The URL can be used to link to this page

2013-07-23 City Council - Public Agenda-1505'4- o 0 -c9 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds JULY 23, 2013 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE 1. (5 Minutes) Roll Call 2. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda 3. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items A. AM-5975 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2013. B. AM-5974 Approval of claim checks #203230 through #203359 dated July 18, 2013 for $661,388.69. Approval of payroll direct deposit & checks #60316 through #60341 for $472,345.11, benefit checks #60342 through #60349 and wire payments of $203,264.40 for the period July 1, 2013 through July 15, 2013. C. AM-5966 May 2013 Monthly Financial Report D. AM-5969 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Frontier Communications ($7,050.15). E. AM-5972 Community Services/Economic Development Department Quarterly Report - July, 2013. 4. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 5. (45 Minutes) Presentation on Stormwater Low Impact Development (LID) - Using Rain Gardens for AM-5950 Stormwater Management. 6. (15 Minutes) Park Levy Exploration Committee Recommendation of Reconsideration AM-5970 Packet Page 1 of 554 7. (20 Minutes) Potential Action: Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Interim AM-5973 Members Advisory Board's Proposed Bylaws. 8. (45 Minutes) Re -introduction of Westgate / 5 Corners. AM-5976 9. (20 Minutes) Discussion regarding future city utility rate adjustments. AM-5854 10. (15 Minutes) Adoption of Park Impact Fees Ordinance AM-5968 11. (5 Minutes) Park Impact Fee Ordinance 3928 Reconsideration AM-5971 12. (15 Minutes) Report on outside Board and Committee meetings. 13. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments 14. (15 Minutes) Council Comments 15. (15 Minutes) Convene in executive session regarding pending litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). 16. (5 Minutes) Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session. ADJOURN Packet Page 2 of 554 AM-5975 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/23/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Type: Action Committee Action: Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2013. Recommendation Review and approval. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. 07-16-13 Draft City Council Minutes Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 07/18/2013 Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 07/18/2013 01:44 PM Sandy Chase 07/18/2013 01:48 PM Started On: 07/18/2013 01:35 PM 3. A. Packet Page 3 of 554 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES July 16, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5tn Avenue North, Edmonds. 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 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Roger Neumaier, Finance Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Doug Fair, Municipal Court Judge Rob English, City Engineer Michael Clugston, 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. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i), A REAL ESTATE MATTER PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(c), AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). At 6:01 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would convene in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i), a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c), and labor negotiations per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 60 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. He noted action may occur in open session as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Attorney Sharon Cates, Public Works Director Phil Williams, City Engineer Rob English, Reporting Human Resources/Parks and Recreation Director Carrie Hite, Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, Senior Planner Kernen Lien, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 7:03 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council Chambers that an additional 10 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 7:09 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:12 p.m. and led the flag salute. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council President Petso requested the addition of a 10-minute executive session as Agenda Item 15.5. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 1 Packet Page 4 of 554 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Council President Petso requested Item G be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Bloom requested item A be removed. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #202962 THROUGH #203073 DATED JULY 3, 2013 FOR $1,842,629.96, AND CLAIM CHECKS #203074 THROUGH #203229 DATED JULY 11, 2013 FOR $678,334.68. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS #60277 THROUGH #60303 FOR $481,103.22, BENEFIT CHECKS #60304 THROUGH #60315 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $213,330.98 FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 16, 2013 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2013. C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM GARY REYNOLDS (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND STEVE GROOTERS (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). D. APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS' BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR LIQUOR LICENSE WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, JUNE AND JULY 2013. E. REINSTATE JUDICIAL CLERK POSITION. F. QUARTERLY PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT REPORT. H. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENTS FROM THE FRANKLIN PROPERTY FOR THE 228TH ST. SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. I. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS FROM THE HOCHBERG PROPERTY FOR THE 228TH ST. SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. J. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS FROM THE YUNIS PROPERTY FOR THE 228TH ST. SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. K. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO ACCEPT AND SIGN THE EASEMENT DOCUMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC STORAGE PROPERTY FOR THE 228TH ST. SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. L. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS CITY VEHICLES. M. INTERLOCAL WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY REGARDING CITY PARK PROJECT FUNDING. N. APPOINTMENT OF TWO NEW MEMBERS TO THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 5 of 554 O. ORDINANCE NO. 3932 — ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW PUBLIC MARKETS IN THE BC, BD AND CG ZONES. ITEM G: AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE A REQUEST FOR BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE 224TH STREET SW WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT. Council President Petso advised this is a project the City is working on with Olympic View Water and Sewer District; therefore, she will abstain from the vote. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ITEM G. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO ABSTAINED. ITEM A: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 2, 2013 Councilmember Bloom requested the date in the last paragraph on page 14 be changed from December 27, 2012 to June 27, 2013. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ITEM A AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no members of the audience present who wished to provide comment. 6. PROCLAMATION HONORING TERRY VEHRS & JOHN MCGIBBON FOR THEIR SERVICE ON THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD. Mayor Earling remarked the City has an opportunity to do several proclamations each year but this is one of which he is most proud. Tonight the City is recognizing John McGibbon and Terry Vehrs who helped move the Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) building forward from the ground up. Mr. McGibbon and Mr. Vehrs are two of the original PFD Board Members. Both have given 12 years of service, doing so in an exemplary manner. There was a ceremony earlier this evening at the ECA to honor them. Mayor Earling read a proclamation honoring John McGibbon and Terry Vehrs for their 12 years of volunteerism and their selfless commitment to creating a key gathering place and cultural resource for Edmonds and the surrounding region. Mr. McGibbon thanked the City for allowing him to participate in this venture which led to the ECA, a wonderful asset for the community. He thanked all the people who participated in the development and operation of the facility, commenting their work was indispensable. He recognized Chris Lund, Project Manager for the ECA renovation, and Joe McIalwain, ECA Executive Director. Mr. Vehrs thanked the Council for the opportunity; he has enjoyed the ride. He said it was great fun to see what others created; they were only the drivers who watched the numbers. 7. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF FILE # PLN20130030 AND THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A PROPOSAL TO REZONE ONE PARCEL (403 & 405 3RD AVE. N.) FROM CONTRACT RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY (RM-3.0) TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY (RM-2.4). City Attorney Jeff Taraday relayed his understanding that because the City's server is down, Councilmembers do not have access to the Council packet. Because the Council is sitting in a quasi- judicial capacity, he recommended the Council continue this item to a future meeting. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 6 of 554 Mr. Taraday advised the planner assigned to this matter, Mike Clugston, is on vacation from August 6-25. He suggested ideally the matter be scheduled prior to August 6 or it could be scheduled after August 25. Council President Petso observed the July 23 agenda is very full; she suggested adding a meeting on the fifth Tuesday, July 30. Mayor Earling announced this matter would be continued to July 30. 8. PRESENTATION OF 2013 SANITARY SEWER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE AND PROPOSED SEWER UTILITY RATE INCREASES. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the Council was not being asked tonight to make any decision regarding the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan or sewer rates. This is an update on the process; a public hearing and adoption of the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan will be scheduled on a future agenda. Mr. Williams explained the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan guides the operation of the City's Sewer Utility by: • Identifying and proposing solutions to known conveyance, maintenance or other problems • