The URL can be used to link to this page

2013-06-11 City Council - Public Agenda-1498'4- o 90 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds JUNE 11, 2013 6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE 1, (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda 2, (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items A. Approval of claim checks #202434 through #202584 dated June 6, 2013 for $461,109.90. Approval of payroll direct deposit & checks #60214 through #60232 for $450,623.94, benefit checks #60233 through #60244 and wire payments of $198,581.58 for the period May 16, 2013 through May 31, 2013. B. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of May 28, 2013. C. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013. 3, Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the agenda as Closed Record Review or Public Hearings 4, (30 Minutes) Convene in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i), and labor negotiations per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). 5, (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments 6, (15 Minutes) Council Comments ADJOURN TO CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS The City Council Committee Meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff. Members of the public are welcome to observe the meeting, but public participation is limited to making comments at the end of the meeting with a 3 minute limit per person. 7. Finance Committee Jury Meeting Room Packet Page 1 of 546 A. (5 Minutes) Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles. B. (10 Minutes) Presentation of 2013 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update and proposed sewer utility rate increases. C. (10 Minutes) Adoption of revenue bond ordinance and resolution. D. (10 MinuteS) Discussion regarding future city utility rate adjustments. E. (5 Minutes) Authorization for Mayor to sign acceptance of additional Coordinated Prevention Grant Funding. F. (10 Minutes) April 2013 Monthly Financial Report G. (15 MinuteS) Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Interim Members Advisory Board's Proposed Bylaws and Work Program/Budget for Year 2013. H. (5 Minutes) Ordinance Amending Edmonds City Code Sections 3.75.060 - 100 Relating to the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Members Advisory Board. I. (20 Minutes) Park Impact Fee Study direction. J. (10 Minutes) Public Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 8. Parks. Planning & Public Works Committee Meeting Room: Council Chambers A. (5 Minutes) Special Event Contract for Bastille Day B. (20 Minutes) Park Impact Fee Study direction. C. (5 Minutes) Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #2 with Perteet for channelization plan, right-of-way acquisition, and access management work on the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project. D. (20 Minutes) Briefing on Six -Year Transportation Improvements Program (2014-2019) E. (5 Minutes) FAC Accessibility Upgrades Project Award F. (10Minutes) Presentation of 2013 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update and proposed sewer utility rate increases. G. (10 Minutes) Adoption of revenue bond ordinance and resolution. H. (10 MinuteS) Discussion regarding future city utility rate adjustments. I. (5 Minutes) Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #7 with David Evans & Associates for the Five Corners Roundabout Project. J. (10 Minutes) Public Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 9. Public Safety and Personnel Committee Meeting Room: Police Training Room A. (15 Minutes) Possible action regarding draft Resolution adopting Robert's Rules of Order as the City Council's new Rules of Procedure. B. (10 Minutes) Proposed changes to Edmonds City Code Chapter 10.75 -Citizens Economic Development Commission. C. (10 Minutes) Public Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) Packet Page 2 of 546 ADJOURN Packet Page 3 of 546 AM-5833 2. A. City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Submitted By: Nori Jacobson Department: Finance Committee: Tyne: Action Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #202434 through #202584 dated June 6, 2013 for $461,109.90. Approval of payroll direct deposit & checks #60214 through #60232 for $450,623.94, benefit checks #60233 through #60244 and wire payments of $198,581.58 for the period May 16, 2013 through May 31, 2013. Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. Previous Council Action N/A 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. Fiscal Year: 2013 Fiscal Impact: Claims $461,109.90 Fiscal Impact Revenue: Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $450,623.94 Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $198,581.58 Total Payroll $649,205.52 Attachments Claim checks 06-06-13 Project Numbers 06-06-13 Payroll Benefit 06-05-13 Payroll Summary 06-05-13a Payroll Summary 06-05-13b Expenditure: 1,110,315.42 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Cone 06/06/2013 11:42 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/06/2013 11:43 AM Mayor Dave Earling 06/06/2013 11:45 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 06/06/2013 11:55 AM Fonn Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 06/06/2013 10:23 AM Packet Page 4 of 546 Final Approval Date: 06/06/2013 Packet Page 5 of 546 vchlist 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 1 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202434 6/6/2013 072627 911 ETC INC 23505 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT Monthly 911 database maint 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 100.00 Total: 100.00 202435 6/6/2013 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 3Z101199APR INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 702.44 Total: 702.44 202436 6/6/2013 062614 ABPA A7292-13 2013 National Dues, Local Dues 2013 National Dues, Local Dues 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 80.00 Total: 80.00 202437 6/6/2013 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 513265 LIFEGUARD SHIRTS LIFEGUARD SHIRTS 001.000.64.575.51.31.00 175.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.51.31.00 16.65 Total: 191.95 202438 6/6/2013 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 13-0273 WWTP - JANITORIAL SERVICE WWTP - JANITORIAL SERVICE 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 334.00 Total: 334.00 202439 6/6/2013 073626 ALPHA ECOLOGICAL 2232403 PS - Pest Control PS - Pest Control 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 99.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 9.41 Total: 108.41 202440 6/6/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6833162 UNIFORM SERVICE RENATLS UNIFORM SERVICE RENATLS Page: 1 Packet Page 6 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202440 6/6/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 33.42 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 3.17 Tota I : 36.59 202441 6/6/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6785474 WWTP UNIFORMS, TOWELS, & MA WWTP UNIFORMS 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 1.14 WWTP TOWELS & MATS 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 55.04 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.11 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 5.23 655-6785476 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 18.55 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.76 655-6790069 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 001.000.65.519.91.41.00 1.07 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.07 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.07 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.07 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.07 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.09 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.519.91.41.00 0.10 Page: 2 Packet Page 7 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202441 6/6/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.39 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.39 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.39 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.39 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38 655-6790070 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFOR STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFOR 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFOR 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47 655-6790071 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.14 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.36 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.49 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.60 655-6797458 WWTP UNIFORMS, TOWELS, & MA WWTP UNIFORMS 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 1.14 WWTP TOWELS & MATS 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 54.57 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 3 Packet Page 8 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202441 6/6/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.11 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 5.18 655-6797460 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 18.55 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.76 655-6801863 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 001.000.65.519.91.41.00 1.07 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.07 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.07 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.07 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.09 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.519.91.41.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.39 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.39 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.39 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.39 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.07 655-6801864 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFOR Page: 4 Packet Page 9 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202441 6/6/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFOR 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFOR 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47 655-6801865 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.14 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.61 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.49 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.63 655-6809338 WWTP UNIFORMS, TOWELS, & MA WWTP UNIFORMS 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 1.14 WWTP TOWELS & MATS 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 54.57 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.11 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 5.18 655-6809340 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 18.55 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.76 655-6813798 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 001.000.65.519.91.41.00 1.07 Page: 5 Packet Page 10 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202441 6/6/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.07 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.07 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.07 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.07 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.09 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.519.91.41.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.39 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.39 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.39 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.39 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38 655-6813799 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFOR STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFOR 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFOR 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47 655-6813800 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.14 Page: 6 Packet Page 11 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202441 6/6/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.36 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.49 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.60 655-6821177 WWTP UNIFORMS, TOWELS, & MA WWTP UNIFORMS 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 1.14 WWTP TOWELS & MATS 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 54.57 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.11 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 5.18 655-6821179 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 18.55 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.76 655-6825567 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 001.000.65.519.91.41.00 1.07 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.07 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.07 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.07 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.07 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.09 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 7 Packet Page 12 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202441 6/6/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 202442 6/6/2013 071653 ARNOLD, MEREDITH Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 001.000.65.519.91.41.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.39 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.39 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.39 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.39 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38 655-6825568 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFOR STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFOR 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFOR 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47 655-6825569 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.14 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.76 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.49 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.64 Total: 514.56 ARNOLD 060113 PRECIOUS METAL CLAY 17037 PRECIOUS METAL CLAY 17037 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 110.00 Page: 8 Packet Page 13 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202442 6/6/2013 071653 071653 ARNOLD, MEREDITH (Continued) Total: 110.00 202443 6/6/2013 070251 ASHBROOK SIMON-HARTLEY 126654 WWTP - BEARING SPLASH GUARD WWTP - BEARING SPLASH GUARD 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 954.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 27.73 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 90.63 Total: 1,072.36 202444 6/6/2013 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0438925-IN WWTP - DIESEL WWTP - DIESEL 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 5,709.98 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 542.45 0441744-IN WWTP - DIESEL WWTP - DIESEL 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 2,907.66 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 276.23 Total: 9,436.32 202445 6/6/2013 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 69605 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area # 600 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 33.22 UB Outsourcing area # 600 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 33.22 UB Outsourcing area # 600 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 34.21 UB Outsourcing area # 600 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 119.58 UB Outsourcing area # 600 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 119.57 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 2.87 Page: 9 Packet Page 14 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202445 6/6/2013 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 2.87 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 3.82 Tota I : 349.36 202446 6/6/2013 072455 BEAR COMMUNICATIONS INC 4206876 City Wide Radio Service City Wide Radio Service 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 255.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 24.23 Total: 279.23 202447 6/6/2013 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 520745 Fleet Brake Kit Inventory Fleet Brake Kit Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 399.84 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 37.98 Total: 437.82 202448 6/6/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 4848 INV#4848 - EDMONDS PD - BARRA( YELLOW POLICE BARRACADE TAF 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 382.40 Freight 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 36.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 39.75 4848-80 REFUND SHIPPING/HANDLING CH( Freight 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 -36.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 -3.42 Total: 418.73 202449 6/6/2013 065739 BOBBY WOLFORD TRUCKING & 056676 Storm - Concrete / Brush Dump Fees Page: 10 Packet Page 15 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202449 6/6/2013 065739 BOBBY WOLFORD TRUCKING & (Continued) Storm - Concrete / Brush Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 378.00 Total: 378.00 202450 6/6/2013 069295 BROWN, CANDY BROWN MAY 2013 MAY BIRD NATURALISTS PROGRAI MAY BIRD NATURALISTS PROGRAI 001.000.64.574.35.41.00 92.40 Total: 92.40 202451 6/6/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12775079 WWTP CONTRACT 001-0601079-00 WWTP CONTRACT 001-0601079-00 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 85.80 Total: 85.80 202452 6/6/2013 074442 CAPITAL ONE 8941 Fac Maint -Supplies Fac Maint -Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 230.39 Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 47.94 PW - Supplies 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 5.11 PW - Supplies 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 19.41 PW - Supplies 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 19.41 PW - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 19.41 PW - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 19.41 PW - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 19.43 PW - Supplies for Public Records 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 1.77 PW - Supplies for Public Records 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 6.74 Page: 11 Packet Page 16 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202452 6/6/2013 074442 CAPITAL ONE (Continued) PW - Supplies for Public Records 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 6.74 PW - Supplies for Public Records 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 6.74 PW - Supplies for Public Records 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 6.74 PW - Supplies for Public Records 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.74 Total: 415.98 202453 6/6/2013 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA CARLSON 16876 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING 16876 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING 16876 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 409.50 Total: 409.50 202454 6/6/2013 068484 CEMEX LLC 9426118078 Roadway - Asphalt Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 350.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 33.25 9426127341 Roadway - Asphalt Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 405.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 38.48 Total: 826.73 202455 6/6/2013 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 194085 Fleet - Argon, Centrashield Cylinders Fleet - Argon, Centrashield Cylinders 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 120.85 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 11.49 Total: 132.34 202456 6/6/2013 067314 CERTIFIED FOLDER DISPLAY SVC 463857 DISTRIBUTION OF TOURISM BROC Page: 12 Packet Page 17 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202456 6/6/2013 067314 CERTIFIED FOLDER DISPLAY SVC (Continued) Distribution of tourism brochures in 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 4,027.30 Total: 4,027.30 202457 6/6/2013 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 1-218359-279832 WWTP FLOW METER 2203 N 205TF WWTP FLOW METER 2203 N 205Th 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 14.82 Total: 14.82 202458 6/6/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2553159-2 Fac Maint - Extension Tubes and Cat Fac Maint - Extension Tubes and Cat 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 338.81 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 32.19 W2555627 Fac Maint - Alcohol Wipes, TT, Towle Fac Maint - Alcohol Wipes, TT, Towle 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 761.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 72.33 Total: 1,204.73 202459 6/6/2013 074448 COBURN, DOUG COBURN 05/30/2013 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT 17. VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT 17. 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 175.00 Total: 175.00 202460 6/6/2013 070323 COMCAST 8498310300721433 CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICE CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICE 130.000.64.536.20.42.00 119.70 Total: 119.70 202461 6/6/2013 073912 CROWN FILMS/CUSTOM BIOPLASTICS 80361 REGULAR SIZE DOG WASTE BAGS REGULAR SIZE DOG WASTE BAGS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,344.00 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 13 Packet Page 18 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202461 6/6/2013 073912 CROWN FILMS/CUSTOM BIOPLASTICS (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 127.68 Total: 1,471.68 202462 6/6/2013 063519 CUZ CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC 212780 Storm - 6 Catch Basins and Fuel Cha Storm - 6 Catch Basins and Fuel Cha 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 735.50 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 69.87 Total: 805.37 202463 6/6/2013 067794 DALCO INC 70398 WWTP - SERVICE CALL FOR BURN WWTP - SERVICE CALL FOR BURN 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 245.79 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 23.36 Total: 269.15 202464 6/6/2013 074257 DANIKA PLUMBING & CONTRACTING BLD20130555 Online Permit. Applicant did not get Online Permit. Applicant did not get 001.000.257.620 75.00 Total: 75.00 202465 6/6/2013 074444 DATAQUEST LLC 5/31/13 Background check services Background check services 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 281.95 Total: 281.95 202466 6/6/2013 072189 DATASITE 34589 INV#34589 ACCT#61515 - EDMONC SHREDDING 1 TOTE 5/9/13 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 40.00 Total: 40.00 202467 6/6/2013 072189 DATASITE 34466 SHREDDING SERVICES/CABINETS Doc Shred Services City Clerk 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 115.00 Doc Shred Services Finance Page: 14 Packet Page 19 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202467 6/6/2013 072189 DATASITE (Continued) 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 50.00 Total: 165.00 202468 6/6/2013 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 330327 E1AA.SERVICES THRU 3/30/13 E1AA.Services thru 3/30/13 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 16,781.51 331520 E1AA.SERVICES THRU 5/4/13 E1AA.Services thru 5/4/13 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 16,478.81 Total: 33,260.32 202469 6/6/2013 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 5/15/13 - 6/5/13 STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PIE State Share of Concealed Pistol 001.000.237.190 390.00 Total: 390.00 202470 6/6/2013 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 05/13 DRS MAY 2013 DRS May 2013 DRS 811.000.231.540 158,106.02 Total: 158,106.02 202471 6/6/2013 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 13-3363 MINUTE TAKING 5/14 & 5/21 Council Minutes 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 426.00 13-3364 MINUTE TAKING 5/28 Council Minutes 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 267.00 Total: 693.00 202472 6/6/2013 014430 DMH INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC INC 482543 FS 17 - Hot Water Circulation Pump P FS 17 - Hot Water Circulation Pump P 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 371.00 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.50 9.2% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 36.75 Page: 15 Packet Page 20 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202472 6/6/2013 014430 014430 DMH INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC INC (Continued) Total: 436.25 202473 6/6/2013 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 05312013 STATE LOBBYIST FOR MAY 2013 State lobbyist charges for May 2013 001.000.61.519.70.41.00 2,391.25 Total: 2,391.25 202474 6/6/2013 007253 DUNN LUMBER 135040 FAC - Pallet Deposit Returned FAC - Pallet Deposit Returned 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -15.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -1.43 1844803 FAC - Concrete Building Blocks 8"x8" FAC - Concrete Building Blocks 8"x8" 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 90.64 Pallet Deposit 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.04 Total: 99.25 202475 6/6/2013 068292 EDGE ANALYTICAL 13-07845 Water Quality - Water Samples Water Quality - Water Samples 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 1,024.00 Total: 1,024.00 202476 6/6/2013 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 16278 LUNCH BUSINESS EXPO 6/01/2013 Lunch for director while working at 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 11.00 Total: 11.00 202477 6/6/2013 068803 EJ USA INC 3601252 Storm - 12 ea Locking Vaned Grates, Storm - 12 ea Locking Vaned Grates, 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 2,750.52 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 261.30 Page: 16 Packet Page 21 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202477 6/6/2013 068803 068803 EJ USA INC (Continued) Total: 3,011.82 202478 6/6/2013 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 114647 RADIX MONTHLY MAINTAGREEME Radix Monthly Maint Agreement - 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 152.00 Total: 152.00 202479 6/6/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 0879421 MAI NT AGREEMENT A7027 MAINT AGREEMENT A7027 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 127.06 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 12.07 Total: 139.13 202480 6/6/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 087898 WWTP - COPY MACHINE RENTAL, WWTP - COPY MACHINE RENTAL, 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 145.25 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 13.80 Total: 159.05 202481 6/6/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 087385 COPIER MAINT COPIER MAINT 001.000.23.523.30.45.00 2.16 087721 COPIER MAINT COPIER MAINT 001.000.23.512.50.45.00 108.23 Total: 110.39 202482 6/6/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 087943 CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 C Meter charges 04/30/13 - 05/30/13 B! 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 91.43 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 8.69 Total: 100.12 202483 6/6/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 087872 METER READING Page: 17 Packet Page 22 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 202483 6/6/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) 87953 202484 6/6/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 087428 087470 PO # Description/Account Recep. Desk Copier 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 METER READING Meter Reading 5/30 to 6/30 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 WATER SEWER COPY USE Water Sewer Copy Use 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Water Sewer Copy Use 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 PW COPY USE PW Copy Use 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 PW Copy Use 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 PW Copy Use 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 PW Copy Use 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 PW Copy Use 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 PW Copy Use 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.5% Sales Tax Amount 28.01 2.66 183.26 17.41 Total : 231.34 22.92 22.92 2.18 2.17 4.83 2.74 2.74 1.93 1.93 1.92 Page: 18 Packet Page 23 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202484 6/6/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 0.46 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 0.26 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 0.26 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0.18 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.18 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.19 087876 FLEET COPY USE Fleet Copy Use 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.27 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.12 Total: 69.20 202485 6/6/2013 071967 ENG, STEPHEN ENG 16892 TAEKWON-DO BEGINNING 16892 TAEKWON-DO BEGINNING 16892 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 79.00 Total: 79.00 202486 6/6/2013 074446 ENVIRONMENTAL ABATEMENT SVCS A13102 ABESTOS ABATEMENT, YOST POO ABESTOS ABATEMENT, YOST POO 125.000.64.576.80.48.00 6,042.00 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.48.00 573.99 Total: 6,615.99 202487 6/6/2013 067599 EWING ELECTRIC INC EPD1001 WWTP - SWITCHGEAR UPGRADE, WWTP - SWITCHGEAR UPGRADE, 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 50,259.45 9.5% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 4,774.65 Page: 19 Packet Page 24 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202487 6/6/2013 067599 067599 EWING ELECTRIC INC (Continued) Total: 55,034.10 202488 6/6/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU28551 Storm - Supplies Storm - Supplies 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 1.97 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 0.19 Total: 2.16 202489 6/6/2013 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 53113 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 9,450.00 Total: 9,450.00 202490 6/6/2013 063387 FEREBEE, JOAN 6413 TRAVEL REFUND ADMINISTRATOR TRAVEL REFUND ADMINISTRATOR 001.000.23.512.50.43.00 234.98 Total: 234.98 202491 6/6/2013 074447 FINELLI, JAIME Ref000252845 LI Refund Cst #00006487 LI Refund Cst #00006487 001.000.257.310 30.00 Total: 30.00 202492 6/6/2013 074062 FITNESS INDUSTRIOUS LLC CROSSFIT 17021 CROSSFIT KIDS CROSSFIT KIDS 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 30.00 Total: 30.00 202493 6/6/2013 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 216523 Flex Plan monthly minimum fee Flex Plan monthly minimum fee 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 50.00 218389 Flex Plan monthy Min Fee and Flex Plan monthy Min Fee and 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 75.00 Total: 125.00 Page: 20 Packet Page 25 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202494 6/6/2013 011900 FRONTIER 202495 6/6/2013 011900 FRONTIER 202496 6/6/2013 011900 FRONTIER 202497 6/6/2013 073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA Invoice 425-745-5055 253-012-9189 253-017-7256 425-771-5553 253-003-6887 253-020-6656 GAVIOLA 16880 202498 6/6/2013 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 111385 PO # Description/Account MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL 001.000.64.575.56.42.00 Total WWTP AUTO DIALER- 1 VOICE GR WWTP AUTO DIALER- 1 VOICE GR 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 W WTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRAI W WTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRAI 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 WWTP AUTO DIALER- 1 BUSINES: WWTP AUTO DIALER- 1 BUSINES: 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 Total POINT EDWARDS CIRCUIT LINE SF POINT EDWARDS CIRCUIT LINE SF 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 Total TAEKWON-DO CONTINUING TAEKWON-DO CONTINUING 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 Total Fleet - Tire Inventory (20) Fleet - Tire Inventory (20) 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 St Tire Fee 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 Amount 69.97 69.97 41.08 217.18 97.50 355.76 41.67 21.95 63.62 290.50 290.50 2,159.80 20.00 205.18 Page: 21 Packet Page 26 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202498 6/6/2013 063137 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTE (Continued) Total: 2,384.98 202499 6/6/2013 012199 GRAINGER 9147764741 Storm - Ear Plugs Storm - Ear Plugs 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 368.60 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 35.02 Total: 403.62 202500 6/6/2013 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 136134 Unit 134 - Indicator Assembly Unit 134 - Indicator Assembly 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 23.22 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.21 136410 Unit 51 - Fuel Cap Assembly Unit 51 - Fuel Cap Assembly 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 20.48 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.95 136532 Unit 775 - Wheel Nuts Unit 775 - Wheel Nuts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 74.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.03 136566 Unit 6 - Moulding Unit 6 - Moulding 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 64.70 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.15 Total: 199.74 202501 6/6/2013 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 13367659 Water Inventory - #0563 - W-CPLG-0 Water Inventory - #0563 - W-CPLG-0 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 433.08 Water Supplies -Straps, Caps, Acces 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3,711.92 Page: 22 Packet Page 27 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202501 6/6/2013 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC (Continued) Water Supplies - Hole Saws, Compre 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,030.87 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 41.14 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 450.57 Total: 5,667.58 202502 6/6/2013 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC 00049010-B1 WWTP - PROJECT C385 FROM DE( WWTP - PROJECT C385 FROM DE( 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 1,911.30 Total: 1,911.30 202503 6/6/2013 074443 HEADWORKS INC 13-0311EDM1 WWTP-SPRIAL ASSEMBLY,REPL) WWTP - SPRIAL ASSEMBLY, REPL) 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 7,767.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 510.00 Total: 8,277.00 202504 6/6/2013 066575 HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL 26842595-001 Storm - Big Top - Fork Lift Rental Storm - Big Top - Fork Lift Rental 422.000.72.531.40.45.00 867.00 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.45.00 82.38 Total: 949.38 202505 6/6/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2091268 WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES, WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES, \ 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 146.22 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 13.89 5425318 WWTP - TOOL STORAGE BOX, ELE WWTP - TOOL STORAGE BOX, ELE 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 1,785.00 Page: 23 Packet Page 28 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202505 6/6/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 169.58 6043898 WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES, I WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES, I 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 201.88 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 19.18 Total: 2,335.75 202506 6/6/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2285691 BATTERIES Batteries 001.000.61.519.70.31.00 24.34 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.519.70.31.00 2.31 Total: 26.65 202507 6/6/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2283706 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 232.07 Total: 232.07 202508 6/6/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2283639 Misc. office supplies including Dymo Misc. office supplies including Dymo 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 334.38 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 31.77 Total: 366.15 202509 6/6/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2253556 refund on office supplies refund on office supplies 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 -3.56 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 -0.34 2286312 Office supplies Office supplies Page: 24 Packet Page 29 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202509 6/6/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 69.07 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 6.56 Total: 71.73 202510 6/6/2013 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 410951 PRESCHOOL INTERNET PRESCHOOL INTERNET 001.000.64.575.56.42.00 15.00 Total: 15.00 202511 6/6/2013 070097 INLAND TECHNOLOGY INC 81162 WWTP - 30 GALLON DRUM, CLEAN WWTP - 30 GALLON DRUM, CLEAN 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 801.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 79.85 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 83.68 Total: 964.53 202512 6/6/2013 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 582413 WWTP - CHLORINE WWTP - CHLORINE 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 2,589.95 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 264.17 Total: 2,854.12 202513 6/6/2013 074438 KAPPES, NICHOLAS BLD20121108 Per Building Official. Work not Per Building Official. Work not 001.000.257.620 81.60 Total: 81.60 202514 6/6/2013 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3688520 INV#3688520 ACCT#100828 - EDMC 10 CASES MULTI USE COPY PAPEF 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 246.20 HANDLING FEE Page: 25 Packet Page 30 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202514 6/6/2013 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE (Continued) 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 36.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 23.39 Tota I : 306.49 202515 6/6/2013 073924 KEARNS, JESSIKA CHRISTINE KEARNS 16884 TAEKWON-DO 16884 TAEKWON-DO 16884 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 23.00 TAEKWON-DO 16888 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 196.00 Total: 219.00 202516 6/6/2013 074330 KING, BEN 5/15/13 - 5/31/13 GEOSPATIAL DATA COLLECTION & Geospatial Data Collection Mapping 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 446.31 Total: 446.31 202517 6/6/2013 067877 KINGSTON LUMBER SUPPLY COMPANY 210305 Traffic Control - 4x4x12 Studs Traffic Control - 4x4x12 Studs 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1,336.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 126.92 Total: 1,462.92 202518 6/6/2013 074240 KNIGHT, KAREN KNIGHT 16798 FUN FACTORY 16798 FUN FACTORY 16798 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 347.65 Tota I : 347.65 202519 6/6/2013 070285 KPLU-FM IN-1130531206 KPLU RADIO BLOCK AD ON HOME Promotional block ad on KPLU Radio 001.000.61.558.70.44.00 120.00 Total: 120.00 202520 6/6/2013 068024 KRUCKEBERG BOTANIC GARD FOUND KRUCKEBERG 17071 KRUCKEBERG 17071 KRUCKEBERG 17071 Page: 26 Packet Page 31 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202520 6/6/2013 068024 KRUCKEBERG BOTANIC GARD FOUND (Continued) 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 204.75 Total: 204.75 202521 6/6/2013 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 5013-475 FUEL FUEL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 45.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.37 5013-503 LONG HANDLE HOE SCRAPER LONG HANDLE HOE SCRAPER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 82.93 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.88 Total: 141.16 202522 6/6/2013 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 001254-00 PARTS PARTS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 19.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.87 001255-00 PARTS PARTS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 160.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 15.28 Total: 197.65 202523 6/6/2013 061900 MARC 0497719-IN WWTP- DELIMER WWTP - DELIMER 423.000.76.535.80.31.59 354.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.59 33.63 Total: 387.63 202524 6/6/2013 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1223 INTERPRETER FEE Page: 27 Packet Page 32 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202524 6/6/2013 069362 MARSHALL, CITA (Continued) INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 120.32 1260 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 1285 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 1286 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 88.32 1287 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 88.32 1290 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 Total: 561.92 202525 6/6/2013 070028 MCA 50613 PROBATION OFFICER TRAINING Al PROBATION OFFICER TRAINING Al 001.000.23.523.30.49.00 145.00 Total: 145.00 202526 6/6/2013 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 52148118 WWTP - TOGGLE SWITCH GUARD WWTP - TOGGLE SWITCH GUARD 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 99.60 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 5.18 52428994 WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES, I WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES, 1 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 324.30 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 5.18 52476007 WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES, Page: 28 Packet Page 33 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202526 6/6/2013 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO (Continued) WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES, 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 69.39 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 31.40 52513895 WWTP - MECHANICAL, HIGH VOLU WWTP - MECHANICAL, HIGH VOLU 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 216.20 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 5.18 52807373 WWTP - SUPPLIES, SOAP/DISPEN: WWTP - SUPPLIES, SOAP/DISPEN: 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 491.76 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 49.57 Total: 1,297.76 202527 6/6/2013 020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC C 62532 Fac Maint - Plug Cutter Fac Maint - Plug Cutter 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.80 Total: 20.75 202528 6/6/2013 072223 MILLER, DOUG MILLER 5/29/2013 GYM MONITOR 3 ON 3 BASKETBAL GYM MONITOR 3 ON 3 BASKETBAL 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 125.00 Total: 125.00 202529 6/6/2013 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 167387 Storm - Big Top - Rental Body Harne_ Storm - Big Top - Rental Body HarneE 422.000.72.531.40.45.00 45.63 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.45.00 4.33 167845 Storm - Big Top - Impact Wrench Ren Storm - Big Top - Impact Wrench Ren Page: 29 Packet Page 34 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202529 6/6/2013 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC (Continued) 422.000.72.531.40.45.00 55.69 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.45.00 5.29 168228 Street - Big Top - Electric Rental Street - Big Top - Electric Rental 111.000.68.542.31.45.00 25.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.45.00 2.37 168443 Street - Gatorline for Weed Trimmer Street - Gatorline for Weed Trimmer 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 37.90 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 3.60 Total: 179.81 202530 6/6/2013 073918 MINTON, SHARON MINTON 17057 PRENATAL YOGA PRENATAL YOGA 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 146.40 Total: 146.40 202531 6/6/2013 074035 MORRIS LAW PC 1 Preparation of Title 21 & 17.03 Preparation of Title 21 & 17.03 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 10,000.00 Total: 10,000.00 202532 6/6/2013 069923 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC WA23-250439 WWTP - OIL SEALS, MECHANICAL WWTP - OIL SEALS, MECHANICAL 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 19.66 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 9.69 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 2.78 WA23-250457 WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES, WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES, 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 18.57 Page: 30 Packet Page 35 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202532 6/6/2013 069923 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC (Continued) Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 39.82 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 5.54 Total: 96.06 202533 6/6/2013 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 52635 Unit 9 - Hose Unit 9 - Hose 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 125.71 9.2% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.57 Total: 137.28 202534 6/6/2013 072339 NORTHSHORE PAVING INC E2CA.RetRelease E2CA.RETAINAGE RELEASE E2CA.Retainage Release 421.000.223.400 6,158.99 Total: 6,158.99 202535 6/6/2013 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 384 Verbatim Transcript for PLN20130022 Verbatim Transcript for PLN20130022 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 432.00 000 00 385 Planning Board meeting minutes on Planning Board meeting minutes on 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 288.00 Total: 720.00 202536 6/6/2013 074391 NW WA SUBSECTION AWWA 2013 Short School S PNCWA Short School (4) - T Harris, J PNCWA Short School (4) - T Harris, J 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 760.00 2013 Short School WS PNCWA Short School (3)- J Waite, Li PNCWA Short School (3)- J Waite, Li 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 570.00 Total: 1,330.00 202537 6/6/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 901858 BINDERS FOR CARRIE Page: 31 Packet Page 36 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202537 6/6/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 202538 6/6/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) BINDERS FOR CARRIE 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 18.78 FOLDERS AND PENS FOR ARTS Of 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 39.35 BINDERS FOR DAYCAMP 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 15.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 1.79 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 3.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 1.51 902019 BINDERS FOR DAY CAMP BINDERS FOR DAY CAMP 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 7.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 0.74 956509 DISCOVERY FOLDERS DISCOVERY FOLDERS 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 20.57 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 1.96 Total: 112.24 913639 INV#913639 ACCT#520437 250POL FLAIR RED MARKERS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 9.98 FLAIR BLUE MARKERS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 13.97 CORRECTION TAPE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 5.72 BASIC BLACK PENS -CLERKS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 2.61 CD-R DISCS Page: 32 Packet Page 37 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202538 6/6/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC (Continued) 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 34.26 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 3.08 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 3.25 Total: 72.87 202539 6/6/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 794881 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 399.54 Total: 399.54 202540 6/6/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 793012 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 63.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 6.03 Total: 69.55 202541 6/6/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 816847 Storm - Ink Pack Storm - Ink Pack 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 91.02 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 8.65 Total: 99.67 202542 6/6/2013 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0054671 23700 104TH AVE W 23700 104TH AVE W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.57 0060860 23700 104TH AVE W 23700 104TH AVE W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.86 Total: 100.43 202543 6/6/2013 072539 OTAK INC-WASHINGTON 51300203 E2CC.SERVICES THRU 5/3/13 Page: 33 Packet Page 38 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 34 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202543 6/6/2013 072539 OTAK INC-WASHINGTON (Continued) E2CC.Services thru 5/3/13 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 21,995.13 Total: 21,995.13 202544 6/6/2013 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 148455 Storm - 3Way TopSoil Storm - 3Way TopSoil 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 84.00 7.7% sales tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 6.47 Total: 90.47 202545 6/6/2013 072211 PARADIGM PRESS INC 1253-65-66-67-68 TOURISM AD IN ALASKA/HORIZON Tourism ad in Alaska and Horizon Air 120.000.31.575.42.44.00 1,595.00 Total: 1,595.00 202546 6/6/2013 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. 954023036708 Log Cabin - Paint Supplies Log Cabin - Paint Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 39.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.80 954023036858 PS - Paint Supplies PS - Paint Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 32.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.13 Total: 79.82 202547 6/6/2013 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20110010.000-21 E7AC.SERVICES THRU 4/28/13 E7AC.Services thru 4/28/13 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 6,908.99 Total: 6,908.99 202548 6/6/2013 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 3949179 WWTP - BUILDING 500, ORP, ELEC WWTP - BUILDING 500, ORP, ELEC Page: 34 Packet Page 39 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 35 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202548 6/6/2013 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 158.11 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 15.02 5003739 WWTP - EMERGENCY LIGHTING WWTP - EMERGENCY LIGHTING 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 18.56 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 1.76 Total: 193.45 202549 6/6/2013 064088 PROTECTION ONE 2010551 ALARM MONITORING MEADOWDAI ALARM MONITORING CLUBHOUSE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 107.10 Total: 107.10 202550 6/6/2013 074342 PROTHMAN COMPANY 2013-3933 Interim Finance Director Interim Finance Director 001.000.31.514.20.41.00 6,056.40 Total: 6,056.40 202551 6/6/2013 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 0013000-IN WWTP - EXOFIT VEST WWTP - EXOFIT VEST 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 247.50 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 23.52 Total: 271.02 202552 6/6/2013 031600 RELIABLE FLOOR COVERINGS 119778 Sr Center- Flooring Supplies Sr Center- Flooring Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 560.10 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 53.21 Total: 613.31 202553 6/6/2013 006841 RICOH USA INC 5026155493 Meter charges for reception Page: 35 Packet Page 40 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 36 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202553 6/6/2013 006841 RICOH USA INC (Continued) Meter charges for reception 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 7.76 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 0.74 Total: 8.50 202554 6/6/2013 074014 SAIC ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT & 03-774 E1 FM.SERVICES THRU 5/3/13 E1 FM.Services thru 5/3/13 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 21,775.57 Total: 21,775.57 202555 6/6/2013 074445 SEA WOLVES FC 3 ENTRANCE FEES TO OME OPENEF ENTRANCE FEES TO OME OPENEF 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 1,200.00 Total: 1,200.00 202556 6/6/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2013-2711-1 610 PINE STREET 610 PINE STREET 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 30.69 2015-5730-3 750 15TH ST SW 750 15TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 219.47 2016-1027-6 750 15TH ST SW 750 15TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.37 2021-6153-5 OLYMPIC BEACH FISHING PIER OLYMPIC BEACH FISHING PIER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 118.83 Total: 384.36 202557 6/6/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2019-9517-2 WWTP FLOW METER 9805 EDMON WWTP FLOW METER 9805 EDMON 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 30.70 Total: 30.70 202558 6/6/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2001-2487-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W Page: 36 Packet Page 41 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 37 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202558 6/6/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 48.81 2011-0356-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 54.02 2015-6343-4 TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 48.90 2017-0375-8 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10( PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10( 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 43.93 2017-1178-5 STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 1,414.10 2025-2918-6 STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 2,439.86 2025-2920-2 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 113.38 2025-7615-3 STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 14,052.74 2025-7948-8 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 329.36 2047-1489-3 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150' STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150' 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 3.32 2047-1492-7 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 73.65 2047-1493-5 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 38.85 Page: 37 Packet Page 42 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 38 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202558 6/6/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 2047-1494-3 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 9.88 2047-1495-0 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 133.94 Total: 18,804.74 202559 6/6/2013 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103587 DISPOSAL FEES MAY DISPOSAL FEES MAY 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 670.49 Tota I : 670.49 202560 6/6/2013 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103584 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLIN, WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLIN, 423.000.76.535.80.47.66 29.95 Total: 29.95 202561 6/6/2013 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 550.68 103585 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 674.47 103586 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 555.23 103588 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 459.89 Total: 2,240.27 202562 6/6/2013 068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE 35557 FS 17 - Maint Service on Drive Belts FS 17 - Maint Service on Drive Belts 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 346.88 Page: 38 Packet Page 43 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 39 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202562 6/6/2013 068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 32.95 Total: 379.83 202563 6/6/2013 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100487892.002 City Hall - Exit Light City Hall - Exit Light 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 184.54 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.53 S100524565.001 PS - Lamp Housings PS - Lamp Housings 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 300.00 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 27.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 31.12 S100525784.001 Sr Center - Supplies Sr Center - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.68 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.49 S100526973.001 PW - Fuses PW - Fuses 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 48.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.59 Total: 630.82 202564 6/6/2013 074439 SULLIVAN, JAN SULLIVAN 05282013 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.239.200 200.00 Total: 200.00 202565 6/6/2013 070864 SUPERMEDIALLC 440011684161 C/A440001304654 Basic e-commerce hosting 05/02/13 - Page: 39 Packet Page 44 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 40 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202565 6/6/2013 070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC (Continued) 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95 440011684173 C/A 440001307733 05/2013 Web Hosting for Internet 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95 Total: 69.90 202566 6/6/2013 074242 SWAN, AMARA SWAN 16799 FUN FACTORY FUN FACTORY 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 402.48 Total: 402.48 202567 6/6/2013 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 30373009 Storm - Heavy Duty Grade Floor Drye Storm - Heavy Duty Grade Floor Drye 422.000.72.531.10.31.00 1,134.78 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.10.31.00 107.80 Total: 1,242.58 202568 6/6/2013 073970 TALLMAN, TYLER TALLMAN 053113 60.5 HOURS OF SOFTBALL FIELD A 60.5 HOURS OF SOFTBALL FIELD F 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 605.00 Total: 605.00 202569 6/6/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 108763 POOL, XFIT, CAMP ADS IN SPLASH POOL, XFIT, CAMP ADS IN SPLASH 001.000.64.571.22.44.00 960.00 Total: 960.00 202570 6/6/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1821094 NEWSPAPER AD Hearing to update SMP 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 60.20 1821107 NEWSPAPER AD Hrng on 228th St Corridor Imp. Proj. 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 79.12 1821192 NEWSPAPER ADS Hearing: Bldg & Fire code Page: 40 Packet Page 45 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 41 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202570 6/6/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY (Continued) 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 60.20 1821844 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3920 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 24.08 1821848 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3921 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 25.80 1821851 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3922 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 24.08 Total: 273.48 202571 6/6/2013 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 359831 PARTS PARTS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 434.61 Freight 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.47 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 42.28 Total: 487.36 202572 6/6/2013 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 359712 FS 17 - Lav Handle Conversion FS 17 - Lav Handle Conversion 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 60.38 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.68 Total: 76.89 202573 6/6/2013 073255 TOTAL FILTRATION SERVICES, INC PSV1064477 Fac Maint - Air Filter Supply Fac Maint - Air Filter Supply 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 25.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.46 Page: 41 Packet Page 46 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 42 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202573 6/6/2013 073255 073255 TOTAL FILTRATION SERVICES, INC (Continued) Total: 28.38 202574 6/6/2013 074440 TOTH, JOY TOTH 05292013 REFUND REFUND 001.000.239.200 60.00 Total: 60.00 202575 6/6/2013 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC 46000 EDMONDS MARSH SIGNS EDMONDS MARSH SIGNS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 79.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.53 Total: 86.73 202576 6/6/2013 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WF 0480691-WA WATER DIVISION - DOT CERT TESL WATER DIVISION - DOT CERT TESL 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 70.00 Total: 70.00 202577 6/6/2013 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9705374076 C/A571242650-0001 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bid Dept 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 205.02 iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 56.00 iPad Cell Service Council 001.000.11.511.60.42.00 260.14 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 130.96 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning De 001.000.62.558.60.42.00 94.98 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Econ Devlpi 001.000.61.519.70.42.00 74.99 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering 001.000.67.532.20.42.00 357.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 90.95 Page: 42 Packet Page 47 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 43 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202577 6/6/2013 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 94.98 iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 40.01 iPhone/iPad Cell Service IT 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 300.91 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor's Offi 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 84.99 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Dept 001.000.64.571.21.42.00 54.97 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 796.65 Air cards Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 840.36 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 001.000.65.519.91.42.00 130.96 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW St Dept 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 76.76 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/ 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 38.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/ 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 37.99 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Sewer 1 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 94.98 iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 120.97 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 134.99 iPad Cell Service PW Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 80.02 9705483326 C/A 772540262-00001 Lift Station access - testing 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 15.02 Page: 43 Packet Page 48 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 44 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202577 6/6/2013 067865 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS (Continued) Total: 4,212.60 202578 6/6/2013 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 29284513 WWTP - PART TIME ADMINISTRATI` WWTP - PART TIME ADMINISTRATI` 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 488.80 29318571 WWTP - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTA WWTP - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTA 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 537.68 Total: 1,026.48 202579 6/6/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5909 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 545.31 Total: 545.31 202580 6/6/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5914 BUSINESS CARDS-ADRIENNE FRA 250-00302 Business Cards -Adrienne Fraley Mon 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 45.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 4.28 Total: 49.28 202581 6/6/2013 072939 WESTERN WHOLESALE SUPPLY 259148 Cith Hall - 2nd Floor Project - Vinyl Cith Hall - 2nd Floor Project - Vinyl 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 63.04 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.99 Total: 69.03 202582 6/6/2013 064213 WSSUATREASURER 59 MENSAND CO-ED MENS AND CO-ED 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 2,607.00 Total: 2,607.00 202583 6/6/2013 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1017 MAY-13 RETAINER Monthly Retainer - May 2013 001.000.36.515.33.41.00 13,390.00 Page: 44 Packet Page 49 of 546 vchlist Voucher List Page: 45 06/06/2013 8:36:42AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 202583 6/6/2013 070432 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC (Continued) 202584 6/6/2013 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0162834 151 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 151 Vouchers in this report Description/Account Amount Total : 13,390.00 Traffic Control - Steel Drive Rivets Traffic Control - Steel Drive Rivets 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 270.00 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 9.46 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 26.55 Total : 306.01 Bank total : 461,109.90 Total vouchers : 461,109.90 Page: 45 Packet Page 50 of 546 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 EOLA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 EOLB General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 ElEA PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 EBMB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM NPDES m013 E7FG STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1 FD STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1 FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) c349 E1 FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 EOFC STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1 FA STM Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements c307 E9FB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 EOAA STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA Revised 6/5/2013 Packet Page 51 of 546 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 EBGC SWR City -Wide Sewer Improvements c301 EBGD SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) c298 EBGA SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 EOJA WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 5th Avenue Overlay Project c399 E2CC WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 EOIA WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD Revised 6/5/2013 Packet Page 52 of 546 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title WWTP N/A c385 WWTP Switchgear Upgrade EOAA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM EOFC c326 Stormwater GIS Support KWTR EOIA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements WTR EOJA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program OLAr c32 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project FAC EOLB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs S ers Roundabout (212th Street Sa@ 84th Avenue W) STIR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neiahborhood Traffic Calmina 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E1DA c354 Sunset Wal SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1 FA c336 SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades STM E1 FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects tormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives E1 FN rrinville Creek Culvert Replacement SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Upda nowSewer, WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with nwood WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study 1111�PRV Station 11 a Bandon WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program E1JK In Street Watermain STIR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update 9th Avenue Improvement Project STIR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program Pioneer Way Road Repa STIR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlav Proiect STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Draina SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study Revised 6/5/2013 Packet Page 53 of 546 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Funding Number STM E2FE SWR E2GB EYA STM E3FB Project Accounting Number Project Title c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c369J&12 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update Am c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c406 1%013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects AW E3FC c408 ��reek Stor�v Reductrofit Sfudy STM EYD c409 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) orthstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements * _ WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program OVD Watermain Improvements STIR E61DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program E7AA Main Street LightipjLand_§ygwalk Enhancements STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements _ E7CB hell Valley Emergency ccess Road STM E7FG m013 NPDES E7MA ayton Street Plaza SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from Us 13 - 09/01/08) E8GC NSF Double Track Project SWR E8GD c301 City -Wide Sewer Improvements PM E8MA ourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking 2009 Street Overlay Program STIR E91DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 6/5/2013 Packet Page 54 of 546 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number Project Title WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program STIR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STIR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project STIR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STIR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza PM c282 EBMA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM c290 EBMB Marina Beach Additional Parking STIR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR c298 EBGA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR c300 EBGC BNSF Double Track Project SWR c301 EBGD City -Wide Sewer Improvements SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design STM c307 E9FB Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation STIR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements WTR c324 EOIA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements STM c326 EOFC Stormwater GIS Support FAC c327 EOLA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project STIR c329 EOAA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade FAC c332 EOLB Senior Center Roof Repairs WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program STM c336 E1 FA SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM c339 E1 FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program STM c341 E1 FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STIR c343 E1AB 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming WTR c344 E1JB 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study Revised 6/5/2013 Packet Page 55 of 546 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number Project Title WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment SWR c347 E1GA 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement STM c349 E1 FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STIR c354 E1 DA Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR c363 EOJA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program STIR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update WTR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update General c372 ElEA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM c374 E1 FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain STM c376 E1 FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM c378 E21FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM c382 E21FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements WWTP c385 N/A WWTP Switchgear Upgrade WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation STIR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update STIR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STIR c399 E2CC 5th Ave Overlay Project STIR c404 E2AC Citywide Safety Improvements STIR c405 E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM c406 EYA 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM c407 E3FB 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM c408 E3FC Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM c409 E3FD Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM c410 E31FE Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive STIR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Revised 6/5/2013 Packet Page 56 of 546 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number Project Title STM m013 E7FG NPDES Revised 6/5/2013 Packet Page 57 of 546 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 EOAA STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 EOJA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1 CA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 EOIA SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 EBGC STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC SWR City -Wide Sewer Improvements c301 EBGD 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) c409 E3FD WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 EOLA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA Revised 6/5/2013 Packet Page 58 of 546 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) c298 EBGA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 EBMB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1 FD PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 EOLB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 ElEA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1 FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) c349 E1 FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 EOFC STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1 FA WWTP WWTP Switchgear Upgrade c385 N/A STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA Revised 6/5/2013 Packet Page 59 of 546 PROJECT NUMBERS (Phase and Task Numbers) Phases and Tasks (Enaineerina Division Phase Title ct Construction ds Design pl Preliminary sa Site Acquisition & Prep st Study ro Right -of -Way Task Title 196 Traffic Engineering & Studies 197 MAIT 198 CTR 199 Engineering Plans & Services 950 Engineering Staff Time 970 Construction Management 981 Contract 990 Miscellaneous 991 Retainage stm Engineering Staff Time -Storm str Engineering Staff Time -Street swr Engineering Staff Time -Sewer wtr Engineering Staff Time -Water prk Engineering Staff Time -Park Packet Page 60 of 546 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 614 - 05/16/2013 to 05/31/2013 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 60233 06/05/2013 mebt AST TTEE 78,172.91 0.00 60234 06/05/2013 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 1,150.00 0.00 60235 06/05/2013 epoa4 EPOA-4 POLICE SUPPORT 117.00 0.00 60236 06/05/2013 flex FLEX -PLAN SERVICES, INC 399.83 0.00 60237 06/05/2013 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 1,495.64 0.00 60238 06/05/2013 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 3,241.05 0.00 60239 06/05/2013 cope SEIU COPE 62.00 0.00 60240 06/05/2013 seiu SEIU LOCAL 925 3,023.08 0.00 60241 06/05/2013 sdu STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 250.00 0.00 60242 06/05/2013 uw UNITED WAY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 356.00 0.00 60243 06/05/2013 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,215.57 0.00 60244 06/05/2013 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 15,800.50 0.00 106,283.58 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 2008 06/05/2013 aflac AFLAC 4,676.12 0.00 2011 06/05/2013 front FRONTIER BANK 87,413.38 0.00 2012 06/05/2013 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 208.50 0.00 92,298.00 0.00 Grand Totals: 198,581.58 0.00 6/4/2013 Page 1 of 1 Packet Page 61 of 546 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 645 (05/01/2013 to 05/31/2013) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours 170 174 191 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL BASE PAY COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAY FIRE PENSION PAYMENTS 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 Total Net Pay: Amount 7,000.00 200.00 2,608.94 $9,808.94 $7,126.74 06/04/2013 Packet Page 62 of 546 Page 1 of 1 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 614 (05/16/2013 to 05/31/2013) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 347.75 10,778.59 122 VACATION VACATION 959.00 29,364.52 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 66.50 2,221.52 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 90.00 2,534.83 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 143.50 4,394.28 130 COMP HOURS Holiday Compensation Used 18.00 572.64 131 MILITARY MILITARY LEAVE 10.00 343.59 132 JURY DUTY JURY DUTY 22.00 458.34 141 BEREAVEMENT BEREAVEMENT 11.00 233.58 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Day Used 179.00 6,150.72 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 42.44 1,838.54 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 1.00 31.80 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 15,957.25 496,004.74 196 REGULAR HOURS LIGHT DUTY 133.00 4,891.96 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 114.25 4,716.00 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 48.00 2,191.27 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLAW 18.00 1,588.39 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 199.25 11,834.98 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 33.50 2,088.83 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 859.14 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 1,026.99 600 RETROACTIVE PAY RETROACTIVE PAY 0.00 415.80 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 75.50 0.00 603 COMP HOURS Holiday Comp 1.0 45.00 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 109.50 0.00 607 COMP HOURS Holiday Compensatory Time 1.5 9.00 0.00 900 VACATION ACCRUED VACATION -56.00 0.00 901 SICK ACCRUED SICK LEAVE 54.56 0.00 acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 23.56 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 159.69 boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC II Certification 0.00 80.05 cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 137.44 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 513.04 06/04/2013 Packet Page 63 of 546 Page 1 of 2 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 614 (05/16/2013 to 05/31/2013) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 95.89 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 795.84 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 722.30 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 834.14 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 4,920.31 furls SICK FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 197.00 6,179.37 hol HOLIDAY HOLIDAY 1,095.80 33,919.03 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 211.31 Iq1 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 1,928.00 Iq2 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 4% 0.00 1,518.30 Iq3 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY 6% 0.00 4,669.31 Iq4 LONGEVITY Longevity 1 % 0.00 398.02 Iq5 LONGEVITY Longevity 3% 0.00 66.98 Iq6 LONGEVITY Longevity .5% 0.00 223.39 Iq7 LONGEVITY Longevity 1.5% 0.00 642.01 Iqh LONGEVITY Longevity Hourly 0.00 0.00 mtc MISCELLANEOUS MOTORCYCLE PAY 0.00 191.78 ooC MISCELLANEOUS 5% OUT OF CLASS 0.00 239.28 pds MISCELLANEOUS Public Disclosure Specialist 0.00 44.66 phy MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 1,665.12 prof MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 0.00 147.00 sdp MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5% 0.00 290.85 sqt MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 147.00 traf MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC 0.00 302.03 19,923.80 $645,606.75 Total Net Pay: $443,497.20 06/04/2013 Packet Page 64 of 546 Page 2 of 2 AM-5836 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: City Clerk's Office Committee: Tyne: Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of May 28, 2013. Recommendation Review and approval. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. 05-28-13 Draft City Council Meeting Minutes Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 06/06/2013 Attachments Action Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 06/06/2013 11:37 AM Sandy Chase 06/06/2013 11:55 AM Started On: 06/06/2013 11:28 AM 2. B. Packet Page 65 of 546 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES May 28, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 5:45 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5tn Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Lora Petso, Council President Strom Peterson, Councilmember Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember* *(arrived 5:46 p.m.) Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Walker Kasinadhuni, Student Representative 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr. Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder Deputy City Clerk Linda Hynd called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmembers Johnson and Buckshnis. (Councilmember Johnson arrived at 5:46 p.m.) 2. INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD. At 5:47 p.m., the City Council met with the following candidates for appointment to the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board, Darcy Macpherson, Roy Smith and Douglas Swartz. The meeting took place in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. All City Councilmembers, with the exception of Councilmember Buckshnis, were present for the interviews. 3. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). Mayor Earling announced at 6:45 p.m., the City Council would meet in executive session regarding pending litigation per RCW 42.3.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 15 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. He advised the Council may take action as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday and Deputy City Clerk Linda Hynd. At 7:02 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to those present in the Council Chambers Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 1 Packet Page 66 of 546 that an additional 10 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 7:12 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:15 p.m. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council President Petso added an announcement regarding Yost Pool as Item 5.5. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 21, 2013. B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #202229 THROUGH #202340 DATED MARCH 23, 2013 FOR $865,048.92 (REPLACEMENT CHECK #202315 $104.74). C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM THOMAS J. PAULSON (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). D. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - NORTH SOUND METRO SWAT. E. ANNUAL RENEWAL OF SNOHOMISH REGIONAL DRUG & GANG TASK FORCE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (2013-2014). F. ORDINANCE NO. 3923 — AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 4.12 TO EXEMPT STREET VENDORS PARTICIPATING IN CERTAIN SPECIAL EVENTS FROM THE STREET VENDOR LICENSE FEE AND APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS AND THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 4.12.055.0. 5.5 ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING YOST POOL. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained as preparation for aquatic season began a month ago, a leak was detected in the hot water tank that serves the showers. It was difficult to diagnose and required asbestos abatement. The contractors are attempting to locate an off -the -shelf unit to replace the tank as well as be more efficient. She announced the pool will not open June 3, but she was hopeful the pool could be opened by June 10. She summarized at this time the cost and the actual opening date are unknown. The leak of the shower tank into the pool tank will also require replacing all the filters. Ms. Hite explained $120,000 was authorized by Council in the 2013 budget to replace the Yost Pool boiler. She suggested using those funds to replace the shower tank and not replace the boiler until this replacement is made. Park Maintenance Manager Rich Lindsay and Pool Operator Steve Redwine assure her the pool can "limp along" this year with the existing boiler. She was hopeful the tank replacement would be within the $120,000 range and she did not have to return to Council for additional authorization. Because it is an emergency and she would like to open the pool as soon as possible, she suggested including it in the energy efficiency contractor's contract who has presented ideas for replacing the tank with a more energy efficient tank, as well as replacing of shower heads. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 67 of 546 Councilmember Peterson asked whether a motion was necessary. Ms. Hite answered the financial authorization is already included in the 2013 CIP for Yost Pool although it states specifically boiler and this would be for the water tank in order to open the pool. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained there is budget authority and contracting authority. If there is sufficient appropriation in the budget, no further budget authority is needed. Whether Council authority is required to approve the contract depends on whether the contract exceeds the $100,000 limit. Ms. Hite was hopeful the contract would be under $100,000; if it was not, she would return to Council for approval. There were no objections by Councilmembers to Ms. Hite's suggestion. Mayor Earling requested a press release regarding the reason and solution. Ms. Hite suggested releasing a press release tomorrow when further information is available from the contractor. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Pamela Shaw, Educational Homestay Programs, explained their mission is breaking down barriers of language, culture and geography. This is done by bringing international students into local communities to help them improve their English, learn about American culture and share their culture with members of the community. The students arrive July 3 and stay for 31/2 weeks until July 29. Approximately 350 students, ages 13-18 years, are coming to the Pacific Northwest this summer for 3-4 weeks; 40 will be in the Snohomish County area. Homes are needed for approximately 20 students for 1, 2 or 31/2 weeks. EHSP organizes two full day activities for students; the rest of the time they are with their American families or individuals who are interested in learning about another culture and sharing their own. The students' lives are changed when they learn about the real America. The host does not need to have a child in their home; many empty nesters and individual professionals enjoy hosting a student. Her contact information for anyone interested in hosting a student is Pamela.Shaw@ef.com or 617-233-7467. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, addressed Mayor Earling, stating he is still waiting for an answer to his question: "Does state law allow City planning staff approval of a variance to the lot requirements as specified in ECDC 16, subdistricts, without public notice and hearing?" He noted with Mayor Earling's experience and his sworn oath to uphold the laws of Edmonds, he was entitled to Mayor Earling's answer. Mr. Tupper assured he would continue to come to Council meetings until he received a response from Mayor Earling. 7. PRESENTATION: WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT EARLY FEASIBILITY STUDY/EDMONDS MARSH. Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster identified the project team, Keeley O'Connell, Senior Project Manager, EarthCorps; and consultant team: Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Anchor QEA, LLC, and Confluence Environmental. He explained most of the funding for this project was provided by the State Recreation and Conservation (RCO) through the Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board. The focus of the study was primarily fish due to the funding source. Mr. Shuster explained daylighting means taking part of a stream that is currently in an enclosed pipe and creating an open-air stream channel instead. He displayed an aerial view of Willow Creek, identifying its flow though the marsh and explaining where it was put in a pipe in the 1960s. The focus of this project is to open the connection between the channel and Puget Sound. He explained daylighting Willow Creek would: Improve connection between Puget Sound and Edmonds Marsh o More saltwater marsh, closer to its original ecosystem, better for salmon, birds, and other critters. o Lower water level at low tide that may help area flooding o Higher water level at high tide? If so, tide gate can mitigate. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 68 of 546 Mr. Shuster reviewed the project history: • First got major traction with the Edmonds Crossing Project — Environmental Enhancement (FEIS 2004) • Sound Transit's Sounder Train Project wBNSF o Needed environmental mitigation for filling of wetlands further north o City suggested Sound Transit install bridges for future daylighting of Willow Creek. He displayed a photograph of the new bottomless culverts/bridges/trestles installed by BNSF/Sound Transit in 2011 to facilitate daylighting of the Creek. Keeley O'Connell, Senior Project Manager, EarthCorps, stated the primary focus of the project is to explore the feasibility of providing (and maximizing) Chinook salmon access to rearing habitat in Edmonds Marsh, primarily juvenile Chinook salmon. A secondary focus is to keep the Marsh level lower during large storm events. She pointed out this is a rare opportunity because most of these habitats on the east side of the Puget Sound basin were completely filled. She displayed a map of WRIA 8 identifying juvenile Chinook migration patterns. There are a lot of juvenile Chinook salmon off the beach in Edmonds in the eel grass and kelp beds but they are unable to get into the marsh due to the pipe system. Ms. O'Connell displayed a United States Coastal Survey 1872 map overlaid on a current satellite image of downtown Edmonds. She described historic conditions including the 100+ acre barrier estuary of which approximately 32 acres remain. It was a common practice over the past century to fill and build upon these areas. This area has uniquely rich habitat, a rare opportunity between Everett to Tacoma. Ms. O'Connell described the goals of the early feasibility phase: • Document existing conditions • Evaluate three alternative alignments (RCO requirement) • Develop conceptual plan based on preferred alternative • Perform hydrodynamic modeling • Assess biological/fish response • Provide recommendations for next phase Ms. O'Connell described the three alternative alignments: 1. North — historically the creek channel went north 2. Directly into Marina — shortest distance 3. Extend existing open channel south — connection to healthiest beach and where bridges have been installed She displayed a map of the alternative alignments analysis and explained the south alignment was chosen as the preferred alignment due to: • Fish response • Healthier, broader, more gently sloping beach • Larger eel grass and kelp beds, • Existing bridges which avoids negotiation with BNSF • Entering a marina would be challenging for juvenile salmon who are dependent on sense of smell • North or marina alignment would not achieve goal of daylighting Willow Creek as culverts or pipes would be required for the majority of the stretches due to existing infrastructure Ms. O'Connell displayed a map of the preferred alignment across the beach to the south, advising the alignment shown on the map was not necessarily the exact alignment. One of the next steps will be to determine the best alignment for fish to enter the system as well as hydrologically for water to leave the marsh to alleviate flooding. She described biological benefits of this project: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 69 of 546 • If juvenile fish enter the channel early in the tidal cycle, they would have access to the marsh up to 60% of the time. • If fish enter later in the flood tidal cycle, their access will be limited starting 1 to 2 hours after high slack tide. • However, residency in the marsh and upper creeks will be possible between tidal cycles if channels are excavated and habitat value improved above the salt marsh area. Mr. Shuster described hydrological benefits, explaining the increased connectivity to Puget Sound from the daylighted channel does not appear to increase flood water surface elevations and may actually reduce flood water surface elevations. He displayed a graph comparing flows during the December 3, 2007 flood event for existing and proposed conditions. Mr. Shuster explained the study concluded it is feasible to daylight Willow Creek and provide a biological benefit and probable hydrologic benefit. Recommendations include: • Additional data to calibrate a model for design • Evaluate the need for a tide gate • Evaluate if modifications to existing RR bridges are needed to optimize project • Determine optimum biological and hydraulic alignment through beach • Work on real estate issues • More to preliminary design & permitting Mr. Shuster provided an early cost opinion: • Final feasibility, engineering design and permitting: $1.1 million (City of Edmonds has applied to RCO for $315,441 with $225,051 in secured match for final feasibility and preliminary engineering design) • Implementation — total estimated cost: $4.35 million o Mobilization/Demobilization: $250,000 o Beach Outfall Construction: $1,210,000 o Daylight Channel Construction: $1,306,600 o Marsh Improvements: $155,000 o Taxes, Insurance, Contingency (30%): $1,428,000 Ms. O'Connell described the RCO grant the City has applied for via the SRF Board, explaining the City submitted the pre -application last month. The scope of work for that proposal finalizes feasibility of this project and initial design work. She noted it was difficult to apply for enough money to complete design and permitting because the funder wants to see that the project continues to make sense as progress is being made. Although this grant funder's focus is salmon, there are many other avenues to secure additional local, state and federal funding due to other implications of this project such as alleviating flooding, improving habitat and quality of life, human connection to the system, etc. She is in the process of identifying other funding sources; one of the challenges for a project manager is to combine funding with the timing of the project. Council President Petso asked about the source of the $225,000 City match. Mr. Shuster answered stormwater fees. Councilmember Bloom referred to Ms. O'Connell's comment that this marsh is the only such marsh in the area. Ms. O'Connell responded there is only one other somewhat similar opportunity from Everett to Tacoma, Tilow Park in Tacoma, but it historically has been a different kind of marsh system. They are slightly further in their design. Many of the systems in the region were completely filled in the past; one of the largest, Salmon Bay in Seattle, is where Lake Union used to drain into Puget Sound. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 70 of 546 Councilmember Bloom asked about the potential for salmon to return. Ms. O'Connell explained salmon were not actually born in this system. These two creeks historically had Coho but not Chinook; Chinook are mainsteam spawners and use only the biggest rivers such as the Skagit, Snohomish, Stilliquamish, and Cedar. When they emerge from rivers, they find these types of habitats, to rear until they are large enough to swim out to the open ocean where they remain for 3-5 years and migrate back to Puget Sound and sniff out the river where they were born. If the system is opened up, Chinook and likely Coho will return. She anticipated with restoration adult Coho would spawn in Willow Creek in the future. For Councilmember Bloom, Ms. O'Connell explained the new bridge/culvert is a 33 foot bottomless culvert. The only covered section of Willow Creek would be under the two railroad tracks. Daylighting also provides an opportunity to create a vegetated habitat buffer on both sides of the creek to create shade needed to keep the water cool. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the rehabilitation would benefit other wildlife. Ms. O'Connell explained in addition to salmon, restoration would improve the resident cutthroat trout population in Willow Creek. It would also greatly improve bird habitat. The existing tide gate, which must be shut manually, is closed mid -October to Marsh, essentially turning the saltwater marsh into a freshwater marsh for those months which are critical months for migratory marine birds that would normally utilize this habitat. It would also improve the habitat for reptiles and amphibians. Although she had not seen evidence of beaver or river otter in the marsh, they would use these types of habitats. Councilmember Johnson asked about the relationship between salmon recovery and drainage. She referred to the salt marsh mud flat area and the fresh water emergent on the map, asking which habitat the fish will thrive in and what impact dredging a new channel will have on that habitat. Ms. O'Connell answered juveniles primarily use the salt marsh areas. Their bodies have to physiologically change from birth in freshwater to migrate into saltwater in Puget Sound; once they make that change, they tend not to return to fresh water. Adult salmon such as spawning Coho would need more obvious creek channels for spawning. Excavating creek channels would allow the water to flow more freely and consistently out of the marsh. Dredging would not affect juveniles because the creeks would not be dredged into the salt marsh, only up to the edge of the salt marsh and allow them to naturally sheet flow out. She concluded dredging would not impair juvenile habitat in the salt marsh and would improve spawning habitat for adults in the fresh water marsh and improve the conveyance of water down the creeks, through the marsh and out to Puget Sound, instead of Dayton/SR104. Councilmember Yamamoto inquired about the timeframe for next steps if the grant is obtained. Mr. Shuster explained if the SRF Board likes the City's pre -proposal, they will request a full proposal in August. If that is approved, funding is likely next January. In the meantime there are funds in the City's 2013 budget to continue moving forward with things such as a better survey of the marsh. 8. BRIEFING ON THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE - DAYTON STREET & SR104 DRAINAGE STUDY. Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster explained this project has connections with the Willow Creek daylighting project. He reviewed information from the presentation he made to the Council in January regarding the Dayton Street & SR104 Drainage Study: • Why does the intersection flood? 1. The inability of Shellabarger Creek to entirely flow under SR104 into Edmonds Marsh and the inability of getting the flow out of the Marsh into Puget Sound in a timely manner. 2. The elevation of the Dayton St. stormwater line at the intersection of SR104 is lower than the water level in Puget Sound during much of the tidal cycle Mr. Shuster displayed an aerial photograph of the area, identifying Shellabarger Creek, SR104 and Dayton Street. He reviewed the recommended alternative to reducing flooding: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 71 of 546 Isolate the two main drainage systems o Dayton St. System o Willow Creek/Shellabarger Creek/Edmonds Marsh system Improve conveyance to Puget Sound for both systems Mr. Shuster displayed an aerial of the recommended alternative and identified several components of the recommended alternative: • Improve culverts (clean, lower or replace) • Plug pipe to Dayton System and add short berm • Improve conveyance to Puget Sound (daylighting Willow Creek helps) • Install pump station at Dayton Street to pump stormwater out at high tide • Reroute Salish Cross drainage to Dayton system Council President Petso asked if the Dayton Street line is the one the City pays rent to the Port. Mr. Shuster answered no, that line is where Willow Creek is now. Council President Petso asked if the City would be able to stop paying that rent with the completion of the previous project. Public Works Director Phil Williams answered that remains to be seen; there may be a use for that line in the future depending on the location of the pump station. He noted these two projects have many similar goals although they are funded separately and each has unique goals. He noted most grants either require a local match or a match makes the grant application more competitive. Because the projects solve flooding and drainage issues as well as improve the environment, the match can be stormwater utility revenue. Council President Petso observed there are public benefits to the project as well as benefits to private property. She asked if upsizing the pump station would be funded via stormwater utility funds plus grant funds or would the Salish Crossing property owners provide funding. Mr. Williams said that question could be answered once design has progressed. He explained eliminating the flow of stormwater and associated contaminants from Salish Crossing into the Harbor Square system and into the marsh would be a huge environmental benefit and it would be plausible to use public funds. Councilmember Johnson inquired about the biological and drainage function of the Unocal property on the south side of the marsh. Mr. Shuster answered that property was an oil terminal from 1923 to 2003 and does not function well biologically. The State and Unocal/Chevron are in the process of an environmental cleanup and plan to release a feasibility study later this year regarding the site. In response to Council President Petso's earlier question, Mr. Shuster explained if/when Willow Creek is daylighted, the pipe located on Port property could be rehabbed and used for overflow in the event of a large storm or sea level rise. Mr. Williams suggested if the City were to invest funds in that pipeline, the City could own the pipe or the owner could contribute to the rehab of the pipe. He noted the pipe was in poor structural condition and would need work in the next few years. Councilmember Peterson asked if there were opportunities with redevelopment of Harbor Square and Salish Crossing to utilize low impact development (LID) techniques such as rain gardens. Mr. Shuster answered yes and no; the Salish Crossing project that demolished some of the buildings and constructed Sound Transit parking does include a rain garden for parking lot runoff. He noted because the area is so low and ground water is just below the surface, it is not the ideal location for rain gardens for stormwater control but they can assist with improving the water quality. For Councilmember Peterson, Mr. Shuster explained at the start of this project, a stakeholder meeting was held with representatives from Salish Crossing, Sound Transit, the Port, and WSDOT. Once a recommended alternative is finalized, another meeting will be held to continue that discussion. Mr. Williams advised all commercial customers pay stormwater rates based on the amount of impervious surface that contributes to the system. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 72 of 546 Mr. Shuster reviewed the estimated planning level costs: Item Estimated Cost Isolate the two main drainage systems (incl. sedimentpond) $458,000 Improve Conveyance Dayton St System Pump Station $1,173,000 Connect Salish Crossing flow and Harbor Square Overflow $185,000 WQ Treatment for Ferry Holding Lanes $442,000 Edmonds Marsh System Willow Creek Daylighting (incl. channel restoration) $5,545,000 Harbor Square flap gates and berm $200,000 Rehab existing pipe/outlet improvements $400,000 Self-regulating tide gate (TBD) $567,000 Estimated Total $8,970,000 Mr. Shuster reviewed next steps: • Public Open House in late spring/early summer 2013 to present the recommended alternatives and get input. Work with stakeholders to develop a plan to implement preferred alternatives. Move projects into the CIP for design and implementation. 9. EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATING AGENCY (ESCA) Police Chief Al Compaan explained one of his responsibilities is serving as the City Disaster Coordinator. This presentation is in response to a Council request to provide information regarding disaster preparedness. The City is a member of ESCA who assists the City with disaster preparedness. Lyn Gross, ESCA, offered to provide Councilmembers a tour of ESCA's facility. She next provided ESCA's vision: The Emergency Services Coordinating Agency, its member cities and citizens in the community, prepares for disasters. ESCA's mission is to coordinate and assist the ESCA member cities to be better prepared for disasters through mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery activities. She highlighted laws that govern emergency management including RCW 38.52, commenting many are new since 9/11 and Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act. She explained RCW 38.52 requires every city, county and town in the State to have an emergency management program. Jurisdictions can establish their own program or join together with other agencies to conduct emergency management activities as a group. ESCA member cities include Brier, Edmonds, Kenmore, Lake Forest Park, Lynnwood, Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo, Woodinville and Woodway. She provided information regarding ESCA staff: • Combined staff experience — 67 years • Certified Emergency Managers • 20+ disaster declarations • Leaders at the State and National level • National recognition as IAEM subject matter experts • Certified Master Trainers — FEMA Emergency Management Institute Ms. Gross reviewed mandates and essential activities, commenting ESCA's responsibilities and mandates post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act and 9/11 have increased 350%: • Planning requirements o Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 73 of 546 o Access and functional needs (ADA) o Mitigation Plan o Animal Response Plan o Hazardous Materials and Terrorism o Debris Management Plan o Recovery Plan (soon to be a requirement) o Regional Planning and Coordination o Maritime Terrorism Response Plan • Grant "Work Plan" deliverables • Training and Exercises o Annual training and exercise requirements o NIMS compliance • Response/Continuity of Operations o EOC operations, facilities and systems o Emergency/Back-up communications EAS/CEMNET o Staff and resources o Mutual aid agreements Ms. Gross reviewed planning activities ESCA provides: • Research standards and best practices • City and department coordination • Develop partnerships and incorporate partners • Stakeholder input • De -conflict plans • Review/approve process (state or federal) • Production and distribution • Plan maintenance (1-4 year cycles) She reviewed training and exercise activities ESCA provides: • Planning and training needs assessment • Develop and deliver training • Design and conduct exercises • Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) compliance • NIMS compliance • Consider individual city needs Ms. Gross reviewed response/EOC Operations activities ESCA provides: • Centralized coordination in support of cities • Liaison to state and federal response teams • Essential EOC tasks o Communication clearinghouse o Regional prioritization of need o Coordination with essential partners o Restoration of essential services o Resource support and management • Support City disaster activities o Incident Command System o Damage assessment o FEMA Public Assistance (PA) and Individual Assistance (IA) o Mass care/shelter/CPOD o Short-term and long-term recovery efforts Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 74 of 546 o Request and support specialized team responses Ms. Gross described broad support to cities ESCA provides: • Coordinate activities with State EMD o Statewide planning and response o Grant management o Emergency Worker Program o Mission numbers o Emergency communications system o Liaison between cities and state • Emergency/disaster support through ESCA EOC o Resource management and support o Coordinate FEMA public and individual assistance o Coordinate mass care/shelter o Establish Community Points of Distribution (CPOD) o Support specialized team responses o Support short and long term recovery efforts • Planning using best practices and standards • Develop and deliver training and exercises • Support special projects and events • Emergency management information clearinghouse • Regional coordination and leadership presence • Coordination with special purpose districts and community partners • Fire and law enforcement mobilization support She emphasized coordination is crucial: a whole community approach to emergency management and disaster preparedness. She highlighted primary partners and secondary partners, advising there are approximately 200 partner organizations. In addition to partners, ESCA utilizes volunteers; in 2012 ESCA volunteers contributed 5,523 hours or 2.7 FTE. She described value-added services ESCA provides: • MyStateUSA emergency notification • Specialized planning (SOP development assistance, recovery, special teams) • City -specific training • Disaster Resource Database • Public education and outreach (articles, brochures, community events, etc.) • Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Ms. Gross identified City responsibilities: • Pre -disaster: o Attend training o Participate in exercises o NIMS compliance o Cultivate local response capabilities o City policy and direction o Department participation in planning • During disaster: o Public warning o Proclamation of emergencies o Continuity of government o Continuity of operations o City EOC management Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 75 of 546 o Damage assessment o Coordinate resource needs with ESCA Ms. Gross identified concerns: • Decreasing grant funds • Sensitive to strained city budgets • 30% increase in cities since 2005 • 350% increase in mandated planning elements • 20% staffing decrease Council President Petso advised she obtained some level of NIMS compliance and asked whether NIMS compliance was required or recommended for elected officials. Ms. Gross answered the level of training Council President Petso was asked to complete was familiarity versus operational training. During a disaster response, there are issues in which the Council is engaged, particularly during recovery. The mayor, city manager and anyone working in the EOC needs higher level training. In the event of a large earthquake in which Edmonds homes were uninhabitable, Councilmember Bloom asked where residents would go and what ESCA's role would be in getting them to the location. Ms. Gross answered there are a variety of levels; first is a shelter of last resort which is simply to get people out of the weather. In the event of a disaster, it is likely a series of interim shelters would be opened to house people out of the weather until Red Cross established shelters. The City's disaster plan addresses short and long term housing issues. Councilmember Bloom recalled discussions regarding grant funds to upgrade the Edmonds Center for the Arts gym for use as an emergency shelter. Ms. Gross explained the Red Cross has agreements with a variety of churches and schools regarding use for shelters. After an earthquake, all those shelters must be evaluated before they are opened as shelters. People may need to use an interim shelter until structures are evaluated. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. to. DISCUSSION: CITY CODE REVIEW/BEWRITE Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave explained the City has begun to receive model language from Carol Morris who is assisting with the rewrite. Staff will integrate Edmonds specific material into the model code language, ensure internal consistency, remedy existing problems in the code, etc. As stated in February, staff is committed to enabling the Council to discuss policy issues as they arise. He asked at what point in the process the Council would like to have policy discussion regarding issues such as subdivision and enforcement. He suggested having that discussion after internal review has occurred and Edmonds specific information has been inserted. Council President Petso requested policy changes be highlighted. Mr. Chave assured they would be. Council President Petso commented scheduling Council review will become more difficult closer to budget review. Mr. Chave advised the code review/rewrite is taking longer due to decreased staffing and increased permitting. 11. DIRECTION TO PLANNING BOARD AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGARDING COUNCIL PRIORITIES ON WESTGATE AND FIVE CORNERS. Councilmember Johnson advised this issue has arisen several times throughout the course of the Westgate Plan and was discussed most recently at the Council retreat and the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee meeting. She was interested in coordinating the long range plans in the Westgate area. She relayed it has been suggested the Council proceed with form based code in the Westgate area and address transportation on a case -by -case basis as development occurs. She found that a short-sighted approach as Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 76 of 546 there was an opportunity to coordinate the land use and transportation planning efforts, an approach that is consistent with regional, multi -county and city policies such as Destination 2030, Vision 2040 and Complete Streets. She referred to Policy 3.15.A in the City's adopted Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages the preparation of comprehensive access plans and consolidation of access points in commercial and residential areas through shared driveways and local access streets. She concluded there is sufficient direction from a policy standpoint to coordinate land use and transportation. The question is how to proceed to that end with the $50,000 allocated to initiate a study in the Westgate area. Her intent is to coordinate the Westgate plan and transportation planning. Councilmember Peterson observed the Planning Board has been working on the Westgate Plan for some time and is relatively close to completion. He agreed with the idea of working on them together but did not want to lose momentum on the Westgate Plan. He was also concerned with shifting staff time due to the issues Mr. Chave noted with limited staff. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Councilmember Johnson's intent was to begin with Five Corners then finish the Westgate Plan once the transportation study for SR104 has been completed. Councilmember Johnson answered that was an initial suggestion because the transportation analysis and the roundabout design for Five Corners has been completed. Her suggestion was the Westgate Plan would be incomplete without the transportation study of SR104. Her research of the Planning Board's activities indicates the only recent significant discussion regarding the Westgate Plan was on February 13, 2013. There have been general discussions regarding form based code, often using Westgate, but only the one detailed discussion about Westgate. She noted there appeared to be a shift in thinking about how form based code integrates with transportation which heightened her concern. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Councilmember Johnson to clarify what she was asking. Councilmember Johnson asked to move forward with the transportation analysis for Westgate and not conclude the Planning Board's recommendations until that work is complete. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked if it was Councilmember Johnson's intent that no planning be done for Westgate or Five Corners while that occurred or that the Westgate Plan and transportation planning occur concurrently. Councilmember Johnson answered her concern was SR104 and did not think one should be done without the other. Public Works Director Phil Williams relayed Councilmember Johnson, staff and he have talked about the scope of the SR104 study. Although the Council provided some funding, it is not enough to do a robust study of the entire corridor. He and key staff are planning to meet with WSDOT to determine their interest in pursuing a study. He did not see any problem with the two occurring concurrently, noting it was similar to the daylighting study and flooding study that were presented to the Council earlier tonight; they are occurring at the same time and although they do not have identical goals, there are several commonalities. If the two were conducted independently, he was unsure when funding for a complete project would be available. Mayor Earling relayed Mr. Chave's indication that the Westgate study is 75-85% complete. Mayor Earling expressed concern with timing, particularly a 1-2 year delay while funding is sought for a transportation study. Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board has put a substantial amount of time into the Westgate study including one hearing. The Planning Board has not put as much effort into Westgate in recent months, awaiting feedback from the Council. The impetus for presenting this issue to the Council was the Planning Board heard individual Councilmembers were interested in doing Five Corners first and the Planning Board did not want to proceed to conclusion on Westgate if that was not the direction the Council wanted to proceed. The Planning Board has not worked on the Five Corners Plan because they wanted to "get their feet wet" on the Westgate Plan first. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 77 of 546 Council President Petso recalled the Planning Board Chair indicated the Planning Board needed to wrap something else up and that would be a better time for the Planning Board to take a break from the Westgate Plan and come to the Council after they had incorporated the Transportation element. She was supportive of giving the Planning Board direction that the Council did not want them to finalize the Westgate Plan until they have the Transportation Plan. Councilmember Bloom noted there needs to be an understanding of the transportation system in Westgate with regard to items such as turn lanes, bike trails, make it more pedestrian friendly and safe, etc. The Westgate plan needs to address internal circulation, reaching the area safely via all modes of transportation as well as pedestrian and bicycles crossing the street. She agreed with the Planning Board delaying the Westgate Plan until the transportation element is integrated. She anticipated the Westgate form based code would address setbacks, road and sidewalk widths, bike paths, turn lanes, ferry traffic, etc. Mr. Chave responded form based codes do not deal with details of the right-of-way design. He agreed it would be helpful to discuss a study with WSDOT. Mayor Earling advised the WSDOT representative indicated she will be available for the Council's June 17 retreat. He suggested exploring the potential with the WSDOT representative before the Council made a definitive decision. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Johnson agreed. She suggested conducting a tour of the area after the retreat. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the City had much input into what can be done on SR104. For example, he did not anticipate a bike lane on SR104. Mr. Williams responded the City has some influence as SR104 serves as a City street and a State highway; WSDOT will make the final decision. He envisioned the Westgate Plan and transportation study could occur simultaneously. 12. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO ALLOW UP TO $5,000 TO CONTRACT WITH A LAND USE ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THE CITY COUNCIL AND PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL LEGAL ADVICE DURING THE UPCOMING CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE HILLMAN VARIANCES. Council President Petso asked whether the motion was to hire an attorney but not specify the attorney. Councilmember Peterson recalled in a recent quasi-judicial hearing, the City Attorney worked directly with staff and the Council hired an outside land use attorney to advise them without any appearance of conflict. The Council will be reviewing the Hearing Examiner's decision in a quasi-judicial setting. It is best practice to hire an impartial attorney to ensure the public process is as smooth as possible. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MADE THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO: TO HIRE CAROL MORRIS. Councilmember Peterson explained the City Council hired Carol Morris to advise the Council during a previous quasi-judicial matter. She is working on the code rewrite so is very familiar with land use issues in Edmonds. According to the City Attorney, Ms. Morris is one of the top land use attorneys in the region. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether it would be preferable to have the flexibility to hire a land use attorney rather than specify an attorney. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered he will inform the Council at their next meeting if Ms. Morris has a conflict. The Council has appointment authority when hiring legal counsel unless the Council delegates that authority. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 78 of 546 Councilmember Peterson requested Mr. Taraday provide names of alternate attorneys if Ms. Morris is not available. Mr. Taraday advised he would. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, FRALEY- MONILLAS, YAMAMOTO AND JOHNSON VOTING YES, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. 13. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Peterson reported on the Public Facilities District (PFD) Board meeting. He is meeting with Executive Director Joe McIalwain to review their Strategic Plan before it is forwarded to the City Council. The PFD Board will be interviewing for two board positions that will be vacated in June. A reception for the outgoing Board Members Terry Vehrs and John McGibbon will be held in June. Councilmember Johnson reported she attended the State Historic Preservation conference and plans to share the information with the members of the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission. Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board had a presentation from a member of the Floretum Garden Club regarding a tree exchange between Hekinan, Japan and Edmonds. The Tree Board discussed the Arbor Day celebration, the Museum Garden Market booth, the Watershed Fun Fair, and difficulties with new board/commission City email addresses. Councilmember Bloom reported the Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting included discussion regarding: • Negotiations with additional fiber optic customers • A second meeting that was held with several businesses interested in providing space for incubator businesses who would utilize the fiber • Marine tourism • Attracting bed and breakfasts to Edmonds • Update on coal trains • Business incentives • How the EDC can support implementation of the Strategic Plan • Difficulties with board/commission City email addresses 14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling thanked everyone who attended the Memorial Day service. It was a great community gathering to acknowledge veterans in the community. He estimated 400-500 people attended the service including at least two Councilmembers. Mayor Earling advised the Waterfront Festival will be held this Friday, Saturday and Sunday. There will be many food vendors and exhibits. 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Johnson announced the Business Expo to be held this Saturday at the Conference Center. The Edmonds Historic Commission will have a booth at the Expo. Council President Petso advised the other candidate for appointment to the Tree Board arrived late due to a miscommunication regarding the time. Council President Petso invited Councilmembers to submit items for the Council's June 17 mini -retreat. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 79 of 546 Councilmember Peterson reported he visited the Marathon Memorial in Boston on Memorial Day. He found it incredibly moving and touching. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked the Floretum Garden Club for their efforts throughout the City including working on the flowerbeds. She thanked staff for their work on the flowers as well, noting it was beginning to look like Edmonds in bloom. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she attended the Memorial Day service. She thanked the Chair of the ceremony, Dale Hoggins, for his efforts over the years to make that a special ceremony. 16. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:41 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 28, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 80 of 546 AM-5838 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: City Clerk's Office Committee: Tyne: Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013. Recommendation Review and approval. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. 06-04-13 Draft City Council Minutes Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 06/06/2013 Attachments Action Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 06/06/2013 11:39 AM Sandy Chase 06/06/2013 11:55 AM Started On: 06/06/2013 11:30 AM 2. C. Packet Page 81 of 546 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES June 4, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Lora Petso, Council President Strom Peterson, Councilmember Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Walker Kasinadhuni, Student Representative 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Rob English, City Engineer Leif Bjorback, Building Official Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jen Machuga, Associate Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All elected officials were present. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council President Petso relayed the following changes to the agenda: • Delete Item 6 and reschedule it on July 2 • Move Item 11 to follow the executive session • Revise Item 14 to include potential litigation COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #202341 THROUGH #202433 DATED MAY 30, 2013 FOR $144,262.47 (REISSUED CHECK #202368 $1,250.00). B. APPOINTMENT OF APPLICANTS TO THE EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Jennifer Martin, Edmonds, requested the Council review the current code with regard to junk vehicles, unused building materials, the size of unpermitted outbuildings, the number of cars allowed on a property including cars parked in the right-of-way adjacent to properties and consider whether the code is Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 1 Packet Page 82 of 546 functioning in the best interest of citizens. She provided several photographs illustrating uncovered new and demolished building material in her neighbor's yard in view of her property. There were seven cars, five on the property and two on the side, three of which are not operational; one has the engine in the back of the truck and garbage in the cab. The truck does not meet the junk code because it has been licensed. At least two of the cars were pushed onto the property and one is on a jack. She encouraged the Council to consider revising the code to improve it for the benefit of other citizens and herself. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, thanked everyone who attended the Rotary Waterfront Festival this week and encouraged the public to continue to support events in the city. Kathie Ledger, Edmonds, resident of Woodway Meadows, speaking on behalf of her husband and herself, asked that the City not remove or allow removal of the fence between the Burnstead development and Woodway Meadows on the south side. Because the property lines are so close, removal of the fence will damage adjacent properties. Ira Shelton, Edmonds, added to his wife's comments, stating the issue is 4 inches of property on the south side of the development. He found the prospect of losing their fence for the gain of 4 inches for the Burnstead development preposterous. There have been a number of allowances/changes to the Burnstead development and giving them an additional allowance to reduce the size of the buffer by 4 inches should not be a serious issue for the City. 5. CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF ROGER NEUMAIER AS THE FINANCE DIRECTOR. Mayor Earling presented Roger Neumaier for appointment as Finance Director. He explained the process began with 15 applicants; that number was reduced to 5. Three panels were formed consisting of staff, citizens, and Councilmembers to interview the five candidates; one chose not to be interviewed. Following the interviews, panel members provided their input. He met with the two finalists individually and the Council also interviewed the two finalists. Mayor Earling explained Mr. Neumaier has been in charge of finances at Snohomish County since 1999. A complete background, credit and reference check was done and Mr. Neumaier's record is stellar. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF ROGER NEUMAIER AS THE FINANCE DIRECTOR. Councilmember Bloom explained she will vote against the appointment for two reasons, 1) the code says three candidates should be presented to Council and only two were presented, and 2) although Mayor Earling asked for Council input regarding the decision, her input was not considered because Mayor Earling called on May 16, two days after the Council's interview, to inform the Council of his decision, prior to receiving her input. Mayor Earling responded he received comments from other Councilmembers prior to surveying the Council to ensure he had heard from all Councilmembers. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. Mr. Neumaier said he considered it an honor to be part of the team that provides service to the City. He recognized his #1 responsibility was to be a good listener and he intended to do so. He looked forward to work with the Council and was proud to have been selected to be a member of the City's team. 6. PRESENTATION BY SOUND TRANSIT STAFF This item was rescheduled to the July 2, 2013 Council meeting. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 83 of 546 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY NEGOTIATION OR CONDEMNATION OF REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NEEDED FOR THE 228TH ST. SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the same process was followed for the same reasons on the Five Corners roundabout project. He displayed an aerial of the project, identifying the new section of road to create a new east -west corridor, an enhancement to all modes of transportation. The project also realigns the approaches to the intersection where the left turning movements and high speeds have caused a number of accidents. A center raised median will prevent left turns. Mr. Williams provided the following project information: 0 Total project cost: $4,841,000 0 Total Right -of -Way Phase: $350,000 0 Total Acquisition Cost (approximate): $230,000 0 Funded by Federal grant with a 13.5% 0 9 parcels require acquisition of right-of-way 0 6 parcels are in the ordinance 0 3 parcels have settled Mr. Williams requested Council approval to acquire via continued negotiations with the property owners and/or condemnation the remaining six parcels and easements. He explained there is no indication condemnation may be necessary; negotiations continue with the property owners to reach a transaction. When acquiring multiple parcels, it is possible one or more may not reach resolution by negotiation. This provides the tool for condemnation in the event it is necessary in order to keep the right-of-way phase on schedule and build the project next year. Councilmember Peterson referred to Mr. Williams' statement that negotiations have been reached with three unless something happens at the end and asked if he was confident with not including those three in the ordinance. Mr. Williams responded agreement in principle has been reached; the paperwork needs to be prepared and approved. If the negotiations fail on any of those three, staff will return to the Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the three properties were on the west side of Highway 99. City Engineer Rob English answered 1 of the 3, Shurguard Storage, is on the west side of Highway 99, the second, the Hochberg property, is on the east side and the third is also on the east side at the corner of 228'h & 761`'. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the audience present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3924, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY NEGOTIATION OR CONDEMNATION OF REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NEEDED FOR THE 228`" STREET SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented this is a great project, one she has been interested in seeing completed. It is very dangerous to turn left onto 76 h southbound on Highway 99 and there have been a number of accidents. Motorists would no longer be able to turn onto 76th from southbound Highway 99, but will be able to turn from 76"' onto northbound Highway 99. Mr. Williams agreed the raised median would prevent left turns from southbound Highway 99 onto 76 h and onto 76th from northbound Highway 99. Motorists will still be able to access Highway 99 from northbound 76"'. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 84 of 546 THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. 