 Proposed City Budget (60 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
Council continue their deliberations on the Proposed 2017 Budget.
The recommendation is for Council to make a motion to approve Ordinance XXXX adopting the 2017
Budget as amended.
Narrative
During tonight's Council Meeting:
1) Council can continue their deliberations on the Proposed 2017 Budget.
2) Council can choose to adopt the 2017 Budget.
Attachments:
Budget Changes
2017 Recommended Budget Ordinance for Agenda Bill
Packet Pg. 473
7.4.a
Staff Recommended Changes to the Budget
STAFF'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET CHANGES
Budget Budget
Book Increase Yes
Item # Page # Description (Decrease) No
GENERAL FUND
1 43 Increase budget for Prosecutor contract $50,000
Impacts to General Fund Budget $50,000
HOTEL/MOTEL FUND
2 95 Increase budget for Snohomish County Tourism ($200)
2 95 Decrease budget for Miscellaneous $200
Impacts to Fund 120 Budget $0
.r
a
Packet Pg. 474
7.4.a
Council Requested Changes to the Budget
COUNCIL'S REQUESTED BUDGET CHANGES
Item #
Budget
Book
Page #
Description
Budget
Increase
(Decrease)
Yes
No
GENERAL FUND
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
New Item
New Item
New Item
New Item
New Item
New Item
New Item
Page 33
Page 143
Page 143
Page 143
Page 143
New Item
Add Social Workers
Add Parking Enforcement Officer
Add Traffic Officers
Pedestrian Safety Training
Health District Contribution
Increase Annual Senior Center Contribution)
1 Radar Speed Indicator Trailer
Change Miscellaneous to Council Contingency
Reduce Professional Services Budget From $12,000 to $6,000
Reduce Travel Budget From$3,000 to $1,000
Reduce Rental Budget From $10,000 to $5,000
Reduce Misc. Budget From $13,000 to $5,000
Historic Preservation Intern
Impacts to General Fund Budget
$50,000
$82,300
$120,600
$15,000
$41,000
$15,000
$11,000
$0
($6,000)
($2,000)
($5,000)
($8,000)
$6,000
$319,900
Yes
?
?
?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
?
$0
Fund 126 REET 1
14
New Item
Land Bank Contribution
Impacts to Fund 126 Budget
$500,000
$500,000
Total Councilmember Requested Changes 819,900
IPlease see Attachment for these on -going costs
a
Packet Pg. 475
7.4.a
Ongoing Costs for Council Requested Changes to the Budget
COUNCIL'S REQUESTED 2017 BUDGET CHANGES
Budget
Budget
Book
Increase
Item #
Page #
Description
(Decrease)
GENERAL FUND
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
1
New Item
Add Social Workers
$50,000
$52,500
$55,130
$57,890
$60,780
2
New Item
Add Parking Enforcement Officers
$82,300
$86,420
$90,740
$95,280
$100,040
3
New Item
Add Traffic Officers
$120,600
$126,630
$132,960
$139,610
$146,590
4
New Item
Pedestrian Safety Training
$15,000
5
New Item
Health District Contnbution
$41,000
6
New Item
Increase Annual Senior Center Contnbution1
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
7
New Item
1 Radar Speed Indicator Trailer
$11,000
8
Page 33
Change Miscellaneous to Council Contingency
$0
9
Page 143
Reduce Professional Services Budget From $12,000 to $6,000
($6,000)
10
Page 143
Reduce Travel Budget From $3,000 to $1,000
($2,000)
11
Page 143
Reduce Rental Budget From $10,000 to $5,000
($5,000)
12
Page 143
Reduce Misc. Budget From $13,000 to $5,000
($8,000)
13
New Item
Historic Preservation Intern
$6,000
Impacts to General Fund Budget
$319,900
$280,550
$293,830
$307,780
$322,410
Fund 126 REET 1
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
13
New Item
Land Bank Contribution
$500,000
Impacts to Fund 126 Budget
$500,000
Total Councilmember Requested Changes
IThese are on -going costs
819,900 280,550 293,830 307,780 322,410
Packet Pg. 476
7.4.b
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2017 AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, on or before the first business day in the third month prior to the
beginning of the fiscal year of 2017, the Finance Director submitted to the Mayor the
estimates of revenues and expenditures for the next fiscal year as required by law; and,
WHEREAS, the Mayor reviewed the estimates and made such revisions and/or
additions as deemed advisable and prior to sixty days before January 1, 2017, filed the said
revised preliminary budget with the City Clerk together with a budget message, as
recommendation for the final budget, and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk provided sufficient copies of such preliminary budget
and budget message to meet the reasonable demands of taxpayers therefore and published and
posted notice of filing and the availability of said preliminary budget together with the date of a
public hearing for the purpose of fixing a final budget, all as required by the law, and
WHEREAS, the City Council scheduled hearings on the preliminary budget for
the purpose of providing information regarding estimates and programs, and
WHEREAS, the City Council did meet on November 1, 2016 which was on or
before the first Monday of the month next preceding the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year, for
the purpose of fixing a final budget at which hearing all taxpayers were heard who appeared for
or against any part of said budget, and
2017 Budget Ordinance
Page 1
Packet Pg. 477
7.4.b
WHEREAS, following the conclusion of said hearing the City Council made such
adoptions and changes as it deemed necessary and proper, NOW, THEREFORE;
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Attached hereto and identified as Exhibit A, in summary form, are
the totals of estimated revenues and appropriations for each separate fund and the aggregate
totals for all such funds combined, and by this reference said Exhibit A is incorporated herein as
if set forth in full and the same is hereby adopted in full. The Finance Director is authorized to
update year-end fund balances in the final budget document as projected prior to printing the
final budget document.