8. PUBLIC HEARING AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE 2012 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING AND FIRE CODES. Building Official Leif Bjorback explained every three years the International Building Code (IBC) is updated and republished by the International Code Council. The International Codes are a family of building codes including commercial, residential, fire, plumbing, energy, etc. This family of codes is used in most states, including the State of Washington. The International Codes are adopted at the State level and mandated by RCW 19.27 and adopted and enforced by all jurisdictions within the State. The 2012 International Codes along with State amendments become effective statewide on July 1, 2013. The proposed revisions to ECDC Title 19 will adopt the 2012 code along with the State amendments. In addition, there are a number of Edmonds specific amendments proposed to the language of the ECDC to eliminate redundancies, delete out-of-date code provisions and simplify the format. Very few substantial changes are being proposed. Aside from actual adoption of the new code, the most substantial proposed change in the ECDC is the deletion of provisions for the Building Board of Appeals which will be replaced by the Hearing Examiner process. The Hearing Examiner process has already been available for use for appeals as an alternate method and it does not seem reasonable to maintain the requirements for a Board of Appeals which has not been needed for more than ten years in the City. Maintaining a volunteer board which is seldom if ever used would be an onerous and cumbersome task. There are other updates within Exhibits 1 and 2, most are considered fairly minor. Mr. Bjorback relayed staff s recommendation that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance adopting the 2012 International Building, Fire and Supplemental Codes based on the documents presented. He advised Exhibit 1 contains portions of Title 19 related to the International Building Code and related codes. Exhibit 2 contains the portion regulated by the Fire Marshal related to the fire code, marinas and addressing portions of Title 19. Fire Marshal John Westfall advised the Fire Code has only minor spelling and text changes. In addition, the Hearing Examiner is recognized as the means of appeal for fire prevention decisions and determinations. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Bjorback explained a question was raised at the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee about whether to require a permit for swings and other playground equipment for commercial, multi -family and parks. He explained the IBC adopted new standards and scoping for recreational facilities with regard to accessibility. Those new standards put an onus on the City to regulate recreational facilities and he removed that from the building permit exemption list. Councilmember Bloom asked about the history of the Board of Appeals. Mr. Bjorback explained the building code allows each jurisdiction to form a Board of Appeals to hear appeals of decisions of the Building Official as it relates to the building code. He noted that is not to be confused with land use decisions. Those provisions have been in the building code for quite a few years, longer than he has been with the City. The Hearing Examiner is the option that has been used in the last 10+ years and there has not technically been a building code appeal in over ten years. This change is simply catching up the code with current practice. Councilmember Bloom relayed she heard that a number of developers requested a Board of Appeals because they felt a Board of Appeals would have more specific knowledge related to building codes. Mr. Bjorback explained the language that is being removed regarding the Board of Appeals related to a 9- member board comprised of professional volunteers who have the expertise to hear building code appeals. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 85 of 546 A majority of jurisdictions in the State use the Hearing Examiner process because the Board of Appeals is a bit antiquated, cumbersome to maintain and the Hearing Examiner is available. Councilmember Bloom asked if Mr. Bjorback was aware of a history where developers requested a Board of Appeals. Mr. Bjorback answered not in the five years he has been with the City. Councilmember Bloom commented it would have been before that. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave answered the Board of Appeals predates the Hearing Examiner throughout the State. A Board of Appeals was the method for hearing appeals in the past; given the difficulty of maintaining a Board of Appeals with little to do, it made more sense to use the Hearing Examiner process. The Hearing Examiner process still allows parties to present evidence, etc. The Hearing Examiner, who deals with quasi-judicial decisions on a regular basis, is better able to deal with decisions versus a Board of Appeals that does not have an understanding of the quasi-judicial process. Councilmember Bloom asked the last time the City had a functioning Board of Appeals. Mr. Chave answered more than 10 years ago. Councilmember Bloom commented it would be difficult to know whether it would have been used if the City stopped recruiting members. Mr. Chave answered there has always been the ability to appeal; no one has filed an appeal in 10+ years, let alone had a Board of Appeals hear an appeal. The language regarding the Hearing Examiner was included in the building code to provide the City the option of using the Hearing Examiner because when someone approached the City about the possibility of an appeal, it was realized the City did not have a full Board of Appeals. He said it was difficult to recruit members for a Board of Appeals. Council President Petso observed a change was proposed to the residential seismic standards from D2 to D1 designation. She asked if structures would be safer or were the seismic standards being relaxed. Mr. Bjorback answered for a number of years it was assumed the City was entirely designated D2 which is a more risky seismic zone than D1. A couple of years ago, staff gained new information that the City was in a DI zone. This change was a clarification and a correction to the designation. Council President Petso asked if a lower hazard zone would make structures less safe. Mr. Bjorback answered the hazard zone identifies the theoretical risk from earthquake damage. Because the City is not in as risky a zone, the standards are slightly less stringent than they would be in D2. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what information was used to change the zone from D2 to DI. Mr. Bjorback answered there are published maps in the code. For purposes of a project, a licensed engineer showed staff the City was not designated D2 but rather D 1. Councilmember Bloom asked if there were different standards for a documented earthquake liquefaction zone. Mr. Bjorback answered the zone or seismic risk, soils class, wind exposure, etc. are taken into account during engineering design. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that one standard did not apply to everything; there were different standards within the D1 classification depending on the location. Mr. Bjorback answered the seismic zone was one component of the formula for designing structures; other factors such as soils and wind exposure are also considered. Councilmember Bloom asked the differences in a single family structure in the D2 zone versus D1. Mr. Bjorback answered it happens in degrees that may not be readily apparent. For example, the strength of the lateral design or sheer walls and how strong a wall system is within the house. Stronger sheer walls, more strapping, etc. would be dictated by the engineering design. Councilmember Bloom asked the rationale for making the change. Mr. Bjorback advised it was brought to the City's attention that the City was in the D1 zone; it was previously a mistaken assumption. Council President Petso asked whether the City had the option to require D2 standards. Mr. Bjorback answered it was not usual but he did not see why not. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 86 of 546 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the City Attorney to respond to Council President Petso's question. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered the City has the option to make local modifications to the State adopted building code. He asked if imposing D2 standards would require additional amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Bjorback answered it was not a difficult language change; it is simply a designation within a table. Mr. Taraday stated he did not have any reason to think the City could not do that. If the City is in the D1 zone, Councilmember Buckshnis questioned why the designation would remain D2 and whether it was simply to be extra cautious and require higher standards in a development. Mr. Bjorback agreed that would be the reason, more stringent standards to build stronger, safer buildings. He highlighted one difference between the two zones: in D2 skipped sheeting on rooftops is not allowed but is allowed in D1. In a number of re -roof projects where the inspector determines a house has skipped sheeting, the house is required under the D2 zone to have solid sheeting. That has been met with quite a bit of resistance. In that situation in the D1 zone, the skipped sheeting could remain. Councilmember Buckshnis commented if a property owner was totally paranoid, they could require D2 construction. Mr. Bjorback agreed there was no reason a property owner could not overbuild a structure. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, referred to questions about the history of the Board of Appeals, explaining in 2003 several local builders and developers strongly requested that the Hearing Examiner be removed from the process and they wanted a Board of Appeals. Issues of technical competence with the building code were raised and their concerns were documented in the City Council meeting minutes. That was passed and the Hearing Examiner was removed from the process. Several years passed with very little appeal activity, Ordinance No. 3740 was presented to the City Council under the representation there had been scrivener's errors that left the Hearing Examiner out of the process as the backup when the Board of Appeals could not convene. He summarized there was a time when local builders and developers were strongly opposed to involving the Hearing Examiner in this process. He was instructed by City staff to pursue the Board of Appeals process on a code enforcement appeal; he paid the related $330 fee and subsequently realized he had been guided incorrectly and pulled his appeal. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2012 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING, FIRE AND SUPPLEMENTAL CODES BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CITY OF EDMONDS SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE. THE CITY IS REQUIRED BY THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT (SMA) (RCW 90.58) TO UPDATE ITS SMP IN ORDER TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SMA AND STATE GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL SMPS. THE SMP APPLIES TO SHORELINES WITHIN THE CITY AND ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT. THE SHORELINE AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS JURISDICTION INCLUDE PUGET SOUND, LAKE BALLINGER, AND THE TIDALLY INFLUENCED PORTIONS OF THE EDMONDS MARSH. SHORELINE JURISDICTION ALSO APPLIES TO UPLAND AREAS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SHORELINE EDGE (ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK) AND ASSOCIATED WETLANDS. Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained this is the fifth meeting regarding the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. He provided an overview of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA): • Adopted in 1971 • Policies address: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 87 of 546 o Shoreline Uses ■ The SMA establishes the concept of preferred uses of shoreline areas. Preferred uses include single family residences, ports, shoreline recreational uses, water dependent industrial and commercial developments and other developments that provide public access opportunities. o Environmental Protection The SMA is intended to protect shoreline natural resources, including "...the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the water of the state and their aquatic life..." against adverse effects. All allowed uses are required to mitigate adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent feasible and preserve the natural character and aesthetics of the shoreline. o Public Access ■ Master programs must include a public access element making provisions for public access to publicly owned areas, and a recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities Shoreline Master Program o Under the SMA, each city and county with "shorelines of the state" must prepare and adopt a SMP that is based on state laws and rules but is tailored to the specific geographic, economic and environmental needs of the community. The local SMP is essentially a shoreline -specific combined comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and development permit system. In 2003 the Department of Ecology (DOE) adopted SMP Guidelines that are contained in WAC 173-26. The SMP Guidelines are state standards which local governments must follow in drafting their SMPs. The Guidelines translate the broad policies of the SMA (RCW 90.58.020) into standards for regulation of shoreline uses. Edmonds did a fairly extensive update of its SMP in 2000; this update brings the SMP into compliance with WAC 173-26. The SMP is comprised of several documents: • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization • Shoreline Restoration Plan • Development Regulations o Draft ECDC Title 24 o Policies, regulations and standards for shoreline uses and modifications o Administrative provisions • Cumulative Impact Analysis Mr. Lien described the SMP's relationship to other plans or regulations: • SMP is adopted element in Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan SMP works in tandem with rest of ECDC o Uses, developments, and activities must comply with ECDC and SMP o SMP prevails where there are conflicts Mr. Lien explained the SMP applies to shoreline jurisdictions which include: • All marine waters • Streams and rivers greater than 20 cfs (none in Edmonds) • Lakes 20 acres or larger • Shorelands — upland areas within 200 feet • Associated wetlands Mr. Lien explained shoreline environments are established within shoreline jurisdictions. Environmental designations are analogous to zoning designations for areas under SMA jurisdiction. Environmental designations were reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee that the City formed early in the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 88 of 546 process. He identified the location of Edmonds' 11 shoreline environments (Aquatic I and II, Natural Environment, Urban Conservancy, Residential I, II and III, Urban Mixed Use I, II, and III, and Urban Railroad) on an aerial image. Mr. Lien explained one of the major changes between the current SMP and the updated SMP is the change in designation of the Edmonds Marsh. Under the current SMP, the Edmonds Marsh was considered an associated wetland which meant shoreline jurisdiction ended at the edge of the marsh. In this update, Ecology determined the portion of the Edmonds Marsh that is tidally influenced, the salt marsh area, was itself a shoreline and the shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet from the edge of the marsh. He displayed an image identifying the historic boundaries of the Edmonds Marsh and the boundary set for the SMP. With the marsh determined to be a shoreline itself, the shoreline jurisdiction was extended and a new Urban Mixed Use III environment was established for the areas north and south of the marsh. The biggest change with the Urban Mixed Use III environment is it contains a residential element; Urban Mixed Use I and II do not. Under the current SMP Haines Wharf is an Urban Mixed Use II environment; under the updated SMP it is an aquatic environment. Aquatic is a new environment established in WAC 173-26. The TAC mentioned designating the upland area associated with Haines Wharf as an Urban Mixed Use environment; however there is no upland area associated with Haines Wharf. Mr. Lien explained another important part of the SMP is Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) integration. • 24.40.020 — Critical Areas • GMA vs. SMA o SMA rules within shoreline jurisdiction, GMA rules outside of shoreline jurisdiction • CAO Integration Options 1. Copy specific sections of CAO into SMP 2. Reference a specific CAO addition noting which CAO provisions will not apply to the SMP 3. Include portions of the CAO as an appendix to the SMP o City pursued options 2 and 3 • 24.40.020.1) — CAO Exceptions o General provisions o Wetlands • 24.40.020.0 — CAO Provisions allowed with Shoreline variance Mr. Lien provided information regarding wetlands: • Lake Ballinger ringed by wetlands • CAO Buffer (ECDC 23.50.040) o Category III = 50 feet o Category IV = 35 feet • SMP wetland buffers (ECDC 24.40.020.F) o Category III = 60 feet base (+ 45 to 105 feet) o Category IV = 40 feet • Variance required to reduce buffer more than 25% Mr. Lien provided information regarding bluff setbacks: • 50 feet plus 15 feet building setback • Shoreline variance required to build closer Mr. Lien displayed an aerial image, identifying setbacks, buffers and shoreline jurisdiction. There has been discussion about what occurs in previously developed areas of the buffer. Staff's intent when drafting the SMP was as long as development occurred within the previously development footprint, it would be an allowed activity. He relayed that some Councilmembers have expressed concern with that. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 89 of 546 Mr. Lien explained another change in the updated SMP is in Part VIII: Administration — Shoreline Permits (ECDC 24.80.000 — 24.80.170): • Administrative Chapter largely based on WAC 173-27 • 24.80.100 — Public Hearing o Current SMP requires all shoreline permits to be decided by Hearing Examiner o Proposing only significant permits going to Hearing Examiner: ■ One or more persons request a hearing ■ A SEPA Determination of Significance is issued ■ Permit requires shoreline variance or conditional use ■ The project requires a public hearing for other City of Edmonds permits • 24.80.140 — Time requirements o Two years to start project o Five years to complete project o Under current SMP time requirements do not apply while other permits (local, state, and federal) are being pursued o Update gives applicants 5 years to get other required permits, plus a possible 1 year extension Mr. Lien highlighted Part IV: General Policies and Regulations (ECDC 24.40.000 — 24.40.090) • 24.40.080 — Shoreline Development Table o Allowed uses and required permits • 24.40.090 — Bulk and Dimensional Standards o Setbacks and height limits Mr. Lien provide the definition of jurisdiction, setbacks, and buffers: • Jurisdiction — Shorelines and 200 feet from ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of shorelines • Setback - Minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline OHWM • Buffer - the area adjacent to a critical area and/or shoreline that is required for the continued maintenance, function, and/ or structural stability of the critical area and/or shoreline Mr. Lien displayed an idealistic drawing of a shoreline, explaining the best available science for streams and wetlands buffers and shoreline areas is done in rural areas where there is still vegetation and wildlife along the shoreline and development is a considerable distance from the shoreline. He displayed an aerial image of the Edmonds shoreline, explaining in reality the shoreline area is developed. He displayed an aerial image identifying the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction, 150 foot SMP wetland buffer, 50 foot shore setback and 200 foot CAO wetland buffer. He explained when the updated SMP was drafted, consideration was given to no net loss: • RCW 90.58.620 — Updated SMP's must ensure expansion, redevelopment and replacement of existing structures will result in no net loss of the ecological function of the shoreline over current conditions. • SMP Handbook — Setbacks only, with vegetation conservation and enhancement with new development meet the requirements to protect ecological functions. Mayor Earling observed staff recommended the Council solicit comments from the public and consider comments/amendments at a future Council meeting. Mr. Lien answered part of the SMP update process is responding to public comments. He expected lengthy discussion in regard to buffers versus setbacks and noted there is still the issue of the Harbor Square Master Plan and Urban Mixed Use III. Councilmember Buckshnis advised she recently returned from Anacortes where they have cleaned up their shoreline. She referred to the building at Haines Wharf and asked if the City could require it to be cleaned up before it falls into the water. Mr. Lien answered they have valid shoreline permits. The City Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 90 of 546 could add it to the Shoreline Restoration Plan as a potential restoration project. It would take a significant amount of funds to remove the structure and restore the area. There is currently nothing the City can require them to do. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was interested in leaving the pilings in the water and removing the structure before it collapsed. Councilmember Peterson asked if the Building Department had any jurisdiction due to the safety of the structure. He recalled a couple of years ago some swimmers got stuck there. He noted if a building becomes uninhabitable, the Building Department can condemn it and force action. Mr. Lien explained after a storm in 2011, the structure collapsed further. One of the problems with permitting for Haines Wharf is it is a nonconforming structure and the conditions of the permit was it must come into compliance if it was moved at all. Nonconforming structures that are damaged more than 75% must be rebuilt according to code. After the collapse in 2011, the Building Official issued a determination that replacement costs exceeded the 75%. That decision was appealed to the Hearing Examiner and the Hearing Examiner determined in considering the entire development, the wood structure was less than 75% so it still met the nonconforming requirements. Council President Petso referred to a restoration plan dated 2008 and asked whether any changes had been made to the restoration plan. Mr. Lien answered this SMP update began in 2006. The TAC was formed and reviewed policies and shoreline jurisdictions. A consulting firm drafted the shoreline inventory and characterization and the restoration plan. He picked up that work in late 2009 and spent over a year working with DOE on ECDC Title 24. There have been no changes to the restoration plan since 2008. Council President Petso referred to transportation facilities of statewide significance, observing transportation facilities would be allowed to expand. She presumed that included the ferry dock. She asked whether the Port was considered a transportation facility of statewide significance. Mr. Lien answered no. Regulations in the transportation section were the same as the current SMP (23.10). He did not provide Council a redline version of 23.10 versus Title 24 because it has been totally reformatted based on State guidelines. The redline version provided to the Council are changes the Planning Board made to the initial draft. Council President Petso inquired about language removed and replaced on page 118 of 159. Mr. Lien answered he would need to review the Planning Board's notes. Council President Petso recalled the SMP would not allow construction between the marsh and Puget Sound, yet a presentation last week referred to a tide gate. She asked whether the SMP would prevent construction of a tide gate. Mr. Lien answered there should not be a conflict. Councilmember Bloom referred to protecting and enhancing natural systems on page 15, and said the tide gate would meet that SMP goal. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Bloom referred to page 14, number 13, and asked if this was the time to tighten the language, such as all use and development should use low impact development (LID) techniques where appropriate and feasible. She suggested using a stronger word such as "must use" and define what was appropriate and feasible. Mr. Lien envisioned changes would be discussed at a future meeting. He referred to page 146, the definition section, that defines must, should, shall and will; shall and will and must are mandatory, may is permissive, should means a particular action is required unless there is a demonstrated compelling reason based on policy of the SMA and SMP against taking action. With regard to LID, the stormwater regulations and stormwater manual spells out when LID is and is not feasible. The SMP works with all other City development regulations and the stormwater regulations address when LID is feasible. He said the use of "must" was not appropriate because there were some instances where LID is not feasible. Councilmember Bloom requested he provide an example when LID is not feasible. Councilmember Bloom referred to number 11, the City of Edmonds shall stay abreast of scientific information regarding climate change and sea level rise and reevaluate the SMP development standards as Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 91 of 546 soon as adequate scientific information is available. She asked how that would be instituted. Mr. Lien advised the SMP is updated every 7 years. Much more information will be available for the next update once all the studies regarding the marsh, Shellabarger Creek, Willow Creek and stormwater issues are complete. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to a Wetland Category table on page 38 that identifies additional buffer width based on habitat points, explaining Anacortes' plan has identified insects, fish, etc. Mr. Lien explained habitat points are part of the wetland delineation process. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the second table on page 38 of the SMP and disturbances such as toxic runoff. Mr. Lien explained the two tables are taken directly from DOE Guidance for Small Jurisdictions that DOE requested the City include in its SMP. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Eric Laschever, K&L Gates, representing the Port of Edmonds, distributed copies of a letter. He explained the purpose of the letter was to support the staff proposed approach of allowing redevelopment of property within the shoreline buffers. He referred to Mr. Lien's depiction of what would happen if a 150 foot buffer was imposed on already developed property. This issue applied not only to the Port property but other properties with developed buffers. He relayed two reasons for supporting staff's approach, first, from a practical standpoint, drawing a 150 foot line will not improve conditions in the Edmonds Marsh. The buffer concept that works well in intact upland areas does not work once development has occurred. The Port is supportive of improving the condition of the marsh; the buffers will not do that. Second, the shoreline guidelines which were the product of extensive negotiations between the business community, the environmental community, and local governments, make a clear distinction between protection and no net loss. He referred to a Supreme Court case that illustrates that concept in the GMA context, local governments are not required to impose buffers in areas that have already been developed. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Peterson referred to the Swinomish case and asked if development could be allowed in the expanded setback buffer if it achieved a LEED Gold or Platinum standard. Mr. Lien stated that could be an incentive. The SMP Guidelines and Handbook state a setback itself meets the requirements of the SMA. An incentive could be provided in the SMP to build closer than the base setback such as a LEED standard. Councilmember Buckshnis commented grandfathering and no net loss is one thing, but redevelopment from a CG zone to an Urban Village is not grandfathering. She understood the concept of no net loss but also understood points are awarded for federal grants for proper setbacks. In terms of grandfathering, she had no problem with no net loss, but an urban village would totally change the footprint. She did not understand no net loss without grandfathering. Mr. Lien explained the Best Available Science Report that was done with the CAO update addressed development within the developed footprint. With regard to grandfathering and no net loss, he considered the paved area of Harbor Square as the developed footprint. Under the contract review for Harbor Square, there is only a 25 foot setback from the Edmonds Marsh. The SMP update proposes a 50 foot setback. Grandfathering and development within the developed footprint is one aspect; redevelopment provides opportunity for enhancement within the 50 foot setback area that may not be provided if a 150 setback is required. Mr. Taraday responded he had not had an opportunity to research the points made in Mr. Laschever's letter. He agreed in general with the notion that no net loss applies more appropriately to the impact of development occurring on virgin soil than the built out situation at Harbor Square. He was not certain he Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 92 of 546 agreed that the City was prohibited from imposing larger buffers, notwithstanding the built environment. From a practical standpoint, the reality is if extremely large buffers are imposed in an area that is already developed, the end result will be a perpetuation of the existing use forever because it will be the most economic use of the property. No one will ever want to redevelop as redevelopment will not pencil out because it will result in the loss of currently usable property. It may be more effective to achieve restoration via an incentive program for redevelopment rather than imposing a huge buffer on the property that already includes a great deal of developed landscape. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the impervious pavement at Harbor Square represented the footprint. Mr. Lien answered yes, for the most part. He identified areas that are within the setbacks and buffers on an aerial image. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Lien clarified the current footprint is all the impervious surface. Councilmember Johnson asked about the sequencing of the Comprehensive Plan update and the SMP as it relates to options for Harbor Square redevelopment. Mr. Lien answered there are two important issues with regard to how the SMP update relates to Harbor Square, 1) the buffer setback area, and 2) the Urban Mixed Use III environment. One of the reasons the Urban Mixed Use III environment was proposed rather than one of the existing Mixed Use environments was the Port's consideration of residential development. It also addresses 4-5 other office/residential parcels north of Main Street. As the City considers moving forward with the Harbor Square Master Plan and has to move forward with the SMP, the biggest issue is residential development and whether to allow it long term on this site. The City must act on the SMP this year; Harbor Square may take longer. Mayor Earling summarized further discussion will be scheduled on a future agenda. 10. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON IN STRONG SUPPORT OF A 2013 TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PACKAGE. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained topics for the State special legislative session include balancing the operating budget and a statewide transportation funding package that will provide additional funding opportunities for the State, WSDOT and local governments. The package is evolving; there are currently a number of projects that would directly and indirectly benefit Edmonds. There are two specific capital projects for which bonding would be issued, 1) $700,000 for a walkway on Sunset Avenue, and 2) $10 million to begin the plan and fund the first phase of access, safety, and mobility improvements on Highway 99. Another key feature of the transportation package is a proposed increase in the State gas tax of $0.10 over a 4 year period, $0.05 the first year, $0.02 the second and third years, and $0.01 the fourth year. This would provide a substantial amount of funding for State and local projects. Edmonds would receive an additional approximately $140,000; the City currently receives approximately $900,000 from the State gas tax. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about BNSF with regard to the Sunset project. Mr. Williams answered he had not given up hope of additional help from BNSF as the project proceeds into detailed design. If nothing changes the walkway can be built within the existing footprint of Sunset Avenue. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1291, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, IN STRONG SUPPORT OF A 2013 TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PACKAGE. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented this has been a long time coming, particularly for Highway 99. She observed there were limited sidewalks on Highway 99 and asked if the proposed project would include sidewalks. Mr. Williams answered the intent would be to include pedestrian and bicycle amenities and bring the existing amenities up to ADA standards as well as solve numerous safety problems that Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 93 of 546 exist on the corridor. It would be a huge and long project; this would be just the first phase. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the first step is the right step for Edmonds. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported flower baskets are being put up downtown. Next, he thanked the Council for confirming his appointment of Roger Neumaier as Finance Director and for approving the resolution in support of a 2013 Transportation Investment Package. 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Johnson reported the Rotary Waterfront Festival was a great community event. For the first time there was food recycling thanks to the work of Corrine Rubenkonig, the Waste Warriors and the City's Recycling Coordinator Steve Fisher. She noted John Rubenkonig has been involved in recycling with the boy scouts for ten years. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the Port of Edmonds and the boaters for allowing the Rotary to use the area for the Waterfront Festival. She thanked the citizens who contacted her and encouraged them to contact all Councilmembers. Councilmember Peterson expressed appreciation for the appointment of Roger Neumaier as the City's Finance Director. He looked forward to working with him, noting he brings an incredible wealth of experience. He thanked Ron Cone for serving as the City's Interim Finance Director. He also congratulated Snohomish County Executive Lovick on his appointment. He looked forward to new direction at Snohomish County and to working with Executive Lovick and the County Council on issues facing Edmonds. Council President Petso reported pursuant to Council direction she arranged a small meeting with Councilmembers Peterson and Fraley-Monillas, Port Commissioners Faires and Orvis, and Planning Board Member Phil Lovell. They had a lively discussion seeking commonality regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan and how to move ahead. There was not a lot of commonality and she planned to contact Councilmembers to discuss how to address the Harbor Square Master Plan issue in the future. She thanked the Councilmembers, Port Commissioners and Planning Board Member for their participation and opinions. Councilmember Yamamoto welcomed Roger Neumaier as Finance Director. He looked forward to working with him as the Chair of the Finance Committee. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she was at the Waterfront Festival much of Friday. She thanked the Edmonds Police and Fire District 1 for their efforts to keep everyone calm and safe. She congratulated County Executive Lovick on his appointment and wished him the best. 14. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(c), AND PENDING AND POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). At 8:51 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c) and pending and potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(l)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 10 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley - Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 94 of 546 Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 9:01 p.m. 15. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 9:02 p.m. No action was taken as a result of meeting in executive session. 11. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING THE TIME LIMIT FOR PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL Associate Planner Jen Machuga explained on May 21 an ordinance to increase the timeframe for short plat preliminary approval and to formalize State law regarding formal subdivisions was pulled from the Consent Agenda for further Council discussion. Councilmember Bloom thanked Ms. Machuga for providing a list of expired short plats that would be extended if this ordinance is approved. She asked about parties of record for those short plats. Ms. Machuga answered she counted the number of letters received for each short plat but did not review the letters' content. Councilmember Bloom asked how many of the 17 short plats had parties of record that provided information. Ms. Machuga answered of the 13 short plats that were not replaced by another more recent subdivision application, 4 had no comments, 5 had 1 comment letter, 1 had 2 comment letters, 1 had 5 comment letters and 2 had 6 comment letters. She summarized comments were submitted for 9 of the 13 short plats. Main Motion COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3925, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 20.75.100 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO THE TIME LIMIT FOR PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND ESTABLISHING SECTION 20.75.107 RELATING TO AN EXTENSION TO THE TIME LIMIT FOR CERTAIN SHORT PLATS. Amendment #1 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REMOVE THE EXTENSION OF EXPIRED SHORT PLATS. Councilmember Buckshnis asked the purpose of removing the extension of expired short plats. Ms. Machuga answered the ordinance includes the extension; it was the Council's choice to remove it. Councilmember Bloom pointed out staff research found 9 of the 13 short plats that would be extended had comments from citizens. She recalled staff's indication at the last meeting that there was no funding to notice citizens who provided comment. She felt it inappropriate to allow short plats that have expired to be reopened without reopening comments and the entire process. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the short plats would only be reopened for two years. Ms. Machuga relayed her understanding of the amendment would be to extend currently valid short plats two years from the date of their original application and any that already exceeded five years would remain expired. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if under the current staff proposal, expired short plats would be reopened for two years. Ms. Machuga agreed they would be reopened for two years from the date of the ordinance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if there were any negatives to removing the extension of expired plats. Ms. Machuga answered the majority of those caught in the economic downturn were short plats that Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 95 of 546 expired in the last year or two; thirteen of them have not resubmitted. Without the proposed extension, they would be required to begin the process from the beginning. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed all of the expired short plats could have resubmitted. Ms. Machuga agreed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what would be entailed for them to resubmit. Ms. Machuga answered a new preliminary application fee is approximately $1500, civil review is $1000, and they would be subject to current stormwater codes which could have additional costs. She recalled concerns were raised regarding that issue during the hearing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether an applicant would be required to resubmit if they now wanted to change their short plat. Ms. Machuga answered the code allows for minor change to a short plat that has received preliminary approval. Minor changes include slightly shifting property lines. A major change would be a change to the number of lots, access, etc. and would require the short plat to go through the entire process again regardless of whether it was extended. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to a citizen who has spoken to the Council several times about property she purchased. Ms. Machuga advised it is a three lot townhouse short plat. She clarified the citizen does not own the property; she is interested in working for someone purchasing the property. That short plat will expire in July. If the Council approves the extension of currently valid short plats before that short plat expires, they would have another two years. If the short plat expired in the meantime and the amendment to remove the extension of expired short plats was approved, they would be required to resubmit. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave recalled in previous discussions the concern was the economic downturn. He explained most of the short plats that failed expired during the last few years. Extending short plats in the future is one thing; it did not make sense to do that when things are improving and not address the short plats that were the victims of the economic downturn. He suggested noticing the parties of record of the short plats that would be extended. That represents a small number of people and the cost could be accommodated. However, the cost of noticing property owners within 300 feet could be a significant amount. Councilmember Peterson advised he will vote against the amendment, noting the short plats were previously approved and the concerns of any parties of record have been addressed. The economic downturn is an extenuating circumstance and had catastrophic impacts on the real estate and development market. This small step will provide an opportunity for the 13 short plats that expired to move forward if they choose. He reiterated the plats were previously approved and any citizen concerns were addressed. Council President Petso expressed support for the amendment. The cost to resubmit is minimal and it would put them under the new stormwater codes which she assumed were superior to the prior stormwater codes and would provide further public benefit. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she will vote against the amendment. She recalled the Council requested staff pursue this based on citizen comments, citizens begging the Council to extend plats. She was comfortable with moving forward as long as notice was provided to parties of record. She expressed concern that the Council asked for the change and then when staff presents the change, the Council no longer wants it. Councilmember Bloom clarified it was not citizens who brought this to the Council, it was one person who owns property in Edmonds but is not a resident of Edmonds. That person was not asking for expired plats to be resurrected. Councilmember Bloom explained she did not oppose the extension of existing plats but did oppose the resurrection of expired plats. She noted in addition to stormwater regulations, other regulations may have also changed since those plats expired. The plats that are resurrected will be Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 96 of 546 subject to the regulations in place when they originally applied; she was concerned there may be other regulations that are now superior that they would not be required to honor, perhaps with the potential of lawsuits. She summarized there was a difference between extending existing plats and allowing resurrection of old plats. She encouraged Councilmember Fraley-Monillas to rethink her position. Vote on Amendment #1 UPON ROLL CALL, THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND BLOOM AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO, BUCKSHNIS, PETERSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. Amendment #2 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INDICATE THAT PROPER ADVANCE NOTICE BE GIVEN TO ALL THE PARTIES OF RECORD FROM ALL THE DIFFERENT PLATS THAT ARE AFFECTED. Ms. Machuga asked for clarification that the amendment was to provide notice to parties of record of plats that had previously expired, not plats that are currently valid. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed that was her intent. City Attorney Jeff Taraday pointed out in almost every instance where notice is given on a land use matter, notice is given for the purpose of soliciting comment on an application. In this instance, without further amendment, it will simply be notice of an automatic extension. The language in the code states: shall have their preliminary approvals automatically extended for a period of two years. Vote on Amendment #2 MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Vote on Main Motion UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, PETERSON, JOHNSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND YAMAMOTO VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING NO. 16. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 16 Packet Page 97 of 546 AM-5752 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Phil Williams Department: Public Works Committee: Finance Submitted By: Kody McConnell Tyne: Action Information Subject Title Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles. 7. A. Recommendation It is recommended that authorization be given to Public Works to sell at auction two (2) surplus City vehicles. Previous Council Action None. Narrative Previously, the city has utilized the services of James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus city vehicles and equipment. This has proven to be a cost effective method to manage surplus items. The following vehicles are ready to be surplussed: Unit # 128-WTR 2002 Ford F-250 Utility Truck VIN# IFTNX205X2EL51077 Unit # 648-POL 2009 Ford Crown Victoria VIN# 2FAHP71V09X132648 Fiscal Year: 2013 Fiscal impact Revenue: S7,500 Fiscal Impact• Monies will be deposited into the B-Fund replacement account. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/13/2013 03:13 PM Public Works Phil Williams 05/13/2013 05:03 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/04/2013 08:37 AM Mayor Dave Earling 06/04/2013 11:20 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 06/05/2013 03:09 PM Form Started By: Kody McConnell Started On: 05/13/2013 12:22 PM Final Approval Date: 06/05/2013 Expenditure: Packet Page 98 of 546 AM-5807 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Mike De Lilla Department: Engineering Committee: Finance Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Tyne: Action Information Subject Title Presentation of 2013 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update and proposed sewer utility rate increases. Recommendation This item will be presented to the City Council in late June or July. Previous Council Action None. Narrative 7. B. The City of Edmonds' (City) Comprehensive Sewer Plan (the Plan) reviews the City's current sewage capacities and looks at the impact of projected growth on the City's sewage collection, conveyance and treatment system. Per the Washington State Growth Management Act, the City's current Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan, written in 2006, needs to be updated. The update will review and evaluate, the following elements of the City's Sanitary Sewer System: (1) Planning data and demand; (2) Sanitary Sewer System Analysis; (3) System Reliability; (4) Updates to the existing Sewer Model; (5) Regulatory Compliance with the Washington State Department of Ecology; (6) Operations and Maintenance Program; (7) Capital Facilities Plan; (8) Financial Program. An analysis of the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) will also be done evaluating the existing plant under current and anticipated loadings and also evaluate the future of the plant when subjected to tightening effluent limits expected to be imposed on Puget Sound dischargers. The Plan identifies future facilities required to accommodate both existing and future wastewater collection, conveyance and treatment needs as the City's population grows within the service area limits for the years 2019, 2033, and buildout conditions. The comprehensive plan will conform to the applicable sections of Chapter 173-240 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and as further detailed in the Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) document "Criteria for Sewage Works Design." In addition, the information from the 2010 City of Edmonds Inflow/Infiltration Study was incorporated. Table 9.2 and 9.3 identify improvement projects along with a priority ranking based on flow capacity, video inspections, staff input, and maintenance record data. Staff will use this ranking in the future years to identify which improvements will be made each year to provide the City with the flexibility to coordinate sewer main projects with street or other projects that may be planned for the same area. There may also be times when the priority ranking for a replacement may change due to subsequent inspections or deterioration conditions that require replacement sooner than anticipated. The need for sewer main easements may also have an impact on when improvements are scheduled since acquiring easements can be difficult and time consuming when working with reluctant property owners. Fiscal Impact: Packet Page 99 of 546 A financial analysis was completed by the Financial Consulting Solutions (FCS) Group to analyze the future financial needs for the City's sewer system. Based on the financial analysis, FCS and City staff have determined that sewer system utility rate increases are necessary to implement the Plan and fund operations, maintenance, and the planned capital improvements. Factors that necessitate rate increases for the sewer system are: • Ongoing need to replace/repair aging City of Edmonds sewer mains and the need to increase the size of sewer mains, for sufficient flows in various locations as well as other capital improvements shown in the Plan; • Repairing or replacing existing pipes to decrease the amount of root intrusion in existing pipes so that blockages in the systems are mitigated; • Updates and repairs to the Wastewater Treatment Plant; • Mitigating groundwater Infiltration and Inflow from existing sewer pipes. The Plan will be reviewed by the Planning Board and a public hearing will be held on June 26, 2013. DRAFT Sewer Comp Plan Inbox Reviewed By Engineering Robert English Public Works Kody McConnell City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Final Approval Date: 06/07/2013 Attachments Form Review Date 06/06/2013 11:57 AM 06/06/2013 12:31 PM 06/06/2013 01:34 PM 06/06/2013 05:35 PM 06/07/2013 08:39 AM Started On: 05/29/2013 10:13 AM Packet Page 100 of 546 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Sewer Plan May 2013 ■ S�L A N S 1601 5I" Ave Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 505-3400 Packet Page 101 of 546 City of Edmonds COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN May 2013 City Council Michael Plunkett Strom Peterson Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Diane Buckshnis Joan Bloom Frank Yamamoto Lora Petso Public Works Director Phillip Williams City Engineer Rob English Treatment Manager Sewer Supervisor Project Manager Pamela Randolph Jim Waite Mike DeLilla This Document was prepared Under the direct supervision of Craig P. Chambers, P.E. BHC Consultants Packet Page 102 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN City of Edmonds Comprehensive Sewer Plan I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 Planning Data 1-1 1.3 Projected Wastewater Flows and Loads 1-2 1.4 Capital Improvement Projects 1-3 II. INTRODUCTION 2.1 Purpose and Need for Plan 2-1 2.2 Ownership and Management 2-2 2.3 System History and Background 2-2 2.4 Service Area Characteristics 2-5 2.5 City Sewer Policies 2-5 III. LAND USE AND SERVICE AREA 3.1 Service Area Description 3-1 3.2 Surrounding Vicinity Characteristics 3-1 3.2.1 Topography 3-1 3.2.2 Geology 3-3 3.2.3 Water Resources 3-3 3.3 Land Use 3-7 3.3.1 Growth Management Act 3-7 3.4 Relationships with Adjacent Sewerage Agencies 3-9 3.4.1 City of Lynnwood 3-9 3.4.2 King County 3-12 3.4.3 City of Mountlake Terrace 3-14 3.4.4 Ronald Wastewater District 3-14 3.4.5 Olympic View Water and Wastewater District 3-14 IV. DESIGN CRITERIA 4.1 Performance and Design Criteria 4-1 4.1.1 Sewer Mainline 4-1 4.1.2 Manholes 4-2 4.1.3 Side Sewers 4-3 4.1.4 Pump Stations 4-3 4.1.5 Individual Grinder Pumps 4-3 4.2 Easements 4-4 4.3 Standard Details and General Notes 4-4 V. EXISTING FACILITIES 5.1 Drainage Basins 5-1 5.1.1 Meter 1 Sub -basin 5-1 5.1.2 Zone 1 Sub -basin 5-4 Packet Page 103 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 5.1.3 Zone 2 Sub -basin 5-4 5.1.4 Meter A Sub -basin 5-4 5.1.5 Meter B Sub -basin 5-4 5.1.6 Meter C Sub -basin 5-4 5.1.7 Meter E Sub -basin 5-4 5.1.8 MLT Zone Sub -basin 5-5 5.1.9 Edmonds Zone Sub -basin 5-5 5.1.10 LS-1 Zone Sub -basin 5-5 5.1.11 Richmond Beach Sub -basin 5-5 5.1.12 Lynnwood Zone Sub -basin 5-5 5.2 City Collection and Conveyance Facilities 5-6 5.3 Lift Stations 5-6 5.4 Edmonds WWTP 5-9 5.4.1 General 5-9 5.4.2 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Loadings 5-10 5.5 Additional Regulatory Requirements 5-15 5.6 Infiltration and Inflow 5-15 5.6.1 Zone 1 Problem Area 5-15 5.6.2 LS-1 Zone 5-15 5.6.3 MLT Zone 5-15 VI. EXISTING AND FUTURE POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS 6.1 Population 6-1 6.1.1 General 6-1 6.1.2 Existing Residential Population and Sewer Connections 6-1 6.1.3 Future Residential Population and Sewer Connections 6-2 6.2 Flows 6-4 6.2.1 General 6-4 6.2.2 Recorded Flows 6-6 6.2.3 Estimated Future Flows 6-10 6.3 WWTP Flows 6-11 VII. MODEL CONSTRUCTION AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS 7.1 Model Software 7-1 7.2 Model Construction 7-1 7.2.1 Data Sources 7-1 7.2.2 Model Coverage 7-1 7.2.3 Modeling of Physical System Features 7-2 7.3 Loading 7-3 7.4 Model Calibration 7-4 7.5 Capacity Analysis and Model Results 7-4 7.5.1 Model Results 7-4 VIII. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS 8.1 Introduction 8-1 ,V Packet Page 104 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 8.2 Treatment Requirements 8-1 8.3 Treatment Performance 8-2 8.4 NPDES Permitted Capacity and Historical Loadings 8-3 8.5 Violations and Bypasses 8-5 8.6 Future Capacity Evaluation 8-5 8.7 Future Regulatory Issues for WWTP 8-13 8.7.1 Sewage Sludge Incineration 8-13 8.7.2 Secondary Bypass 8-17 8.7.3 Total Nitrogen Discharge Limits 8-17 8.8 Plant Improvements and Additional Needs 8-18 8.8.1 Improvements since 2006 Comprehensive Plan 8-18 8.8.2 Additional Improvements 8-21 IX. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 9.1 Capital Improvement Projects Ranking 9-1 9.2 Capacity Limitations in Existing Lines Identification of Reoccurring 9-3 9.3 Basis for CIP Cost Estimates 9-19 9.4 CIP Capacity Issues and Other Projects — 2013 thru 2019 9-24 9.5 CIP Capacity Issues — 2019 thru 2033 9-25 9.6 CIP Capacity Issues — 2033 thru Buildout 9-25 9.7 CMOM 9-25 9.8 Wastewater Reuse 9-25 9.9.1 Regulatory Requirements 9-25 9.9.2 Potential Uses and Demands 9-26 9.9.3 Reclaimed Water Treatment Facilities 9-28 9.9.4 Reclaimed Water Conveyance and Distribution 9-28 9.9.5 Economic Analysis of Reuse 9-28 9.9.6 Satellite Reclaimed Water System 9-29 X. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM 10.1 District Management and Personnel 10-1 10.1.1 Organization 10-1 10.1.2 Certification and Training 10-2 10.2 Operations and Maintenance Activities and Programs 10-2 10.2.1 Collection System Maintenance 10-3 10.2.1.1 Lift Stations 10-3 10.2.1.2 Sanitary Sewers 10-3 10.2.2 WWTP Maintenance 10.3 Programs 10-4 10.3.1 Pretreatment Program 10-4 10.3.2 Water Reclamation and Reuse 10-5 10.3.3 Biosolids Recycling 10-5 10.3.4 Sewage Spill Response Plan 10-6 10.3.5 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan 10-7 10.4 Management System / Record Keeping 10-7 10.4.1 Collection System 10-7 Packet Page 105 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 10.4.2 NPDES Permit 10.5 Performance Indicators 10-8 10.5.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant 10-8 10.6 Condition Assessment 10-8 10.6.1 Collection System 10-8 10.6.2 Lift Stations 10-8 10.7 Staffing Needs 10-9 XI. WASTEWATER FINANCIAL PLAN 11.1 Introduction 11-1 11.2 Overview of the Financial Planning Process 11-1 11.3 Past financial History 11-2 11.4 Development of the Financial Plan 11-3 11.4.1 Internal Sources of Funds 11-6 11.4.2 External Sources of Funds 11-6 11.5 Summary of the Financial Projections 11-8 11.6 Rate Impacts 11-10 11.7 Review of District's Wastewater Rates 11-11 11.8 Summary of Wastewater Financial Plan 11-11 LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES GLOSSARY ABBREVIATIONS APPENDICES A. Sub -basin Maps B. Model Calibration and Documentation C. Population Projections D. SEPA Checklist and Determination of Significance E. Cost Estimates for CIP F. Known Collection System Deficiencies G. Sewer Service Agreements H. Ordinances I. City's Development Guidelines and Standards for Developer Extensions J. Agency review Comments and Responses K. NPDES Permit L. Financial Analysis Support Documents M. FOG Resolution V1 Packet Page 106 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN LIST OF TABLES Page 2.1 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Requirements per WAC 173-240-050 2-1 2.2 Additional Sewer Plan Requirements per State and Local Regulations 2-1 5.1 Summary of Pipe Inventory 5-6 5.2 Pump Station Inventory 5-7 5.3 Current NPDES Effluent Limitations for Edmonds WWTP Discharge 5-9 5.4 Edmonds WWTP Historical Improvements and Capacity 5-10 6.1 Edmonds Existing Population 2010 6-2 6.2 Measured Flow by Meter 6-5 6.3 Population and Growth Projections 6-9 6.4 2019 Flow Projections 6-12 6.5 2033 Flow Projections 6-13 6.6 Build Out Flow Projections 6-14 6.7 WWTP Flow Projections - 2019 and 2033 6-15 7.1 Fields for Basic Model Construction 7-2 8.1 Current and Future Loadings to WWTP 8-6 8.2 EPA Emission Limits for Fluidized Bed Incinerators 8-15 8.3 Capital Improvements at WWTP 8-24 9.1 Point Assignments for Capital Improvement Projects 9-2 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline CIP — Without Granite O&M 9-4 9.3 Capital Improvement Projects 9-20 9.4 Potential Application Sites for Reclaimed Water 9-27 V; i Packet Page 107 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN LIST OF FIGURES Page 2.1 Vicinity Map 2-3 3.1 Municipal Boundaries 3-2 3.2 Water Features 3-4 3.3 Soils Map 3-5 3.4 Water System Schematic 3-6 3.5 Land Use Map 3-8 3.6 Adjacent Sewer Agencies 3-10 3.7 Lynnwood Treatment Service Area 3-11 3.8 Richmond Beach Agreement Area 3-13 3.9 Mountlake Terrace Agreement Area 3-15 3.10 Ronald Wastewater District Agreement Area 3-16 5.1 Sub -Basin Map 5-2 5.2 Schematic Flow Diagram 5-3 5.3 Lift Station Service Areas 5-8 5.4 WWTP Layout 5-14 6.1 Diurnal Flow 6-8 6.2 Edmonds Wastewater Flows 6-10 7.X Lynnwood Zone Lift Station Analysis 7-5 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Effluent CBOD5/TSS Concentrations 8-2 8.2 Edmonds WWTP Effluent Mass CBOD5/TSS 8-3 8.3 Edmonds WWTP Influent Flows 8-4 8.4 Edmonds WWTP Influent Mass CBOD5/TSS 8-5 vi; i Packet Page 108 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN GLOSSARY 100-year flood: The magnitude of a flood likely to occur, on average, once every 100 years. Average Wet Weather Flow: Wastewater flow during period when groundwater table is high and precipitation is at its peak, generally the four wet weather months, from November to February. Class 1 Stream: A perennial or intermittent stream that is used by threatened or endangered fish or larger numbers of other fish, or that is used as a direct source of water for domestic use. Force Main: Pressurized discharge pipe from a lift station. Infiltration: Groundwater entering the sewage collection system through defective joints, pipes, and improperly sealed manholes. Inflow: Sewage flows resulting from stormwater runoff entering the sewage collection system, typically through manhole covers, roof leaders, and area drains connected directly to sewer, cross connections from storm drains and catch basins, and direct flows into broken sewers. Maximum Monthly Flow: Average daily flow during the highest flow month of the year. Mini -Basin: Drainage catchment areas within the North Creek, Swamp Creek, Picnic Point, Everett or Little Bear Creek Drainage Basins. Mini -basins followed the King County delineation to the extent of the County's effort to define the mini -basins. National Flood Insurance Program: Federally funded program providing flood insurance to property owners in flood plains provided the local government meets certain criteria for management of flood damage risk. Orange Book: Criteria for Sewage Works Design, published by the Washington State Department of Ecology Peak Hourly Flow: Wastewater flow during the highest flow hour. Sensitive Area: Area in which development potential is limited by environmental factors such as steep slopes, wetlands, and valuable natural habitat. Sewer Lateral: A sewer with no other common sewers discharging into it. Sewer Submain: A sewer that receives flow from one or more lateral sewers. Sewer Main or Trunk: A sewer that receives flow from one or more submains. Sewer Interceptor: A sewer that receives flow from a number of main or trunk sewers, force mains, etc. Urban Growth Area: Area in which urban development must be contained, as stipulated by the Growth Management Act. ,X Packet Page 109 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN ABBREVIATIONS AAF Average Annual Flow ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow AWWD Alderwood Water and Wastewater District AWWF Average Wet Weather Flow BOD Biological Oxygen Demand CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Capital Improvement Program CWA Clean Water Act DOH Washington State Department of Health DOE Washington State Department of Ecology EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ERU Equivalent Residential Unit ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Act FOG Fats, Oils and Greases FPS Feet per second FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act ("The Clean Water Act") GMA Growth Management Act GPCD Gallons per capita per day GPAD Gallons per acre per day GPD Gallons per day HPA Hydraulic Project Approval 1/1 Infiltration and Inflow JARPA Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application KCDNR King County Department of Natural Resources MMF Maximum Month Flow MBR Membrane Bioreactor MGD Million Gallons per Day mg/I milligrams per liter NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OCD Washington State Office of Community Development OFM Washington State Office of Financial Management ppd Pounds per day PVC Polyvinyl Chloride PWWF Peak Wet Weather Flow RCW Revised Code of Washington SEPA State Environmental Policy Act SRF State Revolving Fund TSS Total Suspended Solids UGA Urban Growth Area USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service WAC Washington Administrative Code WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant Packet Page 110 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER I — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Edmonds' (City) Comprehensive Sewer Plan (the Plan) reviews the City's current sewage capacities and looks at the impact of projected growth on the City's sewage collection and conveyance system. The analysis of the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) was also done evaluating the existing plant under current and anticipated loadings and also evaluated the future of the plant when subjected to tightening effluent limits expected to be imposed on Puget Sound dischargers. The Plan identifies future facilities required to accommodate both existing and future wastewater collection, conveyance and treatment needs as the City's population grows within the service area limits for the years 2019, 2033, and buildout conditions. The plan was prepared in conformance with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-240-050. 1.2 PLANNING DATA Population, employment and student population forecasts were used to estimate the current and future loadings to the City's system. Planning data from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) provides population forecasts based on U.S. Census data as broken down by Forecast Analysis Zones (FAZ). The PSRC data tends to be widely used throughout the region and is the data base that was used in developing and analyzing the flows. After discussions with the City staff, the values were used for the baseline population and GIS delineation was used for the distribution of growth between the Sub -basins. Student populations were derived from the School District's forecast. The service area is divided between eleven (11) Sub -basins. These 11 Sub -basins were used to encompass the entire service area boundary. The definition of the population that has sewer service is complicated by the fact that some Edmonds customers are served to the City of Lynnwood. Conversely the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant serves non -Edmonds customers. The population values and the methodology are presented in Chapter 6. There are three segments that comprise the served population: residential, student and employment. These three sectors are generally thought to capture all the sources expected in the Edmonds Service Area. This approach works well in largely developed, non -industrial service areas. Similar approaches were used in the Alderwood Water Packet Page 111 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN and Wastewater District's Comprehensive Plan in 2010 and in the City of Lynnwood's Comprehensive Plan in 2012. With these values of existing and projected users, a population equivalent was developed recognizing that a student or an employee contributes a fraction of a permanent resident. This ratio was established to be 5 to 1 for students, meaning that 5 students is equivalent to a resident and 3 to 1 for employees (i.e. 3 employees is equivalent to a resident). This ratio is consistent with textbook values. 1.3 PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS AND LOADS A capacity analysis of the existing City sewer network was undertaken using the XP- SWMM hydraulic modeling program. Existing lift stations and their firm capacities also were included in the model. The flow data from the City's flow meters were largely used in calibrating the model. The location of the flow meters was instrumental in delineating the Sub -basin boundaries. These Sub -basin areas were consistent with the basin boundaries used in the previous 1/1 study. The model was developed using information from the City's GIS electronic database, supplemented by selected as -built drawings, pump records, flow monitoring data, and with other available data such as ground elevation LIDAR information. Models were constructed to represent the network in 2010, 2019, 2033, and build out. The year 2010 was used for calibration purposes utilizing flow metering data at a eight locations in the collection system and three flow meters at the plant. Various flow conditions were evaluated for the flow data from each of the meters. Flow data from 2006 through 2012 was evaluated and summarized in Appendix B. Data for calibration purposes focused on flow from the years 2010 through 2012. • Average Dry Weather Flow was defined as the average daily flow for the months of July through October when no measureable rain was recorded. • Average Daily Flow was defined as the average flow over the entire year • Average Wet Weather Flow was defined as the average of the daily flows from the months of November through March • Maximum Month Flows are valuable particularly for the WWTP and are typically thought to be the design flow events for the plant. From the flow records, the maximum monthly average for the years 2010 through 2012 was selected. • Peak Day Flows are the measured maximum daily flows over the period of 2010 through 2012. • Peak Hour Flows used the measured peak day flows, applying a peak day to peak hour factor and by adding the diurnal flow variation to arrive at this estimated flow. 1-2 Packet Page 112 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN With the flows determined and the known population equivalence, a flow per population equivalence was determined. With the multiple flow meters and the extensive flow data that spanned several years, we saw consistent flow patterns in all the flow meter data. This historical flow data was used to project future and anticipated flows. There was an anomaly is the data measured in Meters 3 and the MLT meter at the WWTP. These two meters are downstream of the flow diversion to King County and consequently reflect lower total flows coming into the Edmonds system. This explains the low per population equivalent values seen at these two meters. The 1/1 component is captured in and part of the peak day and peak hour per population equivalent flow values. It is important to recognize that the 1/1 component is reflective of current conditions and that, as the pipes continue to age and degrade, the volume of 1/1 entering the system will continue to increase. An allowance for that continued degradation is incorporated into the per population equivalent values for 2019, 2033 and build out conditions. The Engineering and Planning Subcommittee of Metropolitan Water Pollution Abatement Advisory Committee (MWPAAC) has defined this degradation of sewers as a 7-percent per decade increase in 1/I. Though it might be acceptable to allow conditional surcharging of the conveyance lines, for the purposes of this analysis it has been conservatively estimated that no surcharging will be allowed. This effectively means that there is added and reserve capacity within the surcharging volumes. Where pipe sections were identified as requiring an upgrade, the proposed upgrade was sized to provide capacity equal to or greater than the estimated build out flows and to prevent any conditional surcharging from occurring. At lift stations where the estimated peak hour flows were shown to exceed the current firm capacity, a suitable build out upgrade flow capacity was estimated. This capacity was incorporated into the model for the planning horizon showing evidence of capacity limitation. This enabled the impact of the increased flow on the downstream sewer network to be investigated. The actual mechanical and electrical improvements to the lift stations would not likely be sized for the build out conditions. The results of the capacity analysis were used to develop the capital improvement program detailed in Chapter 9. 1.4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS The capital improvement projects (CIP) developed in Chapter 9 are presented by time period. It should be noted that this plan has neither proposed a routing to extend sewers to every lot within the service boundary, nor was it the intention of this plan to finance those line extensions. The CIP does not include the line extensions and pump stations needed to serve presently unsewered areas. These line extensions are 1-3 Packet Page 113 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN assumed to be initiated and financed by developers or through ULIDs. Consequently, no City financing mechanism is proposed for these lines. The CIP is limited to the following categories: • Existing lines that need to be upgraded/upsized to convey flows as population and flows increase • Existing lift stations that need to be upgraded to accommodate increasing flows. • Existing lift stations that need modifications or improvements. This might include equipment that has reached or are soon to reach their useful life, needed new features, and stations that are slated to be abandoned or rerouted. • Chronic maintenance areas that can be resolved with a capital project. • WWTP improvements to respond to increasing flows, loads or new regulations Cost estimates for each CIP was prepared based on current year (2013) pricing. Detailed cost estimates can be found in Appendix E. These projects were assigned a target period for completion based on the anticipated added flows and the expectation that capacity would be exceeded by the end of that period. Those improvements shown as 2013 to 2019 projects are those projects that have current or soon anticipated capacity issues and should be pursued first. Those that are in subsequent periods of 2019 to 2033 and 2033 to Build out are projects that should be completed on or before that target year. Capital Improvements Projects to be financed through the Sewer Fund for those periods are presented in Table 9.3 and are summarized below: 2013-2019 2019-2033 2033 — Build out CIP financed from the Sewer Fund $ 1-4 Packet Page 114 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER II — INTRODUCTION 2.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PLAN This 2012 Comprehensive Sewer Plan is prepared for the City to fulfill the requirements of Chapter 173-240-050 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). The WAC requirements are outlined in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Requirements per WAC 173-240-050 Reference Paragraph Description of Requirement Location in Document 3a Purpose and need for proposed plan Section 2.1 3b Who will own, operate, and maintain system Section 2.2 3c Existing and proposed service boundaries Figure 3.1 3d Layout map showing boundaries; existing sewer facilities; proposed sewers; topography and elevations; streams, lakes; and other water bodies; water systems Figures 3.2 3e Population trends Chapter 6 3f Existing domestic and/or industrial wastewater facilities within 20 miles Figure 2.1 3g Infiltration and inflow problems Chapter 7 3h Treatment systems and adequacy of such treatment Chapter 5 3i Identify industrial wastewater sources Section 6.5 3k Discussion of collection alternatives Chapter 9 3k Discussion of treatment alternatives Chapter 8 3k Discussion of disposal alternatives Chapter 8 31 Define construction cost and O&M costs Chapter 8 and Appendix E 3m Compliance with management plan Section 9.3.6 3n SEPA compliance Appendix D In addition to the WAC requirements sited above, there are other recent state and local regulations that must be incorporated into the Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update. These additional requirements are outlined in Table 2.2. Table 2.2 Additional Sewer Plan Requirements per State and Local Regulations Description of Requirement Location in Document Evaluation of wastewater reuse per Substitute Section 9.7 Secondary Senate House Bill 1338 Capacity, Management, Operations and Maintenance Section 9.X (CMOM). The Plan provides a comprehensive guide to assist the City with managing and operating the sewer system and coordinating expansions and upgrades to the 2-1 Packet Page 115 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN infrastructure for the next thirty years. The Plan serves as a guide for policy development and decision making for the City. It also provides other agencies and the public with information on the City's plans for sewer system extensions within the City's service area. This approach allows the City to provide high quality service to its customers and to continue protecting environmental quality. The Plan evaluates existing and future capacity of the sewer system based on current and anticipated future wastewater flow rates. Future wastewater flow rates are estimated from existing flow data and population growth projected within the sewer service area. An implementation plan is provided, including an estimated timeline for constructing selected projects. The financial analysis and the means by which the improvements were to be financed were addressed in Chapter 11. This chapter was prepared by FCS Group in close coordination with BHC and under direct contract with the City. 2.2 OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT The City owns and maintains a public wastewater system and is governed by a City Council. The City has agreements for sewage collection and treatment with some of the surrounding municipalities and special purpose districts for reciprocal sewage treatment. These agreements are further explained in Chapter 3. The City's wastewater system is under the general management of Mr. Jim Waite. The Sewer Division consists of 7.5 Full-time equivalent workers while the Treatment Plant employs 17 full time workers. The treatment plant is operated and managed under the general direction of Pamela Randolph. Additional Engineering and Administrative and Engineering employees are not accounted for in the above employment numbers. 2.3 SYSTEM HISTORY AND BACKGROUND The City of Edmonds is located in southwest portion of Snohomish County, immediately north of the King County — Snohomish County boundary, as shown on Figure 2.1, Vicinity Map. The City's service area extends outside of the municipality boundaries into Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline, to the East and to the South. The City also sends a portion of the sewage north to Lynnwood and ultimately to the Lynnwood Wastewater Treatment Plant. The City encompasses approximately 8.9 square miles and but its service area is approximately 19.5 square miles. The area known as Esperence is an unincorporated area that is completely surrounded by the City of Edmonds. Edmonds was incorporated in 1890 but a sanitary sewer system was not developed until 1920. A primary sewage treatment plant was constructed in 1957. The treatment plant was further expanded to accommodate agreements sewage treatment for portions of Mountlake Terrace and Ronald Wastewater District in 1959. 2-2 Packet Page 116 of 546 ;h1;cCeylsl d11AS -c-(Ha,:; C, - r , :es Lupien .�`ce'o�, --.. - F--'sort. Island Co .:dupe -die NOLF s A, [I � woo, _ camano - Gaca�„ is - Pori Townsend VJhidb�� Island Lake �. ontirrA'sperA - �� ftr _. son Cc r• j , � ,so _ ` 99 , ,Getchel . —%CkarFa s _ °" ♦ Snohomish Co f m_�Lm � iii ,F -_=-- ,Mke Stevens � Rock - 2e Poe %' Jefferson Co � j' Mukilt�eo •Pon L : , 1 no ado S-r_,sr. GrVen F - _ !II Suhan^y.Startup - I.• - It 1 F-- ,r �•.M1ionr�e_, �_-;/-=•-r+---,- \�,Gok Bar ' - i Mountlake Ce , r Richmc Highlands m ,B hell - - Pou1i IMwnoa Shoreline Woodinville uvall r i i _ KltSap CO Kir and- / R mond 4 %,Silserdale� .�inbridge sPnc J* �� n `So marrijilt F kscvYon Eat.. _ __.___ _• 99 oadttlP ell , mmmnis : ; !' lanchester ;,mr- . •Port1acnard� Boein �a Kin NDn gg •ro♦ King CO F'�Fa. cs': • -V' go ,South ♦ 4ft•_ 167 F-_=-:q-m'e ` Bremerton No r;w if enton t aer- Se-r„c: Eulien TOlo:il. y '.a_hcn - Mason Co o = 8C - Hobart , D oine5 ( Maple.valley -i -. Kent - - f;''r',•�;'+-W�--!'Y <• �. _st - JA' � mon beach Covington ; H= 99 167 Aubu Legend rn I. F eral \ ay Auburn , Black D,3 Treatment Facilities 67 ; W E 20 mile Radius hurston Co 01- P� g ,M1leltor. - Miles City of Edmonds Boundary 16; � r � o z.s a 10 ,;� This map is a geographic representation based on information available. No warranty is made concerning ,�1 Or wMo the accuracy, currency, or completeness of data p' ids depicted on this map. VICINITY MAP - . BHC Consultants, LLC ��•-xr Figure 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN - Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3406(fai ` City of Edmonds C N S U LTA N S www.bhemnsultants.com 2.1 Inc. 1690 May 2012 COPYRIGHT 020128 C L N . ALL hfti VED COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN In 1967, another treatment plant expansion took place as a result of increased service areas within the City and additional flows from Olympic View Sewer and Water District. Secondary treatment was designed subsequent to a 1986 report by CWC/HDR and was operational by 1991. The City provides sanitary sewer service to customers within its sewer service area. Wastewater ultimately flows to one of three locations: • Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is owned and operated by the City. • Brightwater Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is owned and operated by King County Metro. The City has an agreement with the County (see Appendix F) to send a portion of Edmonds sewage to the County for treatment via the Lake Ballinger Pump Station. In turn, the City receives and treats the sewage from the Richmond Beach Service Area. This agreement is describe further in Section 3.4.2. • Lynnwood Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is owned and operated by the City of Lynnwood. The City has an agreement with Lynnwood to send a portion of the Edmonds sewage to Lynnwood for treatment. Wastewater that affects the total flows through the City's collection and conveyance system can be categorized into three sources: • Direct service. Flow from customers within the boundaries of the City that is also treated at the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant. • Lynnwood service. Flow that originates within City of Edmonds corporate boundaries and is sent to Lynnwood for treatment. The City maintains the sewer infrastructure (pump stations and sewer mains) and compensates Lynnwood for treatment. • Tributary Service. Flow that originates from areas outside the City boundaries from other sewering agencies. These tributary areas include flow from City of Mountlake Terrace, Ronald Wastewater District, Olympic View Water and Wastewater District and small portions of the City of Lynnwood. Inter -local agreements between the City and the neighboring sewering agencies define the terms by which sewer service is provided. It is possible that those agreements could be amended in the future but it is unlikely that flows would be routed differently than currently described. It is assumed for the purposes of this Plan that the flows will continue under the current routing mode and that there would be no change to the current inter -local agreements that govern these sewer services. Consideration should be given to investigate rerouting options. A recommendation for this study is included in Chapter 9. 2-4 Packet Page 118 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Planning for future wastewater operations requires the City to address the land use decisions within the City sewer service boundary as determined by the City of Edmonds, the City of Shoreline and the City of Mountlake Terrace. 2.4 SERVICE AREA CHARACTERISTICS The City boundaries lie entirely within Snohomish County. However, the service area has portions that extend into the City of Shoreline (King County). The service area is generally built out and is characterized as a bedroom community largely comprising of single or multi -family residential units. The topography within the City ranges from flat and gently rolling to hilly with steep slopes along the stream corridors and those properties immediately adjacent to Puget Sound. Wetlands are found adjacent to the many creeks, small streams and lakes within the City service area (see Figure 3.2). Sewer service extensions presented in this report are planned only within the City's service area boundary. These boundaries are shown on Figure 3.1. Since the City is bounded by other sewering agencies on all sides, it is not anticipated that the service area boundaries would be expanded. Though not likely, it is possible that the City could re-route sewer infrastructure from the northern portion from Lynnwood WWTP back to Edmonds WWTP. Similarly, some flows within the City boundaries could be rerouted differently to avoid lines or pump stations that are shown to have capacity issues. The City could potentially also install a Lift Station upstream of Lake Ballinger Pump Station. While this would likely not increase flows to the WWTP it would eliminate the need for gravity main upsizing and would eliminate or reduce payments to King County for Lake Ballinger Operations and Maintenance. 2.5 CITY SEWER POLICIES Development of the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan is currently guided by the Comprehensive Plans from the adjacent agencies. The City's policy for sewer service recognizes that its function is not to plan land uses for the service area but to respond to land uses planned by the land use planning agencies. The public sewer system in the City may be extended by one of two methods. One being a developer extension agreement, where a developer, property owner or a group of property owners request and construct a sewer under the terms and conditions of a developer extension agreement. The second method is a Utility Local Improvement District (ULID) process following RCW 35.43.040 and 35.43.042, where a group of property owners petition the City to extend sanitary sewers to their area and then are assessed for the sewer improvements. 2-5 Packet Page 119 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN It is the City's policy that the property owners desiring sewer service initiate a request for sanitary sewer service. After entering a Developer's Extension Agreement with the City, the proposed sewer design will be reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with the standards and design criteria. Sewer extensions shall follow the current version of the City of Edmonds "Standard Specifications Manual" and the "Developer Extensions Manual" as provided in the Developer's Extension Agreement. Once the improvements have been constructed and confirmed through the City inspection to meet established standards, then it shall be deeded to the City. The City Council has the authority to set policies, ordinances, and zoning. The City may find it necessary from time to time to reevaluate their policies based on Snohomish County and adjacent City land use, policies and ordinances. 2-6 Packet Page 120 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER III — LAND USE AND SERVICE AREA 3.1 SERVICE AREA DESCRIPTION The existing sewer service area for the City can be described as comprising four different service areas as summarized below: City of Edmonds. The City of Edmonds municipal boundaries comprise of 5,700 acres. Approximately 4,450 acres within the City of Edmonds is collected and treated at the Edmonds WWTP. The City both owns and maintains this portion of the system and is responsible for treatment. Approximately 1,250 acres on the northern boundary the City of Edmonds is collected and treated at the Lynnwood WWTP. The City owns and maintains this portion of the system and Lynnwood is paid on an ERU basis for the sewage treatment. Additionally, Olympic View Water and Sewer District maintains a sewer system within Edmonds City limits. All Olympic wastewater is collected and treated at the Edmonds WWTP. King County and City of Woodway. The City of Woodway is collected and conveyed to the Edmonds WWTP, together with the Richmond Beach Pump Station flow, via the Richmond Beach/Woodway sewer trunk. The sewers within this area are owned and maintained by Olympic View Water and Sewer District. The County operates the Richmond Beach Pump Station. An agreement was signed in 2000 for "reciprocal sewage treatment" with King County which is further explained in 3.4.2. City of Mountlake Terrace. The City of Mountlake Terrace lies directly east of the City of Edmonds. The sewage from Mountlake Terrace is collected and conveyed by the Lake Ballinger Pump Station, near SR 104 or N 205th St. The sewer lines are owned and maintained by Mountlake Terrace and the Lake Ballinger Pump Station is owned and operated by King County. Operations of the Lake Ballinger Pump Station are described further in 3.4.2. Ronald Wastewater District and City of Shoreline. The southern portion of the City's service area is located in the City of Shoreline. Shoreline does not own or maintain any sanitary sewer system components; these portions are either owned by King County or Ronald Wastewater District. 3.2 SURROUNDING VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS 3.2.1 Topography Figure 3.1 shows the City's service area boundary and the corporate boundaries of the cities described in Section 3.1. 3-1 Packet Page 121 of 546 Lake SerenQ'l � `N' 4 th = 1-5 r 40ih I,� a `PrOce 5 � � °' 40 42nd 41st �a'0je D �Serene q3r 42nd �D 44Ih DD o DC D m �� a 461h 46Ih J DDu ULJIJD 48Ih 9Ih hgt 491h DD � D SOth yoI 99 52nd st ❑❑ Eon o 52nd L- _ nw� D y3td D 3rd ynll ood� 55th D 54fh .. 54th ` loi 54fh 54fh I \ II r !� � 54fh s4th lddS a Stith "' 0 6th f D56th yu,�156th 56tt DDD��D� � � 57Ih , o 57th 5sm sfim sam t 60Ih Oth 'r 60th D�DD� 60th v D D s fits a7a 6zq d011 62 d nd D D d y 6 d 63, 62nd D" 64th qt 64th ..�� 64th c IIIULLJJ I DDD 6511th 66_ h . ■r 68th d ■■1h 9th 72nd OO^.a I`i `JJ 676 0thIh �D6 ❑D6thD�6gh66 68 Lo 69tAAAh 70th Dm DD DO Dt6h mD■ d� 61 9 D 1 Y I p� 73rd ,A,h OQ 74th L �'11, ♦ .. =l ■ 78th `•♦ dibo y�r 79th t — o o of 80th DD 6,st D�� 81st Legend L� City of Edmonds Boundary Service Boundary Edmonds Lynnwood Mountlake Terrace Woodway Brier Shoreline Lake Forest Park Seattle Unincorporated Snohomish County Luu 56ltthh DDIS DD 41at � D r �N 47th 48th 48th D o h � DO 49t SOIh D50In S7s �DDDD � st DD 52nd 53rd O 53rd �54fhnr [ SI �p� 54Ih 55th =IV V `DM-o�ui �D DLak N D 60th N 59� 6OthD�� V� 61 st 61 st 61st 63rd 3rd D� 66th O RU �� I 68th 68th��., �` IDD�� C�7 h! F' U ST Sy D g61h F �� 44T 45TH 45TH 44TH OAF Lake Washington rill -r 39 � � 2ND 39T 4pTjy g Q HT Ze Ged= 36Ty�D ■, F ci 5T DD� 4M oA=� 35TH ■�� FVr��7"-■�—�r'( 35TH n' �� 34TH �U� N 46th v /fir 32ND � 33R� 33RD �� L = ?NN� �O32NiD 30TH D�3SZH 30TH 30TH 2 a Pie D r 49th a = 8TH SN D m 8TH �(e 50th F m _ D29 Z6jN D 27TH 52nd � � 25TH � TH Da��000C 53rd OO s3rd INN N 24TH Z, 23RD 54fh oDDooDR n is GAF 23R0 � ^yam 22ND [ 26TH errace �occc 5 Jo [RolfD STH 16TH D o7��o f a DDn�= =� 14TH 11T�D� / D 12TH 13T I=0 12TH DD „T�� Lake Bollinger I�uuuu I .2ND IT. _ C a�� N I S r n � N �L� CORLI, L�--t 0��`;f��STONE Ecleo Lnke � n III m� AURORA 99 V ■'O s 86th 86t, h, 0 Stith �_ _ `g6tn �D h 66th o DD��IIILIINNDEN uu ttDENLI N-1 88 DthN 87th 88th❑❑❑❑L1H � E1Ljn DD D Sunset 90th 89th rJtJI �YB�,tte, � FIN 3rd 12th93rd 93rd9Ln y, aDDO� D 1 th < n 951h 94th F' 0 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST ALATINE la �� 11th 3 ti 95th n� p° D� N■ N 2ND 2ND 1ST Dr� 1ST Olympic �D� 96th N 95th2ND D - 96th DD RDD��D DILL] 3RD In `,, a U D�� 101h _ UJLW�mL`J�LIL1LLEdmar>k 9g 98th L JULJ N 97th 97th a �LJ LIDD� ��Uln�fn �V a3RD �E �I�lI jII I a` D�JD� III 2 LITLh1(JLJD 9th 9O 1D DDDDDDN �`` ■ 6 H6TH QO UO� y 1 STH DD � OP0 BOUND P� JD6�D��mQDDD�Dl�D�DD�DDDD o N 0� Pao 1 0 6t1 �nIIIT�I ^mmI^II mIT^IIII IIrr IOTH N 1 ie71h LWLtJ�LtJW U DD L p2nd ❑loam ■ D o 10TH O MO Z yip 1 \O 1 •• IIr�s, ^mI m IInIInII Mtn 7th 12TH i en ke SS 61 1 ar OLJ��W�W ��LIL16th n m O 1Ty SJy 1 '� C Y ¢•�. ��1 - c 6��D` 106th D 105th D 14TH SPRIN O q 13TH 1 3Ty 1 6 S a `V��L¢��z D� Sty O ■ 106th O F �F 14TH �F 1 7 �108t ti 1 7th 5TH 15TH OZ D�H=7 _ 17TH 1 �s 0 x Tjy 16TH �♦ , �O ��o�� nd 2nd 110th r O 17TH I—��s 111th `♦♦ ,, D Edmon D Puget Sound �♦ , Ma ah 3 21sT zlsr ♦ ea eetk ao �DD e� Woodway „6Ih 24TH 11LU Highland grated � �� Puget Sound l� pF EDiypIV, 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 BHC Consultants, LLC GIS Data: City of Edmonds, Snohomish &King County base data. _ NORTH G -w- MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES Seattle, Washington 98101 Data sources supplied may not reflect current or COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN actual conditions. This map is a geographic Figure 206.505.3400 representation based on information available. 0 1,600 3,200 6,400 CONSULTkNTS 206.505.3406 (fax) It does not represent survey data. No warranty Feet City of Edmonds www.bhcconsultants.com is made concerning the accuracy, currency, or completeness of data depicted on this map. Scale in Feet May 2012 3.1 COPYRIGHT ©�2� C GQNSUELT9� L�LG.��I„RIGHTS RESERVED Inc. 1890 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN The topography of the City ranges from flat and gently rolling to hilly, with a few steep slopes along the stream corridors and property immediately adjacent to Puget Sound. Wetlands, lakes and many creeks and small streams are found throughout the City (see Figure 3.2). 3.2.2 Geology The retreat of glaciers at the end of the last ice age formed the rolling terrain characteristic of the City. Erosion and flooding of low lying areas during that period resulted in soil deposits of two primary classifications as identified by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. These soil types are the Alderwood Series and the Everett Series, which are described below and displayed on Figure 3.3. The Alderwood Series is the most prevalent soil type in the City. The soil is moderately well drained and has a weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated substratum at a depth of 24 to 40 inches. Permeability is moderately rapid in the upper horizons but very slow in the consolidated substratum. These moderately well drained acidic forested soils formed in loamy glacial till and occur on rolling till plains and moraines. The Everett Series forms the soils located on outwash plains, terraces, and fans and occur on slopes ranging from 0 to 65 percent. These soils are glacial outwash, characterized as somewhat excessively drained, gravelly, gently undulating soil underlain by sand and gravel and found on terraces. 3.2.3 Water Resources The City's municipal water system provides service to approximately 80 percent of the population within the City limits or more than 10,050 customer accounts. The other 20 percent of the City's population receive water service from the Olympic View Water & Sewer District, which is located within the southwest portion of the City limits. All water supplied to the City customers is currently purchased from Alderwood Water and Wastewater District and is conveyed through a single metered connection near the northeast corner of the water system. The City also has the capacity to serve a portion of its system with water purchased from Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), but currently maintains this source of supply and the single metered connection on standby. Water purchased from Alderwood Water and Wastewater District originates from the City of Everett Sultan River source. Water supplied by SPU originates from SPU's Tolt River source. Interties are also provided with the City of Lynnwood and Olympic View Water District (see Figure 3.4). 3-3 Packet Page 123 of 546 36ih 37m 38th = mf ry 361h / h� - ` S`.�� `8t ch `^R 37ih N gSth Lake Serene I r� � � q 1 = 7. far 38 371h 38th Bri' r 390 / 1 40ih Pru e s m 40ih 39th ` 39t 3 th 42ntl 4 �du ,r„9k 40ih Serene 43rtl • _ 42nd t 41st '- 44th 44ih _ ' 4Sr/i �� 45m `t c v 46th 46th 46ih 46th S - r 47[h p 'P 47m N H m 461E 48thML d 48th �49th de 49th 50th ` ,°Oth B� 99 51atm 1st 50th 50th S7st �,a Pies - 50th 52nd De onf 52nd 51s p ♦ ,..53rd`` I L L nnwood i52"'nlll� �J 52nd 52nd m ` r�c-lN l"I •53rd 53rd rr3r ^ 53rd 53rd .. 53rd 53rd 55[. 54th _ _ 54th 111 54[h54th• 54t� 54ih 54th 54ih _ • 56th � 0 56th « 56th Nq st S6m ys ri r ake N56t 6 55th 55th _ ^r 57tn57n 1 57th l 57tn 1 r Sq xarLa Mountlake Terrace 58ih 58ih o ro _� 99 58th 59 h` 'u• °° \! I N - 58ih sptn not sam — 60th 60th '60ih 59th t 59ih 5th 7 G w 60th `� , 60th ' 60th 62n�! oa yap 62nd d ^ w 61st 61 st 615t 1st H 0ti 6 d y 63r 2ntl o RamP 64th $Ms� t 64yt S a H 63rd a" 64th 3 • • 64th �`v 4th \ kl f' = BSth v - r 661h ■% 5ih o a u`�i ® - �.a' 65th tiny o ., r SSrh 66th 66th r' m 66ih = c 66th��m N Eli .� 67tn 67tn -67th �` l� th U Ay IttttI ■ 's8m l�3R — sam s.tn 68th , 1 _ I m ■ ssm I ssm ;.ssm 6Brh 70th aoWaa\e �� ■ ! c �I` 70m 9th E a ^ r 70th w> ® loth ■ ` t VaKeatew 0ea7znd 17 Lake Ba[[ir 7z nd VV sj 1st ■ �� 73r�� a r`n 72nd Ah zE _ if, 4lrer C'( 11 `7 �I • �- 1 �' 3,6 5 M 73rd r 73rd 73rd . 5� 14rh 74ih = N 74th 7/1) 74 r• • `1, N■�■■ Ism I N N 78thlsm-7=7stn ■ q 7e 7atywlV 78m 7stn h 07 80th o 80th N ' : • .1st 81st 81stcz ro81 st 81st 80th V N moo■ _ d n 82nd" 2nd ■ N 82nd tt�q� `• 83rd I ®82nd 82nd ■ N m —S` B rd 84m s 4th ' m 83rd 82n■ F 85th 85th 06incorporatj t Stith .6m °2 N N Stith Stith 87m 86th = 87th -� 87 `D SSih ev 88m St " SSih ■88th x Sunset 90m 89th ro I 7gr illcresto\\Jm 90ih = 90m - ` 2n 12t11 92nd ® Sr 92nd 92nd 93rd _ NtBh 94m 93rd �� 12th 3rd 93rd M 2th D ` v 94m� -h t 111h �. �` 00 95m 95th is Vie _ ssm -Edmond I `I ■ ssm 9th 100t • , r8th 8th 8th `'�7 9 c' t Bth C. o �/ m o II 3 B -� 10 o C k A PIS Cary e7 0 6th 6th VA e 6th m 106 Legend ♦ 4r T S J �� to lost ser 3°. I 41h 16 City of Edmonds Boundary �� , 2nd 2nd o City Boundary � � Makah E .'p Service Boundary `'.,, 9 \ Nootka O°9w° ♦� Wetlands �� ei I Highlind Woodway Water Bodies % ■ �• �40 Water Courses ST'M s Crek y0 w 44T t- yyon � 45TH J 4TH �F Lake Washington RA tE- BEAH J All Q� 8TH 39Ty 4p y C 1 37T 367H 7T 38jN 36TH _ - I � f 37TH 36TH ory 35TH Lak Fore arc 35TH 35TH -O •32ND 33RD 34TH 33RD LAKE CITY 32ND 1ST �.,� = 32ND 31S 30TH 3otN 30TH /\ OTH 30TH 19m a 8TH 8TH 28T H 2sTH ~ 2g'CN 281N = 27T 25TH 26TH 264N TH 26TH 26TH 2H 4T 23R ,S �G'. k2-1am D 20TH P 22N v 5 0 20 O a a•(N = tx- 2OTH m 57t 19TN O �0 19TH N N H x 16tN 17TH V 15TH 12TH 12TH 12TH 13TH • 14TH 12TH rx- 11TH 11TH 11TH 11TH 11TH 9 T I/ h 9TH I I 9TH 10TH Sly r f F 8TH N 6TH14 Cree 5TH 5TH kornton 4TH er I � 3RD 3RD 2ND 2ND 3RD x . o 1ST 2 �i N ♦ n CORLISS x MERIDIAN BURKE BURKE o C P-� 7 ENSMORE N C) ASHWORTH ~ " � MR� me INTERLAK _ +�'• Echo La/c2 Sh-W line i STONE n O O 99 AURORA O� U N �■ LINDEN ~o UNDEN a ^ LIN c� N U) Y FREMONT F ❑ -F x F ~ ro 2 DAYTON c 92ntl� x N r La F' 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 2ND gLgTINE 1ST �i` v I� 1ST N■ N 2ND 2ND RD 3RD 2ND 3RD �sa TH 6TH POD Q� ■ 6TH ytN 8TH n Q = U OPT y gOUNW I OTH o • '' 1(i 11TH Z�ON\-p" 10TH P� MOSS '0 Q tO TH •den O� Ih ■r SPRING, 13TH 721y O th 14 14F 14TH 73TH 61F Pth 5TH 9 15TH 7TH � 7s � � Por!et Sound x 1 16T11 I 3 20TH "A I - Unincorpora�tei pF EDiyO . BHC Consultants, LLC Wetlands: Snohomish County, March 2004 GIS Data: City of Edmonds, Snohomish & King County base data. NORTH Gl� DA10 WATER FEATURES - Kin County, November 2004 Seat Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Data sources supplied may not reflect current or - Seattle, Washington 98101 Wetland locations in the dataset are approximate. actual conditions. This map is a geographic COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Figure This dataset contains polygons that represent the representation based on information available. 0 1,600 3,200 6,400 206.505.3400 basic wetlands categories used r the King It does not represent survey data. No warranty Feet City of Edmonds C O N S U LTA N T S www.bhcconsultants.com (fax) County Stream and Wetlands Survey. is made concerning the accuracy, currency, www.bhcconsultants.com All wetland areas within this dataset should be or completeness of data depicted on this map. SCa/e In Feet May 2012 3.2 COPYRIGHT ©7jliz gHC CyijIJSUELTgy,T$ LLLP 4�1,•RIGHTS RESERVED surveyed before land use changes are made. Inc is90 l �'1't Ln'ie Serene ■ s \� ca 'r v° a � Det Pond 1 r ga(t � 41� Qgt ga � ■ ■�■ �� Qgt Qgt Legend • lga • City of Edmonds Boundary go Service Boundary ♦` Water Bodies Water Courses Soils C3Qa - alluvium C3Qc(w) - continental sedimentary deposits or rocks (Whidbey) C3Qcg - continental sedimentary deposits or rocks, conglomerate C3 Qf - artificial fill, including modified land C4Qga - advance continental glacial outwash, Fraser -age C3Qga(t) - advance continental glacial outwash, Fraser -age (transitional) C3Qgo - continental glacial outwash, Fraser -age C3Qgpc - continental glacial drift, pre -Fraser, and nonglacial deposits C3Qgt - continental glacial till, Fraser -age C3 Qgu - glacial drift, undivided Qls - mass -wasting deposits, mostly landslides Qgt Trr.rt�� Qgu Qg %, Qc� �, Qga(t) *4 SLefl Creel's `♦' �,`` Qc(w) 4;�, Qa Qga 1 1 Qa Lake Ballinger v� Qa creek 0^I McA�eer y♦ Qgo ' Qa Qga Qgo Lake Washington 1 -ho La 1 1 1 1 \W.-. ■. ■. r --,. /I\,--, �`� � Qc(w) � Qgt �— �.; f Qga' ) Puget Sound ■ Qgt Qgo -get 1 QI' �__ i 90 Qga" 00 Qf �� — �' Puget Sound r r■ ,�1�, Qga; I Qg ♦' I® I� Bitter G~� OF EDMoIVS . BHC Consultants, LLC Soils Data: Washington State Department GIS Data: City of Edmonds, Snohomish & King County base data. NORTH -w- SOILS MAP 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 of Natural Resources 2005 Seattle, Washington 98101 Data sources supplied may not reflect current or COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN actual conditions. This map ia geographic Figure 206.505.3400 representation based on information available. 0 1,600 3,200 6,400 CONSULTANTS 206.505.3406 (fax) It does not represent survey data. No warranty Feet City of Edmonds www.bhcconsultants.com is made concerning the accuracy, currency, Scale in Feet or completeness of data depicted on this map. May 2O � 2 3.3 COPYRIGHT ©Wj g Cyi�NSUELT &LLP 4�l,�RIGHTS RESERVED Ine. 1890 L 9 650 ALDERWOOD WATER & SEWER NORTH SOUTH DISTRICT SUPPLY(635 ZONE) Y T 600 596 ZONE } Y I CITY OF LYNNWOOD 573 ZONE PRV #2 1 PRV #5 550 1PRV #10 PRV #14 PRV #15 & 13 PRV #B PRV IPRV #16 PRV #17 500 500 ZONE 505 ZONE P 486 ZONE OE=492.5' OE=486' 1.5 MG RESERVOIR 450 -RV #18 DIAMETER: 80' 3.0 MG RESERVOIR 37 600 GAL/FT 9 DIAMETER: 104' 425 ZONE BOTTOM EL: 445' 420 ZONE 63,540 GAL/FT 400 PRV #3 PRV #6 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIRS & PUMP STATION PRV #7 350 325 ZONE QE=325' 1.5 MG 1.5 MG OE=325' SEAVIEW RESERVOIR YOST RESERVOIR DIM: 119'x119' DIM: 119'x119' 300 PRESSURE RELIEF BOTTOM EL: 310' PRESSURE RELIEF BOTTOM EL: 310' STATION #4 105,924 GAL/FT STATION #19 105,924 GAL/FT LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS 596 ZONE - PRESSURE REDUCING EL ELEVATION 505 ZONE STATION/VALVE FT FEET 500 ZONE MG MILLION GALLONS 486 ZONE H ISOLATION VALVE OE OVERFLOW ELEVATION 425 ZONE CONTROL VALVE 420 ZONE y� 325 ZONE �` PRESSURE RELIEF STATION ------ ADJACENT SYSTEM O I NTERTIE QPUMP STATION Image Source. City of Edmonds O FACILITIES AT SAME SITE Comprehensive Water System Plan, MSAAugust 2010 P:\Mapping\Maps_Generated\Edmonds\12-10265.00\maps\CompSewerPlan - March 2013\Fig 3.4 Water System Schematic 8.5x11.mxd 3/27/2013 ctolentino #20 650 SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES STANDBY SUPPLY (592 ZONE) 600 -& ------------- 550 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT LOW ZONE (540 Fr) 500 450 400 .. r . . ..��...— OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 350 WOODWAY ZONE (353 M 300 ,� OF EDAgn� BHC Consultants, LLC G� WATER SYSTEM SCHEMATIC • 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Figure 206.505.3400 206.505.3406(fax) City of Edmonds CONSULTANTS www.bhcconsultants.com r March 2013 3.4 hc,S90 COPYRIGHT ©2013 BFj§�AjJ�wL�I�LI4G)�LI„¢I�Tf RESERVED COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Surface Water— The two most dominant fresh water features in the sewer service area are Lake Ballinger and Echo Lake. Lake Ballinger is by far the larger of the two and is located in the central western portion of the City, near 1-5 between the City of Edmonds and City of Mountlake Terrace. It has an intermittent inlet and drains through McAleer Creek to Lake Washington. The lake has a surface area of 100 acres, a mean depth of 15 feet, and a maximum depth of 25 feet. Echo Lake is located in Shoreline, a few blocks east of Highway 99. Echo Lake has an area of 12 acres and a watershed area of 288 acres. Puget Sound borders the City on the west. Groundwater — A study done in 1997 by the US Geological Survey found that 94% of the groundwater in South Snohomish County was considered soft to moderately hard. No appreciable widespread groundwater contamination was found at the time of the study. Concentrations of arsenic, iron and manganese were the most widespread groundwater problems in the area. The population growth in Snohomish County has increased dramatically in the last 10 years and has affected the quantity and the quality of groundwater. Most groundwater recharge in Snohomish County is from infiltration of precipitation, and impervious surfaces caused by increased development prevent infiltration. Consequently, less groundwater is becoming available as land development increases. 3.3 LAND USE 3.3.1 Growth Management Act The State of Washington adopted the Growth Management Act with the intent of concentrating most new development and population gains within urban areas of the more populous and rapidly growing counties. These counties are required to define an urban growth boundary within which urban services like sewers are provided, and any new parcels created outside that boundary must be low density with sufficient acreage to support onsite sewage disposal systems conforming to State Health regulations. The entire service area is within the GMA boundaries of the City or the adjacent cities for urban development. Consequently, the limitations on extending sewer service to unsewered areas is a non -issue. Zoning within the service area can be classified as commercial/industrial, low density multi -family, high density multi -family, single family, and undeveloped lands such as public right of ways, parks, and open space. These zoning areas are depicted in Figure 3.5. Low density multi -family zoning allows a variety of low -density, multi -family housing including townhouses, multi -family structures and attached or detached homes on small lots. 3-7 Packet Page 127 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 3.4 RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADJACENT SEWERAGE AGENCIES Neighboring agencies such as utility districts and municipalities provide sewer service adjacent to the City of Edmonds. Summaries of the agreements made between the City of Edmonds and the various agencies are described below, as well as background information on each of the adjacent service providers. Copies of the referenced interlocal agreements are included in Appendix G. • City of Lynnwood • King County Metro • City of Mountlake Terrace • Ronald Wastewater District • Olympic View Water and Wastewater District The geographical relationship between these agencies is represented on Figure 3.6. To better understand the current contractual agreements with the neighboring sewer utilities, refer to graphical presentations on Figures 3.7 to 3.10. 3.4.1 City of Lynnwood City of Lynnwood border the northeast portion of the City of Edmonds. A portion of the flows within Edmonds municipal boundaries are routed to the Lynnwood Sanitary System and treated at the Lynnwood WWTP. This accounts for approximately 15% of the influent flow into the Lynnwood WWTP or about 300,000 gallons per day (Annual Average Flow). The City of Edmonds owns and maintains the sewer infrastructure in this area but pays Lynnwood on a per customer basis for the treatment. As of 2010, there is an approximate sewered population of 6,200, and an employment population of 509. There are no schools in this zone. See Figures 3.7 and for a map of the area. City of Edmonds also receives a small portion of flow from Lynnwood boundaries that flows through the Meter 1 Sub -basin (see Figure 5.1). This is estimated at approximately 0.5% of the total flow tributary to Edmonds WWTP. 3-9 Packet Page 129 of 546 Lnkt� St�rerte � ❑ 40th a 42nd s❑ 4❑ J N� 44th MINIMUM 64th 36th t ❑ `ac chD 381h � 40th 39th 41st ❑ s � �! 42nd t N 41 st ❑ ❑❑� 44th ❑❑❑ o ya2e/ 46th ❑❑PaJPL�E]6th 46th 47th 48th N 48th 48th s ❑ ❑ �� ❑❑ 99 ❑❑❑❑❑❑ 59th q", 49th 52nd 51 st � ^❑I \❑�❑ L��,j U I 56th n J 581h th 58t ❑❑� �69th ❑I ❑IoG�I �° 1❑i❑❑ 44T 45TH ST �y0 /�'w.'w.I i (� I� Lake Washington b 37th 36^ ❑A r�r.D D�IIStri, v�iI �n—�1\ 45TH 44TH �F` g N U th 42ND ��n��%JJ to N �LJ Llh�❑ ��rtih Ut�l: Ity gp'CN a I� / BEACH 9th I/ A N aon �IStI`li('t 54th 55th O 56th 25TH 12TH TH i ❑ UUUV'0 ❑�m❑� 66th th-1 E� U"fl'A6�h—" L�"L❑❑t�6°68th o 68{h ��❑ ❑ '� In ❑/� �rH—.7/TH�I� TH O 7rH ❑❑❑ m 70th e _ 69L �O m 9th �❑❑ e p� e 70th t 7 th 701h %L 701h 2keN ' = Lake Ballinger 32N ❑a71 st ❑ N❑ g 2ND O U 72nd � O IO � ❑ ❑ TM to ❑� �� 5❑ z I ( UE 73� _ a �. 0 73rd 73r 73rd _ �r D❑ r� 741h IJ N 74th 74th N a 74th 74th IIL� N CORLISS = _ ❑ N mm 35th 761h ❑ N Q A ❑❑��❑ ❑ MERIDIAN �� ` ❑❑��❑ in GG Em ez� 7t `NrdCh � ra. �iA � O BURKE ? BURKE 79th '�8 78th Sth 78th 78th 78t `-' 78th 78th❑�t❑❑�G00 °' �❑❑❑❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ o ❑ 0000 o a01h ee�ee 0 G� �❑❑❑❑❑❑ s alst aist s15t elst st s 01 �O U� � g d �82ndN 82nd 82d ❑� � ❑ 81s a��1111 �IIII'iI co«e❑ ❑��J�- ❑82n 2nd Lh7l =484th ❑�� ENE] � ❑ 85th 85th O O astn °' � ssm �, o ❑ � E t 86[h N B6th 8 ih �th o` / THL ❑❑= 87[hth w 88th 88th 88th � lll///JJ❑❑❑❑8t G�. 0 gunset 90th 891h /��I��i�rC�� ❑❑❑G❑❑�❑ c Q is/� 2n Ci,'•Iiy Otl Gdi�OC�.S'.Icres� Jm 90h s 9 t0 90th �v` ` ❑❑ 92nd 5 ep '� Q 92nd 92nd 92nd NtBh 94th D93rd 1 12th 3rd 93rd �I� LIB. rd O p. t OI �� 1_c view S ❑ ?2SNT9 ❑GG G p 95th ❑ 95th / yi , ~ ti 1ST 1ST 1ST1ST m isVie Olym is ❑ ��\ 'o `} „�I . rlPit� `n 2ND96th Sewer Dl�s.tdct o❑❑❑3R��Lj ��j�m rn� � N Ind 97th�, 9-8tthh� L 9/�thj 97th ��N �`am� �,�LJ LI5�1❑°'� mG�� 6TH �� ❑❑�� II IITIII�i IR1TT I�"1❑1❑u�ll _..: I� .__��❑❑�❑I �❑I ❑III ❑_ F�� Legend s City of Edmonds Olympic View Sewer District E City of Mountlake Terrace City of Lynnwood - AWWD Sewer District ° Highlands Sewer District 0 - Ronald Wastewater District City of Lake Forest Park - North Utility District _ E .1 Service Boundary o II^rnrn^IIII ^mmI^II IlIrrIyImnyITllIIlmI �� ❑ - 10THo❑o 7th ��ip2nd �dnpld7'1 //arQfT�TthTT[UTITW ^S�12T\ ( 'Ft!'l lelt L flsl y �KSe-werRl,Dstri❑6epF_ 106th N F 105th ❑U 3T 14TH /♦♦ S°'S ill �e T��'�JLJLJ❑� 5�� 108th❑ 106t7th STH v �<� 15TH �re��❑� a �n,7TH ❑ nd nd otn ❑0 O ❑ TH �y ��` srH E o ¢ H Tmbe 11❑C� GG 20TH ,1� ,� `aftaft Makah 3 ❑ 21 ST � � 21 ST � �' ootk y�ootl 11 I O� v D�a m 22ND ,, ♦ Qo TH IIILLLJJJIII B �� `� ,, a15 24TH ❑❑ ♦ ei Highland 38 i ❑l❑�� ♦♦��` ,��`� _ ram= Puget Sound Puget Sound ,A% , �#V L STONE C 99 O� tU�R OR7A� ❑ �EN � ■ GIS Data: City of Edmonds. ` OF EDAfC, ADJACENT SEWER - . BHC Consultants, LLC Snohomish County/King County base data. NORTH G 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 AGENCIES - Seattle, Washington 98101 Data sources supplied may not reflect current or actual conditions. This map is a geographic Figure —[&—.0011 206.505.3400 representation based on information available. 0 1,600 3,200 6,400 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 206 505 3406 (fax) It does not represent surveydata. No warrantyCity t Of Edmonds C O N S U LTA N T S www.bhcconsultants.com is made concerning the accuracy, currency, Feet y or completeness of data depicted on this map. Scale in Feet March 2013 3.6 COPYRIGHT ©�3� C CyQNSUELTgI�T�'.r41,l,�RIGHTS RESERVED Inc 1890 0I0, COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 3.4.2 King County The Richmond Beach Sub -basin area, as shown in Figures 3.8 and 5.1, is maintained and operated by Ronald Wastewater District and King County. Flow from the Richmond Beach Pump Station is ALWAYS sent to the City of Edmonds and treated at the City of Edmonds WWTP. King County also operates the Lake Ballinger Pump Station which serves a portion from Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace and Ronald Wastewater District (Meter B Sub -basin). This area is also referred to as "Edmonds East" in the 2000 Agreement with King County. The Edmonds East catchment has a considerably more populated area than Richmond Beach and thus, produces higher flows. The City of Edmonds and King County executed an agreement on October 6, 2000 that addresses responsibilities for the flow. The responsibilities are described in brief below and the full agreement can be seen in Appendix G. Sewage Treatment Responsibilities — January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2012 The agreement recognizes an initial period, defined in the agreement as 2000 to 2012, where Edmonds was responsible for seasonal treatment from BOTH Richmond Beach and Lake Ballinger Pump Station. This was presumably done while King County increased treatment capacity within their system (i.e. build the Brightwater Wastewater Facilities). During this period, sewage from Richmond Beach ALWAYS was conveyed to and treated at the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant. All Lake Ballinger Flow was treated by Edmonds during the winter/spring months from November 1 until April 30. During the summer months, the flow swap was engaged and the County received a volumetric flow out of Lake Ballinger approximately equal to what the City is treating out of the Richmond Beach Sub -basin Area. There were limited periods that King County received all flows from Lake Ballinger, presumably when Edmonds needed to make repairs to their system. Edmonds was compensated $100,000 per year for this agreement. Sewage Treatment Responsibilities — January 1, 2012 to July 1, 2036 In a subsequent agreement for the period January 1, 2012 to July 1, 2036, King County is responsible for treating a volumetric flow from the Lake Ballinger Pump Station that is equal to the flow pumped into Edmonds from the Richmond Beach Sub -basin area for the ENTIRE year. The flow in excess of this volume is directed to and treated by the Edmonds WWTP. Edmonds is responsible for Operations and Maintenance costs of the Lake Ballinger Pump Station based on the amount of flow pumped into Edmonds system (See Appendix G). Theoretically, under the conditions of the flow swap, the flow from Richmond Beach Sub -basin should be within 5% of the flow sent to King County through the Ballinger Pump Station. Richmond Beach flow can be estimated by the influent parshall flume meter at the WWTP for Richmond Beach. The flow diverted out of Lake Ballinger can be estimated by subtracting the total flow into the Station (Meters A, B, D) from the downstream flow into the Edmonds system (Meter 3 minus Meter C). For the most part, in 2012, King County sent flow to Edmonds from the hours of 3 pm to 6 am. This 3-12 Packet Page 132 of 546 .7 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN indicates that they are matching the daily flow out of Richmond Beach in a 9 hour period, 6 am to 3 pm. In recent years and for the summer months it appears that the flow through Lake Ballinger Pump Station exceeds the flow through Richmond Beach Pump Station by approximately 1 MGD. 3.4.3 City of Mountlake Terrace The City of Mountlake Terrace is adjacent to the southeast border of the City of Edmonds. Mountlake Terrace lies east of SR 99 and Edmonds to the west. A portion of the City of Mountlake Terrace's sewer system is routed to the Lake Ballinger Pump Station (approximately 2,265 acres). The sewage is then either routed south to King County Facilities or north to the Edmonds WWTP per the City of Edmonds/King County Agreement for Reciprocal Sewage Treatment. Regardless of where the sewage is routed, City of Mountlake Terrace is contractually bound to the City of Edmonds for treatment of the sewage flow. See Figure 3.9 for a map of the described area. 3.4.4 Ronald Wastewater District Ronald Wastewater District is located within City of Shoreline municipal boundaries and is directly south of the City of Edmonds. A May 171", 1988 agreement between City of Edmonds and Ronald Wastewater allows a portion of Ronald's flow to be conveyed to and treated at Edmonds WWTP. Ronald Wastewater District owns and maintains the sewer infrastructure in this area but pays Edmonds for conveyance and treatment. Some of the flow from Ronald is directed through the Lake Ballinger Pump Station and may actually flow to King County per the Reciprocal Sewage Treatment Agreement. However, Ronald is still obligated to pay the City of Edmonds for all treatment costs. Figure 3.10 shows the portion of Ronald Wastewater District that flows north to Edmonds. 3.4.5 Olympic View Water and Wastewater District Olympic View Water and Wastewater District maintains and operates a sewage system within the City of Edmonds municipal boundaries. Generally, the District is responsible for an area at the southern side of the City boundaries. Olympic pays Edmonds for treatment and conveyance on a flow basis. 3-14 Packet Page 134 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER IV — DESIGN CRITERIA 4.1 PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN CRITERIA Sewer system design criteria and standards have been developed to maintain a consistent level of service throughout the City. These criteria and standards facilitate planning, design and construction of sewer system projects to achieve a predictable level of quality. These guidelines have been created to meet the increased need for sewer service in response to developments and population growth and the occasional updates to the land use regulations set forth by Cities or County. The following is a partial list of criteria which affect sizing and siting of facilities. The City's design and construction standards are presented in the City's Standard Details and supplemental specifications modifications. Plans and design shall meet the "Criteria for Sewage Works Design," prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology, as revised December 1998, except where more stringent City requirements are noted. These standards are to be followed unless otherwise approved by the City. 4.1.1 Sewer Mainline • All sewer main extensions shall be designed and constructed to provide gravity service for all adjacent lots. In rare occasions where gravity service is not feasible the City may allow the use of individual grinder pumps for a limited number of connections. The design use and ownership of grinder pumps shall be per Section 4.1.5. • Unless otherwise called for by the City, gravity sewers shall be constructed from PVC or concrete pipe. However, Ductile Iron or HDPE pipe materials may be required in certain applications. Pipe materials shall meet the following standards. Material Standard Plastic — PVC ASTM D3034-SDR 35 or F789 Concrete Class 2 unreinforeced ASTM C14 or AASHTO M 86 Concrete (reinforeced) ASTEM C76 or AASHTO M 170 Ductile Iron AWWA C151 HDPE ASTM D1248, Type III, Category 5, Class C, Grade P34 (See Section 2740 • Ductile iron pipe (Class 52 DIP) and pipe anchors shall be required for all pipeline slopes of twenty percent (20%) and/or greater. • Ductile iron pipe (Class 52 DIP) shall be required where the depth of cover is 15- feet or greater. Developers may request the use of PVC at depths greater than 4-1 Packet Page 137 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 15-feet. If so requested, the Developer shall certify the brand of pipe material to be used and he/she shall provide documentation that the pipe material is applicable to the soil conditions of the site and the proposed depth. • Ductile iron pipe (Class 52 DIP) may be required where the depth of cover in traffic areas is less than 4 feet. • All sewer pipes shall have 5- foot minimum cover in rights -of -ways and 3-foot minimum cover in all other areas. • All pipes 8-inch and larger shall terminate at a manhole. • Where a smaller diameter upstream pipe meets a larger diameter downstream pipe, the inverts at the manhole shall be determined by matching pipe crowns. • Pressure sewer mains shall be ductile iron pipe or PVC meeting AWWA C-900. • Minimum grade for 8-inch sewer mains shall be 0.5%, unless otherwise approved by the City's Engineer. Minimum grade for dead-end sewer mains that will not be extended shall be 0.75%, unless otherwise approved by the City's Engineer. Minimum grade and design criteria shall be in accordance with "Criteria for Sewage Works Design, State of Washington, DOE", unless City standards are more stringent. 4.1.2 Manholes • Manhole numbers shall be obtained from the City. • All sewer which are 8-inches and larger shall terminate in a manhole. All pipes entering/leaving a manhole shall be aligned with the center of the manhole unless otherwise authorized by the City. • Manholes shall be 48" I.D. precast concrete, designed in accordance with the City's Standards and Details. All Manholes shall conform to ASTM C-478. Manhole frames and covers shall be locking type in accordance with City's Standards and Details and shall be supplied with stainless steel allen head cap screws. Manholes shall be a minimum of 5 feet deep unless otherwise approved by the City. See Standard Details 1 through 8. • Inside drop manholes shall be 54" I.D (minimum) precast concrete and have a minimum drop structure of 5 feet. • Where a drop manhole is required, the inside drop shall be per Detail No. E6.5 unless otherwise authorized or specified by the City. 4-2 Packet Page 138 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN • Manholes with incoming or outgoing sewer lines 15" or greater shall be 60" I.D. or greater, as directed by the City. • Manholes shall have a minimum one -tenth of a foot (0.10 foot) drop at the center of the manhole. • Manhole channels shall be shaped to allow placement and use of the City's television inspection equipment. Channels shall be constructed at the full depth and diameter of mainline. Manhole shelves shall have slopes of inch per foot. Channels and shelf shall be constructed plaster smooth. • Manholes shall be placed at each grade and direction change. Distances between manholes shall not exceed 500 feet. 4.1.3 Side Sewers • Side sewers laterals shall be constructed of SDR-35 PVC pipe, a minimum of 6- inches in diameter, and in accordance with ASTM D-3034. Installation shall follow Detail E6.4. • The grade for 6-inch side sewer stubs shall be a minimum of two percent (2%). • Approximate stub locations shall be shown on the plans. • Cleanouts shall be used and placed over every side sewer at the property line. • A side sewer stub shall be provided for each parcel on all new sewer extensions, regardless of whether the homeowner connects or not. The side sewer stub shall extend a minimum of 5-feet onto the property. The side sewer stub shall be located and terminate in accordance with Detail E6.4. 4.1.4 Pump Stations Developers/Owners of developments that may require a pump station to provide sewer service shall contact the City regarding the design requirements of the station and the current City Pump Policies. 4.1.5 Individual Grinder Pumps The use of individual grinder pumps to serve residential connections shall be limited to connections in which a gravity alternative is not feasibly possible. The City shall make the determination as to which connections qualify for service by grinder pump. Grinder pumps shall meet the following standards. 4-3 Packet Page 139 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 1. Grinder pumps shall be owned and maintained by the property owner and shall only serve a single ERU. 2. Grinder pumps Systems shall be Environmental One Model 2010. 3. Minimum velocity for Grinder pump pipelines shall be 2 feet per second. 4. Pipelines shall be installed with cleanouts at the end of each line and at critical line size changes to facilitate cleaning. 5. Minimum storage volumes shall be 70 gallons. The Developer shall provided estimated flows to verify adequate storage capacity. 4.2 EASEMENTS Easements dedicated to the City of Edmonds shall be provided for the construction, maintenance and operation of sewer mains or any other related City owned facilities which lie outside of public street right-of-ways. Easement documents shall be drawn up from the City's standard forms and shall include drawings and legal descriptions for each easement. Drawings and legal descriptions shall be signed and stamped by a Professional Land Surveyor, currently registered in the State of Washington. Easements shall be a minimum of 15 feet in width, with the sewer located in the center of the easement. There shall be a separate easement provided for each lot that a sewer crosses. Easements must be approved and received by the City prior to side sewer connection. 4.3 STANDARD DETAILS AND GENERAL NOTES The City's Sample Plans, General Notes and Standard Details are provided in the Appendix I. The Sample Plans and Standard Details shall be considered during design and shall be followed during construction. At minimum a copy of the applicable manhole detail(s), the side sewer detail and the typical trench detail shall be included on all developer plans sets. Copies of additional individual details may also be required to be on the plans. 4-4 Packet Page 140 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER V - EXISTING FACILITIES 5.1 DRAINAGE BASINS The City's service area is divided into different Sub -basins as identified on Figure 5.1. The sub -basins were originally delineated as part of the 2010 1&1 Study by BHC Consultants, LLC. There are a total of 12 Sub -basins that either includes parts of the Edmonds corporate limits or areas that flow to and are treated by the Edmonds WWTP. Sub -basins In Edmonds Flow to Edmonds Flow to Lynnwood Flows to King City Limits WWTP WWTP County Meter 1 X X X Zone 1 X X X Zone 2 X X X X Meter A X X Meter B X X Meter C X Meter E X X MILT Zone X X Edmonds Zone X X LS #1 X X Richmond Beach Zone X Lynnwood Zone X X These Sub -basin boundaries are shown on Figures 5.1 and 5.2. Sub -basins LS-1, Edmonds Zone, Meter C and the MLT Zone generally flow west towards Edmonds WWTP and Puget Sound. The Richmond Beach Zone Sub -basin is conveyed directly to the Edmonds WWTP where it is separately metered. Meter 1, Zone 1, Zone 2, Meter A, Meter B and Meter E generally flow to the south end of Lake Ballinger and are either pumped into the Edmonds System or to King County Metro. The Lynnwood Zone Sub -basin includes portions of the City, but is pumped to the Lynnwood WWTP. A more detailed description of each basin is included below. The City operates ten different flow meters within the system. Sub -basin delineations are, for the most part, based on these meter locations. Relying on the flow data from these meters it is possible to identify flow in certain areas of the City. Similarly, per capita loadings and I&I contributions can be compared for each Sub -basin. This can be valuable information for identifying areas with high Inflow and Infiltration and for general information about the system. 5.1.1 Meter 1 Sub -basin The Meter 1 Zone consists of approximately 160 acres and is located on the eastern edge of City of Edmonds municipal boundary. 5-1 Packet Page 141 of 546 Lak)Ser�ene'Jldl C� 64th 44th 7oth ��av OR— 1, 99 36th S a uO mt 361h N at° D Oath 259th O (-i 44th N tttlaa a 46th 47m ^^^^^^^ 47th ❑� 11h] 48th48th U 66th 66� w 66th "' 66th 67th `� 68th iLf 7otn t m m stn a w � %7S1 w' a 1st 73rd a O1 h 73rd 74t ■ lrJlC� O ILJI ■ fa FV e� ne 't' � � � fio79Oth 88�8 5 81st 81st 81 st22 81 s[ m 83rtl 82n �^ 83rtl 841h i m 86m14 � t Stith o 8 _ 87th 88th N 88th 90th � 2n 8� � D r o 12t 92nd Nign 94m D93rd 12th 1t C �LS-1 0 11th N Olym is d ol 53rd � 53rd Meter A�� 64th 1� 00 55m o M-o�antlak�e Terrace H 56th 67th 67th ooDo�a� o� 63th 59th �InndLqlr65l=o nn l. Meter' 1 ' i ' ■ rLL6' Znoe1� 85 5 84 h 139 �nr TTA)f`d`�U U� 7thC nr� N nn I i ■ M LT�Zo 7X ■ , �j � �Zyg�j I�jC�U �I:1 1�_ V Ij-I WD LVIIIC I � U(_J �r �WI7W1 WfYW1 LVJ LJLJ 9th 100t 8to U� th 8 �W' �La^mmJ �Lrr°J �111JLJLJ��U�U� 102nd , 7th w f��Tr�1 I1 Cary W TT 6th 5 106th y Legend E `SG 9e d 5th `�� g a Base Layers Sub -Basins Sub -Basins fWWTP ♦ O nd ndv OM 11 - r City of Edmonds Boundary Edmonds Zone Metel Ma ' �- kah V 0k City Boundary LS-1 Meter B 00 9,Noo ° 6 Service Boundary I �1 MILT Zone Meter C ' a Highland ■ Richmo Edmonds WWTP Zone 1 Meter E � ■ • �♦ Woodway Lynnwood WWTP Zone 2 Richmond Beach Zone � Puget Sound `�� ♦`a_____�� _ Meter 1 j Lynnwood Zone C::�4etefrME 01 N Echo e _ 5 12TH 1ST � ■ u� 11TH 1041h � 12TH 105th SPRI 1 Vh STH 7 14TH I LLL F 7t 17TH 17TH 21ST zlsr F �22ND 2ND k 34 99 X Lake Washington :7; 7 ��_ II o y ' GPr' gODNDPQ- �O ' /y S\OH�P y�`e\p 1 Richm. �m 70 Z Puget Sound GIS Data: City of Edmonds. 1� of EDAt,,V BHC Consultants, LLC Snohomish County/King County base data. NORTH G -w-� SUB -BASINS 1601 - Seat Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 Data sources supplied may not reflect current or actual conditions. This map is a geographic COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Figure 206,505,3400 representation based on information available. 0 1,600 3,200 6,400 • CONSULTANT S 206.505.3406 (fax) It does not represent survey data. No warranty Feet City of Edmonds www.bhcconsultants.com is made concerning the accuracy, currency, or completeness of data depicted on this ma Scale in Feet 5.1 COPYRIGHT© 13 HC NSULT N,T LL .�I,I„RIGHTSRESERVED p p• p� Ine.is9o. April 2013 I S \CAD \EDMONDS\ 12-10265 COMP SWR PLAN\DWGS\F12-10265 FLOW DIA.DWG (GOC) I APR 23 2013 16:02:45 1 XREFS: METER 1 EDMONDS ZONE E-2 METER 1 ZONE 1 eo---------, I EDMONDS OVWD ZONE E-7 � ZONE O-1 `----1 I 1 EDMONDS ZONE E-21 METER 2 t----------- EDMONDS EDMONDS ZONE L-3 � ZONE E-6 1 EDMONDS ZONE E-1 I 1 1 MILT 1 ZONE M-3 ZONE 2 METER A ZONE RB-1 METER E r�-- --- METER B r ----.1 r MILT MI LT EDMONDS RONALD I RICHMOND 1 ZONE M-2 I I ZONZONE E-9 I ZONE R-1 I BEACH P.S. I I METER E METER A METER B WOODWAY METER D BALLINGER PUMP STATION BALL APTS ZONE B-1 RONALD f OVWD ZONE R-2 I ZONE O 5 METER C l I METER C OVWD METER 3 EDMONDS EDMONDS ZONE 0-2 I ZONE E-40 ZONE E-4 ----� OVWD — — — — — -- —= EDMONDS ZONE 0-3 WOODWAY 11 ZONE E-7A METER 4* ZONE W-2 I I EDMONDS 1 ZONE E-42 I 1 RONALD OVWD 1 ZONE R-3 ZONE O 4 I`--------------- M LT ZONE * FLOW METER DATA FROM 4 IS NOT AVAILABLE OR THOUGHT TO BE UNRELIABLE. BHC Consultants, LLC ` 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 - Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 206.505.3406 (fax) CONSULTANTS www.bhcconsultants.com RICHMOND BEACH INFLUENT METER AT WWTP PS #1 EDMONDS ZONE E-5 11 PS#7 ``---1) PS #2 WOODWAY I1 EDMONDS ZONE W-1 �DNDI 11 PS #8 11 �`--- ZONE E-51 II PS #3 EDMONDS 1 LS-01 ZONE E-52 ZONE -----� MILT INFLUENT METER AT WWTP Ir EDMONDS EDMONDS ZONE INFLUENT METER AT WWTP Schematic Flow Diagram Figure Comprehensive Sewer Plan 5.2 Edmonds, Washington April 2013 Packet Page 143 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Generally, flow from this Sub -basin flows south towards Lake Ballinger and can be measured by the readings at meter 1. 5.1.2 Zone 1 Sub -basin Zone 1 is comprised of approximately 324 acres and generally flows east to an outlet near SR 99. After it combines with flows from the Meter 1 Sub -basin, the flows are measured by meter 2. Therefore, Zone 1 Sub -basin flows can be measured by subtracting flow measured at meter 1 from meter 2. 5.1.3 Zone 2 Sub -basin Zone 2 Sub -basin has approximately 525 acres and flows south towards the Lake Ballinger Pump Station. Flow from this area is combined with Zone 1 Sub -basin and Meter 1 Sub -basin. This combined flow joins with flow from Meter E Sub -basin before it flows through Meter D, immediately before the Lake Ballinger Pump Station. The flow in Zone 2 Sub -basin can be measured by subtracting both meter 2 and meter E readings from the meter D readings. 5.1.4 Meter A Sub -basin Meter A Sub -basin is in Mountlake Terrace. Flow from this Sub -basin is directed toward the Lake Ballinger Pump Station. At that point the flow will either be pumped to the Edmonds system or to King County depending on the flow swap proportions. Meter A Sub -basin approximately 1,600 acres and all flow are measured at meter A. 5.1.5 Meter B Sub -basin Meter B Sub -basin is comprised of approximately 555 acres and lies outside of the Edmonds corporate boundaries. For the most part, flows from Meter B Sub -basin flow through the Lake Ballinger Pump Station and are measured by meter B. The Ballinger Commons Apartments are part of this Sub -basin but are not routed through meter B. 5.1.6 Meter C Sub -basin Meter C Sub -basin consists of approximately 143 acres and is largely located outside the corporate boundaries of Edmonds. Flows are combined with a small area in Olympic View Wastewater District and are measured through meter C. 5.1.7 Meter E Sub -basin Meter E Sub -basin is comprised of approximately 663 acres and is located on west edge of the City of Mountlake Terrace, adjacent to the City of Edmonds municipal boundary. Flow from this Sub -basin is measured by flow meter E. 5-4 Packet Page 144 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 5.1.8 MLT Zone Sub -basin The MLT Zone Sub -basin is comprised of approximately 1,575 acres. Sewage from this area generally flows northwest and to the City's WWTP. The MLT influent meter at the WWTP measures all flows exiting the MLT Zone Sub -basin plus upstream contributions. MLT Zone Sub -basin flows can be determined by subtracting meter 3 from the MLT influent meter. 5.1.9 Edmonds Zone Sub -basin The Edmonds Zone is comprised of approximately 1,415 acres and lies directly east of the Edmonds WWTP. Flow from the Edmonds Zone is measured through the Edmonds Influent Meter at the WWTP. Since the LS #01 is tributary, it is necessary to subtract out LS #01 flows to estimate the flows originating in the Edmonds Zone Sub -basin. 5.1.10 LS-1 Zone Sub -basin The LS-1 Zone Sub -basin lies at the north side of the Edmonds service area and is comprised of approximately 1,107 acres. There are three lift stations operating within this Sub -basin, stations 1, 2 and 3. All flows in this Sub -basin are pumped through Lift Station #1. This station, however, does not have a flow meter. 5.1.11 Richmond Beach Sub -basin The Richmond Beach Sub -basin lies in the southwest corner of the City of Edmonds service area. It is comprised of 4,054 acres. All flow from the Richmond Beach Sub - basin is pumped through the Richmond Beach Pump Station and flows through the Richmond Beach Influent Meter at the WWTP. King County operates and maintains the Richmond Beach Pump Station as part of the 2000 agreement for reciprocal sewage treatment. 5.1.12 Lynnwood Zone Sub -basin City of Edmonds has an agreement to send a portion of sewage within the Edmonds municipal boundary to Lynnwood WWTP for sewage treatment. This area is at the northeast corner of the Edmonds municipal boundary and is comprised of approximately 1,241 acres. Edmonds owns and operates six different lift stations within the Lynnwood Zone Sub -basin. Flow from this Sub -basin does not influence conveyance to and capacity at the Edmonds WWTP. 5-5 Packet Page 145 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 5.2 CITY COLLECTION AND CONVEYANCE FACILITIES The City's inventory of gravity sewer lines totals approximately 680,000 linear feet of pipes ranging from 6-inches to 36-inches in diameter. This accounts for the City owned pipe only and not adjacent sewer adjacencies which own and operate the sewer infrastructure, and send flow to Edmonds for treatment. Table 5.1 below presents the summarized inventory of the City -owned piping systems. Table 5.1 Summary of Pipe Inventory Pipe Size Total Length of City -owned Pipe feet 6-inch 19,678 8-inch 535,672 10-inch 34,145 12-inch 13,017 15-inch 9,612 18-inch 7,133 24-inch 21,937 30-inch 3,456 36-inch 3,237 Unknown 31,340 TOTAL 679,227 feet 5.3 LIFT STATIONS The City has a total of 14 active lift stations. Additionally, there are the Lake Ballinger Pump Station and the Richmond Beach Pump Station which are owned and maintained by King County. Several lift stations were upgraded in 2012. In addition, telemetry upgrades have been made at all of the lift stations. Most of the stations have alarm notifications which include: pump on/off; pump failure; power failure; high / low wet well level; generator run; operator in trouble; intrusion; and smoke detector. Table 5.2 summarizes the Pump Station inventory as well as some of the operating conditions. Figure 5.3 illustrates the relationship between each of the District's lift stations and give a representation of their location within the system. 5-6 Packet Page 146 of 546 Table 5.2 Pump Station Inventory Pump Station No. Pump Type Number of Pumps Pump Manufacturer Rated Capacity GPM @ TDH Force Main Size and Type Year Initially Installed PS Upgrades Year (if any) 1 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 1425 gpm @ 19 feet 10-inch AC & 12-inch DI 2002 2 Submersible 2 Hydromatic HPGFHX300 85 gpm @ 35 feet 3-inch DI 2011 3 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 4" Allis Chalmers 114 @ 94 feet 4-inch DI 2012 4 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 4" PACO 308 gpm @ 164 feet 6-inch DI 2012 5 Submersible 2 Hydromatic HPGX200CD 37 gpm @ 48 feet 2-inch HDPE 2012 6 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 4" Gormann Rupp 335 gpm @ 45 feet 6-inch DI 2005 7 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 6" Gormann Rupp 210 gpm @ 22 feet 4-inch PVC 2008 8 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 4" PACO 137 gpm @ 22 feet 4-inch DI 2008 9 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 2 - 4" WEMCO 2 - 5 WEMCO 332 gpm @ 38 feet 6-inch DI 2012 10 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 Hydromatic HPGFX 114 gpm @ 49 feet 4-inch DI 2012 11 Submersible 2 4" Gormann Rupp 95 gpm @ 73 feet 2-inch HDPE 2012 12 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 6" KSB 308 gpm @ 142 feet 6-inch DI 2012 14 Submersible 2 Hydromatic HPGX200CD 37 gpm @ 33 feet 2-inch HDPE 2012 15 Submersible 2 Hydromatic HPGHX500 42 gpm @ 60 feet 2-inch HDPE 2012 Packet Page 147 of 546 ■ t� �"r ■ ■ 11 I■ - "sst s�my ssm _ Ho sstn L 99 C0=��006655ssm Jsstn 67m O�� wM„J�u V 6 snn o g O 0 a s7m 7tn s nh M 67m ti �■■� 6sm ssm �� ULJ sstn DOS a�� 6s N� 11 u d 69m 69m 6 si9 m lue Rid9° m 9th 70m ■ ° . Og5 69th � , N aKe eW ro a ■ �O� r ■� ■ 1s 70t 30Ih 70th _ 70 I( ■ 70m ME 70ih L N E ■ `' is■ 71st ' aQ�e _ . �7Sj Oth a o 72nd Lj; 'a _ ■ ' Z w 72nd 72 °L � a q � 72nd � ❑ 2nd 71st - �^r ■ 72nd � •, Ind ♦♦ 0 2nd S526 ■ 74t 3rd fO gJ` 3rd 73rd r' N� ■ �%2� w 22na 75t 73rd 73rd N ❑ 73rd" 73rd ■ �■ ` ��♦ ♦� � 4 qH° h°wtA�' ♦A � L 7atn �iA!• �� ■� 0#12 Toth 74t 0laemar u 74ih MEN mm ■a mmom am MEN N c am t No EIL _ °� � I `•♦ y� O'OoWWTP ■■■�� ■�°'�❑n 7th 7th L N' 77th ` \■ 78th 78t �� ] 78th 78th 78th ■ ■ ■ ..' ❑ 78th ♦♦ �0 79th nnO 78th *\ SthN 78th78th h h HHH LS #14 �� o �oaooO � �B�❑� ■ � Soth N1 ■ 0 `�♦ J� m�N a0t 4S-#9 aom 815t slot .0th 1st gO a o m 81 st n 2n 81 st 81? _ 82nd H 81 st 82nd 'Y�� I 81s Btst a �1t 82nd ♦ �[� l� .3rd 82nd 82nd ■ 82nd t 4 O O _83r 3rd 83rd 83rd 82. d nd ■ 82nd 82nd �?nd N B 4"t c� `m n 83rd65n` •• ♦ ■■■■,,�16m N 88th J 86t�h to .am 71°n85t T 87Ih Stith ja Satn Stith SSt.h. �■'■� S�S6ih I 585th 85m SQ lh 86Ih Summtit Stith S6ih _ 7StSh65 iih S7 88th w h = ■ ■a 6ih h'88tM 9 99 BntI■ ` .. n oN SSth e L M LS 10 Sunset h astn 89m .sfs t3 to Sstn •�` fll 9jsr 91st � Maplewood o- Hillcrest o ,� 90th ■ O 90th �■�■y v ♦ afire 92nd rm 3 �■ 1st 91 st a 91s■ 921d aiQ ■ � 92nd 92nd ` 12th ■ �°� ■ ■ 2nd 92nd ' rs 92n ' H h °i D 93r 12th o hla % 93rd 93rd ■ 93r 93rd `.' 94th 9bt 1 th 0 12th 12t 4th ■ 94th 94m = 11th 95th 95th 94thN &y� ♦ OIL is View > _ lS 95th s v DI`LLc UUUJ 95m ■ ♦ � 961h ''w 6 v ~ SoGn°`�� °' ��n�Ln� 97ih 97th N r 97t �❑ 96ih L N IEa . AT I 97th I1Q � IIdS e� � ��" > , th sam �`}' Ind Oth ~ 99th ♦ , � a' � Sea Vist r B a U Puget Sound ` � T Te s9ih sst t w ♦ m O 9th00ththh 8t ��. h ''"HITT N f�,� Bth tOtst � w EK� U xtn� $ t 101st t0 101s ■ ` o h o oo�7 2na c ■ L•S #3 nIIpIInIII T1h��0ttha to2nd' 7thM ■ #104th . LS 2 w a oO �� m u w ob�n Hood 1050h th 6th F" � m cl 105th r 6 _ _ ma a D 6th � 106ih ■ W t V ` N v 106ih N■ , na^� oO ��LJLJ ��LJUL'nJ� r` "� Humber 1 7ih ■ 07ih LS #1s° �� F—= ♦. . , ° nEd�mon.dsg DD / u w w - o` Wootlwav GreYsrone L # P LS 95 znd 2nd ■ a e ` a 110th Q oIo 111ih ro E im er MakahLegend �'��° MFJ]1:11112�thLS #7 Qa� food%t� F of Nootka Oo9 0 0 [A Edmonds WWTP City of Edmonds Boundary Lift Station #1 Lift Station #6 Lift Station #11 ♦ �, o,� o c o0 0 115th = �O Lynnwood WWTP Service Boundary Lift Station #2 Lift Station #7 Lift Station #12 �� -7% 116tn n. 0 Lift Station Lift Station #3 ' Lift Station #8 Lift Station #14 ----� Force Main Lift Station #4 ' Lift Station #9 Lift Station #15 •` �, ! 40^4%� N a� ■ , ` Rr°hmond Beac - Lift Station #5 Lift Station #10 `�� `�� ♦� 1 Sewer Zones: City of Edmonds, December 2011 pF EDAfo �t� BHC Consultants, LLC GIS Data: City of Edmonds, Snohomish County & King County. _ NORTH -w- LIFT STATION SERVICE AREAS 1601 Seat Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, - le, Washington 98101 Data sources supplied may not reflect current or COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Figure actual conditions. This map ia geographic 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6. 206.505.3400 representation based on information available. S 206.505.3406 (fax) It does not represent survey data. No warranty Feet City ty of Edmonds CONSULTANT ■ www.bhcconsultants.com is made concerning the accuracy, currency, Scale in Feet March 2013 COPYRIGHTO 13 HC NSULT N,T LL�.�11,41GHTS RESERVED or completeness of data depicted on this map. Inc is90 ��. �a,1, COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 5.4 EDMONDS WWTP 5.4.1 General The Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) provides wastewater treatment service for residential, commercial, and industrial customers for the City of Edmonds sewer service boundary. The facility was initially built in 1957 and has undergone several modifications, updates and expansions. In 1991 the Edmonds WWTP was upgraded from a primary plant to secondary plant. Currently the plant is rated to treat 11.8 mgd maximum month flow. The plant is located at 200 2nd Ave South, Edmonds, WA, 98020. The Washington State Department of Ecology regulates discharges to waters of the state through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit system. NPDES permits are developed based on federal and state water quality standards and treatment requirements. The existing system is permitted under the NPDES discharge permit number WA- 002405-8 (modified May 9, 2012). Effluent limitations are summarized in Table 5.3. The plant has been continuously compliant with these standards. Table 5.3 Current NPDES Effluent Limitations for Edmonds WWTP Discharge Average Monthly Average Weekly Maximum Parameter Limits' Limits' Daily Limits' Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen 25 mg/L, 2460 Ibs/day 40 mg/L, 3936 Ibs/day N/A Demand (5 day BOD) 85% removal of influent CBOD5 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 30 mg/L, 2952 Ibs/day 45 mg/L, 4430 Ibs/day N/A 85% removal of influent TSS Fecal Coliform Bacteria 200/100 mL 400/100 mL N/A pH Daily minimum >_ 6.0 and daily maximum of <_ 9.0 N/A Total Residual Chlorine 191 µg/L I N/A 442 µg/L Current load limits are based on the Maximum Month Design Flow MMDF of 11.80 m d. Biosolids (sludge) treatment and use are regulated under federal (40 CFR Part 503) and State (Chapter 173-308 WAC) regulations through the Statewide General Permit for Biosolids Management. Sludge from the Edmonds plant is dewatered using a belt filter press and incinerated using an on -site fluidized bed incinerator. The plant has been compliant with the regulations for sewage sludge incinerators based on air emission limits established in Title 40 Part 503 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The air emissions standards have recently been expanded by the EPA. On February 21, 2011, the EPA published their newest final SSI emission regulations in the Federal Register at Title 40 Part 60, under the provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA), Section 129 "Solid Waste Incineration Units". The new regulations were declared to be effective on May 20, 2011. 5-9 Packet Page 149 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN The previous and new air quality emission limits, how the plant's current emissions compare with the new standards and how the new regulations will affect the current incinerator equipment, operations and costs are discussed in Section 8.7.1. 5.4.2 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Loadings The plant was originally constructed in 1957 and has been modified or upgraded several times since then. Table 5.4 summarizes the history of the WWTP. Though the historical perspective of the improvements and modifications to the plant is interesting, the current infrastructure is really the important issue. The following sections describe the current facilities. General: The current plant has a design maximum month flow of 11.8 mgd. The maximum month flow the plant currently treats is about 9.5 mgd. Flow is measured by three Parshall flume meters on the influent side of the WWTP and by an effluent meter. Table 5.4 Edmonds WWTP Historical Improvements and Capacity Design Capacity Maximum Average Peak Project description Date Month Annual Hour (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) Original Construction Grit removal, sewage grinding, primary settling, 1957 2 digestion, chlorination and outfall. Improvements and Modifications Capacity Expansion 1959 4 Two additional clarifiers, effluent pumping, sludge dewatering and incineration system. 1967 7.6 Removed grit and digestion. Secondary Treatment 1991 11.8 9.1 40 Headworks The headworks consists of three channels designated for measuring Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, and Richmond Beach basin flows. Before the flow is measured with parshall flumes, three 4-foot wide mechanical bar screens with '/4-inch openings screens the influent. The flow then enters a wet well where four 100 hp vertical non -clog raw sewage pumps, each with a capacity of 9,260 gpm, the process flow though two 24" pipes to a primary influent splitter box. The splitter box gravity feeds the flow to the primary clarifiers. 5-10 Packet Page 150 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Primary Clarifiers Edmonds has three primary clarifiers. Two of the clarifiers are center fed square tanks 60 feet by 60 feet with a surface area of 3,600 square feet each. The third clarifier is rectangular, 91 feet long by 45 feet wide for a surface area of 4,095 square feet. The total surface area of the three primary clarifiers is 11,295 square feet. The primary clarifiers provide quiescent conditions that reduces the flows velocity to the point that solids can be settled and removed. The clarifier also allows floatable material like plastics, oil, grease and scum to be skimmed off the surface and removed. Typically primary clarifier removals of the plant influent are 50 to 70 percent of suspended solids and 25 to 40 percent of BOD5. The primary sizing design criteria for clarifiers is the surface overflow rate, or the flow rate divided by the clarifier surface area; this is known as the vertical flow velocity. Typical design values for peak hourly flows are in the range of 2,000 to 3,000 gallons per day per square foot (gpd/sf). At 3,000 gpd/sf, the existing primary clarifiers would have a maximum performance -based capacity of 11,295 sf x 3,000 gpd/sf = 33.885 mgd. Aeration Basins After leaving the primary clarifiers, the liquid stream enters a channel that can flow to one of the three aeration basins. The three aeration basins are each 75.3 feet wide by 58 feet long and 20.6 feet deep with a total volume of approximately 673,000 gallons each (2.0 million gallons total). The aeration basins provide biological treatment by increasing the dissolved oxygen in the basin with fine bubble diffusers that disperse forced air. The oxygenated water encourages the growth of bacteria and microorganisms which consumes the waste flow's organic solids. When the process flow enters the aeration basins it first goes through a premix box where return activated sludge (RAS) from the secondary clarifiers mixes with the influent. The return sludge is the settled solids from the clarifiers and they are returned to increase the mixed liquor concentration and solids retention time (SRT) in the aeration basins. Secondary Clarifiers The secondary clarifiers are necessary for separating treated effluent from the mixed liquor solids leaving the aeration basins. The three circular clarifiers are 90 feet in diameter with a 17.5 foot side water depth which provide quiescent conditions for gravity sludge settling to occur. The mixed liquor from the aeration basin is fed into the center of the clarifier and flows outward to the effluent launders. The projected annual average surface overflow rate, in year 2033 is 306 gpd/sf and is far less than the average performance design of 550 gpd/sf. The settled solids from the bottom of the clarifiers are the source for return sludge recycled back to the aeration basins. Secondary sludge pumps return the activated sludge from the clarifiers back to the to the individual premix boxes at each aeration basin. The waste activated sludge is wasted to a storage tank and then pumped to the belt presses for dewatering before incineration. 5-11 Packet Page 151 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Chlorine Disinfection The plant effluent is disinfected using liquid sodium hypochlorite (bleach). The sodium hypochlorite disinfection flash mix structure is provided to recombine effluent from the secondary clarifiers, however, current operation is to feed sodium hypochlorite at the secondary clarifier weir overflows which increases the contact time. The structure also provides 12.5% concentration sodium hypochlorite solution injection to the secondary effluent. Sodium hypochlorite is bought in bulk and stored at the facility in two 3,000 gallon tanks. The purpose of the chlorine contact chamber is to provide a minimum of 20 minutes of detention time at peak hour flow rates, prior to discharge of the secondary effluent to the outfall, in order to allow the sodium hypochlorite solution time to react with the effluent. The current peak hour contact time using only the chlorine contact chamber is 14 minutes and is projected to be about the same in the year 2033. The practice of feeding sodium hypochlorite at the secondary weir overflow will continue. The plant is meeting the current disinfection criteria by increasing the chlorination dose and then dechlorinating. The plant is able to control the chlorine residual through dechlorination by using bisulfate. The bisulfate is a 38% NaHS03 solution that when added to water releases sulfur dioxide which reacts with free chlorine and chloramines reducing effluent concentrations. Sludge Dewatering Primary and WAS is combined before dewatering and averages about 1.0% total solids. The dewatering equipment consists of two belt presses where one operates at a time from 12 to 24 hours a day depending on the Edmonds Plant sludge production. The dewatered sludge is fed to the onsite fluidized bed incinerator. Incineration From the belt presses, the dewatered sludge cake is deposited by a belt conveyor into a hopper that delivers the dewatered sludge to the fluid bed incinerator by a hydraulic pump. The fats, oils, and greases (FOG) are collected in the Primary Sludge Tank and are mixed with raw and WAS as feed to the belt presses. Large influxes of FOG are not desirable for incineration because their high fuel value makes temperature control more difficult. Internally the incinerator has a reactor bed of sand that is fluidized by a controlled, pre- heated air supply that is blown through it. Here the dewatered sludge cake is fed into the fluidized sand bed where it is burned. In this bed the dewatered sludge is broken up by the sands fluidizing motion and is incinerated by the heat. Diesel fuel is pumped into the reactor to aid in combustion, as required. The amount of supplemental fuel required depends on the heat content of the combustion air (which is pre -heated by the primary flue gas heat exchanger), and the heat content of the sludge, which is dependent on the solids content of the dewatered sludge (% volatile solids). When the incinerator is operating at its design capacity with 27% dry solids (75% volatile), or greater, the incinerator should theoretically operate autogenously (thermally self-supporting), and supplemental fuel should only be required for start-up. 5-12 Packet Page 152 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN The incinerated sludge byproducts are gases and ash. The gases and ash exit the top of the incinerator and pass through a heat exchanger. The heat exchanger pre -heats the incinerator fluidizing air. The exhausted gas and ashes pass through a wet Venturi cyclone scrubber for particulate removal, followed by a wet tray scrubber where the finer particulate is removed and the gas is cooled by passing the scrubbed gas (which is re- heated with diesel fuel) counter -current to a large quantity of water. Combustion air is routed to the stack at about 10% of total combustion air to prevent a visible steam plume when it is released through a stack to the atmosphere. The captured ash is thickened in a gravity thickener and dewatered in a vacuum filter. Current operations produce, on average, about 25 cubic yards of ash a week. Plant Effluent The treated and disinfected effluent is discharged approximately 1,250-feet off shore through a 36-inch outfall into Puget Sound. The outfall branches into two diffusers, each 160 feet long with diffuser ports at MLLW elevation that ranges from 56 to 73 feet deep. A layout of the Edmonds WWTP is shown in Figure 5.4. Historical loadings and anticipated plant improvements are discussed in Chapter 8. 5-13 Packet Page 153 of 546 DAYTON ST. CHLORINE CONTACT I� CHAMBER EFFLUENT SECONDARY CLARIFIER NO. 2 w z U5 J ^ CHLORINE Q w MIXING w w BASIN SECONDARY CLARIFIER SECONDARY NO.1 w CLARIFIER LL NO. 3 RAS PUMPING STATION (BELOW) AERATION AERATION AERATION BASINS BASINS BASINS No. 3 No. 2 No. 1 I F EDMONDS F RICHMOND BEACH PRIMARY PRIMARY PRIMARY CLARIFIER F MOUNTLAKE TERRACE CLARIFIER CLARIFIER NO. 2 NO. 1 / INFLUENT PUMPING NO. 3L--STATION RAW SLUDGE PRIMARY INFLUENT PUMPING SPUTTER BOX 1-0J ROOM SOLIDS PROCESS BUILDING OPERATIONS BUILDING iM 0 -0 L01 CONSULTANTS BHC Consultants, LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101 206.505.3400 206.505.3406 (fax) www.bhcconsultants.com aF � LD� WWTP Layout Figure Comprehensive Sewer Plan )-4 Edmonds, Washington WISp,,yo May 2012 Packet Page 154 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 5.5 Additional Regulatory Requirements Substitute Secondary House Bill 1338 — Wastewater Reuse While reuse of reclaimed wastewater treatment plant effluent is becoming more and more common, the demand for year-round reclaimed effluent in the Pacific Northwest is very limited, particularly in a suburban setting. To be acceptable for reuse, effluent must meet the quality standards specified in the state's Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards. 5.6 Infiltration and Inflow The District maintains a pro -active approach to I and I reduction. In 1979, the City embarked on an aggressive program to reduce inflow by eliminating roof drain connections and other stormwater connections and by sealing manholes. Monitoring the peaking factors during large storm events in the 1980's and 1990's showed that the effort to reduce I&I appeared to be working. However, a storm in late January, 2006 raised new concerns. Flow measurements indicated higher than normal peaking factors and thus increased I&I for this storm. A 2010 1&1 study was performed by BHC Consultants in order to address these concerns. The study identified key areas within the system that are predicted to have higher I&I than other areas of the system. The areas and the efforts are explained further below: 5.6.1 Zone 1 Problem Area The Zone 1 basin was predicted to have the highest I&I problems and is tagged as an area of concern. The prediction is based off of higher than normal peaking factors in gallons per acre day. It was recommended to T.V. inspect and smoke test areas within this basin to further identify the exact pipe sections and manholes that can be fixed. 5.6.2 LS-01 Zone LS-01 Zone was predicted to have the second worse I&I problem out of all the sub - basins. Out of the three storm events, analyzed in the study, the peaking factor from average dry weather flow was over 5. The study recommends further T.V. inspection and smoke testing in the LS-01 zone to identify the exact lengths of pipe and manholes that need to be fixed. 5.6.3 MLT Zone The MILT Zone was also identified as a higher than normal I&I area. The City will continue to take a pro -active approach to reducing I&I in the system and therefore avoiding larger than normal flows at the plant during high precipitation storm events. 5-15 Packet Page 155 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Chapter VI — EXISTING AND FUTURE POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS 6.1 POPULATION 6.1.1 General Baseline population (Population 2010) estimates per Sub -basin were calculated using 2010 Census data. A residential density was calculated for each census tract based on current residentially zoned acreage, and that density was applied to the total residential acreage within each Sub -basin. A further breakdown of the methodology used as well as resources can be found in Appendix C. 6.1.2 Existing Residential, Commercial and Student Populations Table 6.1 identifies the eleven Sub -basins that flow to the Edmonds WWTP and the twelfth Sub -basin presented on Figure 5.1 is the Lynnwood Zone Sub -basin. Flows from this area are within the Edmonds City limits but are treated at the Lynnwood WWTP. For the purposes of this Comprehensive Plan, the flows from the Lynnwood Zone Sub -basin were analyzed and included the CIP. The sewer generating categories were classified into residential population, employees and students. Existing population for each of these categories was available through Snohomish County or the Edmonds School District. There are portions of the Richmond Beach Sub -basin that are not sewered and that percentage is reflected in the sewered population values on Table 6.1. Other than these large tracts, it has been assumed that virtually all parcels are sewered. It is recognized, however, that there might be an occasional and isolated parcel that is not served. These isolated parcels constitute a small percentage and are reflected in Table 6.1. All commercial (i.e. employees) and student populations were counted as sewered. Historical and textbook values of domestic wastewater (i.e. little or no 1/1 contribution) assigned to residential customers are typically found to be between 50 and 60 gals per capita per day (gpcd). Students and employees are generally found to be a fraction of the contribution of a full time resident. Historical values for students have been found to range from 10 to 15 gallons per student per day. Textbook values per employee can vary broadly depending on the nature of the commercial use. The typical per employee contribution ranges from 15 to 25 gallons per employee per day. This range is consistent with the values used by both the Alderwood Water and Wastewater District's Comprehensive plan dated 2009 and the City of Lynnwood's Comprehensive Plan dated 2012. Based on these values, a ratio for students and employees was established so a population equivalence could be developed. Five students generate the same volume of wastewater as a full time resident, or a 5 to1 ratio for students. Similarly, a 3 to 1 ratio is expected for employees. 6-1 Packet Page 156 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN The development of the Population Equivalence (see Table 6.1) was based on these ratios. This means that a resident living in the Sub -basin would be counted as one and all students would be counted as 20% and all employees would be counted as 0.33 people. This formula was applied to the population, employees and students to determine the Population Equivalent. Table 6.1 City of Edmonds - Existing Population 2010 Student Population Employment Population Population Sub -Basins Total Total Sewered Total Total Equivalent Population Population Employment (1) Population (2) (#) City of Edmonds Meter 1 1,788 1,788 1,535 1,722 2,644 Zone 1 2,686 2,686 592 378 2,959 Zone 2 4,835 4,815 4,585 0 6,342 Meter A 12,075 12,075 1,657 1,691 12,965 Meter B 4,473 4,249 2,664 450 5,226 Meter C 1,486 1,412 182 0 1,472 Meter E 5,828 5,537 5,367 1,372 7,598 MILT Zone 10,626 10,095 1,604 1,177 10,864 Edmonds Zone 10,790 10,790 3,558 503 12,075 LS #1 6,410 6,090 508 1,181 6,495 Richmond Beach Zone 19,755 17,037 7,528 17,617 23,067 Lynnwood Zone 6,528 6,202 509 0 6,371 Notes 1. The ratio of flow per employee to flow per resident is assumed to be 1:3 (DOE, Criteria for Sewage Works Design - Orange Book). 2. The ratio of flow per employee to flow per resident is assumed to be 1:5 (DOE, Criteria for Sewage Works Design - Orange Book). These population numbers were assigned to the geographic Sub -basin. Furthermore, forecasted values of population, employment and students also followed these Sub -basin boundaries. 6.1.3 Future Residential, Commercial and School Populations The task of this Plan is to evaluate the performance of the sewer collection, conveyance and treatment components for baseline (existing), 6-year, 20-year and build out scenarios. To evaluate the conditions on these target years, the Plan determined the residential, commercial and student populations for the years 2019, 2033 and build out. Various sources of data were used to estimate these populations and employment figures. These sources include the following: 6-2 Packet Page 157 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN • 2010 Census Data, by Census Block • 2010 Covered Employment Estimates, Washington State Employment Security Department, provided as custom estimates via PSRC • 2008-2010 Three -Year American Community Survey, Self -Employment Estimates for Edmonds • Office of Financial Management, Population Estimates for 2011 and 2012 • Snohomish County 2012 Buildable Lands Report • Snohomish County Draft Initial Growth Targets for 2035 King County 2007 Buildable Lands Report • City of Shoreline Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Buildable Lands Capacity Update, 2012 • Shoreline Community College Unduplicated Annual Head Count • Edmonds School District Update of Long Range Enrollment Projections 2012 to 2032 • Conversations regarding local long-range planning efforts with City Staff in Edmonds, Shoreline, and Mountlake Terrace; the Snohomish County Demographics Team; and staff and facility planners at school districts and at individual schools. The population was then distributed to the 12 Sub -basins, described earlier, so the hydraulic model could be define that infrastructure that was at or approaching its maximum capacity. A detailed description of the protocol followed is presented in Appendix XXX. The City of Edmonds service area spans two counties and serves several cities or Special Service Districts. Consequently, there were several document sources that were used to determine the future population/employees. Residential population baselines have been established for each Sub -basin based on Census data. Employment baselines have been established for each Sub -basin from PSRC custom estimates for State -reported Covered Employment; self-employment estimates have been added to calculate baseline total employment for each Sub -basin. The Richmond Beach Zone Sub -basin straddles the Snohomish -King County boundary. For the purpose of these forecast estimates, two separate evaluations, prepared for the portions of the Richmond Beach Zone Sub -basin in each County, have been added together to compute a final estimate for the entire Sub -basin for each target year. King County Population and Employment Forecast. King County forecast estimates are based on the 2007 Buildable Lands Report, for Shoreline's primarily residential zoning, and on the 2012 Update to the Shoreline Comprehensive Plan, which included updated population and employment capacity estimates specifically along the Aurora/Highway 99 Corridor. The City of Shoreline is planning for significant increases in development along this corridor, impacting population and employment Richmond Beach Zone Sub -basin, Meter C Sub -basin, and Meter B Sub -basin. The 2031 horizon for this 6-3 Packet Page 158 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN report has been used as an interpolation point from which to estimate forecasts for the target yeas; this interpolation has been extended to estimate a build out scenario as well. Snohomish County Population and Employment Forecast. Snohomish County 6-year population forecast estimates are based on the 2012 Buildable Lands Report, which offers detailed capacity analysis based on both underlying city zoning and market trends. The 20-year estimates are based on the County's 2035 Initial Growth Targets, aspirational estimates which are to be adopted into the countywide planning policies; these will assist with the next GMA-mandated round of comprehensive plan updates. However, Edmonds City Staff feels that these Initial Growth Targets are based on past market trends and do not account for a potential market shift favoring the significantly more dense, multi -story, mixed use development currently permitted in the zoning along Highway 99. The City of Edmonds has loosely approximated additional population and employment in selected sub -basins in order to approximate the scenario within which market conditions favor a shift towards this additional density along Highway 99 sometime within the next 20 years. The 2035 horizon for the Initial Growth Targets has been used as an interpolation point from which to extend forecast estimates out to a build out scenario for residential population. The employment capacity expressed in the 2012 Buildable Lands Report, with market reductions removed, stands in as the data point for the estimated employment buildout scenario Student Enrollment Baselines and Forecast Estimates Individual Schools and School Districts have been surveyed to gather baseline enrollment statistics. The Edmonds School District provided a long-range forecast report recommending consideration of a medium -growth scenario throughout the school district; these growth rates have been applied to the District schools within the Service Area. Shoreline School District . Private schools are generally assumed to retain stable student enrollment populations through time, and none within the Service Area reported plans for major expansions. Shoreline Community College, with no major plans for facility expansion, also expects a relatively stable on -campus student population in the future; anticipated increases in enrollment are likely to be offset by concurrent increases in student participation in distance learning programs. The summary of this analysis is presented in Table 6.2. 6.2 FLOWS 6.2.1 General Edmonds is fortunate to have ten functioning and reliable flow meters. These flow meters are presented schematically on Figure 5.2. An eleventh flow meter (Meter 4) has not been maintained or calibrated. Consequently, this data is not available or is thought to be unreliable. 6-4 Packet Page 159 of 546 Table 6.2 City of Edmonds - Population and Growth Projections 2019 2033 Buildout Total Population Total Population Total Population Sub -Basins Total Sewered Sewered Sewered (1) Total Sewered Sewered Sewered (1) Total Sewered Sewered Sewered (1) Population Population Employment Students Equivalence Population Population Employment Students Equivalence Population Population Employment Students Equivalence City of Edmonds Meter 1 1,867 1,867 1,567 1,745 2,738 2,361 2,361 1,616 1,943 3,288 4,017 4,017 1,677 2,410 5,057 Zone 1 2,908 2,908 751 383 3,235 3,413 3,413 999 427 3,831 4,754 4,754 981 529 5,186 Zone 2 5,280 5,280 5,088 0 6,974 6,691 6,691 5,870 0 8,646 10,874 10,874 6,507 0 13,041 Meter 13,597 13,597 2,221 1,710 14,679 15,417 15,417 3,097 1,877 16,824 18,438 18,438 4,171 2,268 20,281 Meter B 6,471 6,471 3,714 440 7,796 11,056 11,056 5,347 443 12,925 20,880 20,880 8,847 450 23,916 Meter C 1,775 1,775 332 0 1,886 2,413 2,413 565 0 2,601 3,811 3,811 1,065 0 4,166 Meter E 6,170 6,170 5,674 1,390 8,337 6,579 6,579 6,152 1,548 8,937 7,258 7,258 6,738 1,920 9,886 MLT Zone 11,414 11,414 1,721 1,191 12,225 12,356 12,356 1,904 1,313 13,253 13,920 13,920 2,128 1,599 14,948 Edmonds Zone 11,752 11,752 3,842 509 13,133 12,901 12,901 4,284 561 14,440 14,810 14,810 4,826 685 16,554 LS #1 6,631 6,631 511 1,197 7,041 6,895 6,895 516 1,333 7,333 7,333 7,333 523 1,653 7,838 Richmond Beach Zone 24,933 22,440 9,232 15,540 28,622 34,430 32,709 11,883 16,347 39,935 54,141 54,141 17,486 17,817 63,527 Lynnwood Zone 6,754 6,754 514 0 6,925 7,024 7,024 521 0 7,197 7,473 7,473 531 0 7,650 1. The ratio of flow per employee to flow per resident is assumed to be 1:3 and ratio of 1:5 for students (DOE, Criteria for Sewage Works Design - Orange Book). Packet Page 160 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Flow data from these ten meters was collected from July 2006 through November 2012. A graphical representation of this flow data is presented in Appendix XX. In order to capture different flow scenarios four flow conditions were graphed. These four flow conditions were the Average Dry Weather, Average Daily, Average Wet Weather and Maximum Month. Graphical presentation of the Peak Day and Peak Hour was not viewed as meaningful. Total daily flow data for this six and half year period was evaluated. • Average Dry Weather Flow — This flow condition is defined as the average daily flow for the months of July through October when no rainfall was recorded. As expected, the flow was very stable during this period. Any day with measureable rainfall was excluded from the data set. The intent of presenting this data is to capture the base domestic flow conditions with neither infiltration nor inflow. • Average Daily Flow — This flow condition captured all daily flows during the year. The average of all these flows would be considered the annual average flow. • Average Wet Weather Flow — This flow condition is defined as the average daily flow from the months of November through March. All flows during this period were analyzed regardless of the amount of precipitation. The value of this data set was to understand the I&I contribution to the system. • Maximum Month Flow — The Maximum Month Flows are of particular interest for the WWTP. Since the NPDES permit is written with monthly discharge limitations, treatment plants are typically designed with this flow condition as the design flow. The determination of this value was based on the highest monthly average flow. • Peak Day Flow — The Peak Day Flow is the maximum total daily flow recorded at the meters during a 24-hour period. In December 2006 and December 2007, the area experienced an abnormally high rainfall event. This translated to record flows at the ten meters and at the WWTP. These rainfall events have not been replicated since that time. • Peak Hour Flow - Peak Hour Flow is defined as the peak sustained flow rate occurring during a one -hour period. It is typically used to size the collection and interceptor sewers, pump stations, piping, flow meters, and certain physical WWTP processes. The Peak Hour flows were determined from two factors: 1) the addition of diurnal flow patterns which were developed from 5-minute flow data for the year 2009 (see Figure 6.1) and 2) the peaking factor between peak day and peak hour which was derived from 5-minute data. 6.2.2 Recorded Flows The graphical presentation of the flow data starting in July 2006 through November 2012 is displayed in Appendix B and summarized on Table 6.3. It is meaningful to evaluate the entire period to understand the growth or trending during this six and half year period. However, averaging this entire time period was not representative of the current day flows. There are several factors that are effect the flow patterns at the meters. These 6-6 Packet Page 161 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN include: • City pipeline rehabilitation projects • New sewer line extensions • New customers and connections • Degradation of the pipelines. King County has concluded from their studies that there is a 7% degradation of the pipe, and hence a 7% increase in I&I, every decade. Viewing the flow graphs for this period, it appears that these factors are offsetting. There is not any trending patterns over the period. This is perhaps understandable since much of the service area is built out and largely sewered. Consequently, flow data for the years 2010 through 2012 were used to capture the current conditions. The components of wastewater flow evaluated include: Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF), Annual Average Daily Flow (AAF), Average Wet Weather Flow (AWWF), Maximum Month Flow (MMF), Peak Day Flow (PDF) and Peak Hour Flows. A summary of the flow events was derived by summing the flows from the three influent meters (MILT, Edmonds and Richmond Beach) at the WWTP for the period of 2010 through 2012. It should be noted that these values are not necessarily the peak recorded flows for the plant. Significant storm events in 2007 and 2009 resulted in flows in excess of that which is presented below: Current Influent Flows' Edmonds WWTP Average dry weather flow (ADWF), mgd 3.97 Annual average flow (AAF), mgd 5.82 Average wet weather flow (AWWF)3, mgd 7.52 Maximum month flow (MMF)4, mgd 9.66 Peak day flows (PDF), mgd 21.65 Peak wet weather flow6 (PWWF), mgd 27.5 Notes: 1. Values represent flow events from 2010 to 2012. 2. ADWF is defined as the average of the days with zero rainfall during four dry weather months (July through Oct) for years 2010 to 2012. 3. AWWF is defined as the average of five wet weather months (November through March) for years 2010 to 2012. 4. Maximum month flow (MMF) is the average flow for the maximum month, as defined in the current NPDES permit. The MMF is sometimes referred to as peak month flow and is considered the design flow for the WWTP. 5. Peak Day Flow is from wet weather event on 12/12/2010. It should be noted that the historical high daily flow of 23.84 mgd was recorded on 12/3/2007. 6. PWWF is an estimate value using the peak hour to peak day ratio seen from the December 3, 2007. This factor was approximately 1.27. It should be noted that the historical high peak flow of 30.26 mgd was recorded on 12/3/2007. 6-7 Packet Page 162 of 546 Figure 6.1 Diurnal Flow I Al N 1.20 V) 1.00 0.80 0 0.60 " 0.40 �I 1 )I 11� Oa Oa Oa Oa Oa Oa O� O� Oq O� O� O� O O O Packet Page 163 of 546 Table 6.3 City of Edmonds - Measured Flows by Meter Average Dry Weather ICI Average Daily Flow I�1 Average Wet Weather (3) Maximum Month I�1 Peak Day I�1 Size in Population Flow per Flow per Flow per Flow per Flow per Meters Sub -basins Acres Equivalent Isi Flow mgd Equivalent Flow mgd Equivalent Flow mgd Equivalent Flow mgd Equivalent Flow mgd Equivalent Meter 1 Meter 1 161.0 2,644 Total Meter 1 161.0 2,644 0.140 53 0.161 61 0.173 65 0.225 85 0.555 210 Meter 2 324.3 2,959 Meter 1 161.0 2,644 Total Meter 2485.3 5,603 0.249 44 1 0.335 60 0.422 75 1 0.605 108 1.74 311 Meter A 1602.4 12,965 Total Meter A 7 1602.4 1 12,965 0.703 54 0.974 75 1.214 94 1.602 124 3.723 1 287 Meter B Meter B 555.0 5,226 Total Meter B 555.0 5,226 0.257 49 0.304 58 0.352 67 0.448 86 1.33 254 Meter C 143.3 1,472 Total Meter C 143.3 1,472 0.076 52 0.115 78 0.147 100 0.215 146 0.646 439 Meter D 663.0 7,598 Zone 2 525.5 6,342 324.3 2,959 161.0 2,644 =Total 1673.8 19,543 1.250 64 1.449 74 1.628 83 1.949 100 4.293 220 Meter E663.0 7,598 Total Meter E 663.0 7,598 0.498 66 0.563 74 0.617 81 0.896 118 2.441 321 Meter 3 143.3 1,472 Meter B 555.0 5,226 Meter A 1602.4 12,965 Meter E 663.0 7,598 Zone 2 525.5 6,342 _ Zone 1 324.3 2,959 Meter 1 161.0 2,644 Total Meter 3 3974.5 39,206 1.031 1 26 1.937 49 2.911 1 74 3.665 93 5.273 1 134 MILT at WWTP MILT Zone 1573.9 10,864 143.3 1,472 r B 555.0 5,226 ;MeterA 1602.4 12,965 663.0 7,598 2 525.5 6,342 324.3 2,959 Meter 1 161.0 2,644 Total MLT at WWTP 5548.4 1 50,070 1.500 30 1 2.560 51 3.576 71 1 4.398 88 7.826 156 Edmonds Edmonds 1415.8 12,075 at WWTP LS-01 Zone 1106.6 6,495 Total Edmonds at WWTP 2522.4 18,570 1.406 76 1.715 92 1.982 107 2AS5 132 6.22 335 Richmond B 4054.4 at WWTP Total RB at WWTP 4054.4 23,067 1.060 46 1.542 67 1.967 85 2.803 122 7.601 330 (1) Average Dry Weather Flow is defined as the average daily for months of July through October with days of zero rainfall for years 2010 - 2012. (2) Flow Data obtained from City provided information. Consolidated from monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR's), for years 2010 - 2012. (3) Average Wet Weather Flow is defined as the average flow from the months of November through March for years 2010 - 2012. (4) Peak Hour data derived from Peak day x 1.27 peaking factor at the WWTP which accounts for the diurnal flow patterns plus the peak storm event (5) Population Equivalent is 2010 values see Table 6.1 Packet Page 164 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN A graphical presentation of flow at the WWTP for the period of record (2007 through 2012) is presented in Figure 6.2. A visual comparison of the 2007 and 2010 storm events is evident. The flow per population equivalent as presented on Table 6.3, shows some slight variability in the values. In particular, the data measured in Meters 3 and the MILT meter at the WWTP reflects per population equivalent values that are unusually low. However, these two meters are downstream of the flow diversion to King County and consequently reflect lower total flows coming into the Edmonds system. This explains the low per population equivalent values seen at these two meters. Figure 6.2 Edmonds Wastewater Flows Edmonds WWTP Flows (mgd) Precipitation (inches) 35 0.0 1.0 30 2.0 3.0 25 4.0 W o 20 5.0 6.0 u i LL 7.0 c m 15 8.0 +° v 9.0 10 10.0 a 3 11.0 5 12.0 13.0 0 14.0 A A A A A 1 W W W W W�b 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O y y y y y y OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NNNNNN'y;y'y'y;y;y �J r as �J �t �t �J r as �J �� ¢t tJ t: Q �� t ¢� tJ i� Q �A� �t ¢< tJ t� Q ,'� � ¢� � 'o Qe �j� 0 'o a P� ��o ��a��a� �o ��a �o �o �a �a P pc Q��o,� 2� �� Date 6.2.3 Estimated Future Flows The application of the appropriate per population equivalent value is the basis for the future flow projections. With differing demographics and residential/commercial composition, each Sub -basin will have different per equivalent contribution. Therefore, it is recommended that the derived values be applied for the future growth conditions as presented below: • Sub -basin Meter 1 — use values from Meter 1 6-10 Packet Page 165 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN • Sub -basin Zone 1 — use values from Meter 2 • Sub -basin Zone 2 — use values from Meter 2 • Sub -basin Meter A — use values from Meter A • Sub -basin Meter B — use values from Meter B • Sub -basin Meter C — use values from Meter C • Sub -basin Meter E — use values from Meter E • Sub -basin MLT Zone — this sub -basin is influenced by the flow swap. The determination of the appropriate flows can be reach by either subtracting the Meter 3 data from the MLT meter data or by using data from a non -subtraction meter such Meters A, B, C or E. Subtracting Meter 3 data from MLT meter results in data that is very close to Meter B flow data. Therefore, the forecast has used values from Meter B. • Sub -basin Edmonds Zone — use Edmonds meter at the WWTP • Sub -basin LS#1 — use Edmonds meter at the WWTP • Sub -basin Redmond Beach Zone — use Richmond Beach meter at WWTP • Sub -basin Lynnwood Zone — this Sub -basin flows to the Lynnwood WWTP. The only flow records available for this Sub -basin are from the single effluent flow meter at the WWTP. The per population equivalent values used on Tables 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 originate from the corresponding values in Table 6.3, as noted above, and have a 7% per decade pipe degradation factor for the increased 1/1. The 7% factor is applied to the 1/1 component for all the flow scenarios except the Average Dry Weather Flows, which by definition, has little or no 1/1 contribution. 6.3 WWTP FLOWS Comparing historical flows with forecasted flows requires an understanding of the King County Interlocal Agreement. Historically, as described in Section 3.4.2, a seasonal flow swap with King County was executed that sent all winter and spring flows from both Richmond Beach and the flows at the Lake Ballenger PS to Edmonds. The summer flows were swapped such that the volumetric flows from Richmond Beach were directed to King County. Effective in 2012, the agreement calls for all flow throughout the entire year to be swapped with King County. This means that the total volume of wastewater received by Edmonds will be reduced. Consequently, the WWTP flow projections reflect this change in operation. Table 6.7 presents the forecasted flows at the WWTP. These flows are the basis for the WWTP loadings shown on Table 8.1 6-11 Packet Page 166 of 546 Table 6.4 2019 Flow Projections Average Dry Weather Average Daily Average Wet Weather Maximum Month Peak Day Population Flow per Flow per Flow per Population Population Sub -Basins Equivalence Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Equivalent Sewer Flow Equivalent Sewer Flow (1) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) (2) (gpd) (2) (gpd) Meter 1 (3) 2,738 53 144,977 61 167,637 66 180,586 86 236,696 217 592,781 Zone 1 (4) 3,235 44 143,520 60 195,495 77 247,830 111 357,916 322 1,040,686 Zone 2 (5) 6,974 44 309,444 60 421,506 77 534,347 111 771,703 322 2,243,825 Meter 14,679 54 795,916 76 1,115,621 95 1,398,754 126 1,856,486 297 4,358,676 Meter B 7,796 49 383,374 59 456,429 68 531,040 87 680,260 263 2,051,222 Meter C 1,886 52 97,352 79 149,407 102 192,119 150 282,882 455 858,159 Meter E 8,337 66 546,466 74 620,787 82 682,531 120 1,001,542 332 2,768,108 MLT Zone (6) 12,225 49 601,206 59 715,771 68 832,775 87 1,066,782 263 3,216,721 Edmonds Zone 13,133 76 994,360 93 1,222,071 108 1,418,831 135 1,767,399 346 4,541,938 LS #1 (7) 7,041 76 533,066 93 655,139 108 760,620 135 947,484 346 2,434,885 Richmond Beach Zone 28,622 46 1,315,255 68 1,938,442 87 2,487,933 125 3,568,814 341 9,772,245 Lynnwood Zone (8) 6,925 76 1 524,316 1 93 1 644,386 1 108 1 748,136 1 135 1 931,932 1 346 1 2,394,919 Notes 1. Values from Table 6.2 2. Value derived from Table 6.3 as modified in Section 6.2.3. An additional allowance of 7% per decade is applied to account for the increased the 1/1 component 3. The values used for Sub -basin Meter 1 are from Meter 1 flow data 4. The values used for Sub -basin Zone 1 are from Meter 2 flow data 5. The values used for Sub -basin Zone 2 are from Meter 2 flow data 6. The values used for Sub -basin MLT Zone are from Meter B flow data 7. The values used for Sub -basin LS#1 are from the Edmonds Meter at the WWTP 8. No Flow data available for Lynnwood Zone, therefore use Edmonds Meter at WWTP Packet Page 167 of 546 Table 6.5 2033 - Flow Projections Average Dry Weather Average Daily Average Wet Weather Maximum Month Peak Day Flow per Flow per Flow per Flow per Flow per Sub -Basins Total Population Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Equivalence (1) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Meter 1 (3) 3,288 53 174,100 62 203,871 67 220,883 90 294,602 232 762,433 Zone 1 (4) 3,831 44 169,981 62 237,328 80 305,142 117 447,787 348 1,332,495 Zone 2 (5) 8,646 44 383,615 62 535,605 80 688,649 117 1,010,571 348 3,007,191 Meter 16,824 54 912,230 78 1,313,118 99 1,668,148 133 2,242,113 320 5,379,691 Meter B 12,925 49 635,623 59 768,139 70 903,474 91 1,174,146 283 3,660,939 Meter C 2,601 52 134,298 82 212,863 107 277,326 159 414,310 493 1,282,548 Meter E 8,937 66 585,777 75 672,938 83 745,348 125 1,119,469 357 3,191,214 MLT Zone (6) 13,253 49 651,727 59 787,601 70 926,366 91 1,203,895 283 3,753,695 Edmonds Zone 14,440 76 1,093,286 95 1,367,198 111 1,603,880 140 2,023,170 371 5,360,647 LS #1 (7) 7,333 76 555,240 95 694,350 111 814,552 140 1,027,493 371 2,722,475 Richmond Beach Zone 39,935 46 1,835,116 70 2,786,399 91 3,625,185 132 5,275,128 369 14,744,535 Lynnwood Zone (8) 7,197 76 544,910 95 681,432 111 799,398 140 1,008,378 371 2,671,827 Notes 1. Values from Table 6.2 2. Value derived from Table 6.3 as modified in Section 6.2.3. An additional allowance of 7% per decade is applied to account for the increased the 1/1 component 3. The values used for Sub -basin Meter 1 are from Meter 1 flow data 4. The values used for Sub -basin Zone 1 are from Meter 2 flow data 5. The values used for Sub -basin Zone 2 are from Meter 2 flow data 6. The values used for Sub -basin MLT Zone are from Meter B flow data 7. The values used for Sub -basin LS#1 are from the Edmonds Meter at the WWTP 8. No Flow data available for Lynnwood Zone, therefore use Edmonds Meter at WWTP Packet Page 168 of 546 Table 6.6 Build Out - Flow Projections Average Dry Weather Average Daily Average Wet Weather Maximum Month Peak Day Flow per Flow per Flow per Population Population Population Sub -Basins Equivalence Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Equivalent Sewer Flow Equivalent Sewer Flow (1) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) (2) (gpd) (2) (gpd) Meter 1 (3) 5,057 53 267,792 63 316,396 68 344,170 92 464,523 243 1,228,304 Zone 1 (4) 5,186 44 230,119 63 326,891 82 424,336 121 629,304 366 1,900,560 Zone 2 (5) 13,041 44 578,610 63 821,933 82 1,066,946 121 1,582,319 366 4,778,754 Meter 20,281 54 1,099,670 80 1,612,604 102 2,066,863 138 2,801,249 336 6,815,764 Meter B 23,916 49 1,176,124 60 1,436,382 71 1,702,177 93 2,233,766 298 7,117,748 Meter C 4,166 52 215,074 84 348,618 110 458,193 166 691,039 520 2,166,871 Meter E 9,886 66 647,948 76 750,279 84 835,293 129 1,274,531 375 3,706,872 MLT Zone (6) 14,948 49 735,122 60 897,792 71 1,063,924 93 1,396,187 298 4,448,858 Edmonds Zone 16,554 76 1,253,366 96 1,586,667 113 1,874,665 144 2,384,863 389 6,445,956 LS #1 (7) 7,838 76 593,424 96 751,230 113 887,587 144 1,129,148 389 3,051,931 Richmond Beach Zone 631527 46 2,919,245 71 4,525,435 94 5,941,682 137 8,727,523 389 24,716,116 Lynnwood Zone (8) 7,650 1 76 1 579,208 1 96 1 733,234 1 113 866,324 1 144 1,102,0981 389 2,978,820 Notes 1. Values from Table 6.2 2. Value derived from Table 6.3 as modified in Section 6.2.3. An additional allowance of 7% per decade is applied to account for the increased the 1/1 component 3. The values used for Sub -basin Meter 1 are from Meter 1 flow data 4. The values used for Sub -basin Zone 1 are from Meter 2 flow data 5. The values used for Sub -basin Zone 2 are from Meter 2 flow data 6. The values used for Sub -basin MLT Zone are from Meter B flow data 7. The values used for Sub -basin LS#1 are from the Edmonds Meter at the WWTP 8. No Flow data available for Lynnwood Zone, therefore use Edmonds Meter at WWTP Packet Page 169 of 546 Table 6.7 City of Edmonds - WWTP Flow Projections 2019 and 2033 2019 2033 Average Maximum Maximum Average Maximum Maximum Sub -Basins Annual (MGD) Month (MGD) Day (MGD) Peak Hour Annual Month (MGD) Day (MGD) Peak Hour (1) (1) (2) (MGD) (2) (MGD) (1) (1) (2) (MGD) (2) MLT Meter at WWTP Meter 1 168,000 237,000 204,000 295,000 Zone 1 195,000 358,000 237,000 448,000 Zone 2 422,000 772,000 536,000 1,011,000 Meter A 1,116,000 1,856,000 1,313,000 2,242,000 Meter B 456,000 680,000 768,000 1,174,000 Meter C 149,000 283,000 213,000 414,000 Meter E 621,000 1,002,000 673,000 1,119,000 MLT Zone 716,000 1,067,000 1 788,000 1,204,000 3,843,000 6,254,000 0 0 4,731,000 7,907,000 0 0 Total MLT Meter Edmonds Meter at WWTP Edmonds Zone 1,222,000 1,767,000 1,367,000 2,023,000 LS #1 655,000 947,000 694,000 1,027,000 1,877,000 2,715,000 0 0 2,062,000 3,051,000 0 0 Total Edmond Meter Richmond Beach Meter at WWTP Richmond Beach Zone 1,938,000 3,569,000 1 2,786,000 5,275,000 1,938,000 3,569,000 2,786,000 5,275,000 Total Richmond Beach Meter Total Flow 7,658,000 12,538,000 0 0 9,579,000 16,233,000 0 0 Total Flow at WWTP Less King County 5,720,000 8,969,000 0 0 6,793,000 10,958,000 0 0 1. Values from Tables 6.4 and 6.5 2. Values for Maximum Day and Peak Hour were derived from the hydraulic model that accounts for short duration storms and flow attenuation Packet Page 170 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER VII — MODEL CONSTRUCTION AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS 7.1 MODEL SOFTWARE A hydraulic capacity analysis of the City's existing sewer network was undertaken with the use of XPSWMM by XPSolutions. This software was selected by the City, and have the following key features and advantages: • It offers dynamic modeling capability. • It uses a stable modeling platform. • License upgrades are available if additional model nodes are required or if models are to be connected. • XPSWMM software's is capable of reading and using GIS data files that facilitates data transfer and has shape file viewing capability. • It is widely used by the modeling community in the region including the author. • Licenses are owned by the author, facilitating multi-user development and review. 7.2 MODEL CONSTRUCTION 7.2.1 Data Sources The following information was obtained for use in constructing hydraulic models of the existing sewer network: • City provided GIS base access system including manhole/points, pipes/links, and lift station information • Lift station as -built, record drawings and plan drawings information were provided to supplement GIS data. • Lift Station data sheets were provided, as shown in Appendix _. Information on planned modifications to the existing sewer network was provided by the District. 7.2.2 Model Coverage The City has 11 defined Sub -basins (Figure 5.1), 10 of which collect and convey flow into the Edmonds WWTP. The model only includes the City's physical system attributes 7-1 Packet Page 171 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN (pipes, manholes and lift stations) that convey flow into the Edmonds WWTP, and does not include physical system attributes conveying flow to the City of Lynnwood WWTP. Pipes, manholes and lift stations included in the model are illustrated in Figure 7.—. The scope of work limited the extent of importing pipes 8-inches and larger, however with the data available in GIS, it was easier and quicker to incorporate all pipes regardless of size. This allows the model to illustrate physical attributes throughout the City's service area. 7.2.3 Modeling of Physical System Features The system data obtained from the City's GIS mapping was imported into the model. Existing City GIS information provided used NAD 1983 datum. Manhole rim elevations were augmented using mapping software ArcGIS ArcMap by utilizing the 2-foot contour elevation attribute information provided by the City. Information was spatially joined to each manhole based upon its geographic locations via 'closest' definition, and software output created a table matching the closest location elevation to the manhole location. Manhole depths, if provided were measured down depth recorded in inches and converted to feet. Manhole inverts were calculated from the difference between spatially joined rim elevations, measure down depths and pipe diameters. Pipe/link information was imported from the existing City GIS. The upstream and downstream inverts were assigned via connecting manhole information, calculated or imported. Insert Figure 7-1 The base physical layout of the model was constructed by importing relevant characteristics using XPSWMM data import function. Table 7.1 shows the data fields used to import the system characteristics into the model's "Node" and "Link" tables. TABLE 7.1 FIELDS FOR BASIC MODEL CONSTRUCTION XP-Fields Definition Node Tables (representing manholes) Node ......................... Manhole Name — District's naming convention used. X-Pos ....................... Geo-location in east -west orientation. Y Pos........................ Geo-location in north -south orientation. Ground elevation ...... Rim elevation for the manhole. Invert elevation ......... Elevation at the bottom of the manhole . Link Tables representing sewer pipes Link ........................... Pipe identification — used the upstream manhole label with a "Y' 7-2 Packet Page 172 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN suffix for the first exit pipe and ".2" or greater suffixes for additional exit pipes from the same manhole. U/S ........................... Upstream manhole reference where the pipe starts. D/S ........................... Downstream manhole reference where the pipe ends. Upstream Invert Level.... ..................... Invert Elevation at start of pipe. Downstream Invert Level......................... Invert Elevation at end of pipe. Diameter ................... Internal pipe diameter. Length ...................... Pipe length — obtained from GIS calculation. Roughness ............... Pipe roughness — a Manning's value of 0.013 was used in all cases. Nodes at the end of the sewer network were designated as outfalls, and a free discharge boundary condition was assigned. City lift stations were modeled as "Multi -Links." The model used the stations' firm capacity (capacity with the largest pump out of service). Modeled pumps were assigned a constant capacity equal to the relevant nominal pump capacity. The storage volume was added at the node representing the lift station wet well and operating levels were entered into the Multi -Link dialog box. Pump station input information collected from the City and King County was entered into the model. Required lift station input data include pump operation point, wet well area geometry per vertical foot, wet well and additional storage volume information. Once the initial data import of existing network information was complete, the following steps were taken to resolve data issues and improve the hydraulic performance of the models: • Estimation of missing invert data. • Review of as -built or design drawings. 7.3 LOADING The model was loaded with peak day flow measured at each meter for the initial model calibration. Due to the location of meters throughout the system, some Sub - basin flow loading was calculated by subtraction of measured flow between two flow meters. Following Sub -basin flow calculations, the total Sub -basin flow was evenly distributed between manholes. Table 7._ illustrates the point loading per Sub -basin. 7-3 Packet Page 173 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Table 7._ Point Loading by Sub -basin Sub -basin Peak Day Flow (MGD) # of points Load/Pt (MGD) Load/Pt (Cfs) Total Load (Cfs) Meter 1 0.555 177 0.003135593 0.004850763 0.858585 Zone 1 1.185 8 0.148125 0.229149375 1.833195 Zone 2 0.112 256 0.0004375 0.000676813 0.173264 Meter A 3.723 6 0.6205 0.9599135 5.759481 Meter B 1.33 2 0.665 1.028755 2.05751 Meter C 0.646 1 0.646 0.999362 0.999362 Meter E 2.441 1 2.441 3.776227 3.776227 MLT Zone 2.553 136 0.018772059 0.029040375 3.949491 Edmonds Zone 3.985 966 0.004125678 0.006382424 6.165421 LS-1 Zone 2.235 821 0.002721797 0.004210619 3.456919 The intent of the loadings into the sewer system is to determine the total flow along the conveyance system and at the WWTP. Some Sub -basins do not have dedicated meters and consequently, it is necessary to subtract flows from upstream and downstream meters to arrive at flows per Sub -basin. The flow swap between the City and King County at the King County Lake Ballinger Pump Station (KCLBPS) is described in Section 3.4.2. Generally flows from the KCLBPS enter the City's system for 15 hours per day. However, there are times when flow to directed simultaneously to both agencies. And lastly, there are times when flow is sent exclusively to only the County's system. To capture the most severe flow scenario, the hydraulic analysis was configured with the assumption that all flow was being directed to and through the City's conveyance system. The area that flows to Lynnwood WWTP (Sub -basin Lynnwood Zone) enters a large diameter interceptor that is owned and maintained by the City of Lynnwood. This interceptor is the backbone of flows entering that plant. The majority of the Edmonds flow enters this interceptor through 8-inch diameter pipes. The remaining Edmonds' flow is collected and pumped through one of six Edmonds -owned lift stations. The hydraulic analysis of the Lynnwood Zone looks at the tributary area to each of these lift stations and applying the peak hour flow estimations to determine the suitability of the pumping capacity. 7.4 MODEL CALIBRATION 7.5 CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND MODEL RESULTS 7-4 Packet Page 174 of 546 Table 7.X Lynnwood Zone Lift Station Analysis 2010 2019 2033 Build Out Current Rated Lift Stations Capacity (gpm @ Population Peak Hour Flow Population Peak Hour Flow Population Peak Hour Population Peak Hour Flow TDH) Equivalent (gpm) (1) Equivalent (gpm) (1) Equivalent Flow (gpm) (1) Equivalent (gpm) (1) LS #4 (2) 1308 gpm @ 164 ft 645 179 675 188 702 195 731 203 LS #9 (5) 332 gpm @ 38 ft 838 233 877 244 912 253 950 264 LS #10 (2) 114 gpm @ 49 ft 204 57 214 59 222 62 231 64 LS #11 (3) 95 gpm @ 73 ft 19 5 20 6 21 6 22 6 LS #12 (3) 308 gpm @ 142 ft 672 187 704 195 731 203 762 212 LS #15 (4) 42 gpm @ 60 ft 22 6 23 6 24 7 25 7 Notes 1) Peak Hour flow rate from DOE Orange Book 2) LS #10 pumps to LS #4 which lifts to the WWTP. 3) LS #11 pumps to LS #12 which lifts to the WWTP. 4) LS #15 pumps directly to the WWTP. 5) LS #9 lifts into the gravity system that enters the Lynnwood Interceptor. Packet Page 175 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER VIII — EDMONDS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 8.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section is to evaluate the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant for its ability to meet treatment objectives over the planning period. The Edmonds treatment plant liquid stream consists of a headworks with three mechanical screens, three rectangular primary clarifiers, three aeration basins, three circular secondary clarifiers, and a chlorine contact tank. The disinfected plant effluent is discharged through a single 36-inch diameter outfall into Puget Sound. The outfall branches into two diffusers, each 160 feet long with diffuser ports at MLLW elevation that ranges from 56 to 73 feet deep. The solids stream includes belt press dewatering and incineration of the sludge cake using a fluidized bed incinerator. A detailed description of the existing facilities is presented in Section 5.4. The original Edmonds WWTP was completed in 1957 to treat 2.0 million gallons per day (mgd). Edmonds expanded the primary plant to a design flow of 4.0 MGD in 1959, and for a third time in 1967, to a design flow of 7.6 MGD, by adding two clarifiers and effluent pumping. The third expansion also included dewatering equipment and an incinerator for solids handling. In 1991 the plant was expanded to secondary treatment with a capacity of 11.8 mgd for maximum month loading. A conventional secondary treatment process was implemented consisting of three aeration basins, three circular secondary clarifiers, and a chlorine contact basin. Additionally, new operations and solids handing buildings were constructed. The Edmonds Plant layout is shown in Figure 5.4. 8.2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS The Edmonds wastewater treatment plant operates under the terms of NPDES Permit No. WA-002405-8 last modified May 9, 2012. A copy of the permit is included in Appendix K. The treatment plant effluent requirements established by the permit are a maximum monthly concentration of 25 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5), 30 mg/L for total suspended solids (TSS) and 200/ 100 mL for fecal coliform bacteria density. CBOD5 and TSS effluent limits are also held to an 85% minimum removal. The facility is subject to whichever discharge limit is more stringent when reporting: concentration mg/L or 85% removal. Based on a maximum month design flow of 11.8 million gallons per day (mgd), the average monthly mass discharge limit of 25 mg/L for BOD5 and 30 mg/L for TSS is 2,460 and 2,952 pounds per day respectively. The permit also limits the chlorine residual concentration to 0.191 mg/L. Packet Page 176 of 546 8 1 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 8.3 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE Figure 8.1 is a plot of the effluent CBOD5 and TSS concentration over the last 10 years. The Edmonds plant is consistently under the monthly average of 25 and 30 mg/L limit for CBOD5 and TSS respectively as stipulated in the NPDES Permit. 35.0 25.0 tuo E N 20.0 3 w N 15.0 s a 0 10.0 5.0 0.0 4- 1/2002 Figure 8.1 Edmonds WWTP - Effluent CBOD5/TSS Conc. +Efluent CBOD f Effluent TSS Effluent CBOD Conc. Effluent TSS Conc. 1/2003 1/2004 1/2005 1/2006 1/2007 1/2008 1/2009 1/2010 1/2011 1/2012 The determination of the effluent mass discharge is calculated by multiplying the concentration times the daily flow: mg). (million gallons lb _ lbs \ L / \ day ) ' 8.34 (—gal) day This formula uses the measured effluent concentrations from limited composite samples and the continuously measured flow values. The results yield the total mass BOD and TSS being discharged from the plant. It should be noted, however, that such calculations tend to over -state the total mass. This is referred to as `flow biasing'. During the wet weather months when extreme flow conditions occur, the extrapolation of those flow conditions throughout the entire month tends to overestimate the total mass discharge. Figure 8.2 is the effluent mass loading. Packet Page 177 of 546 8 Z COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 3,500 3,000 2,500 co 2,000 c 1,500 W T s G 1,000 500 Figure 8.2 Edmonds WWTP - Effluent Mass CBOD5/TSS Efluent CBOD CBOD NPDES limit — 85% NPDES CBOD Limit f Effluent TSS TSS NPDES Limt — 85% NPDES TSS Limit 0 1/2002 1/2003 1/2004 1/2005 1/2006 1/2007 1/2008 1/2009 1/2010 1/2011 1/2012 8.4 NPDES PERMITTED CAPACITY & HISTORICAL LOADING The NPDES permit specifies the permitted capacity of the plant. The Edmonds WWTP is permitted to treat a maximum monthly flow of 11.8 mgd. The "maximum month" criterion is the highest monthly average loading in one calendar year. Section S4.B: Plans for Maintaining Adequate Capacity, states that the City of Edmonds needs to submit a plan and schedule to Ecology to maintain capacity if the influent flow reaches 85% of the design criteria for three consecutive months. When flows reach 10.03 mgd for three months in a row the City will be subject to this condition. There are three parshall flumes that measures flow at the Edmonds WWTP. As stated in Section 3.4.2, the loading to Edmonds has been largely influenced by the flow swapping agreement with King County through the Lake Ballinger pump station. Figure 8.3 shows a plot of the influent flow over the last 10 years. As shown the flows are well below the plant design flow, or the level that would trigger a plant expansion study. Packet Page 178 of 546 8 3 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 14.0 12.0 10.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 T 1/2002 Figure 8.3 Edmonds WWTP - Influent Flow NPDES Limit 85% NPDES Limit 1/2003 1/2004 1/2005 1/2006 1/2007 1/2008 1/2009 1/2010 1/2011 1/2012 Average monthly flows through the 10 year period of record show consistent seasonal patterns. Other than one large event in 2006 the influent flow has been far below the NPDES permit. Past flows look to be approaching the 85% limit but this figure does not reflect the new reciprocating flow agreement with King County concerning the Lake Ballinger pump station. The NPDES permitted average BOD and TSS loading design criteria for the plant in section S4.A is 20,000 and 19,200 Ibs/day respectively for maximum month loads. When BOD loads reach 17,000 pounds per day or TSS loads reach 16,320 pounds per day Edmonds will be subject to the 85% planning criteria. Figure 8.4 shows a plot of the influent mass BOD and TSS over the last 10 years. Packet Page 179 of 546 8 4 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 3 10,000 8,000 s O 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Figure 8.4 Edmonds WWTP - Influent Mass BOD/TSS i Ili 1Wt7VF1X1r'1Fd1Wt =,win mim IU711 IMMMMLILI WIGiLF-J, Influent BOD InfluentTSS -�Mmm 1/2002 1/2003 1/2004 1/2005 1/2006 1/2007 1/2008 1/2009 1/2010 1/2011 1/2012 8.5 VIOLATIONS AND BYPASSES In April 2009 the Edmonds plant received a warning letter from the Department of Ecology (DOE) for being out of compliance with their wastewater discharge permit. The violation was for February 2009 because the discharged TSS did not meet the minimum 85% removal because of some temporary process problems. No further action was taken. Aside from the warning letter, Edmonds has had no violations in the last decade concerning treatment or bypasses. 8.6 FUTURE CAPACITY EVALUATION A capacity analysis has been conducted as part of this comprehensive plan to predict what equipment or processes, if any, are likely to exceed their ability to handle plant flows and loads during the planning period. The capacity analysis is presented as Table 8.1. Taking into consideration the Lake Ballinger pump station flow swap, projections for future flows and loads were made based on predicted population growth for the Edmonds service area. The flow projections calculated for the Edmonds plant gave a maximum monthly flow of 5.72 mgd in the year 2019 and 6.79 mgd in year 2033. Packet Page 180 of 546 8 5 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year 1991 Current Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design Population Equivalent Flow, mgd Average Annual 6.7 9.1 5.79 5.72 6.79 Maximum Month 8.7 11.8 9.66 11.8 8.97 10.96 Peak Hour 31.3 40.0 30.30 28.4 30.6 Max Day 16.8 21.6 21.60 21.5 20.3 21.8 Max flow to secondary 22.9 22.9 22.90 22.9 22.9 BODs, Ibs/day Annual AVG 11,200 15,300 9,611 9,490 11,265 Max Month AVG 14,100 19,200 12,647 20,000 11,744 14,349 Max day 22,400 30,500 16,276 15,275 16,425 TSS, Ibs/day Annual AVG 8,300 11,300 8,051 7,949 9,436 Max month AVG 11,600 15,900 91615 19,200 8,929 10,909 Max day 21,600 29,400 11,321 10,625 11,425 Per Capita, Ibs/cap/day Annual AVG BOD Annual AVG TSS Effluent Limits CBOD5, Ibs/day AVG month, 25 mg/L (NPDES) 2,460 or AVG week, 40 mg/L (NPDES) 3,936 TSS, Ibs/day AVG month, 30 mg/L (NPDES) 2,952 or AVG week, 45 mg/L (NPDES) 4,429 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Monthly geometric mean 200 Weekly geometric mean 400 Chlorine, Ibs/day AVG month (0.191 mg/L, NPDES) 18.8 Max Day (0.442 mg/L, NPDES) 43.5 Headworks Mechanical Bar Screens Number 3 Width, ft 4 Packet Page 181 of 546 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year 1991 Current Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design bar spacing, in Parshall Flumes Number Throat, ft 0.5 3 2 Raw Sewage Pumps Number 4 Type vertical, non -clog Capacity, each, gpm 9,260 HP, each 100 Drive type 2 variable, 2 consant Primary Clarifiers Primary Sedimentation Tanks Number 3 3 3 3 3 Clarifiers 1&2 Width, ft 60 60 60 60 60 Length, ft 60 60 60 60 60 Clarifiers 3 Width, ft 45 45 45 45 45 Length, ft 91 91 91 91 91 Average Depth, ft 10 10 10 10 10 Total Surface Area, square feet 11,295 11,295 11,295 11,295 11,295 Surface Load Rate, gpd/sf Annual Average 593 806 513 506 601 1,000 800 to 1,200 Max month 770 1,045 855 794 970 Peak hour 2,771 3,541 2,683 2,518 2,707 2,500 2,000 to 3,000 Detention time, hrs Annual Average 3.0 2.2 3.5 3.5 3.0 Max month 2.3 1.7 2.1 2.3 1.9 2 1.5 to 2.0 Peak hour 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 Max Day 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 BOD Removal, % Annual Average flow 39% 36% 37% 37% 35% 25 to 40 Maximum month flow 36% 33% 31% 32% 30% Max Day 29% 26% 28% 26% 25% TSS Removal, % Annual Average flow 61% 58% 62% 62% 61% 50 to 70 Maximum month flow 58% 54% 57% 58% 55% Max Day 49% 45% 40% 41% 40% Packet Page 182 of 546 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year 1991 Current Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design Aeration Basins Number Width, ft 3 3 3 3 3 58 75.3 58 75.3 58 75.3 58 58 Length, ft 75.3 75.3 Side water depth, feet 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 Volume total, gal 2,018,892 2,018,892 2,018,892 2,018,892 2,018,892 Contact zone volume, gal 348,000 348,000 348,000 348,000 348,000 CMAS Mode Total Detention Time, hr Annual Average 7.2 5.3 8.4 8.5 7.1 Max month 5.6 4.1 5.0 5.4 4.4 3 to 5 Max Day 2.9 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.2 MLSS Conc, mg/L 1,800 1,800 1,708 1,800 1,800 1,500-4,000 QR/Q, mgd/mgd 0.25 to 0.5 F:M Ratio Annual Average 0.23 0.33 0.42 0.20 0.24 Max month 0.30 0.43 0.46 0.26 0.33 0.2 to 0.6 Max Day 0.53 0.75 0.61 0.37 0.40 SRT, days Annual Average 9.3 6.3 9.4 10.0 8.1 Max month 6.2 4.2 6.9 8.0 6.2 3 to 15 Max Day 2.8 1.9 4.2 4.8 4.4 Oxygen Demand, Ib/hr Annual Average 315 452 278 275 333 Max month 413 591 400 367 463 Max Day 733 1041 537 516 562 Contact Stabilization Mode Contact MLSS Conc, mg/L 1,000-3,000 Contact time, min Annual Average 75 55 87 88 74 Max month 58 42 52 56 46 30 to 60 Peak Hour, w/out bypass 16 13 17 18 16 Peak hour, w/ bypass 22 22 22 22 22 Max Day 30 23 23 25 23 Stabiilization MLSS Conc, mg/L 6,000-10,000 Stabilization time, hrs Annual Average 12.0 8.8 13.8 14.0 11.8 Max month 9.2 6.8 8.3 8.9 7.3 Max Day 4.8 3.7 3.7 4.0 3.7 Peak hour, w/ bypass 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 4 Peak Hour, w/out bypass 2.6 2.0 2.6 2.8 2.6 to Packet Page 183 of 546 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year 1991 Current Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design QR/Q, mgd/mgd Blowers Number 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 to 1.50 4 multi -stage, centrifugal Type Capacity, each, 3,300 HP, each, cfm 250 RAS Pumps Number 4 Type Horizontal, non -clog centrifugal Capacity, each,gpm 2,100 HP, each 25 Secondary Clarificaters Number 3 3 3 3 3 Diameter, ft 90 90 90 90 90 Side water Depth, ft 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 Total surface area, sq ft 19,085 19,085 19,085 19,085 19,085 Surface loading rate, gpd/sq ft/d Annual average flow 351 477 304 300 356 400 to 700 Maximum month flow 456 618 506 470 574 Peak to secondary (w/out bypass) 1,640 2,096 1,588 1,490 1,602 1,000 1,600 Peak To secondary (w/ bypass) 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 to Total weir length, ft Solids loading, Ib/hr/sf Annual average flow 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 Maximum month flow 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.8 to 1.2 Peak hour 1.2 1.57 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.6 Chlorine Contact Chamber Number of Tanks 2 2 2 2 2 Length, ft 251 251 251 251 251 Width, ft 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Side water depth, ft 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 Total volume, gal 320,110 320,110 320,110 320,110 320,110 Dentention Time, min Annual Average 69 51 80 81 68 30 to 120 min 60-120 Maximum month 53 39 48 51 42 Peak hour 15 12 15 16 15 15 to 90 min > 20 Number of Chlorinators Packet Page 184 of 546 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year 1991 Current Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design *including portion of outfall Chlorination Equipment Number of Chlorinators 2 2 2 2 2 Capacity, lb/day 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Cylinder Size, Ibs 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Cylinder Storage Number 8 8 8 8 8 Average Daily Demand, Ibs 380 380 380 380 380 Effluent Pumps Number 5 Type Vertical, mixed flow Capacity, each,gpm 7,000 HP, each 100 Drive type (2) VFD, (3) constant Primary Sludge Production Annual Average 4,627 4,932 5,715 Max month 5,733 6,135 6,328 Sludge avg TS, % 3.44% 2-6% Secondary Sludge Production Annual Average 5,484 5,413 6,631 Max month 8,476 7,780 9,915 Sludge avg TS, % 0.65% 0.5 to 1.5% Primary Sludge and Scum Pumps Number 6 16,243 63,647 Type Air operated, diaphram Capacity, gpm 150 Primary Sludge Storage Tanks Number 1 1 1 1 1 Volume, gal 29,000 29,000 29,000 29,000 29,000 Detention Time, days Annual Average 1.2 1.8 1.7 1.5 Maximum month 0.9 1.5 1.4 1.4 Max day 0.8 0.8 0.8 Mixer type and HP Packet Page 185 of 546 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year 1991 Current Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design Primary Sludge Transfer Pumps Number Type Capacity, gpm 2 Air operated diaphram 150 WAS and Secondary Pumps Number 5 Type Progeressive Cavity Capacity, each,gpm 50 HP, each 5 Drive type Constant WAS Storage Tank Number 1 1 1 1 1 Volume, gal 102,000 102,000 102,000 102,000 102,000 Detention Time, days Annual Average 1.7 1.0 1.0 0.9 Maximum month 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 Max day 0.6 Mixer type and HP WAS Transfer Pumps Number 2 Type Progeressive Cavity Capacity, each,gpm 150 HP, each 7.5 Drive type VFD Belt Filter Press Number 2 2 2 2 Width,ft 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 Capacity, each, gpm 150 Hours operated/Day Annual Average 12 12 12 12 Max month 17 17 17 17 Max Day 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 Loading, gpm, one BP for hours operated Annual Average 108 162 162 197 Max month 116 172 161 200 Max Day 130 173 215 Loading, lb dry solids/hr 509 509 509 Packet Page 186 of 546 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year 1991 Current Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design Incinerator Number Type 1 1 1 1 Fluidized bed Diameter, ft 10 10 10 9.7 10 9.7 Capacity, mmbtu 9.7 9.7 Hours Operated Daily Annual Average 12 12 12 12 Max month 17 17 17 17 Max Day 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 Capacity, Ib/hr 942 Loading, lb dry solids/hrs operated Annual Average 843 862 1,029 Max month 836 819 955 Ash Thickening Number 1 Type gravity Diameter, ft 8 Ash Dewatering Number 1 Type vacuum filter Capacity, Ib/hr 200 Ash Production, cy/d Annual Average 2.1 2.1 2.1 Max month 3.2 3.2 3.2 Max Day 4.0 4.0 4.0 Packet Page 187 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN These projected flows are far less than the overall rated capacity of 11.8 mgd for the plant and do not exceed the 85% criteria (10.03 mgd) within the planning period. The projected maximum month BOD loadings for the plant are 11,744 pounds per day in 2019 and 14,349 pounds per day in year 2033. The BOD loading in 2033 is far less than the 85% design criteria let alone the NPDES permitted limit of 20,000 Ibs/day. The projected TSS Ibs/day maximum month loading for the Edmonds plant is 8,949 and 10,909 Ibs/day, in years 2019 and 2033, respectively. The projected TSS load in year 2033 is less than half of the NPDES permitted limit of 19,200 Ibs/day. In addition to the overall plant capacity analysis, the capacity of the plant's individual unit processes were evaluated against typical design values, as shown in literature that is widely consulted in the wastewater engineering field, including "Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse", by Metcalf & Eddy; "Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants" prepared jointly by the Water Environment Federation (WEF) and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE); and "Criteria for Sewage Works Design" (the Orange Book) by the Washington State Department of Ecology Using these projections the capacities of the unit processes were compared with commonly accepted design values, as shown on Table 8.1. The capacity for the mechanical equipment used was based on the manufacturer's rating and the plant design data. None of the unit processes are projected to be significantly overloaded during the planning period. The only unit process that is not meeting typical design criteria is the chlorine contact chamber detention time. The facility, already aware of this, maintains elevated disinfection levels as explained in the Section 5.4.2. Furthermore, the current operation feeds sodium hypochlorite at the secondary clarifier weir overflow which increases the contact time. 8.7 FUTURE REGULATORY ISSUES FOR WWTP The existing liquid stream processing at the Edmonds facility regularly produces compliant effluent and the capacity of the plant can easily handle the projected flows and loads. However, there are three potential regulatory issues that could impact the plant requirements in the future. The potential regulatory issues are: • Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) Air Emissions • Secondary Treatment Bypass • Total Nitrogen Discharge Limits 8.7.1 Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) - Air Emissions The most pressing issue is the requirement of new sewage sludge incinerator (SSI) air quality standards. On February 21, 2011, the EPA published their newest final SSI Packet Page 188 of 546 8-13 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN emission regulations in the Federal Register Title 40 Part 60, under the provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA), Section 129 "Solid Waste Incineration Units". These new standards supplement the older Clean Water Act (CWA 40 CFR, Part 503) regulations. The new regulations were declared to be effective on May 20, 2011. The regulations dictate different emission limits for new (or substantially modified) incinerators and for existing sewage sludge incinerators; as well as different limits for multiple hearth incinerators and fluidized bed incinerators. Existing SSI units will have 5 years to comply from the effective date of the regulations, or until May 19, 2016. The new CAA regulations will require a Title V air permit. Previous regulations for sewage sludge incinerators (SSI) were based on emission limits established in Title 40 Part 503 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The previous air quality emission limits were as follows, and the City has been in compliance with these limits: • Particulate matter emission limit of 0.18 g/m3 (0.08 grams/cu ft) dry gas at standard temperature and pressure corrected to 12% carbon dioxide. • Beryllium emission of 10 g per 24-hour period. • Mercury emission limit of 3,200 g per 24-hour period. • Lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and nickel feed cake limits based on ambient air quality and health risk specific concentrations. • Total Hydrocarbons monthly average concentration of 100 ppm by volume, corrected to 0% moisture and 7% oxygen. • Carbon monoxide monthly average concentration of 100 ppm by volume, corrected to 0% moisture and 7% oxygen. The new emission limits that apply to the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant are given in Table 8.2 below. The existing SSI regulation is for incinerators that were in operation before the new regulations. New SSI's built, or substantially modified, will be held to more stringent emission limits. Substantial modification includes any revisions to the feed system, reactor, ash system and energy recovery systems; but not the emission control equipment or routine maintenance. In addition to new emission limits, the new regulations will require that compliance tests be conducted annually. The "2007" column in Table 8.2 summarizes data received from the plant for their source emissions evaluation by Am Test -Air Quality, LLC, which was conducted in late May of 2007 and finalized into a report in July 31, 2007. The 2007 evaluation was based on the old regulations, so there are several pollutants (hydrogen chloride, dioxins and furans) that are currently regulated that were not sampled or tested. Packet Page 189 of 546 8-14 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Table 8.2 EPA Emission Limits for Fluidized Bed Incinerators Pollutant Units Existing SSI New SSI 2007 Cd m /dscm @ 7% 02 0.0016 0.0011 0.00031 CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 64 27 1.6 HCI ppmvd @ 7% 02 0.51 0.24 - Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.037 0.0010 0.053 NOX ppmvd @ 7% 02 150 30 24 Pb m /dscm @ 7% 02 0.0074 0.00062 0.180 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ n /dscm @ 7% 02 0.10 0.0044 - PCDD/PCDF, TMB n /dscm @ 7% 02 1.2 0.013 - PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 18 9.6 34.8 S02 ppmvd @ 7% 02 15 5.3 10.5 Where: Cd - Cadmium CO - Carbon Monoxide HCI - Hydrogen Chloride Hg - Mercury NOX - Nitrogen Oxides Pb - Lead PCDD/PCDF - Polychlorinated Dibenzo -P-Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans PM - Particulate Matter S02 - Sulfur Dioxide TEQ -Toxic Equivalency TMB - Total Mass Balance Stack gas emission records are limited. Assuming that this one test is representative of Edmond's sludge, improvements to the existing emission control equipment will be required. However, it should be noted that sludge quality can vary significantly between samples and one sample is not necessarily representative. A significant sampling and testing program is recommended before any modifications are made to the emissions control system. The 2007 report conducted three runs for each of the tests and the sludge was further analyzed during each run. In Table 8.2, the 2007 column has three pollutants that exceed the new regulations for existing SSI's; mercury, lead, and particulate matter. Particulate matter and most metals (except mercury) are removed as solids by the plant's existing Venturi scrubber. Because of its extremely high vapor pressure, mercury is 100% vaporized during the incineration process. so it is not removed by the existing wet scrubber. If mercury cannot be removed by source controls, a new packed -bed carbon scrubber will be required. The particulate matter concentration is above the new regulated threshold. The EnviroCare International VenturiPakTM scrubber system at Edmonds has been widely tested at other locations and generally complies with the new particulate matter regulations for existing incinerators. The VenturiPakT"', if operated optimally, is typically in compliance with the new regulations for existing SSI for Cd, HCI, Pb, PM, and S02. Packet Page 190 of 546 8-15 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN The 2007 concentrations are likely the results of the scrubber system not operating optimally. An evaluation of the system was conducted in 2012 which resulted in a new venturi throat and additional sprays were added. A compliance test was conducted in 2013 and all new standards were met. If further optimization of the existing scrubber is needed to meet the new regulations, then additional treatment to remove small (sub -micron) particulates will be required. EnviroCare makes a wet electrostatic precipitator (StarTm ESP) that can be retro-fit with the existing scrubber. The estimated cost of the retro-fit would be about $0.8 million. A pilot test of this equipment is scheduled in 2013. Lead emissions appear to be very high but this is misleading. The first two emission test runs were in compliance but the third test run was 400 times the concentration of the first two. Considering that the lead concentration in the bio-solids varied by only 9% (at one standard deviation) suggests that the concentration found in the third emissions run was invalid. The skewed emissions test run was perhaps a recording, operations, or lab error but it is not likely representative of typical emission levels. A new stack test would confirm this. Mercury emissions are not reduced by the existing scrubber system and other actions will likely be necessary for lowering this emissions concentration. Edmonds has two choices to control mercury emissions: • Require amalgam separators at dental offices • Implement mercury emission removal equipment Amalgams are the mercury fillings used in dentistry. Requiring dentists in the service area to use amalgam separators would decrease the amount of mercury in the waste stream. Amalgam separators would be preferred for Edmonds because of the costs of mercury removal treatment processes. The City has already begun a campaign to reduce these discharges, but results are not yet known. Mercury emission removal equipment, such as that provided by Kombisorbon® would remove 99% of mercury, dioxins, furans and more. The system works by directing the flume gas through a sulfur impregnated activated carbon filter. The adsorbent (activated carbon) can be divided into several layers and removes mercury in all forms through adsorption and chemical reactions. The removal system includes a dust protection layer to extend the life of the activated carbon. The service life of the dust protection and adsorbent layers is estimated to be 3 to 4 years. A budgetary proposal has been received for the Edmonds facility and the system would cost about $1.4 million. Dust protection and adsorbent material replacement cost is roughly $30,000. Before any actions are further considered Edmonds needs to perform at least one more stack test. The incinerated solids may have changed dramatically due to plant influent changes. The estimated cost to conduct these annual tests is about $25,000. Packet Page 191 of 546 8-16 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 8.7.2 Secondary Bypass The Edmonds treatment plant has the ability to route peak flows around the secondary treatment units (aeration basins and secondary clarifiers). The plant has never used this bypass, and the flow projections shown in Table 8.1 predict that the future peak day flow will not exceed the plant peak day design capacity of 21.5 mgd. Therefore the current permit does not allow for bypassing and blending of secondary effluent. However, for long-range planning purposes this may be necessary in the future. The practice of bypassing peak wet weather flows around secondary treatment processes, and blending the bypass with secondary effluent, has been commonly used in the past throughout the US. In recent years this practice has become more controversial, and the EPA was asked to formalize a bypass regulation that specifically authorizes these bypasses. In December, 2005 the EPA published the provisions that allow for bypasses in the Federal Register at 40 CFR 122.41(m). The key provisions include: • Discharges must meet secondary effluent limitations, including the 85% removal requirement, or any other more stringent requirements that are necessary to meet water quality standards • All flows diverted from secondary treatment units must receive a minimum of primary treatment and any supplemental treatment or technology shown to be feasible. The policy does not authorize diversions around any other treatment units, including primary treatment units • The availability of feasible alternatives will be determined on a plant -by -plant basis, and the authority to bypass the secondary process will be incorporated into the plant's NPDES permit. • The permittee is responsible for submitting a comprehensive analysis of the feasibility of eliminating the secondary bypass • If the DOE determines that there is no feasible alternative to secondary bypass flow diversion, then they may approve secondary flow diversion 8.7.3 Total Nitrogen Discharge Limits Nitrogen is a nutrient which is believed to be one of the main causes of oxygen depletion in South Puget Sound (south of Tacoma Narrows). As a result, the Department of Ecology is conducting a TMDL Study of all of the sources of nitrogen entering Puget Sound (including the effects from discharges north of the Narrows). Ecology is adding nitrogen monitoring requirements to all permits for plants discharging to Puget Sound, in order to gather data for the study. Packet Page 192 of 546 8 17 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Although not imminent, for long-range planning purposes, consideration should be given as to how Edmonds plants would meet a future total nitrogen limit. Total nitrogen (TN) removal is normally accomplished by biological nitrification and de - nitrification, just as carbonaceous BOD removal is currently accomplished in the aeration basins. However, the slower growing nitrifying micro-organisms require about three times the minimum detention time that is recommended for carbonaceous BOD removal. In addition anoxic (without dissolved oxygen) basins are needed to provide biological de -nitrification. De -nitrification is the conversion of nitrates to nitrogen gas through bacteria stripping the nitrates of their oxygen; the nitrogen gas then releases to the atmosphere. The total additional tankage required would be about 6 million gallons. The only space available for new aeration and anoxic basins would be to expand the plant to the parking lot across 2nd Avenue S. east of the facility; which is the facilities property. This site is not large enough to accommodate conventional activated sludge tanks Edmonds other option would be converting the plant's activated sludge process to a membrane bioreactor (MBR) system. This choice is the most logical for plants with space restraints. Whereas conventional activated sludge plants operate at a mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentration of 2,000 to 4,000 mg/L, MBRs operate at a concentration of 8,000 to 12,000 mg/L. This higher concentration reduces the required aeration basin size proportionately, so the required basins would be reduced to about 2.0 million gallons, or about the volume of the existing aeration basins. In addition, with the MBR process the liquid and solids are separated by a membrane, not by gravity settling, so the need for secondary clarifiers is eliminated. This, in turn, would allow space for the required membrane basins and membrane support building. Additionally the MBR plant would have to improve the headworks screening for the MBR system. Screening requirement is 3 mm (1/8") sized openings, current bar screens have 6 mm (1/4") openings. 8.8 PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND ADDITIONAL NEEDS 8.8.1 Improvements since 2006 Comprehensive Plan Since the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, the City has completed or is in the process of completing the following improvements at the WWTP. 1. 2007-Electrical Improvement Project. #C-251 i. Replace the three main switch gear breakers with draw -out style breakers to allow us to service the breakers without a total plant power outage. ii. Add a 600 amp breaker to the "B" side distribution panel for a feeder to the 100 building. Packet Page 193 of 546 8 18 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 2. 2007-MCC Feeder Installation. #M-009 i. Added a new MCC to the 100 building for the new screenings equipment and to move some of the load from the existing MCC due to under size cables between the existing MCC breaker and the MCC bus bars. 3. 2007-Screenings System Improvement. #C-161 i. Replaced the influent bar screens with Headworks bar screens (3). ii. Replaced the screenings pump with two Wemco pumps. iii. Modified the screenings hopper feed water to use raw sewage from the influent pumps iv. Added flow meters on the hopper make up water and the screenings transfer flow. v. Added a JWC Macho Monster grinder between the screenings conveyer and the screenings hopper. vi. Replaced the old screenings de -watering unit with a Headworks washer compactor. 4. 2009-Odor Control Improvement Project. #C-311 i. Install duct work, a VFD controlled fan, and carbon scrubber on the three Aeration Basins. ii. Install duct work, a two speed fan and a carbon scrubber on the secondary clarifier #2. iii. Enclose secondary clarifier #2 iv. Remove the ventilation louvers and the window between the incinerator room and the belt press room. v. Install two fans and duct work to bring outside air into the belt press room. vi. Install a fan and duct work to allow us to route the foul air from the Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) storage tank to the incinerator while the incinerator is running. Or route it to the chemical scrubber when the incinerator is down vii. Added duct work to route the air from the Raw Sludge storage tank through fan #FIC-654. 5. 2009-Secondary Clarifier #2 Refurbishment. #C-316 i. Strip and repaint all the steel in secondary clarifier #2. 6. 2009-Clay Feeder Project. #C-317 i. Install a platform over the Sludge Hopper in the incinerator room. ii. Install a kaolin clay feeder on the platform that will feed Kaolin clay into the sludge hopper. iii. Install a control panel for the feeder with a VFD and timers for the vibrator. Packet Page 194 of 546 8 19 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN iv. This system allows us to control the undesirable effects of high sodium content in the sludge. When we feed clay we can control the melting point of the ash. 7. 2009-Aration Basin Control Up -grade. #M-050 i. Install new Dissolved Oxygen probes on all three Basins. ii. Install new Total Suspended Solids probes on all three basins. iii. Install three instrument transmitters and three radio transmitters on the basins. iv. Install a radio receiver in the CP-301 and hook it into the Programmable Logic Controller (PLC). v. Program the PLC to trend the TSS of the basins. 8. 2010-Energy Efficiency Up -grade. #C-322 i. Replace the course air diffuser in the WAS storage tank with Sanitair membrane style fine bubble diffusers. ii. Replace the centrifugal aeration blower 304 with a high efficiency turbo style blower. 9. 2010-300 PLC Upgrade. #C-328 i. Replace the old Input/Output (1/0) PLC cards with new model cards. 10. 2010-Sludge Pump Replacement. #M-054 i. Replace air operated RAW Sludge Transfer pump #RST-608 with an electric driven duel diaphragm Penn Valley pump. This will save electricity usage by reducing the demand on the air compressors. 11. 2011-Lighting Up -grade. C-366 i. Replace all the florescent lighting and some outside lighting with high efficiency lighting. ii. Install motion sensors in various locations around the plant. 12. 2011-Outfall Diffuser Project. #C-367 i. Have the diffuser orifice plates removed to allow less head lose through the diffusers ii. Perform a new mixing zone analysis. 13. 2012-A Basin Up -grade. #C-365 i. Remove all the diffusers and piping grids in Aeration Basin #1. ii. Install two baffle walls to convert the complete mix basin to a plug flow basin. iii. Install Sanitair's new panel style diffusers. iv. Replace the existing single air control valve to the basin with two control valves, one on each grid section. 14. 2012-VFD Replacement. C-384 Packet Page 195 of 546 8 Z0 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN i. Replace three, obsolete Variable Frequency Drives (VFD) with new VFDs. ii. Install two new VFDs on pumps DSP-615 and BDW-401. 15. 2012-Switch Gear Access Platform. i. Install a platform over secondary clarifier #1 behind the plants main electrical switch gear to allow personnel access to the rear panels of the switch gear. 16. 2012-Fiber Optic Network. C-387 i. Replace the existing plant PLC and SCADA network cables with Fiber Optic cable. 17. 2012-Non-Potable Water Pump Up -grade. C-322 i. Replace one 50 HP non -potable water pump with a 30 HP pump and a VFD. ii. Install a booster pump, in the belt press room, for the high pressure applications, 18. 2012-Hypochlorite Pump Relocation. C-386 i. Relocate the sodium hypochlorite pumps from the hypo room to the caustic storage area down stairs. ii. Install an uninterruptible power supply to the power circuit for the disinfection pumps iii. Add a fourth pump for disinfection. 19. 2012-Roof Replacement. C-383 i. Replace aging roofs on buildings 100, 300, and 600. 20. 2012-Underground Storage Tank (UST) Monitoring Up -grade. i. Up -grade the level indicator on the UST to have the ability to perform statistical inventory control. This will bring us into compliance with the Department of Ecology. ii. Up -grade the leak monitoring system to a more reliable model. 8.8.2 Additional WWTP Improvements Current or future modifications at the WWTP, due to obsolescence, operator preferences, or energy upgrades include the following (refer to Table 9.5): WWTP-1 Variable Frequency Drive Upgrade. Replaces three old drives and installs two new drives WWTP-2 Upgrade Flow Telemetry Equipment to improve data retrieval accuracy. Packet Page 196 of 546 8 21 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN WWTP-3 Switchgear Upgrade. The existing automatic transfer switch is corroded and failing. This improvement will insure reliable emergency power. WWTP-4 Incinerator Testing and Compliance. Install new air emissions and monitoring equipment on the existing incinerator, modify pre -heat burner fuel source from diesel to natural gas and install a secondary heat exchanger to preheat air for plume suppression. WWTP-5 Secondary Clarifier Steel Coating. WWTP-6 Recoat Primary Clarifier #1 Steel Equipment and Concrete Repair. WWTP-7 Install Weir Washers on Secondary Clarifiers #1 and #3. WWTP-8 Chlorine Contact Chamber Inspection and Coating. WWTP-9 Repair Floor in Clarifier 403. WWTP-10 Joint/Concrete Repair. WWTP-11 Control System Upgrades, Phase 1. This work would begin in Building 600. WWTP-12 Energy Project. Replace the water feature pump and install a VFD. Install thermostat and controls on Shop heater. Evaluate replacement of Sludge Pump. WWTP-13 In Plant Hatches. Evaluate the risks and determine the best course of action for each hatch. WWTP-14 Facility Improvements. This would include upgrades and expansion of the facilities, including the Men's Locker room. WWTP-15 Polymer Make up Equipment. Equipment has past its useful life. WWTP-16 Control System Upgrades, Phase 2. This work would begin in Building 600. WWTP-17 Unanticipated Plant and Operational Improvements and Repairs. WWTP-18 Convert 200 HP Blower to Turbo Blower. Energy saving measure. WWTP-19 Upgrade the Control Valve Actuators on the Effluent Pumps. WWTP-20 Upgrade Heat Pumps in Building 700. Energy saving measure. Packet Page 197 of 546 8 22 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN WWTP-21 Screenings Improvements. Evaluate options for better handling of screening materials. WWTP-22 Belt Filter Press Energy Project. Evaluate the best solids handling options to maximize solids capture and cake. WWTP-23 Diesel Day Tank. Obsolete day tank. WWTP-24 Automatic Flow Shearing Process. Energy Saving measure. WWTP-25 Chemical Use Area. Improve access to eyewash and maneuverability. WWTP-26 Electronic O&M Documentation. This will allow linking assets, documents and SOPs to better manage the system. WWTP-27 Convert Aeration Basin #2 to Plug Flow Packet Page 198 of 546 8 23 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER IX — COMPREHENESIVE PLAN AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 9.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS RANKING Three major components make up the Capital Improvements Program (CIP), 1) those reoccurring maintenance issues, 2) that infrastructure that has known deficiencies or integrity issues and 3) that infrastructure that needs to be upsized resulting from population growth and the associated increase in flow values. Together these three components comprise the CIP. The City has an extensive and detailed categorization of the entire system. Each fault/problem was assigned a point value which reflects the City staff's assessment and judgment. The City has three main categories of deficiencies: a) the Red Area, which are chronic O&M issues that require the frequent and repeated attention of the City O&M Staff. The City has identified line segments that require regular flushing. This flushing schedule prioritizes the severity of the condition by the frequency of flushing. The location of these segments is presented in Appendix F.1 and also included in the I&I Study. Reportedly some problem segments have been removed from the trouble list due to actions implemented by the maintenance staff. The source of many of these problems stem from either low flow or grease accumulations. In the latter case, most of the property owners have been notified of pre-treatment requirements and the City's Fats, Oils and Grease policy. b) the Granite system. Areas of know deficiencies have been identified through the City's Granite Software. This is a very comprehensive listing of known problems. These problems are categorized using approximately 28 descriptors. These descriptors have been aggregated into issues that are O&M in nature and which generally are individually minor, but collectively may warrant a CIP. The second Granite category are those CIP that could be rectified using trenchless technologies and the last category are those issues that likely would require major construction including digging up and replacement of the line segment. c) Capacity Issues. With forecasted population and development, the anticipated future flows were applied to the existing piping infrastructure to determine which pipes are currently or, in the future, will be over capacity and surcharging the system. A comprehensive listing of the Capital Improvement Projects considered all three of these factors. Isolated reports of minor faults or problems generally do not warrant a CIP. However, when several reoccurring maintenance issues are found in a single pipe reach, that segment might become a candidate for replacement or repair. Consequently, all faults/problems have been listed by pipe reach to aggregate the 9-1 Packet Page 199 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN problem areas. The detailed presentation of the individual problems is listed in Appendix F (Tables F.1 — Red Areas; Table F.2 — Granite O&M segments; Table F.3 — Granite Known Deficiencies -Trench less; Table FA — Granite Known Deficiencies -Dig up and Replace). The assignment of points is summarized in Table 9 TABLE 9.1 Point Assignment for Capital Improvement Projects Category Red Areas Granite - O&M Granite - Trenchless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity Grease 5 Dirt, Grease, Grit 5 Girt 5 Black Water 5 None 0 Grit, Black Water 5 Grit (a lot) 6 N/A 0 Clean Flume 1 Brush Sensor 1 Depressions in Pipe 4 Problem Laterals - Abandoned 6 Debris and Deposits 0 Grease - Medium 0 Problem Laterals - Connections 5 Medium Root Problems 2 Light Root Problems 1 Roots 1 Joint Gasket Exposed - Severe 2 Problem Joint - Offset Medium 2 Joint Separation - Medium 2 Joint Separation - Small 1 Joint Separation 1 Crack 5 Heavy Root Problem 3 Hole in Pipe - Medium 9 Hole in Pipe - Small 8 Hole in Pie 8 Joint Separated - Large 3 Infiltration in Joint 5 Deformed 7 Broken 4 Broken Hole 4 Pipe Repair 10 Hole in Pipe - Large 10 Joint Offset - Large 3 Capacity 10 9-2 Packet Page 200 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN These point assignments were made to each fault/problem and then summed by pipe segment. Ranking of the most severe segments were done both including and excluding the `Granite -O&M' problems. Both rankings are listed in Appendix F (Table F.6 — All categories and Table F.7 — without Granite O&M). The pipe segment ranking presented in Table 9.2 represents the ranking without the `Granite -O&M' components. It was felt that this ranking best reflects the problems that can be resolved by a CIP project. The exclusion of the `Granite -O&M' problems were viewed to be reoccurring maintenance issues such as flushing and root cutting and were viewed as maintenance issues that are not easily solved with a CIP. Those areas will require continued vigilance and follow up to intercept fats, oils and grease before they enter the City's system. Those problems noted to have `low flow' are typically associated with new developments that have not completely built out. With time, these problems may resolve themselves without a CIP. In addition, there were other Granite descriptors that were entries which were unassociated with any deficiency. These codings included camera out of water, cleanout, continue against flow, continue with flow, continue TV after jetting, end of pipe, end of push camera, end of run, infiltration, inside drop, lateral, outside drop, pipe continue, pipe diameter change, pipe direction change, pipe type, start against flow, start with flow, status, stop, and TV from other end. 9.2 CAPACITY LIMITATIONS IN EXISTING LINES Based on the future estimated population growth presented in Chapter 6 and the flow projections and modeling results found in Chapter 7, certain deficiencies were anticipated in the collection and conveyance system. The population projections and corresponding flow projections were based on four time periods: 2013 (current), 2019, 2033 and build out. The CIP is presented in three time periods: 2013 to 2019, 2019 to 2033 and lastly 2033 to build out. The identification of the capacity issues for each of these three periods is presented in Table F.5 (Appendix F). The line capacity issues together with the other known and scheduled projects and are presented in an expanded CIP for the next six year period in Table 9.3. The more distant CIPs, such as those shown for 2019 to 2033 and 2033 to build out, are based on extended population and flow forecasts and will tend to be less precise. None -the -less, they are presented for informational purposes and as an indicator of future potential capacity issues while providing the level of service presented in Chapter 4. 9-3 Packet Page 201 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # ;ofRun Comments ble CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity TOTAL Multiple locations and/or problems 8-75-8-57 0 38 0 0 38 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-58-8-57 0 30 0 0 30 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-75-8-14 0 0 28 0 28 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-8-11-7 0 26 0 0 26 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-143-12-142 0 25 0 0 25 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-53-9-212 0 25 0 0 25 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-50-8-52 0 15 8 0 23 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-109-12-110 0 20 0 0 20 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-332-8-331 0 20 0 0 20 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-224-9-202 10 10 0 0 20 Multiple locations and/or problems 1-55-1-52 0 0 20 0 20 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-84A-12-83 0 5 14 0 19 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-101-12-95 0 5 14 0 19 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-49-12-50 0 8 10 0 18 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-22-13-22A 0 18 0 0 18 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-6813-8-68 0 17 0 0 17 Multiple locations and/or problems 12N-79-13-65B 0 3 14 0 17 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-107-8-106 0 10 6 0 16 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-79-7-80 0 15 0 0 15 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-285-8-284 0 15 0 0 15 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-126-12-125 0 15 0 0 15 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-9-7-10 0 14 0 0 14 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-134-12-132 0 14 0 0 14 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-132-12-131 0 14 0 0 14 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-299-9-298 0 3 10 0 13 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-248-12-247 0 13 0 0 13 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-136-8-137 0 12 0 0 12 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-363A-9-363 0 12 0 0 12 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-3-14-3A 0 9 3 0 12 Multiple locations and/or problems 2-113A-2-113 0 11 0 0 11 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-133-12-134 0 0 10 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-66-14-65 0 10 0 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-135-8-316 5 5 0 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 1-36A-1-36 0 0 10 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-114-8-113 0 0 10 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-240-8-239 0 10 0 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-59-8-58 0 10 0 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-65-14-64 0 0 10 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-50-7-52 0 10 0 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 3-12F-3-12E 0 0 10 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-97-8-98 1 0 10 0 0 10 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Hole in Pipe - Large 12-105M-12-10 EV.3 0 0 10 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-106-12-107 0 10 0 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-107-12-108 0 10 0 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-128-12-127 0 10 0 0 10 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Pipe Repair 12-181-12-182 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-185D-12-130 0 10 0 0 10 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Pipe Repair 12-42-12-43 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Pipe Repair 12-57-12-58 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Pipe Repair 12-71-12-73 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Pipe Repair 12-73-12-75 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-93-12-90 0 10 0 0 10 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Pipe Repair 13-65A-12-7 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 PIPE REPAIR Metro Pipe Repair 14-73-14-72 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Pipe Repair 16-128-16-129 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 Granite O&M 116 176 0 12 5 4 34 5 5 4 0 10 2 0 0 2 0 6 30 5 0 15 2 0 6 0 14 8 0 1 16 16 9 5 5 5 5 4 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Packet Page 202 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # ;ofRun Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity ARL— TOTAL Granite O&M PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Pipe Repair 16-133-16-134 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 0 PIPE REPAIR Metro Pipe Repair 16-27-16-31 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 0 PIPE REPAIR Lift Station 12 Pipe Repair 1-79-1-78 8 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 0 BREACH Lift Station 4 Hole in Pipe - Large 2-64B-2-68 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 0 PIPE REPAIR Lynnwood WWTP Pipe Repair 3-65-3-66A 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 0 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Pipe RepaiMW- Multiple locations and/or problems 7-3913-7-39C 7-76-7-75 0 F.3 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-77-7-76 0 10 0 0 10 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-243-8-242 0 10 0 0 10 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-280-8-281 0 10 0 0 10 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-287-8-286 0 10 0 0 10 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-303B-8-303D 1 0 10 0 0 10 0 PIPE REPAIR Storm Lines 0 0 10 0 10 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-98-8-99 0 10 0 0 10 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-59A-8-59 0 9 0 0 9 13 Multiple locations and/or problems 2-29-2-28 0 5 4 0 9 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-35-7-33B 0 5 4 0 9 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-71-8-72 0 9 0 0 9 5 BREACH Metro Hole in Pipe -Medium 10-3-10 4 0 MEDIUM F.2 0 9 0 0 9 0 BREACH Lift Station 12 Hole in Pipe -Medium 1-16-1-20 0 MEDIUM F.2 0 9 0 0 9 0 BREACH Lift Station 1 Hole in Pipe - Medium 8-245A-8-245 0 MEDIUM F.2 0 9 0 0 9 0 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Hole in Pipe - Medium 9-301-9-300 0 MEDIUM F.2 0 9 0 0 9 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-59-9-60 0 5 4 0 9 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-68-8-68A 0 8 0 0 8 31 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-6-11-5 0 8 0 0 8 6 Multiple locations and/or problems 10-6-10-5 0 8 0 0 8 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-29-14-28 0 8 0 0 8 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-225-9-224 0 8 0 0 8 2 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Hole in Pipe - Small 12-200-12-112 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-51-8-11 0 5 3 0 8 0 BREACH Lift Station 4 Hole in Pipe - Small 2-89-2-88 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 0 BREACH Lift Station 1 Hole in Pipe - Small 4-186-4-185 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 0 BREACH Lift Station 1 Hole in Pipe - Small 5-269-5-267 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 0 BREACH Lift Station 1 Hole in Pipe - Small 8-202-8-201 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 0 BREACH Lift Station 1 Hole in Pipe - Small 9-80A-9-80 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 0 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Hole in Pipe - Small INLET-7-61 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-78-8-77 0 3 4 0 7 15 BREACH Lift Station 12 Deformed 1-11-1-15 0 F.3 0 0 7 0 7 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 3-66E-3-66D 0 3 3 0 6 8 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-122-5-121 0 0 6 0 6 2 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-85K-8-85F 0 6 0 0 6 1 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-105N-12-105M 0 0 6 0 6 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-113-13-112 0 6 0 0 6 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-52A-4-53 0 0 6 0 6 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-175-8-174 1 1 0 3 3 0 6 0 1048 Walnut Street Grit (a lot) 8-2A-8-2 205 Conc 16 0 0 0 6 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-2D-8-2B 0 6 0 0 6 0 942 Alder Street Grit (a lot) 8-30-8-31 275 Conc F.1 6 0 0 0 6 0 10th at Alder Street Grit (a lot) 8-31-8-32 336 Conc F.1 6 0 0 0 6 0 Alder St at Yost Park Grit (a lot) 8-328-8-2 265 Conc F.1 6 0 0 0 6 0 1053 Alder Street Grit (a lot) 8-32A-8-32B 55 Conc F.1 6 0 0 0 6 0 10th Ave South at Walnut St Grit (a lot) 84-8-3 335 Conc F.1 6 0 0 0 6 0 935 Walnut Street Grit (a lot) 8-5-8-4 260 Conc F.1 6 0 0 0 6 0 8620 Maplewood Lane Grit (a lot) 9-139-9-137 155 Conc F.1 6 0 0 0 6 0 7122 210th Street Grease 10-23-10-25 283 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 0 Packet Page 203 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # ;ofRun Comments ble CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity ARL— TOTAL Multiple locations and/or problems 8-77-8-76 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-76-8-75 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-260-5-344 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-261-5-260 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-37-7-36 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-34-7-30 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-46-7-47 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-112-8-117 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-262A-9-262 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-150-5-336 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-95-12-94 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-72-8-73 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-139-12-138 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-16-12-17 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 2-91-2-90 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-65-7-66 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-101A-8-100 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 1-31-1-30 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-7-14-7A 5 0 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-38-7-36 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-178A-8-177A 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-30-8-29 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-51-8-50 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-273A-9-273 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-72-12-71 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-331-8-330 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-226-12-225 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-71-12-89 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 16-9-16-8 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 3-131-3-132 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-524-52A 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-299-5-300 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-281-8-282 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-117-9-116 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-264-9-266 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Metro Crack 10-10-10-7 1 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-1-11-2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 11-1A-7-39A 0 Circular- Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 11-3-11-2 0 1 Circular- Narrow F.2 1 0 5 0 0 5 9223 216th Street Black Water 12-156-13-96 380 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 1153 8th Ave S. Grit, Black Water 12-189-12-190 c/o 120 9W Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 1115 8th Ave S. Grit, Black Water 12-191-12-189 285 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 736 Fir Street Black Water 12-192-12-191 20 Conc FJ, 0 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 12-196-12-198 1 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 12-24-12-23 2 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 12-249-12-248 0 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 12-37-12-38 0 Longitudinal - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 12-55-12-56 0 Longitudinal - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 12-8-12-6 1 Longitudinal - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Metro Crack 13-20-13-15 0 1 Longitudinal - Wider F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Red Area Jetting a est 21808 Highway 99 Grease Black Water 14-22-14-24 360 Conc F.1 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 21309 76th Ave W (Drop MH) 1WGrit, Black Water 14-40-9-254 330 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 215th At 72nd Black Water 14-6-14-7 260 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 741h at 228th St Grease 14-65-14-66 320 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Packet Page 204 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # ;1t5ce Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity TOTAL 72nd Ave W. at 215th St Black Water 14-7A-14-7B Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 BREACH Metro Crack 16-103-16-106Circular-Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 240th at 78th Ave W Black Water 16-76-16-77 160 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 240th St and 78th Ave W Grit, Black Water 16-77-16-65 275 Cone FA 5 0 0 0 5 BREACH Metro Crack 17-31-17-28 1 Longitudinal - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Metro Crack 17-63-17-64 0 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 23819 76th Ave W Black Water 17-72-MairM F.1 5 0 0 0 5 23821 76th Ave Grease 17-73-17-69 232 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 BREACH Metro Crack 17-78-17-82 0 Longitudinal - Wider F.2 0 5 0 0 5 76th Ave W. at 242nd St Black Water 17-81-17-80 360 Cone FA 5 0 0 0 5 24122 76th Ave W Black Water 17-82-17-81 105 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 BREACH Lift Station 4 Crack 2-83-2-82 0 Longitudinal - Wider F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Lynnwood WWTP Crack 3-109B-3-109A 0 Circular -Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Lynnwood WWTP Crack 3-1H-3-3A2 0 1 Circular - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 VV Dirt, Grease, Grit - - - F.1 5 0 0 0 5 BREACH Lift Station 1 Crack 4-124-4-123 0 Circular - Wider F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Lift Station 1 Crack 4-217A-4-217 0 Longitudinal - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Dr. at 78th Ave W Lift Station 1 1111111§13lack Water Crack 7 5-263-5-262 200 1 Multiple - Narrow F.1 F.2 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 5 BREACH Lift Station 9 Crack 5-299-5-300 1 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH LynnwoodWWTP Crack 5-319-5-320 0 Circular - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 7601 OVD Post Office Grit 5-325-5-328 350 Cone FA 5 0 0 0 5 18209 76th Ave West Grit 5-325-5-511-11 80 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Admiral Way at Dayton Grease 7-11-7-10 80 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Admiral Way Grease 7-3-7-2 425 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Admiral Way Grease 7-4-7-3 380 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Admiral Way Grease 7-5-74 380 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Admiral Way Grease 7-6-7-5 280 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Admiral Way at West Dayton Grit 7-6-CO 125 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 BREACH Lift Station 1 Crack 7-75-7-74 1 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Admiral Way at Dayton Grease 7-7-7-11 37 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Admiral Way Grease 7-7-7-6 35 Cone ii=lil FA 5 0 0 0 5 BREACH Lift Station 1 Crack 8-189-8-194 0 Spiral - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Lift Station 1 Crack 8-206-8-205 0 Longitudinal - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Lift Station 1 Crack 8-219H-8-219G 0 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Lift Station 1 Crack 8-286-8-285 0 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 1033 Walnut Street Grit 8-3-8-2A 130 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 8-74-8-75 4 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 7th Ave at Edmonds St 000F Black Water 8-99-8-101A 207 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 PROBLEM JOINTS Lift Station 1 Infiltration in the Joint 9-136-9-136A N/A Medium F.2 0 5 0 0 5 8705 Maplewood Lane 9W Grit, Black Water 9-137-9-138 340 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 8610 Main Street Grit 9-16-9-19 178 Cone FA 5 0 0 0 5 PROBLEM JOINTS Lift Station 1 Infiltration in the Joint 9-170-9-172 N/A Light F.2 0 5 0 0 5 8610 Main Street Black Water 9-19-9-20 56 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Pine Ridge Park Black Water 9-202-9-201+ 165 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Bpind Ridge Park Black Water 9-202-9-224 503 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Pine Ridge Park Black Water 9-20-9-202 430 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 76th at 212th Street S.W. Grease 9-254-9-255 305 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 9-274-9-275 0 Circular- Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 7703 203 Street SW Grit 9-314-9-313 310 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 BREACH Lift Station 9 Crack 9-326-9-327 1 Longitudinal - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 7804 200th Street Black Water 9-347-9-346 130 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 7907 200th Street (Drop MH) Black Water 9-348-9-347 400 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 7726 202 Place ANNELL, Grit, Blac Multiple locations and/or problems - - - 8-203-8-202 350 1 Conc 5 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 5 4 Granite O&M 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Packet Page 205 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # ;ofRun Comments ble CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity EL TOTAL Multiple locations and/or problems 11-23A-11-21 0 0 4 - 0 4 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-7G-14-7F 0 0 4 0 4 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-17-8-18 0 0 4 0 4 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-115-8-219H 0 0 4 0 4 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-162-8-161 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Broken Hole 12-178-12-179 0 F.3 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Broken 12-212-12-211 0 F.3 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Broken 12-269C-12-269D 0 Soil Visible - Large F.3 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Metro Broken 13-14-13-13 0 F.3 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Metro Broken 14-28-14-27 0 Soil Visible - Large F.3 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Broken 154E-15-4C 0 Soil Visible - Small F.3 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Lift Station 3 Broken Hole 4-75-4-74 0 F.3 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Broken Hole 7-39C-7-40 0 F.3 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Broken 8-22-8-21 0 Soil Visible - Medium F.3 1 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Broken 8-337-8-336A 0 Soil Visible - Medium F.3 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Lift Station 1 Broken 8- -350 0 Void Visible - Medium F.3 0 0 4 0 4 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-21A-13-21 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 542-541 0 0 3 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-246-12-243 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-10513-12-105A 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-196-4-200 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-135-5-134 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-49-7-49A 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 2-112-2-111 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-243-12-241 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-289-12-288A 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-56-14-62 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-148B-5-149 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-8E-13-166A 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 3-109H-3-109G 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-141-4-142 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-249-8-265 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-276-9-277 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Metro Heavy Root Problem 10-19-10-19B 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Edmonds WWTP Heavy Root Problem 12-159-12-160 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Edmonds WWTP Heavy Root Problem 12-293-12-293A 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Edmonds WWTP Heavy Root Problem 13-63B-13-63C 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-19-14-18 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 15-1 B-15-1C 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Edmonds WWTP Heavy Root Problem 15-313-15-3A 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Metro Heavy Root Problem 16-25-16-26 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Lift Station 10 Heavy Root Problem 2-113E-2-113 1 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Lynnwood WWTP Heavy Root Problem 3-103-3-105 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 PROBLEM JOINTS Lynnwood WWTP Joint Offset- Large 3-66A-3-66 N/A Large F.3 0 0 3 0 3 ROOTS Lynnwood WWTP Heavy Root Problem 3-84A-3-85 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Lift Station 1 Heavy Root Problem 4-144-4-145 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 PROBLEM JOINTS Lift Station 10 Joint separated - Large 4-3-2-113B N/A F.2 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Lift Station 1 Heavy Root Problem 5-30-5-28 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Lift Station 1 Heavy Root Problem 5-37-5-38 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 PROBLEM JOINTS Lift Station 7 Joint Offset - Large 7-11-7-7 N/A Large F.3 0 0 3 0 3 ROOTS Lift Station 1 Heavy Root Problem 8-207-8-206 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 PROBLEM JOINTS Lift Station 1 Joint separated - Large 8-346-8-343 N/A F.2 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-181-9-182 0 0 3 0 3 ROOTS Lift Station 9 Heavy Root Problem 9-341-9-340A 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Lift Station 9 Heavy Root Problem 9-342-9-341 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Packet Page 206 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # Distance of Run ft Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity TOTAL PROBLEM JOINTS Edmonds WWTP Joint Offset- Large 9-349-9-350 N/A Large F.3 0 0 3 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 17-61-17-84 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-78-7-79 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-267-5-261 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-3-84 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-52-8-59 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 146-145 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-60-4-62 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-UNK 1-8-330A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 10-27-10-28 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-182-8-179 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-73-8-74 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-1-8-1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-4-14-49 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-67-14-66 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 17-23-17-39 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-21A-8-51 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 743-740 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-61-7-60 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-81-7-82 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-178-8-177A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-31-8-30 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-78-8-244 