Section 2. A complete copy of the final budget for 2017, as adopted, together
with a copy of this adopting ordinance shall be transmitted by the City Clerk to the Division of
Municipal Corporations of the Office of the State Auditor and to the Association of Washington
Cities.
Section 3. This ordinance is a legislative act delegated by statute to the City
Council of the City of Edmonds, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect January 1,
2017.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
2017 Budget Ordinance Page 2
Packet Pg. 478
7.4.b
C
CITY ATTORNEY, JEFFREY TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
2017 Budget Ordinance
Page 3
Packet Pg. 479
7.4.b
On the
passed Ordinance No.
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
day of , 2016, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2017; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; 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
2017 Budget Ordinance
2016.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Page 4
Packet Pg. 480
7.4.b
EXHIBIT "A" 2016 BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND
Fund No.
Fund Description
Revenue
Expenditure
Difference (Rev -
Exp) *
001
General Fund
$ 37,753,480
$ 39,658,740
$ (1,905,260)
009
LEOFF Medical Insurance Reserve Subfund
278,630
293,460
(14,830)
011
Risk Management Reserve Subfund
6,800
-
6,800
012
Contingency Reserve Subfund
44,650
-
44,650
014
Historic Preservation Gift Fund
5,030
5,400
(370)
016
Building Maintenance Subfund
452,000
482,000
(30,000)
104
Drug Enforcement Fund
130,000
76,030
53,970
111
Street Fund
1,772,200
1,910,760
(138,560)
112
Street Construction Fund
5,933,570
5,962,970
(29,400)
117
Municipal Arts Acquisition Fund
137,200
181,880
(44,680)
118
Memorial Tree Fund
110
-
110
120
Hotel/Motel Tax Fund
91,200
89,700
1,500
121
Employee Parking Permit Fund
24,600
26,880
(2,280)
122
Youth Scholarship Fund
1,800
2,000
(200)
123
Tourism Promotional Arts Fund
30,450
34,700
(4,250)
125
FEET 2
1,311,900
2,476,000
(1,164,100)
126
Special Capital/Parks Acquisition
1,314,400
2,180,310
(865,910)
127
Gifts Catalog Fund
50,390
51,220
(830)
129
Special Projects Fund
280
-
280
130
Cemetery Maintenance/Imp.Fund
177,820
217,020
(39,200)
132
Parks Construction Fund
2,616,940
2,935,000
(318,060)
136
Parks Trust Fund
1,070
-
1,070
137
Cemetery Maintenance Fund
22,880
-
22,880
138
Sister City Commission Fund
10,010
10,500
(490)
139
Transportation Benefit District Fund
-
-
-
211
LID Control Fund
14,400
16,450
(2,050)
213
LID Guaranty Fund
-
-
231
2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund
695,830
695,830
232
2014 Debt Service Fund
-
-
421
Water Utility Fund
8,469,570
12,745,260
(4,275,690)
422
Water Utility Fund
4,770,970
7,495,330
(2,724,360)
423
Water Utility Fund
11,663,700
14,995,780
(3,332,080)
424
Water Utility Fund
1,988,700
1,989,720
(1,020)
511
Equipment Rental Fund
1,628,910
1,873,000
(244,090)
512
Technology Rental Fund
946,040
890,430
55,610
617
Firemen's Pension Fund
66,000
72,070
(6,070)
Totals
$ 82,411,530
$ 97,368,440
$ (14,956,910)
* Amount represents a contribution of (use of) fund balance
2017 Budget Ordinance
Page 5
Packet Pg. 481