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-334B-5-334A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-66-8-327 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-83-7-84 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-269-8-267 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-54-8-56 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-34-14-33 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-18-8-55 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-9A-7-35 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-4-8-5 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-60-8-59A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-87-8-86 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-54-12-53 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-109-8-193 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-121-12-119 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-123-12-121 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-13-12-14 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-14-12-15 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-156-12-155 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-87-12-86 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-166A-13-166 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-81A-13-81B 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-7L-14-7B 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-156-5-151 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-56-7-55 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-167-8-165 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-257-8-257A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-291A-8-291 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-298-8-297 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-329A-8-329 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-5-8-6 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-155-8-352 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-347-9-348 0 0 0 0 0 Granite O&M 116 28 28 25 24 23 0 19 19 18 18 17 16 16 16 16 16 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 Packet Page 207 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # ;ofRun Comments ble CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity ARL— TOTAL Multiple locations and/or problems 12-102-12-101 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-28-8-2 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-157-13-156 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-56-13-57 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 3-94-3-93 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-325-5N-11 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-7-5-8 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-197-8-199 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-70-8-71 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-99-8-316 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-175-9-177 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-20-9-19 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-314-9-366 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-364-9-363 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-175-12-146 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 16-106-16-110 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 16-59-16-60 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-131-4-100 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-134-4-133 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-291-8-283 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-43-844 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-135-12-134 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-160-12-149 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-208-12-207 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-287-12-286 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 16-37-16-38 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 2-27-2-25 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-30-4-28 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-14-5-15 0 0 0 0 0 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-246-5-245 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-74-5-72 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-265-8-266 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-55-8-55A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-11-9-10 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-26213-9-262A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-273-9-274 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-287-9-286 0 0 0 0 0 ondsWWTP Probl rals-Connections 11-2-11-7 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-21A-11-21 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 11-7-11-9 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-111-12-68 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-119-12-117 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-124-12-123 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-125-12-123 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-127-12-125 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-129-12-127 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-137-12-136 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-144-12-146 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-144-12-146 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-147-12-148 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-148-12-141 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-151A-12-151 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-154-12-153 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-17-12-18 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Granite O&M 116 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Packet Page 208 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # ;N/A Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity TOTAL Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-209-12-207 F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-2-12-1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-46-12-46A N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-47-1249 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-5-12-2 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-6-12-5 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-69-12-67 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-74-12-73 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-90-12-87 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-94A-12-94 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-98-12-96 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Problem Laterals - Connections 13-146-13-145 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 13-87-13-88 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Problem Laterals - Connections 1-39-1-38 N/A F.1 Lateral Bloc 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 13-99-13-98 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Problem Laterals - Connections 14-47-1448 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Problem Laterals - Connections 14-70-14-69 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 15-3C-15-3B N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Problem Laterals - Connections 16-99-16-102 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Problem Laterals - Connections 1-9-1-9A N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 4 Problem Laterals - Connections 2-131-2-132 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 3-130-3-129 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 3-157-3-156 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-110-4-109 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 4-119-4-121 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 4-13-442 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 4-171-4-173A N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 3 Problem Laterals - Connections 4-58-4-59 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 3 Problem Laterals - Connections 4-62-4-63 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-113-5-111 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-137-5-136 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 5-160-5-159 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-239-5-238 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-240B-5-240A N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 9 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-309-5-304 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 5-324-5-324A N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-55-5-54 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-67-5-66 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-81-5-80 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-87-5-86 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 10 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-88G-5-88E N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 7-59-7-57 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-60-7-56 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 7-69-7-70 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 7-80-7-61 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-150-8-149 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-160-8-159 N/A F.1 Lateral Bloc 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-163-8-162 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-165-8-164 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-172A-8-172 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-183-8-182 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-188B-8-188A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-195-8-196 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-255-8-254 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-257A-8-254 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Granite O&M SOL- 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Packet Page 209 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # Distance of Run ft Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity ARL- TOTAL Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-285-8-284 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-28-8-27 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-303-8-303A N/A F.1 Lateral Bloc 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-32-8-31 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-335-8-UNK 1 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-35-8-36 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-53-8-54 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-55A-8-57 N/A F.1 Lateral Bloc 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-59-8-58 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-64-8-63 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-64B-8-64A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-159-9-158 1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP PR5510111 LIMMIMTRIMMIM1 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 9-235-9-235A N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 9-242-9-241 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Problem Laterals - Connections 9-259-9-251 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Problem Laterals - Connections 9-262C-9-262B N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP N/A F.1 Lateral Bloc 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-270-9-308 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-289-9-290 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 9-36-9-37 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 10-25-10-26 0 F.1 Camera Uni 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-14A-11-14 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 11-15-11-14 0 F.1 Camera U 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-23C-11-21 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-5-11-3 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 12-109A-12-111 0 F.1 Camera Unq 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-140-12-139 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 12-149A-12-149 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 12-180-12-181 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-182A-12-215 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 12-185F-12-185A 108 F.1 W 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-185G-12-185F 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 12-189-12-191 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 12-190-12-189 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-19-12-28 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 111111111V 12-204-12-203 0 F.1 Sag 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-250-12-249 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 12-26-12-24 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 13-120-13-121 11 F.1 Sag 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-22A-13-22B 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 13-36-13-35 5 F.1 Sag 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 13-39-13-37 12 F.1 Sag 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 13-4A-13-4 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 13-57-13-59 14 F.1 Sag 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 13-59-13-60 F.1 Sag 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 14-11-14-10 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 14-16-14-11 9999694824 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 14-21-14-4 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Depressions in Pipe 1-43-1-24 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-35-14-34 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 14-38-14-37 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 14-3E-14-3F 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 4-46-14-METER 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 14-48-14-50 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Granite O&M SOL- 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Packet Page 210 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # ;ofRun Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity ARL- TOTAL Metro Depressions in Pipe 14-49-14-49D F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0Metro Depressions in Pipe 14-69-14-68 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 16-101-16-102 3 F.1 Sag 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 16-57-16-75 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-19-17-23 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-38-17-37 4 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-39-17-46 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-46-1747 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-47-17-48 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-48-17-59 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-60-17-61 45 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 17-75-17-78 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-77-17-78 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-84-17-85 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-85-17-86 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-86-17-87 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-87-17-88 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-88-17-89 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-95-17-94 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-96-17-95 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-97-17-96 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-98-17-97 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 2-113-2-112 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Depressions in Pipe 2-47-249 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Depressions in Pipe 3-12-2-2 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 3-1 D-3-2G 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Depressions in Pipe 3-23-3-24 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Depressions in Pipe 3-2H-3-21 24 F.1 Sag 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Depressions in Pipe 3-8-3-9 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-100-4-100A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-132-4-131 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-163-4-162 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 3 Depressions in Pipe 4-65-4-67 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 3 Depressions in Pipe 4-70A-4-71-LIFT 3 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pipe 4-79-4-78 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-86-4-85 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Depressions in Pipe 5-144-5-145 1 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Depressions in Pipe 5-177-5-176 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Depressions in Pipe 5-187-5-191 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Depressions in Pipe 5-195A-5-196 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 9 Depressions in Pipe 5-283-5-288 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 9 Depressions in Pipe 5-300-5-301 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Depressions in Pipe 5-321A-5-322 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Depressions in Pipe 5-322-5N-2 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 9 Depressions in Pipe 5-334A-5-334 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 7-23-7-53D 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 7-30C-7-30 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 7-32C-7-32D 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 7-47-7-50 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 7-48-747 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-123-8-120 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pipe 8-147-8-146 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pipe 8-22213-8-222A 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-250-8-249 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 2 Depressions in Pipe 8-296-8-297 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Granite O&M 116 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Packet Page 211 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # ;fR Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity TOTAL Multiple locations and/or problems 8-29-8-43 0 0 0 0 0Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pipe 8-303D-8-303C F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-311-8-312 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-321-7-72 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pipe 8-340-8-339 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 8-34-8-35 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 8-37-8-39 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-39A-8-41 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 8-49-8-53 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-81 B-8-81 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 8-89-8-108 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 8-91-8-106 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pipe 9-100-9-101 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pipe 9-120-9-121 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pipe 9-137-9-139 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-157-9-156 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-188-9-189 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-193-9-196 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-19-9-18 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-201-9-202 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-202-9-20 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 9-253-9-254 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-271-9-270 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-274A-9-274 15 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-279-9-278 16 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-319-9-319A 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-321-9-322 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-346-9-347 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pipe 9-55A-9-55 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-12-11-11 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-78-12-77 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-67-13-66 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-8A-13-8B 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 2-84-2-83 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 3-109G-3-109F 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-137-4-133 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-140-4-139 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-9-4-7 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-278-5-271 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 744A-8-331 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-46A-7-46 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-185-8-186 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-244-8-243 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-289-8-288 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-41-8-42 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 846-847 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-86-8-112 1 0 0 0 0 0 Words WWTP Medium Root Problem 11-10-11-9B 0 FA 1 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-14-11-13 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-23B-11-21 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Edmonds WWTP Problem Joint- Offset Medium 12-153-12-150 12-266-12-265 0 N/A F.1 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Medium Root Problem 12-288-12-287 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP IMediurn Root Problem 12-33-1211 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-89-12-88 0 0 0 0 0 Granite O&M 116 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Packet Page 212 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # ;OAce Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity ARL— TOTAL Edmonds WWTP Joint Gasket Exposed - Medium 13-100-13-98 F.1 Medium 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Medium Root Problem 13-112-13-114 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Medium Root Problem 13-8D-13-8C 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Medium Root Problem 13-9A-13-166A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Medium Root Problem 14-44-14-43 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 16-108-16-109 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Problem Joint - Offset Medium 16-116-16-98 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 17-15-17-16 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Medium Root Problem 17-44-17-46 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 10 Medium Root Problem 2-109-2-108 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 2-31-2-32 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Multiple locations and/or problems 3-121-3-120 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 3-121-1-3-121 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 3-21-3-2J 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP roblem Joint- Offset Medium 3-60-3- F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Root Problem 4-133-4-13 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-138-4-137 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Root Problem 4-143-4-150 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Root Problem 4-210-4-213A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Root Problem 4-40-4-39 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 3 Medium Root Problem 4-56-4-57 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Medium Root Problem 5-149-5-150 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-195-5-195A 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Medium Root Problem 5-217-5-216 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-281A-5-278 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 9 Medium Root Problem 5-317-5-316 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 9 Medium Root Problem 5-330E-5-330D 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Root Problem 5-38-5-39 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Root Problem 5-79-5-70 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 10 Medium Root Problem 5-88A-5-88B 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 onds WWTP Multiple locations and/or problems 7-44-7-44A 7-64-7-62 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-86-7-87A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-101 B-8-101A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-13-8-21A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-172J-8-172F 0 0 0 0 0 TI Station 1 Edmonds WWTP Medium Root Problem Problem Joint - Offset Madium 8-18A-8-18 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-193-8-192 0 0 0 0 0 n 1 Multiple locations and/or problems 6A 8-21-8-21A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-2-8-2A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-288-8-287 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-2A-8-3 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-316-8-135 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-317-8-316 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-324-7-68 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-44-8-45 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Root Problem -111-8-189D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Joint- Offset Medium 9-184-9-185 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Medium Root Problem 9-185-9-186 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Medium Root Problem 9-222A-9-227 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-84-9-83 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Meters IWorner of Hwy 99 and 224th St Clean Flume 14 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Granite O&M 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 Packet Page 213 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # Distance of Run ft Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity ARL- TOTAL Miscellaneous Meters 22304 Hwy 99 Clean Flume 14 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Meters Edmonds Way Robinhood Lanes Brush Sensor 15 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Meters 244th and Hwy 99 - NW Corner Clean Flume 16 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Meters Denny's on SR 104 and Hwy 99 Clean Flume 17 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Meters Old Ballinger Pump Station Clean Flume 17 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Meters East Side, NE Corner of Ballinger PS Clean Flume 17 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Meters Ballinger Golf Course at 74th Ave Clean Flume 17 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 11-19-11-18 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-108-12-109 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-12-12-13 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-151-12-22 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-163-12-162 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-165-12-164 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-18OA-12-180 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-18-12-19 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Joints - Offset 12-2041-12-204H F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Joints - Offset 12-204J-12-2041 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Joint separated - Small 12-207-12-206 N/A F.1 Small 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-217-12-216 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-22-12-20 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-234B-12-234A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-284F-12-284 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-70-12-69 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Roots 12-84-12-84A 42 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Root Problem 13-133-13-134 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Roots 13-139-13-142 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Joint- Offset Small 13-55-13-56 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Root Problem 13-8-13-813 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 13-89-9-11 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Root Problem 14-33-14-32 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Root Problem 14-7C-14-7A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 15-1C-15-2 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Roots 15-3A-15-2A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Joint separated - Small 16-115-16-116 N/A F.1 Small 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Root Problem 16-32-16-33 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 16-33-16-36 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Root Problem 16-4-16-3 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Root Problem 16-46-1647 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Root Problem 16-54-16-57 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Root Problem 16-91-16-103 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Roots 17-24-17-25 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Roots 17-25-17-26 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Roots 17-55-17-58 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Roots 17-57-17-58 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 10 Problem Joint - Offset Small 2-111-2-110 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 4 Roots 2-90-2-89 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Light Root Problem 3-133-3-134 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Problem Joint- Offset Small 3-140-3-137 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Problem Joint- Offset Small 3-162-3-163 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Light Root Problem 3-63-3-64 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Problem Joint - Offset Small 3-8F-3-8A N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 4-109-4-108 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 4-115-8-219H 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 4-145-4-143 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 4-170-4-171 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Packet Page 214 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # Distance of Run ft Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity TOTAL Granite O&M Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 4-186A-4-186 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 4-212-4-213 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 4-221-4-220 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 3 Light Root Problem 4-45-4-46 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 3 Light Root Problem 4-46-4-47 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 3 Light Root Problem 4-69A-4-70 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 5-118C-5-118B 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 5-123-4-186A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lynnwood WWTP Light Root Problem 5-13-5-12 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 5-141A-5-141 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lynnwood WWTP Light Root Problem 5-194-5-195 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lynnwood WWTP Light Root Problem 5-218-5-210 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 5-252A-5-252B 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 5-264-5-263 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 9 Light Root Problem 5-299-5-300 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lynnwood WWTP Roots 5-324A-5N-3 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 9 Light Root Problem 5-330-5-329 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 5-344-5-345 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Roots 5-52-5-51 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lynnwood WWTP Light Root Problem 5-75-5-74 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 10 Roots 5-8813-5-88C 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 10 Light Root Problem 5-89-5-99 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 7-62-7-61 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 7-82-7-83 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 7-85-7-86 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-102-8-101 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-137-8-292A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-152-8-150 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-172K-8-172G 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-177-8-176 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-187A-8-187 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-188A-8-188C 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Roots 8-189B-8-189A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-209-8-210 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-219A-8-219C 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-239-8-238 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Roots 8-246-8-247 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-254-8-253 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Joint Separated 8-263-8-252 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Problem Joint - Offset Small 8-273-8-272 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 2 Light Root Problem 8-294-8-295 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-323-8-321 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 8-69-8-70 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-95-8-96 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 9-134-9-136 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 9-177-9-158A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 9-22513-9-225 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Edmonds WWTP Problem Joint- Offset Small 9-235A-9-235B N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Edmonds WWTP Problem Joint- Offset Small 9-23513-9-217 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 9-237-9-236 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-273C-9-273B 0 0 0 0 0 1 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 9-360-9-346 6 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Problem Joints - Offset 9-44-9-43 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 9-85-9-86 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Metro Light Root Problem INLET-13-167 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Packet Page 215 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # Distance of Run ft Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity Am TOTAL Lake Ballinger Way and 205th St Clean Flume F.1 0 0 0 - 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 10-4-10-5 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Debris and Deposits 11-18-7-33 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Debris and Deposits 12-100-12-99 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Debris and Deposits 12-10-12-11 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Debris and Deposits 12-144-12-146 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Debris and Deposits 12-177-12-176 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-292-12-293 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Debris and Deposits 13-236-9-250 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Debris and Deposits 13-47-1346 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 9126 Bowdoin N/A 13-C/O C/O PVC F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Debris and Deposits 1-51-1-50 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Debris and Deposits 1-57-1-56 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Debris and Deposits 16-39-1640 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 240th At Highway 99 None 16-60-16-59 330 Cone F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Debris and Deposits 16-65-16-77 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Debris and Deposits 1-67-1-66 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Debris and Deposits 16-82-16-83 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Debris and Deposits 16-95-16-96 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Debris and Deposits 17-43-1742 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 PIPE REPAIR Lift Station 12 Pipe Repair 1-75-1-74 4 F.3 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Debris and Deposits 2-11-2-10 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 4 Debris and Deposits 2-62-2-63 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Joint Gasket Exposed - Light 3-89-3-72 N/A F.1 Light 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Debris and Deposits 4-135-4-136 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Debris and Deposits 4-34-4-36 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Debris and Deposits 4-39-4-41 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-72A-4-72 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Debris and Deposits 4-83-4-82 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Debris and Deposits 4-98-4-97 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Debris and Deposits 5-164-5-163 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 8015 196th St SW 5-334A CO to main 60 PVC F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Debris and Deposits 7-33-7-32 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Debris and Deposits 7-39A-7-39B N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Debris and Deposits 8-291 B-8-291 A N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 7th Ave at Sprague St None 8-316-8-99 290 Cone F.1 0 0 0 0 0 7th at Edmonds St None 8-99-8-98 102 Cone F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Debris and Deposits 9-247-9-248 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Debris and Deposits 9-272-9-271 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 1DebrIs and Deposits 1 9-62-9-61 1 N/A I I F.1 I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Granite O&M Packet Page 216 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 9.3 BASIS FOR CIP COSTS ESTIMATES Construction cost estimates were prepared for most of the CIP projects listed in Table 9.3. Documentation for these estimates can be found in Appendix E. Those projects that do not have supporting cost estimates are based on actual bid amounts or detailed cost estimating done during the design phases. Certain assumption needed to be made in terms of quantities and unit prices. Those assumptions are presented below. Several unit price items were used to determine the cost estimates. Quantities were estimated for each item and unit prices were estimated from recent bid results. An estimated construction cost was developed for each project including contingencies and sales tax. Total project costs were then estimated for each improvement. All costs are 2013 dollars and summarized on Table 9.3. CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES -ASSUMPTIONS • 10% of the construction costs are Mobilization. • Traffic control at $5/LF of mainline sewer. • Trench dewatering estimated at $5/LF. • Sheeting, shoring and bracing estimated at $5/LF. • Saw cutting along both sides of the trench estimated to be required for the entire length of the mainline sewer. • Pavement removal is limited to a trench width of 60 inches, plus an allowance of 12 inches on both sides of the trench, for a total width of 84 inches. • Temporary sewer bypass estimated to be $5/LF for all cut and cover installations. • Import trench backfill is estimated based on the assumption that 50% of all excavation will require imported material. Maximum width is 60 inches and an average depth of 8 feet. • Crushed surfacing, base course is assumed to be 8 inches deep and a maximum pay width of 84 inches. 9-19 Packet Page 217 of 546 TABLE 9.3 Capital Improvements Projects Sub- Basin Description CIP No. Figure Reference See Appendix A Base Year Cost (2013 dollars) See Appendix E pp Previously Spent 2013 Cost 2013 Cost Basis Basis 2013 2014 01 2016 2018 2019 2012-2019 Total 2019-2033 Total 2033- Buildout Collection System $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 PUMP Collection System Subtotal STATIONS PS # 1 PS # 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 PS#3 $0 PS # 4 $0 PS#5 $0 PS # 6 $0 PS#7 $0 PS # 8 $0 PS#9 $0 PS # 10 $0 PS # 11 $0 PS # 12 $0 PS # 14 $0 PS # 15 $0 Edmond Pump Station Subtotal WWTP Variable Frequency Drive upgrade WWTP-1 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 Upgrade Flow Telemetry Equipment WWTP-2 $25,000 $25,000 Switchgear Upgrade WWTP-3 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 Incinerator Testing and Compliance WWTP-4 $240,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $200,000 $2,440,000 Secondary Clarifier Steel Coating WWTP-5 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $135,000 Recoat Primary Clarifier #1 Steel Equipment/Concrete Repair WWTP-6 $75,000 $75,000 Install Weir Washers on Secondary Clarifiers #1 and #3 WWTP-7 $100,000 $100,000 $200,000 Chlorine Contact Chamber Inspection and Coating WWTP-8 $250,000 $250,000 $500,000 Repair Floor in Clarifier 403 WWTP-9 $200,000 $200,000 Joint/Concrete Repair WWTP-10 $100,000 $100,000 Control System Upgrades Phase 1 WWTP-11 $100,000 $100,000 Energy Project WWTP-12 $20,000 $20,000 Packet Page 218 of 546 TABLE 9.3 Capital Improvements Projects Sub- Basin Description Iffil CIP No. Figure Reference See Appendix A Base Year Cost (2013 dollars) See Appendix E pp Previously Spent 2013 Cost 2013 Cost Basis Basis 2013 2014 01 2016 2018 2019 2012-2019 Total 2019-2033 Total 2033- Buildout In Plant Hatches WWTP-13 $10,000 $10,000 Facility Improvement WWTP-14 $500,000 $500,000 Polymer Make Up Equipment WWTP-15 $80,000 $80,000 Control System Upgrades Phase 2 WWTP-16 $75,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $225,000 Unanticipated Plant and Operational Improvements/Repairs WWTP-17 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $400,000 $500,000 $750,000 $1,850,000 Convert 200 HP blower to Turbo Blower WWTP-18 $400,000 $400,000 Ugrade Control Valve Actuators on Effluent Pumps WWTP-19 $35,000 $35,000 Upgrade Heat Pumps in Building 700 WWTP-20 $50,000 $50,000 Screenings Improvements WWTP-21 $25,000 $100,000 $125,000 Bilt Filter Press Energy Project WWTP-22 $50,000 $500,000 $550,000 Diesel Day Tank WWTP-23 $6,000 $6,000 Automatic Flow Shearing Process WWTP-24 $35,000 $35,000 Chemical Use Area WWTP-25 $25,000 $100,000 $125,000 Electronic O&M Documentation WWTP-26 $50,000 $25,000 $75,000 Convert Aeration Basin #2 to Plug Flow WWTP-27 $300,000 Subtotal EDMONDS WWTP $0 $2,070,000 $1,825,000 $2,005,000 $661,000 $725,000 $1,050,000 $1,050,000 $9,386,000 $0 $0 TOTAL COST #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #RENNI Packet Page 219 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN • Crushed surfacing, top course is assumed to be 4 inches deep and a maximum pay width of 84 inches. • HMA is based on a maximum thickness of 3 inches applied over a width of 84 inches for the entire length of all mainline sewers. • Restoration is based on 5% of the construction subtotal. • Cleanup and testing is based on 5% of the construction subtotal. • Manholes - It is assumed that the terminal manholes will be salvaged and only the intermediate manholes will be replaced or modified. • Lift station rehabilitation assumes that no excavation will be necessary and that the needed increase in the capacity can be accomplished with pump and motor changes, and electrical revisions. ALLIED AND OTHER COSTS — ASSUMPTIONS • 40% contingency to address pre -design level of cost estimating. • 9.0% State Sales Tax. • 12% of the estimated construction cost is for engineering design, survey, geotechnical investigation and permits. • 7% of the estimated construction cost is for construction services. • 2% of the estimated construction cost is for District Administration. • 1 % of the estimated construction cost is for legal. 9.4 CIP - CAPACITY ISSUES AND OTHER PROJECTS — 2013 TO 2019 9.5 CIP - CAPACITY ISSUES — 2019 TO 2033 9.6 CIP - CAPACITY ISSUES — 2033 TO BUILD OUT 9-24 Packet Page 220 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 9.7 CMOM The EPA has issued draft regulations implementing the Capacity, Management, Operations, and Maintenance (CMOM) program. CMOM requires the development of facility maintenance plans, tracking of asset condition, establishing level of service and performance goals. Key requirements are outlined below: 1. Capacity Assurance Plan • evaluate existing system; • identify capacity deficiencies; • establish short and long-term remedies to capacity deficiencies. 2. Management Program • specify program goals; • establish organizational structure • legal authority (e.g. service agreements) to manage flow; • establish program measures and ranking of O&M activities based on current capacity and structural deficiencies. • audit documentation of changes in system condition and performance • establish standards and requirements for new construction as well as rehabilitation and repair. 3. Overflow Response Plan (ORP) • steps to respond to SSO's and to implement response plan 4. Audit Operations and Maintenance performance • initial assessment of O&M activities; • establish performance goals, measures and priorities • perform periodic audits to identify progress and required revisions to the program. The City Staff has utilized an asset tracking system called Granite. This system is a data management system that chronicles the condition of all known problem segments in the City. This data is included in Appendix F. This data was integrated into the CIP listings in this chapter. 9.8 WASTEWATER REUSE RCW 90.48.112 requires consideration of reclaimed water in wastewater plans. Although the law does not specifically require implementation of a reclaimed water alternative, it strongly encourages it. RCW 90.46.005 states in part that to the extent that reclaimed water is appropriate for beneficial uses, it should be so used to preserve potable water for drinking purposes. 9.9.1 Regulatory Requirements 9-25 Packet Page 221 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Beneficial use of reclaimed water for irrigation of crops, supplemental stream or wetland flow enhancement, groundwater recharge, toilet and urinal flushing, etc. requires treatment to reclamation and reuse standards, which are more stringent than the conventional secondary standards required for surface water disposal using an outfall. The added treatment facilities required include effluent coagulation, filtration, additional disinfection and more treatment facility redundancy and reliability requirements. The use of reclaimed water is permitted in the State of Washington, and is jointly regulated by the State Departments of Health (Division of Drinking Water); and Department of Ecology. The "State of Washington Reclamation and Reuse Standards", September, 1997 (Publication #97-23) provides the guidance for acceptable reclaimed water treatment and use. Under all reuse options, the proposal must demonstrate the beneficial uses being made of the reclaimed water. Membrane Bio-reactors (MBRs) are not specifically mentioned in this publication, though it has generally and widely been adopted as an acceptable treatment process meeting reuse standards. The State Reclamation Standards define four levels of treatment required depending on the final use of the reclaimed water. Class A reclaimed water is the highest quality and can be utilized for any of the permitted uses. In addition to conventional secondary activated sludge treatment (oxidation and sedimentation), Class A reclaimed water requires coagulation, filtration, and disinfection to less than 2.2 total coliform per 100 ml, which is a very stringent disinfection standard. The MBR treatment process (with disinfection) will also produce Class A reclaimed water (with added disinfection), because the coagulation occurs within the activated sludge process itself and filtration is provided through the fine pore membranes. Classes B, C, and D reclaimed water do not require filtration, and Class C and D have less stringent disinfection requirements. Use of these classes is generally restricted to irrigation of non-food crops (such as forest land) with restricted public exposure. Because the most logical uses of this reclaimed water involve irrigation of golf courses and public parks, which are subject to human exposure, treatment to Class A reclaimed water standards is recommended. In addition, the reclaimed water must be reliably generated. Emergency storage or alternative discharge options must be provided for upset conditions. Excess flow will continue to be discharged to Puget Sound. The standards also require automatic alarms, treatment unit redundancy, and qualified operations staffing. 9.9.2 Potential Uses and Demand While reuse of reclaimed wastewater treatment plant effluent is becoming more and more common, the demand for year-round reclaimed effluent in the Pacific Northwest is 9-26 Packet Page 222 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN very limited, particularly in a suburban setting. Nevertheless, the City has made accommodations for use of reclaimed water at the WWTP. In assessing the potential use of Class A reclaimed water, sites were identified for irrigation and/or industrial, commercial and public use. Irrigation can include parks, commercial nurseries, golf courses, and cemeteries. Industrial uses of reclaimed water can include boiler feed, cooling, process water, sewer flushing, and processing plant wash down. There were no industrial sites identified in the City's service area. Thus, the main uses of reclaimed water from the WWTP would be irrigation of open access areas. Based on the water use records, the following are the top six users and their annual water usage. Rank Name Customer Type Annual Volume, MG Average Daily, gpd 1 2 3 4 5 6 Table 9.4 provides a rough estimate of the total potential peak reclaimed water demand from sites in the vicinity (within two miles) of the WWTP. Table 9.4 Potential Application Sites for Reclaimed Water Site Name Criterion Total estimated quantity Estimated (irrigable) quantity available Reclaimed water application , rate (gpd/ac) average/peak Day Average seasonal demand for reclamation (mgd)2 Peak day demand for reclamation 2 (mgd) gpd/acre = gallons per day per acre. 9-27 Packet Page 223 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 2 mgd = million gallons per day 3 Irrigable acreage based on field estimation; 25% total acreage = irrigable acreage in parks; 100% total irrigatable acreage in golf course. 4 Total landscape area 5 Number of trucks for average seasonal usage = 2 trucks per day, versus 4 trucks for peak day usage The peak day demands for reclaimed water are based on all potential nearby irrigation users. 9.9.3 Reclaimed Water Treatment Facilities at WWTP Effluent Quality The effluent produced by the City's WWTP would likely require an effluent filiter added to the last stage of a secondary treatment process and disinfected using a hypochlorite system will meet the bacteriological limit of 200 MPN of fecal coliform per 100 ml of sample based on the Class C reclaimed water standard. This system can be designed within the space constraints at the WWTPs. It is assumed that the reclaimed water will be pumped to off -site irrigation users, such as golf courses and parks and that no on -site storage will be provided. 9.9.4 Reclaimed Water Conveyance and Distribution Conveyance Alternatives Conveyance of reclaimed water by pumping and hauling by tanker trucks are two common practices. The practicality of conveyance using either method depends on the quantity of reclaimed water to be conveyed and the transport distance. Due to the residential location of the plant and the impracticality of hauling reclaimed water, only pumped conveyance via pipeline has been considered for irrigational uses. Truck hauling could be considered for other general uses, such as sewer flushing, street washing, dust control, roadside planter watering, etc. Conveyance and Distribution Facilities The conveyance of reclaimed water from the WWTP would require a pump station and xxxx feet of x" diameter force main. 9.9.5 Economic Analysis of Reuse A present worth factor of 12.46 based on 5% interest rate and 20-year project life is used for economic analysis. Estimated Capital Cost of Treatment and Conveyance 9-28 Packet Page 224 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Site work $100,000 Chlorine contact channel modification 300,000 Sodium hypochlorite storage and metering pumps 100,000 Reclaimed water booster station 300,000 Conveyance 500,000 Distribution 200,000 Subtotal $1,500,000 Contingencies (a)- 40% 600,000 Subtotal $2,100,000 State Sales Tax (a)- 9.0% 187,000 Total Construction $2,287,000 Engineering @ 12% $274,000 Construction Management @ 7% 160,000 District Administration @ 2% 46,000 Legal (a)- 1 % 23,000 Total Capital $2,790,000 Amortized Annual Capital Cost $224,000 Estimated Annual O&M Cost of Treatment and Conveyance Treatment & Conveyance Chemicals $6,000 Electricity 5,000 Equipment maintenance and replacement 12,000 Labor 15,000 Total Annual O&M Cost $38,000 Total Annual Cost $262,000 Based on an average usage of 0.53 mgd, the annual total Hof consumption is 193.5 million gallons or 258,600 ccf. At $2/ccf, the annual of cost of water is $517,000. The saving in using reclaimed water would be $255,000 per year. 9.9.6 Satellite Reclaimed Water System A satellite (scalping) reclaimed water facility could be designed and constructed to produce Class A reclaimed water for irrigational uses. A present worth factor of 12.46 based on 5% interest rate and 20-year project life is used for economic analysis. Estimated Capital Cost of Treatment and Conveyance Land $500,000 9-29 Packet Page 225 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Site work 100,000 MBR plant 3,500,000 Conveyance 500,000 Distribution 200,000 Misc 100,000 Subtotal $4,900,000 Contingencies 40% 1,960,000 Subtotal $6,860,000 State Sales Tax (@- 9.0% 611,000 Total Construction $7,471,000 Engineering @ 12% 897,000 Construction Management @ 7% 523,000 District Administration @ 2% 149,000 Legal (a)- 1 % 75,000 Total Capital $9,115,000 Amortized Annual Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost of Treatment and Conveyance Treatment Chemicals Electricity Equipment maintenance/replacement Membrane replacement Diffuser replacement Labor Total Conveyance $6,000 44,000 24,000 35,000 3,000 60.000 $192,000 Electricity $4,000 Equipment maintenance/replacement 8,000 Labor 7,000 Total $19,000 Total Annual O&M Cost of Treatment and Conveyance Total Annual Cost Based 7WMn average usage of 0.52 mgd, the annual total 189.8 million gallons or 253,700 ccf. At $2/ccf, the annual of The subsidy needed to meet the amortization and O& $732,000 $211,000 $943,000 M 9-30 Packet Page 226 of 546 AM-5819 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Mike De Lilla Department: Engineering Committee: Finance Subject Title Adoption of revenue bond ordinance and resolution. Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Tyne: Action Information Recommendation Forward item for approval to the June 18, 2013 Council meeting. Previous Council Action None. 7. C. Narrative The ordinance provides for the sale of a revenue bond for the water, sewer and storm utilities. Repayment of the bond will be over a 20 year period. The bond will be wrapped with the existing 2011 revenue bond so that payments will be consistent over the next 20 years. A copy of the draft ordinance will be available at the committee meeting. Inbox Reviewed By Engineering Robert English Public Works Kody McConnell City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Final Approval Date: 06/07/2013 Form Review Date 06/06/2013 12:07 PM 06/06/2013 12:31 PM 06/06/2013 01:34 PM 06/06/2013 05:35 PM 06/07/2013 08:39 AM Started On: 06/04/2013 08:09 AM Packet Page 227 of 546 AM-5806 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Mike De Lilla Department: Engineering Committee: Finance Subject Title Discussion regarding future city utility rate adjustments. Recommendation None. Previous Council Action None. Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Tyne: Information Information 7. D. Narrative The City of Edmonds operates and maintains water, sewer, and storm/surface water utilities. Staff will review the present and future challenges of operating and maintaining each system and discuss strategies regarding future rate adjustments to support each program. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 06/05/2013 04:44 PM Public Works Phil Williams 06/05/2013 05:44 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/06/2013 10:13 AM Mayor Dave Earling 06/06/2013 10:28 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 06/06/2013 11:27 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 05/29/2013 09:59 AM Final Approval Date: 06/06/2013 Packet Page 228 of 546 AM-5730 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Phil Williams Submitted By: Kody McConnell Department: Public Works Committee: Finance Tyne: Action Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign acceptance of additional Coordinated Prevention Grant Funding. 7. E. Recommendation It is recommended that the Mayor be authorized to sign an amendment accepting additional Coordinated Prevention Grant funding. Previous Council Action On January 23, 2012, the Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Recycling Grant Agreement between the City of Edmonds and the Washington State Department of Ecology for 2012-2013. Narrative The City's recycling coordinator implements a solid waste prevention program primarily funded by a Department of Ecology Coordinated Prevention Grant. The Department of Ecology has raised the City's grant share for this agreement by $5,730 to a total of $40,074. In order to accept this additional grant award, the City's enterprise utility fund will need to expend $1,910 to match the additional award. Fiscal Year: 2013 Fiscal Impact Revenue: $5,730 Fiscal Impact: No impact on General Fund. Expenditures are from enterprise utility fund. Edmonds 2013 CPG Amendment Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Kody McConnell Final Approval Date: 06/06/2013 Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 06/06/2013 11:13 AM Dave Earling 06/06/2013 11:23 AM Sandy Chase 06/06/2013 11:27 AM Started On: 05/07/2013 08:35 AM Expenditure: $1,910 Packet Page 229 of 546 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. G1200260 I' �A'/_*&IM 111 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND CITY OF EDMONDS Amendment Purpose: This amendment will increase the state grant share to cover staff time for full implementation of the Public Outreach and Education Task, described in the agreement scope of work. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED that the agreement is amended as follows: 1. The total maximum eligible cost for this agreement increases by $7,640 from $45,792 to $53,432. 2. The state grant share for this agreement increases by $5,730 from $34,344 to $40,074. 3. The revised budget for this agreement is as follows: CATEGORY -TOTAL CATEGORY COST CURRENT BUDGET: AMENDMENT BUDGET CHANGES: TOTAL MAXIMUM ELIGIBLE COST: Waste Reduction and Recycling $45,792 +/$7,640 $53,432 1. Public Outreach and Education $45,792 +/$7,640 $53,432 TOTAL MAXIMUM ELIGIBLE COST $45,792 +/$7,640 $53,432 FUND SOURCE: (LTCA) Maximum Eligible Cost: $53,432 FUND GRANT PERCENT (%) STATE GRANT SHARE Local Toxics Control Account (LTCA) 75 % $40,074 MATCH REQUIREMENT MATCH PERCENT (%) LOCAL SHARE Cash Match 25 % $13,358 4. The effective date of this amendment is January 1, 2013. Page 1 of 2 Packet Page 230 of 546 Agreement No. G 1200260 Coordinated Prevention Grant Program City of Edmonds 5. All other terms and conditions of the original agreement and any amendments remain in full force and effect IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby execute this Grant Amendment: STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Laurie G. Davies Program Manager Waste 2 Resources APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY Assistant Attorney General CITY OF EDMONDS Date Authorized Official Print Name of Authorized Official Title Date Packet Page 231 of 546 Page 2 of 2 AM-5823 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Committee: Finance Subject Title April 2013 Monthly Financial Report Recommendation N.A. For informational purposes only. Previous Council Action N.A. Narrative Submitted By: Sarah Mager Tyne: Information Attachments Al2ri12013 Monthly Financial Report Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Finance Cone City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Sarah Mager Final Approval Date: 06/05/2013 Information Date 06/04/2013 12:50 PM 06/04/2013 03:32 PM 06/04/2013 03:37 PM 06/05/2013 03:09 PM Started On: 06/04/2013 12:36 PM 7. F. Packet Page 232 of 546 E �� of 0 APRIL 2013 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Ins. 1$90 General Fund activity through April brought a deficit of $2.3 million to fund balances, while the first quarter brought a deficit of $4.2 million. The general fund deficit change from March to April is due mainly to tax revenue received in April. Several specific revenue line items are tracking ahead of budget so far through April. These include Natural Gas Tax (45% of budget), Electric Utility Tax (43% of budget), Gas Utility Tax (46% of budget), Amusements (72% of budget), Franchise Fees (average of 42% of budget), General Business License (84% of budget), Non -Resident Business License (69% of budget), and Real Estate Excise Tax (48% of budget). At the end of April, 33% of the year had expired. Overall, General Fund expenditures are on track with 34% of budget spent to date. Salaries and Wages for all departments are at 33% of budget, and Overtime is at 25% of budget. General Fund 14 12 $11.02 10 $8.70 8 �1 ❑General � c 0 6 Fund 4 2 Dec2012 Mar2013 ADr2013 1 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES GENERAL FUND BALANCES FUND ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2012 Q1 4/30/2013 Q1 YTD 001-General Fund $ 4,829,369 $ 956,051 $ 2,880,308 $ (3,873,318) $ (1,949,061) 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 387,319 294,688 266,128 (92,631) (121,191) 011-Risk Management Fund 244,000 - - (244,000) (244,000) 012 -Contingency Reserve Fund 5,283,425 5,284,522 5,284,868 1,097 1,443 013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD 55,859 55,859 55,859 (0) (0) 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 1,064 945 955 (119) (110) 016-Building Maintenance 213,999 213,551 213,495 (448) (504) Total General Fund $ 11,015,035 $ 6,805,616 $ 8,701,611 $ (4,209,419) $ (2,313,424) Packet Page 233 of 546 APRIL 2013 DASHBOARD YEAR TO DATE TREND COMPARED TO PROJECTIONS REFERENCE GENERAL FUND REVENUES General Fund Revenue Positive 21.66% Page 9 Sales & Use Tax Revenue Positive 2.59% Page 10 Gas Utility Tax Revenue V Negatived -13.64% Page 10 Telephone Utility Tax Revenue Neutral 110 1.05% Page 11 Electric Utility Tax Revenue Neutral 110 1.59% Page 11 EXPENDITURES General Fund Expenditures Page 12 NON -GENERAL FUND REVENUES Real Estate Excise Tax Positive 65.97% Page 9 Key to revenue trend indicators: Positive =Positve variance of> 2% compared to projections. 44 Neutral 110, =Variance of -1 % to +2% compared to projections. Warning =Negative variance of-1% to 4% compared to projections. TNegativeT =Negative variance of >-4% compared to projections. 2 Packet Page 234 of 546 GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW Combined governmental fund activity through April brought a deficit of $834,065 to fund balances. The General Fund was responsible for a deficit of $2.3 million, the special revenue funds for an increase of $1.5 million, and the remaining was due to an increase of $5,923 in the debt service funds. Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group Governmental Fund Balances - Combined 14 18 12 $14.56 $11.02 $13.72 10 $11.74 $g 70 General 12 c 8 Fund c o — $6.81 (Special 6 Revenue $5.00 Debt 6 4 Service $3.53 2 - . 2 $0.02 Dec2012 Mar2013 Apr2013 Dec2012 Mar2013 Apr2013 3 CHANGE IN FUND FUND BALANCES BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2012 Q1 4/30/2013 Q1 YTD General Fund $ 11,015,035 $ 6,805,616 $ 8,701,611 $ (4,209,419) $ (2,313,424) Special Revenue 3,530,072 4,921,020 5,003,508 1,390,948 1,473,436 Debt Service 11,014 16,935 16,937 5,921 5,923 Governmental Funds $ 14,556,121 $ 11,743,571 $ 13,722,056 $ (2,812,550) $ (834,065) Packet Page 235 of 546 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW Activity in all special revenue funds year-to-date brought an increase of $1.5 million. The graph below shows the total fund balances for all nineteen special revenue funds as of December 2012, March 2013, and the current ending balance as of April 2013. Special Revenue Funds 6 $4.92 $5.00 5 4 N 0 3 Specia I Revenue 2 1 Dec2012 Mar2013 Apr2013 4 FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- Special Revenue Packet Page 236 of 546 ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW Utility Fund Activity through April brought a deficit of $285,103 in the Enterprise Funds. Enterprise Funds- Fund Balances 70,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 4 40,000,000 3,942,247 30,000,000 20 000 000 EA MUMA It, 421- Water Utility Fund 43,056,304 —Q-422-Storm Utility Fund 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 10,000,000 22,592 26 7,792,880 Dec 2012 Ma r 2013 Apr 2013 ENTERPRISE FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2012 Q1 4/30/2013 Q1 YTD 421 - Water Utility Fund $ 12,322,592 $ 12,698,431 $ 12,682,626 $ 375,839 $ 360,034 422 - Storm Utility Fund 7,552,075 7,800,453 7,792,880 248,378 240,805 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 43,942,247 43,697,210 43,056,304 (245,037) (885,943) Enterprise Funds 1 $ 63,816,914 $ 64,196,094 $ 63,531,811 1 $ 379,180 $ 285,103 Enterprise Fund Balances as of April 30, 2013 $47,800,000 $37,800,000 $27,800,000 $17,800,000 $7,800,000 $(2,200,000) Water Utility Fund Storm Utility Fund Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 9 5 Packet Page 237 of 546 SUMMARY OVERVIEW At the end of April, 33% of the year had expired. Year-to-date activity brought a deficit of $872,736 to the City - Wide fund balances, bringing the total to $84.2 million. Of the year-to-date deficit, a deficit of $822,140 was generated by governmental funds, a deficit of $210,813 was generated by Enterprise (Utility) Funds, an increase of $208,859 was generated by Internal Service Funds, and a deficit of $48,643 was generated by the Pension Trust Fund. CHANGE IN FUND FUND BALANCES BALANCES CITY-WIDE ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31/2012 Q1 4/30/2013 Q1 YTD Governmental Funds $ 14,556,121 $ 11,743,571 $ 13,733,981 $ (2,812,550) $ (822,140) Enterprise Funds 63,816,914 64,253,540 63,606,101 436,626 (210,813) Internal Services Fund 6,463,723 6,598,033 6,672,582 134,310 208,859 Pension Trust Fund 216,693 177,991 168,050 (38,702) (48,643) City-wide Total j $ 85,053,451 $ 82,773,134 $ 84,180,715 j $ (2,280,317) $ (872,736) Governmental Fund Balances as of April 30, 2013 Limited Tax G.O. Bond Fund L.I.D. Guaranty Fund Business Improvement District Fund Sister City Commission Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund Parks Trust Fund Parks Construction Fund Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement Special Projects Fund Gifts Catalog Fund Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq Real Estate Excise Tax 2 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts Youth Scholarship Fund Employee Parking Permit Fund Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund Memorial Street Fund Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund Combined Street Const/Improve Street Fund s Drug Enforcement Fund s General Fund $1 $681 $22,241 $11,925 $8,649 $921,612 $150,089 $8�26,530 $46,093 i $13,792 $227,97 $61 ,737 1,261,840 $66,098 $14,846 $75,750 $116,690 $17,674 $418, 99 $73,514 $110,621 $133,205 $ 2,000,000 701,6111 Packet Page 238 of 546 Q INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW Internal Service Fund activity through April brought an increase of $208,859. We began the year with a fund balance of $6.5 million and currently at the end of April; we see an ending fund balance of $6.7 million. Internal Service Fund Balances 6.46 $6.60 $6.67 6 5 4 3 2 1 Dec2012 Mar2013 Apr2013 7 FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND INTERNAL SERVICE BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2012 Q1 4/30/2013 Q1 YTD 511 -Equipment Rental Fund $ 6,463,723 $ 6,598,033 $ 6,672,582 $ 134,310 $ 208,859 Internal Service Funds $ 6,463,723 $ 6,598,033 $ 6,672,582 $ 134,310 $ 208,859 Packet Page 239 of 546 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY Agency/Issuer Investment Ty Washington State Local Investment Pool Government Investment Pool Opus Bank Certificate of Deposit FHLMC Bonds FHLMC Bonds FFCB Bonds TOTAL City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Summary As of April 30, 2013 (a) Term Purchase Purchase Maturity/ Call* Yield to Weighted (months) Date Price Date Maturity Average Various $15,027,724 Various 0.17% 0.135% Investment Mix State Investment Pool Certificate of Deposit Bonds (a) To maturityor call date, whichever occurs first. 24 9/17/2012 500,000 9/17/2014 0.60% 0.016% 60 12/28/2012 1,000,000 6/28/2013 ** 0.90% 0.049% 54 12/27/2012 1,000,000 6/27/2013 0.75% 0.040% 45 12/19/2012 1,000,000 3/19/2013 0.54% 0.029% 0.27% 0.270% % of Total Summary 81.1 % Current 6-month treasury rate 0.08% 2.7% Current State Pool rate 0.17% 16.2% Blended Edmonds rate 0.27% Packet Page 240 of 546 N City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund 2013 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 1,216,011 $ 1,216,011 $ 1,818,957 49.58% February 3,001,808 1,785,798 3,696,503 23.14% March 5,069,810 2,068,001 5,680,288 12.04% April 7,688,984 2,619,174 9,354,134 21.66% May 15,056,423 7,367,439 June 16,705,631 1,649,208 July 18,630,860 1,925,229 August 20,240,653 1,609,794 September 21,816,557 1,575,904 October 24,495,080 2,678,522 November 31,203,426 6,708,346 December 32,858,589 1,655,163 General Fund 15000000 10000000 5000000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC tActuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 21.66% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. *The variance listed above is due to the several general fund revenue line items that are tracking ahead of budget at the end of April. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax 2013 Real Estate Excise Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 55,653 $ 88,310 129,657 187,545 241,350 303,047 363,652 430,206 492,808 555,912 604,828 650,000 1200000 55,653 $ 69,441 24.77% 32,657 115,535 30.83% 1000000 41,347 257,285 98.43% 800000 57,887 311,272 65.97% 53,805 600000 61,697 60,605 400000 66,554 200000 62,602 Real Estate Excise Tax 63,105 0 48,916 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 45,172 ---*--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 65.97%listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. *The variance shown above is due to a larger number of sales transactions than were expected. O Packet Page 241 of 546 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax 2013 Sales and Use Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Sales and Use Tax Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 6000000 January $ 390,013 $ 390,013 $ 406,956 4.34% 5000000 February 884,364 494,351 894,736 1.17% 4000000 March 1,235,989 351,625 1,265,893 2.42% April 1,600,252 364,263 1,641,662 2.59% 3000000 May 2,031,316 431,064 June 2,414,769 383,453 2000000 July 2,801,571 386,802 1000000 August 3,255,906 454,335 September 3,657,629 401,723 0 October 4,069,329 411,700 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC November 4,525,665 456,336 December 4,913,150 387,485 ---0-Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 2.59% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Gas Utility Tax 2013 Gas Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Gas Utility Tax Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 900000 January $ 112,509 $ 112,509 $ 94,836-15.71% 800000 February 230,573 118,064 220,665 -4.30% 700000 March 338,041 107,468 303,170-10.32% 600000 April 428,064 90,023 369,694-13.64% 500000 May 504,039 75,974 400000 June 561,033 56,994 July 602,742 41,709 300000 August 632,326 29,584 200000 September 659,759 27,432 100000 October 688,968 29,210 0 November 738,628 49,660 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 811,174 72,546 --4,-Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of-13.64% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. *The Budget Forecast is taken from a five year average. Due to higher revenues in 2008-2009, the variance from forecast to actual is is greater. 10 Packet Page 242 of 546 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Telephone Utility Tax 2013 Telephone Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 95,577 $ 229,350 376,493 479,057 608,761 713,226 853,959 989,418 1,092,061 1,256,775 1,349,920 1,529,498 l b uk"M 95,577 $ 134,596 40.82% 1400000 133,773 252,444 10.07% 1200000 147,142 366,495 -2.66% 102,564 484,087 1.05% 1000000 129,705 800000 104,465 600000 140,733 400000 135,459 102,643 200000 164,714 0 Telephone Utility Tax 93,146 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 179,578 ♦Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 1.05% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax 2013 Flectric Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 151,925 $ 151,925 $ 153,240 February 320,049 168,124 326,077 March 474,600 154,551 487,478 April 631,769 157,169 641,845 May 769,731 137,963 June 882,641 112,909 July 989,535 106,895 August 1,081,971 92,436 September 1,180,465 98,494 October 1,265,812 85,346 November 1,372,881 107,070 December 1,475,638 102,757 10umut) 0.87/ 1400000 1.88 2 71% 1200000 1.59 % 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 *The variance of 1.59% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. Electric Utility Tax JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC �---Actuals/Trend Budget Packet Page 243 of 546 11 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund 2013 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals i F General Fund January $ 3,211,752 $ 3,211,752 $4,106,837 27.87% February 5,660,240 2,448,488 5,821,040 2.84% March 7,874,761 2,214,521 9,553,606 21.32% April 10,938,142 3,063,381 11,303,195 3.34% May 12,920,118 1,981,976 June 16,195,870 3,275,752 July 18,970,269 2,774,399 August 21,423,098 2,452,829 September 24,244,769 2,821,671 October 26,551,229 2,306,460 November 29,074,901 2,523,672 December 32,959,503 3,884,602 18000000 12000000 6000000 *The variance of 3.34% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. 0 ; JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC tActuals/Trend Budget City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental 2013 Non -Departmental Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals r Non -Departmental 14000000 January $ 1,818,292 $ 1,818,292 $ 2,450,235 34.75% 12000000 February 2,358,291 539,999 2,488,604 5.53% March 2,684,562 326,271 4,520,241 68.38% 10000000 April 3,827,781 1,143,219 4,569,788 19.38% 8000000 May 4,037,949 210,168 June 5,809,316 1,771,367 6000000 July 6,611,919 802,602 4000000 August 6,990,130 378,211 September 7,896,141 906,011 2000000 October 8,278,209 382,068 0 November 8,689,214 411,005 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 11,467,569 2,778,355 ---0--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 19.38%listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. *The variance shown above is due to the 2nd quarter Fire District #1 payment made in March 2013. 12 Packet Page 244 of 546 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Council 2013 City Council Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals City COUriCIl 300000 Office of Mayor 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC �Actuals/Trend Budget Packet Page 245 of 546 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources 2013 Human Resources Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Human Resources Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 300000 January $ 21,417 $ 21,417 $ 19,264 -10.05% 250000 February 43,437 22,020 39,680 -8.65% March 71,550 28,113 59,024 -17.51% 200000 April 94,953 23,403 84,440 -11.07% May 119,752 24,799 150000 June 141,891 22,139 July 165,641 23,750 100000 August 186,678 21,037 50000 September 212,715 26,036 +00-4 October 233,346 20,631 0 November 254,495 21,149 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 287,190 32,695 tActuals/Trend Budget *The variance of-11.07% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court 2013 Municipal Court Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals Municipal Court 800000 Packet Page 246 of 546 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Economic Development/Community Services 2013 Economic Development/Community Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals 400000 Economic Development/Community Services 600000 City Clerk 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC �Actuals/Trend Budget Packet Page 247 of 546 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Information Services 2013 Information Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals 1000000 January $ 41,302 $ 41,302 $ 92,733 124.53% February 107,298 65,997 139,675 30.17% 800000 March 158,751 51,453 195,470 23.13% April 207,167 48,416 243,433 17.51% 600000 May 262,166 54,999 June 315,619 53,452 400000 July 362,425 46,806 August 424,811 62,386 200000 September 471,078 46,267 October 532,480 61,402 0 Information Services November 602,576 70,096 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 723,534 120,958 +Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 17.51 % listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. *The variance shown above is due to purchase of the new Broadcast System, as well the temporary contract work for Information Services.. Finance City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Finance 2013 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals 1000000 January $ 72,772 $ 72,772 $ 57,510 -20.97% February 139,622 66,850 132,734 -4.93% 800000 March 202,376 62,753 195,061 -3.61% April 261,262 58,886 288,223 10.32% 600000 May 319,205 57,944 June 386,389 67,183 400000 July 447,973 61,584 August 502,922 54,949 200000 September 563,970 61,048 October 632,771 68,802 0 Finance November 699,652 66,881 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 768,484 68,832 Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 10.32% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance *The variance shown above is due to overtime and temporary contract work utilized until the permanent Finance Director position was filled. 16 Packet Page 248 of 546 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Attorney 2013 City Attorney Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 41,600 $ 41,600 $ 45,000 8.17% February 83,200 41,600 85,261 2.48% March 124,800 41,600 110,418 -11.52% April 166,400 41,600 163,684 -1.63% May 208,000 41,600 June 249,600 41,600 July 291,200 41,600 August 332,800 41,600 September 374,400 41,600 October 416,000 41,600 November 457,600 41,600 December 499,200 41,600 500000 City Attorney 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC +Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of -1.63% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. Police City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Police 2013 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance BudeetForecast BudeetForecast Actuals % January $ 711,698 $ 711,698 $ 711,651 -0.01% February 1,410,348 698,649 1,406,388 -0.28% March 2,145,943 735,595 2,104,655 -1.92% April 2,840,086 694,143 2,792,819 -1.66% May 3,527,398 687,312 June 4,308,719 781,321 July 5,026,944 718,225 August 5,739,849 712,905 September 6,480,625 740,777 October 7,196,799 716,174 November 8,160,013 963,214 December 8,931,185 771,172 Police 1000000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC *The variance of -1.66% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. -4--Actuals/Trend Budget 17 Packet Page 249 of 546 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services 2013 ent Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % Development Services January $ 130,011 $ 130,011 $ 134,416 3.39% February 261,991 131,980 262,483 0.19% March 406,268 144,277 425,124 4.64% April 539,522 133,254 535,005 -0.84% May 673,721 134,199 June 805,445 131,724 July 931,841 126,396 August 1,069,195 137,354 September 1,204,663 135,468 October 1,348,572 143,909 November 1,481,034 132,462 December 1,619,042 138,008 1800000 1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 4 wo- o JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ♦Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of -.84% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Parks & Recreation 2013 Parks & Recreation Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 218,823 $ 218,823 $ 206,466 -5.65% February 455,695 236,872 441,862 -3.04% March 711,038 255,343 687,221 -3.35% April 958,565 247,527 940,767 -1.86% May 1,214,257 255,692 June 1,530,104 315,847 July 1,920,254 390,150 August 2,310,306 390,052 September 2,615,670 305,363 October 2,863,419 247,750 November 3,094,270 230,851 December 3,398,517 304,247 1500000 1000000 500000 0 *The variance of -1.86% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. Parks & Recreation JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Actuals/Trend Budget Packet Page 250 of 546 18 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Public Works 2013 Public Works Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 27,007 $ 27,007 $ 26,193 -3.01% February 52,806 25,799 53,241 0.82% March 79,315 26,509 80,244 1.17% April 104,820 25,505 106,672 1.77% May 130,712 25,892 June 156,718 26,006 July 192,014 35,296 August 217,880 25,866 September 244,097 26,217 October 270,921 26,824 November 295,226 24,305 December 324,517 29,291 400000 Public Works 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC +Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 1.77% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Facilities Maintenance 2013 Facilities Maintenance Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 106,672 $ 220,921 343,665 478,949 552,523 670,350 775,460 878,941 997,041 1,099,774 1,211,822 1,344,159 1400000 106,672 $ 98,355 -7.80% 1200000 114,249 209,083 -5.36% 122,743 320,411 -6.77% 1000000 135,284 434,291 -9.32% 800000 73,574 117,826 600000 105,110 400000 103,481 118,100 200000 102,733 0 Facilities Maintenance 112,048 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 132,337 --#---Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of -9.32% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. 19 Packet Page 251 of 546 e ri City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering 2013 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 114,876 $ 230,249 344,770 468,067 577,602 692,761 811,020 927,980 1,048,722 1,171, 901 1,285,284 1,394,458 1400000 114,876 $ 116,885 1.75% 1200000 115,373 232,112 0.81% 114,522 347,757 0.87% 1000000 123,296 462,638 -1.16% 800000 109,535 115,159 600000 118,259 400000 116,960 120,742 200000 123,179 0 Engineering 113,383 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 109,174 --#--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of -1.16% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. 20 Packet Page 252 of 546 CITY OF EDMONDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund No. Title 2013 Adopted Budget 4/30/2013 Revenues Variance 001 GENERAL FUND $ 32,858,589 $ 9,354,134 $ (23,504,455) 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 350,350 91 (350,259) 011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 418,200 220,100 (198,100) 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 123,223 1,443 (121,780) 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 15,000 691 (14,309) 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 56,900 59 (56,841) 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 20,175 17,240 (2,935) III STREET FUND 1,406,800 456,437 (950,363) 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 6,223,755 762,877 (5,460,878) 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 59,891 6,563 (53,328) 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 27 5 (22) 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 52,870 15,897 (36,973) 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 18,120 5,687 (12,433) 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 2,025 14 (2,011) 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 12,348 (6,652) 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 662,600 311,571 (351,029) 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 650,600 311,380 (339,220) 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 20,483 18,661 (1,822) 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 222,800 166,187 (56,613) 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 119,950 32,761 (87,189) 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,010,350 143,231 (1,867,119) 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 228 216 (13) 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUSTFD 14,600 3,875 (10,725) 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 3,517 2 (3,515) 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 645,000 202,657 (442,343) 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND - 11,925 11,925 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 22,130 5,916 (16,214) 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 22,230 7 (22,223) 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,009,902 - (1,009,902) 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 74,291 74,291 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 10,625,680 1,773,207 (8,852,473) 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 3,486,716 1,182,378 (2,304,338) 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 11,020,123 2,731,502 (8,288,621) 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,361,972 461,053 (900,919) 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 45,400 52 (45,348) % Received 28 0 53 1 5 0 85 32 12 11 18 30 31 1 91 75 31 1 21 Packet Page 253 of 546 CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund No. Title 2013 Adopted Budget 4/30/2013 Expenditures Variance 001 GENERAL FUND $ 32,959,503 $ 11,303,195 $ (21,656,308) 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 619,400 121,283 (498,117) 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 661,000 464,100 (196,900) 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 15,000 800 (14,200) 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 205,000 563 (204,437) 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 80,033 2,658 (77,375) III STREET FUND 1,557,715 459,962 (1,097,753) 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 6,324,984 212,270 (6,112,714) 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 139,800 8,906 (130,894) 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 68,500 5,106 (63,394) 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,726 1,429 (25,297) 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 4,000 1,113 (2,887) 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 2,249 (16,751) 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,286,500 34,623 (1,251,877) 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 668,534 - (668,534) 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 32,317 7,163 (25,154) 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 222,800 12,586 (210,214) 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 152,761 40,262 (112,499) 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,093,200 3,054 (2,090,146) 136 PARKS TRUST FUND - - - 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 4,600 135 (4,466) 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 645,000 202,657 (442,343) 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 22,130 - (22,130) 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND - - - 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,009,902 - (1,009,902) 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 9,201,851 1,413,173 (7,788,678) 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 4,565,772 941,573 (3,624,199) 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 16,830,109 3,617,445 (13,212,664) 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,095,372 252,195 (843,177) 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 108,790 48,694 (60,096) $ 80,620,299 $ 19,157,193 $ (61,463,106) % S 31% 22 Packet Page 254 of 546 CITY OF EDMONDS CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE - S UMMARY Fund 1/1/2013 2013 2013 4/30/2013 No. Title Beg. Balance Revenues Expenditures Difference End. Balance 001 GENERALFUND $ 4,829,369 $ 9,354,134 $ 11,303,195 $ (1,949,061) $ 2,880,308 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 387,319 91 121,283 (121,191) 266,128 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 244,000 220,100 464,100 (244,000) - 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 5,283,425 1,443 - 1,443 5,284,868 013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 55,859 - - - 55,859 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 1,064 691 800 (109) 955 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 213,999 59 563 (504) 213,495 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 11,015,035 9,576,517 11,889,941 (2,313,423) 8,701,611 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 118,622 17,240 2,658 14,583 133,205 III STREET FUND 114,146 456,437 459,962 (3,525) 110,621 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE (477,093) 762,877 212,270 550,606 73,514 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 421,142 6,563 8,906 (2,343) 418,799 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,669 5 - 5 17,674 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 105,899 15,897 5,106 10,790 116,690 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 71,492 5,687 1,429 4,258 75,750 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 15,945 14 1,113 (1,099) 14,846 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 55,999 12,348 2,249 10,099 66,098 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 984,892 311,571 34,623 276,948 1,261,840 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ 308,357 311,380 - 311,380 619,737 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 216,473 18,661 7,163 11,498 227,971 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (139,809) 166,187 12,586 153,600 13,792 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 53,593 32,761 40,262 (7,500) 46,093 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 686,352 143,231 3,054 140,178 826,530 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 149,873 216 - 216 150,089 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUSTFD 817,737 3,875 - 3,875 821,612 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 8,781 2 135 (132) 8,649 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - 202,657 202,657 - - 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND - 11,925 - 11,925 11,925 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 3,496 5,916 - 5,916 9,412 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 22,234 7 - 7 22,241 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND (15,397) - - - (15,397) 234 LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND, 681 - - - 681 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 74,291 - 74,291 74,291 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 12,322,592 1,773,207 1,413,173 360,034 12,682,626 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 7,552,075 1,182,378 941,573 240,805 7,792,880 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 43,942,247 2,731,502 3,617,445 (885,943) 43,056,304 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 6,463,723 461,053 252,195 208,859 6,672,582 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 216,693 52 48,694 (48,642) 168,050 TOTALALLFUNDS $ 85,053,451 $ 18,284,457 $ 19,1579193 $ (872,736) $ 84,1809715 We are currently using the estimated 2012 ending fund balance numbers for funds 421, 422, and 423. These will be updated when actuals are in; due to the change in how these funds are structured. 23 Packet Page 255 of 546 This page is intentionally left blank. 24 Packet Page 256 of 546 Title CITY OF FDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Revenues Variance Pagel of 3 %Received TAXES: REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX $ 9,781,109 $ 1,885,738 $ (7,895,371) 19% EMS PROPERTY TAX 2,775,282 584,313 (2,190,969) 21% VOTED PROPERTY TAX 916,103 185,918 (730,185) 20% LOCAL RETAIL SALES✓USE TAX 4,913,150 1,641,662 (3,271,488) 33% NATURAL GAS USE TAX 8,706 3,880 (4,826) 45% 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 520,417 185,249 (335,168) 36% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,475,638 641,845 (833,793) 43% GASUTILITYTAX 811,174 369,694 (441,480) 46% SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 287,710 99,793 (187,917) 35% WAT ER UT ILIT Y T AX 904,613 271,544 (633,069) 30% SEWER UTILITY TAX 470,000 155,496 (314,504) 33% STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 274,600 104,112 (170,488) 38% T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 730,910 196,078 (534,832) 27% TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,529,498 484,087 (1,045,411) 32% PULLTABSTAX 61,385 24,510 (36,875) 40% AMUSEMENT GAMES 731 100 (631) 14% LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 212,350 53,966 (158,384) 25% PENALTIES ON GAMBLING TAXES - - 0% 25,673,376 6,887,984 (18,785,392) 27% LICENSES AND PERMITS: FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE 5,555 4,400 (1,155) 79% PROF AND OCC LICENSE -TAXI 1,030 300 (730) 29% AMUSEMENTS 6,060 4,350 (1,710) 72% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -COMCAST 627,816 167,992 (459,824) 27% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER 95,806 43,825 (51,981) 46% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -BLACKROCK 8,287 5,710 (2,577) 69% FRANCHISE AGREMENT-ZAYO - 5,000 5,000 0% OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 214,415 52,692 (161,723) 25% GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 106,297 89,650 (16,647) 84% DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 18,422 7,245 (11,177) 39% NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 39,274 27,050 (12,224) 69% RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 9,500 9,773 273 103% BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 345,436 99,995 (245,441) 29% ANIMAL LICENSES 13,205 4,370 (8,835) 33% STREET AND CURB PERMIT 50,000 3,909 (46,091) 8% OT R NON -BUS LIC/PERMIT S 7,070 3,601 (3,469) 51 % DIVE PARK PERMIT FEE - - - 0% 1,548,173 529,862 (1,018,311) 34% INTERGOVERNMENTAL: DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 1,191 - (1,191) 0% TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 10,000 1,480 (8,520) 15% HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 6,000 776 (5,224) 13% SMART COMMUTER PROJECT GRANT - 250 250 0% PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 185,181 - (185,181) 0% MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 8,828 4,562 (4,266) 52% JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION -STATE 12,572 3,134 (9,438) 25% CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS 33,290 17,090 (16,200) 51% DUI - CITIES 7,704 3,597 (4,107) 47% LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 20,000 - (20,000) 0% LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 301,761 89,450 (212,311) 30% SHARED COURT COSTS 3,030 - (3,030) 0% MUNICIPAL COURT AGREEMENT W/LYNNWOOD 1,500 - (1,500) 0% 591,057 120,339 (469,218) 20% 25 Packet Page 257 of 546 Title C ITY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Revenues Variance Page 2 of 3 %Received CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,065 266 (799) 25% D/M COURT REC SER 172 14 (158) 8% MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURREXPEN 188 47 (141) 25% SALE MAPS & BOOKS 72 68 (4) 95% PHOTOCOPIES 4,572 1,075 (3,497) 24% POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 4,500 1,501 (2,999) 33% ASSESSMENT SEARCH 5 - (5) 0% ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 100,000 31,160 (68,840) 31% ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES 1,011 - (1,011) 0% SNO-ISLE 57,236 36,542 (20,694) 64% PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 9,571 3,500 (6,071) 37% POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 - (26,000) 0% OCDETF OVERTIME - 1,800 1,800 0% CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. 11,615 - (11,615) 0% WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 36,000 11,770 (24,230) 33% MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 2,750 - (2,750) 0% DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES 532 382 (150) 72% FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 27,808 13,304 (14,504) 48% ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 60,000 16,300 (43,700) 27% ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 165 - (165) 0% BOOKING FEES 5,711 1,796 (3,915) 31 % FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 5,577 2,130 (3,447) 38% EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 23,976 4,343 (19,633) 18% DUI EMERGENCY AID 67 - (67) 0% EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 814,318 412,923 (401,395) 51% POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 496 35 (461) 7% CRIM CNV FEE DUI 698 180 (518) 26% CRIM CONV FEE CT 4,360 1,516 (2,844) 35% CRIM CONV FEE CN 1,624 412 (1,212) 25% FIBER SERVICES 36,438 10,960 (25,478) 30% INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES 7,272 2,400 (4,872) 33% FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 213 394 181 185% ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 6,616 1,740 (4,876) 26% ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 38,000 23,985 (14,015) 63% PLAN CHECKING FEES 216,457 73,743 (142,714) 34% FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 2,911 650 (2,261) 22% PLANNING 1%INSPECTION FEE 1,200 75 (1,125) 6% S.E.P.A. REVIEW 5,000 3,395 (1,605) 68% CRITICAL AREA STUDY 12,000 4,960 (7,040) 41% DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 10,921 3,691 (7,230) 34% SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 56,000 - (56,000) 0% GYM AND WEIGHT ROOM FEES 5,500 2,274 (3,226) 41% LOCKER FEES 300 - (300) 0% SWIM CLASS FEES 32,000 (32,000) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE-SSCCFH 69,300 - (69,300) 0% PROGRAM FEES 780,000 253,643 (526,357) 33% TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 115,500 51,634 (63,866) 45% SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM 31,600 - (31,600) 0% BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 660 - (660) 0% INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS 1.520.248 575.683 (944.565) 38% 26 Packet Page 258 of 546 Title C ITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Revenues Variance Page 3 of 3 %Received FINES AND FORFEITURES: PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 10,214 3,182 (7,032) 31% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 24,000 8,290 (15,710) 35% NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 213,000 78,135 (134,865) 37% CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA) 20,086 5,979 (14,107) 30% SPEEDING DOUBLE 77 77 (0) 100% NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 2,034 - (2,034) 0% OTHER INFRACT IONS '04 1,002 725 (277) 72% PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 31,592 14,946 (16,646) 47% PR -HANDICAPPED 794 - (794) 0% PARKING INFRACTION LOC 404 - (404) 0% PARK/1NDDISZONE 3,000 733 (2,267) 24% DWI PENALTIES 9,200 301 (8,899) 3% DUI - DP ACCT 415 667 252 161% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 8 - (8) 0% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 33,000 10,000 (23,000) 30% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT - 74 74 0% OT HER NON-T RAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 539 61 (478) 11 % OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 14,000 (2,320) (16,320) -17% COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 1,491 532 (959) 36% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN - 57 57 0% CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 113,265 32,244 (81,021) 28% PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 40,000 7,706 (32,294) 19% COURT INT ERP RET ER COST S 292 36 (257) 12% BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 7,444 2,630 (4,814) 35% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 485 1,510 1,025 311% 526,342 165,565 (360,777) 31% MISCELLANEOUS: INVESTMENT INTEREST 8,000 144 (7,856) 2% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 1,250 387 (863) 31% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 5,491 1,080 (4,411) 20% PARKING 8,790 3,160 (5,630) 36% SPACE/FACILITIESRENTALS 140,000 19,962 (120,038) 14% BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 3,040 2,440 (600) 80% LEASES LONG-TERM 143,000 56,937 (86,063) 40% VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 4,500 1,007 (3,493) 22% OTHER RENTS& USE CHARGES 6,200 1,125 (5,075) 18% PARKS DONATIONS 4,300 7,500 3,200 174% BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 1,400 200 (1,200) 14% PARKS GRANTS- PRIVATE SOURCES - 1,235 1,235 0% SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 1,486 - (1,486) 0% SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 1,750 1,592 (158) 91% CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY - 358 358 0% POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 465 40 (425) 9% CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES 44 1 (43) 2% OTHER MISC REVENUES 3,000 2,572 (428) 86% SMALL OVERPAYMENT 66 2 (64) 3% NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 182 30 (152) 16% NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 978 233 (745) 24% NSF FEES- POLICE 91 - (91) 0% NSF FEES - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT - 90 90 0% 334,033 100,092 (234,031) 30% TRANSFERS -IN: INSURANCE RECOVERIES - - - 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER -IN - - 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER- In (From 121) 25,086 (25,086) 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER (From 127) 12,297 (12,297) 0% 37,383 - (37,383) 0% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $ 32,858,589 S 9,354,134 $ (23,503,045) 28% 27 Packet Page 259 of 546 This page is intentionally left blank. W:3 Packet Page 260 of 546 Title SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME HOLIDAY BUY BACK BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES ECA CONTINGENCY RESERVE EXCISE TAXES INT ERFUND TRANSFER (009,111,112,116) MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES OTHER DEBT INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT DEBT ISSUE COSTS INTERFUND SERVICES INTERFUND RENTAL LEO FF-MEDIC AL INS. RESERVE(009) BENEFITS IN HOME LTC CLAIMS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011) MISCELLANEOUS HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIPTFUND (014) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVERTISING MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REPAIRS & MAINTENANENCE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS DRUG INFO RCEMENTFUND (104) SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED SMALL EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATIONS REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVTL SVC C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Expenditures $ 12,069,872 $ 3,930,021 $ 415,100 104,360 193,388 802 4,094,462 1,346,853 61,110 17,596 374,244 92,342 117,050 44,869 1,949,484 466,491 204,660 60,969 36,742 2,711 40,865 5,845 834,943 274,526 396,193 397,566 414,600 147,082 320,547 128,079 279,880 94,109 8,099,655 3,893,689 190,000 - 5,500 993 1,325,185 255,078 85,000 22,735 946,595 - 64,014 - - 478 185,614 - 5,000 - 201,800 - 48,000 16,000 $ 435,000 $ 79,011 $ 176,400 35,901 8,000 6,081 - 290 Variance (8,139,851) (310,740) (192,586) (2,747,609) (43,514) (281,902) (72,181) (1,482,993) (143,691) (34,031) (35,020) (560,417) 1,373 (267,518) (192,468) (185,771) (4,205,966) (190,000) (4,507) (1,070,107) (62,265) (946,595) (64,014) 478 (185,614) (5,000) (201,800) (355,989) (140,499) (1,919) 290 $ 661,000 464,100 (196,900 $ 2,000 $ - $ (2,000) 2,000 - (2,000) 1,000 - (1,000) 10.000 800 (9.200) Page 1 of 6 % Used 33% 25% 0% 33% 38% 24% 30% 7% 14% 33% 100% 35% 40% 34% 48% 0% 18% 19% 27% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 18% 20% 76% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% $ 10,000 $ - $ (10,000) 0% 20,000 70 (19,930) 0% 5,000 493 (4,507) 10% 170,000 - (170,000) 0% 205,000 563 (34,437) 0% $ $ - $ - 0% 2,000 1,523 (477) 76% 5,000 - (5,000) 0% 2,233 1,134 (1,099) 51% 800 - (800) 0% 20,000 - (20,000) 0% 50,000 - (50,000) 0% Packet Page 261 of 546 29 Page 2 of 6 Title SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TRANSFER GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT COMBINED STREETCONST/IMPROVE(112) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INTERFUND TRANSFER OUT (to 112,117) LAND CONST SURFACE CONST PROJECTS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTERFUND SERVICES MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117) SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERFUND TRANSFER MEMO RIAL S TREET TREE FUND (118) SUPPLIES HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVERTISING MISCELLANEOUS INTERFUND TRANSFERS (to 117, 132) EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121) SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 001) YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) MISCELLANEOUS TO URISM PRO MO TIO NAL FUND/ARTS (123) PROFESSIONAL SVC ADVERTISING MISCELLANEOUS C ITY O F IDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Expenditures $ 447,655 $ 138,785 $ 18,400 6,487 197,283 59,726 6,000 3,520 240,000 39,829 26,000 - 32,700 4,071 3,500 832 1,000 - 350 - 159,134 52,450 87,204 87,201 267,750 64,254 25,000 2,313 8,000 405 4,000 89 31,665 - 074 _ Variance (308,870) (11,913) (137,557) (2,480) (200,171) (26,000) (28,629) (2,668) (1,000) (350) (106,684) (3) (203,496) (22,687) (7,595) (3,911) (31,665) (2.074) % Used 31% 35% 30% 59% 17% 0% 12% 24% 0% 0% 33% 100% 24% 9% 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% $ 1,152,100 $ 96,675 $ (1,055,425) 8% 378,500 - (378,500) 0% 909,400 - (909,400) 0% 3,502,300 75,590 (3,426,710) 2% 72,203 - (72,203) 0% 4,481 - (4,481) 0% 306,000 40,005 (265,995) 13% $ 4,200 $ 18 $ (4,182) 0% 1,000 - (1,000) 0% 116,700 4,473 (112,227) 4% 50 12 (38) 24% 4,000 3,700 (300) 93% 550 - (550) 0% 300 - (300) 0% 10,000 702 (9,298) 7% 3.000 (3,000) 0% $ $ $ 0% $ $ - 0% $ 14,500 $ $ (14,500) 0% 37,500 5,006 (32,494) 13% 2,500 100 (2,400) 4% 14,000 - (14,000) 0% 68,500 5,106 (63,394) 7% $ 1,640 $ 874 $ (766) 53% - 555 25,086 - (25,086) 0% $ 10,500 $ 1,697 $ 4,500 553 a nnn - (8,803) 16% (3,948) 12% (4,000) 0% Packet Page 262 of 546 30 Page 3 of 6 Title REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 (125) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVERTISING UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 132) CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS INTERFUND SERVICES REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 1, PARKS AC Q (126) MISCELLANEOUS TRANSFER TO FUND 231 LAND GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS INTEREST GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 001) SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (129) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS INTERFUND SERVICES C ENIL'=Y MAINTENANC FIIMPRO VEMENT (130) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT INTERFUND SERVICES PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (132) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INTERFUND TRANSFER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS INTERFUND SERVICES PARKS TRUST FUND (136) INTERFUND TRANSFER SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138) SUPPLIES STUDENT TRIP MISCELLANEOUS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DIS TRIC T (139) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INSURANCE INTERFUND TRANSFER C ITY O F IDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Expenditures $ 29,000 $ 23,098 $ 337,000 1,876 - 148 185,000 9,500 635,500 - 100,000 - 438,910 - 200,000 - 17,550 - 12,074 - 668,534 - $ 14,020 $ 1,013 $ 6,000 6,150 12,297 - 32,317 7,163 $ 31,700 $ - $ 171,600 - 19,500 12,586 222,800 12,586 $ 68,605 $ 23,058 $ 3,500 371 33,188 10,511 1,000 - 7,000 373 20,000 2,385 1,000 - 1,412 466 500 - 3,000 251 5,256 1,752 3,800 - 500 - 4,000 1,094 1,907,500 1,940 182,700 3.000 1 A 14 Variance (5,902) (335,124) 148 (175,500) (635,500) (100,000) (438,910) (200,000) (17,550) (12,074) (668,534) (13,007) 150 (31,700) (171,600) (6,914) (210,214) (45,547) (3,129) (22,677) (1,000) (6,627) (17,615) (1,000) (946) (500) (2,749) (3,504) (3,800) (500) (2,906) (1,905,560) (182,700) (1.886) % Used 80% 1% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 103% 0% 22% 0% 0% 34% 11% 32% 0% 5% 12% 0% 33% 0% 8% 33% 0% 0% 27% 0% 0% 26% 0% 0% 0% 0% 37% $ $ - $ - 0% - - 0% $ 500 $ 2,600 1,500 - $ - 135 (500) (2,600) (1,366) 0% 0% 9% 4,600 135 4,466 3% $ $ 5,000 640,000 1,756 $ 5,000 195,902 1,756 - (444,098) 0% 100% 31% 645,000 S 202,657 (442,343) 31% 31 Packet Page 263 of 546 Title INTERFUND TRANSFER LID GUARANTY FUND (213) INTERFUND TRANSFER 2012 LTGO DEBTSERVIC FUND (231) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND INTEREST DEBT ISSUE COSTS WATER FUND (421) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TAXES INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 117,414) MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST DEBT ISSUE COSTS OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS INTERFUND SERVICES INTERFUND REPAIR C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Expenditures $ 22,130 $ - $ 22,130 - $ 825,372 $ - $ 184,530 - 1,009,902 - $ 756,455 $ 237,867 $ 24,180 7,052 285,866 98,402 6,840 2,836 143,505 19,916 1,725,000 287,250 140,000 33,515 10,400 269 173,136 56,517 30,280 12,899 3,400 - 560 - 91,205 30,796 67,699 67,607 28,000 16,022 24,160 667 307,630 110,509 30,000 10,079 904,893 271,544 927,500 - 85,000 - 2,532,580 - 2,025 - 209,471 - 45,839 - 280,306 - 16,553 - - 175 349,368 149,204 - 48 Variance (22.1 (825,372) (184,530) (518,588) (17,128) (187,464) (4,004) (123,589) (1,437,750) (106,485) (10,131) (116,619) (17,381) (3,400) (560) (60,409) (92) (11,978) (23,493) (197,121) (19,921) (633,349) (927,500) (85,000) (2,532,580) (2,025) (209,471) (45,839) (280,306) (16,553) 175 (200,164) 48 Page 4 of 6 % Used 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 31% 29% 34% 41% 14% 0% 17% 24% 3% 33% 43% 0% 0% 34% 100% 57% 3% 36% 34% 30% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 43% 0% Packet Page 264 of 546 32 Title C ITY O F IDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance Page 5 of 6 %Used STORM FUND (422) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 568,591 $ 185,539 $ (383,052) 33% OVERTIME 6,000 2,789 (3,211) 46% BENEFITS 232,141 75,758 (156,383) 33% UNIFORMS 6,540 3,841 (2,699) 59% SUPPLIES 50,000 9,194 (40,806) 18% SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,400 164 (4,236) 4% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 599,190 231,273 (367,917) 39% COMMUNICATIONS 3,480 420 (3,060) 12% TRAVEL 4,300 654 (3,646) 15% ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 217,412 70,941 (146,471) 33% INSURANCE 8,418 8,407 (11) 100% UTILITES 10,000 3,182 (6,818) 32% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 11,860 5,797 (6,063) 49% MISCELLANEOUS 106,100 35,041 (71,059) 33% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 45,000 16,763 (28,237) 37% INTERFUND TAXESAND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 291,600 104,112 (187,488) 36% INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 112, 117) 237,766 - (237,766) 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,458,400 - (1,458,400) 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 101,469 - (101,469) 0% REVENUE BONDS 82,906 - (82,906) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 32,063 - (32,063) 0% INTEREST 187,245 - (187,245) 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 83 83 0% INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 300,391 187,615 (112,776) 62% 4,565,772 941,573 (3,624,199) 21% SEWER FUND (423) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 1,653,859 $ 517,620 $ (1,136,239) 31% OVERTIME 73,000 38,312 (34,688) 52% BENEFITS 677,979 210,921 (467,058) 31% UNIFORMS 11,190 6,884 (4,306) 62% SUPPLIES 482,505 83,968 (398,537) 17% FUEL CONSUMED 90,000 62,986 (27,014) 70% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE 3,000 - (3,000) 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 16,400 2,044 (14,356) 12% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,024,236 421,769 (602,467) 41% COMMUNICATIONS 40,280 11,802 (28,478) 29% TRAVEL 7,400 - (7,400) 0% ADVERTISING 2,500 - (2,500) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 133,736 43,928 (89,808) 33% INSURANCE 157,117 156,092 (1,025) 99% UTILITIES 931,200 389,854 (541,346) 42% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 90,000 41,641 (48,359) 46% MISCELLANEOUS 211,100 72,559 (138,541) 34% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 290,000 42,648 (247,352) 15% INTERFUND TAXESAND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 470,000 155,496 (314,504) 33% INTERFUND TRANSFERS (to 414, 423) 1,125,280 - (1,125,280) 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 141,000 - (141,000) 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 7,924,700 1,173,021 (6,751,679) 15% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 195,602 - (195,602) 0% REVENUE BONDS 222,625 - (222,625) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 138,939 - (138,939) 0% INTEREST 125,421 - (125,421) 0% DEBT ISSUE COSTS 16,551 - (16,551) 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 41 41 0% INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 574,489 185,859 (388,630) 32% 16,830,109 3,617,445 (13,212,664) 21% 33 Packet Page 265 of 546 Page 6 of 61 Title SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT INTERFUND SERVICES FIRI M EN'S PENSION FUND (617) BENEFITS PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS PROF SERVICES TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS C rTY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Expenditures $ 228,064 $ 48,517 $ 1,000 886 100,397 23,398 1,000 356 76,000 19,066 1,000 - 321,800 48,932 8,000 576 1,000 931 3,000 431 9,996 3,097 34,083 34,153 14,000 4,784 60,000 17,557 6,000 2,466 2,500 119 217,532 46,927 10.000 - $ 63,000 $ 13,504 $ 43,790 34,021 2,000 1,169 Variance (179,547) (114) (76,999) (644) (56,934) (1,000) (272,868) (7,424) (69) (2,569) (6,899) 70 (9,216) (42,443) (3,534) (2,381) (170,605) (49,496) (9,769) (831) % Used 21% 89% 23% 36% 15% 7% 93% 14% 31% 100% 34% 29% 41% 5% 22% 0% 21% 78% 58% Packet Page 266 of 546 34 Title CITY COUNCIL OFFICE OF MAYOR HUMAN RESOURCES MUNICIPAL COURT CITY CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CITY ATTORNEY NON -DEPARTMENTAL POLICE SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PARKS & RECREATION PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE Title WATER UTILITY FUND STORM UTILITY FUND SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY 2013 Adopted Budget 273,623 $ 238,374 287,190 729,506 586,831 1,492,018 499,200 11,467,569 8,931,185 373,314 1,619,042 3,398,517 1,718,975 1,344,159 32.959.503 $ 4/30/2013 penditures 83,350 $ 78,215 84,440 232,844 174,295 531,656 163,684 4,569,788 2,792,819 112,729 535,005 940,767 569,310 434,291 11.303.195 $ Variance (190,273) (160,159) (202,750) (496,662) (412,536) (960,362) (335,516) (6,897,781) (6,138,366) (260,585) (1,084,037) (2,457,750) (1,149,665) CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN S UMMARY 2013 Adopted Budget $ 9,201,851 $ 4,565,772 16,830,109 $ 30,597,732 $ 4/30/2013 .penditures 1,413,173 $ 941,573 3,617,445 5,972,190 $ 1 Variance (7,788,678) (3,624,199) (13,212,664) (24,625,542) % Used % Used 30% 33% 29% 32% 30% 36% 33% 40% 31% 30% 33% 28% 33% 32% 34% Packet Page 267 of 546 35 This page is intentionally left blank. 36 Packet Page 268 of 546 Page 1 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Title Budget Expenditures Variance %Used CITY COUNCIL SALARIES $ 114,618 $ 39,372 $ (75,246) 34% OVERTIME 2,000 222 (1,778) 11% BENEFITS 68,165 23,144 (45,021) 34% SUPPLIES 1,000 88 (912) 9% PROFESSIONAL SVC 53,082 18,788 (34,294) 35% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 780 (2,220) 26% TRAVEL 2,500 358 (2,142) 14% RENTAL/LEASE 490 147 (343) 30% REPAIRS✓MAINT 1,500 - (1,500) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 27,268 450 (26,818) 2% 273,623 83,350 (190,273) 30% OFFICEOFMAYOR SALARIES $ 183,722 $ 61,995 $ (121,727) 34% OVERTIME - - - 0% BENEFITS 41,852 13,931 (27,921) 33% SUPPLIES 2,000 804 (1,196) 40% PROFESSIONAL SVC 1,500 29 (1,471) 2% COMMUNICATION 1,400 255 (1,145) 18 % TRAVEL 2,000 282 (1,718) 14% RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 630 (1,770) 26% REPAIR/MAINT 500 - (500) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 288 (2,712) 10% 238,374 S 78,215 S (160,159) 3307o HUMAN RES O URC ES SALARIES $ 169,000 $ 52,929 $ (116,071) 31% OVERTIME - - - 0% BENEFITS 6L680 15,992 (45,688) 26% SUPPLIES 2,000 1,115 (885) 56% SMALL EQUIPMENT 100 - (100) 0% PROFESSIONAL SVC 32,000 6,394 (25,606) 20% COMMUNICATIONS 500 120 (380) 24% TRAVEL 500 100 (400) 20% ADVERTISING 5,000 1,388 (3,612) 28% RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 631 (1,369) 32% REPAIR/MAINT 6,000 5,349 (651) 89% MISCELLANEOUS 8 410 423 (7,987) 5% 287,190 84,440 (202,750) 29% MUNIC IPAL C O URT SALARIES $ 464,471 $ 149,982 $ (314,489) 32% OVERTIME 100 - (100) 0% BENEFITS 168,526 49,401 (119,125) 29% SUPPLIES 9,159 3,162 (5,997) 35% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,000 1,003 (997) 50% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 60,500 24,385 (36,115) 40% COMMUNICATIONS 2,600 552 (2,048) 21 % TRAVEL 1,250 757 (493) 61% RENTAL/LEASE 650 319 (331) 49% REPAIR/MAINT 1,000 304 (696) 30% MISCELLANEOUS 19,250 2,980 (16,270) 15% 729,506 232,844 (496,662) 32% 37 Packet Page 269 of 546 Title CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance Page 2 of 4 %Used CITY C LERK SALARIES AND WAGES $ 305,572 $ 100,993 $ (204,579) 33% BENEFIT S 92,771 30,698 (62,073) 33% SUPPLIES 13,760 2,433 (11,327) 18% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 84,751 8,291 (76,460) 10% COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 18,162 (31,838) 36% TRAVEL 250 - (250) 0% ADVERTISING 3,690 2,122 (1,568) 57% RENTAL/LEASE 25,000 5,331 (19,669) 21% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 8,037 4,795 (3,242) 60% MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 1,470 (1,530) 49% 586,831 174,295 412,536 30% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SALARIES $ 682,370 $ 223,289 $ (459,081) 33% OVERTIME 4,000 3,013 (987) 75% BENEFIT S 220,100 68,088 (152,012) 31 % SUPPLIES 35,700 9,064 (26,636) 25% SMALL EQUIPMENT 87,500 37,827 (49,673) 43% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 126,350 66,489 (59,861) 53% COMMUNICATIONS 58,960 17,100 (41,860) 29% TRAVEL 3,300 - (3,300) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 8,988 3,008 (5,980) 33% REPAIR/MAINT 171,750 71,900 (99,850) 42% MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 9,143 1,143 114% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 85,000 22,735 (62,265) 27% 1,492,018 531,656 (960,362) 36% CITY ATTORNEY PROFESSIONAL SVC $ 499,200 $ 163,684 $ (335,516) 33% MISC PROSECUTOR - - - 0% 499,200 163,684 (335,516) 33% NON -DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES $ 136,000 $ - $ (136,000) 0% BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT 40,000 12,434 (27,566) 31 % PROFESSIONAL SVC 380,000 81,036 (298,964) 21% COMMUNICATIONS - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 3,600 - 100% INSURANCE 396,193 397,566 1,373 100% MISCELLANEOUS 55,156 40,165 (14,991) 73% INTERGOVT SVC 7,532,912 3,778,439 (3,754,473) 50% ECA LOAN PAYMENT 190,000 - (190,000) 0% EXCISE TAXES 5,500 993 (4,507) 18% INTERFUND TRANSFERS 1,325,185 255,078 (1,070,107) 19% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 946,595 - (946,595) 0% INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 64,014 - (64,014) 0% OTHER DEBT - - - 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 185,614 - (185,614) 0% DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS 5,000 - (5,000) 0% FISCAL AGENT FEES - 478 478 0% INTERFUND SERVICES 201,800 - (201,800) 0% 11,467,569 4,569,788 (6,897,781) 40% 38 Packet Page 270 of 546 Page 3 of 4 C ITY O F IDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title SALARIES OVERTIME HOLIDAY BUYBACK BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVTL SVC INT ERFUND RENTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMIN SALARIES BENEFIT S SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS DEVELO PMENT S ERVIC ES /PLANNING SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES MINOR EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES MINOR EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance %Used $ 5,169,010 $ 1,707,771 $ (3,461,239) 33% 400,000 98,250 (301,750) 25% 193,388 802 (192,586) 0% 1,728,703 593,704 (1,134,999) 34% 52,410 15,439 (36,971) 29% 94,100 27,145 (66,955) 29% 14,300 3,244 (11,056) 23% 95,200 21,403 (73,797) 22% 33,592 6,268 (27,324) 19% 16,300 1,069 (15,231) 7% 375 36 (339) 10% 538,344 178,317 (360,027) 33% 16,115 2,618 (13,497) 16% 35,300 10,503 (24,797) 30% 496,048 110,250 (385,798) 22% 48,000 16,000 (32,000) 33% 8,931,185 2,792,819 (6,139,366) 31% $ 213,304 $ 71,283 $ (142,021) 33% 62,052 20,815 (41,237) 34% 1,500 204 (1,296) 14% 800 - (800) 0% 60,804 17,489 (43,315) 29% 1,490 485 (1,005) 33% 2,000 - (2,000) 0% 24,500 - (24,500) 0% 2364 751 (1,613) 32% 500 - (500) 0% 4,000 1,703 (2,298) 43% 373,314 112,729 (260,585) 30% $ 1,032,549 $ 382,092 $ (650,457) 37% 1,300 25 (1,275) 2% 358,465 124,624 (233,841) 35% - - - 0% 13,000 2,480 (10,520) 19% 1,100 - (1,100) 0% 145,600 6,384 (139,216) 4% 4,000 1,498 (2,502) 37% 1,600 12 (1,588) 1% 3,000 1,367 (1,633) 46% 32,828 10,803 (22,025) 33% 500 - (500) 0% 25,100 5,722 (19,378) 23% 1,619,042 535,005 1,084,037 33% $ 1,007,140 $ 332,460 $ (674,680) 33% 5,000 947 (4,053) 19% 342,150 119,093 (223,057) 35% 360 - (360) 0% - - - 0% 2,000 403 (1,597) 20% 5,000 840 (4,160) 17% 6,700 1,524 (5,176) 23% 600 10 (590) 2% - 264 264 0% 13,408 4,468 (8,940) 33% 1,800 - (1,800) 0% 10,300 2,629 (7,671) 26% 1,394,458 462,638 (931,820) 33% Packet Page 271 of 546 39 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title PARKS & REC REATIO N SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES MINOR EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENTAL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVTLSVC PUBLIC WORKS SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL RENT AL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED MINOR EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATIONS RENT AL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 2013 Adopted 4/30/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance %Used $ 1,745,631 $ 519,272 $ (1,226,359) 30% - 1,881 1,881 0% 584,326 180,564 (403,762) 31 % 5,340 1,691 (3,649) 32% 131,925 31,205 (100,720) 24% 3,250 1,820 (1,430) 56% 405,297 51,264 (354,033) 13% 28,218 9,367 (18,851) 33% 5,942 124 (5,818) 2% 4,300 668 (3,632) 16% 149,152 50,023 (99,129) 34% 135,000 45,894 (89,106) 34% 51,845 24,439 (27,406) 47% 77,596 17,557 (60,039) 23% 70,695 5,000 (65,695) 7% 3,398,517 940,767 (2,457,750) 28% $ 225,381 $ 80,084 $ (145,297) 36% 200 - (200) 0% 76,157 21,688 (54,469) 28% 5,100 2,126 (2,974) 42% 200 15 (185) 8% 1,200 493 (707) 41% 500 - (500) 0% 10,779 1,428 (9,351) 13% 2,600 837 (1,763) 32% 1,000 - (1,000) 0% 1,400 - (1,400) 0% 324,517 106,6 22 (217,845) 33% $ 621,104 $ 208,498 $ (412,606) 34% 2,500 23 (2,477) 1 % 249,515 72,679 (176,836) 29% 3,000 466 (2,534) 16% 65,000 12,514 (52,486) 19% - - 0% 6,000 572 (5,428) 10% 13,000 4,365 (8,635) 34% 44,940 15,070 (29,870) 34% 277,000 100,351 (176,649) 36% 60,000 18,675 (41,325) 31% 2,100 1,078 (1,022) 51 % 1,344,159 434,291 909,868 32°0 32,959,503 11,303,195 (21,656,308) 34% Packet Page 272 of 546 40 AM-5817 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted For: Stephen Clifton Department: Community Services Committee: Finance Submitted By: Stephen Clifton Tyne: Information 7. G. Subject Title Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Interim Members Advisory Board's Proposed Bylaws and Work Program/Budget for Year 2013. Recommendation The Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Interim Members Advisory Board is requesting the City Council approve the attached proposed work program and budget for year 2013 and Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District bylaws. Previous Council Action November 13, 2012 - The City Council Finance Committee expressed support for, and recommended the City Council approve, a resolution initiating a proposal for a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds. November 27, 2012 - The City Council voted to approve a resolution initiating a proposal for a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds (see attached). December 18, 2012 - The City Council voted to approve a resolution declaring the City's intent to establish a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds and setting the public hearing date for January 15, 2013 (see attached). January 15, 2013 - The City Council voted to approve Ordinance 3909 establishing a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds. March 12, 2013 - The City Council confirmed the appointment of eleven Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Interim Members Advisory Board members. March 12, 2013 - The City Council approved Ordinance 3914 amending Edmonds City Code 3.75.120 relating to the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District. Narrative Edmonds City Code Section 3.75.120, as amended by Ordinance 3914, requires the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID) Interim Members Advisory Board to recommend bylaws, in addition to a work program and budget for year 2013, to the City Council for review and consideration within 90 days after the City Council confirms the Mayor's appointment of an interim board. Providing such to the City Council Finance Committee via Agenda Quick falls within this timeline. Attached are two documents for City Council consideration and potential action. 1. Proposed EDBID Bylaws 2. Proposed EDBID work program and related budget for year 2013 Representatives of the EDBID will be presenting information on the attached bylaws and work program/budget to the Finance Committee on June 11, 2013 and subsequently to the full City Council. Packet Page 273 of 546 Attachments Proposed EDBID Bylaws Proposed EDBID Work plan for 2013 Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Final Approval Date: 06/05/2013 Reviewed By Sandy Chase Dave Earling Sandy Chase Form Review Date 06/05/2013 08:40 AM 06/05/2013 08:45 AM 06/05/2013 03:09 PM Started On: 05/31/2013 09:35 AM Packet Page 274 of 546 BY-LAWS OF THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT MEMBERS ADVISORY BOARD ARTICLE I Definitions. As used in these Bylaws, the following terms shall have the following meanings: (a) "Board" means the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Members Advisory Board (b) "RCW" means the Revised Code of Washington. (c) "ECC means the City of Edmonds Code. ARTICLE II PURPOSE OF THE BOARD Advisory Capacity. The Board shall serve in advisory capacity regarding the uses of Business Improvement District assessments collected under ECC Chapter 3.75.020 and 3.75.040 which shall include recommending annual business plans pursuant to ECC 3.75.120 ARTICLE III NAME AND PURPOSE OF THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Section 3.1. Name of Business Improvement District. The name of the Business Improvement District is the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID). The board of the EDBID may decide, by majority vote, to utilize and file a "doing business as" name for business and operations purposes. Section 3.2. Purpose of Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District. The purpose of the EDBID as an economic unit shall be to encourage, promote, and participate in activities enhancing the general economic conditions of the EDBID by: A. Marketing & Hospitality: may include maps/brochures/kiosks/directories, web site, social media, marketing/advertising campaigns, holiday decorations, street performers/artists, historic education/heritage advocacy, special public events Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 275 of 546 B. Safety & Cleanliness: may include maintenance, security, pedestrian environment enhancements C. Appearance & Environment: may include design enhancements, neighborhood advocacy & communication, streetscapes/lighting/furniture D. Transportation: may include transportation alternatives, directional signage, parking management & mitigation E. Business Recruitment & Retention: may include education/seminars, market research, business recruitment F. Organization: may include contract staff & professional services, administration costs ARTICLE IV ESTABLISHMENT OF EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Composition of EDBID. City of Edmonds Ordinance 3909, adopted on January 15, 2013, added a new Chapter to the Edmonds City Code Titled Chapter 3.75, Business Improvement District, thus establishing the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District. The Business Improvement District consists of rate paying members of the business community within the defined EDBID boundary pursuant to City of Edmonds Ordinance 3909, or as expanded by Edmonds City Council. Governmental entities, public utilities, nonprofits operating under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)3 will not be assessed. ECC 3.75.120 calls for the establishment of a Board to direct the affairs of the EDBID. ARTICLE V OFFICERS AND BOARD MEMBERSHIP Section 5.1. EDBID Board a. Composition: The EDBID Board shall consist of seven to eleven EDBID members. To the best possible degree, members of the EDBID Board will be composed of both open door and by appointment EDBID members in rough proportion to the dollar value of assessments to be levied on each classification of businesses. Additionally, EDBID members strive for Board makeup that represents distribution by district location and types of service, retail, and size of business. Per ECC 3.75.120, the City of Edmonds Finance and Community Services/Economic Development Directors, shall serve as non -voting ex officio members of the Board.. b. Eligibility: All members, in good standing and having fulfilled the requirements of membership, of the EDBID shall be eligible to serve on the Board. Each Board member will serve a term of three (3) years. Approximately one-third (1/3) of the authorized number of board members shall be elected each year at an annual meeting of EDBID members for terms of three (3) years each, from and after election, by a majority vote of EDBID members in attendance at the annual meeting, or by absentee ballot. After the completion of two (2) consecutive three (3) year Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 276 of 546 terms, one (1) year must elapse before the member is again eligible for re-election to the Board. c. Annual Election: Members will be notified of the time and place of the Annual Meeting of Members in an announcement accompanying the solicitation of nominees to the Board for the following year. This notification shall also go to the City of Edmonds. This notification must be sent at least 30 days prior to the Annual Meeting and shall require that all board nominations be received at least 14 days prior to the date of the annual meeting. The membership committee of the EDBID Board shall compile all nominations received and shall provide nominations, as necessary, in addition to those received from EDBID members. A second notice of the Annual Meeting, along with a list of candidates, and an absentee ballot, will be sent to all members at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the Annual Meeting (see Article VIII, Section 8.1). The absentee ballot may be returned no later than the date of the Annual Meeting. An agenda of business to be conducted will also be included. This agenda must include the item of annual election of Board members. The Annual Meeting must be held in the month of April, or as determined by the EDBID Board. d. Vacancies: If for any reason a place on the EDBID Board becomes vacant before a term of membership expires, the vacancy shall be filled by appointment by the president of the EDBID Board with the majority approval of the EDBID Board at the time of the appointment. e. Attendance at Meetings. Attendance at all meetings is expected of Board members. Any member of the Board anticipating an absence from a scheduled meeting shall notify the President of the Board or Secretary in advance of the meeting. f. Removal of Members. (a) If a member of the Board is absent from three (3) consecutive regular meetings of the Board without reasonable cause as determined by the Board, such member may be considered to have tendered his or her resignation to the Members Advisory Board, and may be notified in writing by the Secretary of that fact. The board has discretion to waive such resignation for reasons deemed valid. (b) Members of the Board may be removed by the Edmonds City Council for misfeasance pursuant to ECC 2.03.080 or for other reasons pursuant to general removal provisions enacted by the Edmonds City Council for boards and commissions. g. Conflicts of Interest. (a) No Board member shall be beneficially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract which may be made by, through or under the supervision of the Board, in whole or in part, or which may be made for the benefit of his or her office, or accept, directly or indirectly, any compensation, gratuity or reward in connection with such contract from any other person beneficially interested therein, except as provided by paragraph (b) below. Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 277 of 546 (b) A Board member is not interested in a contract, within the meaning of paragraph (a) above and RCW 42.23.030, if (i) he or she has only a remote interest in the contract (as that term is defined in RCW 42.23.040), (ii) the extent of his or her interest is disclosed to the Board and noted in the official minutes of the Board prior to the formation of the contract, and (iii) thereafter the Board authorizes, approves or ratifies the contract in good faith by a vote of its membership sufficient for the purpose without counting the vote of the member having the remote interest. Section 5.2. Officers. The Officers of the EDBID Board shall be a President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer. a. Election and Terms of Officers. The officers of the Board shall be elected from among its members at the first regular Annual Meeting following the Annual Meeting of Members held in each calendar year. Officers may be elected to successive terms, provided, however, that no person shall serve as an officer for more than two (2) consecutive terms. b. Powers and Duties. The officers of the Board shall have the following duties: a. President: The president shall preside over the Annual Meeting of the EDBID members and all Board meetings. The president shall prepare meeting agendas in consultation with the Secretary or EDBID administrator (if hired) as deemed appropriate by the president. The president shall appoint members to fill any unexpired term of the EDBID Board as described under Article V, Section 5.1 (d) Vacancies. The president shall be responsible for the overall governance and direction of the EDBID. b. Vice -President: The vice-president shall fulfill all the functions of the president in his/her absence. The vice-president shall ensure that either he/she or the EDBID administrator (if hired) maintains a current membership roster as set forth in Article VII, Section 4 and sends it, semi- annually, to the Program Coordinator of the City's Economic Development Department. c. Secretary: The secretary shall have the responsibility to record and verify all minutes of the Board meetings and prepare and send agendas for board meetings and annual meetings of members. d. Treasurer: The treasurer shall have the responsibility to oversee the finances of the EDBID and provide the Board and City of Edmonds with quarterly financial statements and the EDBID members with an annual financial statement. He/she shall serve as liaison to the City of Edmonds on all matters of mutual financial concern. He/she will work with the EDBID administrator or board contracted agent on all employee, state and federal tax reporting. Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 278 of 546 Section 5.3. EDBID Officer Nominations. The nomination and election of the officers of the EDBID shall be done at the start of the first Board meeting following the Annual Meeting [see Article Vill, Section 8.2(a)] with the nominating and electing process as follows. a. The floor shall be opened to nominations and closed when all nominations have been made. Nominees must be present, or have submitted a letter of intent. b. The nominees for each office shall be announced. c. An election by secret and written ballot shall be made by those members in attendance at the EDBID Board meeting. Each office will be voted on separately. d. The EDBID administrator (if hired) shall tally the votes and announce the winners. In the event of a tie, an election will be conducted between the two individuals and the process repeated until a winner is proclaimed. In the event of no EDBID administrator, the board shall appoint a board member to tally the votes and announce a winner. Section 5.4. Standing Committees. During the third quarter of each year, the EDBID Board shall develop an operational budget and form standing committees. At EDBID Board discretion, committees may be added or removed, but the following requirements will apply: (1) Each non -officer Board member will participate on a committee. (2) The president may be a non -voting ex-officio member of all committees. (3) Committee membership may include member volunteers and others with a tangible interest in the welfare of the EDBID as determined by the Board. (4) Committee members shall annually, during the 3rd quarter, recommend future action and activities for budgeting purposes. (5) Each committee shall recommend an adequate schedule to the EDBID Board and administrator. In the event of no EDBID administrator, schedules will be supervised by the EDBID Board President, Vice President, or designated Board Member or EDBID member. (6) Notification of meetings will appear on the EDBID website. (7) The EDBID Board members shall serve without compensation. Once the budget is approved by the EDBID Board and Edmonds City Council, each committee shall oversee the schedule of projects. a. Marketing and Hospitality Committee The committee shall direct activities toward stimulation of general commerce, promotion and creation of the EDBID's image and creation of marketing strategies in order to attract targeted groups. Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 279 of 546 b. Appearance and Capital Improvements (includes beautification and maintenance) Committee In coordination with other local efforts, the committee shall plan for possible capital, beautification and maintenance projects as appropriate within and extending to the boundaries of the EDBID. The committee shall recommend an adequate schedule for pedestrian amenities, street areas and EDBID parking enhancements, signage improvements, and any other beautification or maintenance projects as may be approved by the EDBID Board. In the event of no EDBID administrator, the schedule will be supervised by the EDBID Board President, Vice President, or designated Board Member or EDBID member. c. Business Education, Recruitment and Retention Committee The committee shall research and make recommendations for coordinating business education/training classes/seminars, helping recruit businesses, and market research. The committee may also develop a list of product categories and services currently available in the area.. The most desirable mix of products and services shall be reviewed and recommended by this committee based on market research. The committee shall make recommendations to the EDBID Board for how to best utilize information and research for the good of the EDBID. d. Membership Committee The committee shall be responsible for overall communications with EDBID members and the nomination process for EDBID Board members. The committee shall be alert during the year to identify those members who have shown an interest and desire to serve on the EDBID Board and its committees, in order to provide assistance to the EDBID in selection of EDBID Board members. This committee will assure that officers carry out the requirements of the Annual Meeting (see Article V, Section 5.1(c) and Article VIII, Section 8.1) and shall be responsible for general communications with members (via mail, email, website or any other form of communication). ARTICLE VI PROGRAM MANAGEMENT Pursuant to EDD.3.75.140, the EDBID Board will create a separate organization or entity, incorporated with the State of Washington, responsible for the management of EDBID administration and programs. This entity will enter into an agency agreement with the City of Edmonds. ARTICLE VII Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 280 of 546 EDMONDS BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CONSULTANT SERVICES The EDBID Board may contract for consultant services under the direction of the president with the concurrence of the Board. Such consultants' remuneration and duties may be governed by a contract or employment and description of job duties. For services outside of the purchasing threshold, as identified in the purchasing policy adopted by the EDBID Board, a proposal process will be required. All eligible proposers, including BID members or associates, shall have the option to propose. To make the selection procedure as transparent as possible, the instructions to consultants shall specify the evaluation criteria and the period of validity of submittals. The EDBID Board will review and process all proposals based on pre -determined criteria and overall value (economic and otherwise) to the EDBID. ARTICLE VIII MEMBERSHIP Section 8.1. Membership shall consist of all business owners located within the boundaries of the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District as detailed in Attachment A and Ordinance 3909. Section 8.2. In the case of corporations or partnerships, the business shall designate an individual and his/her alternate to represent it officially. There shall be no duplication or expansion of membership by reason of the internal organization of any member company. Section 8.3. No stock or shares in the EDBID will be issued, and the interest of each member in the EBID shall be equal. Membership shall be open to all persons, partnerships or business owners who maintain a place of business within the boundaries of the EDBID. Governmental entities, public utilities, nonprofits operating under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) shall not be assessed. However, voluntary payment of the appropriate assessment amount per ECC3.75.040 by an exempt entity, shall constitute membership in the EDBID. Section 8.4. The EDBID vice president shall be responsible for the preparation of a membership list setting forth the names and addresses of members and the official representative and alternate representative of each. A representative once designated shall be conclusively presumed to continue in the capacity until the receipt of written notice, from an officer of the member firm, naming a replacement. Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 281 of 546 ARTICLE IX MEETINGS OF THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Section 9.1. Annual Meeting of Members. The Annual Meeting of Members of the EDBID shall be held in the month of April for the purpose of electing members of the EDBID Board of Directors. Other business shall include any appropriate items. Notice of the Annual Meeting shall accompany the solicitation of nominees sent at least thirty (30) days prior to the Annual Meeting. It is the responsibility of members to notify the EDBID and City of Edmonds of any change of address or ownership. Section 9.2. Meetings of EDBID Board. a. At the next regularly scheduled EDBID Board meeting following the Annual Meeting of Members, the Board will elect the officers of the EDBID Board. (See Article V, Section 5.3) b. The EDBID Board shall meet no less frequently than once a quarter, on the second Thursday of the first month of each quarter at 8:00 am, except that no meeting is required in December. Draft minutes of the previous EDBID Board meeting and any communications from standing committees will be delivered to each member of the EDBID Board five (5) days prior to the meeting. c. The EDBID's secretary, or designee, shall keep accurate minutes of the proceedings and decisions of the EDBID Board meetings. The EDBID's secretary verifies the Board minutes prior to them being delivered to the EDBID Board prior to the following meeting. d. Any member may attend any meeting of the EDBID Board and this policy shall be posted on the EDBID website. Upon request, a member may speak to an item before the EDBID Board for a period of time as determined by the Board. Upon request, a member may raise issues for discussion by the Board, but notification to Board members must precede the discussion. Non -Board member members may not vote at Board Meetings. e. For the purposes of conducting business, a majority gathering of EDBID Board Members will be considered a quorum of the EDBID. f. A majority of those voting, if quorum is present, shall constitute a deciding vote by the EDBID. g. The president or designee may declare emergency Board meetings and waive required notice; however, an effort must be made to meet all requirements if possible. h. Three (3) or more EDBID Board members can set special meetings of the EDBID Board, provided all requirements of notification are met. Section 9.3. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the EDBID may be held any time upon the request of the president who may desire to call such a meeting, providing that the president first notifies the secretary, who shall send notice to each EDBID member at least ten (10) days prior to the time fixed for such special meeting. Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 282 of 546 ARTICLE X SEAL The EDBID shall have no seal until such a time as the EDBID Board and president of the EDBID may adopt one as part of an appropriate resolution. ARTICLE XI AMENDMENT OF BY-LAWS These by-laws may be altered, supplemented, amended or repealed at any regular or special meeting of the EDBID Board as designated in board quorum, Article Vill, section 2 (f), provided notice of the proposed change has been mailed to all members at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting at which such proposed change is to be considered. ARTICLE XII ASSESSMENT No member of the EDBID shall be personally liable for the debts or liabilities of the EDBID, except to the extent of any unpaid portion of dues or assessments or signed contracts with the EDBID. Dues or assessments shall be established per City of Edmonds Ordinance 3909. It is expressly provided that, without limiting the generality of this provision, no assessment, charge or levy shall ever be made by any receiver, trustee in bankruptcy, assignee for the benefit of creditors, court or judgment creditor. ARTICLE XIII PROCEDURE The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, and more specifically, the modified rules for small boards and committees, shall govern the EDBID in all cases where applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the EDBID may adopt. Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 283 of 546 EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED 2013 WORK PROGRAM & PLAN Edmonds, Washington Prepared pursuant to Edmonds City Ordinance 3909, Section 3.75.120 Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 284 of 546 The mission of the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District is to encourage, promote and participate in activities enhancing the general economic conditions for the mutual benefit of businesses in the district and the city of Edmonds. Per Ordinance 3909, the scope of work includes: A. Marketing & Hospitality: may include maps/brochures/kiosks/directories, web site, social media, marketing/advertising campaigns, holiday decorations, street performers/artists, historic education/heritage advocacy, special public events B. Safety & Cleanliness: may include maintenance, security, pedestrian environment enhancements C. Appearance & Environment: may include design enhancements, neighborhood advocacy & communication, streetscapes/lighting/furniture D. Transportation: may include transportation alternatives, directional signage, parking management & mitigation E. Business Recruitment & Retention: may include education/seminars, market research, business recruitment F. Organization: may include contract staff & professional services, administration costs INTRODUCTION The Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID) was approved on January 15, 2013 under Ordinance 3909. The following is the first year work program and plan for the district, effective from approval by Edmonds City Council through December 31, 2013, implementing the BID program for 2013. It includes a description of the District, proposed first year services, sources of funding, first year budget and allocations. I. MAP OF THE DISTRICT Geographically, the EDBID is located in downtown Edmonds, Washington as defined and delineated on the map in Ordinance 3909, Exhibit A. II. PROPOSED 2013 SERVICES The services to be provided in this plan include items required for the promotion and enhancement of the EDBID and to meet the needs identified by members of the District. The services are not intended to take the place of, but add to or supplement those services provided by the City. The services will be executed under the direction of the EDBID Members Advisory Board. Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 285 of 546 A. Non-profit Organization The Members Advisory Board will form an association as a non-profit organization incorporated under Washington law. The association will be established for the purpose of contracting with the City of Edmonds and executing the responsibilities of the EDBID and will carry out the activities prescribed in the EDBID bylaws, pursuant to ECC 3909, section 3.175.140, and will promote and support the EDBID. The Members Advisory Board shall adopt an appropriate and relevant name for the organization, but for purposes of this work program the association will be referred to as the "District Association." Prior to the formation of a District Association, the work plan and associated programs will be administered by the Members Advisory Board, under the direction of the City of Edmonds Community Services/Economic Development Director and/or Finance Director as the Program Administrator. The District Association will be organized exclusively for charitable and educational purposes as specified in Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The Board of Directors of the District Association will be made up of the same members as the EDBID Members Advisory Board, as appointed and under the same terms, as proposed in the EDBID Bylaws. B. Administration There will be no paid administrative support staff for the EDBID in 2013. The District Association Board will be responsible for the administration of the District Association on a volunteer basis, inclusive of all infrastructure, operations and outreach. In addition, the District Association will be responsible for the research and implementation of the proposed professional services listed herein. Operating expenses will include supplies and insurance, post office box rental, mailings to members, and web domain and hosting fees. Legal, accounting and professional services will be contracted on an as -needed basis. When appropriate, pro-bono services will be used. C. Assessment and Evaluation The District Association recognizes the important responsibility it has to its members to demonstrate effective and efficient use of EDBID resources. As such, the District Association will include reasonable and appropriate program assessment and evaluation efforts within its work plans. This may include internal and external initiatives such as member surveys, market research, third party or independent impact analysis, etc. Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 286 of 546 D. Member Engagement and Outreach Creating a collaborative and effective business district is a high priority for the District Association. Communications to members will take place regularly and in a cost- effective manner. A member meeting will be held prior to September 2013 as a forum to seek input into the mission and activities of the EDBID. E. Business and Civic Collaboration and Outreach Partnering with existing organizations in Edmonds will help to strengthen the mission of the EDBID. The District Association will create and maintain a comprehensive list of organizations and follow up with outreach to each. This list will include the Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association, Chamber of Commerce, arts organizations, City of Edmonds, education partners, service clubs, business organizations and other community groups. F. Branding and Identity Development The District Association identifies comprehensive EDBID branding and identity development as an important priority for 2013. The District Association will seek, via a request for proposal and in accordance with the City of Edmonds purchasing policies, a qualified, creative communications entity to develop and implement an integrated brand and identity initiative. It is anticipated that the RFP publication, selection process, contracting and initial start-up of services will occur during 2013. G. Professional Business Resources Being mindful of by -appointment members' needs, the District Association will offer services as determined to be beneficial to the members. Examples include, but are not limited to, business directories, professional services, assistance with social media, search engine optimization, etc. H. Parking Parking has been highlighted as a priority for members of the EDBID. In 2013, the District Association will appoint a liaison to the City of Edmonds parking committee, in addition to researching private sector solutions to increase parking options within the downtown district. I. Research of Potential Boundary Adjustment Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 287 of 546 In coordination with the City and stakeholders, research will be conducted to determine which, if any, properties should be added to the EDBID in future years. Per the Revised Code of Washington, the boundaries of the current EDBID can be increased by 10% of the total annual assessment each year. J. 2014 Planning The District Association will implement a 2014 work program, plan and annual budget to present to Edmonds City Council in September 2013. III. PROPOSED SOURCES OF FUNDING The District Association may enter into an agency agreement or contract with the City of Edmonds for the purpose of having the City levy and collect, and then disburse to the District Association, assessments with respect to the EDBID businesses subject to such assessment pursuant to Ordinance 3909. A. Assessments Assessments will be collected in accordance with Ordinance 3909. B. Grants and Donations The District Association may pursue and accept grants and donations from private institutions, the City, other public entities or individuals and other non-profit organizations, in accordance with State and Federal law. IV. ANNUAL BUDGET A. Estimated Revenue The primary focus is to set the groundwork and build community relationships before any long-term projects can be implemented. The projected assessments collected for 2013 will be approximately $66,000. B. Estimated Expenses In accordance with the scope of work as approved in Ordinance 3909, it is anticipated that the budget of proposed expenditures to be made during the first operating year of the EDBID will be as follows: Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 288 of 546 District Association Administration $ 5,000 Branding and Identity Development $ 26,000 Member Engagement and Outreach $ 5,000 Professional Business Resources $ 4,000 TOTAL FIRST YEAR BUDGET $ 40,000 C. Unallocated Funds Considering potential delays in introductory member assessment collection efforts, an unallocated fund balance of $26,000 at the end of fiscal year 2013 is projected. The District Association reserves the right to utilize these funds as necessary if the budget needed for the approved work exceeds the budgeted amount. D. Subsequent Budgets The District Association shall establish for each fiscal year after the first year a proposed budget for expenditures. Such proposed budgets shall: i) reasonably itemize the purpose for which monies are proposed to be expended by the EDBID; and (ii) set forth the total amount proposed to be expended. A proposed budget, whether for the first year or for subsequent years, shall be referred to as the "Budget." E. General Provisions i. The District Association shall make no expenditures other than in accordance with and pursuant to a Budget for which a total Annual Budget amount has been approved by the City and the District Association. ii. In the event that in any given fiscal year the sources of funding and/or reserves held over from the previous year do not equal the total annual budget amount, the District Association may choose to eliminate some expenditures in order to balance the budget. iii. The District Association, at the conclusion of the fiscal year, will provide a detailed financial report in accordance with Ordinance 3909. Approved by Members Advisory Board 6/4/2013 Packet Page 289 of 546 AM-5824 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: Time: Submitted For: 06/ 11 /2013 5 Minutes Stephen Clifton Department: Community Services Review Committee: Finance Type: Action Submitted By: Committee Action: Information Stephen Clifton 7. H. Subject Title Ordinance Amending Edmonds City Code Sections 3.75.060 - 100 Relating to the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Members Advisory Board. Recommendation Previous Council Action November 13, 2012 - The City Council Finance Committee expressed support for, and recommended the City Council approve, a resolution initiating a proposal for a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds. November 27, 2012 - The City Council voted to approve a resolution initiating a proposal for a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds (see attached). December 18, 2012 - The City Council voted to approve a resolution declaring the City's intent to establish a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds and setting the public hearing date for January 15, 2013 (see attached). January 15, 2013 - The City Council voted to approve Ordinance 3909 establishing a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds. March 12, 2013 - The City Council confirmed the appointment of eleven Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Interim Members Advisory Board members. March 12, 2013 - The City Council approved Ordinance 3914 amending Edmonds City Code 3.75.120 relating to the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District. Narrative Edmonds City Code Sections 3.75.060, 3.75.070, 3.75.080, 3.75.090 and 3.75.100 relate to the deposit and collection of revenue, delinquent payments and notification of such. Upon review by the City's Interim Finance Director serving as an ex-officio EDBID Boardmember, he has requested minor changes in terminology to more accurately reflect what is to take place related to unpaid assessments, delinquent charges and payments. The attached ordinance serves as the second amendment to Ordinance 3909. Ordinance 3914 (Amendment #1) was approved by the City Council on March 12, 2013. Attachments Draft Ordinance - Amendment #2 to Ordinance 3909 Attachment a to Amendment #2 to Ordinance 3909 Packet Page 290 of 546 Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Final Approval Date: 06/05/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 06/05/2013 08:40 AM Dave Earling 06/05/2013 08:46 AM Sandy Chase 06/05/2013 03:09 PM Started On: 06/04/2013 04:28 PM Packet Page 291 of 546 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE, SECTIONS 3.75.060, 3.75.070, 3.75.080, 3.75.090 and 3.75.100 RELATING TO THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement D i s t r i c t ( B I D ) was established by Ordinance No. 3909 resulting in the establishment of Edmonds City Code Section 3.75; and WHEREAS, Edmonds City Code Sections 3.75.060, 3.75.070, 3.75.080, 3.75.090 and 3.75.100 relate to the deposit and collection of revenue, delinquent payments and notification of such; and, WHEREAS, the City's Interim Finance Director has requested a change in terminology used to more accurately reflect what is to take place related unpaid assessments, delinquent charges and payments and the City Council now deems it appropriate to modify the terminology; and WHEREAS, on , 2 0 13, the City Council directed that an ordinance be prepared to make further revisions to sections 3.75.060, 3.75.070, 3.75.080, 3.75.090 and 3.75.100 ECC, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Sections 3.75.060, 3.75.070, 3.75.080, 3.75.090 and 3.75.100 of the Edmonds City Code is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in strike through): Packet Page 292 of 546 Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: i• Jeffrey B. Taraday, City Attorney FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Approved: MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING -2 Packet Page 293 of 546 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ? ? day of June, 2013, 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 EDMONDS CITY CODE, SECTIONS 3.75.060, 3.75.070, 3.75.080, 3.75.090 and 3.75.100 RELATING TO THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 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 March, 2013. CITY CLERK: SANDRA S. CHASE 4852-3031-9887, v 1 Packet Page 294 of 546 Attachment A ECC 3.75.060. Deposit of Revenues. The City of Edmonds will create a Business Improvement District Fund within the City of Edmonds budget; a separate subaccount designated as the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Account (called "the Account"). The following monies shall be deposited in the Account: (a) All revenues from assessments levied under this ordinance; (b) Gifts, grants and donations; (c) Interest and all other income from the investment of Account deposits; (d) Reimbursements due to the Account; (e) interest analer penalties fFemP linquency charges from delinquent accounts; and (f) Transfers from other city funds, PROVIDED THAT liabilities of the EDBID shall not be an obligation of the general fund or any other special fund of the City. ECC 3.75.070. Collection Schedule. Assessments shall be paid and collected on a quarterly basis, PROVIDED THAT Members may opt to pay the full yearly assessment at the time of the billing for the first quarter. ECC 3.75.080. Delinquent Payments. If the assessment is not paid within sixty (60) days after its due date, a delinquency charge shall be added atand calculated at anthe interest rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum of the due amount. The Finance Director is authorized to use a City of Edmonds approved collection agency to collect any unpaid assessments. Use of a collection agency will result in a business paying the agency's fee on top of the amount of the BID assessment plus delinquency chnarjZesifitefest and penalties. ECC 3.75.090. Notices. Notices of assessment, installment payments, or delinquency, and all other notices contemplated by this ordinance shall be sent to the EDBID Packet Page 295 of 546 Member by ordinary mail to the mailing address shown on the Business License as maintained by the City Clerk. Failure of the Member to receive any mailed notice shall not release the Member from the duty to pay the assessment and any interest and delinquency charges on the due date. ECC 3.75.100. Disputes. Any Member seeking to challenge the amount of an assessment or delinquency charge may submit additional information concerning the classification and/or square footage of the business to the Finance Director or designee, who may adjust the assessment based on Table 1 if he determines that the original classification and/or square footage was erroneous. The Finance Director shall provide a written determination to the Member, which may be appealed to the City's Hearing Examiner within ten days of the Finance Director's determination by paying an appeal fee in the amount of $250.00 and filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk that sets forth the alleged error in the Finance Director's determination. The Member has the burden of proof before the Hearing Examiner to show that the assessment or delinquency char efee is incorrect. Packet Page 296 of 546 AM-5837 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: 20 Minutes Submitted By: Carrie Hite Department: Parks and Recreation Review Committee: Finance Type: Subject Title Park Impact Fee Study direction. Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Information Recommendation Council to discuss options for assessing a Park Impact Fee and forward to full Council for a Public Hearing, discussion and approval. Previous Council Action Council authorized the completion of a Park Impact Fee Study on March 6, 2012. Council amended their motion to allow staff to proceed with selection of a consultant on March 20, 2012. On April 23, 2013, Council received the final report and presentation from Randy Young, Young, Henderson and Company, and discussed merits of assessing Park Impact fees. Narrative Randy Young from Henderson, Young and Company has been working with staff to complete the Park Impact Fee study. Mr. Young made a presentation of his final report, findings and recommendations on April 23rd, 2013. Council was asked to weigh in on several options in regard to the recommendations via email, and included: 1. Park Impact Fee: yes or no? 2. If yes, residential and commercial, or just residential? 3. Low income housing exemption: yes or no? 4. Keep the rates Randy outlined, raise the rates, or lower the rates? 5. Phase in for 2, 3, or 4 years or implement full rate in first year? Based on the input to these questions, staff was charged to come back to the Council committees if there were varying opinions. Randy Young will be here for the committee meetings, and we will discuss options. Attachments Park Impact Fee Rate Study Form Review Inbox Packet Page 297 of 546 Reviewed By Date City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Carrie Hite Final Approval Date: 06/06/2013 Sandy Chase Dave Earling Sandy Chase 06/06/2013 11:56 AM 06/06/2013 01:19 PM 06/06/2013 01:34 PM Started On: 06/06/2013 11:30 AM Packet Page 298 of 546 RATE STUDY FOR IMPACT FEES FOR PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND RECREATION FACILITIES FOR CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON EDP � d ,417c�j Sq(0, Prepared By Henderson Young & Company April 5, 2013 Packet Page 299 of 546 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................I 2. STATUTORY BASIS AND METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................3 3. GROWTH ESTIMATES.......................................................................................................................................10 4. PARK IMPACT FEES...........................................................................................................................................13 APPENDIX: EQUIVALENT POPULATION COEFFICIENTS..........................................................................20 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: IMPACT FEE RATES.........................................................................................................................................I TABLE2: POPULATION.................................................................................................................................................10 TABLE3: EMPLOYMENT...............................................................................................................................................I I TABLE 4: GROWTH OF EQUIVALENT POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT........................................................................12 TABLE 5: ASSET INVENTORY AND CAPITAL VALUE.....................................................................................................14 TABLE 6: VALUE OF PARKS PER EQUIVALENT POPULATION........................................................................................15 TABLE 7: VALUE OF PARKS NEEDED FOR GROWTH.....................................................................................................16 TABLE 8: INVESTMENT NEEDED IN PARKS FOR GROWTH............................................................................................17 TABLE 9: INVESTMENT IN PARKS TO BE PAID BY GROWTH..........................................................................................18 TABLE 10: GROWTH COST PER PERSON.........................................................................................................................19 TABLE 11: IMPACT FEE PER UNIT..................................................................................................................................19 Packet Page 300 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to establish the rates for impact fees in the City of Edmonds, Washington for parks, open space, and recreation facilities as authorized by RCW' 82.02,090(7). Throughout this study the term "parks" is used as the short name that means parks, open space, and recreation facilities. Summary of Impact Fee Rates Impact fees are paid by all types of new development2, Impact fee rates for new development are based on, and vary according to the type of land use. The following table summarizes the impact fee rates for each land use category. Table 1: Impact Fee Rates Type of Development Unit Impact Fee per Unit Single -Family dwelling unit $ 2,734.05 Multi -Family dwelling unit 2,340.16 Retail sq, ft, 2.48 Office sq, ft, 0.62 Manufacturing sq, ft, 0.72 Construction sq, ft, 0.25 Impact Fees vs. Other Developer Contributions Impact fees are charges paid by new development to reimburse local governments for the capital cost of public facilities that are needed to serve new development and the people who occupy or use the new development. Throughout this study, the term "developer" is used as a shorthand expression to describe anyone who is obligated to pay impact fees, including builders, owners or developers. Local governments charge impact fees for several reasons; 1) to obtain revenue to pay for some of the cost of new public facilities; 2) to implement a public policy that new development should pay a portion of the cost of facilities that it requires, and that existing development should not pay all of the cost of such facilities; and 3) to assure that adequate public facilities will be constructed to ' Revised Code of Washington (RCW) is the state law of the State of Washington. 2 The impact fee ordinance may specify exemptions for low-income housing and/or "broad public purposes", but such exemptions must be paid for by public money, not other impact fees. The ordinance may specify if impact fees apply to changes in use, remodeling, etc. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 1 Company Packet Page 301 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds serve new development, The impact fees that are described in this study do not include any other forms of developer contributions or exactions, such as mitigation or voluntary payments authorized by SEPA (the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21 C); system development charges for water and sewer authorized for utilities (RCW 35.92 for municipalities, 56.16 for sewer districts, and 57.08 for water districts); local improvement districts or other special assessment districts; linkage fees; or land donations or fees in lieu of land. Organization of the Study This impact fee rate study contains three chapters: • Chapter 1 - Introduction: provides a summary of impact fee rates for frequently used land use categories, and other introductory materials. • Chapter 2 - Statutory Basis and Methodology: summarizes the statutory requirements for developing impact fees, and describes the compliance with each requirement. • Chapter 3 - Growth Estimates: presents estimates of future growth of population and employment in Edmonds because impact fees are paid by growth to offset the cost of parks, open space and recreation facilities that will be needed to serve new development. • Chapter 4 - Park Impact Fees: presents impact fees for parks. The chapter includes the methodology that is used to develop the fees, the formulas, variables and data that are the basis for the fees, and the calculation of the fees. The methodology is designed to comply with the requirements of Washington state law. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 2 Packet Page 302 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds 2. STATUTORY BASIS AND METHODOLOGY This chapter summarizes the statutory requirements for impact fees in the State of Washington, and describes how the City of Edmonds' impact fees comply with the statutory requirements. Statutory Requirements for Impact Fees The Growth Management Act of 1990 (Chapter 17, Washington Laws, 1990, 1st Ex. Sess,) authorizes local governments in Washington to charge impact fees, RCW 82.02.050 - 82.02.090 contain the provisions of the Growth Management Act that authorize and describe the requirements for impact fees. The impact fees that are described in this study are not mitigation payments authorized by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), There are several important differences between impact fees and SEPA mitigations. Three aspects of impact fees that are particularly noteworthy are: 1) the ability to charge for the cost of public facilities that are "system improvements" (i.e., that provide service to the community at large) as opposed to "project improvements'' (which are "on -site'' and provide service for a particular development); 2) the ability to charge small-scale development their proportionate share, whereas SEPA exempts small developments; and 3) the predictability and simplicity of impact fee rate schedules compared to the cost, time and uncertain outcome of SEPA reviews conducted on a case -by -case basis. The following synopsis of the most significant requirements of the law includes citations to the Revised Code of Washington as an aid to readers who wish to review the exact language of the statutes. Types of Public Facilities Four types of public facilities can be the subject of impact fees: 1) public streets and roads; 2) publicly owned parks, open space and recreation facilities; 3) school facilities; and 4) fire protection facilities. RCW 82,02,050(2) and (4), and RC W 82, 02, 090(7) Types of Improvements Impact fees can be spent on "system improvements" (which are typically outside the development), as opposed to ''project improvements" (which are typically provided by the developer on -site within the development). RCW 82, 02, 050(3) (a) an d RC W 82, 02. 090(5) an d (9) Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 3 Packet Page 303 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Benefit to Development Impact fees must be limited to system improvements that are reasonably related to, and which will benefit new development, RCW 82.02.050(3)(0) and (c). Local governments must establish reasonable service areas (one area, or more than one, as determined to be reasonable by the local government), and local governments must develop impact fee rate categories for various land uses. RCW 82.02.060(7) Proportionate Share Impact fees cannot exceed the development's proportionate share of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development. The impact fee amount shall be based on a formula (or other method of calculating the fee) that determines the proportionate share. RCW 82.02.050(3)(b), RCW 82.02.060(7), and RCW 82.02.090(6) Reductions of Impact Fee Amounts Impact fees rates must be adjusted to account for other revenues that the development pays (if such payments are earmarked for or proratable to particular system improvements). RCW 82.02.050(7)(c) and (2) and RCW 82.02.060(7)(b) Impact fees may be credited for the value of dedicated land, improvements or construction provided by the developer (if such facilities are in the adopted CFP as system improvements eligible for impact fees and are required as a condition of development approval). RCW 82.02.060(4) Exemptions from Impact Fees Local governments have the discretion to provide exemptions from impact fees for low-income housing and other "broad public purpose" development, but all such exempt fees must be paid from public funds (other than impact fee accounts). RCW 82.02.060(2) and (3) Developer Options Developers who are liable for impact fees can submit data and or/analysis to demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed development are less than the impacts calculated in this rate study. RCW 82.02.060(6). Developers can pay impact fees under protest and appeal impact fee calculations. RCW 82.02.070(4) and (5), The developer can obtain a refund of the impact fees if the local government fails to expend or obligate the impact fee payments within 10 years, or terminates the impact fee requirement, or the developer does not proceed with the development (and creates no impacts). RCW 82.02.080 Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 4 Packet Page 304 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plans Impact fees must be expended on public facilities in a capital facilities plan (CFP) element or used to reimburse the government for the unused capacity of existing facilities. The CFP must conform to the Growth Management Act of 1990, and must identify existing deficiencies in facility capacity for current development, capacity of existing facilities available for new development, and additional facility capacity needed for new development. RCW 82,02,050(4), RCW 82, 02, 060(8), an d RC W 82, 02, 070(2) New Versus Existing Facilities Impact fees can be charged for new public facilities (RCW 82,02,060(7)(0) and for the unused capacity of existing public facilities (RCW 82,02,060(8) subject to the proportionate share limitation described above. Accounting Requirements The local government must separate the impact fees from other monies, expend or obligate the money on CFP projects within 10 years, and prepare annual reports of collections and expenditures. RCW 82,02,070(7)-(3) Compliance With Statutory Requirements for Impact Fees Many of the statutory requirements listed above are fulfilled in calculation of the parks impact fee in Chapter 3. Some of the statutory requirements are fulfilled in other ways, as described below. Types of Public Facilities This study contains impact fees for parks. This study does not contain impact fees for transportation, fire, or schools. In general, local governments that are authorized to charge impact fees are responsible for specific public facilities for which they may charge such fees. The City of Edmonds is legally and financially responsible for the parks facilities it owns and operates within its jurisdiction. In no case may a local government charge impact fees for private facilities, but it may charge impact fees for some public facilities that it does not administer if such facilities are "owned or operated by government entities" (RCW 82,02,090 (7), Types of Improvements The public facilities that can be paid for by impact fees are "system improvements" (which are typically outside the development), and "designed to provide service to service areas within the community at large" as provided in RCW 82,02,090(9)), as opposed to "project improvements" (which are typically Henderson, Young & Company April 5, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 305 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds provided by the developer on -site within the development or adjacent to the development), and "designed to provide service for a development project, and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the project" as provided in RCW 82.02.090(5). The impact fees in this study are based on system improvements that are described in Chapter 3. No project improvements are included in this study. Impact fee revenue can be used for the capital cost of public facilities. Impact fees cannot be used for operating or maintenance expenses. The cost of public facilities that can be paid for by impact fees include land acquisition and development. The costs can also include design studies, engineering, land surveys, appraisals, permitting, financing, administrative expenses, applicable mitigation costs, and capital equipment pertaining to capital improvements. Benefit to Development, Proportionate Share and Reductions of Fee Amounts The law imposes three tests of the benefit provided to development by impact fees; 1) proportionate share, 2) reasonably related to need, and 3) reasonably related to expenditure (RCW 80.20.050(3)). In addition, the law requires the designation of one or more service areas (RCW 82.02.060(7) 1. Proportionate Share. First, the "proportionate share" requirement means that impact fees can be charged only for the portion of the cost of public facilities that is "reasonably related" to new development. In other words, impact fees cannot be charged to pay for the cost of reducing or eliminating deficiencies in existing facilities. Second, there are several important implications of the proportionate share requirement that are not specifically addressed in the law, but which follow directly from the law; • Costs of facilities that will benefit new development and existing users must be apportioned between the two groups in determining the amount of the fee. This can be accomplished in either of two ways; (1) by allocating the total cost between new and existing users, or (2) calculating the cost per unit and applying the cost only to new development when calculating impact fees. • Impact fees that recover the costs of existing unused capacity should be based on the government's actual cost. Carrying costs may be added to reflect the government's actual or imputed interest expense. The third aspect of the proportionate share requirement is its relationship to the requirement to provide adjustments and credits to impact fees, where appropriate. These requirements ensure that the amount of the impact fee does not exceed the proportionate share. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 6 Company Packet Page 306 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds The "adjustments" requirement reduces the impact fee to account for past and future payments of other revenues (if such payments are earmarked for, or proratable to, the system improvements that are needed to serve new growth). The impact fees calculated in this study include an adjustment that accounts for any other revenue that is paid by new development and used by the City to pay for a portion of growth's proportionate share of costs. This adjustment is in response to the limitations in RCW 82.02.060 (1)(b) and RCW 82.02.050(2), The "credit" requirement reduces impact fees by the value of dedicated land, improvements or construction provided by the developer (if such facilities are in the adopted CFP, identified as the projects for which impact fees are collected, and are required as a condition of development approval). The law does not prohibit a local government from establishing reasonable constraints on determining credits. For example, the location of dedicated land and the quality and design of donated land or recreation facilities can be required to be acceptable to the local government. 2. Reasonably Related to Need. There are many ways to fulfill the requirement that impact fees be "reasonably related" to the development's need for public facilities, including personal use and use by others in the family or business enterprise (direct benefit), use by persons or organizations who provide goods or services to the fee -paying property or are customers or visitors at the fee paying property (indirect benefit), and geographical proximity (presumed benefit). These measures of relatedness are implemented by the following techniques: Impact fees are charged to properties that need (i.e,, benefit from) new public facilities. The City of Edmonds provides its infrastructure to all kinds of property throughout the City, therefore impact fees have been calculated for all types of property. The relative needs of different types of growth are considered in establishing fee amounts (i.e,, different impact values for different types of land use). Chapter 3 uses different numbers of persons per dwelling unit for residential development, and different numbers of employees and visitors for different types of non-residential development. Feepayers can pay a smaller fee if they demonstrate that their development will have less impact than is presumed in the impact fee schedule calculation for their property classification. Such reduced needs must be permanent and enforceable (i.e., via land use restrictions). Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 7 Packet Page 307 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds 3. Reasonably Related to Expenditures. Two provisions of Edmonds' impact fee ordinance comply with the requirement that expenditures be "reasonably related" to the development that paid the impact fee. First, the requirement that fee revenue must be earmarked for specific uses related to public facilities ensures that expenditures are on specific projects, the benefit of which has been demonstrated in determining the need for the projects and the portion of the cost of needed projects that are eligible for impact fees as described in this study. Second, impact fee revenue must be expended or obligated within 10 years, thus requiring the impact fees to be used to benefit to the feepayer and not held by the City. 4. Service Areas for Impact Fees Impact fees in some jurisdictions are collected and expended within service areas that are smaller than the jurisdiction that is collecting the fees. Impact fees are not required to use multiple service areas unless such "zones" are necessary to establish the relationship between the fee and the development. Because of the compact size of the City of Edmonds and the accessibility of its parks to all property within the City, Edmonds' parks serve the entire City, therefore the impact fees are based on a single service area corresponding to the boundaries of the City of Edmonds. Exemptions The City's impact fee ordinance addresses the subject of exemptions, Exemptions do not affect the impact fee rates calculated in this study because of the statutory requirement that any exempted impact fee must be paid from other public funds. As a result, there is no increase in impact fee rates to make up for the exemption because there is no net loss to the impact fee account as a result of the exemption. Developer Options A developer who is liable for impact fees has several options regarding impact fees. The developer can submit data and or/analysis to demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed development are less than the impacts calculated in this rate study. The developer can appeal the impact fee calculation by the City of Edmonds. If the local government fails to expend the impact fee payments within 10 years of receipt of such payments, the developer can obtain a refund of the impact fees. The developer can also obtain a refund if the development does not proceed and no impacts are created. All of these provisions are addressed in the City's impact fee ordinance, and none of them affect the calculation of impact fee rates in this study. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 8 Packet Page 308 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan There are references in RCW to the "capital facilities plan" (CFP) as the basis for projects that are eligible for funding by impact fees. Cities often adopt documents with different titles that fulfill the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 et. seq. pertaining to a "capital facilities plan". The City of Edmonds annually adopts a 6-year Capital Improvements Program (CIP), and also an annual update to its CFP that extends beyond the 6-year CIP. These two documents fulfill the requirements in RCW, and are considered to be the "capital facilities plan" (CFP) for the purpose of this impact fee rate study. All references to a CFP in this study are references to the CIP and CFP documents described above. The requirement to identify existing deficiencies, capacity available for new development, and additional public facility capacity needed for new development is determined by analyzing levels of service for each type of public facility. Chapter 3 provides this analysis. New Versus Existing Facilities, Accounting Requirements Impact fees must be spent on capital projects contained in an adopted capital facilities plan, or they can be used to reimburse the government for the unused capacity of existing facilities. Impact fee payments that are not expended or obligated within 10 years must be refunded unless the City Council makes a written finding that an extraordinary and compelling reason exists to hold the fees for longer than 10 years. In order to verify these two requirements, impact fee revenues must be deposited into separate accounts of the government, and annual reports must describe impact fee revenue and expenditures. These requirements are addressed by Edmonds' impact fee ordinance, and are not factors in the impact fee calculations in this study. Data Sources The data in this study of impact fees in Edmonds, Washington was provided by the City of Edmonds, unless a different source is specifically cited. Data Rounding The data in this study was prepared using computer spreadsheet software. In some tables in this study, there may be very small variations from the results that would be obtained using a calculator to compute the same data. The reason for these insignificant differences is that the spreadsheet software was allowed to calculate results to more places after the decimal than is reported in the tables of these reports. The calculation to extra places after the decimal increases the accuracy of the end results, but causes occasional minor differences due to rounding of data that appears in this study. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 9 Packet Page 309 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds I GROWTH ESTIMATES Impact fees are meant to have "growth pay for growth" so the first step in developing an impact fee is to quantify future growth in the City of Edmonds. Growth estimates have been prepared for population and employment. Table 2 lists Edmonds population and growth rates from 1940 to the present, and projections to the year 2025. Table 2: Population Year Population Compound Annual Growth Rate Compound Growth Rate Years 1940 1,288 1950 2,057 4,79% 1940-1950 1960 8,016 14,57% 1950-1960 1970 23,684 1 1,44% 1960-1970 1980 27,679 1,57% 1970-1980 1990 30,744 1, 06% 1980-1990 2000 39,515 2,54% 1990-2000 2010 39,709 0,05% 2000-2010 2011 39,800 0,23% 2010-2011 2025 44,880 0,82% 2010-2025 Source of Population for years 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2025: City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, December 2012, page 10. Source of Population for 2010: U.S, Census. Source of Population for 2011: Washington Office of Financial Management. In addition to residential population growth, Edmonds expects businesses to grow. Business development is included in this study because businesses and their employees and customers benefit from Edmonds' parks. For example, City parks provide places for employees and customers to fake breaks from work and shopping, including restful breaks and/or active exercise to promote healthy living, The Puget Sound Regional Council monitors "covered employment" which is employment tracked by the Washington State Employment Security Department. The data is tracked for eight different major sectors of employment, such as manufacturing, retail, and services. Table 3 lists employment in Edmonds businesses from 2000 to 2011, and growth that is projected to the year 2025, Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 10 Packet Page 310 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Table 3: Employment Annual Const Change Year /Res FIRE Mfg. Retail Svices. WTU Govt. Educ. Total of Total 2000 666 513 129 1,594 4,735 321 1,402 892 10,253 2001 766 578 114 1,504 4,593 258 1,717 889 10,418 1,61 % 2002 647 522 81 1,437 4,432 267 1,718 897 10,001 -4,00% 2003 750 532 103 1,426 4,442 307 1,915 888 10,362 3,61 % 2004 778 582 69 1,408 4,669 314 1,670 887 10,377 0,14% 2005 842 591 98 1,426 4,830 346 1,897 899 10,929 5,32% 2006 797 642 97 1,419 5,046 397 1,701 881 10,980 0,47% 2007 813 692 79 1,477 5,320 417 1,665 873 11,338 3,26% 2008 776 696 100 1,492 5,639 312 1,690 883 11,588 2,20% 2009 606 484 116 1,368 5,375 297 1,719 900 10,864 -6,25% 2010 535 400 129 1,363 5,261 294 1,747 946 10,675 -1,74% 2011 482 397 137 1,514 7,292 240 380 919 11,362 6,44% 2025 549 452 156 1,725 8,310 274 433 1,047 12,947 0,94% Const/Res = Construction & Resources; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; Mfg, = Manufacturing; Svices. _ Services; WTU = Wholesale Trade, Transportation and Utilities; Govt. = Government; Educ. = Education Source of Employment for 2000 - 2011: Puget Sound Regional Council, Source of Employment for 2025: Henderson, Young & Company, based on 2011 PSRC data and compound annual growth rate from 2000-2011. It is clear from Tables 2 and 3 that Edmonds expects growth of population and businesses in the future, so there is a rational basis for park impact fees that would have future growth to pay for parks, open space and recreation facilities that are needed to provide appropriate levels of service to new development. Population and employment are both expected to grow, but they should not be counted equally because employees and visitors spend less time in Edmonds than residents, therefore they have less benefit from Edmonds' parks. There is a well -established and widely -used technique for accounting for these differences in impact, and if involves "equivalency." The Appendix to this study describes equivalency, and explains how the "equivalent population coefficients" were developed for this study of park impact fees for the City of Edmonds. The result allows each category of business to pay its proportionate share of parks for growth based on the "equivalent population" that it generates. Table 4 multiplies the equivalent population coefficients (from the Appendix) times the actual population and employment data from Tables 2 and 3 to calculate the "equivalent" population for the base year (2011), the horizon year (2025) and the growth between 2011 and 2025, Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 11 Packet Page 311 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Table 4: Growth of Equivalent Population and Employment 2011 2011 2025 2025 2011- 2011- Base Base Horizon Horizon 2025 2025 Year Year Year Year Growth Growth Full Equivalent Full Equivalent Full Equivalent Land -Use Category EPQ 1 Pop 2 Pop 3 Pop 2 Pop 3 Pop 4 Pop 5 Permanent Pop 0.9375 39,800 37,313 44,880 42,075 5,080 4,762 Construction 0.1986 482 96 549 109 67 13 FIRE 0.5056 397 201 452 229 55 28 Manufacturing 0.5814 137 80 156 91 19 11 Retail Trade 2.0038 1,514 3,034 1,725 3,457 211 424 Services 0.5056 7,292 3,687 8,310 4,202 1,018 515 WTU 0.6004 240 144 274 164 34 20 Government 0.7060 380 268 433 306 53 37 Education 0.5357 919 492 1,047 561 128 69 Total n.a. n.a. 45,314 n.a. 51,194 n.a. 5,880 ' Source: Appendix - Equivalent Population Coefficients. 2 Sources: Tables 2 and 3. 3 Equivalent Population = Equivalent Population Coefficient x Full Population. 4 2011-2025 Growth Full Population = 2025 Full Population - 2011 Full Population. e 2011-2025 Growth Equivalent Population = 2025 Equivalent Population - 2011 Equivalent Population The totals in Table 4 provide the equivalent population for the purpose of developing park impact fees for Edmonds. The total equivalent population for the base year (201 1) is 45,314, for the horizon year (2025) is 51,194, therefore the growth between 2011 and 2025 is 5,880. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 12 Packet Page 312 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds 4. PARK IMPACT FEES Overview Impact fees for parks, open space, and recreation facilities use an inventory and valuation of the existing assets in order to calculate the current investment per person (i.e„ equivalent population or equivalent person). The current investment per person is multiplied times the future population to identify the value of additional assets needed to provide growth with the same level of investment as the City owns for the current population. The future investment is reduced by the amount of specific other revenues that are available and the result is the net investment needed to be paid by growth. Dividing the net investment by the growth of the equivalent population results in the investment per person that can be charged as impact fees. The amount of the impact fee is determined by charging each fee -paying development for impact fee cost per person multiplied times the equivalent population coefficient for each type of development, These steps are described below in the formulas, descriptions of variables, tables of data, and explanation of calculations of park impact fees. Throughout this chapter the term "person" is used as the short name that means equivalent population or equivalent person. Formula 1: Parks Capital Value Per Person The capital investment per person is calculated by dividing the value of the asset inventory by the current equivalent population, Value of Parks Current Capital Value ' Inventory _ Equivalent = Per er Person Equivalent population was described in Chapter 3 and explained in the Appendix. There is one new variable that requires explanation: (A) value of parks inventory. Variable (A): Value of Parks Inventory The value of the existing inventory of parks, open space and recreation facilities is calculated by determining the value of park land and improvements. The sum of all of the values equals the current value of the City's park and recreation system. The values in this study come from King County's tax assessment data base. The values of parks in this rate study do not include any costs for interest or other financing. If borrowing is used to "front fund" the costs that will be paid by Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 13 Company Packet Page 313 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds impact fees, the carrying costs for financing can be added to the costs, and the impact fee can be recalculated to include such costs. Table 5 lists in alphabetical order the inventory of park land and improvements that make up the City of Edmonds' existing park system. Each listing includes the name, type of park, acreage, land value, improvement value and total value. The total value of park land and improvements currently owned by the City of Edmonds is $80.3 million. Table 5: Asset Inventory and Capital Value Improvement Name Type Acres Land Value Value Total Value 144 Railroad Ave Regional 1.0 $ 333,200 $ 200,000 $ 533,200 Tidelands 7th & Elm Neighborhood 1.5 508,500 0 508,500 Anderson Center Neighborhood 2.3 5,363,100 1,983,600 7,346,700 Ballinger Lake Access Special Use 0.1 80,000 100,000 180,000 Beautification Areas (12 Open Space 9.8 200,000 200,000 400,000 sites) Brackett's North Regional 2.7 3,461,300 57,600 3,518,900 Brackett's South Regional 2.0 4,512,600 0 4,512,600 Cemetery Special Use 5.5 1,721,200 16,700 1,737,900 Centennial Plaza Special Use 0.1 25,000 100,000 125,000 City Park Community 14.5 15,895,200 81,500 15,976,700 City Park Maintenance Special Use 1.1 150,000 1,141,192 1,291,192 Bldg Dayton Street Plaza Special Use 0.1 250,000 250,000 Edmonds Library & Plaza Special Use 2.0 2,736,000 2,748,000 5,484,000 Edmonds Marsh/Walkway Open Space 23.2 254,500 0 254,500 Haines Wharf Park Regional 0.5 354,700 2,600,000 2,954,700 Hazel Miller Plaza (Old Special Use 0.5 250,000 150,000 400,000 Milltown) Hickman Neighborhood 5.6 1,414,800 3,000,000 4,414,800 Hummingbird Hill Park Neighborhood 2.0 352,000 0 352,000 Hutt Park Open Space 4.7 744,200 0 744,200 Interurban Trail Special Use 3.4 2,962,080 1,700,000 4,662,080 Maplewood Hill Park Open Space 12.7 2,066,300 0 2,066,300 Marina Beach Park Regional 4.5 535,800 0 535,800 Mathay Ballinger Neighborhood 1.5 70,000 0 70,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse/Park Special Use 1.3 230,000 156,700 386,700 Meadowdale Natural Open Space 2.0 85,100 0 85,100 Area Ocean Ave Viewpoint Special Use 0.2 32,900 50,000 82,900 Olympic Beach Regional 4.3 1,167,300 0 1,167,300 Park/Walkway Olympic View Open Open Space 0.5 10,000 0 10,000 Space Pine Ridge Park Open Space 22.0 4,118,800 0 4,118,800 Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 14 Packet Page 314 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Improvement Name Type Acres Land Value Value Total Value Pine Street Park Neighborhood 1.5 398,800 0 398,800 Seaview Park Neighborhood 5.5 1,143,500 37,600 1,181,100 Seaview Reservoir Open Space 3.0 183,000 0 183,000 Shell Creek Open Space Open Space 1.0 270,400 0 270,400 Sierra Park Neighborhood 5.5 1,812,000 0 1,812,000 South County Senior Center Regional 1.0 5,961,000 624,000 6,585,000 SR 104 Mini Park Special Use 0.3 301,000 0 301,000 SR 104 Wetlands Open Space 9.0 9,200 0 9,200 Stamm Overlook Park Special Use 0.4 386,800 0 386,800 Sunset Ave Overlook Special Use 0.5 240,800 0 240,800 Wade James Theater Special Use 0.7 1,265,000 60,000 1,325,000 Wharf Street Open Space 0.2 30,000 30,000 60,000 Willow Creek Hatchery Special Use 1.0 76,500 0 76,500 Willow Creek Park Open Space 2.2 24,500 0 24,500 Yost Park & Pool Community 48.0 2,900,400 450000 3,350,400 TOTAL 210.4 64,887,480 15,486,892 80,374,372 JOUrce of Jana ana Improvemem vaiues: rung C-ounty Tax assessment TIIes. Table 6 lists the total value of $80,374,372 (from Table 5) and divides it by the current equivalent population of 45,314 (from Table 3) to calculate the capital value of $1,773,71 per equivalent population. Table 6: Value of Parks per Equivalent Population Total Current (2011) Capital Value Value of Equivalent per Equivalent Edmonds Parks Population Population $ 80,374,372 - 45,314 = $ 1,773.71 Formula 2: Value Needed for Growth Impact fees must be related to the needs of growth, as explained in Chapter 2, The first step in determining growth's needs is to calculate the total value of parks that are needed for growth. The calculation is accomplished by multiplying the capital value per person times the number of new persons that are forecast for the City's growth. Capital Value Equivalent Value Needed 2. x Population = per Person Growth for Growth Table 7 shows the calculation of the value of parks needed for growth. The current capital value per person is from Table 6, The growth in equivalent Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 15 Company Packet Page 315 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds population is from Table 4. The result is that Edmonds needs to add parks valued at $10.4 million in order to serve the growth of 5,880 additional people who are expected to be added to the City's existing equivalent population. Table 7: Value of Parks Needed for Growth Capital Value Growth of Value per Equivalent Equivalent Needed Population Population for Growth $ 1,773.71 x 5,880 = $ 10,429,210 Formula 3. Investment Needed for Growth The investment needed for growth is calculated by subtracting the value of any existing reserve capacity from the total value of parks needed to serve the growth. Value Value of Investment 3 Needed _ Existing = Needed for for Reserve Growth Growth Capacity There is one new variable used in formula 3 that require explanation; (B) value of existing reserve capacity of parks. Variable (B): Value of Existing Reserve Capacity The value of reserve capacity is the difference between the value of the City's existing inventory of parks, and the value of those assets that are needed to provide the level of service standard for the existing population. Because the capital value per person is based on the current assets and the current population, there is no reserve capacity (i.e., no unused value that can be used to serve future population growth )3. Table 8 shows the calculation of the investment in parks that is needed for growth. The value of parks needed to serve growth (from Table 7) is reduced by the value of existing reserve capacity, in this case zero, and the result shows that Edmonds needs to invest $10A million in additional parks in order to serve future growth. 3 Also, the use of the current assets and the current population means there is no existing deficiency. This approach satisfies the requirements of RCW 82,02.050(4) to determine whether or not there are any existing deficiencies in order to ensure that impact fees are not charged for any deficiencies. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 16 Company Packet Page 316 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Table 8: Investment Needed in Parks for Growth Value of Value Existing Investment Needed Reserve Needed for Growth Capacity for Growth $ 10,429,210 $ 0 $ 10,429,210 Formula 4. Investment to be Paid by Growth The future investment in parks that needs to be paid by growth may be reduced if the City has other revenues it invests in its parks. The investment to be paid by growth is calculated by subtracting the amount of any revenues the City invests in infrastructure for growth from the total investment in parks needed to serve growth. Investment City Investment 4. Needed for - Investment = to be Paid Growth for Growth by Growth There is one new variable used in formula 4 that requires explanation: (C) revenues used to fund the City's investment in projects that serve growth. Variable (C): City Investment of Non -impact Fee Revenues The City of Edmonds has historically used a combination of state grants and local revenues, such as real estate excise taxes, to pay for the cost of park and recreation capital facilities. The City's plan for the future is to continue using grant revenue and some local revenues to pay part of the cost of parks needed for growth. A detailed analysis was made of the City's 2013-18 CIP and 2019-25 CFP. There are a total of $76.13 million of parks projects. $51.98 million add capacity to the park system, and therefore are considered projects eligible for impact fee funding. $15,76 million of the capacity projects have identified potential funding from grants and/or local revenues. $15,76 million is 30.33% of $51.98 million, therefore grants and local revenues will pay for 30.33% of park projects that add "capacity" to the park system for new development by increasing the value of park and recreation assets. Revenues that are used for repair, maintenance or operating costs are not used to reduce impact fees because they are not used, earmarked or prorated for the system improvements that are the basis of the impact fees. Revenues from past taxes paid on vacant land prior to development are not included because new capital projects do not have prior costs, therefore prior taxes did not contribute to such projects. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 17 Company Packet Page 317 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds The other potential credits that reduce capacity costs (and subsequent impact fees) are donations of land or other assets by developers or builders. Those reductions depend upon specific arrangements between the developer and the City of Edmonds. Reductions in impact fees for donations are calculated on a case -by -case basis at the time impact fees are to be paid. Table 9 shows the calculation of the investment in parks that needs to be paid by growth. The investment in parks needed to serve growth (from Table 8), is multiplied times 30,33% to calculate the value of City investment for growth from grants and some local revenues. The result is that growth in Edmonds needs to pay $10,4 million for additional parks to maintain the City's standards for future growth. The City expects to use $3.1 million in grant and local revenue towards this cost (calculated at 30.33% of $10,4 million needed for growth), and the remaining $7.3 million will be paid by growth. Table 9: Investment in Parks to be Paid by Growth Investment City Investment Investment Needed for Growth @ to be Paid for Growth 30.33% by Growth $ 10,429,210 - $ 3,163,265 = $ 7,265,945 Formula 5: Growth Cost Per Person The growth cost per person is calculated by dividing the investment in parks that is to be paid by growth by the amount of population growth. Investment Growth of Growth Cost 5, to be Paid - Equivalent = by Growth Population per Person There are no new variables used in formula 5. Both variables were developed in previous formulas. Table 10 shows the calculation of the cost per person of parks that needs to be paid by growth. The investment in parks needed to be paid by growth (from Table 9), is divided by the growth population (from Table 4), and the result shows that cost for parks to be paid by growth is $1,235.73 per person. Henderson, Young & Company April 5, 2013 Page 18 Packet Page 318 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Table 10: Growth Cost per Person Investment Growth of Growth Cost per to be Paid Equivalent Equivalent by Growth Population Population $ 7,265,945 - 5,880 = $ 1,235.73 Formula 6: Impact Fee per Unit of Development The amount to be paid by each new development unit depends on the equivalent population coefficient. The cost per unit of development is calculated by multiplying the growth cost per person by the equivalent population coefficient for each type of development. Growth Cost Equivalent 6, x Population per Person Coefficient Cost per Unit = of Development There are no new variables used in formula 6. Both variables were developed in previous formulas. However, the equivalent population coefficients from the Appendix were calculated for standard increments of 1,000 square feet, but the impact fee is charged per square foot, therefore the equivalent population coefficients from the Appendix are divided by 1,000 and the result is used in Table 11. Table 11 shows the calculation of the parks impact fee per unit of development. The growth cost of $1,253.73 per person from Table 10 is multiplied times the equivalent population coefficient to calculate the impact fee per unit of development. Table 11: Impact Fee per Unit Type Of Development Growth Cost per Equivalent Person Equivalent Population Coefficient Unit of Development Impact Fee Per Unit of Development Residential - single family 1,235.73 2.2125000 dwelling unit $ 2,734.05 Residential - multi family 1,235.73 1.8937500 dwelling unit 2,340.16 Retail 1,235.73 0.0020038 square foot 2.48 Office 1,235.73 0.0005056 square foot 0.62 Manufacturing 1,235.73 0.0005814 square foot 0.72 Construction 1,235.73 0.0001986 square foot 0.25 Henderson, Young & Company April 5, 2013 Page 19 Packet Page 319 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds APPENDIX: EQUIVALENT POPULATION COEFFICIENTS What is "Equivalency"? When governments analyze things that are different than each other, but which have something in common, they sometimes use "equivalency" as the basis for their analysis. For example, many water and sewer utilities calculate fees based on an average residential unit, then they calculate fees for business users on the basis of how many residential units would be equivalent to the water or sewer service used by the business. This well -established and widely practiced method uses "equivalent residential units" (ERUs) as the multiplier that uses the rate for one residence to calculate a variety of rates for different types of businesses. If a business needs a water connection that is double the size of an average house, that business is 2.0 ERUs, and would pay fees that are 2.0 times the fee for an average residential unit. Another use of "equivalency" that is used in public sector organizations is "full time equivalent" (FTE) employees. One employee who works full-time is 1.0 FTE, A half-time employee is 0.5 FTE. By adding up the FTE coefficients of all part-time employees, the total is the FTE (full-time equivalent) of all the part-time employees. Cities like Renton and Redmond charge business licenses on the basis of the number of employees in each business. In order to be fair to businesses with part-time employees, they convert the part-time employee count to FTE, and then pay the fee per FTE. Equivalency and Park Impact Fees The use of equivalency can be used to develop park impact fees that apply to new commercial development as well as residential development. Equivalent population coefficients for park impact fees use the same principles as ERUs or FTEs to measure differences among residential population and different kinds of businesses in their availability to benefit from Edmonds' parks. They document the nexus between parks and development by quantifying the differences among different categories of park users. The analysis that calculates equivalent population coefficients takes into account several factors and reports the result as a statistic that allows each category of business to pay its proportionate share of parks for growth based on the "equivalent population" that it generates. The "equivalency" calculation recognizes that employees and visitors have less time in Edmonds to benefit from Edmonds' parks (in the same way that part-time employees spend less time on the job than full-time employees). The equivalent population coefficients are used in two ways. First, they are multiplied times the number of employees in different types of businesses in Edmonds to count employees and visitors to businesses as "equivalent Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 20 Company Packet Page 320 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds population" in Edmonds. This provides a total population of residents, employees and visitors that will be used to calculate the park value per equivalent population. Second, the adjusted park growth cost per equivalent population is multiplied times the equivalent population coefficient for each type of business to calculate the impact fee rate for each type of business. Calculation of Equivalent Population Coefficients for Park Impact Fees There are two parts to the equivalent population coefficient: (1) employees, and (2) visitors. Table A-14 presents the data for the following factors used in analyzing employees: the number of days per week and hours per day that different types of businesses are typically open, the percent of hours that the employees are typically at the business location, and the resulting number of hours per day that each employee is in their business location in Edmonds and therefore proximate to Edmonds' parks. Table A-1: Employee Hours in Location (per Employee) Land -Use Category Employees Days per Week at Location Hours per Day at Location' Percent of Time At Location' Hours in Location per Person 2 Construction 5 9.0 25.0% 11.2500 FIRE 5 9.0 80.0% 36.0000 Manufacturing 5 9.0 100.0% 45.0000 Retail Trade 7 9.0 100.0% 63.0000 Services 5 9.0 80.0% 36.0000 WTU 5 9.0 100.0% 45.0000 Government 5 9.0 80.0% 36.0000 Education 5 9.0 100.0% 45.0000 FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate WTU = Wholesale Trade, Transportation and Utilities ' Assumptions from Planner's Estimating Guide. 2 Hours in Location per Person = (#days/week x # hours/day x % of time at location) Table A-2 presents the data for the following factors used in analyzing visitors: the number of days per week that different types of businesses are typically open, the number of hours that visitors are typically at the business location, the number of visitors per employee at different types of business, and the resulting 4 The original version of Tables A-1 through A-3 was developed by Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, a leading scholar and researcher in the field of impact fees. The table appeared in Nelson's 2004 Planner's Estimating Guide, The Underlying employee data has been updated to the most recent edition (2008) of Trip Generation by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 21 Company Packet Page 321 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds number of visitor hours per employee that visitors are in the business location in Edmonds and therefore proximate to Edmonds' parks. Table A-2: Visitor Hours in Location (per Employee) Land -Use Category Visitors Days per Week at Location' Hours per Day at Location' Visitors Per Employees Visitor Hours in Location per Employee ° Construction 5 1,0 1,0872 5,4360 FIRE 5 1,0 1,2948 6,4740 Manufacturing 5 1,0 0,7668 3,8340 Retail Trade 7 1,0 15.0461 105.3227 Services 5 1,0 1,2948 6,4740 WTU 5 1,0 1,0872 5,4360 Government 5 1,0 4,6605 23.3025 Education 5 na na 0,0000 Assumptions from Planner's Estimating Guide. 3 Visitors per Employee from Planner's Estimating Guide, Does not include tourists. which are important to Edmonds, but for which no data is available that measures tourists per employee by type of business. ° Visitor Hours in Location per Employee = (#days/week x # hours/day x visitors/employee) Table A-3, presents the last step in calculating the equivalent population coefficient. Employee hours are added to visitor hours per employee for each type of business. The total is divided the total by 84 hours per week. Parks are considered a "daytime" public facility that is assumed to be available 12 hours per day, 7 days per week, for a total of 84 hours5, The result of this calculation is the daytime equivalent population coefficient for each type of business. Table A-3: Equivalent Population Coefficients Land -Use Category Total Total Hours in Location per Employee 5 Daytime Equivalent Population Coefficient - Hours @ 84 Construction 16.6860 0.1986 FIRE 42.4740 0.5056 Manufacturing 48.8340 0.5814 Retail Trade 168.3227 2.0038 Services 42.4740 0.5056 WTU 50.4360 0.6004 Government 59.3025 0.7060 Education 45.0000 0.5357 5 Total Hours in Location per Employee = Employee Hours + Visitor Hours s By way of comparison, police and fire facilities are considered to be "24-hour" public facilities, therefore 24 x 7 = 168 hours for their equivalent population coefficient calculations, Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 22 Company Packet Page 322 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds The equivalent population coefficient for residential development is based on the same methodology, but without a separate factor for visitors because residences do not have regular visitors that can be quantified like a business. The residential coefficient assumes 7 days a week, 15 hours per day, 75% at the location, for a total of 78.75 hours in location. Dividing 78.75 by 84 hours for daytime facilities (described above) produces an equivalent population coefficient of 0.9375 for residential development. When calculating the impact fee, the coefficient is multiplied times the average number of persons per housing unit. A single family home has an average of 2.36 persons per house, so the equivalent population coefficient is 0.9375 x 2.36 = 2.2125. A multi -family unit, such as an apartment or condominium, has an average of 2.02 persons per house, so the equivalent population coefficient is 0.9375 x 2.02 = 1.89375. As noted previously, the equivalent population coefficients will be multiplied times the number of employees in each type of business and the residential population to calculate the total equivalent population in Edmonds. Later in the impact fee calculation, the equivalent population coefficient is multiplied times the growth cost per equivalent population for each type of business and housing unit to calculate the impact fee rate for each type of development. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 23 Packet Page 323 of 546 AM-5832 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted By: Renee McRae Department: Parks and Recreation Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Information Subject Title Special Event Contract for Bastille Day Action Recommendation Forward the contract to the consent agenda for approval at the June 18, 2013 City Council meeting. Previous Council Action None 8. A. Narrative The Edmonds Petanque Club is holding a new event this summer - Bastille Day in Edmonds - a celebration of French Bastille Day with a petanque tournament, music, food and wine. This event is taking place at the Civic Center Field on July 14. This first year event is on a smaller scale and has the ability to grow into a larger multi -day event dependent upon community interest. Bastille Day Contract Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Renee McRae Final Approval Date: 06/06/2013 Attachments Form Review Date 06/06/2013 10:13 AM 06/06/2013 10:26 AM 06/06/2013 11:27 AM Started On: 06/05/2013 05:24 PM Packet Page 324 of 546 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND EDMONDS PETANQUE CLUB July 13-14, 2013 The following agreement ("Agreement") is made by and between CITY OF EDMONDS ("City"), and Edmonds Petanque Club ("EPC") (collectively, the "Parties"). WHEREAS, EPC has proposed to hold a public event known as Bastille Day in Edmonds (or "Event"); WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Event provides distinct benefits to the City by showcasing the City while providing a unique recreational opportunity for its citizens; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that such an event enhances tourism and promotes economic development as well as providing an opportunity for good clean fun to its citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants, conditions and performances set forth below, the Parties hereto agree as follows: City Responsibilities: 1.1 City shall provide use of surfaces on Civic Center Field hereinafter referred to as the "City -Provided Site" on Saturday, June 13, 2013 from 3pm-5pm for lining the field and on Sunday, June 14, 2013 from 9am-5pm for the Event. The provisions of this Agreement relate only to the City - Provided Site. City shall inspect the Civic Center Field facilities before and after the Event. 1.2 City has the right to check the noise level of any amplified sound equipment or other sound source and require that the volume be reduced if it exceeds the safety limits recommended by the Snohomish County Department of Health or levels set forth in the ordinances of the City of Edmonds. 1.3 City shall provide two additional garbage containers and one recycle container for the Event. 1.4 City shall provide access to power at the west end of the stadium. EPC shall be responsible for providing appropriate power cords sufficient for its uses. 1.5 City shall install Bastille Day street banners as provided by EPC at approved sites. EPC shall obtain a Street Banner Permit and pay the required fee. 2. EPC Responsibilities: In addition to the above and in consideration of the use of the facilities and services above described, EPC agrees to the following: 2.1 EPC accepts the condition of the Civic Center Field as it currently exists. 2.2 EPC shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing commercial general liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy and a copy of Packet Page 325 of 546 the endorsement naming City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The insurance policy shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. The City shall be named as an insured on EPC's General Liability insurance policy. The insurance policy shall contain, or be endorsed to contain that EPC's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of EPC's insurance and shall not contribute to it. EPC shall provide a certificate of insurance evidencing the required insurance before using the property described herein. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than ANII. 2.3 EPC agrees that the Event is a public event. EPC further agrees that areas constituting the City -Provided Site that are covered under this Agreement are traditional public forums. As a result, EPC shall permit citizens attending events open to the general public at the City -Provided Site during the Event to exercise therein their protected constitutional right to free speech without interference. 2.4 The City has enacted Ordinance 3749 restricting the use of single -use plastic checkout bags. The restrictions do not apply to plastic bags used to carry out cooked food or provided solely for produce, bulk food or meat. EPC will encourage its vendors to comply with the purposes of the ordinance by utilizing paper bags or encouraging the use of reusable totes whenever practicable. 2.5 EPC shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including attorney fees, arising from or in connection with EPC's performance, or nonperformance, of this Agreement, except to the extent that claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits are caused by the sole negligence of the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. This promise to indemnify and hold harmless shall include a waiver by EPC of the immunity provided under Title 51 RCW, but only to the extent necessary to fully effectuate this promise. This provision shall survive the termination and/or expiration of this Agreement. 2.6 The Parties acknowledge that pursuant to the provisions of Initiative 901 as codified in Chapter 70.160 RCW (hereinafter the "smoking ban"), smoking is prohibited in indoor areas, within 25 feet of vents or entrances and in outdoor areas where public employees of the City, and employees of any vendor at the Event or of the contracting organization are required to be. This general description of the provisions of the initiative is included for the purpose of reference and is not intended to expand or contract the obligations created by the smoking ban. EPC warrants that it will comply with the smoking ban and will utilize the services and advice of the Snohomish County Health District in assuring compliance during the Event described in this Agreement. 2.7 EPC shall provide any and all security services necessary to reasonably secure the area and facilities provided. City shall have no responsibility or liability for the provision of security services nor shall it be liable for any loss or damage incurred by EPC or the participants in this Event. 2.8 EPC shall ensure that all booths/beer garden/wine garden have the necessary state and local permits for serving and selling alcohol. EPC agrees to use its best efforts to prevent service of alcohol to minors, including segregation of the beer garden/wine garden and checking identification in accordance with common practice. EPC shall obtain any copyright licenses necessary for presenting licensed live and recorded music. 2.9 EPC shall contract for one additional sani-can and wash station at Civic Center Field. These may be placed on site the Friday night preceding the Event. Maintenance and removal of, and damage to, sani-cans, is solely the responsibility of EPC. EPC shall provide extra paper supplies for sani-cans and existing City portable toilets in the event there is a shortage of such supplies. Packet Page 326 of 546 2.10 EPC shall obtain all required approvals for food handling and serving to the general public through the Snohomish County Health Department. EPC shall provide City with a written statement from that department that all requirements have been met and necessary permits issued. 2.11 EPC shall advise all participating vendors of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and shall insure that vendors maintain all insurance, licenses and permits required by local, state and federal law for the duration of the Event. 2.12 Upon completion of the Event, EPC shall make adequate provisions for the cleanup of all sites provided under the terms of this Agreement so as to restore them to the same state of cleanliness as existed the morning prior to the Event. A final inspection of the Event area shall be conducted by a designated City official to determine if all areas are clean and returned to their original condition. 2.13 EPC shall pay City all permit fees for the above -mentioned facility use ($100) prior to Wednesday, June 16, 2014. The fees are subject to change if requests for additional services are made by EPC. 2.14 EPC shall pay City a cleaning/damage deposit of $1,000.00 prior to Wednesday, June 16, 2013. The deposit shall be refunded to EPC if, upon inspection, all is in order, or a prorated portion thereof as may be necessary to reimburse City for supplies, losses or cleaning costs. In addition, EPC shall be responsible for any damages, labor and/or materials required to repair damage to City property. 2.15 Colored banners or flags may not be placed in the existing holes in the public sidewalk designated for the American flag program. 2.16 Neither EPC nor any of its officers, agents, or employees shall discriminate in the provision of service under this Agreement against any individual, partnership, or corporation based upon race, religion, sex, creed, place of origin, or any other form of discrimination prohibited by federal, state or local law. 2.17 If the tent area exceeds 400 square feet, EPC shall contact the Edmonds Fire Marshal at Fire Prevention Services (425) 775-7720 for an inspection of the tent area prior to the opening of the Event to the general public, at or before 9:00 a.m., June 14, 2013, as the Parties shall agree. EPC shall correct all fire safety related problems prior to the opening of the Event. If such problems are not corrected, City may at its sole discretion cancel the Event or prohibit the attendance of the general public in certain areas, if in the opinion of the Fire Marshal, and at the sole discretion of City, any violation or other condition that threatens life, health or property has not been corrected. 2.18 A Class K fire extinguisher will be required if griddles or BBQ appliances are used for cooking. If cooking is taking place in a tent, the tent will have to be labeled fire resistant. 2.19 All use and configuration of structures, booths and other facilities used in the Event may be inspected and reviewed by the Fire Chief, Police Chief, Building Official and Parks and Recreation Director or their designees to determine that such facilities comply with State and local law, as well as to insure that no lasting damage shall be done to any public facility or property. 3. Miscellaneous. 3.1 Entire agreement, integration and amendment. This Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties relating to the rights and obligations created hereby, Packet Page 327 of 546 and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous negotiations, understandings, and agreements, written or oral, between the Parties. Any prior discussions or understandings are deemed merged with the provisions herein. This Agreement shall not be amended, assigned or otherwise changed or transferred except in writing with the express written consent of the Parties hereto. Any action to interpret or enforce this Agreement shall be brought before the Superior Court of Snohomish County, Washington, and the Parties agree that, as between them, all matters shall be resolved in that venue. 3.2 Force majeure. The Parties shall not be liable for failure to perform or delay in performance due to fire, flood, strike or other labor difficulty, act of God, act of any governmental authority, riot, embargo, fuel or energy shortage, car shortage, wrecks or delays in transportation, or due to any other cause beyond the Parties' reasonable control. In the event of delay in performance due to any such cause, the date of delivery or time for completion will be extended by a period of time reasonably necessary to overcome the effect of such delay. 3.3 Termination. The City shall have the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to unilaterally terminate this Agreement should the same become necessary to protect public health, safety or welfare; in which case, the City shall provide written notice of the same to EPC. 3.4 Relationship between the Parties. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to or in fact create an agency or employment relationship between the Parties. No officer, official, agent, employee or representative of EPC shall be deemed to be the same of the City for any purpose. EPC alone shall be solely responsible for all acts of its officers, officials, agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement. DATED this day of CITY OF EDMONDS: David O. Earling, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk 2013. EDMONDS PETANQUE CLUB: Michelle Martin, President APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney Packet Page 328 of 546 AM-5840 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: 20 Minutes Submitted By: Carrie Hite Department: Parks and Recreation Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Action Information Subject Title Park Impact Fee Study direction. Recommendation Council to discuss options for assessing a Park Impact Fee and forward to full Council for a Public Hearing, discussion and approval. Previous Council Action Council authorized the completion of a Park Impact Fee Study on March 6, 2012. Council amended their motion to allow staff to proceed with selection of a consultant on March 20, 2012. On April 23, 2013, Council received the final report and presentation from Randy Young, Young, Henderson and Company, and discussed merits of assessing Park Impact fees. Narrative Randy Young from Henderson, Young and Company has been working with staff to complete the Park Impact Fee study. Mr. Young made a presentation of his final report, findings and recommendations on April 23rd, 2013. Council was asked to weigh in on several options in regard to the recommendations via email, and included: 1. Park Impact Fee: yes or no? 2. If yes, residential and commercial, or just residential? 3. Low income housing exemption: yes or no? 4. Keep the rates Randy outlined, raise the rates, or lower the rates? 5. Phase in for 2, 3, or 4 years or implement full rate in first year? Based on the input to these questions, staff was charged to come back to the Council committees if there were varying opinions. Randy Young will be here for the committee meetings, and we will discuss options. Park Impact Fee Rate Study Attachments Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Packet Page 329 of 546 City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Carrie Hite Final Approval Date: 06/06/2013 Sandy Chase Dave Earling Sandy Chase 06/06/2013 11:56 AM 06/06/2013 01:19 PM 06/06/2013 01:34 PM Started On: 06/06/2013 11:54 AM Packet Page 330 of 546 RATE STUDY FOR IMPACT FEES FOR PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND RECREATION FACILITIES FOR CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON EDP � d ,417c�j Sq(0, Prepared By Henderson Young & Company April 5, 2013 Packet Page 331 of 546 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................I 2. STATUTORY BASIS AND METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................3 3. GROWTH ESTIMATES.......................................................................................................................................10 4. PARK IMPACT FEES...........................................................................................................................................13 APPENDIX: EQUIVALENT POPULATION COEFFICIENTS..........................................................................20 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: IMPACT FEE RATES.........................................................................................................................................I TABLE2: POPULATION.................................................................................................................................................10 TABLE3: EMPLOYMENT...............................................................................................................................................I I TABLE 4: GROWTH OF EQUIVALENT POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT........................................................................12 TABLE 5: ASSET INVENTORY AND CAPITAL VALUE.....................................................................................................14 TABLE 6: VALUE OF PARKS PER EQUIVALENT POPULATION........................................................................................15 TABLE 7: VALUE OF PARKS NEEDED FOR GROWTH.....................................................................................................16 TABLE 8: INVESTMENT NEEDED IN PARKS FOR GROWTH............................................................................................17 TABLE 9: INVESTMENT IN PARKS TO BE PAID BY GROWTH..........................................................................................18 TABLE 10: GROWTH COST PER PERSON.........................................................................................................................19 TABLE 11: IMPACT FEE PER UNIT..................................................................................................................................19 Packet Page 332 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to establish the rates for impact fees in the City of Edmonds, Washington for parks, open space, and recreation facilities as authorized by RCW' 82.02,090(7). Throughout this study the term "parks" is used as the short name that means parks, open space, and recreation facilities. Summary of Impact Fee Rates Impact fees are paid by all types of new development2, Impact fee rates for new development are based on, and vary according to the type of land use. The following table summarizes the impact fee rates for each land use category. Table 1: Impact Fee Rates Type of Development Unit Impact Fee per Unit Single -Family dwelling unit $ 2,734.05 Multi -Family dwelling unit 2,340.16 Retail sq, ft, 2.48 Office sq, ft, 0.62 Manufacturing sq, ft, 0.72 Construction sq, ft, 0.25 Impact Fees vs. Other Developer Contributions Impact fees are charges paid by new development to reimburse local governments for the capital cost of public facilities that are needed to serve new development and the people who occupy or use the new development. Throughout this study, the term "developer" is used as a shorthand expression to describe anyone who is obligated to pay impact fees, including builders, owners or developers. Local governments charge impact fees for several reasons; 1) to obtain revenue to pay for some of the cost of new public facilities; 2) to implement a public policy that new development should pay a portion of the cost of facilities that it requires, and that existing development should not pay all of the cost of such facilities; and 3) to assure that adequate public facilities will be constructed to ' Revised Code of Washington (RCW) is the state law of the State of Washington. 2 The impact fee ordinance may specify exemptions for low-income housing and/or "broad public purposes", but such exemptions must be paid for by public money, not other impact fees. The ordinance may specify if impact fees apply to changes in use, remodeling, etc. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 1 Company Packet Page 333 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds serve new development, The impact fees that are described in this study do not include any other forms of developer contributions or exactions, such as mitigation or voluntary payments authorized by SEPA (the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21 C); system development charges for water and sewer authorized for utilities (RCW 35.92 for municipalities, 56.16 for sewer districts, and 57.08 for water districts); local improvement districts or other special assessment districts; linkage fees; or land donations or fees in lieu of land. Organization of the Study This impact fee rate study contains three chapters: • Chapter 1 - Introduction: provides a summary of impact fee rates for frequently used land use categories, and other introductory materials. • Chapter 2 - Statutory Basis and Methodology: summarizes the statutory requirements for developing impact fees, and describes the compliance with each requirement. • Chapter 3 - Growth Estimates: presents estimates of future growth of population and employment in Edmonds because impact fees are paid by growth to offset the cost of parks, open space and recreation facilities that will be needed to serve new development. • Chapter 4 - Park Impact Fees: presents impact fees for parks. The chapter includes the methodology that is used to develop the fees, the formulas, variables and data that are the basis for the fees, and the calculation of the fees. The methodology is designed to comply with the requirements of Washington state law. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 2 Packet Page 334 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds 2. STATUTORY BASIS AND METHODOLOGY This chapter summarizes the statutory requirements for impact fees in the State of Washington, and describes how the City of Edmonds' impact fees comply with the statutory requirements. Statutory Requirements for Impact Fees The Growth Management Act of 1990 (Chapter 17, Washington Laws, 1990, 1st Ex. Sess,) authorizes local governments in Washington to charge impact fees, RCW 82.02.050 - 82.02.090 contain the provisions of the Growth Management Act that authorize and describe the requirements for impact fees. The impact fees that are described in this study are not mitigation payments authorized by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), There are several important differences between impact fees and SEPA mitigations. Three aspects of impact fees that are particularly noteworthy are: 1) the ability to charge for the cost of public facilities that are "system improvements" (i.e., that provide service to the community at large) as opposed to "project improvements'' (which are "on -site'' and provide service for a particular development); 2) the ability to charge small-scale development their proportionate share, whereas SEPA exempts small developments; and 3) the predictability and simplicity of impact fee rate schedules compared to the cost, time and uncertain outcome of SEPA reviews conducted on a case -by -case basis. The following synopsis of the most significant requirements of the law includes citations to the Revised Code of Washington as an aid to readers who wish to review the exact language of the statutes. Types of Public Facilities Four types of public facilities can be the subject of impact fees: 1) public streets and roads; 2) publicly owned parks, open space and recreation facilities; 3) school facilities; and 4) fire protection facilities. RCW 82,02,050(2) and (4), and RC W 82, 02, 090(7) Types of Improvements Impact fees can be spent on "system improvements" (which are typically outside the development), as opposed to ''project improvements" (which are typically provided by the developer on -site within the development). RCW 82, 02, 050(3) (a) an d RC W 82, 02. 090(5) an d (9) Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 3 Packet Page 335 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Benefit to Development Impact fees must be limited to system improvements that are reasonably related to, and which will benefit new development, RCW 82.02.050(3)(0) and (c). Local governments must establish reasonable service areas (one area, or more than one, as determined to be reasonable by the local government), and local governments must develop impact fee rate categories for various land uses. RCW 82.02.060(7) Proportionate Share Impact fees cannot exceed the development's proportionate share of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development. The impact fee amount shall be based on a formula (or other method of calculating the fee) that determines the proportionate share. RCW 82.02.050(3)(b), RCW 82.02.060(7), and RCW 82.02.090(6) Reductions of Impact Fee Amounts Impact fees rates must be adjusted to account for other revenues that the development pays (if such payments are earmarked for or proratable to particular system improvements). RCW 82.02.050(7)(c) and (2) and RCW 82.02.060(7)(b) Impact fees may be credited for the value of dedicated land, improvements or construction provided by the developer (if such facilities are in the adopted CFP as system improvements eligible for impact fees and are required as a condition of development approval). RCW 82.02.060(4) Exemptions from Impact Fees Local governments have the discretion to provide exemptions from impact fees for low-income housing and other "broad public purpose" development, but all such exempt fees must be paid from public funds (other than impact fee accounts). RCW 82.02.060(2) and (3) Developer Options Developers who are liable for impact fees can submit data and or/analysis to demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed development are less than the impacts calculated in this rate study. RCW 82.02.060(6). Developers can pay impact fees under protest and appeal impact fee calculations. RCW 82.02.070(4) and (5), The developer can obtain a refund of the impact fees if the local government fails to expend or obligate the impact fee payments within 10 years, or terminates the impact fee requirement, or the developer does not proceed with the development (and creates no impacts). RCW 82.02.080 Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 4 Packet Page 336 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plans Impact fees must be expended on public facilities in a capital facilities plan (CFP) element or used to reimburse the government for the unused capacity of existing facilities. The CFP must conform to the Growth Management Act of 1990, and must identify existing deficiencies in facility capacity for current development, capacity of existing facilities available for new development, and additional facility capacity needed for new development. RCW 82,02,050(4), RCW 82, 02, 060(8), an d RC W 82, 02, 070(2) New Versus Existing Facilities Impact fees can be charged for new public facilities (RCW 82,02,060(7)(0) and for the unused capacity of existing public facilities (RCW 82,02,060(8) subject to the proportionate share limitation described above. Accounting Requirements The local government must separate the impact fees from other monies, expend or obligate the money on CFP projects within 10 years, and prepare annual reports of collections and expenditures. RCW 82,02,070(7)-(3) Compliance With Statutory Requirements for Impact Fees Many of the statutory requirements listed above are fulfilled in calculation of the parks impact fee in Chapter 3. Some of the statutory requirements are fulfilled in other ways, as described below. Types of Public Facilities This study contains impact fees for parks. This study does not contain impact fees for transportation, fire, or schools. In general, local governments that are authorized to charge impact fees are responsible for specific public facilities for which they may charge such fees. The City of Edmonds is legally and financially responsible for the parks facilities it owns and operates within its jurisdiction. In no case may a local government charge impact fees for private facilities, but it may charge impact fees for some public facilities that it does not administer if such facilities are "owned or operated by government entities" (RCW 82,02,090 (7), Types of Improvements The public facilities that can be paid for by impact fees are "system improvements" (which are typically outside the development), and "designed to provide service to service areas within the community at large" as provided in RCW 82,02,090(9)), as opposed to "project improvements" (which are typically Henderson, Young & Company April 5, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 337 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds provided by the developer on -site within the development or adjacent to the development), and "designed to provide service for a development project, and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the project" as provided in RCW 82.02.090(5). The impact fees in this study are based on system improvements that are described in Chapter 3. No project improvements are included in this study. Impact fee revenue can be used for the capital cost of public facilities. Impact fees cannot be used for operating or maintenance expenses. The cost of public facilities that can be paid for by impact fees include land acquisition and development. The costs can also include design studies, engineering, land surveys, appraisals, permitting, financing, administrative expenses, applicable mitigation costs, and capital equipment pertaining to capital improvements. Benefit to Development, Proportionate Share and Reductions of Fee Amounts The law imposes three tests of the benefit provided to development by impact fees; 1) proportionate share, 2) reasonably related to need, and 3) reasonably related to expenditure (RCW 80.20.050(3)). In addition, the law requires the designation of one or more service areas (RCW 82.02.060(7) 1. Proportionate Share. First, the "proportionate share" requirement means that impact fees can be charged only for the portion of the cost of public facilities that is "reasonably related" to new development. In other words, impact fees cannot be charged to pay for the cost of reducing or eliminating deficiencies in existing facilities. Second, there are several important implications of the proportionate share requirement that are not specifically addressed in the law, but which follow directly from the law; • Costs of facilities that will benefit new development and existing users must be apportioned between the two groups in determining the amount of the fee. This can be accomplished in either of two ways; (1) by allocating the total cost between new and existing users, or (2) calculating the cost per unit and applying the cost only to new development when calculating impact fees. • Impact fees that recover the costs of existing unused capacity should be based on the government's actual cost. Carrying costs may be added to reflect the government's actual or imputed interest expense. The third aspect of the proportionate share requirement is its relationship to the requirement to provide adjustments and credits to impact fees, where appropriate. These requirements ensure that the amount of the impact fee does not exceed the proportionate share. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 6 Company Packet Page 338 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds The "adjustments" requirement reduces the impact fee to account for past and future payments of other revenues (if such payments are earmarked for, or proratable to, the system improvements that are needed to serve new growth). The impact fees calculated in this study include an adjustment that accounts for any other revenue that is paid by new development and used by the City to pay for a portion of growth's proportionate share of costs. This adjustment is in response to the limitations in RCW 82.02.060 (1)(b) and RCW 82.02.050(2), The "credit" requirement reduces impact fees by the value of dedicated land, improvements or construction provided by the developer (if such facilities are in the adopted CFP, identified as the projects for which impact fees are collected, and are required as a condition of development approval). The law does not prohibit a local government from establishing reasonable constraints on determining credits. For example, the location of dedicated land and the quality and design of donated land or recreation facilities can be required to be acceptable to the local government. 2. Reasonably Related to Need. There are many ways to fulfill the requirement that impact fees be "reasonably related" to the development's need for public facilities, including personal use and use by others in the family or business enterprise (direct benefit), use by persons or organizations who provide goods or services to the fee -paying property or are customers or visitors at the fee paying property (indirect benefit), and geographical proximity (presumed benefit). These measures of relatedness are implemented by the following techniques: Impact fees are charged to properties that need (i.e,, benefit from) new public facilities. The City of Edmonds provides its infrastructure to all kinds of property throughout the City, therefore impact fees have been calculated for all types of property. The relative needs of different types of growth are considered in establishing fee amounts (i.e,, different impact values for different types of land use). Chapter 3 uses different numbers of persons per dwelling unit for residential development, and different numbers of employees and visitors for different types of non-residential development. Feepayers can pay a smaller fee if they demonstrate that their development will have less impact than is presumed in the impact fee schedule calculation for their property classification. Such reduced needs must be permanent and enforceable (i.e., via land use restrictions). Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 7 Packet Page 339 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds 3. Reasonably Related to Expenditures. Two provisions of Edmonds' impact fee ordinance comply with the requirement that expenditures be "reasonably related" to the development that paid the impact fee. First, the requirement that fee revenue must be earmarked for specific uses related to public facilities ensures that expenditures are on specific projects, the benefit of which has been demonstrated in determining the need for the projects and the portion of the cost of needed projects that are eligible for impact fees as described in this study. Second, impact fee revenue must be expended or obligated within 10 years, thus requiring the impact fees to be used to benefit to the feepayer and not held by the City. 4. Service Areas for Impact Fees Impact fees in some jurisdictions are collected and expended within service areas that are smaller than the jurisdiction that is collecting the fees. Impact fees are not required to use multiple service areas unless such "zones" are necessary to establish the relationship between the fee and the development. Because of the compact size of the City of Edmonds and the accessibility of its parks to all property within the City, Edmonds' parks serve the entire City, therefore the impact fees are based on a single service area corresponding to the boundaries of the City of Edmonds. Exemptions The City's impact fee ordinance addresses the subject of exemptions, Exemptions do not affect the impact fee rates calculated in this study because of the statutory requirement that any exempted impact fee must be paid from other public funds. As a result, there is no increase in impact fee rates to make up for the exemption because there is no net loss to the impact fee account as a result of the exemption. Developer Options A developer who is liable for impact fees has several options regarding impact fees. The developer can submit data and or/analysis to demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed development are less than the impacts calculated in this rate study. The developer can appeal the impact fee calculation by the City of Edmonds. If the local government fails to expend the impact fee payments within 10 years of receipt of such payments, the developer can obtain a refund of the impact fees. The developer can also obtain a refund if the development does not proceed and no impacts are created. All of these provisions are addressed in the City's impact fee ordinance, and none of them affect the calculation of impact fee rates in this study. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 8 Packet Page 340 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan There are references in RCW to the "capital facilities plan" (CFP) as the basis for projects that are eligible for funding by impact fees. Cities often adopt documents with different titles that fulfill the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 et. seq. pertaining to a "capital facilities plan". The City of Edmonds annually adopts a 6-year Capital Improvements Program (CIP), and also an annual update to its CFP that extends beyond the 6-year CIP. These two documents fulfill the requirements in RCW, and are considered to be the "capital facilities plan" (CFP) for the purpose of this impact fee rate study. All references to a CFP in this study are references to the CIP and CFP documents described above. The requirement to identify existing deficiencies, capacity available for new development, and additional public facility capacity needed for new development is determined by analyzing levels of service for each type of public facility. Chapter 3 provides this analysis. New Versus Existing Facilities, Accounting Requirements Impact fees must be spent on capital projects contained in an adopted capital facilities plan, or they can be used to reimburse the government for the unused capacity of existing facilities. Impact fee payments that are not expended or obligated within 10 years must be refunded unless the City Council makes a written finding that an extraordinary and compelling reason exists to hold the fees for longer than 10 years. In order to verify these two requirements, impact fee revenues must be deposited into separate accounts of the government, and annual reports must describe impact fee revenue and expenditures. These requirements are addressed by Edmonds' impact fee ordinance, and are not factors in the impact fee calculations in this study. Data Sources The data in this study of impact fees in Edmonds, Washington was provided by the City of Edmonds, unless a different source is specifically cited. Data Rounding The data in this study was prepared using computer spreadsheet software. In some tables in this study, there may be very small variations from the results that would be obtained using a calculator to compute the same data. The reason for these insignificant differences is that the spreadsheet software was allowed to calculate results to more places after the decimal than is reported in the tables of these reports. The calculation to extra places after the decimal increases the accuracy of the end results, but causes occasional minor differences due to rounding of data that appears in this study. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 9 Packet Page 341 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds I GROWTH ESTIMATES Impact fees are meant to have "growth pay for growth" so the first step in developing an impact fee is to quantify future growth in the City of Edmonds. Growth estimates have been prepared for population and employment. Table 2 lists Edmonds population and growth rates from 1940 to the present, and projections to the year 2025. Table 2: Population Year Population Compound Annual Growth Rate Compound Growth Rate Years 1940 1,288 1950 2,057 4,79% 1940-1950 1960 8,016 14,57% 1950-1960 1970 23,684 1 1,44% 1960-1970 1980 27,679 1,57% 1970-1980 1990 30,744 1, 06% 1980-1990 2000 39,515 2,54% 1990-2000 2010 39,709 0,05% 2000-2010 2011 39,800 0,23% 2010-2011 2025 44,880 0,82% 2010-2025 Source of Population for years 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2025: City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, December 2012, page 10. Source of Population for 2010: U.S, Census. Source of Population for 2011: Washington Office of Financial Management. In addition to residential population growth, Edmonds expects businesses to grow. Business development is included in this study because businesses and their employees and customers benefit from Edmonds' parks. For example, City parks provide places for employees and customers to fake breaks from work and shopping, including restful breaks and/or active exercise to promote healthy living, The Puget Sound Regional Council monitors "covered employment" which is employment tracked by the Washington State Employment Security Department. The data is tracked for eight different major sectors of employment, such as manufacturing, retail, and services. Table 3 lists employment in Edmonds businesses from 2000 to 2011, and growth that is projected to the year 2025, Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 10 Packet Page 342 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Table 3: Employment Annual Const Change Year /Res FIRE Mfg. Retail Svices. WTU Govt. Educ. Total of Total 2000 666 513 129 1,594 4,735 321 1,402 892 10,253 2001 766 578 114 1,504 4,593 258 1,717 889 10,418 1,61 % 2002 647 522 81 1,437 4,432 267 1,718 897 10,001 -4,00% 2003 750 532 103 1,426 4,442 307 1,915 888 10,362 3,61 % 2004 778 582 69 1,408 4,669 314 1,670 887 10,377 0,14% 2005 842 591 98 1,426 4,830 346 1,897 899 10,929 5,32% 2006 797 642 97 1,419 5,046 397 1,701 881 10,980 0,47% 2007 813 692 79 1,477 5,320 417 1,665 873 11,338 3,26% 2008 776 696 100 1,492 5,639 312 1,690 883 11,588 2,20% 2009 606 484 116 1,368 5,375 297 1,719 900 10,864 -6,25% 2010 535 400 129 1,363 5,261 294 1,747 946 10,675 -1,74% 2011 482 397 137 1,514 7,292 240 380 919 11,362 6,44% 2025 549 452 156 1,725 8,310 274 433 1,047 12,947 0,94% Const/Res = Construction & Resources; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; Mfg, = Manufacturing; Svices. _ Services; WTU = Wholesale Trade, Transportation and Utilities; Govt. = Government; Educ. = Education Source of Employment for 2000 - 2011: Puget Sound Regional Council, Source of Employment for 2025: Henderson, Young & Company, based on 2011 PSRC data and compound annual growth rate from 2000-2011. It is clear from Tables 2 and 3 that Edmonds expects growth of population and businesses in the future, so there is a rational basis for park impact fees that would have future growth to pay for parks, open space and recreation facilities that are needed to provide appropriate levels of service to new development. Population and employment are both expected to grow, but they should not be counted equally because employees and visitors spend less time in Edmonds than residents, therefore they have less benefit from Edmonds' parks. There is a well -established and widely -used technique for accounting for these differences in impact, and if involves "equivalency." The Appendix to this study describes equivalency, and explains how the "equivalent population coefficients" were developed for this study of park impact fees for the City of Edmonds. The result allows each category of business to pay its proportionate share of parks for growth based on the "equivalent population" that it generates. Table 4 multiplies the equivalent population coefficients (from the Appendix) times the actual population and employment data from Tables 2 and 3 to calculate the "equivalent" population for the base year (2011), the horizon year (2025) and the growth between 2011 and 2025, Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 11 Packet Page 343 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Table 4: Growth of Equivalent Population and Employment 2011 2011 2025 2025 2011- 2011- Base Base Horizon Horizon 2025 2025 Year Year Year Year Growth Growth Full Equivalent Full Equivalent Full Equivalent Land -Use Category EPQ 1 Pop 2 Pop 3 Pop 2 Pop 3 Pop 4 Pop 5 Permanent Pop 0.9375 39,800 37,313 44,880 42,075 5,080 4,762 Construction 0.1986 482 96 549 109 67 13 FIRE 0.5056 397 201 452 229 55 28 Manufacturing 0.5814 137 80 156 91 19 11 Retail Trade 2.0038 1,514 3,034 1,725 3,457 211 424 Services 0.5056 7,292 3,687 8,310 4,202 1,018 515 WTU 0.6004 240 144 274 164 34 20 Government 0.7060 380 268 433 306 53 37 Education 0.5357 919 492 1,047 561 128 69 Total n.a. n.a. 45,314 n.a. 51,194 n.a. 5,880 ' Source: Appendix - Equivalent Population Coefficients. 2 Sources: Tables 2 and 3. 3 Equivalent Population = Equivalent Population Coefficient x Full Population. 4 2011-2025 Growth Full Population = 2025 Full Population - 2011 Full Population. e 2011-2025 Growth Equivalent Population = 2025 Equivalent Population - 2011 Equivalent Population The totals in Table 4 provide the equivalent population for the purpose of developing park impact fees for Edmonds. The total equivalent population for the base year (201 1) is 45,314, for the horizon year (2025) is 51,194, therefore the growth between 2011 and 2025 is 5,880. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 12 Packet Page 344 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds 4. PARK IMPACT FEES Overview Impact fees for parks, open space, and recreation facilities use an inventory and valuation of the existing assets in order to calculate the current investment per person (i.e„ equivalent population or equivalent person). The current investment per person is multiplied times the future population to identify the value of additional assets needed to provide growth with the same level of investment as the City owns for the current population. The future investment is reduced by the amount of specific other revenues that are available and the result is the net investment needed to be paid by growth. Dividing the net investment by the growth of the equivalent population results in the investment per person that can be charged as impact fees. The amount of the impact fee is determined by charging each fee -paying development for impact fee cost per person multiplied times the equivalent population coefficient for each type of development, These steps are described below in the formulas, descriptions of variables, tables of data, and explanation of calculations of park impact fees. Throughout this chapter the term "person" is used as the short name that means equivalent population or equivalent person. Formula 1: Parks Capital Value Per Person The capital investment per person is calculated by dividing the value of the asset inventory by the current equivalent population, Value of Parks Current Capital Value ' Inventory _ Equivalent = Per er Person Equivalent population was described in Chapter 3 and explained in the Appendix. There is one new variable that requires explanation: (A) value of parks inventory. Variable (A): Value of Parks Inventory The value of the existing inventory of parks, open space and recreation facilities is calculated by determining the value of park land and improvements. The sum of all of the values equals the current value of the City's park and recreation system. The values in this study come from King County's tax assessment data base. The values of parks in this rate study do not include any costs for interest or other financing. If borrowing is used to "front fund" the costs that will be paid by Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 13 Company Packet Page 345 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds impact fees, the carrying costs for financing can be added to the costs, and the impact fee can be recalculated to include such costs. Table 5 lists in alphabetical order the inventory of park land and improvements that make up the City of Edmonds' existing park system. Each listing includes the name, type of park, acreage, land value, improvement value and total value. The total value of park land and improvements currently owned by the City of Edmonds is $80.3 million. Table 5: Asset Inventory and Capital Value Improvement Name Type Acres Land Value Value Total Value 144 Railroad Ave Regional 1.0 $ 333,200 $ 200,000 $ 533,200 Tidelands 7th & Elm Neighborhood 1.5 508,500 0 508,500 Anderson Center Neighborhood 2.3 5,363,100 1,983,600 7,346,700 Ballinger Lake Access Special Use 0.1 80,000 100,000 180,000 Beautification Areas (12 Open Space 9.8 200,000 200,000 400,000 sites) Brackett's North Regional 2.7 3,461,300 57,600 3,518,900 Brackett's South Regional 2.0 4,512,600 0 4,512,600 Cemetery Special Use 5.5 1,721,200 16,700 1,737,900 Centennial Plaza Special Use 0.1 25,000 100,000 125,000 City Park Community 14.5 15,895,200 81,500 15,976,700 City Park Maintenance Special Use 1.1 150,000 1,141,192 1,291,192 Bldg Dayton Street Plaza Special Use 0.1 250,000 250,000 Edmonds Library & Plaza Special Use 2.0 2,736,000 2,748,000 5,484,000 Edmonds Marsh/Walkway Open Space 23.2 254,500 0 254,500 Haines Wharf Park Regional 0.5 354,700 2,600,000 2,954,700 Hazel Miller Plaza (Old Special Use 0.5 250,000 150,000 400,000 Milltown) Hickman Neighborhood 5.6 1,414,800 3,000,000 4,414,800 Hummingbird Hill Park Neighborhood 2.0 352,000 0 352,000 Hutt Park Open Space 4.7 744,200 0 744,200 Interurban Trail Special Use 3.4 2,962,080 1,700,000 4,662,080 Maplewood Hill Park Open Space 12.7 2,066,300 0 2,066,300 Marina Beach Park Regional 4.5 535,800 0 535,800 Mathay Ballinger Neighborhood 1.5 70,000 0 70,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse/Park Special Use 1.3 230,000 156,700 386,700 Meadowdale Natural Open Space 2.0 85,100 0 85,100 Area Ocean Ave Viewpoint Special Use 0.2 32,900 50,000 82,900 Olympic Beach Regional 4.3 1,167,300 0 1,167,300 Park/Walkway Olympic View Open Open Space 0.5 10,000 0 10,000 Space Pine Ridge Park Open Space 22.0 4,118,800 0 4,118,800 Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 14 Packet Page 346 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Improvement Name Type Acres Land Value Value Total Value Pine Street Park Neighborhood 1.5 398,800 0 398,800 Seaview Park Neighborhood 5.5 1,143,500 37,600 1,181,100 Seaview Reservoir Open Space 3.0 183,000 0 183,000 Shell Creek Open Space Open Space 1.0 270,400 0 270,400 Sierra Park Neighborhood 5.5 1,812,000 0 1,812,000 South County Senior Center Regional 1.0 5,961,000 624,000 6,585,000 SR 104 Mini Park Special Use 0.3 301,000 0 301,000 SR 104 Wetlands Open Space 9.0 9,200 0 9,200 Stamm Overlook Park Special Use 0.4 386,800 0 386,800 Sunset Ave Overlook Special Use 0.5 240,800 0 240,800 Wade James Theater Special Use 0.7 1,265,000 60,000 1,325,000 Wharf Street Open Space 0.2 30,000 30,000 60,000 Willow Creek Hatchery Special Use 1.0 76,500 0 76,500 Willow Creek Park Open Space 2.2 24,500 0 24,500 Yost Park & Pool Community 48.0 2,900,400 450000 3,350,400 TOTAL 210.4 64,887,480 15,486,892 80,374,372 JOUrce of Jana ana Improvemem vaiues: rung C-ounty Tax assessment TIIes. Table 6 lists the total value of $80,374,372 (from Table 5) and divides it by the current equivalent population of 45,314 (from Table 3) to calculate the capital value of $1,773,71 per equivalent population. Table 6: Value of Parks per Equivalent Population Total Current (2011) Capital Value Value of Equivalent per Equivalent Edmonds Parks Population Population $ 80,374,372 - 45,314 = $ 1,773.71 Formula 2: Value Needed for Growth Impact fees must be related to the needs of growth, as explained in Chapter 2, The first step in determining growth's needs is to calculate the total value of parks that are needed for growth. The calculation is accomplished by multiplying the capital value per person times the number of new persons that are forecast for the City's growth. Capital Value Equivalent Value Needed 2. x Population = per Person Growth for Growth Table 7 shows the calculation of the value of parks needed for growth. The current capital value per person is from Table 6, The growth in equivalent Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 15 Company Packet Page 347 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds population is from Table 4. The result is that Edmonds needs to add parks valued at $10.4 million in order to serve the growth of 5,880 additional people who are expected to be added to the City's existing equivalent population. Table 7: Value of Parks Needed for Growth Capital Value Growth of Value per Equivalent Equivalent Needed Population Population for Growth $ 1,773.71 x 5,880 = $ 10,429,210 Formula 3. Investment Needed for Growth The investment needed for growth is calculated by subtracting the value of any existing reserve capacity from the total value of parks needed to serve the growth. Value Value of Investment 3 Needed _ Existing = Needed for for Reserve Growth Growth Capacity There is one new variable used in formula 3 that require explanation; (B) value of existing reserve capacity of parks. Variable (B): Value of Existing Reserve Capacity The value of reserve capacity is the difference between the value of the City's existing inventory of parks, and the value of those assets that are needed to provide the level of service standard for the existing population. Because the capital value per person is based on the current assets and the current population, there is no reserve capacity (i.e., no unused value that can be used to serve future population growth )3. Table 8 shows the calculation of the investment in parks that is needed for growth. The value of parks needed to serve growth (from Table 7) is reduced by the value of existing reserve capacity, in this case zero, and the result shows that Edmonds needs to invest $10A million in additional parks in order to serve future growth. 3 Also, the use of the current assets and the current population means there is no existing deficiency. This approach satisfies the requirements of RCW 82,02.050(4) to determine whether or not there are any existing deficiencies in order to ensure that impact fees are not charged for any deficiencies. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 16 Company Packet Page 348 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Table 8: Investment Needed in Parks for Growth Value of Value Existing Investment Needed Reserve Needed for Growth Capacity for Growth $ 10,429,210 $ 0 $ 10,429,210 Formula 4. Investment to be Paid by Growth The future investment in parks that needs to be paid by growth may be reduced if the City has other revenues it invests in its parks. The investment to be paid by growth is calculated by subtracting the amount of any revenues the City invests in infrastructure for growth from the total investment in parks needed to serve growth. Investment City Investment 4. Needed for - Investment = to be Paid Growth for Growth by Growth There is one new variable used in formula 4 that requires explanation: (C) revenues used to fund the City's investment in projects that serve growth. Variable (C): City Investment of Non -impact Fee Revenues The City of Edmonds has historically used a combination of state grants and local revenues, such as real estate excise taxes, to pay for the cost of park and recreation capital facilities. The City's plan for the future is to continue using grant revenue and some local revenues to pay part of the cost of parks needed for growth. A detailed analysis was made of the City's 2013-18 CIP and 2019-25 CFP. There are a total of $76.13 million of parks projects. $51.98 million add capacity to the park system, and therefore are considered projects eligible for impact fee funding. $15,76 million of the capacity projects have identified potential funding from grants and/or local revenues. $15,76 million is 30.33% of $51.98 million, therefore grants and local revenues will pay for 30.33% of park projects that add "capacity" to the park system for new development by increasing the value of park and recreation assets. Revenues that are used for repair, maintenance or operating costs are not used to reduce impact fees because they are not used, earmarked or prorated for the system improvements that are the basis of the impact fees. Revenues from past taxes paid on vacant land prior to development are not included because new capital projects do not have prior costs, therefore prior taxes did not contribute to such projects. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 17 Company Packet Page 349 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds The other potential credits that reduce capacity costs (and subsequent impact fees) are donations of land or other assets by developers or builders. Those reductions depend upon specific arrangements between the developer and the City of Edmonds. Reductions in impact fees for donations are calculated on a case -by -case basis at the time impact fees are to be paid. Table 9 shows the calculation of the investment in parks that needs to be paid by growth. The investment in parks needed to serve growth (from Table 8), is multiplied times 30,33% to calculate the value of City investment for growth from grants and some local revenues. The result is that growth in Edmonds needs to pay $10,4 million for additional parks to maintain the City's standards for future growth. The City expects to use $3.1 million in grant and local revenue towards this cost (calculated at 30.33% of $10,4 million needed for growth), and the remaining $7.3 million will be paid by growth. Table 9: Investment in Parks to be Paid by Growth Investment City Investment Investment Needed for Growth @ to be Paid for Growth 30.33% by Growth $ 10,429,210 - $ 3,163,265 = $ 7,265,945 Formula 5: Growth Cost Per Person The growth cost per person is calculated by dividing the investment in parks that is to be paid by growth by the amount of population growth. Investment Growth of Growth Cost 5, to be Paid - Equivalent = by Growth Population per Person There are no new variables used in formula 5. Both variables were developed in previous formulas. Table 10 shows the calculation of the cost per person of parks that needs to be paid by growth. The investment in parks needed to be paid by growth (from Table 9), is divided by the growth population (from Table 4), and the result shows that cost for parks to be paid by growth is $1,235.73 per person. Henderson, Young & Company April 5, 2013 Page 18 Packet Page 350 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds Table 10: Growth Cost per Person Investment Growth of Growth Cost per to be Paid Equivalent Equivalent by Growth Population Population $ 7,265,945 - 5,880 = $ 1,235.73 Formula 6: Impact Fee per Unit of Development The amount to be paid by each new development unit depends on the equivalent population coefficient. The cost per unit of development is calculated by multiplying the growth cost per person by the equivalent population coefficient for each type of development. Growth Cost Equivalent 6, x Population per Person Coefficient Cost per Unit = of Development There are no new variables used in formula 6. Both variables were developed in previous formulas. However, the equivalent population coefficients from the Appendix were calculated for standard increments of 1,000 square feet, but the impact fee is charged per square foot, therefore the equivalent population coefficients from the Appendix are divided by 1,000 and the result is used in Table 11. Table 11 shows the calculation of the parks impact fee per unit of development. The growth cost of $1,253.73 per person from Table 10 is multiplied times the equivalent population coefficient to calculate the impact fee per unit of development. Table 11: Impact Fee per Unit Type Of Development Growth Cost per Equivalent Person Equivalent Population Coefficient Unit of Development Impact Fee Per Unit of Development Residential - single family 1,235.73 2.2125000 dwelling unit $ 2,734.05 Residential - multi family 1,235.73 1.8937500 dwelling unit 2,340.16 Retail 1,235.73 0.0020038 square foot 2.48 Office 1,235.73 0.0005056 square foot 0.62 Manufacturing 1,235.73 0.0005814 square foot 0.72 Construction 1,235.73 0.0001986 square foot 0.25 Henderson, Young & Company April 5, 2013 Page 19 Packet Page 351 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds APPENDIX: EQUIVALENT POPULATION COEFFICIENTS What is "Equivalency"? When governments analyze things that are different than each other, but which have something in common, they sometimes use "equivalency" as the basis for their analysis. For example, many water and sewer utilities calculate fees based on an average residential unit, then they calculate fees for business users on the basis of how many residential units would be equivalent to the water or sewer service used by the business. This well -established and widely practiced method uses "equivalent residential units" (ERUs) as the multiplier that uses the rate for one residence to calculate a variety of rates for different types of businesses. If a business needs a water connection that is double the size of an average house, that business is 2.0 ERUs, and would pay fees that are 2.0 times the fee for an average residential unit. Another use of "equivalency" that is used in public sector organizations is "full time equivalent" (FTE) employees. One employee who works full-time is 1.0 FTE, A half-time employee is 0.5 FTE. By adding up the FTE coefficients of all part-time employees, the total is the FTE (full-time equivalent) of all the part-time employees. Cities like Renton and Redmond charge business licenses on the basis of the number of employees in each business. In order to be fair to businesses with part-time employees, they convert the part-time employee count to FTE, and then pay the fee per FTE. Equivalency and Park Impact Fees The use of equivalency can be used to develop park impact fees that apply to new commercial development as well as residential development. Equivalent population coefficients for park impact fees use the same principles as ERUs or FTEs to measure differences among residential population and different kinds of businesses in their availability to benefit from Edmonds' parks. They document the nexus between parks and development by quantifying the differences among different categories of park users. The analysis that calculates equivalent population coefficients takes into account several factors and reports the result as a statistic that allows each category of business to pay its proportionate share of parks for growth based on the "equivalent population" that it generates. The "equivalency" calculation recognizes that employees and visitors have less time in Edmonds to benefit from Edmonds' parks (in the same way that part-time employees spend less time on the job than full-time employees). The equivalent population coefficients are used in two ways. First, they are multiplied times the number of employees in different types of businesses in Edmonds to count employees and visitors to businesses as "equivalent Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 20 Company Packet Page 352 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds population" in Edmonds. This provides a total population of residents, employees and visitors that will be used to calculate the park value per equivalent population. Second, the adjusted park growth cost per equivalent population is multiplied times the equivalent population coefficient for each type of business to calculate the impact fee rate for each type of business. Calculation of Equivalent Population Coefficients for Park Impact Fees There are two parts to the equivalent population coefficient: (1) employees, and (2) visitors. Table A-14 presents the data for the following factors used in analyzing employees: the number of days per week and hours per day that different types of businesses are typically open, the percent of hours that the employees are typically at the business location, and the resulting number of hours per day that each employee is in their business location in Edmonds and therefore proximate to Edmonds' parks. Table A-1: Employee Hours in Location (per Employee) Land -Use Category Employees Days per Week at Location Hours per Day at Location' Percent of Time At Location' Hours in Location per Person 2 Construction 5 9.0 25.0% 11.2500 FIRE 5 9.0 80.0% 36.0000 Manufacturing 5 9.0 100.0% 45.0000 Retail Trade 7 9.0 100.0% 63.0000 Services 5 9.0 80.0% 36.0000 WTU 5 9.0 100.0% 45.0000 Government 5 9.0 80.0% 36.0000 Education 5 9.0 100.0% 45.0000 FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate WTU = Wholesale Trade, Transportation and Utilities ' Assumptions from Planner's Estimating Guide. 2 Hours in Location per Person = (#days/week x # hours/day x % of time at location) Table A-2 presents the data for the following factors used in analyzing visitors: the number of days per week that different types of businesses are typically open, the number of hours that visitors are typically at the business location, the number of visitors per employee at different types of business, and the resulting 4 The original version of Tables A-1 through A-3 was developed by Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, a leading scholar and researcher in the field of impact fees. The table appeared in Nelson's 2004 Planner's Estimating Guide, The Underlying employee data has been updated to the most recent edition (2008) of Trip Generation by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 21 Company Packet Page 353 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds number of visitor hours per employee that visitors are in the business location in Edmonds and therefore proximate to Edmonds' parks. Table A-2: Visitor Hours in Location (per Employee) Land -Use Category Visitors Days per Week at Location' Hours per Day at Location' Visitors Per Employees Visitor Hours in Location per Employee ° Construction 5 1,0 1,0872 5,4360 FIRE 5 1,0 1,2948 6,4740 Manufacturing 5 1,0 0,7668 3,8340 Retail Trade 7 1,0 15.0461 105.3227 Services 5 1,0 1,2948 6,4740 WTU 5 1,0 1,0872 5,4360 Government 5 1,0 4,6605 23.3025 Education 5 na na 0,0000 Assumptions from Planner's Estimating Guide. 3 Visitors per Employee from Planner's Estimating Guide, Does not include tourists. which are important to Edmonds, but for which no data is available that measures tourists per employee by type of business. ° Visitor Hours in Location per Employee = (#days/week x # hours/day x visitors/employee) Table A-3, presents the last step in calculating the equivalent population coefficient. Employee hours are added to visitor hours per employee for each type of business. The total is divided the total by 84 hours per week. Parks are considered a "daytime" public facility that is assumed to be available 12 hours per day, 7 days per week, for a total of 84 hours5, The result of this calculation is the daytime equivalent population coefficient for each type of business. Table A-3: Equivalent Population Coefficients Land -Use Category Total Total Hours in Location per Employee 5 Daytime Equivalent Population Coefficient - Hours @ 84 Construction 16.6860 0.1986 FIRE 42.4740 0.5056 Manufacturing 48.8340 0.5814 Retail Trade 168.3227 2.0038 Services 42.4740 0.5056 WTU 50.4360 0.6004 Government 59.3025 0.7060 Education 45.0000 0.5357 5 Total Hours in Location per Employee = Employee Hours + Visitor Hours s By way of comparison, police and fire facilities are considered to be "24-hour" public facilities, therefore 24 x 7 = 168 hours for their equivalent population coefficient calculations, Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Page 22 Company Packet Page 354 of 546 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds The equivalent population coefficient for residential development is based on the same methodology, but without a separate factor for visitors because residences do not have regular visitors that can be quantified like a business. The residential coefficient assumes 7 days a week, 15 hours per day, 75% at the location, for a total of 78.75 hours in location. Dividing 78.75 by 84 hours for daytime facilities (described above) produces an equivalent population coefficient of 0.9375 for residential development. When calculating the impact fee, the coefficient is multiplied times the average number of persons per housing unit. A single family home has an average of 2.36 persons per house, so the equivalent population coefficient is 0.9375 x 2.36 = 2.2125. A multi -family unit, such as an apartment or condominium, has an average of 2.02 persons per house, so the equivalent population coefficient is 0.9375 x 2.02 = 1.89375. As noted previously, the equivalent population coefficients will be multiplied times the number of employees in each type of business and the residential population to calculate the total equivalent population in Edmonds. Later in the impact fee calculation, the equivalent population coefficient is multiplied times the growth cost per equivalent population for each type of business and housing unit to calculate the impact fee rate for each type of development. Henderson, Young & April 5, 2013 Company Page 23 Packet Page 355 of 546 AM-5831 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Bertrand Hauss Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Tyne: Action Information 8. C. Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #2 with Perteet for channelization plan, right-of-way acquisition, and access management work on the 228 th St. SW Corridor Improvement project. Recommendation Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the June 18, 2013 City Council meeting. Previous Council Action On August 2, 2011, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Local Agency Standard Consultant Agreement with Perteet on the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project. On October 16, 2012, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Local Agency Supplemental Agreement #1 with Perteet on the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project. Narrative The project will construct the missing link of roadway on 228th St SW from State Route (SR) 99 to 76th Ave W. and install two new traffic signals at the intersections of SR99 / 228th St. SW and 76th Ave. W. / 228th St. SW. The center median will be extended on a portion of SR99 to restrict left turns and improve safety. Sidewalk and bike lanes will be included along the new section of 228th St. SW. The section of 228th St. SW from 80th Ave W to 1,000 feet east of 72nd Ave. W will be overlaid. A raised median with decorative elements will also be installed along SR-99. The proposed Supplement covers the professional services to complete the channelization plans, right of way acquisition phase, and access modifications along 76 th Ave. W at 22625 Hwy 99. The design fee for Supplement No. 2 is $24,547 and will be paid by grant funds. The City secured a federal transportation grant for $4,233,000 to complete the design, right of way acquisition, and construction. No local match is required for this grant. The City has received a total of $4,769,000 in federal grant funds to complete this project. The design and right of way phases are scheduled for completion in early 2014 and construction is tentatively scheduled to begin in spring 2014. Attachments Supplemental Agreement No. 2 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 06/06/2013 01:32 PM Public Works Phil Williams 06/06/2013 01:52 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/06/2013 02:05 PM Mayor Dave Earling 06/06/2013 05:19 PM Packet Page 356 of 546 Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Final Approval Date: 06/07/2013 Sandy Chase 06/07/2013 08:39 AM Started On: 06/05/2013 02:33 PM Packet Page 357 of 546 Washington State Department of Transportation Supplemental Agreement pp 9 Organization and Address Perteet, Inc. Number 2 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900 Everett, WA 98201 Original Agreement Number Phone: (425) 252-7700 Project Number Execution Date Completion Date August 11, 2011 April 30, 2014 Project Title New Maximum Amount Payable City of Edmonds 228th Street S.W. Corridor $ 535,387 Improvement Project Description of Work Additional services as detailed in Exhibit A-1, Scope of Work, attached. The Local Agency of CITY OF EDMONDS desires to supplement the agreement entered into with PERTEET, INC. and executed on August 11, 2011 and identified as Agreement No. provisions in the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement. The changes to the agreement are described as follows: Section 1, SCOPE OF WORK, is hereby changed to read: All Supplemental services are as covered by Exhibit A-1, Scope of Work, attached hereto and made a part of this agreement. Section IV, TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION, is amended to change the number of calendar days for completion of the work to read: April 30, 2014 Section V, PAYMENT, shall be amended as follows: These additional services as set forth in this Supplemental Agreement No. 2 will cause an increase to the contract maximum in The amount of Twenty -Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty -Seven Dollars ($24,547) for a new contract maximum of Five Hundred Thirtv-Five Thousand Three Hundred Eiahtv-Seven Dollars ($535,387) as referenced in Exhibit E-1, attached hereto. as set forth in the attached Exhibit A-1, and by this reference made a part of this supplement. If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign in the appropriate spaces below and return to this office for final action. By: Perteet Inc..By: , / Consultant Signature Crystal L. Donner DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 912005 Approving Authority Signature Date Packet Page 358 of 546 Exhibit Aw I Scope of Services City of Edmonds 228th Street S.W. Corridor Improvements Supplemental Agreement No. 02 Task I — Project Management Assuming that there are no stops in design, the current project schedule indicates that the design phase will be completed by the end of February 2014. The intent of this supplement is to cover the additional nine months of project management support. Work Elements: • Weekly communications with the client • Facilitate monthly project coordination meetings • Prepare monthly progress reports • Manage subconsultant activities. Assumptions: • Notice to proceed on all design elements will be granted by May 5, 2013. • No stops in design work are anticipated. Deliverables: • Draft and Final Work Plan (2 hard copies) • Project Schedule (MS Project Format) PDF (12 updates) • Project Kickoff meeting agenda and minutes • Nine (9) coordination meeting agendas and minutes • Nine (9) progress reports and invoices Task 3 — Channelization Plan for Approval (Supplemented) The intent of this task is to address additional channelization plan for approval comments and to address Edmonds` desire to construct a raised median along Highway 99. Work Elements: • Revise Channelization Plan for Approval • Update the Project Analysis if required Assumptions: • This work is limited to WSDOT and Edmonds review comments received to date • No other work besides revising the channelization plan section showing the revised median will be performed. Deliverables: • Revised Channelization Plan for Approval (one typical section plan sheet) DOT Form 140-063 EF Revised 912005 Packet Page 359 of 546 Task 8 — Right -of -Way Acquisition (Supplemented) The intent of this task is to provide additional technical design support to the negotiation team. Work Elements: • Technical design support • Revised right-of-way plan Assumptions: • None Deliverables: • Negotiation graphics • Revised right-of-way plan Task 23 — Access Modifications (New) The intent of this task is to reconfigure the northern biofiltration Swale along 76th Avenue SW so that the 76 gas station northern access point shall remain open. Work Elements: • Modify drainage design • Update Drainage Report • Modify channelization plans • Modify paving plans Assumptions: • Based on our initial investigation, Perteet believes that the 76 gas station can remain open. The actual location will remain the same. • This access point will be limited to vehicles exiting and heading south bound along 76th Avenue SW. Construct this exit only access drive so that it is 15 feet wide. Deliverables: • Revised Drainage Report • Revised Drainage plans • Revised channelization plans • Revised paving plans SCHEDULE A time extension to April 30, 2014 is requested to complete the design phase of the project. DOT Form 140-063 FF Revised 912005 Packet Page 360 of 546 MANAGEMENT RESERVE RELEASES The following management reserve releases have been issued and are now incorporated as part of the contract. MRR #I 3/8/2012 $5,634 Geotechnical Infiltration Rates and RIW Exhibits MRR #2 5/ 15/2012 $3,094 Survey Utilities & NEPA EJIRevisions MRR #3 5/15/2012 $5,900 Noise & Channelization Support MRR #4 10/24/2012 $5,924 AMEC Cultural Resource Assessment Management Reserve Budget = $35,000 Management Reserve Balance = $14,448 DOT Form 140.063 EF Revised 9/2005 Packet Page 361 of 546 Exhibit E- [ Project: 228th Street SW Corridor Improvements - Supp No. 2 Client: City of Edmonds Hourly Costs Pius Fixed Pee Estimate Classification Hours Rate Amount Sr. Associate 68 60.10 $4,056 Lead Engineer 1 Mgr 14 46.63 $653 Lead Engineer 1 Mgr 36 50.00 $1,800 Lead Technician/Designer 46 35.00 $1,610 Accountant 5 33.50 $151 Clerical 5 26.73 $120 Total Direct Salary Costs 174 $8,390 Overhead @ 162.58% $13,640 Fixed Fee @ 30.00% $2,517 Total Labor Costs $24,547 Reimbursabies Expenses Amount Total Expenses 0 In -House Costs Qty Rate Amount Total In -House Costs 0 Subconsultants Total Subconsultants Management Reserve Total Other Costs Subconsultants Cost Markup Amount 0 0 Other $0.00 $ 0.00 CONTRACT TOTAL:..$24,547.00 Rates shown reflect the typical compensation rate of employees assigned to the billing category listed. Each category may have multiple employees assigned to that billing category and each employee may have a different hourly rate of pay. Employee compensation is subject to adjustment in June of each calendar year. Prepared By: Darrell C. Smith DOT Form 140-063 FF Revised 912005 Date: May 29, 2013 Packet Page 362 of 546 AM-5830 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: 20 Minutes Submitted For: Bertrand Hauss Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Tyne: Action Information Subject Title Briefing on Six -Year Transportation Improvements Program (2014-2019) Recommendation Review the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program and schedule a public hearing for the item. Previous Council Action None. Narrative 8. D. The Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a transportation planning document that identifies funded, partially funded, and unfunded projects that are planned or needed over the next six calendar years. The TIP also identifies the expenditures and secured or reasonably expected revenues for each of the projects included in the TIP. The City practice in preparing the TIP each year has been to keep it financially constrained the first 3 years (2014-2016), but not the last 3 years (2017-2019). RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 require that each city update and adopt their TIP prior to adoption of the budget. A copy of the adopted TIP will be submitted to the Puget Sound Regional Council, Washington State Department of Transportation, and adjacent jurisdictions. Some of the projects in the TIP are shown as funded through secured or unsecured Federal / State grants, as well as from the local funds. Due to a shortfall in transportation funding, a number of unsecured State and Federal transportation grants have been programmed to fund projects beginning in 2017. Most transportation grants are competitive, and the success of how many grants are secured in the future will depend on other transportation needs and funding requests in the region. Projects not identified in this document may not be eligible for Federal / State funding. This overview serves as an introduction to the 2014-2019 TIP and a Public Hearing is scheduled for the June 18th City Council meeting. Attachments Six -Year TIP (2014-2019) Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 06/06/2013 01:57 PM Public Works Phil Williams 06/06/2013 02:01 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/06/2013 02:05 PM Mayor Dave Earling 06/06/2013 05:21 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 06/07/2013 08:39 AM Fonn Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 06/05/2013 02:16 PM Final Approval Date: 06/07/2013 Packet Page 363 of 546 Packet Page 364 of 546 City of Edmonds Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2014-2019) Grant Opportunity Project (2014-2019) Project Name Purpose Grant/Date Phase Total Cost Source 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Preservation/Maintenance Protects: Annual Street Preservation Grind pavement, overlay, chip seal, Engineering $0 (Federal) Program Local Funds Only & $0 (State) slurry seal, and microsurfacing Construction $4,500,000 Local $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 5th Ave S Overlay from Secured grant $8,650 (Federal, secured) $8,650 Elm Way to Walnut St. Grind pavement and overlay & Construction $0 (State) Local Funds $1,350 Local $1,350 Traffic Signal Upgrade traffic signal cabinets, Possible grant, Engineering $650,000 (Federal, unsecured) $650,000 Improvements install pedestrian countdown displays, provide & & $0 (State) maintenance, and im rove technology Local Funds Construction $20,000 Local $10,000 $10,000 238th @ 100th Av. Signal Upgrades Rebuild signal system Engineering $0 (Federal) Possible Grant & $508,000 (State, unsecured) $508,000 with video detection Construction $0 Local TOTAL $10,000 $0 $0 $2,658,000 $1,510,000 $1,510,000 satety i capac¢v Anarvsis: 212th St. SW / 84th Ave. W (5 Corners) ROW $8,650 (Federal, secured) $8,650 Intersection Improvements $0 (State) $1,350 Install roundabout with conversion of overhead utilities Secured Grant Local $1,350 Construction $1,839,000 (Federal, secured) $1,839,000 to underground, water line replacement, and stormwater & upgrades Local Funds $0 (State) $367,000 (Local, Fund 412) $367,000 $288,000 Local, Traffic Impact Fees $288,000 228th St. SW. Corridor Safety Construct missing roadway link on 228th St. SW between Engineering $10,000 (Federal, secured) $10,000 Improvements Hwy. 99 and 76th Ave. W. Install traffic signals at $0 (State) $0 Hwy. 99 @ 228th St. SW and Local ROW $100,000 (Federal, secured) $100,000 76th Ave. W @ 228th St. SW to improve safety. Bike lanes and sidewalk will be added on Secured Grants $0 (State) $0 both sides of the new stretch. Stormwater improvements & Local Construction $4,049,000 (Federal, secured) $4,049,000 are also being incorporated into this project. Local Funds $0 (State) $55,000 (Local, Fund 412) $55,000 $85,000 Local $85,000 76th Av. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection $88,000 (Federal, secured) $44,000 $44,000 Improvements Engineering $0 (State) $80,000 Secured grants, (Local, Fund 412) $80,000 Re -design intersection to reduce intersection delay / $12,000 Local, Traffic Impact Fees $6,000 $6,000 $647,000 (Federal, secured) $300,000 $347,000 improve level of service. Utility Possible grants, improvements are included in the project. ROW $227,000 (Federal, unsecured) $227,000 $101,000 Local $47,000 $54,000 & Local Funds Construction $1,989,200 (Federal, unsecured) $1,989,200 $0 (State) $311,000 Local $311,000 SR-104 Transportation Corridor Study Improve vehicular and non -motorized transportation $0 (Federal) safety along SR-104 Local Funds Only Engineering $0 (State) $25,000 Local $25,000 SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization Install gateway elements and safety improvements Engineering $0 (Federal) along the SR-99 Corridor. Possible Grant & $10,000,000 (State, unsecured) $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 Construction $0 Local SR-524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave. W Installation of guardrail on the west side of intersection, $0 (Federal) Guardrail improving intersection safety due to - 12' vertical drop on Local Funds Only Engineering $0 (State) west side of intersection $30,000 Local $30,000 SR 524 (196th St. SW) @ Design intersection improvement Design $0 (Federal) 88th Ave W. Intersection Possible Grant $50,000 (State, unsecured) $50,000 $50,000 Improvements Local, traffic impact fees $50,000 ROW acquisition ROW $0 (Federal) & $81,500 (State, unsecured) $81,500 $81,500 Local $81,500 Construct intersection improvements Construction $533,000 (Federal, unsecured) $533,000 Local Funds $0 (State) $83,000 Local $83,000 Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades Possible grant Engineering $200,000 (Federal, unsecured) $20,000 $180,000 Upgrade traffic signal & & $0 (State) Local Funds Construction $50,000 Local $20,000 $30,000 Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades Possible grant Engineering $125,000 (Federal, unsecured) $20,000 $105,000 Upgrade traffic signal & & $0 (State) Page 1 Packet Page 365 of 546 City of Edmonds Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2014-2019) Grant Opportunity Project (2014-2019) Project Name Purpose Grant/Date Phase Total Cost Source 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Local Funds Construction $125,000 Local $20,000 $105,000 Main St. @ 9th Av. S Restriping of 9th Av. S to (2) northbound Engineering $0 (Federal) (Interim Solution) and southbound lanes (ex conditions: 1 lane Local Funds Only & $0 (State) era roach) Construction $10,000 Local, Traffic Impact Fees $10,000 220th St. SW @ 76th Av. W Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and a Possible Grant Engineering $149,000 (Federal, unsecured) $149,000 Intersection Improvements through lane. Change NB and SB phases to provide & & $0 (State) protected/permissive LT and Right turn overlap for WB. Local Funds Construction $24,000 Local $24,000 Arterial Street Signal Coordination Coordinate the traffic signals within 1/2 mile of each other Engineering $0 (Federal) Improvements along 76th Av. W, 212th St. SW, and 220th St. SW Local Funds Only & $0 (State) Construction $50,000 Local $50,000 Hwy 99 @ 212th St. SW Widen 212th St. SW to add a WB and EB left turn lane. Possible Grant s Engineering, $2,826,000 (Federal, unsecured) $424,000 $793,000 $1,609,000 Intersection Improvements Provide protected / permissive left turn phasing for both & ROW, & $225,500 (State, unsecured) $33,000 $66,500 $126,000 movements. Local Funds Construction $224,500 Local $33,000 $66,500 $125,000 Hwy 99 @ 216th St. SW Widen 216th St. SW to add a WB and EB left turn lane. Possible Grant s Engineering, $2,826,000 (Federal, unsecured) $424,000 $793,000 $1,609,000 Intersection Improvements Provide protected / permissive left turn phasing for both & ROW, & $225,500 (State, unsecured) $33,000 $66,500 $126,000 movements. I Local Funds Construction $224,500 Local $33,000 1 $66,500 $125,000 Protected / permissive traffic Conversion from protected left -turn phasing Engineering $0 (Federal) signal conversion to protective -permissive Local Funds Only & $0 (State) phasing at signalized intersections Construction $20 000 Local $20 000 Type 2 Raised Pavement Install Type 2 Raised Pavement Markers Engineering $96 000 (Federal, unsecured) $98,000 Markers along the centerline of arterials and collectors, improving Possible Grant & $0 (State) roadway safety during night hours and on rainy days Construction $0 Local TOTAL $7 815 000 $5,178,000 $5,000,000 $3 791 200 $2,265,000 $4 546,000 Pedestrian Projects: Sunset Av. from Bell St. to Caspers St. Provide sidewalk on the west side of Sunset Av. Secured Grant, Possible Engineering $73 000 (Federal, secured) $73,000 Grant, & & $389 000 (State, unsecured) $389,000 Local Funds Construction $400 000 Local $11 000 $389 000 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to Provide sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW Engineering $0 (Federal) 1041h Ave. W from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W Secured Grant & $531 000 (State, secured) $531,000 Construction $0 Local 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to Provide sidewalk on the north side of 15th St. SW to Engineering $334 000 (Federal, secured) $334,000 8lh Ave. W improve non -motorized transportation safety Secured grant & $0 (State) for kids attending Sherwood Elementary School Construction $0 Local 236th St. SW Walkway from Madrona Improve non -motorized transportation safety for school Engineering $454,000 (Federal,secured) $454,000 Elementary to Edmonds Way (SR-104) Secured grant & $0 (State) kids along 236th St. SW Construction $0 Local Hwy. 99 Enhancement project Installation of luminaires along SR-99 $584,000 (Federal, secured) $584,000 (Phase 3) from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW, Secured grant Construction $0 (State) improving edestrian / vehicular safe $0 Local SR-104 Pedestrian Install mid -block crossing along SR-104, allowing Engineering $0 (Federal) Midblock crossing pedestrians coming from Pine St to safely cross WSDOT Secured Grant & $230,000 (State, secured) $230,000 SDOT ro-ect SR-104, to access City Park Construction $0 Local ADA Curb Ramp upgrades Upgrade curb ramps along 3rd Ave. S Secured Grant Engineering $50,000 (Federal, secured) $50,000 along 3rd Ave. S between Pine St. and Main St. & & $0 (State) Local Funds Construction $25,000 Local $25,000 80th Av. W from 188th St. SW to Install sidewalk to provide safe and desirable route to Engineering $0 (Federal) Olympic View Dr. Walkway and Sight Seaview Elementary and parks. Improve sight distance issue Possible Grant & $993,000 (State, unsecured) $30,000 $116,000 $847,000 Distance Improvements near 184th St. SW intersection. Construction $0 Local 2nd Av. S from James St. to Main St. Engineering $0 (Federal) Walkway Provide sidewalk along short missing link. Local Funds Only & $0 (State) Construction $32,000 Local $32,000 ADA Curb Ramps Improvements Construct ADA compliant curb ramps where Possible Grant Engineering $0 (Federal) Citywide (Transition Plan) & & $375,000 (State, unsecured) $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 facilities don't exist nor meet current standards Local Funds Construction $75,000 Local $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Maplewood from Main St. to Install sidewalk, connecting to existing sidewalk Possible Grant Engineering $0 (Federal) 200th St. SW Walkway on 200th St. SW, & & $507,500 (State, unsecured) $95,000 $412,500 linking to Maplewood Elementary School. Local Funds Construction $169,500 (Local) $32,000 1 $137,500 Meadowdale Beach Rd Walkway Install sidewalk along missing link between Possible Grant $0 (Federal) & Engineering $142,500 (State, unsecured) $142,500 76th Av. W and Olympic View Dr. Local Funds $47,500 Local $47,500 Wanut St. from 3rd Av. to 4th Av. Engineering $0 (Federal) Walkway Install sidewalk along short missing link Possible Grant & $220,000 (State, unsecured) $220,000 Construction $0 Local Walnut St. from 6th Av. to 7th Av. Possible Grant Engineering $0 (Federal) Walkway Install sidewalk along short missing link & & $55,000 (State,unsecured) $55,000 Local Funds Construction $55,000 Local $55,000 Page 2 Packet Page 366 of 546 City of Edmonds Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2014-2019) Grant Opportunity Project (2014-2019) Project Name Purpose Grant/Date Phase Total Cost Source 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 4th Av. Corridor Enhancement Possible Grant Engineering $5,000,000 (Federal, unsecured) $100,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,900,000 Walkway Create more attractive and safer corridor along 4th Av. & & $0 (State) Local Funds Construction $675,000 Local, Fund 125 $100,000 $150,000 $425,000 Audible Pedestrian Install audible pedestrian signals at all Engineering $25,000 (Federal, unsecured) $25,000 Signals pedestrians heads to improve signalized intersection Possible Grant & $0 (State) $0 safet for eo le with disabilities Construction Local TOTAL $2,492,000 1 $1,150,000 1 $1,425,000 1 $4,135,000 $393,000 $1,847,000 Bicycle projects Citywide Bicycle connections (such as Install bike lanes, sharrows, and signs along Main St., Engineering $233,000 (Federal, unsecured) $233,000 Interurban Trail to Downtown Edmonds...) Bowdoin Way, 84th Ave. W, 212th St. SW, 220th St. SW, Possible grant & $0 (State) and 224th St. SW to create safer connections Construction $0 Local Bicycle Route Signing $0 (Federal) Install signage for (3) bike loops around the City Local Funds Only Construction $0 (State) $30,000 Local $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $243,000 $10,000 $10,000 Traffic Calming ProlecW. Residential Neighborhood Traffic circles, speed cushions, Design $0 (Federal) Traffic Calming "Your Speed" signs, etc. Local Funds only & $0 (State) Construction $105,000 Local $10,000 1 $10,000 $10,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Traffic Plannina Protects Transportation Plan Update Engineering (Federal) Update Transportation Plan Local Funds Only & $0 (State) Planning $180,000 (Local) $90,000 1 $90,000 Total $46,273,200 $10,417,000 $6 428 000 $6 435 000 $10,852,200 $4 203 000 $7,938,000 Total Federal $7,954,300 $1,618,000 $1,000,000 $6,887,200 $1,711,000 $3,931,000 Total Federal (Secured) $7,854,300 $391,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Federal (Unsecured) $100,000 $1,227,000 $1,000,000 $6,887,200 $1,711,000 $3,931,000 Total State $1,261,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 $1,388,000 $550,500 $1,834,000 Total State (Secured) $761,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total State (Unsecured) $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 $1,388,000 $550,500 $1,834,000 Total Local Fund $1,201,700 $310,000 $435,000 $2,552,000 $1,941,500 $2,173,000 Total Local (Fund 112) $295,700 $154,000 $10,000 $2,502,000 $1,941,500 $2,173,000 Total Local (Fund 125) $100,000 $150,000 $425,000 $0 $0 $0 Total Fund (Fund 412) $502,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Local (Traffic Impact Fees) $304,000 $6,000 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 Page 3 Packet Page 367 of 546 AM-5818 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted By: Jim Stevens Department: Public Works Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Information Subject Title FAC Accessibility Upgrades Project Award Recommendation Action 8. E. Approve the movement of this item forward to the consent agenda for next week's meeting of the full Council. The recommended contractor is Moon Construction. The recommended contract value includes Additive Alternate #1, per the narrative below. The addition of sufficient contingency to this amount will bring the project budget to a total of $134,131. Previous Council Action This project is already listed in the 2013 CIP and is within the budget anticipated there, as well as within the current spending authority for Fund 016 ($205,000) for 2013. Narrative A little over a year ago, staff identified the two locker rooms adjoining the Frances Anderson Center Gymnasium as being non -compliant with current accessibility requirements. Because there are no equivalent facilities available at any reasonable distance from the gym, staff determined it was necessary to undertake a construction project to remedy this situation. This project will take these locker rooms out of service between August 19th and October 18th and will provide essentially a complete reorganization of internal spaces. The work includes demolishing and rebuilding interior locker room walls, and purchasing and installing new fixtures, oriented with sufficient clearances such that the rooms will become fully accessible as currently defined in code. Because this project was estimated to be of a small enough value to qualify, the City used its procedures to seek quotes directly from 5 selected firms listed in the MRSC Small Works Roster subcategory of General Contracting - Building Contractor. Four bids were received and opened in the City Clerk's Office Conference Room on May 30, 2013. The bid recap sheet is attached to this agenda item. The low bidder is Moon Construction, of Lynnwood, and they have informed the City that they are fully prepared to undertake this project. On June 3, 2013, the City finished checking the references of this firm and a summary of the results is also attached to this agenda item. The winning bid was $97,736 for the base work, with another $8,781 for Alternate #1. This alternate will allow the complete refinishing of the floors in both locker rooms, rather than only patching cuts that must be made in the concrete flooring to accommodate plumbing changes. With sales tax, this comes to a recommended total contract value of $116,636. Because this area of the Frances Anderson Center dates from 1947, and because the work is critically tied to making changes to old plumbing, staff recommends establishing a contingency amount of 15% of this contract value, for an additional $17,495. This brings the total allotment requested for this project budget to $134,131. Attachments 2013 FAC Accessibility Bid Recaa Moon Reference Checks Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Packet Page 368 of 546 Public Works City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Jim Stevens Final Approval Date: 06/05/2013 Kody McConnell Sandy Chase Dave Earling Sandy Chase 06/04/2013 02:00 PM 06/04/2013 03:32 PM 06/04/2013 03:38 PM 06/05/2013 03:09 PM Started On: 06/03/2013 09:38 AM Packet Page 369 of 546 ABSTRACT OF QUOTESIBIDS 1AUTHORIZATION DATE: N/A BID TABULATION SHEET OPENING DATE: 5-30-13 AWARD DATE: TBD Supplies or Services: FAC Accessibility Upgrades Originating Office: Public Works Department: Public Works NAME OF BIDDERS: Remarks 1 2 3 4 Mark Construction Moon Construction Northwestern Const. Mike Werlich Const. ITEM 1 BASE BID {inc. trench & shore) 143.000.00 97,736.00 162,713.00 184,043.00 2 ALTERNATE #1 12,000.00 8.781.00 5,900.00 5,964.00 WA State Sales Tax 13,585.00 9,284.92 15,457.74 17,484.09 TOTAL BASE BID 156,585.00 107,020.92 178,170.74 201,527.09 Bid De osit Bond Bond Bond Bond Bid Signed Yes Yes Yes Yes Rec'd Addenda if Required Yes Yes Yes Yes Is this product a WA State Contract item? Yes No XXX Indicate vendors from above listing who have previously provided services or products to the City and indicate whether the results were satisfactory or unsatisfactory: Recommended Awardee: I CERTIFY THAT ALL BIDS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE INVITATION WERE OPENED, READ AND RECORDED ACCORDING TO CURRENT REQUIREMENTS. Low Bid That Is Unacceptable: Agent for the City of Edmonds: ,, ) '�-- L--) _ _ Note: Indicate N/A in each of the above categories that does not apply to the bid being presented EXCEi.DATMADMEMBIDS Moon Construction Reference Checks - Completed 6-3-13 Project Entity and Contact Job Quality* Budget Control* Timeliness* Overall Rating* Comments Very good company. Small (2 projects at WWTP): COE: Pamela contractors do not always come with knwowledge and Aeration Basin; Randolph, WWTP experitse to work in treatment Switchgear Walkway Manager 2 1 2 1 plant setting. Service Center at LWSD, Support "Superior small contractor, honest and willing to work with Services, Misc. Lake Washington SD: you and your architect. Cliff Projects Brian Berard 1 1-2 1-2 1-2 Moon is very knowledgable." Very happy with performance, don't often find small contractor like Moon, good Elevated Track Sound Sound Transit: Justin work on rush job with tight Mitigation and others Garrod 1 1 1 1 constraints * 1= excellent, 5 = worst Packet Page 371 of 546 AM-5821 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Mike De Lilla Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Tyne: Action Information Subject Title Presentation of 2013 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update and proposed sewer utility rate increases. Recommendation This item will be presented to the City Council in late June or July. Previous Council Action None. Narrative 8. F. The City of Edmonds' (City) Comprehensive Sewer Plan (the Plan) reviews the City's current sewage capacities and looks at the impact of projected growth on the City's sewage collection, conveyance and treatment system. Per the Washington State Growth Management Act, the City's current Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan, written in 2006, needs to be updated. The update will review and evaluate, the following elements of the City's Sanitary Sewer System: (1) Planning data and demand; (2) Sanitary Sewer System Analysis; (3) System Reliability; (4) Updates to the existing Sewer Model; (5) Regulatory Compliance with the Washington State Department of Ecology; (6) Operations and Maintenance Program; (7) Capital Facilities Plan; (8) Financial Program. An analysis of the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) will also be done evaluating the existing plant under current and anticipated loadings and also evaluate the future of the plant when subjected to tightening effluent limits expected to be imposed on Puget Sound dischargers. The Plan identifies future facilities required to accommodate both existing and future wastewater collection, conveyance and treatment needs as the City's population grows within the service area limits for the years 2019, 2033, and buildout conditions. The comprehensive plan will conform to the applicable sections of Chapter 173-240 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and as further detailed in the Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) document "Criteria for Sewage Works Design." In addition, the information from the 2010 City of Edmonds Inflow/Infiltration Study was incorporated. Table 9.2 and 9.3 identify improvement projects along with a priority ranking based on flow capacity, video inspections, staff input, and maintenance record data. Staff will use this ranking in the future years to identify which improvements will be made each year to provide the City with the flexibility to coordinate sewer main projects with street or other projects that may be planned for the same area. There may also be times when the priority ranking for a replacement may change due to subsequent inspections or deterioration conditions that require replacement sooner than anticipated. The need for sewer main easements may also have an impact on when improvements are scheduled since acquiring easements can be difficult and time consuming when working with reluctant property owners. Fiscal Impact: Packet Page 372 of 546 A financial analysis was completed by the Financial Consulting Solutions (FCS) Group to analyze the future financial needs for the City's sewer system. Based on the financial analysis, FCS and City staff has determined that sewer system utility rate increases are necessary to implement the Plan and fund operations, maintenance, and the planned capital improvements. Factors that necessitate rate increases for the sewer system are: • Ongoing need to replace/repair aging City of Edmonds sewer mains and the need to increase the size of sewer mains, for sufficient flows in various locations as well as other capital improvements shown in the Plan; • Repairing or replacing existing pipes to decrease the amount of root intrusion in existing pipes so that blockages in the systems are mitigated; • Updates and repairs to the Wastewater Treatment Plant; • Mitigating groundwater Infiltration and Inflow from existing sewer pipes. The Plan will be reviewed by the Planning Board and a public hearing will be held on June 26, 2013. DRAFT Sewer Comp Plan Inbox Reviewed By Engineering Robert English Public Works Kody McConnell City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Final Approval Date: 06/07/2013 Attachments Form Review Date 06/06/2013 11:57 AM 06/06/2013 12:31 PM 06/06/2013 01:34 PM 06/06/2013 05:27 PM 06/07/2013 08:39 AM Started On: 06/04/2013 08:51 AM Packet Page 373 of 546 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Sewer Plan May 2013 ■ S�L A N S 1601 5I" Ave Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 505-3400 Packet Page 374 of 546 City of Edmonds COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN May 2013 City Council Michael Plunkett Strom Peterson Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Diane Buckshnis Joan Bloom Frank Yamamoto Lora Petso Public Works Director Phillip Williams City Engineer Rob English Treatment Manager Sewer Supervisor Project Manager Pamela Randolph Jim Waite Mike DeLilla This Document was prepared Under the direct supervision of Craig P. Chambers, P.E. BHC Consultants Packet Page 375 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN City of Edmonds Comprehensive Sewer Plan I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 Planning Data 1-1 1.3 Projected Wastewater Flows and Loads 1-2 1.4 Capital Improvement Projects 1-3 II. INTRODUCTION 2.1 Purpose and Need for Plan 2-1 2.2 Ownership and Management 2-2 2.3 System History and Background 2-2 2.4 Service Area Characteristics 2-5 2.5 City Sewer Policies 2-5 III. LAND USE AND SERVICE AREA 3.1 Service Area Description 3-1 3.2 Surrounding Vicinity Characteristics 3-1 3.2.1 Topography 3-1 3.2.2 Geology 3-3 3.2.3 Water Resources 3-3 3.3 Land Use 3-7 3.3.1 Growth Management Act 3-7 3.4 Relationships with Adjacent Sewerage Agencies 3-9 3.4.1 City of Lynnwood 3-9 3.4.2 King County 3-12 3.4.3 City of Mountlake Terrace 3-14 3.4.4 Ronald Wastewater District 3-14 3.4.5 Olympic View Water and Wastewater District 3-14 IV. DESIGN CRITERIA 4.1 Performance and Design Criteria 4-1 4.1.1 Sewer Mainline 4-1 4.1.2 Manholes 4-2 4.1.3 Side Sewers 4-3 4.1.4 Pump Stations 4-3 4.1.5 Individual Grinder Pumps 4-3 4.2 Easements 4-4 4.3 Standard Details and General Notes 4-4 V. EXISTING FACILITIES 5.1 Drainage Basins 5-1 5.1.1 Meter 1 Sub -basin 5-1 5.1.2 Zone 1 Sub -basin 5-4 Packet Page 376 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 5.1.3 Zone 2 Sub -basin 5-4 5.1.4 Meter A Sub -basin 5-4 5.1.5 Meter B Sub -basin 5-4 5.1.6 Meter C Sub -basin 5-4 5.1.7 Meter E Sub -basin 5-4 5.1.8 MLT Zone Sub -basin 5-5 5.1.9 Edmonds Zone Sub -basin 5-5 5.1.10 LS-1 Zone Sub -basin 5-5 5.1.11 Richmond Beach Sub -basin 5-5 5.1.12 Lynnwood Zone Sub -basin 5-5 5.2 City Collection and Conveyance Facilities 5-6 5.3 Lift Stations 5-6 5.4 Edmonds WWTP 5-9 5.4.1 General 5-9 5.4.2 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Loadings 5-10 5.5 Additional Regulatory Requirements 5-15 5.6 Infiltration and Inflow 5-15 5.6.1 Zone 1 Problem Area 5-15 5.6.2 LS-1 Zone 5-15 5.6.3 MLT Zone 5-15 VI. EXISTING AND FUTURE POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS 6.1 Population 6-1 6.1.1 General 6-1 6.1.2 Existing Residential Population and Sewer Connections 6-1 6.1.3 Future Residential Population and Sewer Connections 6-2 6.2 Flows 6-4 6.2.1 General 6-4 6.2.2 Recorded Flows 6-6 6.2.3 Estimated Future Flows 6-10 6.3 WWTP Flows 6-11 VII. MODEL CONSTRUCTION AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS 7.1 Model Software 7-1 7.2 Model Construction 7-1 7.2.1 Data Sources 7-1 7.2.2 Model Coverage 7-1 7.2.3 Modeling of Physical System Features 7-2 7.3 Loading 7-3 7.4 Model Calibration 7-4 7.5 Capacity Analysis and Model Results 7-4 7.5.1 Model Results 7-4 VIII. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS 8.1 Introduction 8-1 ,V Packet Page 377 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 8.2 Treatment Requirements 8-1 8.3 Treatment Performance 8-2 8.4 NPDES Permitted Capacity and Historical Loadings 8-3 8.5 Violations and Bypasses 8-5 8.6 Future Capacity Evaluation 8-5 8.7 Future Regulatory Issues for WWTP 8-13 8.7.1 Sewage Sludge Incineration 8-13 8.7.2 Secondary Bypass 8-17 8.7.3 Total Nitrogen Discharge Limits 8-17 8.8 Plant Improvements and Additional Needs 8-18 8.8.1 Improvements since 2006 Comprehensive Plan 8-18 8.8.2 Additional Improvements 8-21 IX. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 9.1 Capital Improvement Projects Ranking 9-1 9.2 Capacity Limitations in Existing Lines Identification of Reoccurring 9-3 9.3 Basis for CIP Cost Estimates 9-19 9.4 CIP Capacity Issues and Other Projects — 2013 thru 2019 9-24 9.5 CIP Capacity Issues — 2019 thru 2033 9-25 9.6 CIP Capacity Issues — 2033 thru Buildout 9-25 9.7 CMOM 9-25 9.8 Wastewater Reuse 9-25 9.9.1 Regulatory Requirements 9-25 9.9.2 Potential Uses and Demands 9-26 9.9.3 Reclaimed Water Treatment Facilities 9-28 9.9.4 Reclaimed Water Conveyance and Distribution 9-28 9.9.5 Economic Analysis of Reuse 9-28 9.9.6 Satellite Reclaimed Water System 9-29 X. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM 10.1 District Management and Personnel 10-1 10.1.1 Organization 10-1 10.1.2 Certification and Training 10-2 10.2 Operations and Maintenance Activities and Programs 10-2 10.2.1 Collection System Maintenance 10-3 10.2.1.1 Lift Stations 10-3 10.2.1.2 Sanitary Sewers 10-3 10.2.2 WWTP Maintenance 10.3 Programs 10-4 10.3.1 Pretreatment Program 10-4 10.3.2 Water Reclamation and Reuse 10-5 10.3.3 Biosolids Recycling 10-5 10.3.4 Sewage Spill Response Plan 10-6 10.3.5 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan 10-7 10.4 Management System / Record Keeping 10-7 10.4.1 Collection System 10-7 Packet Page 378 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 10.4.2 NPDES Permit 10.5 Performance Indicators 10-8 10.5.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant 10-8 10.6 Condition Assessment 10-8 10.6.1 Collection System 10-8 10.6.2 Lift Stations 10-8 10.7 Staffing Needs 10-9 XI. WASTEWATER FINANCIAL PLAN 11.1 Introduction 11-1 11.2 Overview of the Financial Planning Process 11-1 11.3 Past financial History 11-2 11.4 Development of the Financial Plan 11-3 11.4.1 Internal Sources of Funds 11-6 11.4.2 External Sources of Funds 11-6 11.5 Summary of the Financial Projections 11-8 11.6 Rate Impacts 11-10 11.7 Review of District's Wastewater Rates 11-11 11.8 Summary of Wastewater Financial Plan 11-11 LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES GLOSSARY ABBREVIATIONS APPENDICES A. Sub -basin Maps B. Model Calibration and Documentation C. Population Projections D. SEPA Checklist and Determination of Significance E. Cost Estimates for CIP F. Known Collection System Deficiencies G. Sewer Service Agreements H. Ordinances I. City's Development Guidelines and Standards for Developer Extensions J. Agency review Comments and Responses K. NPDES Permit L. Financial Analysis Support Documents M. FOG Resolution V1 Packet Page 379 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN LIST OF TABLES Page 2.1 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Requirements per WAC 173-240-050 2-1 2.2 Additional Sewer Plan Requirements per State and Local Regulations 2-1 5.1 Summary of Pipe Inventory 5-6 5.2 Pump Station Inventory 5-7 5.3 Current NPDES Effluent Limitations for Edmonds WWTP Discharge 5-9 5.4 Edmonds WWTP Historical Improvements and Capacity 5-10 6.1 Edmonds Existing Population 2010 6-2 6.2 Measured Flow by Meter 6-5 6.3 Population and Growth Projections 6-9 6.4 2019 Flow Projections 6-12 6.5 2033 Flow Projections 6-13 6.6 Build Out Flow Projections 6-14 6.7 WWTP Flow Projections - 2019 and 2033 6-15 7.1 Fields for Basic Model Construction 7-2 8.1 Current and Future Loadings to WWTP 8-6 8.2 EPA Emission Limits for Fluidized Bed Incinerators 8-15 8.3 Capital Improvements at WWTP 8-24 9.1 Point Assignments for Capital Improvement Projects 9-2 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline CIP — Without Granite O&M 9-4 9.3 Capital Improvement Projects 9-20 9.4 Potential Application Sites for Reclaimed Water 9-27 V; i Packet Page 380 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN LIST OF FIGURES Page 2.1 Vicinity Map 2-3 3.1 Municipal Boundaries 3-2 3.2 Water Features 3-4 3.3 Soils Map 3-5 3.4 Water System Schematic 3-6 3.5 Land Use Map 3-8 3.6 Adjacent Sewer Agencies 3-10 3.7 Lynnwood Treatment Service Area 3-11 3.8 Richmond Beach Agreement Area 3-13 3.9 Mountlake Terrace Agreement Area 3-15 3.10 Ronald Wastewater District Agreement Area 3-16 5.1 Sub -Basin Map 5-2 5.2 Schematic Flow Diagram 5-3 5.3 Lift Station Service Areas 5-8 5.4 WWTP Layout 5-14 6.1 Diurnal Flow 6-8 6.2 Edmonds Wastewater Flows 6-10 7.X Lynnwood Zone Lift Station Analysis 7-5 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Effluent CBOD5/TSS Concentrations 8-2 8.2 Edmonds WWTP Effluent Mass CBOD5/TSS 8-3 8.3 Edmonds WWTP Influent Flows 8-4 8.4 Edmonds WWTP Influent Mass CBOD5/TSS 8-5 vi; i Packet Page 381 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN GLOSSARY 100-year flood: The magnitude of a flood likely to occur, on average, once every 100 years. Average Wet Weather Flow: Wastewater flow during period when groundwater table is high and precipitation is at its peak, generally the four wet weather months, from November to February. Class 1 Stream: A perennial or intermittent stream that is used by threatened or endangered fish or larger numbers of other fish, or that is used as a direct source of water for domestic use. Force Main: Pressurized discharge pipe from a lift station. Infiltration: Groundwater entering the sewage collection system through defective joints, pipes, and improperly sealed manholes. Inflow: Sewage flows resulting from stormwater runoff entering the sewage collection system, typically through manhole covers, roof leaders, and area drains connected directly to sewer, cross connections from storm drains and catch basins, and direct flows into broken sewers. Maximum Monthly Flow: Average daily flow during the highest flow month of the year. Mini -Basin: Drainage catchment areas within the North Creek, Swamp Creek, Picnic Point, Everett or Little Bear Creek Drainage Basins. Mini -basins followed the King County delineation to the extent of the County's effort to define the mini -basins. National Flood Insurance Program: Federally funded program providing flood insurance to property owners in flood plains provided the local government meets certain criteria for management of flood damage risk. Orange Book: Criteria for Sewage Works Design, published by the Washington State Department of Ecology Peak Hourly Flow: Wastewater flow during the highest flow hour. Sensitive Area: Area in which development potential is limited by environmental factors such as steep slopes, wetlands, and valuable natural habitat. Sewer Lateral: A sewer with no other common sewers discharging into it. Sewer Submain: A sewer that receives flow from one or more lateral sewers. Sewer Main or Trunk: A sewer that receives flow from one or more submains. Sewer Interceptor: A sewer that receives flow from a number of main or trunk sewers, force mains, etc. Urban Growth Area: Area in which urban development must be contained, as stipulated by the Growth Management Act. ,X Packet Page 382 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN ABBREVIATIONS AAF Average Annual Flow ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow AWWD Alderwood Water and Wastewater District AWWF Average Wet Weather Flow BOD Biological Oxygen Demand CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Capital Improvement Program CWA Clean Water Act DOH Washington State Department of Health DOE Washington State Department of Ecology EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ERU Equivalent Residential Unit ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Act FOG Fats, Oils and Greases FPS Feet per second FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act ("The Clean Water Act") GMA Growth Management Act GPCD Gallons per capita per day GPAD Gallons per acre per day GPD Gallons per day HPA Hydraulic Project Approval 1/1 Infiltration and Inflow JARPA Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application KCDNR King County Department of Natural Resources MMF Maximum Month Flow MBR Membrane Bioreactor MGD Million Gallons per Day mg/I milligrams per liter NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OCD Washington State Office of Community Development OFM Washington State Office of Financial Management ppd Pounds per day PVC Polyvinyl Chloride PWWF Peak Wet Weather Flow RCW Revised Code of Washington SEPA State Environmental Policy Act SRF State Revolving Fund TSS Total Suspended Solids UGA Urban Growth Area USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service WAC Washington Administrative Code WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant Packet Page 383 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER I — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Edmonds' (City) Comprehensive Sewer Plan (the Plan) reviews the City's current sewage capacities and looks at the impact of projected growth on the City's sewage collection and conveyance system. The analysis of the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) was also done evaluating the existing plant under current and anticipated loadings and also evaluated the future of the plant when subjected to tightening effluent limits expected to be imposed on Puget Sound dischargers. The Plan identifies future facilities required to accommodate both existing and future wastewater collection, conveyance and treatment needs as the City's population grows within the service area limits for the years 2019, 2033, and buildout conditions. The plan was prepared in conformance with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-240-050. 1.2 PLANNING DATA Population, employment and student population forecasts were used to estimate the current and future loadings to the City's system. Planning data from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) provides population forecasts based on U.S. Census data as broken down by Forecast Analysis Zones (FAZ). The PSRC data tends to be widely used throughout the region and is the data base that was used in developing and analyzing the flows. After discussions with the City staff, the values were used for the baseline population and GIS delineation was used for the distribution of growth between the Sub -basins. Student populations were derived from the School District's forecast. The service area is divided between eleven (11) Sub -basins. These 11 Sub -basins were used to encompass the entire service area boundary. The definition of the population that has sewer service is complicated by the fact that some Edmonds customers are served to the City of Lynnwood. Conversely the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant serves non -Edmonds customers. The population values and the methodology are presented in Chapter 6. There are three segments that comprise the served population: residential, student and employment. These three sectors are generally thought to capture all the sources expected in the Edmonds Service Area. This approach works well in largely developed, non -industrial service areas. Similar approaches were used in the Alderwood Water Packet Page 384 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN and Wastewater District's Comprehensive Plan in 2010 and in the City of Lynnwood's Comprehensive Plan in 2012. With these values of existing and projected users, a population equivalent was developed recognizing that a student or an employee contributes a fraction of a permanent resident. This ratio was established to be 5 to 1 for students, meaning that 5 students is equivalent to a resident and 3 to 1 for employees (i.e. 3 employees is equivalent to a resident). This ratio is consistent with textbook values. 1.3 PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS AND LOADS A capacity analysis of the existing City sewer network was undertaken using the XP- SWMM hydraulic modeling program. Existing lift stations and their firm capacities also were included in the model. The flow data from the City's flow meters were largely used in calibrating the model. The location of the flow meters was instrumental in delineating the Sub -basin boundaries. These Sub -basin areas were consistent with the basin boundaries used in the previous 1/1 study. The model was developed using information from the City's GIS electronic database, supplemented by selected as -built drawings, pump records, flow monitoring data, and with other available data such as ground elevation LIDAR information. Models were constructed to represent the network in 2010, 2019, 2033, and build out. The year 2010 was used for calibration purposes utilizing flow metering data at a eight locations in the collection system and three flow meters at the plant. Various flow conditions were evaluated for the flow data from each of the meters. Flow data from 2006 through 2012 was evaluated and summarized in Appendix B. Data for calibration purposes focused on flow from the years 2010 through 2012. • Average Dry Weather Flow was defined as the average daily flow for the months of July through October when no measureable rain was recorded. • Average Daily Flow was defined as the average flow over the entire year • Average Wet Weather Flow was defined as the average of the daily flows from the months of November through March • Maximum Month Flows are valuable particularly for the WWTP and are typically thought to be the design flow events for the plant. From the flow records, the maximum monthly average for the years 2010 through 2012 was selected. • Peak Day Flows are the measured maximum daily flows over the period of 2010 through 2012. • Peak Hour Flows used the measured peak day flows, applying a peak day to peak hour factor and by adding the diurnal flow variation to arrive at this estimated flow. 1-2 Packet Page 385 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN With the flows determined and the known population equivalence, a flow per population equivalence was determined. With the multiple flow meters and the extensive flow data that spanned several years, we saw consistent flow patterns in all the flow meter data. This historical flow data was used to project future and anticipated flows. There was an anomaly is the data measured in Meters 3 and the MLT meter at the WWTP. These two meters are downstream of the flow diversion to King County and consequently reflect lower total flows coming into the Edmonds system. This explains the low per population equivalent values seen at these two meters. The 1/1 component is captured in and part of the peak day and peak hour per population equivalent flow values. It is important to recognize that the 1/1 component is reflective of current conditions and that, as the pipes continue to age and degrade, the volume of 1/1 entering the system will continue to increase. An allowance for that continued degradation is incorporated into the per population equivalent values for 2019, 2033 and build out conditions. The Engineering and Planning Subcommittee of Metropolitan Water Pollution Abatement Advisory Committee (MWPAAC) has defined this degradation of sewers as a 7-percent per decade increase in 1/I. Though it might be acceptable to allow conditional surcharging of the conveyance lines, for the purposes of this analysis it has been conservatively estimated that no surcharging will be allowed. This effectively means that there is added and reserve capacity within the surcharging volumes. Where pipe sections were identified as requiring an upgrade, the proposed upgrade was sized to provide capacity equal to or greater than the estimated build out flows and to prevent any conditional surcharging from occurring. At lift stations where the estimated peak hour flows were shown to exceed the current firm capacity, a suitable build out upgrade flow capacity was estimated. This capacity was incorporated into the model for the planning horizon showing evidence of capacity limitation. This enabled the impact of the increased flow on the downstream sewer network to be investigated. The actual mechanical and electrical improvements to the lift stations would not likely be sized for the build out conditions. The results of the capacity analysis were used to develop the capital improvement program detailed in Chapter 9. 1.4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS The capital improvement projects (CIP) developed in Chapter 9 are presented by time period. It should be noted that this plan has neither proposed a routing to extend sewers to every lot within the service boundary, nor was it the intention of this plan to finance those line extensions. The CIP does not include the line extensions and pump stations needed to serve presently unsewered areas. These line extensions are 1-3 Packet Page 386 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN assumed to be initiated and financed by developers or through ULIDs. Consequently, no City financing mechanism is proposed for these lines. The CIP is limited to the following categories: • Existing lines that need to be upgraded/upsized to convey flows as population and flows increase • Existing lift stations that need to be upgraded to accommodate increasing flows. • Existing lift stations that need modifications or improvements. This might include equipment that has reached or are soon to reach their useful life, needed new features, and stations that are slated to be abandoned or rerouted. • Chronic maintenance areas that can be resolved with a capital project. • WWTP improvements to respond to increasing flows, loads or new regulations Cost estimates for each CIP was prepared based on current year (2013) pricing. Detailed cost estimates can be found in Appendix E. These projects were assigned a target period for completion based on the anticipated added flows and the expectation that capacity would be exceeded by the end of that period. Those improvements shown as 2013 to 2019 projects are those projects that have current or soon anticipated capacity issues and should be pursued first. Those that are in subsequent periods of 2019 to 2033 and 2033 to Build out are projects that should be completed on or before that target year. Capital Improvements Projects to be financed through the Sewer Fund for those periods are presented in Table 9.3 and are summarized below: 2013-2019 2019-2033 2033 — Build out CIP financed from the Sewer Fund $ 1-4 Packet Page 387 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER II — INTRODUCTION 2.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PLAN This 2012 Comprehensive Sewer Plan is prepared for the City to fulfill the requirements of Chapter 173-240-050 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). The WAC requirements are outlined in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Requirements per WAC 173-240-050 Reference Paragraph Description of Requirement Location in Document 3a Purpose and need for proposed plan Section 2.1 3b Who will own, operate, and maintain system Section 2.2 3c Existing and proposed service boundaries Figure 3.1 3d Layout map showing boundaries; existing sewer facilities; proposed sewers; topography and elevations; streams, lakes; and other water bodies; water systems Figures 3.2 3e Population trends Chapter 6 3f Existing domestic and/or industrial wastewater facilities within 20 miles Figure 2.1 3g Infiltration and inflow problems Chapter 7 3h Treatment systems and adequacy of such treatment Chapter 5 3i Identify industrial wastewater sources Section 6.5 3k Discussion of collection alternatives Chapter 9 3k Discussion of treatment alternatives Chapter 8 3k Discussion of disposal alternatives Chapter 8 31 Define construction cost and O&M costs Chapter 8 and Appendix E 3m Compliance with management plan Section 9.3.6 3n SEPA compliance Appendix D In addition to the WAC requirements sited above, there are other recent state and local regulations that must be incorporated into the Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update. These additional requirements are outlined in Table 2.2. Table 2.2 Additional Sewer Plan Requirements per State and Local Regulations Description of Requirement Location in Document Evaluation of wastewater reuse per Substitute Section 9.7 Secondary Senate House Bill 1338 Capacity, Management, Operations and Maintenance Section 9.X (CMOM). The Plan provides a comprehensive guide to assist the City with managing and operating the sewer system and coordinating expansions and upgrades to the 2-1 Packet Page 388 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN infrastructure for the next thirty years. The Plan serves as a guide for policy development and decision making for the City. It also provides other agencies and the public with information on the City's plans for sewer system extensions within the City's service area. This approach allows the City to provide high quality service to its customers and to continue protecting environmental quality. The Plan evaluates existing and future capacity of the sewer system based on current and anticipated future wastewater flow rates. Future wastewater flow rates are estimated from existing flow data and population growth projected within the sewer service area. An implementation plan is provided, including an estimated timeline for constructing selected projects. The financial analysis and the means by which the improvements were to be financed were addressed in Chapter 11. This chapter was prepared by FCS Group in close coordination with BHC and under direct contract with the City. 2.2 OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT The City owns and maintains a public wastewater system and is governed by a City Council. The City has agreements for sewage collection and treatment with some of the surrounding municipalities and special purpose districts for reciprocal sewage treatment. These agreements are further explained in Chapter 3. The City's wastewater system is under the general management of Mr. Jim Waite. The Sewer Division consists of 7.5 Full-time equivalent workers while the Treatment Plant employs 17 full time workers. The treatment plant is operated and managed under the general direction of Pamela Randolph. Additional Engineering and Administrative and Engineering employees are not accounted for in the above employment numbers. 2.3 SYSTEM HISTORY AND BACKGROUND The City of Edmonds is located in southwest portion of Snohomish County, immediately north of the King County — Snohomish County boundary, as shown on Figure 2.1, Vicinity Map. The City's service area extends outside of the municipality boundaries into Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline, to the East and to the South. The City also sends a portion of the sewage north to Lynnwood and ultimately to the Lynnwood Wastewater Treatment Plant. The City encompasses approximately 8.9 square miles and but its service area is approximately 19.5 square miles. The area known as Esperence is an unincorporated area that is completely surrounded by the City of Edmonds. Edmonds was incorporated in 1890 but a sanitary sewer system was not developed until 1920. A primary sewage treatment plant was constructed in 1957. The treatment plant was further expanded to accommodate agreements sewage treatment for portions of Mountlake Terrace and Ronald Wastewater District in 1959. 2-2 Packet Page 389 of 546 ;h1;cCeylsl d11AS -c-(Ha,:; C, - r , :es Lupien .�`ce'o�, --.. - F--'sort. Island Co .:dupe -die NOLF s A, [I � woo, _ camano - Gaca�„ is - Pori Townsend VJhidb�� Island Lake �. ontirrA'sperA - �� ftr _. son Cc r• j , � ,so _ ` 99 , ,Getchel . —%CkarFa s _ °" ♦ Snohomish Co f m_�Lm � iii ,F -_=-- ,Mke Stevens � Rock - 2e Poe %' Jefferson Co � j' Mukilt�eo •Pon L : , 1 no ado S-r_,sr. GrVen F - _ !II Suhan^y.Startup - I.• - It 1 F-- ,r �•.M1ionr�e_, �_-;/-=•-r+---,- \�,Gok Bar ' - i Mountlake Ce , r Richmc Highlands m ,B hell - - Pou1i IMwnoa Shoreline Woodinville uvall r i i _ KltSap CO Kir and- / R mond 4 %,Silserdale� .�inbridge sPnc J* �� n `So marrijilt F kscvYon Eat.. _ __.___ _• 99 oadttlP ell , mmmnis : ; !' lanchester ;,mr- . •Port1acnard� Boein �a Kin NDn gg •ro♦ King CO F'�Fa. cs': • -V' go ,South ♦ 4ft•_ 167 F-_=-:q-m'e ` Bremerton No r;w if enton t aer- Se-r„c: Eulien TOlo:il. y '.a_hcn - Mason Co o = 8C - Hobart , D oine5 ( Maple.valley -i -. Kent - - f;''r',•�;'+-W�--!'Y <• �. _st - JA' � mon beach Covington ; H= 99 167 Aubu Legend rn I. F eral \ ay Auburn , Black D,3 Treatment Facilities 67 ; W E 20 mile Radius hurston Co 01- P� g ,M1leltor. - Miles City of Edmonds Boundary 16; � r � o z.s a 10 ,;� This map is a geographic representation based on information available. No warranty is made concerning ,�1 Or wMo the accuracy, currency, or completeness of data p' ids depicted on this map. VICINITY MAP - . BHC Consultants, LLC ��•-xr Figure 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN - Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3406(fai ` City of Edmonds C N S U LTA N S www.bhemnsultants.com 2.1 Inc. 1690 May 2012 COPYRIGHT 020128 C L N G VED COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN In 1967, another treatment plant expansion took place as a result of increased service areas within the City and additional flows from Olympic View Sewer and Water District. Secondary treatment was designed subsequent to a 1986 report by CWC/HDR and was operational by 1991. The City provides sanitary sewer service to customers within its sewer service area. Wastewater ultimately flows to one of three locations: • Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is owned and operated by the City. • Brightwater Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is owned and operated by King County Metro. The City has an agreement with the County (see Appendix F) to send a portion of Edmonds sewage to the County for treatment via the Lake Ballinger Pump Station. In turn, the City receives and treats the sewage from the Richmond Beach Service Area. This agreement is describe further in Section 3.4.2. • Lynnwood Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is owned and operated by the City of Lynnwood. The City has an agreement with Lynnwood to send a portion of the Edmonds sewage to Lynnwood for treatment. Wastewater that affects the total flows through the City's collection and conveyance system can be categorized into three sources: • Direct service. Flow from customers within the boundaries of the City that is also treated at the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant. • Lynnwood service. Flow that originates within City of Edmonds corporate boundaries and is sent to Lynnwood for treatment. The City maintains the sewer infrastructure (pump stations and sewer mains) and compensates Lynnwood for treatment. • Tributary Service. Flow that originates from areas outside the City boundaries from other sewering agencies. These tributary areas include flow from City of Mountlake Terrace, Ronald Wastewater District, Olympic View Water and Wastewater District and small portions of the City of Lynnwood. Inter -local agreements between the City and the neighboring sewering agencies define the terms by which sewer service is provided. It is possible that those agreements could be amended in the future but it is unlikely that flows would be routed differently than currently described. It is assumed for the purposes of this Plan that the flows will continue under the current routing mode and that there would be no change to the current inter -local agreements that govern these sewer services. Consideration should be given to investigate rerouting options. A recommendation for this study is included in Chapter 9. 2-4 Packet Page 391 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Planning for future wastewater operations requires the City to address the land use decisions within the City sewer service boundary as determined by the City of Edmonds, the City of Shoreline and the City of Mountlake Terrace. 2.4 SERVICE AREA CHARACTERISTICS The City boundaries lie entirely within Snohomish County. However, the service area has portions that extend into the City of Shoreline (King County). The service area is generally built out and is characterized as a bedroom community largely comprising of single or multi -family residential units. The topography within the City ranges from flat and gently rolling to hilly with steep slopes along the stream corridors and those properties immediately adjacent to Puget Sound. Wetlands are found adjacent to the many creeks, small streams and lakes within the City service area (see Figure 3.2). Sewer service extensions presented in this report are planned only within the City's service area boundary. These boundaries are shown on Figure 3.1. Since the City is bounded by other sewering agencies on all sides, it is not anticipated that the service area boundaries would be expanded. Though not likely, it is possible that the City could re-route sewer infrastructure from the northern portion from Lynnwood WWTP back to Edmonds WWTP. Similarly, some flows within the City boundaries could be rerouted differently to avoid lines or pump stations that are shown to have capacity issues. The City could potentially also install a Lift Station upstream of Lake Ballinger Pump Station. While this would likely not increase flows to the WWTP it would eliminate the need for gravity main upsizing and would eliminate or reduce payments to King County for Lake Ballinger Operations and Maintenance. 2.5 CITY SEWER POLICIES Development of the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan is currently guided by the Comprehensive Plans from the adjacent agencies. The City's policy for sewer service recognizes that its function is not to plan land uses for the service area but to respond to land uses planned by the land use planning agencies. The public sewer system in the City may be extended by one of two methods. One being a developer extension agreement, where a developer, property owner or a group of property owners request and construct a sewer under the terms and conditions of a developer extension agreement. The second method is a Utility Local Improvement District (ULID) process following RCW 35.43.040 and 35.43.042, where a group of property owners petition the City to extend sanitary sewers to their area and then are assessed for the sewer improvements. 2-5 Packet Page 392 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN It is the City's policy that the property owners desiring sewer service initiate a request for sanitary sewer service. After entering a Developer's Extension Agreement with the City, the proposed sewer design will be reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with the standards and design criteria. Sewer extensions shall follow the current version of the City of Edmonds "Standard Specifications Manual" and the "Developer Extensions Manual" as provided in the Developer's Extension Agreement. Once the improvements have been constructed and confirmed through the City inspection to meet established standards, then it shall be deeded to the City. The City Council has the authority to set policies, ordinances, and zoning. The City may find it necessary from time to time to reevaluate their policies based on Snohomish County and adjacent City land use, policies and ordinances. 2-6 Packet Page 393 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER III — LAND USE AND SERVICE AREA 3.1 SERVICE AREA DESCRIPTION The existing sewer service area for the City can be described as comprising four different service areas as summarized below: City of Edmonds. The City of Edmonds municipal boundaries comprise of 5,700 acres. Approximately 4,450 acres within the City of Edmonds is collected and treated at the Edmonds WWTP. The City both owns and maintains this portion of the system and is responsible for treatment. Approximately 1,250 acres on the northern boundary the City of Edmonds is collected and treated at the Lynnwood WWTP. The City owns and maintains this portion of the system and Lynnwood is paid on an ERU basis for the sewage treatment. Additionally, Olympic View Water and Sewer District maintains a sewer system within Edmonds City limits. All Olympic wastewater is collected and treated at the Edmonds WWTP. King County and City of Woodway. The City of Woodway is collected and conveyed to the Edmonds WWTP, together with the Richmond Beach Pump Station flow, via the Richmond Beach/Woodway sewer trunk. The sewers within this area are owned and maintained by Olympic View Water and Sewer District. The County operates the Richmond Beach Pump Station. An agreement was signed in 2000 for "reciprocal sewage treatment" with King County which is further explained in 3.4.2. City of Mountlake Terrace. The City of Mountlake Terrace lies directly east of the City of Edmonds. The sewage from Mountlake Terrace is collected and conveyed by the Lake Ballinger Pump Station, near SR 104 or N 205th St. The sewer lines are owned and maintained by Mountlake Terrace and the Lake Ballinger Pump Station is owned and operated by King County. Operations of the Lake Ballinger Pump Station are described further in 3.4.2. Ronald Wastewater District and City of Shoreline. The southern portion of the City's service area is located in the City of Shoreline. Shoreline does not own or maintain any sanitary sewer system components; these portions are either owned by King County or Ronald Wastewater District. 3.2 SURROUNDING VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS 3.2.1 Topography Figure 3.1 shows the City's service area boundary and the corporate boundaries of the cities described in Section 3.1. 3-1 Packet Page 394 of 546 Lake SerenQ'l � `N' 4 th = 1-5 r 40ih I,� a `PrOce 5 � � °' 40 42nd 41st �a'0je D �Serene q3r 42nd �D 44Ih DD o DC D m �� a 461h 46Ih J DDu ULJIJD 48Ih 9Ih hgt 491h DD � D SOth yoI 99 52nd st ❑❑ Eon o 52nd L- _ nw� D y3td D 3rd ynll ood� 55th D 54fh .. 54th ` loi 54fh 54fh I \ II r !� � 54fh s4th lddS a Stith "' 0 6th f D56th yu,�156th 56tt DDD��D� � � 57Ih , o 57th 5sm sfim sam t 60Ih Oth 'r 60th D�DD� 60th v D D s fits a7a 6zq d011 62 d nd D D d y 6 d 63, 62nd D" 64th qt 64th ..�� 64th c IIIULLJJ I DDD 6511th 66_ h . ■r 68th d ■■1h 9th 72nd OO^.a I`i `JJ 676 0thIh �D6 ❑D6thD�6gh66 68 Lo 69tAAAh 70th Dm DD DO Dt6h mD■ d� 61 9 D 1 Y I p� 73rd ,A,h OQ 74th L �'11, ♦ .. =l ■ 78th `•♦ dibo y�r 79th t — o o of 80th DD 6,st D�� 81st Legend L� City of Edmonds Boundary Service Boundary Edmonds Lynnwood Mountlake Terrace Woodway Brier Shoreline Lake Forest Park Seattle Unincorporated Snohomish County Luu 56ltthh DDIS DD 41at � D r �N 47th 48th 48th D o h � DO 49t SOIh D50In S7s �DDDD � st DD 52nd 53rd O 53rd �54fhnr [ SI �p� 54Ih 55th =IV V `DM-o�ui �D DLak N D 60th N 59� 6OthD�� V� 61 st 61 st 61st 63rd 3rd D� 66th O RU �� I 68th 68th��., �` IDD�� C�7 h! F' U ST Sy D g61h F �� 44T 45TH 45TH 44TH OAF Lake Washington rill -r 39 � � 2ND 39T 4pTjy g Q HT Ze Ged= 36Ty�D ■, F ci 5T DD� 4M oA=� 35TH ■�� FVr��7"-■�—�r'( 35TH n' �� 34TH �U� N 46th v /fir 32ND � 33R� 33RD �� L = ?NN� �O32NiD 30TH D�3SZH 30TH 30TH 2 a Pie D r 49th a = 8TH SN D m 8TH �(e 50th F m _ D29 Z6jN D 27TH 52nd � � 25TH � TH Da��000C 53rd OO s3rd INN N 24TH Z, 23RD 54fh oDDooDR n is GAF 23R0 � ^yam 22ND [ 26TH errace �occc 5 Jo [RolfD STH 16TH D o7��o f a DDn�= =� 14TH 11T�D� / D 12TH 13T I=0 12TH DD „T�� Lake Bollinger I�uuuu I .2ND IT. _ C a�� N I S r n � N �L� CORLI, L�--t 0��`;f��STONE Ecleo Lnke � n III m� AURORA 99 V ■'O s 86th 86t, h, 0 Stith �_ _ `g6tn �D h 66th o DD��IIILIINNDEN uu ttDENLI N-1 88 DthN 87th 88th❑❑❑❑L1H � E1Ljn DD D Sunset 90th 89th rJtJI �YB�,tte, � FIN 3rd 12th93rd 93rd9Ln y, aDDO� D 1 th < n 951h 94th F' 0 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST ALATINE la �� 11th 3 ti 95th n� p° D� N■ N 2ND 2ND 1ST Dr� 1ST Olympic �D� 96th N 95th2ND D - 96th DD RDD��D DILL] 3RD In `,, a U D�� 101h _ UJLW�mL`J�LIL1LLEdmar>k 9g 98th L JULJ N 97th 97th a �LJ LIDD� ��Uln�fn �V a3RD �E �I�lI jII I a` D�JD� III 2 LITLh1(JLJD 9th 9O 1D DDDDDDN �`` ■ 6 H6TH QO UO� y 1 STH DD � OP0 BOUND P� JD6�D��mQDDD�Dl�D�DD�DDDD o N 0� Pao 1 0 6t1 �nIIIT�I ^mmI^II mIT^IIII IIrr IOTH N 1 ie71h LWLtJ�LtJW U DD L p2nd ❑loam ■ D o 10TH O MO Z yip 1 \O 1 •• IIr�s, ^mI m IInIInII Mtn 7th 12TH i en ke SS 61 1 ar OLJ��W�W ��LIL16th n m O 1Ty SJy 1 '� C Y ¢•�. ��1 - c 6��D` 106th D 105th D 14TH SPRIN O q 13TH 1 3Ty 1 6 S a `V��L¢��z D� Sty O ■ 106th O F �F 14TH �F 1 7 �108t ti 1 7th 5TH 15TH OZ D�H=7 _ 17TH 1 �s 0 x Tjy 16TH �♦ , �O ��o�� nd 2nd 110th r O 17TH I—��s 111th `♦♦ ,, D Edmon D Puget Sound �♦ , Ma ah 3 21sT zlsr ♦ ea eetk ao �DD e� Woodway „6Ih 24TH 11LU Highland grated � �� Puget Sound l� pF EDiypIV, 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 BHC Consultants, LLC GIS Data: City of Edmonds, Snohomish &King County base data. _ NORTH G -w- MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES Seattle, Washington 98101 Data sources supplied may not reflect current or COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN actual conditions. This map is a geographic Figure 206.505.3400 representation based on information available. 0 1,600 3,200 6,400 CONSULTkNTS 206.505.3406 (fax) It does not represent survey data. No warranty Feet City of Edmonds www.bhcconsultants.com is made concerning the accuracy, currency, COPYRIGHT© ,z He NSULT T LL or completeness of data depicted on this map. Scale in Feet May 2012 3.1 ��E�I�iS9G.r4�l„RIGHTS RESERVED Inc. 1890 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN The topography of the City ranges from flat and gently rolling to hilly, with a few steep slopes along the stream corridors and property immediately adjacent to Puget Sound. Wetlands, lakes and many creeks and small streams are found throughout the City (see Figure 3.2). 3.2.2 Geology The retreat of glaciers at the end of the last ice age formed the rolling terrain characteristic of the City. Erosion and flooding of low lying areas during that period resulted in soil deposits of two primary classifications as identified by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. These soil types are the Alderwood Series and the Everett Series, which are described below and displayed on Figure 3.3. The Alderwood Series is the most prevalent soil type in the City. The soil is moderately well drained and has a weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated substratum at a depth of 24 to 40 inches. Permeability is moderately rapid in the upper horizons but very slow in the consolidated substratum. These moderately well drained acidic forested soils formed in loamy glacial till and occur on rolling till plains and moraines. The Everett Series forms the soils located on outwash plains, terraces, and fans and occur on slopes ranging from 0 to 65 percent. These soils are glacial outwash, characterized as somewhat excessively drained, gravelly, gently undulating soil underlain by sand and gravel and found on terraces. 3.2.3 Water Resources The City's municipal water system provides service to approximately 80 percent of the population within the City limits or more than 10,050 customer accounts. The other 20 percent of the City's population receive water service from the Olympic View Water & Sewer District, which is located within the southwest portion of the City limits. All water supplied to the City customers is currently purchased from Alderwood Water and Wastewater District and is conveyed through a single metered connection near the northeast corner of the water system. The City also has the capacity to serve a portion of its system with water purchased from Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), but currently maintains this source of supply and the single metered connection on standby. Water purchased from Alderwood Water and Wastewater District originates from the City of Everett Sultan River source. Water supplied by SPU originates from SPU's Tolt River source. Interties are also provided with the City of Lynnwood and Olympic View Water District (see Figure 3.4). 3-3 Packet Page 396 of 546 36ih 37m 38th = mf ry 361h / h� - ` S`.�� `8t ch `^R 37ih N gSth Lake Serene I r� � � q 1 = 7. far 38 371h 38th Bri' r 390 / 1 40ih Pru e s m 40ih 39th ` 39t 3 th 42ntl 4 �du ,r„9k 40ih Serene 43rtl • _ 42nd t 41st '- 44th 44ih _ ' 4Sr/i �� 45m `t c v 46th 46th 46ih 46th S - r 47[h p 'P 47m N H m 461E 48thML d 48th �49th de 49th 50th ` ,°Oth B� 99 51atm 1st 50th 50th S7st �,a Pies - 50th 52nd De onf 52nd 51s p ♦ ,..53rd`` I L L nnwood i52"'nlll� �J 52nd 52nd m ` r�c-lN l"I •53rd 53rd rr3r ^ 53rd 53rd .. 53rd 53rd 55[. 54th _ _ 54th 111 54[h54th• 54t� 54ih 54th 54ih _ • 56th � 0 56th « 56th Nq st S6m ys ri r ake N56t 6 55th 55th _ ^r 57tn57n 1 57th l 57tn 1 r Sq xarLa Mountlake Terrace 58ih 58ih o ro _� 99 58th 59 h` 'u• °° \! I N - 58ih sptn not sam — 60th 60th '60ih 59th t 59ih 5th 7 G w 60th `� , 60th ' 60th 62n�! oa yap 62nd d ^ w 61st 61 st 615t 1st H 0ti 6 d y 63r 2ntl o RamP 64th $Ms� t 64yt S a H 63rd a" 64th 3 • • 64th �`v 4th \ kl f' = BSth v - r 661h ■% 5ih o a u`�i ® - �.a' 65th tiny o ., r SSrh 66th 66th r' m 66ih = c 66th��m N Eli .� 67tn 67tn -67th �` l� th U Ay IttttI ■ 's8m l�3R — sam s.tn 68th , 1 _ I m ■ ssm I ssm ;.ssm 6Brh 70th aoWaa\e �� ■ ! c �I` 70m 9th E a ^ r 70th w> ® loth ■ ` t VaKeatew 0ea7znd 17 Lake Ba[[ir 7z nd VV sj 1st ■ �� 73r�� a r`n 72nd Ah zE _ if, 4lrer C'( 11 `7 �I • �- 1 �' 3,6 5 M 73rd r 73rd 73rd . 5� 14rh 74ih = N 74th 7/1) 74 r• • `1, N■�■■ Ism I N N 78thlsm-7=7stn ■ q 7e 7atywlV 78m 7stn h 07 80th o 80th N ' : • .1st 81st 81stcz ro81 st 81st 80th V N moo■ _ d n 82nd" 2nd ■ N 82nd tt�q� `• 83rd I ®82nd 82nd ■ N m —S` B rd 84m s 4th ' m 83rd 82n■ F 85th 85th 06incorporatj t Stith .6m °2 N N Stith Stith 87m 86th = 87th -� 87 `D SSih ev 88m St " SSih ■88th x Sunset 90m 89th ro I 7gr illcresto\\Jm 90ih = 90m - ` 2n 12t11 92nd ® Sr 92nd 92nd 93rd _ NtBh 94m 93rd �� 12th 3rd 93rd M 2th D ` v 94m� -h t 111h �. �` 00 95m 95th is Vie _ ssm -Edmond I `I ■ ssm 9th 100t • , r8th 8th 8th `'�7 9 c' t Bth C. o �/ m o II 3 B -� 10 o C k A PIS Cary e7 0 6th 6th VA e 6th m 106 Legend ♦ 4r T S J �� to lost ser 3°. I 41h 16 City of Edmonds Boundary �� , 2nd 2nd o City Boundary � � Makah E .'p Service Boundary `'.,, 9 \ Nootka O°9w° ♦� Wetlands �� ei I Highlind Woodway Water Bodies % ■ �• �40 Water Courses ST'M s Crek y0 w 44T t- yyon � 45TH J 4TH �F Lake Washington RA tE- BEAH J All Q� 8TH 39Ty 4p y C 1 37T 367H 7T 38jN 36TH _ - I � f 37TH 36TH ory 35TH Lak Fore arc 35TH 35TH -O •32ND 33RD 34TH 33RD LAKE CITY 32ND 1ST �.,� = 32ND 31S 30TH 3otN 30TH /\ OTH 30TH 19m a 8TH 8TH 28T H 2sTH ~ 2g'CN 281N = 27T 25TH 26TH 264N TH 26TH 26TH 2H 4T 23R ,S �G'. k2-1am D 20TH P 22N v 5 0 20 O a a•(N = tx- 2OTH m 57t 19TN O �0 19TH N N H x 16tN 17TH V 15TH 12TH 12TH 12TH 13TH • 14TH 12TH rx- 11TH 11TH 11TH 11TH 11TH 9 T I/ h 9TH I I 9TH 10TH Sly r f F 8TH N 6TH14 Cree 5TH 5TH kornton 4TH er I � 3RD 3RD 2ND 2ND 3RD x . o 1ST 2 �i N ♦ n CORLISS x MERIDIAN BURKE BURKE o C P-� 7 ENSMORE N C) ASHWORTH ~ " � MR� me INTERLAK _ +�'• Echo La/c2 Sh-W line i STONE n O O 99 AURORA O� U N �■ LINDEN ~o UNDEN a ^ LIN c� N U) Y FREMONT F ❑ -F x F ~ ro 2 DAYTON c 92ntl� x N r La F' 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 1ST 2ND gLgTINE 1ST �i` v I� 1ST N■ N 2ND 2ND RD 3RD 2ND 3RD �sa TH 6TH POD Q� ■ 6TH ytN 8TH n Q = U OPT y gOUNW I OTH o • '' 1(i 11TH Z�ON\-p" 10TH P� MOSS '0 Q tO TH •den O� Ih ■r SPRING, 13TH 721y O th 14 14F 14TH 73TH 61F Pth 5TH 9 15TH 7TH � 7s � � Por!et Sound x 1 16T11 I 3 20TH "A I - Unincorpora�tei pF EDiyO . BHC Consultants, LLC Wetlands: Snohomish County, March 2004 GIS Data: City of Edmonds, Snohomish & King County base data. NORTH Gl� DA10 WATER FEATURES - Kin County, November 2004 Seat Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Data sources supplied may not reflect current or - Seattle, Washington 98101 Wetland locations in the dataset are approximate. actual conditions. This map is a geographic COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Figure This dataset contains polygons that represent the representation based on information available. 0 1,600 3,200 6,400 206.505.3400 basic wetlands categories used r the King It does not represent survey data. No warranty Feet City of Edmonds C O N S U LTA N T S www.bhcconsultants.com (fax) County Stream and Wetlands Survey. is made concerning the accuracy, currency, www.bhcconsultants.com All wetland areas within this dataset should be or completeness of data depicted on this map. SCa/e In Feet May 2012 3.2 COPYRIGHT ©Wj g Cyi�NT�& LLP.r4�1 TIGHTS RESERVED surveyed before land use changes are made. Inc is90 1,SUEL'd!!9 Ln'ie Serene ■ s \� ca 'r v° a � Det Pond 1 r ga(t � 41� Qgt ga � ■ ■�■ �� Qgt Qgt Legend • lga • City of Edmonds Boundary go Service Boundary ♦` Water Bodies Water Courses Soils C3Qa - alluvium C3Qc(w) - continental sedimentary deposits or rocks (Whidbey) C3Qcg - continental sedimentary deposits or rocks, conglomerate C3 Qf - artificial fill, including modified land C4Qga - advance continental glacial outwash, Fraser -age C3Qga(t) - advance continental glacial outwash, Fraser -age (transitional) C3Qgo - continental glacial outwash, Fraser -age C3Qgpc - continental glacial drift, pre -Fraser, and nonglacial deposits C3Qgt - continental glacial till, Fraser -age C3 Qgu - glacial drift, undivided Qls - mass -wasting deposits, mostly landslides Qgt Trr.rt�� Qgu Qg %, Qc� �, Qga(t) *4 SLefl Creel's `♦' �,`` Qc(w) 4;�, Qa Qga 1 1 Qa Lake Ballinger v� Qa creek 0^I McA�eer y♦ Qgo ' Qa Qga Qgo Lake Washington 1 -ho La 1 1 1 1 \W.-. ■. ■. r --,. /I\,--, �`� � Qc(w) � Qgt �— �.; f Qga' ) Puget Sound ■ Qgt Qgo -get 1 QI' �__ i 90 Qga" 00 Qf �� — �' Puget Sound r r■ ,�1�, Qga; I Qg ♦' I® I� Bitter G~� OF EDMoIVS . BHC Consultants, LLC Soils Data: Washington State Department GIS Data: City of Edmonds, Snohomish & King County base data. NORTH -w- SOILS MAP 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 of Natural Resources 2005 Seattle, Washington 98101 Data sources supplied may not reflect current or COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN actual conditions. This map ia geographic Figure 206.505.3400 representation based on information available. 0 1,600 3,200 6,400 CONSULTANTS 206.505.3406 (fax) It does not represent survey data. No warranty Feet City of Edmonds www.bhcconsultants.com is made concerning the accuracy, currency, or completeness of data depicted on this map. Scale in Feet May 2O � 2 3.3 COPYRIGHT ©7jI12 gHC CyijNSUELT�ry,T$.r4�l,�RIGHTS RESERVED Inc 1890 � 'd�JCJ 650 ALDERWOOD WATER & SEWER NORTH SOUTH 221 %Tit 21 tl!ff LY.T21 ZONE) 1 T 600 596 ZONE } I I CITY OF LYNNWOOD 573 ZONE PRV #2 PRV #5 550 PRV 010 PRV #14 PRV #15 & 13 PRV #9 -RV 09 TR V #16 PRV #17 500 500 ZONE I I 505 ZONE / OE=492.5' 0E=488' 1.5 MG RESERVOIR 450 -RV #18 DIAMETER: 80' LTTOM EL- 3.0 MG RESERVOIR 31.600 GAL/FT9 425 ZONE BOTTTTOMEEL: 1445' 420 ZONE 63.540 GAL/FT 400 T RV #3 T RV #6 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIRS & PUMP STATION / 'RV #7 350 325 ZONE 0E=325' 1.5 MG 1.5 MG OE=325' SEAVIEW RESERVOIR YOST RESERVOIR 300 PRESSURE RELIEF DIM: 1191x119'O. PRESSURE RELIEF g05924 DIM: 119'x119' STATION #4 GAL/FT STATION #19 1805,924 GAL/FT LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS 596 ZONE - PRESSURE REDUCING EL ELEVATION 505 ZONE STATION/VALVE FT FEET 500 ZONE MG MILLION GALLONS 486 ZONE H ISOLATION VALVE OE OVERFLOW ELEVATION 425 ZONE 14 CONTROL VALVE 420 ZONE y� 325 ZONE PRESSURE RELIEF STATION _----- ADJACENT SYSTEM O INTERTIE PUMP STATION Image Source:City of Edmonds �-' O FACILITIES AT SAME SITE Comprehensive Water System Plan, MSAAugust 2010 P:\Mapping\Maps_Generated\Edmonds\12-10265.00\maps\CompSewerPlan - March 2013\Fig 3.4 Water System Schematic 8.5x11.mxd 3/27/2013 ctolentino ra 650 SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES STANDBY SUPPLY (592 ZONE) 600 4-------------- 550 ---------------------- OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT LOW ZONE (540 Fr) 500 450 1 400 1 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 350 WOODWAY ZONE (353 FT) 300 1 OV EDA"IV BHC Consultants, LLC WATER SYSTEM SCHEMATIC • 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 4 jw �Seattle,Washington98101 i COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Figure 206.505.3400 # CONSULTAN S 206.505.340s(fax) City of Edmonds www.bhcconsultants.conn March 2013 3.4 nr. 1890 COPYRIGHT ©2013 BFj§&f.7jJI,%wL&4X&Llzb&l,4If�AT,$ RESERVED COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Surface Water— The two most dominant fresh water features in the sewer service area are Lake Ballinger and Echo Lake. Lake Ballinger is by far the larger of the two and is located in the central western portion of the City, near 1-5 between the City of Edmonds and City of Mountlake Terrace. It has an intermittent inlet and drains through McAleer Creek to Lake Washington. The lake has a surface area of 100 acres, a mean depth of 15 feet, and a maximum depth of 25 feet. Echo Lake is located in Shoreline, a few blocks east of Highway 99. Echo Lake has an area of 12 acres and a watershed area of 288 acres. Puget Sound borders the City on the west. Groundwater — A study done in 1997 by the US Geological Survey found that 94% of the groundwater in South Snohomish County was considered soft to moderately hard. No appreciable widespread groundwater contamination was found at the time of the study. Concentrations of arsenic, iron and manganese were the most widespread groundwater problems in the area. The population growth in Snohomish County has increased dramatically in the last 10 years and has affected the quantity and the quality of groundwater. Most groundwater recharge in Snohomish County is from infiltration of precipitation, and impervious surfaces caused by increased development prevent infiltration. Consequently, less groundwater is becoming available as land development increases. 3.3 LAND USE 3.3.1 Growth Management Act The State of Washington adopted the Growth Management Act with the intent of concentrating most new development and population gains within urban areas of the more populous and rapidly growing counties. These counties are required to define an urban growth boundary within which urban services like sewers are provided, and any new parcels created outside that boundary must be low density with sufficient acreage to support onsite sewage disposal systems conforming to State Health regulations. The entire service area is within the GMA boundaries of the City or the adjacent cities for urban development. Consequently, the limitations on extending sewer service to unsewered areas is a non -issue. Zoning within the service area can be classified as commercial/industrial, low density multi -family, high density multi -family, single family, and undeveloped lands such as public right of ways, parks, and open space. These zoning areas are depicted in Figure 3.5. Low density multi -family zoning allows a variety of low -density, multi -family housing including townhouses, multi -family structures and attached or detached homes on small lots. 3-7 Packet Page 400 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 3.4 RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADJACENT SEWERAGE AGENCIES Neighboring agencies such as utility districts and municipalities provide sewer service adjacent to the City of Edmonds. Summaries of the agreements made between the City of Edmonds and the various agencies are described below, as well as background information on each of the adjacent service providers. Copies of the referenced interlocal agreements are included in Appendix G. • City of Lynnwood • King County Metro • City of Mountlake Terrace • Ronald Wastewater District • Olympic View Water and Wastewater District The geographical relationship between these agencies is represented on Figure 3.6. To better understand the current contractual agreements with the neighboring sewer utilities, refer to graphical presentations on Figures 3.7 to 3.10. 3.4.1 City of Lynnwood City of Lynnwood border the northeast portion of the City of Edmonds. A portion of the flows within Edmonds municipal boundaries are routed to the Lynnwood Sanitary System and treated at the Lynnwood WWTP. This accounts for approximately 15% of the influent flow into the Lynnwood WWTP or about 300,000 gallons per day (Annual Average Flow). The City of Edmonds owns and maintains the sewer infrastructure in this area but pays Lynnwood on a per customer basis for the treatment. As of 2010, there is an approximate sewered population of 6,200, and an employment population of 509. There are no schools in this zone. See Figures 3.7 and for a map of the area. City of Edmonds also receives a small portion of flow from Lynnwood boundaries that flows through the Meter 1 Sub -basin (see Figure 5.1). This is estimated at approximately 0.5% of the total flow tributary to Edmonds WWTP. 3-9 Packet Page 402 of 546 Lnkt� Styrene ❑ 40th a 42nd S❑ 4❑ III 44th 64th 36th t ❑ `ac chD 381h � 40th 39th 41st ❑ s � �! 42nd t N 41 st ❑ ❑❑� 44th ❑❑❑ o ya2e/ j 46th ❑❑PaJPL�E]6th 46th 47th 48th N 48th 48th s ❑ ❑ �� 1❑ 99 49th ❑❑❑❑❑❑ 59th O al q" 52nd 51 st � ^❑I \❑�❑ L��,j U I 56th n J 581h th 58t ❑❑� 60th ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑r❑❑ 44T 45TH ST �y0 /�'w.'w.I i (� I� Lake Washington b 37th 36^ ❑A r�r.D D�IIStri, v�iI �n—�1\ 45TH 44TH �F` g N U th 42ND ��n��JJ to N �LJ Llh�❑ ��rtih Ut�l: Ity gp'CN a I� / BEACH 9th i/ A N aon �IStI`li('t ��Gnn rin❑❑ll ��❑ _ ,.. �--,,�,—� s7TH ,❑s❑-Jl��ln❑/❑❑❑��V Af/❑❑�❑.� ,l�r\ � G 54th 55th O 56th 25TH 12TH TH i ❑ UUUV'0 ❑�m❑� 66th 66th-1 E� U"fl'A6�h—" LAg�"LLJ❑❑t�668th o 68{h ��❑ ❑� In ❑/o �rH—.7/TH�I� TH O 7rH ❑❑❑ m 70th e _ 69L �O m 9th �❑❑ e p� e 70th t 7 th 701h %L 701h 2keN ' = 0 7 Lake Ballinger 32N ❑a71 st ❑ N❑ g 2ND O U 72nd � O LOB ❑ ❑ TM to ❑� �� 5❑ z I ( UE 73� _ a �. 0 73rd 73r 73rd _ �r D❑ r� 741h IJ N 74th 74th N a 74th 74th IIL� N CORLISS = _ ❑ N m m 35tr 761h ❑ N Q A ❑❑��❑ ❑ MERIDIAN �� ` ❑❑��❑ m` GG Em ez� 7t `NiACh � rv' .�A � � BURKE ? BURKE 79th 'fie 78th Sth 78th 78th 78t `-' 78th 78th❑��❑❑�G00 °' �❑❑❑❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ o ❑ 0000 som BB See Ot . G� �❑❑❑❑❑❑ LD s alst aist s15t elst st s 01 �O U� � g d �82ndN 82nd 82d ❑� � ❑ 81s a��1111 �IIII'iI co«e❑ ❑��J�- ❑82n 2nd Lh7l =484th ❑�� ENE] � ❑ 85th 85th O O astn °' � ssm �, o ❑ � E t 86[h N B6th 8 ih �th o` / THL ❑❑= 87[hth w 88th 88th 88th � lll///JJ❑❑❑❑8t G�. 0 gunset 90th 891h /��I��i�rC�� ❑❑❑G❑❑�❑ c Q is/� 2n Ci,'•Iiy Otl Gdi�OC�.S'.Icres� Jm 90h s 9 t0 90th �v` ` ❑❑ 92nd 5 ep '� Q 92nd 92nd 92nd NtBh 94th D93rd 1 12th 3rd 93rd �I� LIB. rd O p. a OI m 1_c view = ❑ ?2SNT9 ❑GG 0 p 95th ❑ 95th / yi , ~ ti 1ST 1ST 1ST1ST m isVie Olym is ❑ ��\ 'o `} „�I . rl°its `n 2ND96th Sewer Dl�s.tdct o❑❑❑3R�� n x ❑❑ ��j�m ��1�� 97th 98th �L 9/th 97th ��N �`am� ��LJ LI5�1❑°'� m 6TH �� ❑❑❑ l I T I If1li IR1TT P' 1❑F _ ❑ I ❑�❑❑ ❑❑❑❑ G I( III ❑_ inn 6T n �<N �❑f � �� Legend s City of Edmonds Olympic View Sewer District E City of Mountlake Terrace City of Lynnwood - AWWD Sewer District ° Highlands Sewer District 0 - Ronald Wastewater District City of Lake Forest Park - North Utility District _ E .1 Service Boundary o II^rnrn^IIII ^mmI^II IlIrrI yImnyITllIIlmI uu�JL JL�LJ ❑ :10THo❑o 7th ��ip2nd �dnpld7'1 //arQfT�TthTT[UTITW ^S��12T\ ( 'Ftil lelt L flsl Y KSe-werRl,Dstri❑6epF_ 106th N F 105th ❑U 3T 14TH /♦♦ S°'S ill �e T��'�JLJLJ❑� 5�� 108th❑ 106t7th STH v �<� 15TH �,�e ��❑� ❑ nd nd 110th O 17TH ,srH E o ¢ H Tmbe 11❑C� GG 20TH ,1� ,� `�aft Makah 3 ❑ 21 ST � � 21 ST � �' ootk y�ootl 11 I O� v D�a m 22ND ,, ♦ Qo TH IIILLLJJJIII B �� `� ,� a15 24TH ❑❑ ♦ ei Highland 38 i ❑l❑�� ♦♦��` ,��`� _ ram= Puget Sound Puget Sound ,A% , �#V L STONE C 99 O� tU�R OR7A� ❑ �EN � ■ GIS Data: City of Edmonds. ` OF EDAfC, ADJACENT SEWER - . BHC Consultants, LLC Snohomish County/King County base data. NORTH G 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 AGENCIES - Seattle, Washington 98101 Data sources supplied may not reflect current or actual conditions. This map is a geographic Figure —[&—.0011 206.505.3400 representation based on information available. 0 1,600 3,200 6,400 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 206 505 3406 (fax) It does not represent surveydata. No warrantyCity t Of Edmonds C O N S U LTA N T S www.bhcconsultants.com is made concerning the accuracy, currency, Feet y or completeness of data depicted on this map. Scale in Feet March 201 3 3.6 COPYRIGHT ©�3� C CyQNSUELTgI�T�'.r41,l,�RIGHTS RESERVED Inc 1890 0I0, COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 3.4.2 King County The Richmond Beach Sub -basin area, as shown in Figures 3.8 and 5.1, is maintained and operated by Ronald Wastewater District and King County. Flow from the Richmond Beach Pump Station is ALWAYS sent to the City of Edmonds and treated at the City of Edmonds WWTP. King County also operates the Lake Ballinger Pump Station which serves a portion from Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace and Ronald Wastewater District (Meter B Sub -basin). This area is also referred to as "Edmonds East" in the 2000 Agreement with King County. The Edmonds East catchment has a considerably more populated area than Richmond Beach and thus, produces higher flows. The City of Edmonds and King County executed an agreement on October 6, 2000 that addresses responsibilities for the flow. The responsibilities are described in brief below and the full agreement can be seen in Appendix G. Sewage Treatment Responsibilities — January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2012 The agreement recognizes an initial period, defined in the agreement as 2000 to 2012, where Edmonds was responsible for seasonal treatment from BOTH Richmond Beach and Lake Ballinger Pump Station. This was presumably done while King County increased treatment capacity within their system (i.e. build the Brightwater Wastewater Facilities). During this period, sewage from Richmond Beach ALWAYS was conveyed to and treated at the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant. All Lake Ballinger Flow was treated by Edmonds during the winter/spring months from November 1 until April 30. During the summer months, the flow swap was engaged and the County received a volumetric flow out of Lake Ballinger approximately equal to what the City is treating out of the Richmond Beach Sub -basin Area. There were limited periods that King County received all flows from Lake Ballinger, presumably when Edmonds needed to make repairs to their system. Edmonds was compensated $100,000 per year for this agreement. Sewage Treatment Responsibilities — January 1, 2012 to July 1, 2036 In a subsequent agreement for the period January 1, 2012 to July 1, 2036, King County is responsible for treating a volumetric flow from the Lake Ballinger Pump Station that is equal to the flow pumped into Edmonds from the Richmond Beach Sub -basin area for the ENTIRE year. The flow in excess of this volume is directed to and treated by the Edmonds WWTP. Edmonds is responsible for Operations and Maintenance costs of the Lake Ballinger Pump Station based on the amount of flow pumped into Edmonds system (See Appendix G). Theoretically, under the conditions of the flow swap, the flow from Richmond Beach Sub -basin should be within 5% of the flow sent to King County through the Ballinger Pump Station. Richmond Beach flow can be estimated by the influent parshall flume meter at the WWTP for Richmond Beach. The flow diverted out of Lake Ballinger can be estimated by subtracting the total flow into the Station (Meters A, B, D) from the downstream flow into the Edmonds system (Meter 3 minus Meter C). For the most part, in 2012, King County sent flow to Edmonds from the hours of 3 pm to 6 am. This 3-12 Packet Page 405 of 546 .7 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN indicates that they are matching the daily flow out of Richmond Beach in a 9 hour period, 6 am to 3 pm. In recent years and for the summer months it appears that the flow through Lake Ballinger Pump Station exceeds the flow through Richmond Beach Pump Station by approximately 1 MGD. 3.4.3 City of Mountlake Terrace The City of Mountlake Terrace is adjacent to the southeast border of the City of Edmonds. Mountlake Terrace lies east of SR 99 and Edmonds to the west. A portion of the City of Mountlake Terrace's sewer system is routed to the Lake Ballinger Pump Station (approximately 2,265 acres). The sewage is then either routed south to King County Facilities or north to the Edmonds WWTP per the City of Edmonds/King County Agreement for Reciprocal Sewage Treatment. Regardless of where the sewage is routed, City of Mountlake Terrace is contractually bound to the City of Edmonds for treatment of the sewage flow. See Figure 3.9 for a map of the described area. 3.4.4 Ronald Wastewater District Ronald Wastewater District is located within City of Shoreline municipal boundaries and is directly south of the City of Edmonds. A May 171", 1988 agreement between City of Edmonds and Ronald Wastewater allows a portion of Ronald's flow to be conveyed to and treated at Edmonds WWTP. Ronald Wastewater District owns and maintains the sewer infrastructure in this area but pays Edmonds for conveyance and treatment. Some of the flow from Ronald is directed through the Lake Ballinger Pump Station and may actually flow to King County per the Reciprocal Sewage Treatment Agreement. However, Ronald is still obligated to pay the City of Edmonds for all treatment costs. Figure 3.10 shows the portion of Ronald Wastewater District that flows north to Edmonds. 3.4.5 Olympic View Water and Wastewater District Olympic View Water and Wastewater District maintains and operates a sewage system within the City of Edmonds municipal boundaries. Generally, the District is responsible for an area at the southern side of the City boundaries. Olympic pays Edmonds for treatment and conveyance on a flow basis. 3-14 Packet Page 407 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER IV — DESIGN CRITERIA 4.1 PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN CRITERIA Sewer system design criteria and standards have been developed to maintain a consistent level of service throughout the City. These criteria and standards facilitate planning, design and construction of sewer system projects to achieve a predictable level of quality. These guidelines have been created to meet the increased need for sewer service in response to developments and population growth and the occasional updates to the land use regulations set forth by Cities or County. The following is a partial list of criteria which affect sizing and siting of facilities. The City's design and construction standards are presented in the City's Standard Details and supplemental specifications modifications. Plans and design shall meet the "Criteria for Sewage Works Design," prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology, as revised December 1998, except where more stringent City requirements are noted. These standards are to be followed unless otherwise approved by the City. 4.1.1 Sewer Mainline • All sewer main extensions shall be designed and constructed to provide gravity service for all adjacent lots. In rare occasions where gravity service is not feasible the City may allow the use of individual grinder pumps for a limited number of connections. The design use and ownership of grinder pumps shall be per Section 4.1.5. • Unless otherwise called for by the City, gravity sewers shall be constructed from PVC or concrete pipe. However, Ductile Iron or HDPE pipe materials may be required in certain applications. Pipe materials shall meet the following standards. Material Standard Plastic — PVC ASTM D3034-SDR 35 or F789 Concrete Class 2 unreinforeced ASTM C14 or AASHTO M 86 Concrete (reinforeced) ASTEM C76 or AASHTO M 170 Ductile Iron AWWA C151 HDPE ASTM D1248, Type III, Category 5, Class C, Grade P34 (See Section 2740 • Ductile iron pipe (Class 52 DIP) and pipe anchors shall be required for all pipeline slopes of twenty percent (20%) and/or greater. • Ductile iron pipe (Class 52 DIP) shall be required where the depth of cover is 15- feet or greater. Developers may request the use of PVC at depths greater than 4-1 Packet Page 410 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 15-feet. If so requested, the Developer shall certify the brand of pipe material to be used and he/she shall provide documentation that the pipe material is applicable to the soil conditions of the site and the proposed depth. • Ductile iron pipe (Class 52 DIP) may be required where the depth of cover in traffic areas is less than 4 feet. • All sewer pipes shall have 5- foot minimum cover in rights -of -ways and 3-foot minimum cover in all other areas. • All pipes 8-inch and larger shall terminate at a manhole. • Where a smaller diameter upstream pipe meets a larger diameter downstream pipe, the inverts at the manhole shall be determined by matching pipe crowns. • Pressure sewer mains shall be ductile iron pipe or PVC meeting AWWA C-900. • Minimum grade for 8-inch sewer mains shall be 0.5%, unless otherwise approved by the City's Engineer. Minimum grade for dead-end sewer mains that will not be extended shall be 0.75%, unless otherwise approved by the City's Engineer. Minimum grade and design criteria shall be in accordance with "Criteria for Sewage Works Design, State of Washington, DOE", unless City standards are more stringent. 4.1.2 Manholes • Manhole numbers shall be obtained from the City. • All sewer which are 8-inches and larger shall terminate in a manhole. All pipes entering/leaving a manhole shall be aligned with the center of the manhole unless otherwise authorized by the City. • Manholes shall be 48" I.D. precast concrete, designed in accordance with the City's Standards and Details. All Manholes shall conform to ASTM C-478. Manhole frames and covers shall be locking type in accordance with City's Standards and Details and shall be supplied with stainless steel allen head cap screws. Manholes shall be a minimum of 5 feet deep unless otherwise approved by the City. See Standard Details 1 through 8. • Inside drop manholes shall be 54" I.D (minimum) precast concrete and have a minimum drop structure of 5 feet. • Where a drop manhole is required, the inside drop shall be per Detail No. E6.5 unless otherwise authorized or specified by the City. 4-2 Packet Page 411 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN • Manholes with incoming or outgoing sewer lines 15" or greater shall be 60" I.D. or greater, as directed by the City. • Manholes shall have a minimum one -tenth of a foot (0.10 foot) drop at the center of the manhole. • Manhole channels shall be shaped to allow placement and use of the City's television inspection equipment. Channels shall be constructed at the full depth and diameter of mainline. Manhole shelves shall have slopes of inch per foot. Channels and shelf shall be constructed plaster smooth. • Manholes shall be placed at each grade and direction change. Distances between manholes shall not exceed 500 feet. 4.1.3 Side Sewers • Side sewers laterals shall be constructed of SDR-35 PVC pipe, a minimum of 6- inches in diameter, and in accordance with ASTM D-3034. Installation shall follow Detail E6.4. • The grade for 6-inch side sewer stubs shall be a minimum of two percent (2%). • Approximate stub locations shall be shown on the plans. • Cleanouts shall be used and placed over every side sewer at the property line. • A side sewer stub shall be provided for each parcel on all new sewer extensions, regardless of whether the homeowner connects or not. The side sewer stub shall extend a minimum of 5-feet onto the property. The side sewer stub shall be located and terminate in accordance with Detail E6.4. 4.1.4 Pump Stations Developers/Owners of developments that may require a pump station to provide sewer service shall contact the City regarding the design requirements of the station and the current City Pump Policies. 4.1.5 Individual Grinder Pumps The use of individual grinder pumps to serve residential connections shall be limited to connections in which a gravity alternative is not feasibly possible. The City shall make the determination as to which connections qualify for service by grinder pump. Grinder pumps shall meet the following standards. 4-3 Packet Page 412 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 1. Grinder pumps shall be owned and maintained by the property owner and shall only serve a single ERU. 2. Grinder pumps Systems shall be Environmental One Model 2010. 3. Minimum velocity for Grinder pump pipelines shall be 2 feet per second. 4. Pipelines shall be installed with cleanouts at the end of each line and at critical line size changes to facilitate cleaning. 5. Minimum storage volumes shall be 70 gallons. The Developer shall provided estimated flows to verify adequate storage capacity. 4.2 EASEMENTS Easements dedicated to the City of Edmonds shall be provided for the construction, maintenance and operation of sewer mains or any other related City owned facilities which lie outside of public street right-of-ways. Easement documents shall be drawn up from the City's standard forms and shall include drawings and legal descriptions for each easement. Drawings and legal descriptions shall be signed and stamped by a Professional Land Surveyor, currently registered in the State of Washington. Easements shall be a minimum of 15 feet in width, with the sewer located in the center of the easement. There shall be a separate easement provided for each lot that a sewer crosses. Easements must be approved and received by the City prior to side sewer connection. 4.3 STANDARD DETAILS AND GENERAL NOTES The City's Sample Plans, General Notes and Standard Details are provided in the Appendix I. The Sample Plans and Standard Details shall be considered during design and shall be followed during construction. At minimum a copy of the applicable manhole detail(s), the side sewer detail and the typical trench detail shall be included on all developer plans sets. Copies of additional individual details may also be required to be on the plans. 4-4 Packet Page 413 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER V - EXISTING FACILITIES 5.1 DRAINAGE BASINS The City's service area is divided into different Sub -basins as identified on Figure 5.1. The sub -basins were originally delineated as part of the 2010 1&1 Study by BHC Consultants, LLC. There are a total of 12 Sub -basins that either includes parts of the Edmonds corporate limits or areas that flow to and are treated by the Edmonds WWTP. Sub -basins In Edmonds Flow to Edmonds Flow to Lynnwood Flows to King City Limits WWTP WWTP County Meter 1 X X X Zone 1 X X X Zone 2 X X X X Meter A X X Meter B X X Meter C X Meter E X X MILT Zone X X Edmonds Zone X X LS #1 X X Richmond Beach Zone X Lynnwood Zone X X These Sub -basin boundaries are shown on Figures 5.1 and 5.2. Sub -basins LS-1, Edmonds Zone, Meter C and the MLT Zone generally flow west towards Edmonds WWTP and Puget Sound. The Richmond Beach Zone Sub -basin is conveyed directly to the Edmonds WWTP where it is separately metered. Meter 1, Zone 1, Zone 2, Meter A, Meter B and Meter E generally flow to the south end of Lake Ballinger and are either pumped into the Edmonds System or to King County Metro. The Lynnwood Zone Sub -basin includes portions of the City, but is pumped to the Lynnwood WWTP. A more detailed description of each basin is included below. The City operates ten different flow meters within the system. Sub -basin delineations are, for the most part, based on these meter locations. Relying on the flow data from these meters it is possible to identify flow in certain areas of the City. Similarly, per capita loadings and I&I contributions can be compared for each Sub -basin. This can be valuable information for identifying areas with high Inflow and Infiltration and for general information about the system. 5.1.1 Meter 1 Sub -basin The Meter 1 Zone consists of approximately 160 acres and is located on the eastern edge of City of Edmonds municipal boundary. 5-1 Packet Page 414 of 546 Lak)Ser�ene'Jldl C� 64th 44th 7oth ��av OR— 1, 99 36th S a uO mt 361h N at° D Oath 259th O (-i 44th N tttlaa a 46th 47m ^^^^^^^ 47th ❑� 11h] 48th48th U 66th 66� w 66th "' 66th 67th `� 68th iLf 7otn t m m stn a w � ,jai a 1st 73rd a O1 h 73rd 74t ■ lrJlC� O ILJI ■ fa FV e� ne 't' � � � fio79Oth 88�8 5 81st 81st 81 st22 81 s[ m 83rtl 82n �^ 83rtl 841h i m 86m14 � t Stith o 8 _ 87th 88th N 88th 90th � 2n 8� � D r o 12t 92nd Nign 94m D93rd 12th 1t C �LS-1 0 11th N Olym is d ol 53rd � 53rd Meter A�� 64th 1� 00 55m o M-o�antlak�e Terrace H 56th 67th 67th ooDo�a� o� 63th 59th �InndLqlr65l=o nn l. Meter' 1 ' i ' ■ rLL6' Znoe1� 85 5 84 h 139 `�� U U� 7thC nr� N TTA) nn I i ■ M LT�Zo 7X ■ , �j � �Zyg�j I�jC�U �I:1 1�_ V Ij-I WD LVIIIC I � U(_J �r �WI7W1 WfYW1 LVJ LJLJ 9th 100t 8to U� th 8 W' �La^mmJ �Lrr°J �111JLJLJ��U�U� 102nd , 7th w ff�TT�1 I1 Cary W TT 6th 5 106th y Legend E `SG 9e d 5th `�� g a Base Layers Sub -Basins Sub -Basins fWWTP ♦ O nd ndv OM 11 - r City of Edmonds Boundary Edmonds Zone Metel Ma ' �- kah V 0k City Boundary LS-1 Meter B 00 9,Noo ° 6 Service Boundary I �1 MILT Zone Meter C ' a Highland ■ Richmo Edmonds WWTP Zone 1 Meter E � ■ • �♦ Woodway Lynnwood WWTP Zone 2 Richmond Beach Zone � Puget Sound `�� ♦`a_____�� _ Meter 1 j Lynnwood Zone C::�4etefrME 01 N Echo e _ 5 12TH 1ST � ■ u� 11TH 1041h � 12TH 105th SPRI 1 Vh STH 7 14TH I LLL F 7t 17TH 17TH 21ST zlsr F �22ND 2ND k 34 99 X Lake Washington :7; 7 ��_ II o y ' GPr' gODNDPQ- �O ' /y S\OH�P y�`e\p 1 Richm. �m 70 Z Puget Sound GIS Data: City of Edmonds. 1� of EDMo,� BHC Consultants, LLC Snohomish County/King County base data. NORTH G -w-� SUB -BASINS 1601 - Seat Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 Data sources supplied may not reflect current or actual conditions. This map is a geographic COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Figure 206,505,3400 representation based on information available. 0 1,600 3,200 6,400 • CONSULTANT S 206.505.3406 (fax) It does not represent survey data. No warranty Feet City of Edmonds www.bhcconsultants.com is made concerning the accuracy, currency, or completeness of data depicted on this map. Scale in Feet April 2013 5.1 .� COPYRIGHT©7jI13 gHC CyijNSUELTq TT,S LLR1 41GHTS RESERVED Inc. 1890 I S \CAD \EDMONDS\ 12-10265 COMP SWR PLAN\DWGS\F12-10265 FLOW DIA.DWG (GOC) I APR 23 2013 16:02:45 1 XREFS: METER 1 EDMONDS ZONE E-2 METER 1 ZONE 1 eo---------, I EDMONDS OVWD ZONE E-7 � ZONE O-1 `----1 I 1 EDMONDS ZONE E-21 METER 2 t----------- EDMONDS EDMONDS ZONE L-3 � ZONE E-6 1 EDMONDS ZONE E-1 I 1 1 MILT 1 ZONE M-3 ZONE 2 METER A ZONE RB-1 METER E r�-- --- METER B r ----.1 r MILT MI LT EDMONDS RONALD I RICHMOND 1 ZONE M-2 I I ZONZONE E-9 I ZONE R-1 I BEACH P.S. I I METER E METER A METER B WOODWAY METER D BALLINGER PUMP STATION BALL APTS ZONE B-1 RONALD f OVWD ZONE R-2 I ZONE O 5 METER C l I METER C OVWD METER 3 EDMONDS EDMONDS ZONE 0-2 I ZONE E-40 ZONE E-4 ----� OVWD — — — — — -- —= EDMONDS ZONE 0-3 WOODWAY 11 ZONE E-7A METER 4* ZONE W-2 I I EDMONDS 1 ZONE E-42 I 1 RONALD OVWD 1 ZONE R-3 ZONE O 4 I`--------------- M LT ZONE * FLOW METER DATA FROM 4 IS NOT AVAILABLE OR THOUGHT TO BE UNRELIABLE. BHC Consultants, LLC ` 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 - Seattle, Washington 98101 206.505.3400 206.505.3406 (fax) CONSULTANTS www.bhcconsultants.com RICHMOND BEACH INFLUENT METER AT WWTP PS #1 EDMONDS ZONE E-5 11 PS#7 ``---1) PS #2 WOODWAY I1 EDMONDS ZONE W-1 �DNDI 11 PS #8 11 �`--- ZONE E-51 II PS #3 EDMONDS 1 LS-01 ZONE E-52 ZONE -----� MILT INFLUENT METER AT WWTP Ir EDMONDS EDMONDS ZONE INFLUENT METER AT WWTP Schematic Flow Diagram Figure Comprehensive Sewer Plan 5.2 Edmonds, Washington April 2013 Packet Page 416 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Generally, flow from this Sub -basin flows south towards Lake Ballinger and can be measured by the readings at meter 1. 5.1.2 Zone 1 Sub -basin Zone 1 is comprised of approximately 324 acres and generally flows east to an outlet near SR 99. After it combines with flows from the Meter 1 Sub -basin, the flows are measured by meter 2. Therefore, Zone 1 Sub -basin flows can be measured by subtracting flow measured at meter 1 from meter 2. 5.1.3 Zone 2 Sub -basin Zone 2 Sub -basin has approximately 525 acres and flows south towards the Lake Ballinger Pump Station. Flow from this area is combined with Zone 1 Sub -basin and Meter 1 Sub -basin. This combined flow joins with flow from Meter E Sub -basin before it flows through Meter D, immediately before the Lake Ballinger Pump Station. The flow in Zone 2 Sub -basin can be measured by subtracting both meter 2 and meter E readings from the meter D readings. 5.1.4 Meter A Sub -basin Meter A Sub -basin is in Mountlake Terrace. Flow from this Sub -basin is directed toward the Lake Ballinger Pump Station. At that point the flow will either be pumped to the Edmonds system or to King County depending on the flow swap proportions. Meter A Sub -basin approximately 1,600 acres and all flow are measured at meter A. 5.1.5 Meter B Sub -basin Meter B Sub -basin is comprised of approximately 555 acres and lies outside of the Edmonds corporate boundaries. For the most part, flows from Meter B Sub -basin flow through the Lake Ballinger Pump Station and are measured by meter B. The Ballinger Commons Apartments are part of this Sub -basin but are not routed through meter B. 5.1.6 Meter C Sub -basin Meter C Sub -basin consists of approximately 143 acres and is largely located outside the corporate boundaries of Edmonds. Flows are combined with a small area in Olympic View Wastewater District and are measured through meter C. 5.1.7 Meter E Sub -basin Meter E Sub -basin is comprised of approximately 663 acres and is located on west edge of the City of Mountlake Terrace, adjacent to the City of Edmonds municipal boundary. Flow from this Sub -basin is measured by flow meter E. 5-4 Packet Page 417 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 5.1.8 MLT Zone Sub -basin The MLT Zone Sub -basin is comprised of approximately 1,575 acres. Sewage from this area generally flows northwest and to the City's WWTP. The MLT influent meter at the WWTP measures all flows exiting the MLT Zone Sub -basin plus upstream contributions. MLT Zone Sub -basin flows can be determined by subtracting meter 3 from the MLT influent meter. 5.1.9 Edmonds Zone Sub -basin The Edmonds Zone is comprised of approximately 1,415 acres and lies directly east of the Edmonds WWTP. Flow from the Edmonds Zone is measured through the Edmonds Influent Meter at the WWTP. Since the LS #01 is tributary, it is necessary to subtract out LS #01 flows to estimate the flows originating in the Edmonds Zone Sub -basin. 5.1.10 LS-1 Zone Sub -basin The LS-1 Zone Sub -basin lies at the north side of the Edmonds service area and is comprised of approximately 1,107 acres. There are three lift stations operating within this Sub -basin, stations 1, 2 and 3. All flows in this Sub -basin are pumped through Lift Station #1. This station, however, does not have a flow meter. 5.1.11 Richmond Beach Sub -basin The Richmond Beach Sub -basin lies in the southwest corner of the City of Edmonds service area. It is comprised of 4,054 acres. All flow from the Richmond Beach Sub - basin is pumped through the Richmond Beach Pump Station and flows through the Richmond Beach Influent Meter at the WWTP. King County operates and maintains the Richmond Beach Pump Station as part of the 2000 agreement for reciprocal sewage treatment. 5.1.12 Lynnwood Zone Sub -basin City of Edmonds has an agreement to send a portion of sewage within the Edmonds municipal boundary to Lynnwood WWTP for sewage treatment. This area is at the northeast corner of the Edmonds municipal boundary and is comprised of approximately 1,241 acres. Edmonds owns and operates six different lift stations within the Lynnwood Zone Sub -basin. Flow from this Sub -basin does not influence conveyance to and capacity at the Edmonds WWTP. 5-5 Packet Page 418 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 5.2 CITY COLLECTION AND CONVEYANCE FACILITIES The City's inventory of gravity sewer lines totals approximately 680,000 linear feet of pipes ranging from 6-inches to 36-inches in diameter. This accounts for the City owned pipe only and not adjacent sewer adjacencies which own and operate the sewer infrastructure, and send flow to Edmonds for treatment. Table 5.1 below presents the summarized inventory of the City -owned piping systems. Table 5.1 Summary of Pipe Inventory Pipe Size Total Length of City -owned Pipe feet 6-inch 19,678 8-inch 535,672 10-inch 34,145 12-inch 13,017 15-inch 9,612 18-inch 7,133 24-inch 21,937 30-inch 3,456 36-inch 3,237 Unknown 31,340 TOTAL 679,227 feet 5.3 LIFT STATIONS The City has a total of 14 active lift stations. Additionally, there are the Lake Ballinger Pump Station and the Richmond Beach Pump Station which are owned and maintained by King County. Several lift stations were upgraded in 2012. In addition, telemetry upgrades have been made at all of the lift stations. Most of the stations have alarm notifications which include: pump on/off; pump failure; power failure; high / low wet well level; generator run; operator in trouble; intrusion; and smoke detector. Table 5.2 summarizes the Pump Station inventory as well as some of the operating conditions. Figure 5.3 illustrates the relationship between each of the District's lift stations and give a representation of their location within the system. 5-6 Packet Page 419 of 546 Table 5.2 Pump Station Inventory Pump Station No. Pump Type Number of Pumps Pump Manufacturer Rated Capacity GPM @ TDH Force Main Size and Type Year Initially Installed PS Upgrades Year (if any) 1 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 1425 gpm @ 19 feet 10-inch AC & 12-inch DI 2002 2 Submersible 2 Hydromatic HPGFHX300 85 gpm @ 35 feet 3-inch DI 2011 3 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 4" Allis Chalmers 114 @ 94 feet 4-inch DI 2012 4 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 4" PACO 308 gpm @ 164 feet 6-inch DI 2012 5 Submersible 2 Hydromatic HPGX200CD 37 gpm @ 48 feet 2-inch HDPE 2012 6 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 4" Gormann Rupp 335 gpm @ 45 feet 6-inch DI 2005 7 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 6" Gormann Rupp 210 gpm @ 22 feet 4-inch PVC 2008 8 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 4" PACO 137 gpm @ 22 feet 4-inch DI 2008 9 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 2 - 4" WEMCO 2 - 5 WEMCO 332 gpm @ 38 feet 6-inch DI 2012 10 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 Hydromatic HPGFX 114 gpm @ 49 feet 4-inch DI 2012 11 Submersible 2 4" Gormann Rupp 95 gpm @ 73 feet 2-inch HDPE 2012 12 Wet Well / Dry Well 2 6" KSB 308 gpm @ 142 feet 6-inch DI 2012 14 Submersible 2 Hydromatic HPGX200CD 37 gpm @ 33 feet 2-inch HDPE 2012 15 Submersible 2 Hydromatic HPGHX500 42 gpm @ 60 feet 2-inch HDPE 2012 Packet Page 420 of 546 ■ t� r ■ ■ 11 I■ - "sst s�my ssm _ Ho sstn L 99 C0=��006655ssm J66tn 67m O�� wM„J�u V 6 snn o d O 0 a s7m 7tn s nn M 67m ti �■■� 6sm ssm �� ULJ sstn DOS a�� as N� 11 u d 69m 69m g ey lue Rid9° m 9th 70m ■ ° . Og 69th , N aKe eW ro a ■ �O� r ■� ■ 1s 70t 30Ih 70th _ 70 I( ■ 70iho L N E ■ `' is■ 71st ' aQ�o _ . �7Sj Oth a 72nd Lj; 'a _ ■ ' Z w 72nd 72 °L � a q � 72nd � ❑ 2nd 71st - �^r ■ 72nd � •, Ind ♦♦ 0 2nd S526 ■ 74t 73rd fO gJ` 3rd 73rd r' N� ■ �%2� w 12°a 75t 73rd 73rd N ❑ 73rd 73rd ■ �■ ` ��♦ ♦� � 4 qH° h°wtas ♦A � L 7atn �iA!• �� ■� 0#12 Toth 74t 0laemar u 74ih a ■ ■ tttttt m ■ ■ tttttt ■ N 4: r MEN am t No EIL _ °� � I `•♦ y� O'OoWWTP ■■■�� ■�°'�❑n 7th 7th L N' 77th ` \■ 78th 78t �� ] 78th 78th 78th ■ ■ ■ ..' ❑ 78th ♦♦ �0 79th nnO 78th *\ SthN 78th78th h h HHH LS #14 �� o �oaooO � �B�❑� ■ � Soth N1 ■ 0 `�♦ J� m�N a0t 4S-#9 aom 815t slot s0th 1st gO a o m 81 st n 2n 81 st 81? _ 82nd H 81 st 82nd 'Y�� I 81s Btst a �1t 82nd ♦ �[� l� .3rd 82nd 82nd ■ 82nd t 4 O O _83r 3rd 83rd 83rd 82. d nd ■ 82nd 82nd �?nd N B 4"t c� `m n 83rd •• ♦ ■■■■,,�16m N 88th J 86t�h ds `d 87Ih Stith ja Satn Stith SSt.h. �■'■� S�S6ih I _ 7tSh5ih to .am 71°n85t T 585th 85m SQ lh 86Ih Summtit Stith 86ih 86ih S7 88th w = ■ ■a 6ih h'88tM sn 9` 9 BntI■ ` .. n oN SSth e L M LS 10 Sunset h astn 89m .sfs t3 to Sstn •�` fll 97sr 91st � Maplewood o- Hillcrest o ,� 90th ■ O 90th �■�■y v ♦ afire 92nd rm 3 �■ 1st 91 st a 91s■ 921d aiQ ■ �/� 92nd 92nd ` 12th ■ �°� ■ ■ 2nd 92 94m nd ' rs 92n ' H h °i D 93r 12th o hla % 93rd 93rd ■ 93r 93rd `.' 94th 9bt 1 th 0 12th 12t 4th ■ 94th = 11th 95th 95th 94thN &y� ♦ OIL is View > _ lS 95th s v DI`L1c UUUJ 95m ■ ♦ � 961h ''w 6 v ~ SoGn°`�� °' ��n�Ln� 97ih 97th N r 97t �❑ 96ih L N IEa . AT I 97th I1Q � IIdS e� � ��" > , th sam �`}' Ind Oth ~ 99th ♦ , � a' � Sea Vist r B a U Puget Sound ` e s9ih sst t w ♦ m O 9th00ihthh 8t ��. h ''" HITT N f�,� Bth tOtst � w EK� U xtn� $ t 101st t0 101s ■ ` o h o oo�7 2na c ■ L•S #3 nIIpIInIII T1h��0ttha to2nd' 7thv '♦ , M ■ #104th . LS 2 w a o0 �� m u w ob�n Hood 1050h th 6th F" � m cl 105th r 6 _ _ ma a D 6th � 106ih ■ W t V ` N v 106ih N■ , na^� oO ��LJLJ ��LJUL'nJ� r` "� Humber 1 7ih ■ 07ih LS #1s° �� F—= ♦. . 4111111, ° nEd�mon.dsg DD � / u w w - o` Wootlwav GreYsrone ,L # P LS #5 znd 2nd ■ a e ` a 110th Q olo 111ih ro E im er MakahLegend �'��° MFJ]1:11112�thLS #7 Qa� food%t� of Nootka Oo9 0 0 [A Edmonds WWTP City of Edmonds Boundary Lift Station #1 Lift Station #6 Lift Station #11 ♦ �, o,� o 115th = �O Lynnwood WWTP Service Boundary Lift Station #2 Lift Station #7 Lift Station #12 �� -7% 116tn n. 0 Lift Station Lift Station #3 ' Lift Station #8 Lift Station #14 ----� Force Main Lift Station #4 ' Lift Station #9 Lift Station #15 •` �, ! 40^4%� N a� ■ , ` Rr°hmond Beac - Lift Station #5 Lift Station #10 `�� `�� ♦� 1 Sewer Zones: City of Edmonds, December 2011 pF EDAfo �t� BHC Consultants, LLC GIS Data: City of Edmonds, Snohomish County & King County. _ NORTH -w- LIFT STATION SERVICE AREAS 1601 Seat Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, - le, Washington 98101 Data sources supplied may not reflect current or COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Figure actual conditions. This map ia geographic 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6. 206.505.3400 representation based on information available. S 206.505.3406 (fax) It does not represent survey data. No warranty Feet City ty of Edmonds CONSULTANT ■ www.bhcconsultants.com is made concerning the accuracy, currency, Scale in Feet March 2013 COPYRIGHT© Wg g1, SlCyi�NIGHTS RESERVED or completeness of data depicted on this map. Inc is90 �L' 1ELTg& t Lu-P4�I,�R COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 5.4 EDMONDS WWTP 5.4.1 General The Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) provides wastewater treatment service for residential, commercial, and industrial customers for the City of Edmonds sewer service boundary. The facility was initially built in 1957 and has undergone several modifications, updates and expansions. In 1991 the Edmonds WWTP was upgraded from a primary plant to secondary plant. Currently the plant is rated to treat 11.8 mgd maximum month flow. The plant is located at 200 2nd Ave South, Edmonds, WA, 98020. The Washington State Department of Ecology regulates discharges to waters of the state through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit system. NPDES permits are developed based on federal and state water quality standards and treatment requirements. The existing system is permitted under the NPDES discharge permit number WA- 002405-8 (modified May 9, 2012). Effluent limitations are summarized in Table 5.3. The plant has been continuously compliant with these standards. Table 5.3 Current NPDES Effluent Limitations for Edmonds WWTP Discharge Average Monthly Average Weekly Maximum Parameter Limits' Limits' Daily Limits' Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen 25 mg/L, 2460 Ibs/day 40 mg/L, 3936 Ibs/day N/A Demand (5 day BOD) 85% removal of influent CBOD5 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 30 mg/L, 2952 Ibs/day 45 mg/L, 4430 Ibs/day N/A 85% removal of influent TSS Fecal Coliform Bacteria 200/100 mL 400/100 mL N/A pH Daily minimum >_ 6.0 and daily maximum of <_ 9.0 N/A Total Residual Chlorine 191 µg/L I N/A 442 µg/L Current load limits are based on the Maximum Month Design Flow MMDF of 11.80 m d. Biosolids (sludge) treatment and use are regulated under federal (40 CFR Part 503) and State (Chapter 173-308 WAC) regulations through the Statewide General Permit for Biosolids Management. Sludge from the Edmonds plant is dewatered using a belt filter press and incinerated using an on -site fluidized bed incinerator. The plant has been compliant with the regulations for sewage sludge incinerators based on air emission limits established in Title 40 Part 503 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The air emissions standards have recently been expanded by the EPA. On February 21, 2011, the EPA published their newest final SSI emission regulations in the Federal Register at Title 40 Part 60, under the provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA), Section 129 "Solid Waste Incineration Units". The new regulations were declared to be effective on May 20, 2011. 5-9 Packet Page 422 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN The previous and new air quality emission limits, how the plant's current emissions compare with the new standards and how the new regulations will affect the current incinerator equipment, operations and costs are discussed in Section 8.7.1. 5.4.2 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Loadings The plant was originally constructed in 1957 and has been modified or upgraded several times since then. Table 5.4 summarizes the history of the WWTP. Though the historical perspective of the improvements and modifications to the plant is interesting, the current infrastructure is really the important issue. The following sections describe the current facilities. General: The current plant has a design maximum month flow of 11.8 mgd. The maximum month flow the plant currently treats is about 9.5 mgd. Flow is measured by three Parshall flume meters on the influent side of the WWTP and by an effluent meter. Table 5.4 Edmonds WWTP Historical Improvements and Capacity Design Capacity Maximum Average Peak Project description Date Month Annual Hour (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) Original Construction Grit removal, sewage grinding, primary settling, 1957 2 digestion, chlorination and outfall. Improvements and Modifications Capacity Expansion 1959 4 Two additional clarifiers, effluent pumping, sludge dewatering and incineration system. 1967 7.6 Removed grit and digestion. Secondary Treatment 1991 11.8 9.1 40 Headworks The headworks consists of three channels designated for measuring Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, and Richmond Beach basin flows. Before the flow is measured with parshall flumes, three 4-foot wide mechanical bar screens with '/4-inch openings screens the influent. The flow then enters a wet well where four 100 hp vertical non -clog raw sewage pumps, each with a capacity of 9,260 gpm, the process flow though two 24" pipes to a primary influent splitter box. The splitter box gravity feeds the flow to the primary clarifiers. 5-10 Packet Page 423 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Primary Clarifiers Edmonds has three primary clarifiers. Two of the clarifiers are center fed square tanks 60 feet by 60 feet with a surface area of 3,600 square feet each. The third clarifier is rectangular, 91 feet long by 45 feet wide for a surface area of 4,095 square feet. The total surface area of the three primary clarifiers is 11,295 square feet. The primary clarifiers provide quiescent conditions that reduces the flows velocity to the point that solids can be settled and removed. The clarifier also allows floatable material like plastics, oil, grease and scum to be skimmed off the surface and removed. Typically primary clarifier removals of the plant influent are 50 to 70 percent of suspended solids and 25 to 40 percent of BOD5. The primary sizing design criteria for clarifiers is the surface overflow rate, or the flow rate divided by the clarifier surface area; this is known as the vertical flow velocity. Typical design values for peak hourly flows are in the range of 2,000 to 3,000 gallons per day per square foot (gpd/sf). At 3,000 gpd/sf, the existing primary clarifiers would have a maximum performance -based capacity of 11,295 sf x 3,000 gpd/sf = 33.885 mgd. Aeration Basins After leaving the primary clarifiers, the liquid stream enters a channel that can flow to one of the three aeration basins. The three aeration basins are each 75.3 feet wide by 58 feet long and 20.6 feet deep with a total volume of approximately 673,000 gallons each (2.0 million gallons total). The aeration basins provide biological treatment by increasing the dissolved oxygen in the basin with fine bubble diffusers that disperse forced air. The oxygenated water encourages the growth of bacteria and microorganisms which consumes the waste flow's organic solids. When the process flow enters the aeration basins it first goes through a premix box where return activated sludge (RAS) from the secondary clarifiers mixes with the influent. The return sludge is the settled solids from the clarifiers and they are returned to increase the mixed liquor concentration and solids retention time (SRT) in the aeration basins. Secondary Clarifiers The secondary clarifiers are necessary for separating treated effluent from the mixed liquor solids leaving the aeration basins. The three circular clarifiers are 90 feet in diameter with a 17.5 foot side water depth which provide quiescent conditions for gravity sludge settling to occur. The mixed liquor from the aeration basin is fed into the center of the clarifier and flows outward to the effluent launders. The projected annual average surface overflow rate, in year 2033 is 306 gpd/sf and is far less than the average performance design of 550 gpd/sf. The settled solids from the bottom of the clarifiers are the source for return sludge recycled back to the aeration basins. Secondary sludge pumps return the activated sludge from the clarifiers back to the to the individual premix boxes at each aeration basin. The waste activated sludge is wasted to a storage tank and then pumped to the belt presses for dewatering before incineration. 5-11 Packet Page 424 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Chlorine Disinfection The plant effluent is disinfected using liquid sodium hypochlorite (bleach). The sodium hypochlorite disinfection flash mix structure is provided to recombine effluent from the secondary clarifiers, however, current operation is to feed sodium hypochlorite at the secondary clarifier weir overflows which increases the contact time. The structure also provides 12.5% concentration sodium hypochlorite solution injection to the secondary effluent. Sodium hypochlorite is bought in bulk and stored at the facility in two 3,000 gallon tanks. The purpose of the chlorine contact chamber is to provide a minimum of 20 minutes of detention time at peak hour flow rates, prior to discharge of the secondary effluent to the outfall, in order to allow the sodium hypochlorite solution time to react with the effluent. The current peak hour contact time using only the chlorine contact chamber is 14 minutes and is projected to be about the same in the year 2033. The practice of feeding sodium hypochlorite at the secondary weir overflow will continue. The plant is meeting the current disinfection criteria by increasing the chlorination dose and then dechlorinating. The plant is able to control the chlorine residual through dechlorination by using bisulfate. The bisulfate is a 38% NaHS03 solution that when added to water releases sulfur dioxide which reacts with free chlorine and chloramines reducing effluent concentrations. Sludge Dewatering Primary and WAS is combined before dewatering and averages about 1.0% total solids. The dewatering equipment consists of two belt presses where one operates at a time from 12 to 24 hours a day depending on the Edmonds Plant sludge production. The dewatered sludge is fed to the onsite fluidized bed incinerator. Incineration From the belt presses, the dewatered sludge cake is deposited by a belt conveyor into a hopper that delivers the dewatered sludge to the fluid bed incinerator by a hydraulic pump. The fats, oils, and greases (FOG) are collected in the Primary Sludge Tank and are mixed with raw and WAS as feed to the belt presses. Large influxes of FOG are not desirable for incineration because their high fuel value makes temperature control more difficult. Internally the incinerator has a reactor bed of sand that is fluidized by a controlled, pre- heated air supply that is blown through it. Here the dewatered sludge cake is fed into the fluidized sand bed where it is burned. In this bed the dewatered sludge is broken up by the sands fluidizing motion and is incinerated by the heat. Diesel fuel is pumped into the reactor to aid in combustion, as required. The amount of supplemental fuel required depends on the heat content of the combustion air (which is pre -heated by the primary flue gas heat exchanger), and the heat content of the sludge, which is dependent on the solids content of the dewatered sludge (% volatile solids). When the incinerator is operating at its design capacity with 27% dry solids (75% volatile), or greater, the incinerator should theoretically operate autogenously (thermally self-supporting), and supplemental fuel should only be required for start-up. 5-12 Packet Page 425 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN The incinerated sludge byproducts are gases and ash. The gases and ash exit the top of the incinerator and pass through a heat exchanger. The heat exchanger pre -heats the incinerator fluidizing air. The exhausted gas and ashes pass through a wet Venturi cyclone scrubber for particulate removal, followed by a wet tray scrubber where the finer particulate is removed and the gas is cooled by passing the scrubbed gas (which is re- heated with diesel fuel) counter -current to a large quantity of water. Combustion air is routed to the stack at about 10% of total combustion air to prevent a visible steam plume when it is released through a stack to the atmosphere. The captured ash is thickened in a gravity thickener and dewatered in a vacuum filter. Current operations produce, on average, about 25 cubic yards of ash a week. Plant Effluent The treated and disinfected effluent is discharged approximately 1,250-feet off shore through a 36-inch outfall into Puget Sound. The outfall branches into two diffusers, each 160 feet long with diffuser ports at MLLW elevation that ranges from 56 to 73 feet deep. A layout of the Edmonds WWTP is shown in Figure 5.4. Historical loadings and anticipated plant improvements are discussed in Chapter 8. 5-13 Packet Page 426 of 546 DAYTON ST. CHLORINE CONTACT I� CHAMBER EFFLUENT SECONDARY CLARIFIER NO. 2 w z U5 J ^ CHLORINE Q w MIXING w w BASIN SECONDARY CLARIFIER SECONDARY NO.1 w CLARIFIER LL NO. 3 RAS PUMPING STATION (BELOW) AERATION AERATION AERATION BASINS BASINS BASINS No. 3 No. 2 No. 1 I F EDMONDS F RICHMOND BEACH PRIMARY PRIMARY PRIMARY CLARIFIER F MOUNTLAKE TERRACE CLARIFIER CLARIFIER NO. 2 NO. 1 / INFLUENT PUMPING NO. 3L--STATION RAW SLUDGE PRIMARY INFLUENT PUMPING SPUTTER BOX 1-0J ROOM SOLIDS PROCESS BUILDING OPERATIONS BUILDING iM 0 -0 L01 CONSULTANTS BHC Consultants, LLC 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101 206.505.3400 206.505.3406 (fax) www.bhcconsultants.com aF � LD� WWTP Layout Figure Comprehensive Sewer Plan )-4 Edmonds, Washington WISp,,yo May 2012 Packet Page 427 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 5.5 Additional Regulatory Requirements Substitute Secondary House Bill 1338 — Wastewater Reuse While reuse of reclaimed wastewater treatment plant effluent is becoming more and more common, the demand for year-round reclaimed effluent in the Pacific Northwest is very limited, particularly in a suburban setting. To be acceptable for reuse, effluent must meet the quality standards specified in the state's Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards. 5.6 Infiltration and Inflow The District maintains a pro -active approach to I and I reduction. In 1979, the City embarked on an aggressive program to reduce inflow by eliminating roof drain connections and other stormwater connections and by sealing manholes. Monitoring the peaking factors during large storm events in the 1980's and 1990's showed that the effort to reduce I&I appeared to be working. However, a storm in late January, 2006 raised new concerns. Flow measurements indicated higher than normal peaking factors and thus increased I&I for this storm. A 2010 1&1 study was performed by BHC Consultants in order to address these concerns. The study identified key areas within the system that are predicted to have higher I&I than other areas of the system. The areas and the efforts are explained further below: 5.6.1 Zone 1 Problem Area The Zone 1 basin was predicted to have the highest I&I problems and is tagged as an area of concern. The prediction is based off of higher than normal peaking factors in gallons per acre day. It was recommended to T.V. inspect and smoke test areas within this basin to further identify the exact pipe sections and manholes that can be fixed. 5.6.2 LS-01 Zone LS-01 Zone was predicted to have the second worse I&I problem out of all the sub - basins. Out of the three storm events, analyzed in the study, the peaking factor from average dry weather flow was over 5. The study recommends further T.V. inspection and smoke testing in the LS-01 zone to identify the exact lengths of pipe and manholes that need to be fixed. 5.6.3 MLT Zone The MILT Zone was also identified as a higher than normal I&I area. The City will continue to take a pro -active approach to reducing I&I in the system and therefore avoiding larger than normal flows at the plant during high precipitation storm events. 5-15 Packet Page 428 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Chapter VI — EXISTING AND FUTURE POPULATION AND FLOW PROJECTIONS 6.1 POPULATION 6.1.1 General Baseline population (Population 2010) estimates per Sub -basin were calculated using 2010 Census data. A residential density was calculated for each census tract based on current residentially zoned acreage, and that density was applied to the total residential acreage within each Sub -basin. A further breakdown of the methodology used as well as resources can be found in Appendix C. 6.1.2 Existing Residential, Commercial and Student Populations Table 6.1 identifies the eleven Sub -basins that flow to the Edmonds WWTP and the twelfth Sub -basin presented on Figure 5.1 is the Lynnwood Zone Sub -basin. Flows from this area are within the Edmonds City limits but are treated at the Lynnwood WWTP. For the purposes of this Comprehensive Plan, the flows from the Lynnwood Zone Sub -basin were analyzed and included the CIP. The sewer generating categories were classified into residential population, employees and students. Existing population for each of these categories was available through Snohomish County or the Edmonds School District. There are portions of the Richmond Beach Sub -basin that are not sewered and that percentage is reflected in the sewered population values on Table 6.1. Other than these large tracts, it has been assumed that virtually all parcels are sewered. It is recognized, however, that there might be an occasional and isolated parcel that is not served. These isolated parcels constitute a small percentage and are reflected in Table 6.1. All commercial (i.e. employees) and student populations were counted as sewered. Historical and textbook values of domestic wastewater (i.e. little or no 1/1 contribution) assigned to residential customers are typically found to be between 50 and 60 gals per capita per day (gpcd). Students and employees are generally found to be a fraction of the contribution of a full time resident. Historical values for students have been found to range from 10 to 15 gallons per student per day. Textbook values per employee can vary broadly depending on the nature of the commercial use. The typical per employee contribution ranges from 15 to 25 gallons per employee per day. This range is consistent with the values used by both the Alderwood Water and Wastewater District's Comprehensive plan dated 2009 and the City of Lynnwood's Comprehensive Plan dated 2012. Based on these values, a ratio for students and employees was established so a population equivalence could be developed. Five students generate the same volume of wastewater as a full time resident, or a 5 to1 ratio for students. Similarly, a 3 to 1 ratio is expected for employees. 6-1 Packet Page 429 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN The development of the Population Equivalence (see Table 6.1) was based on these ratios. This means that a resident living in the Sub -basin would be counted as one and all students would be counted as 20% and all employees would be counted as 0.33 people. This formula was applied to the population, employees and students to determine the Population Equivalent. Table 6.1 City of Edmonds - Existing Population 2010 Student Population Employment Population Population Sub -Basins Total Total Sewered Total Total Equivalent Population Population Employment (1) Population (2) (#) City of Edmonds Meter 1 1,788 1,788 1,535 1,722 2,644 Zone 1 2,686 2,686 592 378 2,959 Zone 2 4,835 4,815 4,585 0 6,342 Meter A 12,075 12,075 1,657 1,691 12,965 Meter B 4,473 4,249 2,664 450 5,226 Meter C 1,486 1,412 182 0 1,472 Meter E 5,828 5,537 5,367 1,372 7,598 MILT Zone 10,626 10,095 1,604 1,177 10,864 Edmonds Zone 10,790 10,790 3,558 503 12,075 LS #1 6,410 6,090 508 1,181 6,495 Richmond Beach Zone 19,755 17,037 7,528 17,617 23,067 Lynnwood Zone 6,528 6,202 509 0 6,371 Notes 1. The ratio of flow per employee to flow per resident is assumed to be 1:3 (DOE, Criteria for Sewage Works Design - Orange Book). 2. The ratio of flow per employee to flow per resident is assumed to be 1:5 (DOE, Criteria for Sewage Works Design - Orange Book). These population numbers were assigned to the geographic Sub -basin. Furthermore, forecasted values of population, employment and students also followed these Sub -basin boundaries. 6.1.3 Future Residential, Commercial and School Populations The task of this Plan is to evaluate the performance of the sewer collection, conveyance and treatment components for baseline (existing), 6-year, 20-year and build out scenarios. To evaluate the conditions on these target years, the Plan determined the residential, commercial and student populations for the years 2019, 2033 and build out. Various sources of data were used to estimate these populations and employment figures. These sources include the following: 6-2 Packet Page 430 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN • 2010 Census Data, by Census Block • 2010 Covered Employment Estimates, Washington State Employment Security Department, provided as custom estimates via PSRC • 2008-2010 Three -Year American Community Survey, Self -Employment Estimates for Edmonds • Office of Financial Management, Population Estimates for 2011 and 2012 • Snohomish County 2012 Buildable Lands Report • Snohomish County Draft Initial Growth Targets for 2035 King County 2007 Buildable Lands Report • City of Shoreline Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Buildable Lands Capacity Update, 2012 • Shoreline Community College Unduplicated Annual Head Count • Edmonds School District Update of Long Range Enrollment Projections 2012 to 2032 • Conversations regarding local long-range planning efforts with City Staff in Edmonds, Shoreline, and Mountlake Terrace; the Snohomish County Demographics Team; and staff and facility planners at school districts and at individual schools. The population was then distributed to the 12 Sub -basins, described earlier, so the hydraulic model could be define that infrastructure that was at or approaching its maximum capacity. A detailed description of the protocol followed is presented in Appendix XXX. The City of Edmonds service area spans two counties and serves several cities or Special Service Districts. Consequently, there were several document sources that were used to determine the future population/employees. Residential population baselines have been established for each Sub -basin based on Census data. Employment baselines have been established for each Sub -basin from PSRC custom estimates for State -reported Covered Employment; self-employment estimates have been added to calculate baseline total employment for each Sub -basin. The Richmond Beach Zone Sub -basin straddles the Snohomish -King County boundary. For the purpose of these forecast estimates, two separate evaluations, prepared for the portions of the Richmond Beach Zone Sub -basin in each County, have been added together to compute a final estimate for the entire Sub -basin for each target year. King County Population and Employment Forecast. King County forecast estimates are based on the 2007 Buildable Lands Report, for Shoreline's primarily residential zoning, and on the 2012 Update to the Shoreline Comprehensive Plan, which included updated population and employment capacity estimates specifically along the Aurora/Highway 99 Corridor. The City of Shoreline is planning for significant increases in development along this corridor, impacting population and employment Richmond Beach Zone Sub -basin, Meter C Sub -basin, and Meter B Sub -basin. The 2031 horizon for this 6-3 Packet Page 431 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN report has been used as an interpolation point from which to estimate forecasts for the target yeas; this interpolation has been extended to estimate a build out scenario as well. Snohomish County Population and Employment Forecast. Snohomish County 6-year population forecast estimates are based on the 2012 Buildable Lands Report, which offers detailed capacity analysis based on both underlying city zoning and market trends. The 20-year estimates are based on the County's 2035 Initial Growth Targets, aspirational estimates which are to be adopted into the countywide planning policies; these will assist with the next GMA-mandated round of comprehensive plan updates. However, Edmonds City Staff feels that these Initial Growth Targets are based on past market trends and do not account for a potential market shift favoring the significantly more dense, multi -story, mixed use development currently permitted in the zoning along Highway 99. The City of Edmonds has loosely approximated additional population and employment in selected sub -basins in order to approximate the scenario within which market conditions favor a shift towards this additional density along Highway 99 sometime within the next 20 years. The 2035 horizon for the Initial Growth Targets has been used as an interpolation point from which to extend forecast estimates out to a build out scenario for residential population. The employment capacity expressed in the 2012 Buildable Lands Report, with market reductions removed, stands in as the data point for the estimated employment buildout scenario Student Enrollment Baselines and Forecast Estimates Individual Schools and School Districts have been surveyed to gather baseline enrollment statistics. The Edmonds School District provided a long-range forecast report recommending consideration of a medium -growth scenario throughout the school district; these growth rates have been applied to the District schools within the Service Area. Shoreline School District . Private schools are generally assumed to retain stable student enrollment populations through time, and none within the Service Area reported plans for major expansions. Shoreline Community College, with no major plans for facility expansion, also expects a relatively stable on -campus student population in the future; anticipated increases in enrollment are likely to be offset by concurrent increases in student participation in distance learning programs. The summary of this analysis is presented in Table 6.2. 6.2 FLOWS 6.2.1 General Edmonds is fortunate to have ten functioning and reliable flow meters. These flow meters are presented schematically on Figure 5.2. An eleventh flow meter (Meter 4) has not been maintained or calibrated. Consequently, this data is not available or is thought to be unreliable. 6-4 Packet Page 432 of 546 Table 6.2 City of Edmonds - Population and Growth Projections 2019 2033 Buildout Total Population Total Population Total Population Sub -Basins Total Sewered Sewered Sewered (1) Total Sewered Sewered Sewered (1) Total Sewered Sewered Sewered (1) Population Population Employment Students Equivalence Population Population Employment Students Equivalence Population Population Employment Students Equivalence City of Edmonds Meter 1 1,867 1,867 1,567 1,745 2,738 2,361 2,361 1,616 1,943 3,288 4,017 4,017 1,677 2,410 5,057 Zone 1 2,908 2,908 751 383 3,235 3,413 3,413 999 427 3,831 4,754 4,754 981 529 5,186 Zone 2 5,280 5,280 5,088 0 6,974 6,691 6,691 5,870 0 8,646 10,874 10,874 6,507 0 13,041 Meter 13,597 13,597 2,221 1,710 14,679 15,417 15,417 3,097 1,877 16,824 18,438 18,438 4,171 2,268 20,281 Meter B 6,471 6,471 3,714 440 7,796 11,056 11,056 5,347 443 12,925 20,880 20,880 8,847 450 23,916 Meter C 1,775 1,775 332 0 1,886 2,413 2,413 565 0 2,601 3,811 3,811 1,065 0 4,166 Meter E 6,170 6,170 5,674 1,390 8,337 6,579 6,579 6,152 1,548 8,937 7,258 7,258 6,738 1,920 9,886 MLT Zone 11,414 11,414 1,721 1,191 12,225 12,356 12,356 1,904 1,313 13,253 13,920 13,920 2,128 1,599 14,948 Edmonds Zone 11,752 11,752 3,842 509 13,133 12,901 12,901 4,284 561 14,440 14,810 14,810 4,826 685 16,554 LS #1 6,631 6,631 511 1,197 7,041 6,895 6,895 516 1,333 7,333 7,333 7,333 523 1,653 7,838 Richmond Beach Zone 24,933 22,440 9,232 15,540 28,622 34,430 32,709 11,883 16,347 39,935 54,141 54,141 17,486 17,817 63,527 Lynnwood Zone 6,754 6,754 514 0 6,925 7,024 7,024 521 0 7,197 7,473 7,473 531 0 7,650 1. The ratio of flow per employee to flow per resident is assumed to be 1:3 and ratio of 1:5 for students (DOE, Criteria for Sewage Works Design - Orange Book). Packet Page 433 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Flow data from these ten meters was collected from July 2006 through November 2012. A graphical representation of this flow data is presented in Appendix XX. In order to capture different flow scenarios four flow conditions were graphed. These four flow conditions were the Average Dry Weather, Average Daily, Average Wet Weather and Maximum Month. Graphical presentation of the Peak Day and Peak Hour was not viewed as meaningful. Total daily flow data for this six and half year period was evaluated. • Average Dry Weather Flow — This flow condition is defined as the average daily flow for the months of July through October when no rainfall was recorded. As expected, the flow was very stable during this period. Any day with measureable rainfall was excluded from the data set. The intent of presenting this data is to capture the base domestic flow conditions with neither infiltration nor inflow. • Average Daily Flow — This flow condition captured all daily flows during the year. The average of all these flows would be considered the annual average flow. • Average Wet Weather Flow — This flow condition is defined as the average daily flow from the months of November through March. All flows during this period were analyzed regardless of the amount of precipitation. The value of this data set was to understand the I&I contribution to the system. • Maximum Month Flow — The Maximum Month Flows are of particular interest for the WWTP. Since the NPDES permit is written with monthly discharge limitations, treatment plants are typically designed with this flow condition as the design flow. The determination of this value was based on the highest monthly average flow. • Peak Day Flow — The Peak Day Flow is the maximum total daily flow recorded at the meters during a 24-hour period. In December 2006 and December 2007, the area experienced an abnormally high rainfall event. This translated to record flows at the ten meters and at the WWTP. These rainfall events have not been replicated since that time. • Peak Hour Flow - Peak Hour Flow is defined as the peak sustained flow rate occurring during a one -hour period. It is typically used to size the collection and interceptor sewers, pump stations, piping, flow meters, and certain physical WWTP processes. The Peak Hour flows were determined from two factors: 1) the addition of diurnal flow patterns which were developed from 5-minute flow data for the year 2009 (see Figure 6.1) and 2) the peaking factor between peak day and peak hour which was derived from 5-minute data. 6.2.2 Recorded Flows The graphical presentation of the flow data starting in July 2006 through November 2012 is displayed in Appendix B and summarized on Table 6.3. It is meaningful to evaluate the entire period to understand the growth or trending during this six and half year period. However, averaging this entire time period was not representative of the current day flows. There are several factors that are effect the flow patterns at the meters. These 6-6 Packet Page 434 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN include: • City pipeline rehabilitation projects • New sewer line extensions • New customers and connections • Degradation of the pipelines. King County has concluded from their studies that there is a 7% degradation of the pipe, and hence a 7% increase in I&I, every decade. Viewing the flow graphs for this period, it appears that these factors are offsetting. There is not any trending patterns over the period. This is perhaps understandable since much of the service area is built out and largely sewered. Consequently, flow data for the years 2010 through 2012 were used to capture the current conditions. The components of wastewater flow evaluated include: Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF), Annual Average Daily Flow (AAF), Average Wet Weather Flow (AWWF), Maximum Month Flow (MMF), Peak Day Flow (PDF) and Peak Hour Flows. A summary of the flow events was derived by summing the flows from the three influent meters (MILT, Edmonds and Richmond Beach) at the WWTP for the period of 2010 through 2012. It should be noted that these values are not necessarily the peak recorded flows for the plant. Significant storm events in 2007 and 2009 resulted in flows in excess of that which is presented below: Current Influent Flows' Edmonds WWTP Average dry weather flow (ADWF), mgd 3.97 Annual average flow (AAF), mgd 5.82 Average wet weather flow (AWWF)3, mgd 7.52 Maximum month flow (MMF)4, mgd 9.66 Peak day flows (PDF), mgd 21.65 Peak wet weather flow6 (PWWF), mgd 27.5 Notes: 1. Values represent flow events from 2010 to 2012. 2. ADWF is defined as the average of the days with zero rainfall during four dry weather months (July through Oct) for years 2010 to 2012. 3. AWWF is defined as the average of five wet weather months (November through March) for years 2010 to 2012. 4. Maximum month flow (MMF) is the average flow for the maximum month, as defined in the current NPDES permit. The MMF is sometimes referred to as peak month flow and is considered the design flow for the WWTP. 5. Peak Day Flow is from wet weather event on 12/12/2010. It should be noted that the historical high daily flow of 23.84 mgd was recorded on 12/3/2007. 6. PWWF is an estimate value using the peak hour to peak day ratio seen from the December 3, 2007. This factor was approximately 1.27. It should be noted that the historical high peak flow of 30.26 mgd was recorded on 12/3/2007. 6-7 Packet Page 435 of 546 Figure 6.1 Diurnal Flow I Al N 1.20 V) 1.00 0.80 0 0.60 " 0.40 �I 1 )I 11� Oa Oa Oa Oa Oa Oa O� O� Oq O� O� O� O O O Packet Page 436 of 546 Table 6.3 City of Edmonds - Measured Flows by Meter Average Dry Weather ICI Average Daily Flow I�1 Average Wet Weather (3) Maximum Month I�1 Peak Day I�1 Size in Population Flow per Flow per Flow per Flow per Flow per Meters Sub -basins Acres Equivalent Isi Flow mgd Equivalent Flow mgd Equivalent Flow mgd Equivalent Flow mgd Equivalent Flow mgd Equivalent Meter 1 Meter 1 161.0 2,644 Total Meter 1 161.0 2,644 0.140 53 0.161 61 0.173 65 0.225 85 0.555 210 Meter 2 324.3 2,959 Meter 1 161.0 2,644 Total Meter 2485.3 5,603 0.249 44 1 0.335 60 0.422 75 1 0.605 108 1.74 311 Meter A 1602.4 12,965 Total Meter A 7 1602.4 1 12,965 0.703 54 0.974 75 1.214 94 1.602 124 3.723 1 287 Meter B Meter B 555.0 5,226 Total Meter B 555.0 5,226 0.257 49 0.304 58 0.352 67 0.448 86 1.33 254 Meter C 143.3 1,472 Total Meter C 143.3 1,472 0.076 52 0.115 78 0.147 100 0.215 146 0.646 439 Meter D 663.0 7,598 Zone 2 525.5 6,342 324.3 2,959 161.0 2,644 =Total 1673.8 19,543 1.250 64 1.449 74 1.628 83 1.949 100 4.293 220 Meter E663.0 7,598 Total Meter E 663.0 7,598 0.498 66 0.563 74 0.617 81 0.896 118 2.441 321 Meter 3 143.3 1,472 Meter B 555.0 5,226 Meter A 1602.4 12,965 Meter E 663.0 7,598 Zone 2 525.5 6,342 _ Zone 1 324.3 2,959 Meter 1 161.0 2,644 Total Meter 3 3974.5 39,206 1.031 1 26 1.937 49 2.911 1 74 3.665 93 5.273 1 134 MILT at WWTP MILT Zone 1573.9 10,864 143.3 1,472 r B 555.0 5,226 ;MeterA 1602.4 12,965 663.0 7,598 2 525.5 6,342 324.3 2,959 Meter 1 161.0 2,644 Total MLT at WWTP 5548.4 1 50,070 1.500 30 1 2.560 51 3.576 71 1 4.398 88 7.826 156 Edmonds Edmonds 1415.8 12,075 at WWTP LS-01 Zone 1106.6 6,495 Total Edmonds at WWTP 2522.4 18,570 1.406 76 1.715 92 1.982 107 2AS5 132 6.22 335 Richmond B 4054.4 at WWTP Total RB at WWTP 4054.4 23,067 1.060 46 1.542 67 1.967 85 2.803 122 7.601 330 (1) Average Dry Weather Flow is defined as the average daily for months of July through October with days of zero rainfall for years 2010 - 2012. (2) Flow Data obtained from City provided information. Consolidated from monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR's), for years 2010 - 2012. (3) Average Wet Weather Flow is defined as the average flow from the months of November through March for years 2010 - 2012. (4) Peak Hour data derived from Peak day x 1.27 peaking factor at the WWTP which accounts for the diurnal flow patterns plus the peak storm event (5) Population Equivalent is 2010 values see Table 6.1 Packet Page 437 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN A graphical presentation of flow at the WWTP for the period of record (2007 through 2012) is presented in Figure 6.2. A visual comparison of the 2007 and 2010 storm events is evident. The flow per population equivalent as presented on Table 6.3, shows some slight variability in the values. In particular, the data measured in Meters 3 and the MILT meter at the WWTP reflects per population equivalent values that are unusually low. However, these two meters are downstream of the flow diversion to King County and consequently reflect lower total flows coming into the Edmonds system. This explains the low per population equivalent values seen at these two meters. Figure 6.2 Edmonds Wastewater Flows Edmonds WWTP Flows (mgd) Precipitation (inches) 35 0.0 1.0 30 2.0 3.0 25 4.0 W o 20 5.0 6.0 u i LL 7.0 c m 15 8.0 +° v 9.0 10 10.0 a 3 11.0 5 12.0 13.0 0 14.0 A A A A A 1 W W W W W�b 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O y y y y y y OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NNNNNN'y;y'y'y;y;y �J r as �J �t �t �J r as �J �� ¢t tJ t: Q �� t ¢� tJ i� Q �A� �t ¢< tJ t� Q ,'� � ¢� � 'o Qe �j� 0 'o a P� ��o ��a��a� �o ��a �o �o �a �a P pc Q��o,� 2� �� Date 6.2.3 Estimated Future Flows The application of the appropriate per population equivalent value is the basis for the future flow projections. With differing demographics and residential/commercial composition, each Sub -basin will have different per equivalent contribution. Therefore, it is recommended that the derived values be applied for the future growth conditions as presented below: • Sub -basin Meter 1 — use values from Meter 1 6-10 Packet Page 438 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN • Sub -basin Zone 1 — use values from Meter 2 • Sub -basin Zone 2 — use values from Meter 2 • Sub -basin Meter A — use values from Meter A • Sub -basin Meter B — use values from Meter B • Sub -basin Meter C — use values from Meter C • Sub -basin Meter E — use values from Meter E • Sub -basin MLT Zone — this sub -basin is influenced by the flow swap. The determination of the appropriate flows can be reach by either subtracting the Meter 3 data from the MLT meter data or by using data from a non -subtraction meter such Meters A, B, C or E. Subtracting Meter 3 data from MLT meter results in data that is very close to Meter B flow data. Therefore, the forecast has used values from Meter B. • Sub -basin Edmonds Zone — use Edmonds meter at the WWTP • Sub -basin LS#1 — use Edmonds meter at the WWTP • Sub -basin Redmond Beach Zone — use Richmond Beach meter at WWTP • Sub -basin Lynnwood Zone — this Sub -basin flows to the Lynnwood WWTP. The only flow records available for this Sub -basin are from the single effluent flow meter at the WWTP. The per population equivalent values used on Tables 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 originate from the corresponding values in Table 6.3, as noted above, and have a 7% per decade pipe degradation factor for the increased 1/1. The 7% factor is applied to the 1/1 component for all the flow scenarios except the Average Dry Weather Flows, which by definition, has little or no 1/1 contribution. 6.3 WWTP FLOWS Comparing historical flows with forecasted flows requires an understanding of the King County Interlocal Agreement. Historically, as described in Section 3.4.2, a seasonal flow swap with King County was executed that sent all winter and spring flows from both Richmond Beach and the flows at the Lake Ballenger PS to Edmonds. The summer flows were swapped such that the volumetric flows from Richmond Beach were directed to King County. Effective in 2012, the agreement calls for all flow throughout the entire year to be swapped with King County. This means that the total volume of wastewater received by Edmonds will be reduced. Consequently, the WWTP flow projections reflect this change in operation. Table 6.7 presents the forecasted flows at the WWTP. These flows are the basis for the WWTP loadings shown on Table 8.1 6-11 Packet Page 439 of 546 Table 6.4 2019 Flow Projections Average Dry Weather Average Daily Average Wet Weather Maximum Month Peak Day Population Flow per Flow per Flow per Population Population Sub -Basins Equivalence Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Equivalent Sewer Flow Equivalent Sewer Flow (1) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) (2) (gpd) (2) (gpd) Meter 1 (3) 2,738 53 144,977 61 167,637 66 180,586 86 236,696 217 592,781 Zone 1 (4) 3,235 44 143,520 60 195,495 77 247,830 111 357,916 322 1,040,686 Zone 2 (5) 6,974 44 309,444 60 421,506 77 534,347 111 771,703 322 2,243,825 Meter 14,679 54 795,916 76 1,115,621 95 1,398,754 126 1,856,486 297 4,358,676 Meter B 7,796 49 383,374 59 456,429 68 531,040 87 680,260 263 2,051,222 Meter C 1,886 52 97,352 79 149,407 102 192,119 150 282,882 455 858,159 Meter E 8,337 66 546,466 74 620,787 82 682,531 120 1,001,542 332 2,768,108 MLT Zone (6) 12,225 49 601,206 59 715,771 68 832,775 87 1,066,782 263 3,216,721 Edmonds Zone 13,133 76 994,360 93 1,222,071 108 1,418,831 135 1,767,399 346 4,541,938 LS #1 (7) 7,041 76 533,066 93 655,139 108 760,620 135 947,484 346 2,434,885 Richmond Beach Zone 28,622 46 1,315,255 68 1,938,442 87 2,487,933 125 3,568,814 341 9,772,245 Lynnwood Zone (8) 6,925 76 1 524,316 1 93 1 644,386 1 108 1 748,136 1 135 1 931,932 1 346 1 2,394,919 Notes 1. Values from Table 6.2 2. Value derived from Table 6.3 as modified in Section 6.2.3. An additional allowance of 7% per decade is applied to account for the increased the 1/1 component 3. The values used for Sub -basin Meter 1 are from Meter 1 flow data 4. The values used for Sub -basin Zone 1 are from Meter 2 flow data 5. The values used for Sub -basin Zone 2 are from Meter 2 flow data 6. The values used for Sub -basin MLT Zone are from Meter B flow data 7. The values used for Sub -basin LS#1 are from the Edmonds Meter at the WWTP 8. No Flow data available for Lynnwood Zone, therefore use Edmonds Meter at WWTP Packet Page 440 of 546 Table 6.5 2033 - Flow Projections Average Dry Weather Average Daily Average Wet Weather Maximum Month Peak Day Flow per Flow per Flow per Flow per Flow per Sub -Basins Total Population Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Equivalence (1) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Meter 1 (3) 3,288 53 174,100 62 203,871 67 220,883 90 294,602 232 762,433 Zone 1 (4) 3,831 44 169,981 62 237,328 80 305,142 117 447,787 348 1,332,495 Zone 2 (5) 8,646 44 383,615 62 535,605 80 688,649 117 1,010,571 348 3,007,191 Meter 16,824 54 912,230 78 1,313,118 99 1,668,148 133 2,242,113 320 5,379,691 Meter B 12,925 49 635,623 59 768,139 70 903,474 91 1,174,146 283 3,660,939 Meter C 2,601 52 134,298 82 212,863 107 277,326 159 414,310 493 1,282,548 Meter E 8,937 66 585,777 75 672,938 83 745,348 125 1,119,469 357 3,191,214 MLT Zone (6) 13,253 49 651,727 59 787,601 70 926,366 91 1,203,895 283 3,753,695 Edmonds Zone 14,440 76 1,093,286 95 1,367,198 111 1,603,880 140 2,023,170 371 5,360,647 LS #1 (7) 7,333 76 555,240 95 694,350 111 814,552 140 1,027,493 371 2,722,475 Richmond Beach Zone 39,935 46 1,835,116 70 2,786,399 91 3,625,185 132 5,275,128 369 14,744,535 Lynnwood Zone (8) 7,197 76 544,910 95 681,432 111 799,398 140 1,008,378 371 2,671,827 Notes 1. Values from Table 6.2 2. Value derived from Table 6.3 as modified in Section 6.2.3. An additional allowance of 7% per decade is applied to account for the increased the 1/1 component 3. The values used for Sub -basin Meter 1 are from Meter 1 flow data 4. The values used for Sub -basin Zone 1 are from Meter 2 flow data 5. The values used for Sub -basin Zone 2 are from Meter 2 flow data 6. The values used for Sub -basin MLT Zone are from Meter B flow data 7. The values used for Sub -basin LS#1 are from the Edmonds Meter at the WWTP 8. No Flow data available for Lynnwood Zone, therefore use Edmonds Meter at WWTP Packet Page 441 of 546 Table 6.6 Build Out - Flow Projections Average Dry Weather Average Daily Average Wet Weather Maximum Month Peak Day Flow per Flow per Flow per Population Population Population Sub -Basins Equivalence Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Population Sewer Flow Equivalent Sewer Flow Equivalent Sewer Flow (1) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) Equivalent (2) (gpd) (2) (gpd) (2) (gpd) Meter 1 (3) 5,057 53 267,792 63 316,396 68 344,170 92 464,523 243 1,228,304 Zone 1 (4) 5,186 44 230,119 63 326,891 82 424,336 121 629,304 366 1,900,560 Zone 2 (5) 13,041 44 578,610 63 821,933 82 1,066,946 121 1,582,319 366 4,778,754 Meter 20,281 54 1,099,670 80 1,612,604 102 2,066,863 138 2,801,249 336 6,815,764 Meter B 23,916 49 1,176,124 60 1,436,382 71 1,702,177 93 2,233,766 298 7,117,748 Meter C 4,166 52 215,074 84 348,618 110 458,193 166 691,039 520 2,166,871 Meter E 9,886 66 647,948 76 750,279 84 835,293 129 1,274,531 375 3,706,872 MLT Zone (6) 14,948 49 735,122 60 897,792 71 1,063,924 93 1,396,187 298 4,448,858 Edmonds Zone 16,554 76 1,253,366 96 1,586,667 113 1,874,665 144 2,384,863 389 6,445,956 LS #1 (7) 7,838 76 593,424 96 751,230 113 887,587 144 1,129,148 389 3,051,931 Richmond Beach Zone 631527 46 2,919,245 71 4,525,435 94 5,941,682 137 8,727,523 389 24,716,116 Lynnwood Zone (8) 7,650 1 76 1 579,208 1 96 1 733,234 1 113 866,324 1 144 1,102,0981 389 2,978,820 Notes 1. Values from Table 6.2 2. Value derived from Table 6.3 as modified in Section 6.2.3. An additional allowance of 7% per decade is applied to account for the increased the 1/1 component 3. The values used for Sub -basin Meter 1 are from Meter 1 flow data 4. The values used for Sub -basin Zone 1 are from Meter 2 flow data 5. The values used for Sub -basin Zone 2 are from Meter 2 flow data 6. The values used for Sub -basin MLT Zone are from Meter B flow data 7. The values used for Sub -basin LS#1 are from the Edmonds Meter at the WWTP 8. No Flow data available for Lynnwood Zone, therefore use Edmonds Meter at WWTP Packet Page 442 of 546 Table 6.7 City of Edmonds - WWTP Flow Projections 2019 and 2033 2019 2033 Average Maximum Maximum Average Maximum Maximum Sub -Basins Annual (MGD) Month (MGD) Day (MGD) Peak Hour Annual Month (MGD) Day (MGD) Peak Hour (1) (1) (2) (MGD) (2) (MGD) (1) (1) (2) (MGD) (2) MLT Meter at WWTP Meter 1 168,000 237,000 204,000 295,000 Zone 1 195,000 358,000 237,000 448,000 Zone 2 422,000 772,000 536,000 1,011,000 Meter A 1,116,000 1,856,000 1,313,000 2,242,000 Meter B 456,000 680,000 768,000 1,174,000 Meter C 149,000 283,000 213,000 414,000 Meter E 621,000 1,002,000 673,000 1,119,000 MLT Zone 716,000 1,067,000 1 788,000 1,204,000 3,843,000 6,254,000 0 0 4,731,000 7,907,000 0 0 Total MLT Meter Edmonds Meter at WWTP Edmonds Zone 1,222,000 1,767,000 1,367,000 2,023,000 LS #1 655,000 947,000 694,000 1,027,000 1,877,000 2,715,000 0 0 2,062,000 3,051,000 0 0 Total Edmond Meter Richmond Beach Meter at WWTP Richmond Beach Zone 1,938,000 3,569,000 1 2,786,000 5,275,000 1,938,000 3,569,000 2,786,000 5,275,000 Total Richmond Beach Meter Total Flow 7,658,000 12,538,000 0 0 9,579,000 16,233,000 0 0 Total Flow at WWTP Less King County 5,720,000 8,969,000 0 0 6,793,000 10,958,000 0 0 1. Values from Tables 6.4 and 6.5 2. Values for Maximum Day and Peak Hour were derived from the hydraulic model that accounts for short duration storms and flow attenuation Packet Page 443 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER VII — MODEL CONSTRUCTION AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS 7.1 MODEL SOFTWARE A hydraulic capacity analysis of the City's existing sewer network was undertaken with the use of XPSWMM by XPSolutions. This software was selected by the City, and have the following key features and advantages: • It offers dynamic modeling capability. • It uses a stable modeling platform. • License upgrades are available if additional model nodes are required or if models are to be connected. • XPSWMM software's is capable of reading and using GIS data files that facilitates data transfer and has shape file viewing capability. • It is widely used by the modeling community in the region including the author. • Licenses are owned by the author, facilitating multi-user development and review. 7.2 MODEL CONSTRUCTION 7.2.1 Data Sources The following information was obtained for use in constructing hydraulic models of the existing sewer network: • City provided GIS base access system including manhole/points, pipes/links, and lift station information • Lift station as -built, record drawings and plan drawings information were provided to supplement GIS data. • Lift Station data sheets were provided, as shown in Appendix _. Information on planned modifications to the existing sewer network was provided by the District. 7.2.2 Model Coverage The City has 11 defined Sub -basins (Figure 5.1), 10 of which collect and convey flow into the Edmonds WWTP. The model only includes the City's physical system attributes 7-1 Packet Page 444 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN (pipes, manholes and lift stations) that convey flow into the Edmonds WWTP, and does not include physical system attributes conveying flow to the City of Lynnwood WWTP. Pipes, manholes and lift stations included in the model are illustrated in Figure 7.—. The scope of work limited the extent of importing pipes 8-inches and larger, however with the data available in GIS, it was easier and quicker to incorporate all pipes regardless of size. This allows the model to illustrate physical attributes throughout the City's service area. 7.2.3 Modeling of Physical System Features The system data obtained from the City's GIS mapping was imported into the model. Existing City GIS information provided used NAD 1983 datum. Manhole rim elevations were augmented using mapping software ArcGIS ArcMap by utilizing the 2-foot contour elevation attribute information provided by the City. Information was spatially joined to each manhole based upon its geographic locations via 'closest' definition, and software output created a table matching the closest location elevation to the manhole location. Manhole depths, if provided were measured down depth recorded in inches and converted to feet. Manhole inverts were calculated from the difference between spatially joined rim elevations, measure down depths and pipe diameters. Pipe/link information was imported from the existing City GIS. The upstream and downstream inverts were assigned via connecting manhole information, calculated or imported. Insert Figure 7-1 The base physical layout of the model was constructed by importing relevant characteristics using XPSWMM data import function. Table 7.1 shows the data fields used to import the system characteristics into the model's "Node" and "Link" tables. TABLE 7.1 FIELDS FOR BASIC MODEL CONSTRUCTION XP-Fields Definition Node Tables (representing manholes) Node ......................... Manhole Name — District's naming convention used. X-Pos ....................... Geo-location in east -west orientation. Y Pos........................ Geo-location in north -south orientation. Ground elevation ...... Rim elevation for the manhole. Invert elevation ......... Elevation at the bottom of the manhole . Link Tables representing sewer pipes Link ........................... Pipe identification — used the upstream manhole label with a "Y' 7-2 Packet Page 445 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN suffix for the first exit pipe and ".2" or greater suffixes for additional exit pipes from the same manhole. U/S ........................... Upstream manhole reference where the pipe starts. D/S ........................... Downstream manhole reference where the pipe ends. Upstream Invert Level.... ..................... Invert Elevation at start of pipe. Downstream Invert Level......................... Invert Elevation at end of pipe. Diameter ................... Internal pipe diameter. Length ...................... Pipe length — obtained from GIS calculation. Roughness ............... Pipe roughness — a Manning's value of 0.013 was used in all cases. Nodes at the end of the sewer network were designated as outfalls, and a free discharge boundary condition was assigned. City lift stations were modeled as "Multi -Links." The model used the stations' firm capacity (capacity with the largest pump out of service). Modeled pumps were assigned a constant capacity equal to the relevant nominal pump capacity. The storage volume was added at the node representing the lift station wet well and operating levels were entered into the Multi -Link dialog box. Pump station input information collected from the City and King County was entered into the model. Required lift station input data include pump operation point, wet well area geometry per vertical foot, wet well and additional storage volume information. Once the initial data import of existing network information was complete, the following steps were taken to resolve data issues and improve the hydraulic performance of the models: • Estimation of missing invert data. • Review of as -built or design drawings. 7.3 LOADING The model was loaded with peak day flow measured at each meter for the initial model calibration. Due to the location of meters throughout the system, some Sub - basin flow loading was calculated by subtraction of measured flow between two flow meters. Following Sub -basin flow calculations, the total Sub -basin flow was evenly distributed between manholes. Table 7._ illustrates the point loading per Sub -basin. 7-3 Packet Page 446 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Table 7._ Point Loading by Sub -basin Sub -basin Peak Day Flow (MGD) # of points Load/Pt (MGD) Load/Pt (Cfs) Total Load (Cfs) Meter 1 0.555 177 0.003135593 0.004850763 0.858585 Zone 1 1.185 8 0.148125 0.229149375 1.833195 Zone 2 0.112 256 0.0004375 0.000676813 0.173264 Meter A 3.723 6 0.6205 0.9599135 5.759481 Meter B 1.33 2 0.665 1.028755 2.05751 Meter C 0.646 1 0.646 0.999362 0.999362 Meter E 2.441 1 2.441 3.776227 3.776227 MLT Zone 2.553 136 0.018772059 0.029040375 3.949491 Edmonds Zone 3.985 966 0.004125678 0.006382424 6.165421 LS-1 Zone 2.235 821 0.002721797 0.004210619 3.456919 The intent of the loadings into the sewer system is to determine the total flow along the conveyance system and at the WWTP. Some Sub -basins do not have dedicated meters and consequently, it is necessary to subtract flows from upstream and downstream meters to arrive at flows per Sub -basin. The flow swap between the City and King County at the King County Lake Ballinger Pump Station (KCLBPS) is described in Section 3.4.2. Generally flows from the KCLBPS enter the City's system for 15 hours per day. However, there are times when flow to directed simultaneously to both agencies. And lastly, there are times when flow is sent exclusively to only the County's system. To capture the most severe flow scenario, the hydraulic analysis was configured with the assumption that all flow was being directed to and through the City's conveyance system. The area that flows to Lynnwood WWTP (Sub -basin Lynnwood Zone) enters a large diameter interceptor that is owned and maintained by the City of Lynnwood. This interceptor is the backbone of flows entering that plant. The majority of the Edmonds flow enters this interceptor through 8-inch diameter pipes. The remaining Edmonds' flow is collected and pumped through one of six Edmonds -owned lift stations. The hydraulic analysis of the Lynnwood Zone looks at the tributary area to each of these lift stations and applying the peak hour flow estimations to determine the suitability of the pumping capacity. 7.4 MODEL CALIBRATION 7.5 CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND MODEL RESULTS 7-4 Packet Page 447 of 546 Table 7.X Lynnwood Zone Lift Station Analysis 2010 2019 2033 Build Out Current Rated Lift Stations Capacity (gpm @ Population Peak Hour Flow Population Peak Hour Flow Population Peak Hour Population Peak Hour Flow TDH) Equivalent (gpm) (1) Equivalent (gpm) (1) Equivalent Flow (gpm) (1) Equivalent (gpm) (1) LS #4 (2) 1308 gpm @ 164 ft 645 179 675 188 702 195 731 203 LS #9 (5) 332 gpm @ 38 ft 838 233 877 244 912 253 950 264 LS #10 (2) 114 gpm @ 49 ft 204 57 214 59 222 62 231 64 LS #11 (3) 95 gpm @ 73 ft 19 5 20 6 21 6 22 6 LS #12 (3) 308 gpm @ 142 ft 672 187 704 195 731 203 762 212 LS #15 (4) 42 gpm @ 60 ft 22 6 23 6 24 7 25 7 Notes 1) Peak Hour flow rate from DOE Orange Book 2) LS #10 pumps to LS #4 which lifts to the WWTP. 3) LS #11 pumps to LS #12 which lifts to the WWTP. 4) LS #15 pumps directly to the WWTP. 5) LS #9 lifts into the gravity system that enters the Lynnwood Interceptor. Packet Page 448 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER VIII — EDMONDS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 8.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section is to evaluate the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant for its ability to meet treatment objectives over the planning period. The Edmonds treatment plant liquid stream consists of a headworks with three mechanical screens, three rectangular primary clarifiers, three aeration basins, three circular secondary clarifiers, and a chlorine contact tank. The disinfected plant effluent is discharged through a single 36-inch diameter outfall into Puget Sound. The outfall branches into two diffusers, each 160 feet long with diffuser ports at MLLW elevation that ranges from 56 to 73 feet deep. The solids stream includes belt press dewatering and incineration of the sludge cake using a fluidized bed incinerator. A detailed description of the existing facilities is presented in Section 5.4. The original Edmonds WWTP was completed in 1957 to treat 2.0 million gallons per day (mgd). Edmonds expanded the primary plant to a design flow of 4.0 MGD in 1959, and for a third time in 1967, to a design flow of 7.6 MGD, by adding two clarifiers and effluent pumping. The third expansion also included dewatering equipment and an incinerator for solids handling. In 1991 the plant was expanded to secondary treatment with a capacity of 11.8 mgd for maximum month loading. A conventional secondary treatment process was implemented consisting of three aeration basins, three circular secondary clarifiers, and a chlorine contact basin. Additionally, new operations and solids handing buildings were constructed. The Edmonds Plant layout is shown in Figure 5.4. 8.2 TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS The Edmonds wastewater treatment plant operates under the terms of NPDES Permit No. WA-002405-8 last modified May 9, 2012. A copy of the permit is included in Appendix K. The treatment plant effluent requirements established by the permit are a maximum monthly concentration of 25 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5), 30 mg/L for total suspended solids (TSS) and 200/ 100 mL for fecal coliform bacteria density. CBOD5 and TSS effluent limits are also held to an 85% minimum removal. The facility is subject to whichever discharge limit is more stringent when reporting: concentration mg/L or 85% removal. Based on a maximum month design flow of 11.8 million gallons per day (mgd), the average monthly mass discharge limit of 25 mg/L for BOD5 and 30 mg/L for TSS is 2,460 and 2,952 pounds per day respectively. The permit also limits the chlorine residual concentration to 0.191 mg/L. Packet Page 449 of 546 8 1 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 8.3 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE Figure 8.1 is a plot of the effluent CBOD5 and TSS concentration over the last 10 years. The Edmonds plant is consistently under the monthly average of 25 and 30 mg/L limit for CBOD5 and TSS respectively as stipulated in the NPDES Permit. 35.0 U111l 25.0 tuo E N 20.0 3 w N 15.0 s a 0 10.0 5.0 0.0 4- 1/2002 Figure 8.1 Edmonds WWTP - Effluent CBOD5/TSS Conc. +Efluent CBOD f Effluent TSS Effluent CBOD Conc. Effluent TSS Conc. 1/2003 1/2004 1/2005 1/2006 1/2007 1/2008 1/2009 1/2010 1/2011 1/2012 The determination of the effluent mass discharge is calculated by multiplying the concentration times the daily flow: mg). (million gallons lb _ lbs \ L / \ day ) ' 8.34 (—gal) day This formula uses the measured effluent concentrations from limited composite samples and the continuously measured flow values. The results yield the total mass BOD and TSS being discharged from the plant. It should be noted, however, that such calculations tend to over -state the total mass. This is referred to as `flow biasing'. During the wet weather months when extreme flow conditions occur, the extrapolation of those flow conditions throughout the entire month tends to overestimate the total mass discharge. Figure 8.2 is the effluent mass loading. Packet Page 450 of 546 8 Z COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 3,500 3,000 2,500 co 2,000 c 1,500 W T s G 1,000 500 Figure 8.2 Edmonds WWTP - Effluent Mass CBOD5/TSS Efluent CBOD CBOD NPDES limit — 85% NPDES CBOD Limit f Effluent TSS TSS NPDES Limt — 85% NPDES TSS Limit 0 1/2002 1/2003 1/2004 1/2005 1/2006 1/2007 1/2008 1/2009 1/2010 1/2011 1/2012 8.4 NPDES PERMITTED CAPACITY & HISTORICAL LOADING The NPDES permit specifies the permitted capacity of the plant. The Edmonds WWTP is permitted to treat a maximum monthly flow of 11.8 mgd. The "maximum month" criterion is the highest monthly average loading in one calendar year. Section S4.B: Plans for Maintaining Adequate Capacity, states that the City of Edmonds needs to submit a plan and schedule to Ecology to maintain capacity if the influent flow reaches 85% of the design criteria for three consecutive months. When flows reach 10.03 mgd for three months in a row the City will be subject to this condition. There are three parshall flumes that measures flow at the Edmonds WWTP. As stated in Section 3.4.2, the loading to Edmonds has been largely influenced by the flow swapping agreement with King County through the Lake Ballinger pump station. Figure 8.3 shows a plot of the influent flow over the last 10 years. As shown the flows are well below the plant design flow, or the level that would trigger a plant expansion study. Packet Page 451 of 546 8 3 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 14.0 12.0 10.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 T 1/2002 Figure 8.3 Edmonds WWTP - Influent Flow NPDES Limit 85% NPDES Limit 1/2003 1/2004 1/2005 1/2006 1/2007 1/2008 1/2009 1/2010 1/2011 1/2012 Average monthly flows through the 10 year period of record show consistent seasonal patterns. Other than one large event in 2006 the influent flow has been far below the NPDES permit. Past flows look to be approaching the 85% limit but this figure does not reflect the new reciprocating flow agreement with King County concerning the Lake Ballinger pump station. The NPDES permitted average BOD and TSS loading design criteria for the plant in section S4.A is 20,000 and 19,200 Ibs/day respectively for maximum month loads. When BOD loads reach 17,000 pounds per day or TSS loads reach 16,320 pounds per day Edmonds will be subject to the 85% planning criteria. Figure 8.4 shows a plot of the influent mass BOD and TSS over the last 10 years. Packet Page 452 of 546 8 4 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 3 10,000 8,000 s O 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Figure 8.4 Edmonds WWTP - Influent Mass BOD/TSS i Ili 1Wt7VF1X1r'1Fd1Wt =,win mim IU711 IMMMMLILI WIGiLF-J, Influent BOD InfluentTSS -�Mmm 1/2002 1/2003 1/2004 1/2005 1/2006 1/2007 1/2008 1/2009 1/2010 1/2011 1/2012 8.5 VIOLATIONS AND BYPASSES In April 2009 the Edmonds plant received a warning letter from the Department of Ecology (DOE) for being out of compliance with their wastewater discharge permit. The violation was for February 2009 because the discharged TSS did not meet the minimum 85% removal because of some temporary process problems. No further action was taken. Aside from the warning letter, Edmonds has had no violations in the last decade concerning treatment or bypasses. 8.6 FUTURE CAPACITY EVALUATION A capacity analysis has been conducted as part of this comprehensive plan to predict what equipment or processes, if any, are likely to exceed their ability to handle plant flows and loads during the planning period. The capacity analysis is presented as Table 8.1. Taking into consideration the Lake Ballinger pump station flow swap, projections for future flows and loads were made based on predicted population growth for the Edmonds service area. The flow projections calculated for the Edmonds plant gave a maximum monthly flow of 5.72 mgd in the year 2019 and 6.79 mgd in year 2033. Packet Page 453 of 546 8 5 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year 1991 Current Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design Population Equivalent Flow, mgd Average Annual 6.7 9.1 5.79 5.72 6.79 Maximum Month 8.7 11.8 9.66 11.8 8.97 10.96 Peak Hour 31.3 40.0 30.30 28.4 30.6 Max Day 16.8 21.6 21.60 21.5 20.3 21.8 Max flow to secondary 22.9 22.9 22.90 22.9 22.9 BODs, Ibs/day Annual AVG 11,200 15,300 9,611 9,490 11,265 Max Month AVG 14,100 19,200 12,647 20,000 11,744 14,349 Max day 22,400 30,500 16,276 15,275 16,425 TSS, Ibs/day Annual AVG 8,300 11,300 8,051 7,949 9,436 Max month AVG 11,600 15,900 91615 19,200 8,929 10,909 Max day 21,600 29,400 11,321 10,625 11,425 Per Capita, Ibs/cap/day Annual AVG BOD Annual AVG TSS Effluent Limits CBOD5, Ibs/day AVG month, 25 mg/L (NPDES) 2,460 or AVG week, 40 mg/L (NPDES) 3,936 TSS, Ibs/day AVG month, 30 mg/L (NPDES) 2,952 or AVG week, 45 mg/L (NPDES) 4,429 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Monthly geometric mean 200 Weekly geometric mean 400 Chlorine, Ibs/day AVG month (0.191 mg/L, NPDES) 18.8 Max Day (0.442 mg/L, NPDES) 43.5 Headworks Mechanical Bar Screens Number 3 Width, ft 4 Packet Page 454 of 546 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year 1991 Current Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design bar spacing, in Parshall Flumes Number Throat, ft 0.5 3 2 Raw Sewage Pumps Number 4 Type vertical, non -clog Capacity, each, gpm 9,260 HP, each 100 Drive type 2 variable, 2 consant Primary Clarifiers Primary Sedimentation Tanks Number 3 3 3 3 3 Clarifiers 1&2 Width, ft 60 60 60 60 60 Length, ft 60 60 60 60 60 Clarifiers 3 Width, ft 45 45 45 45 45 Length, ft 91 91 91 91 91 Average Depth, ft 10 10 10 10 10 Total Surface Area, square feet 11,295 11,295 11,295 11,295 11,295 Surface Load Rate, gpd/sf Annual Average 593 806 513 506 601 1,000 800 to 1,200 Max month 770 1,045 855 794 970 Peak hour 2,771 3,541 2,683 2,518 2,707 2,500 2,000 to 3,000 Detention time, hrs Annual Average 3.0 2.2 3.5 3.5 3.0 Max month 2.3 1.7 2.1 2.3 1.9 2 1.5 to 2.0 Peak hour 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 Max Day 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 BOD Removal, % Annual Average flow 39% 36% 37% 37% 35% 25 to 40 Maximum month flow 36% 33% 31% 32% 30% Max Day 29% 26% 28% 26% 25% TSS Removal, % Annual Average flow 61% 58% 62% 62% 61% 50 to 70 Maximum month flow 58% 54% 57% 58% 55% Max Day 49% 45% 40% 41% 40% Packet Page 455 of 546 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year 1991 Current Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design Aeration Basins Number Width, ft 3 3 3 3 3 58 75.3 58 75.3 58 75.3 58 58 Length, ft 75.3 75.3 Side water depth, feet 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 Volume total, gal 2,018,892 2,018,892 2,018,892 2,018,892 2,018,892 Contact zone volume, gal 348,000 348,000 348,000 348,000 348,000 CMAS Mode Total Detention Time, hr Annual Average 7.2 5.3 8.4 8.5 7.1 Max month 5.6 4.1 5.0 5.4 4.4 3 to 5 Max Day 2.9 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.2 MLSS Conc, mg/L 1,800 1,800 1,708 1,800 1,800 1,500-4,000 QR/Q, mgd/mgd 0.25 to 0.5 F:M Ratio Annual Average 0.23 0.33 0.42 0.20 0.24 Max month 0.30 0.43 0.46 0.26 0.33 0.2 to 0.6 Max Day 0.53 0.75 0.61 0.37 0.40 SRT, days Annual Average 9.3 6.3 9.4 10.0 8.1 Max month 6.2 4.2 6.9 8.0 6.2 3 to 15 Max Day 2.8 1.9 4.2 4.8 4.4 Oxygen Demand, Ib/hr Annual Average 315 452 278 275 333 Max month 413 591 400 367 463 Max Day 733 1041 537 516 562 Contact Stabilization Mode Contact MLSS Conc, mg/L 1,000-3,000 Contact time, min Annual Average 75 55 87 88 74 Max month 58 42 52 56 46 30 to 60 Peak Hour, w/out bypass 16 13 17 18 16 Peak hour, w/ bypass 22 22 22 22 22 Max Day 30 23 23 25 23 Stabiilization MLSS Conc, mg/L 6,000-10,000 Stabilization time, hrs Annual Average 12.0 8.8 13.8 14.0 11.8 Max month 9.2 6.8 8.3 8.9 7.3 Max Day 4.8 3.7 3.7 4.0 3.7 Peak hour, w/ bypass 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 4 Peak Hour, w/out bypass 2.6 2.0 2.6 2.8 2.6 to Packet Page 456 of 546 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year 1991 Current Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design QR/Q, mgd/mgd Blowers Number 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 to 1.50 4 multi -stage, centrifugal Type Capacity, each, 3,300 HP, each, cfm 250 RAS Pumps Number 4 Type Horizontal, non -clog centrifugal Capacity, each,gpm 2,100 HP, each 25 Secondary Clarificaters Number 3 3 3 3 3 Diameter, ft 90 90 90 90 90 Side water Depth, ft 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 Total surface area, sq ft 19,085 19,085 19,085 19,085 19,085 Surface loading rate, gpd/sq ft/d Annual average flow 351 477 304 300 356 400 to 700 Maximum month flow 456 618 506 470 574 Peak to secondary (w/out bypass) 1,640 2,096 1,588 1,490 1,602 1,000 1,600 Peak To secondary (w/ bypass) 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 to Total weir length, ft Solids loading, Ib/hr/sf Annual average flow 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 Maximum month flow 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.8 to 1.2 Peak hour 1.2 1.57 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.6 Chlorine Contact Chamber Number of Tanks 2 2 2 2 2 Length, ft 251 251 251 251 251 Width, ft 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Side water depth, ft 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 Total volume, gal 320,110 320,110 320,110 320,110 320,110 Dentention Time, min Annual Average 69 51 80 81 68 30 to 120 min 60-120 Maximum month 53 39 48 51 42 Peak hour 15 12 15 16 15 15 to 90 min > 20 Number of Chlorinators Packet Page 457 of 546 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year 1991 Current Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design *including portion of outfall Chlorination Equipment Number of Chlorinators 2 2 2 2 2 Capacity, lb/day 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Cylinder Size, Ibs 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Cylinder Storage Number 8 8 8 8 8 Average Daily Demand, Ibs 380 380 380 380 380 Effluent Pumps Number 5 Type Vertical, mixed flow Capacity, each,gpm 7,000 HP, each 100 Drive type (2) VFD, (3) constant Primary Sludge Production Annual Average 4,627 4,932 5,715 Max month 5,733 6,135 6,328 Sludge avg TS, % 3.44% 2-6% Secondary Sludge Production Annual Average 5,484 5,413 6,631 Max month 8,476 7,780 9,915 Sludge avg TS, % 0.65% 0.5 to 1.5% Primary Sludge and Scum Pumps Number 6 16,243 63,647 Type Air operated, diaphram Capacity, gpm 150 Primary Sludge Storage Tanks Number 1 1 1 1 1 Volume, gal 29,000 29,000 29,000 29,000 29,000 Detention Time, days Annual Average 1.2 1.8 1.7 1.5 Maximum month 0.9 1.5 1.4 1.4 Max day 0.8 0.8 0.8 Mixer type and HP Packet Page 458 of 546 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year 1991 Current Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design Primary Sludge Transfer Pumps Number Type Capacity, gpm 2 Air operated diaphram 150 WAS and Secondary Pumps Number 5 Type Progeressive Cavity Capacity, each,gpm 50 HP, each 5 Drive type Constant WAS Storage Tank Number 1 1 1 1 1 Volume, gal 102,000 102,000 102,000 102,000 102,000 Detention Time, days Annual Average 1.7 1.0 1.0 0.9 Maximum month 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 Max day 0.6 Mixer type and HP WAS Transfer Pumps Number 2 Type Progeressive Cavity Capacity, each,gpm 150 HP, each 7.5 Drive type VFD Belt Filter Press Number 2 2 2 2 Width,ft 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 Capacity, each, gpm 150 Hours operated/Day Annual Average 12 12 12 12 Max month 17 17 17 17 Max Day 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 Loading, gpm, one BP for hours operated Annual Average 108 162 162 197 Max month 116 172 161 200 Max Day 130 173 215 Loading, lb dry solids/hr 509 509 509 Packet Page 459 of 546 Table 8.1 Edmonds WWTP Design / Plant Design Data Plant Data NPDES Permit WA-002405-8 Projected Metcalf and Eddy DOE Orange Book Component Year 1991 Current Design Year 2009-2011 Year 2019 Year 2033 Typical Design Range Design Range Design Incinerator Number Type 1 1 1 1 Fluidized bed Diameter, ft 10 10 10 9.7 10 9.7 Capacity, mmbtu 9.7 9.7 Hours Operated Daily Annual Average 12 12 12 12 Max month 17 17 17 17 Max Day 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 Capacity, Ib/hr 942 Loading, lb dry solids/hrs operated Annual Average 843 862 1,029 Max month 836 819 955 Ash Thickening Number 1 Type gravity Diameter, ft 8 Ash Dewatering Number 1 Type vacuum filter Capacity, Ib/hr 200 Ash Production, cy/d Annual Average 2.1 2.1 2.1 Max month 3.2 3.2 3.2 Max Day 4.0 4.0 4.0 Packet Page 460 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN These projected flows are far less than the overall rated capacity of 11.8 mgd for the plant and do not exceed the 85% criteria (10.03 mgd) within the planning period. The projected maximum month BOD loadings for the plant are 11,744 pounds per day in 2019 and 14,349 pounds per day in year 2033. The BOD loading in 2033 is far less than the 85% design criteria let alone the NPDES permitted limit of 20,000 Ibs/day. The projected TSS Ibs/day maximum month loading for the Edmonds plant is 8,949 and 10,909 Ibs/day, in years 2019 and 2033, respectively. The projected TSS load in year 2033 is less than half of the NPDES permitted limit of 19,200 Ibs/day. In addition to the overall plant capacity analysis, the capacity of the plant's individual unit processes were evaluated against typical design values, as shown in literature that is widely consulted in the wastewater engineering field, including "Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse", by Metcalf & Eddy; "Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants" prepared jointly by the Water Environment Federation (WEF) and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE); and "Criteria for Sewage Works Design" (the Orange Book) by the Washington State Department of Ecology Using these projections the capacities of the unit processes were compared with commonly accepted design values, as shown on Table 8.1. The capacity for the mechanical equipment used was based on the manufacturer's rating and the plant design data. None of the unit processes are projected to be significantly overloaded during the planning period. The only unit process that is not meeting typical design criteria is the chlorine contact chamber detention time. The facility, already aware of this, maintains elevated disinfection levels as explained in the Section 5.4.2. Furthermore, the current operation feeds sodium hypochlorite at the secondary clarifier weir overflow which increases the contact time. 8.7 FUTURE REGULATORY ISSUES FOR WWTP The existing liquid stream processing at the Edmonds facility regularly produces compliant effluent and the capacity of the plant can easily handle the projected flows and loads. However, there are three potential regulatory issues that could impact the plant requirements in the future. The potential regulatory issues are: • Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) Air Emissions • Secondary Treatment Bypass • Total Nitrogen Discharge Limits 8.7.1 Sewage Sludge Incineration (SSI) - Air Emissions The most pressing issue is the requirement of new sewage sludge incinerator (SSI) air quality standards. On February 21, 2011, the EPA published their newest final SSI Packet Page 461 of 546 8-13 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN emission regulations in the Federal Register Title 40 Part 60, under the provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA), Section 129 "Solid Waste Incineration Units". These new standards supplement the older Clean Water Act (CWA 40 CFR, Part 503) regulations. The new regulations were declared to be effective on May 20, 2011. The regulations dictate different emission limits for new (or substantially modified) incinerators and for existing sewage sludge incinerators; as well as different limits for multiple hearth incinerators and fluidized bed incinerators. Existing SSI units will have 5 years to comply from the effective date of the regulations, or until May 19, 2016. The new CAA regulations will require a Title V air permit. Previous regulations for sewage sludge incinerators (SSI) were based on emission limits established in Title 40 Part 503 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The previous air quality emission limits were as follows, and the City has been in compliance with these limits: • Particulate matter emission limit of 0.18 g/m3 (0.08 grams/cu ft) dry gas at standard temperature and pressure corrected to 12% carbon dioxide. • Beryllium emission of 10 g per 24-hour period. • Mercury emission limit of 3,200 g per 24-hour period. • Lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and nickel feed cake limits based on ambient air quality and health risk specific concentrations. • Total Hydrocarbons monthly average concentration of 100 ppm by volume, corrected to 0% moisture and 7% oxygen. • Carbon monoxide monthly average concentration of 100 ppm by volume, corrected to 0% moisture and 7% oxygen. The new emission limits that apply to the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant are given in Table 8.2 below. The existing SSI regulation is for incinerators that were in operation before the new regulations. New SSI's built, or substantially modified, will be held to more stringent emission limits. Substantial modification includes any revisions to the feed system, reactor, ash system and energy recovery systems; but not the emission control equipment or routine maintenance. In addition to new emission limits, the new regulations will require that compliance tests be conducted annually. The "2007" column in Table 8.2 summarizes data received from the plant for their source emissions evaluation by Am Test -Air Quality, LLC, which was conducted in late May of 2007 and finalized into a report in July 31, 2007. The 2007 evaluation was based on the old regulations, so there are several pollutants (hydrogen chloride, dioxins and furans) that are currently regulated that were not sampled or tested. Packet Page 462 of 546 8-14 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Table 8.2 EPA Emission Limits for Fluidized Bed Incinerators Pollutant Units Existing SSI New SSI 2007 Cd m /dscm @ 7% 02 0.0016 0.0011 0.00031 CO ppmvd @ 7% 02 64 27 1.6 HCI ppmvd @ 7% 02 0.51 0.24 - Hg mg/dscm @ 7% 02 0.037 0.0010 0.053 NOX ppmvd @ 7% 02 150 30 24 Pb m /dscm @ 7% 02 0.0074 0.00062 0.180 PCDD/PCDF, TEQ n /dscm @ 7% 02 0.10 0.0044 - PCDD/PCDF, TMB n /dscm @ 7% 02 1.2 0.013 - PM mg/dscm @ 7% 02 18 9.6 34.8 S02 ppmvd @ 7% 02 15 5.3 10.5 Where: Cd - Cadmium CO - Carbon Monoxide HCI - Hydrogen Chloride Hg - Mercury NOX - Nitrogen Oxides Pb - Lead PCDD/PCDF - Polychlorinated Dibenzo -P-Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans PM - Particulate Matter S02 - Sulfur Dioxide TEQ -Toxic Equivalency TMB - Total Mass Balance Stack gas emission records are limited. Assuming that this one test is representative of Edmond's sludge, improvements to the existing emission control equipment will be required. However, it should be noted that sludge quality can vary significantly between samples and one sample is not necessarily representative. A significant sampling and testing program is recommended before any modifications are made to the emissions control system. The 2007 report conducted three runs for each of the tests and the sludge was further analyzed during each run. In Table 8.2, the 2007 column has three pollutants that exceed the new regulations for existing SSI's; mercury, lead, and particulate matter. Particulate matter and most metals (except mercury) are removed as solids by the plant's existing Venturi scrubber. Because of its extremely high vapor pressure, mercury is 100% vaporized during the incineration process. so it is not removed by the existing wet scrubber. If mercury cannot be removed by source controls, a new packed -bed carbon scrubber will be required. The particulate matter concentration is above the new regulated threshold. The EnviroCare International VenturiPakTM scrubber system at Edmonds has been widely tested at other locations and generally complies with the new particulate matter regulations for existing incinerators. The VenturiPakT"', if operated optimally, is typically in compliance with the new regulations for existing SSI for Cd, HCI, Pb, PM, and S02. Packet Page 463 of 546 8-15 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN The 2007 concentrations are likely the results of the scrubber system not operating optimally. An evaluation of the system was conducted in 2012 which resulted in a new venturi throat and additional sprays were added. A compliance test was conducted in 2013 and all new standards were met. If further optimization of the existing scrubber is needed to meet the new regulations, then additional treatment to remove small (sub -micron) particulates will be required. EnviroCare makes a wet electrostatic precipitator (StarTm ESP) that can be retro-fit with the existing scrubber. The estimated cost of the retro-fit would be about $0.8 million. A pilot test of this equipment is scheduled in 2013. Lead emissions appear to be very high but this is misleading. The first two emission test runs were in compliance but the third test run was 400 times the concentration of the first two. Considering that the lead concentration in the bio-solids varied by only 9% (at one standard deviation) suggests that the concentration found in the third emissions run was invalid. The skewed emissions test run was perhaps a recording, operations, or lab error but it is not likely representative of typical emission levels. A new stack test would confirm this. Mercury emissions are not reduced by the existing scrubber system and other actions will likely be necessary for lowering this emissions concentration. Edmonds has two choices to control mercury emissions: • Require amalgam separators at dental offices • Implement mercury emission removal equipment Amalgams are the mercury fillings used in dentistry. Requiring dentists in the service area to use amalgam separators would decrease the amount of mercury in the waste stream. Amalgam separators would be preferred for Edmonds because of the costs of mercury removal treatment processes. The City has already begun a campaign to reduce these discharges, but results are not yet known. Mercury emission removal equipment, such as that provided by Kombisorbon® would remove 99% of mercury, dioxins, furans and more. The system works by directing the flume gas through a sulfur impregnated activated carbon filter. The adsorbent (activated carbon) can be divided into several layers and removes mercury in all forms through adsorption and chemical reactions. The removal system includes a dust protection layer to extend the life of the activated carbon. The service life of the dust protection and adsorbent layers is estimated to be 3 to 4 years. A budgetary proposal has been received for the Edmonds facility and the system would cost about $1.4 million. Dust protection and adsorbent material replacement cost is roughly $30,000. Before any actions are further considered Edmonds needs to perform at least one more stack test. The incinerated solids may have changed dramatically due to plant influent changes. The estimated cost to conduct these annual tests is about $25,000. Packet Page 464 of 546 8-16 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 8.7.2 Secondary Bypass The Edmonds treatment plant has the ability to route peak flows around the secondary treatment units (aeration basins and secondary clarifiers). The plant has never used this bypass, and the flow projections shown in Table 8.1 predict that the future peak day flow will not exceed the plant peak day design capacity of 21.5 mgd. Therefore the current permit does not allow for bypassing and blending of secondary effluent. However, for long-range planning purposes this may be necessary in the future. The practice of bypassing peak wet weather flows around secondary treatment processes, and blending the bypass with secondary effluent, has been commonly used in the past throughout the US. In recent years this practice has become more controversial, and the EPA was asked to formalize a bypass regulation that specifically authorizes these bypasses. In December, 2005 the EPA published the provisions that allow for bypasses in the Federal Register at 40 CFR 122.41(m). The key provisions include: • Discharges must meet secondary effluent limitations, including the 85% removal requirement, or any other more stringent requirements that are necessary to meet water quality standards • All flows diverted from secondary treatment units must receive a minimum of primary treatment and any supplemental treatment or technology shown to be feasible. The policy does not authorize diversions around any other treatment units, including primary treatment units • The availability of feasible alternatives will be determined on a plant -by -plant basis, and the authority to bypass the secondary process will be incorporated into the plant's NPDES permit. • The permittee is responsible for submitting a comprehensive analysis of the feasibility of eliminating the secondary bypass • If the DOE determines that there is no feasible alternative to secondary bypass flow diversion, then they may approve secondary flow diversion 8.7.3 Total Nitrogen Discharge Limits Nitrogen is a nutrient which is believed to be one of the main causes of oxygen depletion in South Puget Sound (south of Tacoma Narrows). As a result, the Department of Ecology is conducting a TMDL Study of all of the sources of nitrogen entering Puget Sound (including the effects from discharges north of the Narrows). Ecology is adding nitrogen monitoring requirements to all permits for plants discharging to Puget Sound, in order to gather data for the study. Packet Page 465 of 546 8 17 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Although not imminent, for long-range planning purposes, consideration should be given as to how Edmonds plants would meet a future total nitrogen limit. Total nitrogen (TN) removal is normally accomplished by biological nitrification and de - nitrification, just as carbonaceous BOD removal is currently accomplished in the aeration basins. However, the slower growing nitrifying micro-organisms require about three times the minimum detention time that is recommended for carbonaceous BOD removal. In addition anoxic (without dissolved oxygen) basins are needed to provide biological de -nitrification. De -nitrification is the conversion of nitrates to nitrogen gas through bacteria stripping the nitrates of their oxygen; the nitrogen gas then releases to the atmosphere. The total additional tankage required would be about 6 million gallons. The only space available for new aeration and anoxic basins would be to expand the plant to the parking lot across 2nd Avenue S. east of the facility; which is the facilities property. This site is not large enough to accommodate conventional activated sludge tanks Edmonds other option would be converting the plant's activated sludge process to a membrane bioreactor (MBR) system. This choice is the most logical for plants with space restraints. Whereas conventional activated sludge plants operate at a mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentration of 2,000 to 4,000 mg/L, MBRs operate at a concentration of 8,000 to 12,000 mg/L. This higher concentration reduces the required aeration basin size proportionately, so the required basins would be reduced to about 2.0 million gallons, or about the volume of the existing aeration basins. In addition, with the MBR process the liquid and solids are separated by a membrane, not by gravity settling, so the need for secondary clarifiers is eliminated. This, in turn, would allow space for the required membrane basins and membrane support building. Additionally the MBR plant would have to improve the headworks screening for the MBR system. Screening requirement is 3 mm (1/8") sized openings, current bar screens have 6 mm (1/4") openings. 8.8 PLANT IMPROVEMENTS AND ADDITIONAL NEEDS 8.8.1 Improvements since 2006 Comprehensive Plan Since the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, the City has completed or is in the process of completing the following improvements at the WWTP. 1. 2007-Electrical Improvement Project. #C-251 i. Replace the three main switch gear breakers with draw -out style breakers to allow us to service the breakers without a total plant power outage. ii. Add a 600 amp breaker to the "B" side distribution panel for a feeder to the 100 building. Packet Page 466 of 546 8 18 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 2. 2007-MCC Feeder Installation. #M-009 i. Added a new MCC to the 100 building for the new screenings equipment and to move some of the load from the existing MCC due to under size cables between the existing MCC breaker and the MCC bus bars. 3. 2007-Screenings System Improvement. #C-161 i. Replaced the influent bar screens with Headworks bar screens (3). ii. Replaced the screenings pump with two Wemco pumps. iii. Modified the screenings hopper feed water to use raw sewage from the influent pumps iv. Added flow meters on the hopper make up water and the screenings transfer flow. v. Added a JWC Macho Monster grinder between the screenings conveyer and the screenings hopper. vi. Replaced the old screenings de -watering unit with a Headworks washer compactor. 4. 2009-Odor Control Improvement Project. #C-311 i. Install duct work, a VFD controlled fan, and carbon scrubber on the three Aeration Basins. ii. Install duct work, a two speed fan and a carbon scrubber on the secondary clarifier #2. iii. Enclose secondary clarifier #2 iv. Remove the ventilation louvers and the window between the incinerator room and the belt press room. v. Install two fans and duct work to bring outside air into the belt press room. vi. Install a fan and duct work to allow us to route the foul air from the Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) storage tank to the incinerator while the incinerator is running. Or route it to the chemical scrubber when the incinerator is down vii. Added duct work to route the air from the Raw Sludge storage tank through fan #FIC-654. 5. 2009-Secondary Clarifier #2 Refurbishment. #C-316 i. Strip and repaint all the steel in secondary clarifier #2. 6. 2009-Clay Feeder Project. #C-317 i. Install a platform over the Sludge Hopper in the incinerator room. ii. Install a kaolin clay feeder on the platform that will feed Kaolin clay into the sludge hopper. iii. Install a control panel for the feeder with a VFD and timers for the vibrator. Packet Page 467 of 546 8 19 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN iv. This system allows us to control the undesirable effects of high sodium content in the sludge. When we feed clay we can control the melting point of the ash. 7. 2009-Aration Basin Control Up -grade. #M-050 i. Install new Dissolved Oxygen probes on all three Basins. ii. Install new Total Suspended Solids probes on all three basins. iii. Install three instrument transmitters and three radio transmitters on the basins. iv. Install a radio receiver in the CP-301 and hook it into the Programmable Logic Controller (PLC). v. Program the PLC to trend the TSS of the basins. 8. 2010-Energy Efficiency Up -grade. #C-322 i. Replace the course air diffuser in the WAS storage tank with Sanitair membrane style fine bubble diffusers. ii. Replace the centrifugal aeration blower 304 with a high efficiency turbo style blower. 9. 2010-300 PLC Upgrade. #C-328 i. Replace the old Input/Output (1/0) PLC cards with new model cards. 10. 2010-Sludge Pump Replacement. #M-054 i. Replace air operated RAW Sludge Transfer pump #RST-608 with an electric driven duel diaphragm Penn Valley pump. This will save electricity usage by reducing the demand on the air compressors. 11. 2011-Lighting Up -grade. C-366 i. Replace all the florescent lighting and some outside lighting with high efficiency lighting. ii. Install motion sensors in various locations around the plant. 12. 2011-Outfall Diffuser Project. #C-367 i. Have the diffuser orifice plates removed to allow less head lose through the diffusers ii. Perform a new mixing zone analysis. 13. 2012-A Basin Up -grade. #C-365 i. Remove all the diffusers and piping grids in Aeration Basin #1. ii. Install two baffle walls to convert the complete mix basin to a plug flow basin. iii. Install Sanitair's new panel style diffusers. iv. Replace the existing single air control valve to the basin with two control valves, one on each grid section. 14. 2012-VFD Replacement. C-384 Packet Page 468 of 546 8 Z0 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN i. Replace three, obsolete Variable Frequency Drives (VFD) with new VFDs. ii. Install two new VFDs on pumps DSP-615 and BDW-401. 15. 2012-Switch Gear Access Platform. i. Install a platform over secondary clarifier #1 behind the plants main electrical switch gear to allow personnel access to the rear panels of the switch gear. 16. 2012-Fiber Optic Network. C-387 i. Replace the existing plant PLC and SCADA network cables with Fiber Optic cable. 17. 2012-Non-Potable Water Pump Up -grade. C-322 i. Replace one 50 HP non -potable water pump with a 30 HP pump and a VFD. ii. Install a booster pump, in the belt press room, for the high pressure applications, 18. 2012-Hypochlorite Pump Relocation. C-386 i. Relocate the sodium hypochlorite pumps from the hypo room to the caustic storage area down stairs. ii. Install an uninterruptible power supply to the power circuit for the disinfection pumps iii. Add a fourth pump for disinfection. 19. 2012-Roof Replacement. C-383 i. Replace aging roofs on buildings 100, 300, and 600. 20. 2012-Underground Storage Tank (UST) Monitoring Up -grade. i. Up -grade the level indicator on the UST to have the ability to perform statistical inventory control. This will bring us into compliance with the Department of Ecology. ii. Up -grade the leak monitoring system to a more reliable model. 8.8.2 Additional WWTP Improvements Current or future modifications at the WWTP, due to obsolescence, operator preferences, or energy upgrades include the following (refer to Table 9.5): WWTP-1 Variable Frequency Drive Upgrade. Replaces three old drives and installs two new drives WWTP-2 Upgrade Flow Telemetry Equipment to improve data retrieval accuracy. Packet Page 469 of 546 8 21 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN WWTP-3 Switchgear Upgrade. The existing automatic transfer switch is corroded and failing. This improvement will insure reliable emergency power. WWTP-4 Incinerator Testing and Compliance. Install new air emissions and monitoring equipment on the existing incinerator, modify pre -heat burner fuel source from diesel to natural gas and install a secondary heat exchanger to preheat air for plume suppression. WWTP-5 Secondary Clarifier Steel Coating. WWTP-6 Recoat Primary Clarifier #1 Steel Equipment and Concrete Repair. WWTP-7 Install Weir Washers on Secondary Clarifiers #1 and #3. WWTP-8 Chlorine Contact Chamber Inspection and Coating. WWTP-9 Repair Floor in Clarifier 403. WWTP-10 Joint/Concrete Repair. WWTP-11 Control System Upgrades, Phase 1. This work would begin in Building 600. WWTP-12 Energy Project. Replace the water feature pump and install a VFD. Install thermostat and controls on Shop heater. Evaluate replacement of Sludge Pump. WWTP-13 In Plant Hatches. Evaluate the risks and determine the best course of action for each hatch. WWTP-14 Facility Improvements. This would include upgrades and expansion of the facilities, including the Men's Locker room. WWTP-15 Polymer Make up Equipment. Equipment has past its useful life. WWTP-16 Control System Upgrades, Phase 2. This work would begin in Building 600. WWTP-17 Unanticipated Plant and Operational Improvements and Repairs. WWTP-18 Convert 200 HP Blower to Turbo Blower. Energy saving measure. WWTP-19 Upgrade the Control Valve Actuators on the Effluent Pumps. WWTP-20 Upgrade Heat Pumps in Building 700. Energy saving measure. Packet Page 470 of 546 8 22 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN WWTP-21 Screenings Improvements. Evaluate options for better handling of screening materials. WWTP-22 Belt Filter Press Energy Project. Evaluate the best solids handling options to maximize solids capture and cake. WWTP-23 Diesel Day Tank. Obsolete day tank. WWTP-24 Automatic Flow Shearing Process. Energy Saving measure. WWTP-25 Chemical Use Area. Improve access to eyewash and maneuverability. WWTP-26 Electronic O&M Documentation. This will allow linking assets, documents and SOPs to better manage the system. WWTP-27 Convert Aeration Basin #2 to Plug Flow Packet Page 471 of 546 8 23 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN CHAPTER IX — COMPREHENESIVE PLAN AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 9.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS RANKING Three major components make up the Capital Improvements Program (CIP), 1) those reoccurring maintenance issues, 2) that infrastructure that has known deficiencies or integrity issues and 3) that infrastructure that needs to be upsized resulting from population growth and the associated increase in flow values. Together these three components comprise the CIP. The City has an extensive and detailed categorization of the entire system. Each fault/problem was assigned a point value which reflects the City staff's assessment and judgment. The City has three main categories of deficiencies: a) the Red Area, which are chronic O&M issues that require the frequent and repeated attention of the City O&M Staff. The City has identified line segments that require regular flushing. This flushing schedule prioritizes the severity of the condition by the frequency of flushing. The location of these segments is presented in Appendix F.1 and also included in the I&I Study. Reportedly some problem segments have been removed from the trouble list due to actions implemented by the maintenance staff. The source of many of these problems stem from either low flow or grease accumulations. In the latter case, most of the property owners have been notified of pre-treatment requirements and the City's Fats, Oils and Grease policy. b) the Granite system. Areas of know deficiencies have been identified through the City's Granite Software. This is a very comprehensive listing of known problems. These problems are categorized using approximately 28 descriptors. These descriptors have been aggregated into issues that are O&M in nature and which generally are individually minor, but collectively may warrant a CIP. The second Granite category are those CIP that could be rectified using trenchless technologies and the last category are those issues that likely would require major construction including digging up and replacement of the line segment. c) Capacity Issues. With forecasted population and development, the anticipated future flows were applied to the existing piping infrastructure to determine which pipes are currently or, in the future, will be over capacity and surcharging the system. A comprehensive listing of the Capital Improvement Projects considered all three of these factors. Isolated reports of minor faults or problems generally do not warrant a CIP. However, when several reoccurring maintenance issues are found in a single pipe reach, that segment might become a candidate for replacement or repair. Consequently, all faults/problems have been listed by pipe reach to aggregate the 9-1 Packet Page 472 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN problem areas. The detailed presentation of the individual problems is listed in Appendix F (Tables F.1 — Red Areas; Table F.2 — Granite O&M segments; Table F.3 — Granite Known Deficiencies -Trench less; Table FA — Granite Known Deficiencies -Dig up and Replace). The assignment of points is summarized in Table 9 TABLE 9.1 Point Assignment for Capital Improvement Projects Category Red Areas Granite - O&M Granite - Trenchless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity Grease 5 Dirt, Grease, Grit 5 Girt 5 Black Water 5 None 0 Grit, Black Water 5 Grit (a lot) 6 N/A 0 Clean Flume 1 Brush Sensor 1 Depressions in Pipe 4 Problem Laterals - Abandoned 6 Debris and Deposits 0 Grease - Medium 0 Problem Laterals - Connections 5 Medium Root Problems 2 Light Root Problems 1 Roots 1 Joint Gasket Exposed - Severe 2 Problem Joint - Offset Medium 2 Joint Separation - Medium 2 Joint Separation - Small 1 Joint Separation 1 Crack 5 Heavy Root Problem 3 Hole in Pipe - Medium 9 Hole in Pipe - Small 8 Hole in Pie 8 Joint Separated - Large 3 Infiltration in Joint 5 Deformed 7 Broken 4 Broken Hole 4 Pipe Repair 10 Hole in Pipe - Large 10 Joint Offset - Large 3 Capacity 10 9-2 Packet Page 473 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN These point assignments were made to each fault/problem and then summed by pipe segment. Ranking of the most severe segments were done both including and excluding the `Granite -O&M' problems. Both rankings are listed in Appendix F (Table F.6 — All categories and Table F.7 — without Granite O&M). The pipe segment ranking presented in Table 9.2 represents the ranking without the `Granite -O&M' components. It was felt that this ranking best reflects the problems that can be resolved by a CIP project. The exclusion of the `Granite -O&M' problems were viewed to be reoccurring maintenance issues such as flushing and root cutting and were viewed as maintenance issues that are not easily solved with a CIP. Those areas will require continued vigilance and follow up to intercept fats, oils and grease before they enter the City's system. Those problems noted to have `low flow' are typically associated with new developments that have not completely built out. With time, these problems may resolve themselves without a CIP. In addition, there were other Granite descriptors that were entries which were unassociated with any deficiency. These codings included camera out of water, cleanout, continue against flow, continue with flow, continue TV after jetting, end of pipe, end of push camera, end of run, infiltration, inside drop, lateral, outside drop, pipe continue, pipe diameter change, pipe direction change, pipe type, start against flow, start with flow, status, stop, and TV from other end. 9.2 CAPACITY LIMITATIONS IN EXISTING LINES Based on the future estimated population growth presented in Chapter 6 and the flow projections and modeling results found in Chapter 7, certain deficiencies were anticipated in the collection and conveyance system. The population projections and corresponding flow projections were based on four time periods: 2013 (current), 2019, 2033 and build out. The CIP is presented in three time periods: 2013 to 2019, 2019 to 2033 and lastly 2033 to build out. The identification of the capacity issues for each of these three periods is presented in Table F.5 (Appendix F). The line capacity issues together with the other known and scheduled projects and are presented in an expanded CIP for the next six year period in Table 9.3. The more distant CIPs, such as those shown for 2019 to 2033 and 2033 to build out, are based on extended population and flow forecasts and will tend to be less precise. None -the -less, they are presented for informational purposes and as an indicator of future potential capacity issues while providing the level of service presented in Chapter 4. 9-3 Packet Page 474 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # ;ofRun Comments ble CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity TOTAL Multiple locations and/or problems 8-75-8-57 0 38 0 0 38 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-58-8-57 0 30 0 0 30 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-75-8-14 0 0 28 0 28 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-8-11-7 0 26 0 0 26 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-143-12-142 0 25 0 0 25 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-53-9-212 0 25 0 0 25 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-50-8-52 0 15 8 0 23 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-109-12-110 0 20 0 0 20 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-332-8-331 0 20 0 0 20 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-224-9-202 10 10 0 0 20 Multiple locations and/or problems 1-55-1-52 0 0 20 0 20 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-84A-12-83 0 5 14 0 19 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-101-12-95 0 5 14 0 19 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-49-12-50 0 8 10 0 18 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-22-13-22A 0 18 0 0 18 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-6813-8-68 0 17 0 0 17 Multiple locations and/or problems 12N-79-13-65B 0 3 14 0 17 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-107-8-106 0 10 6 0 16 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-79-7-80 0 15 0 0 15 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-285-8-284 0 15 0 0 15 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-126-12-125 0 15 0 0 15 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-9-7-10 0 14 0 0 14 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-134-12-132 0 14 0 0 14 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-132-12-131 0 14 0 0 14 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-299-9-298 0 3 10 0 13 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-248-12-247 0 13 0 0 13 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-136-8-137 0 12 0 0 12 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-363A-9-363 0 12 0 0 12 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-3-14-3A 0 9 3 0 12 Multiple locations and/or problems 2-113A-2-113 0 11 0 0 11 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-133-12-134 0 0 10 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-66-14-65 0 10 0 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-135-8-316 5 5 0 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 1-36A-1-36 0 0 10 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-114-8-113 0 0 10 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-240-8-239 0 10 0 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-59-8-58 0 10 0 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-65-14-64 0 0 10 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-50-7-52 0 10 0 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 3-12F-3-12E 0 0 10 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-97-8-98 1 0 10 0 0 10 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Hole in Pipe - Large 12-105M-12-10 EV.3 0 0 10 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-106-12-107 0 10 0 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-107-12-108 0 10 0 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-128-12-127 0 10 0 0 10 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Pipe Repair 12-181-12-182 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-185D-12-130 0 10 0 0 10 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Pipe Repair 12-42-12-43 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Pipe Repair 12-57-12-58 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Pipe Repair 12-71-12-73 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Pipe Repair 12-73-12-75 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-93-12-90 0 10 0 0 10 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Pipe Repair 13-65A-12-7 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 PIPE REPAIR Metro Pipe Repair 14-73-14-72 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Pipe Repair 16-128-16-129 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 Granite O&M 116 176 0 12 5 4 34 5 5 4 0 10 2 0 0 2 0 6 30 5 0 15 2 0 6 0 14 8 0 1 16 16 9 5 5 5 5 4 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Packet Page 475 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # ;ofRun Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity ARL— TOTAL Granite O&M PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Pipe Repair 16-133-16-134 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 0 PIPE REPAIR Metro Pipe Repair 16-27-16-31 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 0 PIPE REPAIR Lift Station 12 Pipe Repair 1-79-1-78 8 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 0 BREACH Lift Station 4 Hole in Pipe - Large 2-64B-2-68 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 0 PIPE REPAIR Lynnwood WWTP Pipe Repair 3-65-3-66A 0 F.3 0 0 10 0 10 0 PIPE REPAIR Edmonds WWTP Pipe RepaiMW- Multiple locations and/or problems 7-3913-7-39C 7-76-7-75 0 F.3 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-77-7-76 0 10 0 0 10 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-243-8-242 0 10 0 0 10 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-280-8-281 0 10 0 0 10 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-287-8-286 0 10 0 0 10 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-303B-8-303D 1 0 10 0 0 10 0 PIPE REPAIR Storm Lines 0 0 10 0 10 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-98-8-99 0 10 0 0 10 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-59A-8-59 0 9 0 0 9 13 Multiple locations and/or problems 2-29-2-28 0 5 4 0 9 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-35-7-33B 0 5 4 0 9 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-71-8-72 0 9 0 0 9 5 BREACH Metro Hole in Pipe -Medium 10-3-10 4 0 MEDIUM F.2 0 9 0 0 9 0 BREACH Lift Station 12 Hole in Pipe -Medium 1-16-1-20 0 MEDIUM F.2 0 9 0 0 9 0 BREACH Lift Station 1 Hole in Pipe - Medium 8-245A-8-245 0 MEDIUM F.2 0 9 0 0 9 0 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Hole in Pipe - Medium 9-301-9-300 0 MEDIUM F.2 0 9 0 0 9 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-59-9-60 0 5 4 0 9 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-68-8-68A 0 8 0 0 8 31 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-6-11-5 0 8 0 0 8 6 Multiple locations and/or problems 10-6-10-5 0 8 0 0 8 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-29-14-28 0 8 0 0 8 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-225-9-224 0 8 0 0 8 2 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Hole in Pipe - Small 12-200-12-112 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-51-8-11 0 5 3 0 8 0 BREACH Lift Station 4 Hole in Pipe - Small 2-89-2-88 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 0 BREACH Lift Station 1 Hole in Pipe - Small 4-186-4-185 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 0 BREACH Lift Station 1 Hole in Pipe - Small 5-269-5-267 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 0 BREACH Lift Station 1 Hole in Pipe - Small 8-202-8-201 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 0 BREACH Lift Station 1 Hole in Pipe - Small 9-80A-9-80 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 0 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Hole in Pipe - Small INLET-7-61 0 SMALL F.2 0 8 0 0 8 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-78-8-77 0 3 4 0 7 15 BREACH Lift Station 12 Deformed 1-11-1-15 0 F.3 0 0 7 0 7 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 3-66E-3-66D 0 3 3 0 6 8 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-122-5-121 0 0 6 0 6 2 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-85K-8-85F 0 6 0 0 6 1 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-105N-12-105M 0 0 6 0 6 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-113-13-112 0 6 0 0 6 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-52A-4-53 0 0 6 0 6 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-175-8-174 1 1 0 3 3 0 6 0 1048 Walnut Street Grit (a lot) 8-2A-8-2 205 Conc 16 0 0 0 6 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-2D-8-2B 0 6 0 0 6 0 942 Alder Street Grit (a lot) 8-30-8-31 275 Conc F.1 6 0 0 0 6 0 10th at Alder Street Grit (a lot) 8-31-8-32 336 Conc F.1 6 0 0 0 6 0 Alder St at Yost Park Grit (a lot) 8-328-8-2 265 Conc F.1 6 0 0 0 6 0 1053 Alder Street Grit (a lot) 8-32A-8-32B 55 Conc F.1 6 0 0 0 6 0 10th Ave South at Walnut St Grit (a lot) 84-8-3 335 Conc F.1 6 0 0 0 6 0 935 Walnut Street Grit (a lot) 8-5-8-4 260 Conc F.1 6 0 0 0 6 0 8620 Maplewood Lane Grit (a lot) 9-139-9-137 155 Conc F.1 6 0 0 0 6 0 7122 210th Street Grease 10-23-10-25 283 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 0 Packet Page 476 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # ;ofRun Comments ble CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity ARL— TOTAL Multiple locations and/or problems 8-77-8-76 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-76-8-75 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-260-5-344 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-261-5-260 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-37-7-36 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-34-7-30 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-46-7-47 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-112-8-117 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-262A-9-262 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-150-5-336 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-95-12-94 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-72-8-73 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-139-12-138 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-16-12-17 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 2-91-2-90 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-65-7-66 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-101A-8-100 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 1-31-1-30 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-7-14-7A 5 0 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-38-7-36 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-178A-8-177A 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-30-8-29 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-51-8-50 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-273A-9-273 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-72-12-71 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-331-8-330 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-226-12-225 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-71-12-89 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 16-9-16-8 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 3-131-3-132 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-524-52A 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-299-5-300 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-281-8-282 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-117-9-116 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-264-9-266 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Metro Crack 10-10-10-7 1 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-1-11-2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 11-1A-7-39A 0 Circular- Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 11-3-11-2 0 1 Circular- Narrow F.2 1 0 5 0 0 5 9223 216th Street Black Water 12-156-13-96 380 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 1153 8th Ave S. Grit, Black Water 12-189-12-190 c/o 120 9W Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 1115 8th Ave S. Grit, Black Water 12-191-12-189 285 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 736 Fir Street Black Water 12-192-12-191 20 Conc FJ, 0 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 12-196-12-198 1 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 12-24-12-23 2 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 12-249-12-248 0 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 12-37-12-38 0 Longitudinal - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 12-55-12-56 0 Longitudinal - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 12-8-12-6 1 Longitudinal - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Metro Crack 13-20-13-15 0 1 Longitudinal - Wider F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Red Area Jetting a est 21808 Highway 99 Grease Black Water 14-22-14-24 360 Conc F.1 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 21309 76th Ave W (Drop MH) 1WGrit, Black Water 14-40-9-254 330 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 215th At 72nd Black Water 14-6-14-7 260 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 74th at 228th St Grease 14-65-14-66 320 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Packet Page 477 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # ;1t5ce Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity TOTAL 72nd Ave W. at 215th St Black Water 14-7A-14-7B Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 BREACH Metro Crack 16-103-16-106Circular-Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 240th at 78th Ave W Black Water 16-76-16-77 160 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 240th St and 78th Ave W Grit, Black Water 16-77-16-65 275 Cone FA 5 0 0 0 5 BREACH Metro Crack 17-31-17-28 1 Longitudinal - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Metro Crack 17-63-17-64 0 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 23819 76th Ave W Black Water 17-72-MairM F.1 5 0 0 0 5 23821 76th Ave Grease 17-73-17-69 232 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 BREACH Metro Crack 17-78-17-82 0 Longitudinal - Wider F.2 0 5 0 0 5 76th Ave W. at 242nd St Black Water 17-81-17-80 360 Cone FA 5 0 0 0 5 24122 76th Ave W Black Water 17-82-17-81 105 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 BREACH Lift Station 4 Crack 2-83-2-82 0 Longitudinal - Wider F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Lynnwood WWTP Crack 3-109B-3-109A 0 Circular -Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Lynnwood WWTP Crack 3-1H-3-3A2 0 1 Circular - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 VV Dirt, Grease, Grit - - - F.1 5 0 0 0 5 BREACH Lift Station 1 Crack 4-124-4-123 0 Circular - Wider F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Lift Station 1 Crack 4-217A-4-217 0 Longitudinal - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Dr. at 78th Ave W Lift Station 1 1111111§13lack Water Crack 7 5-263-5-262 200 1 Multiple - Narrow F.1 F.2 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 5 BREACH Lift Station 9 Crack 5-299-5-300 1 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH LynnwoodWWTP Crack 5-319-5-320 0 Circular - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 7601 OVD Post Office Grit 5-325-5-328 350 Cone FA 5 0 0 0 5 18209 76th Ave West Grit 5-325-5-511-11 80 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Admiral Way at Dayton Grease 7-11-7-10 80 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Admiral Way Grease 7-3-7-2 425 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Admiral Way Grease 7-4-7-3 380 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Admiral Way Grease 7-5-74 380 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Admiral Way Grease 7-6-7-5 280 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Admiral Way at West Dayton Grit 7-6-CO 125 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 BREACH Lift Station 1 Crack 7-75-7-74 1 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 Admiral Way at Dayton Grease 7-7-7-11 37 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Admiral Way Grease 7-7-7-6 35 Cone ii=lil FA 5 0 0 0 5 BREACH Lift Station 1 Crack 8-189-8-194 0 Spiral - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Lift Station 1 Crack 8-206-8-205 0 Longitudinal - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Lift Station 1 Crack 8-219H-8-219G 0 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 BREACH Lift Station 1 Crack 8-286-8-285 0 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 1033 Walnut Street Grit 8-3-8-2A 130 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 8-74-8-75 4 Multiple - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 7th Ave at Edmonds St 000F Black Water 8-99-8-101A 207 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 PROBLEM JOINTS Lift Station 1 Infiltration in the Joint 9-136-9-136A N/A Medium F.2 0 5 0 0 5 8705 Maplewood Lane 9W Grit, Black Water 9-137-9-138 340 Conc F.1 5 0 0 0 5 8610 Main Street Grit 9-16-9-19 178 Cone FA 5 0 0 0 5 PROBLEM JOINTS Lift Station 1 Infiltration in the Joint 9-170-9-172 N/A Light F.2 0 5 0 0 5 8610 Main Street Black Water 9-19-9-20 56 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Pine Ridge Park Black Water 9-202-9-201+ 165 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Bpind Ridge Park Black Water 9-202-9-224 503 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 Pine Ridge Park Black Water 9-20-9-202 430 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 76th at 212th Street S.W. Grease 9-254-9-255 305 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Crack 9-274-9-275 0 Circular- Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 7703 203 Street SW Grit 9-314-9-313 310 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 BREACH Lift Station 9 Crack 9-326-9-327 1 Longitudinal - Narrow F.2 0 5 0 0 5 7804 200th Street Black Water 9-347-9-346 130 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 7907 200th Street (Drop MH) Black Water 9-348-9-347 400 Cone F.1 5 0 0 0 5 7726 202 Place ANNELL, Grit, Blac Multiple locations and/or problems - - - 8-203-8-202 350 1 Conc 5 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 5 4 Granite O&M 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Packet Page 478 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # ;ofRun Comments ble CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity EL TOTAL Multiple locations and/or problems 11-23A-11-21 0 0 4 - 0 4 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-7G-14-7F 0 0 4 0 4 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-17-8-18 0 0 4 0 4 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-115-8-219H 0 0 4 0 4 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-162-8-161 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Broken Hole 12-178-12-179 0 F.3 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Broken 12-212-12-211 0 F.3 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Broken 12-269C-12-269D 0 Soil Visible - Large F.3 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Metro Broken 13-14-13-13 0 F.3 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Metro Broken 14-28-14-27 0 Soil Visible - Large F.3 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Broken 154E-15-4C 0 Soil Visible - Small F.3 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Lift Station 3 Broken Hole 4-75-4-74 0 F.3 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Broken Hole 7-39C-7-40 0 F.3 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Broken 8-22-8-21 0 Soil Visible - Medium F.3 1 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Edmonds WWTP Broken 8-337-8-336A 0 Soil Visible - Medium F.3 0 0 4 0 4 BREACH Lift Station 1 Broken 8- -350 0 Void Visible - Medium F.3 0 0 4 0 4 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-21A-13-21 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 542-541 0 0 3 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-246-12-243 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-10513-12-105A 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-196-4-200 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-135-5-134 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-49-7-49A 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 2-112-2-111 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-243-12-241 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-289-12-288A 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-56-14-62 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-148B-5-149 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-8E-13-166A 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 3-109H-3-109G 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-141-4-142 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-249-8-265 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-276-9-277 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Metro Heavy Root Problem 10-19-10-19B 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Edmonds WWTP Heavy Root Problem 12-159-12-160 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Edmonds WWTP Heavy Root Problem 12-293-12-293A 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Edmonds WWTP Heavy Root Problem 13-63B-13-63C 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-19-14-18 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 15-1 B-15-1C 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Edmonds WWTP Heavy Root Problem 15-313-15-3A 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Metro Heavy Root Problem 16-25-16-26 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Lift Station 10 Heavy Root Problem 2-113E-2-113 1 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Lynnwood WWTP Heavy Root Problem 3-103-3-105 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 PROBLEM JOINTS Lynnwood WWTP Joint Offset- Large 3-66A-3-66 N/A Large F.3 0 0 3 0 3 ROOTS Lynnwood WWTP Heavy Root Problem 3-84A-3-85 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Lift Station 1 Heavy Root Problem 4-144-4-145 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 PROBLEM JOINTS Lift Station 10 Joint separated - Large 4-3-2-113B N/A F.2 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Lift Station 1 Heavy Root Problem 5-30-5-28 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Lift Station 1 Heavy Root Problem 5-37-5-38 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 PROBLEM JOINTS Lift Station 7 Joint Offset - Large 7-11-7-7 N/A Large F.3 0 0 3 0 3 ROOTS Lift Station 1 Heavy Root Problem 8-207-8-206 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 PROBLEM JOINTS Lift Station 1 Joint separated - Large 8-346-8-343 N/A F.2 0 3 0 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-181-9-182 0 0 3 0 3 ROOTS Lift Station 9 Heavy Root Problem 9-341-9-340A 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 ROOTS Lift Station 9 Heavy Root Problem 9-342-9-341 0 F.2 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Packet Page 479 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # Distance of Run ft Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity TOTAL PROBLEM JOINTS Edmonds WWTP Joint Offset- Large 9-349-9-350 N/A Large F.3 0 0 3 0 3 Multiple locations and/or problems 17-61-17-84 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-78-7-79 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-267-5-261 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-3-84 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-52-8-59 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 146-145 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-60-4-62 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-UNK 1-8-330A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 10-27-10-28 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-182-8-179 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-73-8-74 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-1-8-1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-4-14-49 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-67-14-66 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 17-23-17-39 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-21A-8-51 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 743-740 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-61-7-60 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-81-7-82 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-178-8-177A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-31-8-30 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-78-8-244 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-334B-5-334A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-66-8-327 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-83-7-84 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-269-8-267 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-54-8-56 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-34-14-33 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-18-8-55 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-9A-7-35 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-4-8-5 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-60-8-59A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-87-8-86 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-54-12-53 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-109-8-193 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-121-12-119 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-123-12-121 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-13-12-14 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-14-12-15 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-156-12-155 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-87-12-86 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-166A-13-166 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-81A-13-81B 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-7L-14-7B 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-156-5-151 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-56-7-55 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-167-8-165 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-257-8-257A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-291A-8-291 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-298-8-297 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-329A-8-329 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-5-8-6 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-155-8-352 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-347-9-348 0 0 0 0 0 Granite O&M 116 28 28 25 24 23 0 19 19 18 18 17 16 16 16 16 16 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 12 12 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 Packet Page 480 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # ;ofRun Comments ble CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity ARL— TOTAL Multiple locations and/or problems 12-102-12-101 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-28-8-2 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-157-13-156 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-56-13-57 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 3-94-3-93 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-325-5N-11 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-7-5-8 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-197-8-199 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-70-8-71 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-99-8-316 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-175-9-177 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-20-9-19 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-314-9-366 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-364-9-363 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-175-12-146 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 16-106-16-110 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 16-59-16-60 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-131-4-100 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-134-4-133 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-291-8-283 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-43-844 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-135-12-134 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-160-12-149 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-208-12-207 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-287-12-286 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 16-37-16-38 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 2-27-2-25 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-30-4-28 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-14-5-15 0 0 0 0 0 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-246-5-245 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-74-5-72 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-265-8-266 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-55-8-55A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-11-9-10 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-26213-9-262A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-273-9-274 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-287-9-286 0 0 0 0 0 ondsWWTP Probl rals-Connections 11-2-11-7 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-21A-11-21 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 11-7-11-9 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-111-12-68 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-119-12-117 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-124-12-123 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-125-12-123 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-127-12-125 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-129-12-127 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-137-12-136 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-144-12-146 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-144-12-146 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-147-12-148 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-148-12-141 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-151A-12-151 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-154-12-153 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-17-12-18 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Granite O&M 116 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Packet Page 481 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # ;N/A Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity TOTAL Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-209-12-207 F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-2-12-1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-46-12-46A N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-47-1249 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-5-12-2 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-6-12-5 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-69-12-67 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-74-12-73 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-90-12-87 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 12-94A-12-94 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-98-12-96 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Problem Laterals - Connections 13-146-13-145 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 13-87-13-88 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Problem Laterals - Connections 1-39-1-38 N/A F.1 Lateral Bloc 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 13-99-13-98 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Problem Laterals - Connections 14-47-1448 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Problem Laterals - Connections 14-70-14-69 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 15-3C-15-3B N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Problem Laterals - Connections 16-99-16-102 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Problem Laterals - Connections 1-9-1-9A N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 4 Problem Laterals - Connections 2-131-2-132 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 3-130-3-129 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 3-157-3-156 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-110-4-109 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 4-119-4-121 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 4-13-442 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 4-171-4-173A N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 3 Problem Laterals - Connections 4-58-4-59 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 3 Problem Laterals - Connections 4-62-4-63 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-113-5-111 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-137-5-136 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 5-160-5-159 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-239-5-238 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-240B-5-240A N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 9 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-309-5-304 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 5-324-5-324A N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-55-5-54 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-67-5-66 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-81-5-80 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-87-5-86 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 10 Problem Laterals - Connections 5-88G-5-88E N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 7-59-7-57 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-60-7-56 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 7-69-7-70 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 7-80-7-61 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-150-8-149 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-160-8-159 N/A F.1 Lateral Bloc 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-163-8-162 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-165-8-164 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-172A-8-172 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-183-8-182 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-188B-8-188A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-195-8-196 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-255-8-254 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-257A-8-254 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Granite O&M SOL- 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Packet Page 482 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # Distance of Run ft Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity ARL- TOTAL Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-285-8-284 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-28-8-27 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 8-303-8-303A N/A F.1 Lateral Bloc 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-32-8-31 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-335-8-UNK 1 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-35-8-36 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-53-8-54 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-55A-8-57 N/A F.1 Lateral Bloc 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-59-8-58 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 8-64-8-63 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-64B-8-64A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-159-9-158 1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP PR5510111 LIMMIMTRIMMIM1 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 9-235-9-235A N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Laterals - Connections 9-242-9-241 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Problem Laterals - Connections 9-259-9-251 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Problem Laterals - Connections 9-262C-9-262B N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP N/A F.1 Lateral Bloc 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-270-9-308 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-289-9-290 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Problem Laterals - Connections 9-36-9-37 N/A F.1 Connection 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 10-25-10-26 0 F.1 Camera Uni 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-14A-11-14 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 11-15-11-14 0 F.1 Camera U 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-23C-11-21 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-5-11-3 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 12-109A-12-111 0 F.1 Camera Unq 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-140-12-139 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 12-149A-12-149 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 12-180-12-181 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-182A-12-215 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 12-185F-12-185A 108 F.1 W 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-185G-12-185F 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 12-189-12-191 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 12-190-12-189 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-19-12-28 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 111111111V 12-204-12-203 0 F.1 Sag 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-250-12-249 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 12-26-12-24 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 13-120-13-121 11 F.1 Sag 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-22A-13-22B 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 13-36-13-35 5 F.1 Sag 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 13-39-13-37 12 F.1 Sag 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 13-4A-13-4 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 13-57-13-59 14 F.1 Sag 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 13-59-13-60 F.1 Sag 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 14-11-14-10 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 14-16-14-11 9999694824 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 14-21-14-4 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Depressions in Pipe 1-43-1-24 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 14-35-14-34 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 14-38-14-37 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 14-3E-14-3F 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 4-46-14-METER 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 14-48-14-50 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Granite O&M SOL- 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Packet Page 483 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # ;ofRun Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity ARL- TOTAL Metro Depressions in Pipe 14-49-14-49D F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0Metro Depressions in Pipe 14-69-14-68 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 16-101-16-102 3 F.1 Sag 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 16-57-16-75 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-19-17-23 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-38-17-37 4 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-39-17-46 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-46-1747 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-47-17-48 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-48-17-59 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-60-17-61 45 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 17-75-17-78 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-77-17-78 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-84-17-85 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-85-17-86 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-86-17-87 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-87-17-88 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-88-17-89 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-95-17-94 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-96-17-95 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-97-17-96 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 17-98-17-97 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 2-113-2-112 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Depressions in Pipe 2-47-249 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Depressions in Pipe 3-12-2-2 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 3-1 D-3-2G 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Depressions in Pipe 3-23-3-24 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Depressions in Pipe 3-2H-3-21 24 F.1 Sag 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Depressions in Pipe 3-8-3-9 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-100-4-100A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-132-4-131 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-163-4-162 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 3 Depressions in Pipe 4-65-4-67 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 3 Depressions in Pipe 4-70A-4-71-LIFT 3 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pipe 4-79-4-78 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-86-4-85 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Depressions in Pipe 5-144-5-145 1 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Depressions in Pipe 5-177-5-176 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Depressions in Pipe 5-187-5-191 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Depressions in Pipe 5-195A-5-196 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 9 Depressions in Pipe 5-283-5-288 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 9 Depressions in Pipe 5-300-5-301 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Depressions in Pipe 5-321A-5-322 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Depressions in Pipe 5-322-5N-2 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 9 Depressions in Pipe 5-334A-5-334 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 7-23-7-53D 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 7-30C-7-30 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 7-32C-7-32D 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 7-47-7-50 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 7-48-747 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-123-8-120 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pipe 8-147-8-146 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pipe 8-22213-8-222A 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-250-8-249 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 2 Depressions in Pipe 8-296-8-297 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Granite O&M 116 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Packet Page 484 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # ;fR Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity TOTAL Multiple locations and/or problems 8-29-8-43 0 0 0 0 0Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pipe 8-303D-8-303C F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-311-8-312 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-321-7-72 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pipe 8-340-8-339 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 8-34-8-35 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 8-37-8-39 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-39A-8-41 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 8-49-8-53 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-81 B-8-81 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 8-89-8-108 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 8-91-8-106 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pipe 9-100-9-101 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pipe 9-120-9-121 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pipe 9-137-9-139 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-157-9-156 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-188-9-189 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-193-9-196 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-19-9-18 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-201-9-202 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-202-9-20 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Depressions in Pipe 9-253-9-254 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-271-9-270 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-274A-9-274 15 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-279-9-278 16 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-319-9-319A 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-321-9-322 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Depressions in Pipe 9-346-9-347 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Depressions in Pipe 9-55A-9-55 0 F.1 Camera Un 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-12-11-11 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-78-12-77 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-67-13-66 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 13-8A-13-8B 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 2-84-2-83 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 3-109G-3-109F 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-137-4-133 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-140-4-139 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-9-4-7 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-278-5-271 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 744A-8-331 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-46A-7-46 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-185-8-186 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-244-8-243 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-289-8-288 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-41-8-42 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 846-847 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-86-8-112 1 0 0 0 0 0 Words WWTP Medium Root Problem 11-10-11-9B 0 FA 1 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-14-11-13 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 11-23B-11-21 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Edmonds WWTP Problem Joint- Offset Medium 12-153-12-150 12-266-12-265 0 N/A F.1 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Medium Root Problem 12-288-12-287 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP IMediurn Root Problem 12-33-1211 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-89-12-88 0 0 0 0 0 Granite O&M 116 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Packet Page 485 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # ;OAce Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity ARL— TOTAL Edmonds WWTP Joint Gasket Exposed - Medium 13-100-13-98 F.1 Medium 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Medium Root Problem 13-112-13-114 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Medium Root Problem 13-8D-13-8C 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Medium Root Problem 13-9A-13-166A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Medium Root Problem 14-44-14-43 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 16-108-16-109 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Problem Joint - Offset Medium 16-116-16-98 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 17-15-17-16 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Medium Root Problem 17-44-17-46 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 10 Medium Root Problem 2-109-2-108 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 2-31-2-32 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Multiple locations and/or problems 3-121-3-120 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 3-121-1-3-121 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 3-21-3-2J 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP roblem Joint- Offset Medium 3-60-3- F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Root Problem 4-133-4-13 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-138-4-137 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Root Problem 4-143-4-150 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Root Problem 4-210-4-213A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Root Problem 4-40-4-39 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 3 Medium Root Problem 4-56-4-57 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Medium Root Problem 5-149-5-150 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-195-5-195A 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Medium Root Problem 5-217-5-216 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 5-281A-5-278 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 9 Medium Root Problem 5-317-5-316 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 9 Medium Root Problem 5-330E-5-330D 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Root Problem 5-38-5-39 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Root Problem 5-79-5-70 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 10 Medium Root Problem 5-88A-5-88B 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 onds WWTP Multiple locations and/or problems 7-44-7-44A 7-64-7-62 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 7-86-7-87A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-101 B-8-101A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-13-8-21A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-172J-8-172F 0 0 0 0 0 TI Station 1 Edmonds WWTP Medium Root Problem Problem Joint - Offset Madium 8-18A-8-18 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-193-8-192 0 0 0 0 0 n 1 Multiple locations and/or problems 6A 8-21-8-21A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-2-8-2A 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-288-8-287 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-2A-8-3 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-316-8-135 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-317-8-316 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-324-7-68 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 8-44-8-45 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Medium Root Problem -111-8-189D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Joint- Offset Medium 9-184-9-185 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Medium Root Problem 9-185-9-186 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Medium Root Problem 9-222A-9-227 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-84-9-83 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Meters IWorner of Hwy 99 and 224th St Clean Flume 14 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Granite O&M 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 Packet Page 486 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # Distance of Run ft Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity ARL- TOTAL Miscellaneous Meters 22304 Hwy 99 Clean Flume 14 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Meters Edmonds Way Robinhood Lanes Brush Sensor 15 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Meters 244th and Hwy 99 - NW Corner Clean Flume 16 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Meters Denny's on SR 104 and Hwy 99 Clean Flume 17 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Meters Old Ballinger Pump Station Clean Flume 17 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Meters East Side, NE Corner of Ballinger PS Clean Flume 17 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Meters Ballinger Golf Course at 74th Ave Clean Flume 17 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 11-19-11-18 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-108-12-109 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-12-12-13 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-151-12-22 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-163-12-162 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-165-12-164 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-18OA-12-180 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-18-12-19 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Joints - Offset 12-2041-12-204H F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Joints - Offset 12-204J-12-2041 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Joint separated - Small 12-207-12-206 N/A F.1 Small 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-217-12-216 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-22-12-20 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-234B-12-234A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-284F-12-284 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 12-70-12-69 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Roots 12-84-12-84A 42 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Root Problem 13-133-13-134 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Roots 13-139-13-142 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Problem Joint- Offset Small 13-55-13-56 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Root Problem 13-8-13-813 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 13-89-9-11 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Root Problem 14-33-14-32 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Root Problem 14-7C-14-7A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 15-1C-15-2 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Roots 15-3A-15-2A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Joint separated - Small 16-115-16-116 N/A F.1 Small 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Root Problem 16-32-16-33 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 16-33-16-36 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Root Problem 16-4-16-3 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Root Problem 16-46-1647 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Root Problem 16-54-16-57 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Light Root Problem 16-91-16-103 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Roots 17-24-17-25 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Roots 17-25-17-26 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Roots 17-55-17-58 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Roots 17-57-17-58 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 10 Problem Joint - Offset Small 2-111-2-110 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 4 Roots 2-90-2-89 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Light Root Problem 3-133-3-134 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Problem Joint- Offset Small 3-140-3-137 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Problem Joint- Offset Small 3-162-3-163 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Light Root Problem 3-63-3-64 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Problem Joint - Offset Small 3-8F-3-8A N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 4-109-4-108 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 4-115-8-219H 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 4-145-4-143 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 4-170-4-171 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Packet Page 487 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # Distance of Run ft Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity TOTAL Granite O&M Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 4-186A-4-186 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 4-212-4-213 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 4-221-4-220 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 3 Light Root Problem 4-45-4-46 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 3 Light Root Problem 4-46-4-47 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 3 Light Root Problem 4-69A-4-70 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 5-118C-5-118B 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 5-123-4-186A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lynnwood WWTP Light Root Problem 5-13-5-12 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 5-141A-5-141 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lynnwood WWTP Light Root Problem 5-194-5-195 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lynnwood WWTP Light Root Problem 5-218-5-210 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 5-252A-5-252B 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 5-264-5-263 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 9 Light Root Problem 5-299-5-300 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lynnwood WWTP Roots 5-324A-5N-3 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 9 Light Root Problem 5-330-5-329 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 5-344-5-345 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Roots 5-52-5-51 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lynnwood WWTP Light Root Problem 5-75-5-74 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 10 Roots 5-8813-5-88C 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 10 Light Root Problem 5-89-5-99 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 7-62-7-61 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 7-82-7-83 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 7-85-7-86 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-102-8-101 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-137-8-292A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-152-8-150 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-172K-8-172G 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-177-8-176 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-187A-8-187 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-188A-8-188C 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Roots 8-189B-8-189A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-209-8-210 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-219A-8-219C 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-239-8-238 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Roots 8-246-8-247 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-254-8-253 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Joint Separated 8-263-8-252 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Problem Joint - Offset Small 8-273-8-272 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 2 Light Root Problem 8-294-8-295 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-323-8-321 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 8-69-8-70 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 8-95-8-96 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 9-134-9-136 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 9-177-9-158A 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 9-22513-9-225 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Edmonds WWTP Problem Joint- Offset Small 9-235A-9-235B N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Edmonds WWTP Problem Joint- Offset Small 9-23513-9-217 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 9-237-9-236 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Multiple locations and/or problems 9-273C-9-273B 0 0 0 0 0 1 Edmonds WWTP Light Root Problem 9-360-9-346 6 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Problem Joints - Offset 9-44-9-43 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lift Station 1 Light Root Problem 9-85-9-86 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Metro Light Root Problem INLET-13-167 0 F.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Packet Page 488 of 546 Table 9.2 Ranking and Composite of Pipeline Capital Improvement Projects - Without Granite O&M Ranking and Point Assignment Problem Category Location Reason Manhole # Distance of Run ft Comments Table CIP No. Red Area Granite - Trechless Granite - Dig up and Replace Capacity Am TOTAL Lake Ballinger Way and 205th St Clean Flume F.1 0 0 0 - 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 10-4-10-5 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Debris and Deposits 11-18-7-33 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Debris and Deposits 12-100-12-99 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Debris and Deposits 12-10-12-11 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Debris and Deposits 12-144-12-146 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Debris and Deposits 12-177-12-176 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 12-292-12-293 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Debris and Deposits 13-236-9-250 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Debris and Deposits 13-47-1346 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 9126 Bowdoin N/A 13-C/O C/O PVC F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Debris and Deposits 1-51-1-50 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Debris and Deposits 1-57-1-56 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Debris and Deposits 16-39-1640 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 240th At Highway 99 None 16-60-16-59 330 Cone F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Debris and Deposits 16-65-16-77 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 12 Debris and Deposits 1-67-1-66 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Debris and Deposits 16-82-16-83 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Debris and Deposits 16-95-16-96 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Debris and Deposits 17-43-1742 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 PIPE REPAIR Lift Station 12 Pipe Repair 1-75-1-74 4 F.3 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Debris and Deposits 2-11-2-10 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 4 Debris and Deposits 2-62-2-63 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Joint Gasket Exposed - Light 3-89-3-72 N/A F.1 Light 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Debris and Deposits 4-135-4-136 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Debris and Deposits 4-34-4-36 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Debris and Deposits 4-39-4-41 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple locations and/or problems 4-72A-4-72 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Debris and Deposits 4-83-4-82 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Debris and Deposits 4-98-4-97 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lynnwood WWTP Debris and Deposits 5-164-5-163 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 8015 196th St SW 5-334A CO to main 60 PVC F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Debris and Deposits 7-33-7-32 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Debris and Deposits 7-39A-7-39B N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 Debris and Deposits 8-291 B-8-291 A N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 7th Ave at Sprague St None 8-316-8-99 290 Cone F.1 0 0 0 0 0 7th at Edmonds St None 8-99-8-98 102 Cone F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Debris and Deposits 9-247-9-248 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Edmonds WWTP Debris and Deposits 9-272-9-271 N/A F.1 0 0 0 0 0 Lift Station 1 1DebrIs and Deposits 1 9-62-9-61 1 N/A I I F.1 I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Granite O&M Packet Page 489 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 9.3 BASIS FOR CIP COSTS ESTIMATES Construction cost estimates were prepared for most of the CIP projects listed in Table 9.3. Documentation for these estimates can be found in Appendix E. Those projects that do not have supporting cost estimates are based on actual bid amounts or detailed cost estimating done during the design phases. Certain assumption needed to be made in terms of quantities and unit prices. Those assumptions are presented below. Several unit price items were used to determine the cost estimates. Quantities were estimated for each item and unit prices were estimated from recent bid results. An estimated construction cost was developed for each project including contingencies and sales tax. Total project costs were then estimated for each improvement. All costs are 2013 dollars and summarized on Table 9.3. CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES -ASSUMPTIONS • 10% of the construction costs are Mobilization. • Traffic control at $5/LF of mainline sewer. • Trench dewatering estimated at $5/LF. • Sheeting, shoring and bracing estimated at $5/LF. • Saw cutting along both sides of the trench estimated to be required for the entire length of the mainline sewer. • Pavement removal is limited to a trench width of 60 inches, plus an allowance of 12 inches on both sides of the trench, for a total width of 84 inches. • Temporary sewer bypass estimated to be $5/LF for all cut and cover installations. • Import trench backfill is estimated based on the assumption that 50% of all excavation will require imported material. Maximum width is 60 inches and an average depth of 8 feet. • Crushed surfacing, base course is assumed to be 8 inches deep and a maximum pay width of 84 inches. 9-19 Packet Page 490 of 546 TABLE 9.3 Capital Improvements Projects Sub- Basin Description CIP No. Figure Reference See Appendix A Base Year Cost (2013 dollars) See Appendix E pp Previously Spent 2013 Cost 2013 Cost Basis Basis 2013 2014 01 2016 2018 2019 2012-2019 Total 2019-2033 Total 2033- Buildout Collection System $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 PUMP Collection System Subtotal STATIONS PS # 1 PS # 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 PS#3 $0 PS # 4 $0 PS#5 $0 PS # 6 $0 PS#7 $0 PS # 8 $0 PS#9 $0 PS # 10 $0 PS # 11 $0 PS # 12 $0 PS # 14 $0 PS # 15 $0 Edmond Pump Station Subtotal WWTP Variable Frequency Drive upgrade WWTP-1 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 Upgrade Flow Telemetry Equipment WWTP-2 $25,000 $25,000 Switchgear Upgrade WWTP-3 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 Incinerator Testing and Compliance WWTP-4 $240,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $200,000 $2,440,000 Secondary Clarifier Steel Coating WWTP-5 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $135,000 Recoat Primary Clarifier #1 Steel Equipment/Concrete Repair WWTP-6 $75,000 $75,000 Install Weir Washers on Secondary Clarifiers #1 and #3 WWTP-7 $100,000 $100,000 $200,000 Chlorine Contact Chamber Inspection and Coating WWTP-8 $250,000 $250,000 $500,000 Repair Floor in Clarifier 403 WWTP-9 $200,000 $200,000 Joint/Concrete Repair WWTP-10 $100,000 $100,000 Control System Upgrades Phase 1 WWTP-11 $100,000 $100,000 Energy Project WWTP-12 $20,000 $20,000 Packet Page 491 of 546 TABLE 9.3 Capital Improvements Projects Sub- Basin Description Iffil CIP No. Figure Reference See Appendix A Base Year Cost (2013 dollars) See Appendix E pp Previously Spent 2013 Cost 2013 Cost Basis Basis 2013 2014 01 2016 2018 2019 2012-2019 Total 2019-2033 Total 2033- Buildout In Plant Hatches WWTP-13 $10,000 $10,000 Facility Improvement WWTP-14 $500,000 $500,000 Polymer Make Up Equipment WWTP-15 $80,000 $80,000 Control System Upgrades Phase 2 WWTP-16 $75,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $225,000 Unanticipated Plant and Operational Improvements/Repairs WWTP-17 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $400,000 $500,000 $750,000 $1,850,000 Convert 200 HP blower to Turbo Blower WWTP-18 $400,000 $400,000 Ugrade Control Valve Actuators on Effluent Pumps WWTP-19 $35,000 $35,000 Upgrade Heat Pumps in Building 700 WWTP-20 $50,000 $50,000 Screenings Improvements WWTP-21 $25,000 $100,000 $125,000 Bilt Filter Press Energy Project WWTP-22 $50,000 $500,000 $550,000 Diesel Day Tank WWTP-23 $6,000 $6,000 Automatic Flow Shearing Process WWTP-24 $35,000 $35,000 Chemical Use Area WWTP-25 $25,000 $100,000 $125,000 Electronic O&M Documentation WWTP-26 $50,000 $25,000 $75,000 Convert Aeration Basin #2 to Plug Flow WWTP-27 $300,000 Subtotal EDMONDS WWTP $0 $2,070,000 $1,825,000 $2,005,000 $661,000 $725,000 $1,050,000 $1,050,000 $9,386,000 $0 $0 TOTAL COST #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #RENNI Packet Page 492 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN • Crushed surfacing, top course is assumed to be 4 inches deep and a maximum pay width of 84 inches. • HMA is based on a maximum thickness of 3 inches applied over a width of 84 inches for the entire length of all mainline sewers. • Restoration is based on 5% of the construction subtotal. • Cleanup and testing is based on 5% of the construction subtotal. • Manholes - It is assumed that the terminal manholes will be salvaged and only the intermediate manholes will be replaced or modified. • Lift station rehabilitation assumes that no excavation will be necessary and that the needed increase in the capacity can be accomplished with pump and motor changes, and electrical revisions. ALLIED AND OTHER COSTS — ASSUMPTIONS • 40% contingency to address pre -design level of cost estimating. • 9.0% State Sales Tax. • 12% of the estimated construction cost is for engineering design, survey, geotechnical investigation and permits. • 7% of the estimated construction cost is for construction services. • 2% of the estimated construction cost is for District Administration. • 1 % of the estimated construction cost is for legal. 9.4 CIP - CAPACITY ISSUES AND OTHER PROJECTS — 2013 TO 2019 9.5 CIP - CAPACITY ISSUES — 2019 TO 2033 9.6 CIP - CAPACITY ISSUES — 2033 TO BUILD OUT 9-24 Packet Page 493 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 9.7 CMOM The EPA has issued draft regulations implementing the Capacity, Management, Operations, and Maintenance (CMOM) program. CMOM requires the development of facility maintenance plans, tracking of asset condition, establishing level of service and performance goals. Key requirements are outlined below: 1. Capacity Assurance Plan • evaluate existing system; • identify capacity deficiencies; • establish short and long-term remedies to capacity deficiencies. 2. Management Program • specify program goals; • establish organizational structure • legal authority (e.g. service agreements) to manage flow; • establish program measures and ranking of O&M activities based on current capacity and structural deficiencies. • audit documentation of changes in system condition and performance • establish standards and requirements for new construction as well as rehabilitation and repair. 3. Overflow Response Plan (ORP) • steps to respond to SSO's and to implement response plan 4. Audit Operations and Maintenance performance • initial assessment of O&M activities; • establish performance goals, measures and priorities • perform periodic audits to identify progress and required revisions to the program. The City Staff has utilized an asset tracking system called Granite. This system is a data management system that chronicles the condition of all known problem segments in the City. This data is included in Appendix F. This data was integrated into the CIP listings in this chapter. 9.8 WASTEWATER REUSE RCW 90.48.112 requires consideration of reclaimed water in wastewater plans. Although the law does not specifically require implementation of a reclaimed water alternative, it strongly encourages it. RCW 90.46.005 states in part that to the extent that reclaimed water is appropriate for beneficial uses, it should be so used to preserve potable water for drinking purposes. 9.9.1 Regulatory Requirements 9-25 Packet Page 494 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Beneficial use of reclaimed water for irrigation of crops, supplemental stream or wetland flow enhancement, groundwater recharge, toilet and urinal flushing, etc. requires treatment to reclamation and reuse standards, which are more stringent than the conventional secondary standards required for surface water disposal using an outfall. The added treatment facilities required include effluent coagulation, filtration, additional disinfection and more treatment facility redundancy and reliability requirements. The use of reclaimed water is permitted in the State of Washington, and is jointly regulated by the State Departments of Health (Division of Drinking Water); and Department of Ecology. The "State of Washington Reclamation and Reuse Standards", September, 1997 (Publication #97-23) provides the guidance for acceptable reclaimed water treatment and use. Under all reuse options, the proposal must demonstrate the beneficial uses being made of the reclaimed water. Membrane Bio-reactors (MBRs) are not specifically mentioned in this publication, though it has generally and widely been adopted as an acceptable treatment process meeting reuse standards. The State Reclamation Standards define four levels of treatment required depending on the final use of the reclaimed water. Class A reclaimed water is the highest quality and can be utilized for any of the permitted uses. In addition to conventional secondary activated sludge treatment (oxidation and sedimentation), Class A reclaimed water requires coagulation, filtration, and disinfection to less than 2.2 total coliform per 100 ml, which is a very stringent disinfection standard. The MBR treatment process (with disinfection) will also produce Class A reclaimed water (with added disinfection), because the coagulation occurs within the activated sludge process itself and filtration is provided through the fine pore membranes. Classes B, C, and D reclaimed water do not require filtration, and Class C and D have less stringent disinfection requirements. Use of these classes is generally restricted to irrigation of non-food crops (such as forest land) with restricted public exposure. Because the most logical uses of this reclaimed water involve irrigation of golf courses and public parks, which are subject to human exposure, treatment to Class A reclaimed water standards is recommended. In addition, the reclaimed water must be reliably generated. Emergency storage or alternative discharge options must be provided for upset conditions. Excess flow will continue to be discharged to Puget Sound. The standards also require automatic alarms, treatment unit redundancy, and qualified operations staffing. 9.9.2 Potential Uses and Demand While reuse of reclaimed wastewater treatment plant effluent is becoming more and more common, the demand for year-round reclaimed effluent in the Pacific Northwest is 9-26 Packet Page 495 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN very limited, particularly in a suburban setting. Nevertheless, the City has made accommodations for use of reclaimed water at the WWTP. In assessing the potential use of Class A reclaimed water, sites were identified for irrigation and/or industrial, commercial and public use. Irrigation can include parks, commercial nurseries, golf courses, and cemeteries. Industrial uses of reclaimed water can include boiler feed, cooling, process water, sewer flushing, and processing plant wash down. There were no industrial sites identified in the City's service area. Thus, the main uses of reclaimed water from the WWTP would be irrigation of open access areas. Based on the water use records, the following are the top six users and their annual water usage. Rank Name Customer Type Annual Volume, MG Average Daily, gpd 1 2 3 4 5 6 Table 9.4 provides a rough estimate of the total potential peak reclaimed water demand from sites in the vicinity (within two miles) of the WWTP. Table 9.4 Potential Application Sites for Reclaimed Water Site Name Criterion Total estimated quantity Estimated (irrigable) quantity available Reclaimed water application , rate (gpd/ac) average/peak Day Average seasonal demand for reclamation (mgd)2 Peak day demand for reclamation 2 (mgd) gpd/acre = gallons per day per acre. 9-27 Packet Page 496 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN 2 mgd = million gallons per day 3 Irrigable acreage based on field estimation; 25% total acreage = irrigable acreage in parks; 100% total irrigatable acreage in golf course. 4 Total landscape area 5 Number of trucks for average seasonal usage = 2 trucks per day, versus 4 trucks for peak day usage The peak day demands for reclaimed water are based on all potential nearby irrigation users. 9.9.3 Reclaimed Water Treatment Facilities at WWTP Effluent Quality The effluent produced by the City's WWTP would likely require an effluent filiter added to the last stage of a secondary treatment process and disinfected using a hypochlorite system will meet the bacteriological limit of 200 MPN of fecal coliform per 100 ml of sample based on the Class C reclaimed water standard. This system can be designed within the space constraints at the WWTPs. It is assumed that the reclaimed water will be pumped to off -site irrigation users, such as golf courses and parks and that no on -site storage will be provided. 9.9.4 Reclaimed Water Conveyance and Distribution Conveyance Alternatives Conveyance of reclaimed water by pumping and hauling by tanker trucks are two common practices. The practicality of conveyance using either method depends on the quantity of reclaimed water to be conveyed and the transport distance. Due to the residential location of the plant and the impracticality of hauling reclaimed water, only pumped conveyance via pipeline has been considered for irrigational uses. Truck hauling could be considered for other general uses, such as sewer flushing, street washing, dust control, roadside planter watering, etc. Conveyance and Distribution Facilities The conveyance of reclaimed water from the WWTP would require a pump station and xxxx feet of x" diameter force main. 9.9.5 Economic Analysis of Reuse A present worth factor of 12.46 based on 5% interest rate and 20-year project life is used for economic analysis. Estimated Capital Cost of Treatment and Conveyance 9-28 Packet Page 497 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Site work $100,000 Chlorine contact channel modification 300,000 Sodium hypochlorite storage and metering pumps 100,000 Reclaimed water booster station 300,000 Conveyance 500,000 Distribution 200,000 Subtotal $1,500,000 Contingencies (a)- 40% 600,000 Subtotal $2,100,000 State Sales Tax (a)- 9.0% 187,000 Total Construction $2,287,000 Engineering @ 12% $274,000 Construction Management @ 7% 160,000 District Administration @ 2% 46,000 Legal (a)- 1 % 23,000 Total Capital $2,790,000 Amortized Annual Capital Cost $224,000 Estimated Annual O&M Cost of Treatment and Conveyance Treatment & Conveyance Chemicals $6,000 Electricity 5,000 Equipment maintenance and replacement 12,000 Labor 15,000 Total Annual O&M Cost $38,000 Total Annual Cost $262,000 Based on an average usage of 0.53 mgd, the annual total Hof consumption is 193.5 million gallons or 258,600 ccf. At $2/ccf, the annual of cost of water is $517,000. The saving in using reclaimed water would be $255,000 per year. 9.9.6 Satellite Reclaimed Water System A satellite (scalping) reclaimed water facility could be designed and constructed to produce Class A reclaimed water for irrigational uses. A present worth factor of 12.46 based on 5% interest rate and 20-year project life is used for economic analysis. Estimated Capital Cost of Treatment and Conveyance Land $500,000 9-29 Packet Page 498 of 546 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN Site work 100,000 MBR plant 3,500,000 Conveyance 500,000 Distribution 200,000 Misc 100,000 Subtotal $4,900,000 Contingencies 40% 1,960,000 Subtotal $6,860,000 State Sales Tax (@- 9.0% 611,000 Total Construction $7,471,000 Engineering @ 12% 897,000 Construction Management @ 7% 523,000 District Administration @ 2% 149,000 Legal (a)- 1 % 75,000 Total Capital $9,115,000 Amortized Annual Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost of Treatment and Conveyance Treatment Chemicals Electricity Equipment maintenance/replacement Membrane replacement Diffuser replacement Labor Total Conveyance $6,000 44,000 24,000 35,000 3,000 60.000 $192,000 Electricity $4,000 Equipment maintenance/replacement 8,000 Labor 7,000 Total $19,000 Total Annual O&M Cost of Treatment and Conveyance Total Annual Cost Based 7WMn average usage of 0.52 mgd, the annual total 189.8 million gallons or 253,700 ccf. At $2/ccf, the annual of The subsidy needed to meet the amortization and O& $732,000 $211,000 $943,000 M 9-30 Packet Page 499 of 546 AM-5822 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Mike De Lilla Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Subject Title Adoption of revenue bond ordinance and resolution. Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Tyne: Action Information Recommendation Forward item for approval to the June 18, 2013 Council meeting. Previous Council Action None. 8. G. Narrative The ordinance provides for the sale of a revenue bond for the water, sewer and storm utilities. Repayment of the bond will be over a 20 year period. The bond will be wrapped with the existing 2011 revenue bond so that payments will be consistent over the next 20 years. A copy of the draft ordinance will be available at the committee meeting. Inbox Reviewed By Engineering Robert English Public Works Kody McConnell City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Final Approval Date: 06/07/2013 Form Review Date 06/06/2013 12:07 PM 06/06/2013 12:30 PM 06/06/2013 01:34 PM 06/06/2013 05:25 PM 06/07/2013 08:39 AM Started On: 06/04/2013 09:05 AM Packet Page 500 of 546 AM-5820 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Mike De Lilla Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Subject Title Discussion regarding future city utility rate adjustments. Recommendation None. Previous Council Action None. Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Tyne: Information Information 8. H. Narrative The City of Edmonds operates and maintains water, sewer, and storm and surface water utilities. Staff will review the present and future challenges of operating and maintaining each system and discuss strategies regarding future rate adjustments to support each program. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 06/05/2013 04:44 PM Public Works Phil Williams 06/05/2013 05:46 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/06/2013 10:13 AM Mayor Dave Earling 06/06/2013 10:26 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 06/06/2013 11:27 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 06/04/2013 08:50 AM Final Approval Date: 06/06/2013 Packet Page 501 of 546 AM-5841 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Bertrand Hauss Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Tyne: Action Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #7 with David Evans & Associates for the Five Corners Roundabout Proj ect. Recommendation Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the June 18, 2013 City Council meeting. Previous Council Action On July 12, 2011, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Local Agency Standard Consultant Agreement with David Evans & Associates for the Five Corners Roundabout project. On July 17, 2012, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental #3 with David Evans & Associates for the Five Comers Roundabout project. On October 9, 2012, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental #4 with David Evans & Associates for the Five Comers Roundabout project. Narrative The proposed supplemental agreement includes the following revisions / additions to the plans, specifications, and estimates: • Additional work on Franchise utility plans due to the removal of one of the Comcast poles along 212th St. SW • Addition of several vaults within the project limits for the City of Edmonds underground fiber optic line • Water quality treatment change from filterras to filter cartridges, resulting in changes to the drainage plans, profiles, details, and the Storm Drainage Technical Information Report (TIR) • Illumination work, resulting in modifications to the Illumination plans / detail The cost of the supplemental agreement will be provided at the Committee meeting and will be paid by grant funding and local funding. The design and right of way acquisition phase are scheduled for completion in Fall 2013 and the construction phase is scheduled to begin in Spring 2014. Attachments Scope of Work Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 06/06/2013 03:52 PM Public Works Kody McConnell 06/06/2013 04:20 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/06/2013 04:21 PM Packet Page 502 of 546 Mayor Dave Earling 06/06/2013 05:18 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 06/07/2013 08:39 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 06/06/2013 01:22 PM Final Approval Date: 06/07/2013 Packet Page 503 of 546 Exhibit A-1 Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project SCOPE OF SERVICES Supplement No. 7 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 June 6, 2013 Packet Page 504 of 546 City of Edmonds Five Corners Roundabout Intersection Improvement Project SCOPE OF SERVICES Supplement No. 7 Introduction Supplement No. 7 modifies the original agreement dated August 5, 2011, and Supplements 1 through 6, with the following revisions. Section 2.0 Project Management and Quality Control 2.1 Project Management and File Management The assumptions of Section 2.1 are supplement with the following: Duration of the project will an additional 3 months, for a total of 21 months. An additional 3 monthly meetings with the City shall occur at City offices. Section 7.0 Utility Coordination 7.2 Utility Conflict Resolution Section 7.2 is supplemented with the following: Prepare for and attend one additional utility coordination meeting; prepare meeting agenda and records, and distribute to all attendees. Revise Comcast utility design on 212th due to pole being removed from design base. Incorporate utility trench design with new Edmond's communication fiber vaults. Section 8.0 PS&E Design 8.3 Storm Drainage Technical Information Report Section 8.3 is supplemented with the following: The CONSULTANT shall update the final Storm Drainage Technical Information Report to include the use of storm filter cartridges for water quality treatment in lieu of the Filterra system previously designed. P:IcICOED000000031000000N10030ContractlSupplementslSupplement 7 - Revised Drainage and Electrical DesignWxhibit A-1 DEA Scope Five Comers Roundabout 2013-0606.doc City of Edmonds 1 Supplement No. 7 Five Corners Roundabout Project June 6, 2013 Packet Page 505 of 546 Assumptions: • One submittal of the Drainage TIR will be provided to the City to include the storm filter cartridges for water quality. No other changes to the previous final Drainage TIR will be required. Deliverables: • Final Drainage TIR, two (2) copies (hard copy only). 8.7 Construction Documents (100% Completion Level) Section 8.7 is supplement with the following: The CONSULTANT shall conduct the following: • Revise the 90% drainage plan, profiles, and details to accommodate the use of storm filter cartridges for water quality. • Update revised storm crossing elevations on water profiles. • Illumination: o Run breaker, load, and conduit calculations due to the additional GFCI receptacles at tree, luminaire, and central island locations. o Revise illumination plans and details; and luminaire, wiring, and breaker schedules due to new decorative luminaire style and addition of GFCIs. o Provide spare conduit on plans for Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon. • Update design specifications based on project revisions and updated City front end forms and WSDOT GSPs/Amendments. • Update project cost estimate based on project revisions. 8.8 Assistance During Bid Period Section 8.8 is supplement with the following: Bid Support The CONSULTANT shall provide bid support and assist the CITY in answering questions from prospective bidders during the bid process. After the construction contract has been awarded, the CONSULTANT shall attend the preconstruction conference. Bid Addendums The CONSULTANT shall prepare addendums to the contract documents during the bid period. This task is limited to 30 hours. P:IcICOED000000031000000N10030ContractlSupplementslSupplement 7 - Revised Drainage and Electrical DesignWxhibit A-1 DEA Scope Five Comers Roundabout 2013-0606.doc City of Edmonds 2 Supplement No. 7 Five Corners Roundabout Project June 6, 2013 Packet Page 506 of 546 AM-5815 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted For: Council President Petso Department: City Council Review Committee: Public Safety/Personnel Type: Information 9. A. Submitted By: Jana Spellman Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Information Subject Title Possible action regarding draft Resolution adopting Robert's Rules of Order as the City Council's new Rules of Procedure. Recommendation Request the City Attorney bring to full Council a draft resolution including the four items suggested by Council President Petso. Previous Council Action February 1-2.2013 Council Retreat: This topic was discussed at Council Retreat and forwarded to the Public Safety/Personnel Committee for further discussion. Below is an excerpt from those minutes: Edmonds City Council Retreat Approved Minutes February 1-2, 2013 Page 2 "4. CITY COUNCIL PROCESSES A. ROBERT'S RULES Councilmember Johnson explained the Council has been operating for the past 39 years under Resolution No. 292. She acknowledged there are other ways, but she feels Robert's Rules is the best alternative. She referred to Attachment 4, a decision tree for determining whether to continue using Resolution No. 292 or adopt Robert's Rules. City Attorney Jeff Taraday suggested the City Council adopt a complete set of Robert's Rules as its official rules and distribute a shorter primer on the rules to Councilmembers to allow the Council to familiarize themselves with the rules. Councilmember Johnson suggested training on Robert's Rules be provided during a work session. Summary: Schedule a work session and have an ordinance prepared for review by the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee." This agenda item was discussed at the 2/12/2013 Public Safety and Personnel Committee. (Attachment 5: Feb. 12, 2013 PS/Personnel Committee Minutes). The action taken by the PS/P Committee is in the excerpt below: "Presentation to Council on Robert's Rules of Order is on the extended agenda for our April 16 Council Meeting. Council President Petso will be asked to put the draft resolution adopting Roberts Rules of Order on the agenda for discussion and vote at a Council Meeting following this (April 23 or later)." April 16, 2013 Council Meeting: Ann Macfarlane from Jurassic Parliament made a presentation regarding Robert's Rules of Order. Attached to the agenda memo was a draft Resolution regarding the Council adopting Robert's Rules of Order as the City Council's new rules of procedure which the Council did not take any action on but moved it to the April 23, 2013 Council agenda. Packet Page 507 of 546 Due to the lateness of the hour, this agenda item was put on the May 7, 2013 Council Agenda. May 7.2013 Council Meetings The motion was made and seconded to approve a Resolution adopting Robert's Rules with the four clarifications suggested by Council member Petso. The motion was subsequently withdrawn to allow Councilmembers time to review their Robert's Rules books. The minutes of that meeting are attached. (Attachment 8) Narrative The agenda item has been placed on the Public Safety/Personnel Committee for further discussion. A complimentary Parliamentary Motions guide has been attached to help guide the PS/P Committee in this discussion. Also to aid in this discussion, the PS/P Committee may want to refer to pages 194 through 197 in their Robert's Rules of Order - Newly Revised in Brief paperback book. Attachment 7: Resolution 292 Attachment 9: Parliamentary Motions Guide Attachments Attachment 1 - Should Council Adopt Robert's Rules of Order Attachment 2 - Which Parliamentary Authority Should Council Choose Attachment 3 - A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making Attachment 4 - Decision Tree Attach 5: 2/12/13 PS/P Committee Minutes Attach 6: Draft Resolution re a� rding Robert's Rules of Order Attach 7: Resolution 292 Attach 8: 5-7-13 Council Minutes Attach 9: Parliamentary Motions Guide Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 06/06/2013 Form Review Date 06/06/2013 10:13 AM 06/06/2013 10:28 AM 06/06/2013 11:27 AM Started On: 05/30/2013 09:26 AM Packet Page 508 of 546 Jurassic ATTACHMENT 9 Should Our Council Adopt Robert's Rules of order? Ann G. Macfarlane, Professional Registered Parliamentarian "Council/Commission Advisor" published by the Municipal Research S�Services Center of Washington, April 2011 The State of Washington gives city councils wide authority to decide how they will carry on their business: "The council shall determine its own rules and order of business, and may establish rules for the conduct of council meetings and the maintenance of order." RCW 3$A.12,120 Some councils have adopted, by resolution or ordinance, a set of guidelines for this purpose, and others have not. Many of these guidelines include reference to Robert's Rules of order, using such language as "meetings shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order and these council rules of procedure. In case of conflict, the council rules of procedure shall prevail." Recently it was suggested to Jurassic Parliament that Robert's Rules of order is too complicated for small cities and towns, and they would do better not to adopt it. We agree that the book is complicated, but we believe that Robert's Rules still provides the best and most useful set of rules of order for civic bodies in our state —provided that folks are willing to do a little work and learn how to use Robert's Rules properly. Our argument runs like this: 1. The fundamental principles in Robert are common to all our civic discourse and are not hard to learn. Everyone participating in council debate and discussion should understand that the majority will rule, that the minority have rights that must be respected, that members have a right to information to help make decisions, that courtesy and respect are required, that all members have equal rights, privileges and obligations, and that members have a right to an efficient meeting. z. The use of written motions and amendments provides an efficient and fair way to consider proposals and modify them in accord with the group's preferences. The method is a little unusual, in that amendments are taken up before the motion is voted on, but once groups get used to it, the system works well. 3. Robert's rule that no one may speak a second time until everyone who wishes to do so has spoken once is vital to equalizing power imbalances and giving everyone a fair shake in discussion. We believe that it should be observed by all groups, whether or not they have formally adopted Robert. Packet Page 509 of 546 4. Robert provides "special rules for small boards" that can be useful for smaller councils, should they choose to apply them. 5. Robert also allows groups to develop and apply their own "special rules of order," so if a body wishes to change something in Robert, it is perfectly free to do so. 6. In sticky situations, "do-it-yourself" rulemaking can lead to ad hoc invention of rules, likely supplied by the chair on his own authority. A chair who makes up rules or improvises on the basis of vague memories from student government days is a sure path to problems, especially if the rule -maker has an air of authority about him (or her). 7. While councils often rely on their attorney for advice in this arena, in our experience few attorneys have had serious training in parliamentary procedure and few correct the common and widespread misunderstandings about Robert's Rules. 8. A body cannot do its work without some guidelines. Failing to adopt Robert doesn't mean that there are no guidelines —but without a specific "parliamentary authority," in times of conflict a group will be driven back to rely on "common parliamentary law.' Finding out what "common parliamentary law" requires and how it applies to a given situation is likely to be complicated and expensive, requiring time and attention from legal counsel and qualified parliamentary consultants. Far better to have set the terms of discourse in advance, so that everyone knows and agrees to the way they will consider matters. We believe that adopting a set of common-sense guidelines based on Robert's Rules, incorporating Robert by reference for the more unusual or complicated situations that may arise, and then committing to the education necessary to get everyone on the same page, will pay big dividends for every council willing to make the effort. That education can be quite affordable. Every city budget ought to be able to provide a copy of Robert's Rules of order Newly Revised in Brief to each council member. This little book is a splendid summary of the rules applicable to all but the most exceptional situations. At $7.Oo it's an amazing buy, and you can read it in an evening. Should our council adopt Robert's Rules of order? O Jurassic Parliament 2011. All rights reserved. TERMS OF USE This material is provided for your personal use Permission is hereby granted to make electronic or paper copies provided that the material Is left unchanged_The purchaser may not otherwise modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer or sell any information or services contained in this publication or obtained from our website, or use the content of our website for public or commercial purposes, including any text, images, audio or video, without the written permission of Jurassic Parliament- Jurassic Parliament reserves the right to update our website at anytime without noticetoyou. If you would liketo use or quote this material for any purpose other than expressly as authorized herein, contact the Jurassic Parliament office. DISCLAIMER This material is provided for general educational purposes. Jurassic Parliament makes no representation about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published as part ofthese servicesfor any purpose_ All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind.Jurassic Parliament herebydisdaims all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all warranties and conditions of merchantability, whether express, implied or statutory, fitnessfor a particular purpose,title and non -infringement- Nothingwritten here constitutes legal or business advice. Readerswith specific questions are advised to seek an appropriate credentialed authority to address their issue,. 603 Stewart Street, Suite 6io, Seattle, WA 98iox TEL 206.542.8422 I FAX 206.626.0392 info@jurassicparliament.com E www.jurassicparliament.com Packet Page 510 of 546 ATTACHMENT 2 Q Jurassic Which Parliamentary Authority Should We Choose? Organizations intending to choose a parliamentary authority to guide their meetings have several different choices. This article describes some common authorities. We welcome feedback from our readers who use any of these authorities about the good points or disadvantages they find in them. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. This is the most commonly used authority in the United States. By some estimates about ninety percent of the voluntary associations in our country use Robert. Widespread use, breadth of coverage, and the availability of many excellent resources on Robert make this book our first choice. However, be warned that over the years, the book has become extremely detailed. At first glance, it is quite intimidating - the current official version is over 800 pages long. Jurassic Parliament offers many tools to help you get the most out of Robert and apply it in a pragmatic way to your meetings. Current version: iith edition. Be sure to use the official text, and not some publisher's knock -off based on earlier, out-of-date versions. See our article "Which Robert's Rules of order Should I Buy?" for guidance on this point. It is also useful to refer to Robert's Rules of Order In Brief - a short volume which is not an authority, but which serves as an introduction to Robert. The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure. Alice Sturgis wrote the original version of this authority, referred to as "TSC" or "Sturgis" It is well -written and easy to follow. Many medical associations use Sturgis as their authority. However, the book does not cover as many situations as Robert, and it shifts some authority from the group itself to the person running the meeting (the presider). This seems more efficient at first glance, but the added authority may go to the presider's head, and cause him or her to behave in a dictatorial fashion. Sturgis also differs from Robert in some parliamentary actions like "to reconsider" or "to fill a blank." Current version: gth edition The Modern Rules of Order. Donald Tortorice prepared this slim volume for the American Bar Association, though the ABA does not use it during its own meetings. A mere 6o pages long, it may seem a tempting choice. However, Michael Malamut, an attorney and professional registered r► over Price S0.99 May not be photocopied Contact our office for multiple copy permission and pricing Packet Page 511 of 546 parliamentarian, has given it a poor review in one of the leading parliamentary journals. He states that the author derived his expertise from sitting through business corporation meetings, not meetings of nonprofit associations, and the result shows in his work. This book includes "typical minutes" and a chart of motions. Current version: 3rd edition. The Democratic Rules of Order. Fred and Peg Francis of British Columbia, Canada wrote these rules, 76 pages. It seems a good compilation of standard procedure, without a lot of detail. Includes a two - page summary and an example of a meeting governed by these rules. Current version: gth edition. Rosenberg's Rules of Order. Dave Rosenberg, a Superior Court Judge in California, has prepared these rules, available as an eight -page PDF on the World Wide Web. The rules seem unobjectionable but obviously do not provide the detail that may be needed in complex situations. We found the mathematics on voting given in the addendum to be rather peculiar. Many legislatures in the U.S. use Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure. Professional parliamentar- ians may turn to Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure and Riddich's Rules of Procedure. Bourinot's Rules of order is widely used in Canada. Hugh Cannon has written Cannon's Concise Guide to Rules of order, a lively introduction. And if all else fails, you can turn to Thomas Jefferson for A Manu al of Parliamentary Procedure. We welcome suggestions about adding to this list or modifying the descriptions. Contact us at info @jurassicparliament.com. Which Parliamentary Authority Should We Choose? © Jurassic Parliament 2011. All rights reserved. TERMS OF USE This material is sold for the personal use of the purchaser. Permission is hereby granted to make electronic or paper copies it number according tothe license which you have purchased. The purchaser may not otherwise modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer or sell any Information or services contained in this publication or obtained from our website, or use the content of our website for public or commercial purposes, including any text, images, audio or video, without the written permission of Jurassic Parliament. Jurassic Parliament reserves the right to update our website at anytime without notice to you. If you would liketo use or quote this material for any purpose other than expressly as authorized herein, contact the Jurassic Parliament office, URi-wwwJurassicparliament,com. DISCLAIMER This material is provided for general educational purposes. Jurassic Parliament makes no representation about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published as part of these services for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided `as is" without warrantyof anykind. Jurassic Parliament hereby disclaims ail warranties and conditions with regard to this information, indtiding all warranties and conditions of merchantability, whether express, implied or statutory, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non -infringement. Nothing written here constitutes legal cr business advice. Readers with specific questions are advised to seek an appropriate credentialed authorityto address their issues. urass1C 603 Stewart Street, Suite 6io, Seattle, WA 983oa TEL 206.542.8422 1 FAX 206.626.0392 info@jurassicparliament.com I www.jurassicparliament.com Packet Page 512 of 546 A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making I MRSC Insight Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 3 A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making Posted on November 5. 2012 by Byron Katsuyame One of the things that has always fascinated me as a student and observer of local government has been the process that local legislative bodies use to discuss, debate, and formulate policy decisions. To my- mind, much of what constitutes "good government" is a direct consequence of an open, fair, and effective legislative decision - making process. The open and fair parts are regulated by state laws relating to issues such as campaign finance reporting, public records disclosure, and open public meetings. Effectiveness, on the other hand, is Ieft to the local legislative body. While there are a lot of moving parts in this process and, therefore, lots of opportunities to improve it, one critical aspect, and the focus of this blog post, has to do with the way local legislative bodies deliberate on the policy issues that come before them. When acting in their formal legislative capacity, local councils come together for a very specialized purpose — to discuss, debate, and finally decide on important issues affecting their communities. It is at this point during the give and take of their policy discussions, where arguments are put forth, opinions are swayed, and votes are taken. It's not true that councilmembers always come to such meetings with their minds already made up, as some citizens and members of the press seem to think. So, it is important not only that these discussions take place, but that they be conducted in ways that promote the best possible exchange of information and ideas. To this end, one simple but effective technique designed to improve this process was suggested by Ann Macfarlane, one of MRSC's long-time Council/Commission Advisors, in her 2009 column, "Using the Round Robin Method for Efficient Council Meetings." Ann's column contains some sage advice for local legislative bodies interested in improving both the efficiency and the quality of their meetings. In it she argues that the "round robin method" for council deliberation contained in Roberts Rules of Order is one of the best ways to promote a "fair and judicious discussion of issues in which each member has an equal opportunity to participate." Of course, local government advisory boards and commissions can also benefit from this type of discussion format. In a round robin format, each council or board member participating in key policy discussions is given the opportunity to speak once, going around the table, before anyone can speak a second time. While this may seem like a minor procedural issue, anyone who has spent any amount of time participating on a council, board, or commission knows that who speaks, when, and for how long, can often have profound impacts on the outcomes of many important policy discussions. The round robin format seeks to level the playing field a bit by ensuring that all council and board members have the opportunity and, in fact, are prompted to weigh in on particular issues. Councils or boards that have no rules of procedure or that do not pay attention to the details of how their meetings are conducted are more prone to falling into habits and routines that can reduce their effectiveness as decision - making bodies. How many times have you been at a meeting where one or two members dominate the discussion, either because they are always the ones who speak up first or because they feel compelled to answer every challenge to their point of view? Members don't have to be rude or inconsiderate to end up dominating the discussion. They may just be enthusiastic, which, unfortunately, can have the same negative impact. In either case, to the extent that other members who have valuable opinions to share become less inclined or able to add their thoughts to the mix, the quality of the discussion and ultimately the decision itself can stiffer. Then there are situations where, for whatever reasons, some members may just be reluctant to jump in and offer their opiniomi. http://insight.=sc.org/20l2/l l /O5/a-simple-technique-for-improving-council-decision-ma... 1 /24/2013 Packet age 513 of 546 A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making I MRSC Insight Page 2 of 3 Sometimes this is because they may feel that they are not as well-informed as they should be on an issue, or perhaps because they are concerned that their opinion will be rejected by the rest of the group, or may be unpopular with a wider audience. Ironically, when called upon, these same individuals often end up making key contributions to the overall discussion. In my experience as a member of the city of Kirkland's Planning Commission for the past eight years, including a year as the chair, I know that we make our best decisions when all our members have taken the opportunity to weigh in on whatever issue is before us. When, on the other hand, we have just one or two members who dominate the discussion, or where, for whatever reasons, some members are reluctant to offer their own point of view, then we become less effective. Particularly in our role as an advisory body to the city council, it is always more helpful to have a thorough discussion of the issues that will, in turn, provide a stronger record of our deliberations for the benefit of the city council as they go on to make their final policy decisions. To be effective, councils and boards should conduct their meetings in ways that promote the fullest discussion of the issues with the broadest possible participation by all of the council or board members. One of the simplest ways to ensure that this takes place is to make use of the round robin discussion format. I'm not suggesting that this approach is necessary for every single discussion. It is intended simply as a tool. Experienced mayors and board chairs know when their council or board will benefit most from a more structured discussion format. Share this: Twitter Facebook Email Like this: *Like Be the first to like this. About AByron Katsu ' Byron has over 30 years of experience in local government police and administration research including such areas as forms of government, strategic planning, performance measurement, and general local government management. In his ov+n community of Kirkland, Byron is a member of the city'S planning commission. C icw ,ill past. by 13} ron Kat�oy.nna -- This entry was posted in Best Practices. Governance. Polity, ©ookmark the permalink. 2 Responses to A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making KHstiana Johnson says: Noveinber 16. 2012 at 3 45 pm Byron, Thank you for this timely post. We at the City of Edmonds are working to review our City, rules and procedures for our 2013 Council Retreat. i really appreciate your comments about the round robin approach in Roberts Rules of Order. i have been tasked with finding a modern and brief set of RRoO. Can you let me kno+, which publication you use? Kristian Johnson Reply Byron Katsuyama says: November 26, 2012 at 11.58 am Kristiana, Follow http�ll1'n ' ht. rsd 4 ,/2012/11/05/a-simple-technique-for-improving-council-decision-ma... 1/24/2013 Packet Age 4 0 A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making I MRSC Insight Page 3 of 3 I asked Ann Macfarlane, Professional Registered Parliamentarian, Jurassic Parliament, who is one of our Council/Commission Advisors, and an expert on Robert's Rules, what she recommends and she provided the following response and attachments: We recommend that everybody use Robert. The best strategy is to have the presider and clerk buy the "big book," Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised rFth edition, and also provide every member v ith a copy of the "little book," Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief, znd edition. This latter volume costs $7 and can be read in an evening. It covers most situations. However, it cannot be adopted as an authority in itself. It is a signpost to the big book. By purchasing both, a city council is sure to have at hand what is needed for any situation. Attached are three articles that you are welcome to share with Kristiana (or anybody- else) on this topic: ■ Which "Robert's Rules" Should I Buy? ■ Which Parliamentar\ Authority Should We Choose? ■ Should Our Council Adopt Robert's Rules of Order? Repay MRSC Insight 'llwmrploy at S4 ordPrvss.cojn. FoH ow http://insigsht.mrse.or /2012/11105/a-simple-technique-for-improving-council-decision-ma... 1/24/2013 Packet Page 515 of 546- DECISION TREE Rules of Procedures for Conduct of Council Meetings Should the City Council continue using: Resolution 292 YES Action: • Add Resolution 292 to Council web page as a reference for City Council procedures. • Add Resolution 292 to the new Council Reference Manual. Adoptin Rules of Procedure, 1974 NO Should the City Council adopt procedures based on Robert's Rules of Order? Yes Action: IBC • Work Session on Procedures • MRSC — Robert's Rules revised summary. Packet Page 516 of 546 MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2013 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Councilmember Joan Bloom Councilmember Strom Peterson The meeting was called to order at 6:09 p.m. Edmonds City Code Updates Al Compaan, Chief of Police Jim Lawless, Assistant Chief of Police Debbie Dawson, Animal Control Officer Carrie Hite, HR Reporting Director Councilmember Bloom requested clarification on Item D. Even though this is the current language, she wanted to clarify the current practice. She would like to amend this to say "Council President approves travel and training for Councilmembers and Boards and Commissions." Councilmember Peterson agreed. This will be amended, and forwarded to City Council for approval on the consent agenda. 2. Robert's Rules Jeff recalled that council agreed to adopt Roberts Rules in its entirety, and use a shortened version. He also suggested that we may want to get training through Jurassic Parliament or perhaps MRSC. There are also self study options that could be purchased for Council library. We agreed to schedule training to be put on agenda for a work session. Suggest someone from MRSC be asked to present. 3. Amendment to Edmonds City Code Chapter 5.14 — Marijuana The Committee discussed a proposed ordinance amending the provisions of Edmonds City Code Chapter 5.14 relating to controlled substances, Paraphernalia, poisons and toxic fumes. The Committee forwarded the ordinance to City Council to place on the Consent Agenda with an approval recommendation. 4. Animals Roaming at Large With Al Compaan and animal control officer, Debbie Dawson, discussed adding "with the exclusion of licensed, spayed and neutered cats" to the animals roaming at large ordinance. Agreed that Debbie Dawson will bring information related to licensing of cats to next Public Safety/Personnel Committee meeting. 5. Discussion Regarding Language to Include on Agendas Related to Public Comment Agreed to adopt Frank Yamamoto's suggested language into the Council Meeting Procedures on the city website 6. Public Comment Bruce Witenberg: Re: questions at end of committee meeting- if not allowing, articulate what has been the problem in the past. Re: Adoption of Roberts' rules. Pointed out that there is a way to re -consider a vote. Can be brought back by someone on the opposing side of the issue. Don't know about time frame. Suggests training be held in council chambers so public can become educated about new rules as well. Roger Hertrich: Mr. Hertrich agreed with every one of Mr. Witenberg points. Re: roaming at large, suggested starting with a simple change such as licensing of cats. Evaluate the results. Re: Roberts' rules- Don't feel adoption of full rules is necessary. Like casual aspect of meeting, don't get too sticky about procedure. Re: Boards and commissions- choice of Mayor, sometimes in conflict with Council. Suggests applications be available to all (Council and Mayor) prior to final selection. Council members Peterson and Bloom explained to Mr. Wittenberg that it was not our intention to eliminate the option of citizens asking questions at a committee meeting. The intent was that the council members at the meeting would ask staff to answer the question(s), if the council member felt it was appropriate to do so. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Public Safety and Personnel Committee February 12, 2013 Page 1 of 1 Packet Page 517 of 546 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING RESOLUTION 292, WHICH ADOPTED RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCT OF COUNCIL MEETINGS; ADOPTING ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AS THE CITY COUNCIL'S NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE. WHEREAS, the city council adopted Resolution 292 in 1974, which adopted rules of procedure for conduct of council meetings; and WHEREAS, Resolution 292 did not adopt Robert's Rules of Order; and WHEREAS, it has been recommended that the city council use Robert's Rules of Order, now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. REPEALER. Resolution 292 is hereby repealed. Section 2. ADOPTION OF ROBERT'S RULES. The city council hereby adopts Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11t" Edition, as its official rules for conducting council meetings. The city council intends that the city official serving as parliamentarian should consult this version of Robert's Rules when asked to provide guidance on a procedural question. City council members wishing to use a shorter version of Robert's Rules for their own convenience should use Robert's Rules of Order In Brief, but the council does not recognize this volume as an authority nor as the city council's official rules. RESOLVED this day of April, 2013. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, DAVE EARLING ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SANDRA CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. 4851-5533-3898, v. 1 Packet Page 518 of 546 RESOLUTION NO. 292 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCT OF COUNCIL MEETINGS. WHEREAS, it has been determined by the City Council that more formal rules of procedure are necessary for the efficient and orderly conduct of public meetings, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, that the rules of procedure attached hereto; identified as Exhibit A and incorporated in full by this reference are hereby adopted as the rules of procedure for all meetings of the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington. RESOLVED this 5th day of Februar , 1974. APPROVED: ATTEST JL"C/J CIT CLERK PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: MAYOR February 5, 1974 February 1, 1974 1 Packet Page 519 of 546 A. GENERAL RULES OF PROCEDURE. 1. 'Obtainingfloor. Before a member can make a motion or address the body upon any question, it is necessary that he obtain the floor by being recognized by the chairman. If'two or more members shall request the floor -at the same time the chairman shall recog- nize the first member requesting recognition. 2. Second. When a member obtains the floor and Makes a motion, that is in order, the chair should immediaLely inquire if the motion is seconded; if sec- untied the maker of the motion should then be regarded as having the refusal of the floor in preference to all oth-_,r members. 3, 1404-lification of motion. Before any subject is open to debate it is necessary, first, that a :notion be made by a member who has .the floor; second, that it be seconded; and third, that it be stated by the chairman. This does rot prevent suggestions of alterations, be- fore the question is statE:d by the chairman. The chair- man may consult: the members before stating the question tO clarify the motior:. The member who offers the motion, until it has been stated by.the chairman, can modify his motion, or withdraw it entirely; after it is stated he can do neither, without the consent of the body (major-. ity) . For example, the mover may starer, - "With the con - EXHIBIT A 2 Packet Page 520 of 546 sent of the body I will modify my motion to state as follows, * * *" If no one objects it shall be deemed that he has the consent of the body to modify his motion. When the mover modifies his motion, the one who seconds,it can withdraw his second. 4. Statinq the question. After a question has been stated by the chairman, it is in the possession of the body For debate; the mover cannot withdraw or modify it except by obtaining leave from the body as just described, or by moving an amendment. 5. Wi thdrawa 1 or substitution of motion.- When a question is before the body and the mover wishes' to withdraw or modify it, or substitute a different one in its place, with consent of the body, the chairman shall grant perm tision; if any objection is made, it will be necessary to obtain leave to withdraw by a motion for that purpose. This motion cannot be debated cr amended. When a motion is withdrawn, the effect is the same as if it had never been made. 6. A`: stention f r-cin votincT . Any member may abstain from voting on any question, provided, at the time of declaring his abstention he shall 'state the reason. 7. Standinq to cmiestion Procedures. These rules shall govern the parliamentary procedures of the members _2_ 3 Packet Page 521 of 546 and by the members only. Procedures may be questioned only by members of the body, and then only in accordance with these rules. The decision of the chair will be final and conclusive as to all, subject. only to a motion by a member of the body, duly and timely made, in which case the ruling of the body shall be final and conclusive. Nothing in these rules will be construed to prevent the chairman or a member from requesting aid in the inter- pretation of these rules or other matters from the City staff or cfficials. 8. Precedence.. Motions having precedence are those that may be made while another motion is pending. -9. ToTield. Motions yield when they are pending and another matter can be considered while the yielding motion still pends. 10. AELplied. %here a motion can have no subordinate motion applied to it, the fact is stated. For example, the motion to continue may not be applied to the motion to 13y on the table. 11. Debate. Debate shall not take place until the chair has stated the question. Debate shall be limited to the immediately pending question, except that the main question is also open when the following motions are pending; postpone indefin.itely,.or reconsider a debatable question. -3- 4 Packet Page 522 of 546 12. Putting the c esL,on. When the debate appears to have closed the chair will ask, "Are you ready for the question?" If no one asks for the floor he shall put the question to vote, making it clear what the question is. 13. Majority_. A majority of those present shall constitute a majority of the body assuming a quorum is present. The chairman has the tie breaking vote, B. SPECIFIC RULES OF PROCEDURE. The following motions are permissible in considering any matter on the agenda, and unless otherwise specified shall rank in precedence and apI)lication as set forth numerically below. 1. UNDEEATABLE MOTIONS. a. (question of order and anneal. A question of order takes precedence of the question giving rise to it, may be put when another member has the floor, needs no second, and must be decided by the chairman without debate. If a member objects he may appeal, which if seconded, will immediately be put to the body. An appeal is waived if riot made immediately. On appeal the decision of the chair is sustained on a tie vote. b. SusDens.ion of rules. This motion may not be amended, nor another motion be applied to it, -4 -- 5 Packet Page 523 of 546 nor a vote on it reconsidered. Rules of the body may not be suspended except for a definite and specific purpose and by a vote of one more than a majority present. Nothing else may be done under the suspension. It may not be renewed at the same meeting if once defeated. It shall be in order to change the order of the agenda without suspending the rules. No rule can be suspended when the negative vote is as lafge as the minority protected by that rule. c. To lav_on the table. This motion may not be used for purposes of continuance of a matter which has been specially called for pub- lic hearing, which is done by a motion to con- tinue. It may not be amended nor an affirmative vote on it be reconsidered. If carried the subject tabled may not be considered again until the body votes to take it from the table, which motion is also undebatable. The object of the motion is to postpone the subject in such a manner 't:;at it can be taken up at any time, either at the same or some future meeting. It may be used to supress a question for that meeting, but not for a matter for which a public meeting has been specially set. The -5- 6 Packet Page 524 of 546 effect of the motion is to place on the table everything that adheres to the subject, so'that if an amendment be ordered to -lie on the table, the subject which it is proposed to amend is also tabled. Hawever, it may be limited to the par- ticular pending matter and if so adopted the remaining matters shall still be before the body. After demand for the previous question up to the time of taking final action under it, it is in order to move that the main question be laid on the table. Passage requires the vote of one more than a majority of the members present. d. The previous question. This motion is not amendable and applies to any debatable question, but is not debatable itself. It re- quires the vote of one more than a majority of the members present for its adoption. When called, and seconded, the chair shall immediately put the question. If the motion fails to carry by a majority plus one of the members present, the debate will continue as if the motion had not been made. If adopted the chair shall immed- iately bring the body to vote upon the pending question. If applied to an amendment to a pending 7 Packet Page 525 of 546 t. question it brings to a vote not only the motion to amend but also the question to be amended. However, the motion for the previous question may be limited.to the pending amendment, and, if adopted, debate will be closed only to the motion to amend. It shall be proper for a member to submit a motion and move the previous question thereon and thus cut off debate on the motion. In this case the chair shall first put the motion for previous question to vote. 2. DEBATABLE MOTIONS. a. Continue to a certain day. This motion yields to all undebatable motions, and take precedence of all other debatable motions, except that it may be amended by altering the time, and the previous question can be applied to it with- out affecting any other motions pending. b. To commit or refer. This motion is to commit or refer a matter to a committee.- It can he amended by altering the committee, or giving the committee instructions. The debate on the motion opens the.debate on the main question it is proposed to commit. c. To amend. This motion takes precedence 8 Packet Page 526 Af 546 over nothing but the question to which it is proposed to amend and yields to all questions except to postpone indefinitely. It can be applied to all but undebatable questions, an amendment of an amendment, to postpone indef- initely or to reconsider. It can be amended itself, but an amendment of an amendment cannot be amended. An amendment may be inconsistent with the one already adopted, or may be directly in conflict with the spirit of the original motion, but it must have a direct bearing upon the"subject of that motion. A motion to amend by inserting new words once passed may not be the subject matter of a new amendment to change the same words. The proper motion is the motion to reconsider the vote by which the words were inserted. A motion to amend may be made to "divide the question" into two or more questions as the mover specifies, so as to get a separate vote on any particular point or points. d. To nostoone indefinitely. This motion takes precedence of nothing except the question to which it is applied and yields to all motions except to emend. It cannot be amended, and opens 9 Packet Page 527 of 546 to debate the entire question which it is proposed to postpone. Its effect is to entirely remove the question from the body for that session. The previous question, if ordered when this motion is pending, applies only to it without :-effecting the main question. It cannot be applied to a matter that has been specially set for public hearing. A negative vote on it cannct be reconsidered. e. Princit}al cLue_sti-on. The main or principal question is a motion to bring before the body for its consider_aticn any partical)r subject. No principal motion can be mare when, any other motion is before the body. It takes precedence over nothing and yields to all. C. MISCET. fAN'FCt:1S MOTIONS. 1. To rescind. This motion cannot he made for a matter that has been voted upon for which a matter has been specially called for public hearing. However, for other. matters tr, whim it is appropriately addressed,, as wnere it is too late to reconsider the vote, :,.e motion is the course to pursue to rescind an objectionable policy, order or motion; it is debatable. 2. Tc reconsider. This motion is not in order after the body :.as votes: upon the principal question which is H= 10 Packet Page 528 of 546 the subject matter of a specially called public hearing unless made immediately after thereon and before any mem- ber of the public has left the public hearing. It is otherwise in order at and• time, even when another member has the floor, but not after that session has adjourned. It must be made by a member who voted with the pre- vailing side. It can be applied to the vote of every other question, except as Noted above, and except to 5u_ ljt:nd t:h% rules and an affirmative vote: to lay on the table or to take from the table. The motion may not be amended. Whether or not it is- debit-,ule depends upon whether the question to be recon- sidere:1 is debatable or undebatable. It may be laid on the table:, in which case, the reconsideration, like any other question, can be tziken from the table. 3. Roll calt. Any member may demand a roll call vote any time before or after any question is put. The demand needs no second and the chairman must ask for a roll call_ vote on demand. It is not debatable and may be applitA tc. any question. It is waived if after the vote it is not ir•„^.iediately made and prior to the next matter bei nq considered. 10. 11 Packet Page 529 of 546 c (V 04 0 c 0 -i 41 aj U)-P o m z .� .O .� 14 m 0 Z 44 UNDEBATABLE a. Question of Order - Appeal b. Suspension of Rules C. Lay on Table d . Previous Question DEBATALUE a. ContinLIO to Certain Day b. Comnit or Refer c. Amend d. Postpone Indefinitely e. Principle Question MISCELLANEOUS a. Rescind b. Reconsider C. Roll Call 1 A.V. N.V. c 0 0) ro 4j ro � m >t :. •-4 Un r-4 M +J M Q O -14 Q1 m, U vai Packet Page 530 of 546 12 SUGGESTED FORMS 1. UNDEBATABLE MOTIONS a. Question of order. Member: "I raise a point of order." Chair: "State your point of order." Member: States his point of order Chair: Ruling by the chairman, who may dive reasons. Member: "I appeal from the decision of the chair." Chair: (If seconded) "Shall the decision of the chair stand as the decision of the -body?" b. Susnet►sion of rules ari�ority` Aus (nee) Member: "I move to suspend the rules requiring..." c. To lay on table (majority plus one) Member: "I move to lay the question (stating it) on the table." Member: "I move to take the question (stating it) from the table." d. Previous question (majority plus ene) Member: "I call (demand or move) for the previous question." Chair: (If seconded)`, "Shall the main question be now put?" Member: "I call for the previous question on the amendment." 13 Packet Page 531 of 546 Chair: (If seconded) "Shall the question be now put on the amendment?" 2. DEBATABLE MOTIONS a. Continue to a certain d��majori_}�y) Member: "I move to continue the question of (stating it) to the next regular for recessed] meeting of (date) . NOTE: (1) Zoning matters must be decided and re- ported by the planning commission within 90 days of the application. (2) Plats and subdivisions must be approved, disapproved or returned to applicant for mod- ification or correction within 60 days from elate of filing, unless applicant files written consent for longer period in which to act. b. To commit or refer (majority) Member: "I move to refer the subject to a committee." C. To amend (majority) Member: "I move to amend the motion to 'add', or 'insert', to 'strike', to 'strike out and insert ', to 'divide the question' (into two or more questions), etc." d. To postpone indefinitely tma 'orit�) Member: "I move to postpone the question indefinit-ley." -2- 14 Packet Page 532 of 546 e. Principal question - (majority, unless otherwise indicated) Member: "I move that . [REZONE] "...proposed Ordinance No. 1234 be passed." [REZONE DENIED] "...Planning Commission Resolution No. 123 be affirmed and.the requested rezone denied." [AMENDMENT TO "...proposed Ordinance No. 1234 COMPREHENSIVE be passed." PLAN] [DENIAL OF "...Planning Commission AMENDMENT TO Resolution No. 123 be affirmed COMPREHENSIVE and the --requested amendment to PLAN] the comprehensive plan be denied." [LID -RESOLUTION "...proposed Resolution of OF INTENTION] Intention No. 123 be passed establishing the public hearing on the day of 196 NOTE : If health issue, must be passed unanimously. [LID -ORDINANCE "...that proposed Ordinance No. FORMING LID] 1234 be passed." NOTE: If health issue, must be passed unanimously. [STREET "...that the public hearing on the VACATION -SET proposed street vacation be fixed HEARING DATE] on the day of J 196 and that proposed Resolution No. 123 be passed." NOTE: Date must be not less than 20 nor more than 60 days from the date of passage of Resolution. [STREET °'...proposed Ordinance No. 1234 VACATION- be passed." APPROVAL] [STREET "...the proposed street vacation be VACATION- denied." DISAPPROVAL] 15 Packet Page 533 of 546 [ANNEXATION— "...a public meeting be set with the RECEIPT OF iniating parties to determine whether INTENTION TO the city will accept the proposed ANNEX BY 10%] annexation and whether it shall - require the assumption of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed for the day of 196_ . " NOTE:Must not be more than 60 days after the filing of the request." [ANNEXATION— "...a public hearing be set for RECEIPT OF the day of 196_ PETITION FOR for the hearing on the proposed ANNEXATION-75%] annexation." (ANNEXATION— "...that` proposed Ordinance No. FINAL APPROVAL] 1234 be passed." [ANNEXATION— "...that the proposed annexation FINAL DENIAL] be denied." 3. MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS. a. To rescind (majority) Member: "I move to rescind that motion, policy, etc." b. To reconsider (majority) Member: "Having voted on the prevailing side, I move that we reconsider the vote on the motion to (stating it) and have such__ motion entered on the record." c. Roll call (an member) Member: "I demand a roll call vote." No second needed. Chairman: "The secretary will please call the roll." 16 Packet Page 534 of 546 TO NOT DISCUSS THIS TONIGHT AND HAVE THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT PUT IT ON A FUTURE CALENDAR SO ANSWERS CAN BE PROVIDED TO QUESTIONS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 15. POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING DRAFT RESOLUTION ADOPTING ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AS THE CITY COUNCIL'S NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE. Council President Petso referenced a list of current practices that she would like to retain in addition to Robert's Rules: 1. Members must be recognized by the Chair to speak or make motions. Unless there is an obvious consensus, a motion and second are required. 2. Councilmembers chairing the meeting may participate fully in the meeting, including discussion, debate and voting. 3. The Mayor participates in discussion and debate only with the permission of the Council and does not make motions. Tiebreaker votes by the Mayor will be as provided by Washington State law. 4. Actions taken on matters after public hearings will not be substantially modified without advance notice to the public and all Councilmembers. Council President Petso explained she found the Rules of Order for Small Bodies suggest a small body may be so casual as not to require a second to motions. She did not envision the Council being quite that casual. With regard to her proposal that actions taken on matters after public hearings will not be substantially modified without advance notice to the public and all Councilmembers, she noted it appeared Robert's Rules would allow a motion to change a decision at the next meeting. She observed a public hearing may have had a great deal of public comment and she did not want the Council to be able to take action at a subsequent meeting to undo the action taken at the public hearing. Her intent was to create more permanency for actions that require a public hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADOPT ROBERT'S RULES WITH THE ADDITION OF THE FOUR POINTS SHE SENT OUT TODAY. Mayor Earling asked whether the intent was to use Robert's Rules in committee meetings. Council President Petso answered that was not her intent. Mayor Earling suggested that be included in the motion. Mr. Taraday relayed his understanding that the motion was to modify the resolution and place it on a future Consent Agenda. Council President Petso agreed that was her intent. Mayor Earling suggested a short delay to allow Councilmembers to familiarize themselves with the rules before they are put into practice at Council meetings. Council President Petso answered she and staff did not want to spend the money on Robert's Rules of Order books until it was certain the Council adopted Robert's Rules. She offered to purchase books for Councilmembers. Mayor Earling asked if the intent of the motion was to begin observing Robert's Rules at the May 21 meeting. Council President Petso was amenable to delaying implementation of Robert's Rules until the Council was ready. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed there are many versions of Robert's Rules. She preferred not to vote until she knew what she was voting on. She also suggested developing a cheat -sheet. Council President Petso offered to work with Ms. Spellman to create a cheat -sheet. Councilmember Yamamoto referred to page 21 of Robert's Rules that states every motion requires a second. He preferred to utilize Robert's Rules in its entirety and not make additions. Council President Petso responded the reason she suggested additional rules is the Rules for Small Bodies allow not having a second which she felt was too casual for the Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 7, 2013 Page 16 Packet Page 535 of 546 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the motion be withdrawn until the Council had an opportunity to review Robert's Rules. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Buckshnis requested Council President Petso provide her the correct title and she will purchase her own book. 16. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported a panel comprised of staff, citizens and Councilmembers interviewed candidates for the Finance Director position. The number of candidates has been narrowed to two; the code refers to the Council interviewing three candidates. At his suggestion, it was the consensus of the Council to schedule the two interviews prior to Council committee meetings next Tuesday. Mayor Earling reported Tom Petruzzi, a Councilmember in the mid-1990s, passed away last week. Former Councilmember Petruzzi was a very knowledgeable, articulate, thoughtful person whom the Council valued enormously. He had a special interest and expertise in commercial properties and was instrumental in making important decisions including the decision to purchase City Hall. His analysis confirmed the City saved $1 million by purchasing the building versus purchasing a new building. Mayor Earling concluded he knew Mr. Petruzzi fairly well and would miss him. 17. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Mayor Earling wanted Councilmembers to provide specific questions in advance of the Finance Director interviews. Mayor Earling suggested suggestions be submitted by Thursday. Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Waterfront Festival will be held Friday, May 31 — June 2. Councilmember Johnson reported the 2013 summer concert series was unveiled at the recent Edmonds Arts Commission meeting. There are two venues this year, City Park and Hazel Miller Plaza. A presentation will be made in a few weeks and Councilmembers will be invited to introduce concerts. Councilmember Johnson reported an open house for the Edmonds Museum was held Friday; there is a new exhibit regarding the growing season featuring farming in Snohomish County. She reminded that the Summer Market is now open. Council President Petso reported she has been trying to schedule a mini retreat on May 31 for the Council to receive training recommended by the City Attorney and to discuss big picture items. Only three Councilmembers have responded, two of whom indicated that date is convenient. If she does not hear an overwhelming response to the proposed date, the mini retreat will not be held and she will work with the City Clerk to schedule the necessary training. Council President Petso reported a correction needed to be made to the minutes. It was the consensus of the Council to place the correction on the next Consent Agenda. Council President Petso reported Tree Board interviews will be scheduled for May 28. There are four applicants for the two vacancies. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 7, 2013 Page 17 Packet Page 536 of 546 Parliamentary Motions Guide Based on Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised (] ph Edition) The motions below are listed in order of precedence. Any motion can be introduced if it is higher on the chart than the pending motion. ANT TO: YOU SAY: INTERRUPT? 2ND? DEBATE? AMEND? VOTE? F§21CIosemeeting I move to adjourn No Yes No No Majority e break I move to recess for No Yes No Yes Majority § 19 Register I rise to a question of complaint privilege Yes No No No None § 18 Make follow I call for the orders agenda of the day Yes No No No None § l 7 Lay aside I move to lay the temporarily question on the table No Yes No No Majority I move the previous § 16 Close debate question No Yes No No 2/3 § 15 Limit or extend I move that debate be debate limited to ... No Yes No Yes 2/3 § 1.4 Postpone to a I move to postpone certain time the motion to ... No Yes Yes Yes Majority § 13 Refer to I move to refer the committee motion to ... No Yes Yes Yes Majority § 12 Modify wording I move to amend the of motion motion by ... No Yes Yes Yes Majority I move that the § 11 Kill main motion motion be postponed No Yes Yes No Majority indefinite) § 10 Bring business before assembly l move that [or "to"] No Yes Yes Yes Majority (a main motion) ... Jim Slaughter, Certified Professional Parliamentarian -Teacher & Professional Registered Parliamentarian 336-378-1899(W) 336-378-1850(F) P.O. Box 41027, Greensboro 27404 web site: www.jimslaugliter.com Side 1 Packet Page 537 of 546 Parliamentary Motions Guide Based on Robert's Rules of Order Neivlj) Revised (I 1'hEdition) Incidental Motions - No order of precedence. Arise incidentally and decided immediately. OU WANT TO: VOU SAY: INTERRUPT? 2°? DEBATE? AMEND? VOTE? Enforce rules F§2 Point of order7 Yes No No No None Submit matter to 1 appeal from the assembly decision of the chair Yes Yes Varies No Majority I move to suspend the §25 Suspend rules rules which ... No Yes No No 2/3 1 object to the §26 Avoid main motion consideration of the Yes No No No 2/3 altogether question I move to divide the §27 Divide motion question No Yes No Yes Majority §29 Demand rising vote I call for a division Yes No No No None §33 Parliamentary law Parliamentary question inquiry Yes (if urgent) No No No None Request for §33 Request information information Yes (if urgent) No No No None Motions That Bring a Question Again Before the Assembly - no order of precedence. Introduce only when nothing else Bending. §34 'rake matter from table I move to take from the table ... No Yes No No Majority I move to rescind/ §35 Cancel or change amend something No Yes Yes Yes 2/3 or previous action reviously adopted... maj. w/ notice I move to reconsider §37 Reconsider motion the vote ... No Yes Varies No Majority Jim Slaughter, Certified Professional Parliamentarian -Teacher & Professional Registered Parliamentarian 912011 336-378-1899(W) 336-378-1850(F) P.O. Box 41027, Greensboro 27404 web site: www.jimsiaughter.com Side 2 Packet Page 538 of 546 AM-5842 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 06/11/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Lora Petso, Council President Department: City Clerk's Office Committee: Public Safety, Personnel Submitted By: Sandy Chase Tyne: Action Information Subject Title Proposed changes to Edmonds City Code Chapter 10.75 - Citizens Economic Development Commission. Recommendation Review the proposed changes and forward the Ordinance to the City Council for approval. 9. B. Previous Council Action The Public Safety and Personnel Committee discussed proposed changes to the Economic Development Commission Ordinance on 5-14-13. Attached is a copy of the minutes from that meeting. Narrative A revised ordinance proposing changes to Edmonds City Code Chapter 10.75, Citizens Economic Development Commission, is attached for the committee to review. Attachments Exhibit 1: 05-14-13 Public Safety & Peronnel Committee Minutes Exhibit 2: Draft Ordinance Amending ECC Chapter 10.75 Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Fonn Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 06/07/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 06/07/2013 08:57 AM Sandy Chase 06/07/2013 08:58 AM Started On: 06/07/2013 08:19 AM Packet Page 539 of 546 MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING MAY 145 2013 Elected Officials Present: Councilmember Bloom (Committee Chair) Councilmember Peterson (Committee Member) Mayor Earling Council President Petso (Presenter) City Staff Present: Chief of Police Al Compaan Fire Marshal John Westfall City Attorney Jeff Taraday The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. A. Proposed changes to the Economic Development Commission Ordinance. Council President Petso presented ordinance language to the Committee requesting: (1) Allow for up to two city council members to be appointed as Economic Development Commission liaisons to be appointed by the Council President; and (2) Each commissioner serves at the pleasure of the applicable appointing official, who may remove and replace his or her appointee(s) at any time without cause. Councilmember Peterson expressed concern over the legal implications and whether the deliberation would be required in a public forum, and was also concerned where one appointee might be operating from a position contrary to the positions that the appointing council member desires. City Attorney Jeff Taraday suggested most appointment processes and desired actions related to volunteer appointments by council members could be written into the ordinance. Hypothetical situations were discussed. Councilmember Bloom preferred the oversight by an entity such as an Ethics Board that could address the actions of all boards and commissions and provide recommendations to the City Council for action when activity fell short of criminal behavior. Councilmember Peterson suggested the formation of an Ethics Board would be an additional step ultimately arriving at the end with Council action that would apply by the processes established in this ordinance language. There currently is no Ethics Board established. Edits were made to allow one or two positions in number 1 above. Council President Petso withdrew number 2 above due to lack of consensus at committee. Council President Petso will bring the ordinance to the City Council for discussion. Public Safety & Personnel Committee May 14, 2013 Page 1 of 3 Packet Page 540 of 546 B. 2012 Fire Code Update. Fire Marshal Westfall discussed the upcoming code cycle changes to the Fire and Marina Codes. The most significant change will be that the Building and Fire Departments will no longer maintain a current Board of Appeals, described by the codes. This is an onerous task for the Building Department as volunteer experts in specific fields must be maintained for when Building or Fire determinations are questioned by code applicants. The most recent Board of Appeals activity occurred in 2002. This is not a frequent event and the City currently utilizes an established Hearing Examiner on an ongoing basis for land use issues. A Hearing Examiner is felt to be a good arbiter also for construction issues. The Committee approved the Fire Code update moving forward to public hearing on June 4, or when best scheduled by Council President. The 2013 Fire Code will be in effect in Washington State by July 1. C. Annual renewal of Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force Interlocal Agreement (2013-2014). Chief Compaan presented information regarding this Interlocal Agreement (ILA). The cost for the 2013-2014 fiscal year will be $10,237, half of which is already budgeted in the 2013 approved Police Department budget, with the balance to be included in the 2014 Police Department budget. The Committee approved placing this agreement on the Consent Agenda. D. Interlocal Agreement — North Sound Metro SWAT. Chief Compaan presented information regarding this ILA. The present SWAT ILA was approved by Council in December 2011. The new ILA adds the cities of Mill Creek and Kirkland, plus makes two minor language changes pertaining to team structure/operations. The Committee approved placing this agreement on the Consent Agenda. E. 2013 COPS Hiring Program Grant Solicitation. Mayor Earling and Chief Compaan presented information regarding this grant opportunity — presented this evening to both Public Safety -Personnel and Finance Committees. The proposal is to partner with Edmonds School District (ESD) to hire one police officer under this grant to serve as School Resource Officer. If Edmonds is approved for this grant, an Interlocal Agreement would be required with ESD. The term of the grant is four years. Years one through three are 75% funded (salary and benefits) by the grant, and ESD has indicated willingness to pick-up the remaining 25% for each of the three years. Year four must be 100% locally funded, and ESD has indicated willingness to pick-up 50%, and the city would be obligated to the other 50%. During the term of the grant, the city would be required to maintain its budgeted complement of police officers (51 at present; 52 if approved for COPS grant funding). The application deadline is May 22. No official action is required by City Council at this juncture, other than a consensus that the Police Department move forward with submitting an application. The Public Safety -Personnel Committee was of the consensus to submit the application. Public Safety & Personnel Committee May 14, 2013 Page 2 of 3 Packet Page 541 of 546 F. Public Comments There were no public comments. The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m. Public Safety & Personnel Committee May 14, 2013 Page 3 of 3 Packet Page 542 of 546 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND AMENDING CHAPTER 10.75 ECC; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, after review and discussion, the City Council has determined it appropriate to amend chapter 10.75 of the Edmonds City Code ("ECC") to revise certain provisions regarding appointments to the Citizens Economic Development Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 10.75.010 of the ECC, entitled "Commission created — Membership — Term of appointments" is hereby amended to read as follows (new language is shown in underline; deleted language is shown in str4ekthr-aug ): 10.75.010 Commission created — Membership — Term of appointments. A. There is hereby created a citizens economic development commission consisting of up to 17 members. The commission shall automatically expire December 31, 2015. B. The members of the commission shall be appointed in the following manner: 1. Each council member may appoint up to two members. 2. The mayor may appoint up to three members. 3. In the event that any commissioner resigns or fails to attend three consecutive commission meetings, that position may be deemed vacant by the holder of the office that appointed the commissioner (e.g., mayor or council member) and such office holder may appoint a replacement commissioner for the remainder of the unexpired term for that position. 4. Elected government officials shall not be eligible for appointment to the commission; provided, that the city council president may appoint one up to two Packet Page 543 of 546 efts council members to serve as nonvoting, ex officio members of the commission; and further provided, that the Edmonds port commission may also appoint one of its members to serve as a nonvoting, ex officio member of the commission. 5. Any vacancy on the commission will be advertised, and the new appointee will be selected from the applications received. C. Commissioner terms shall be staggered such that all members of the commission as of December 31, 2011, shall have their terms expire on December 31, 2012. All members appointed during 2012 shall have their terms expire on December 31, 2014. All members appointed during 2013 or later shall have their terms expire on December 31, 2015. 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 five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: Packet Page 544 of 546 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 545 of 546 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2013, 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, RELATING TO THE CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND AMENDING CHAPTER 10.75 ECC; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2013. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 546 of 546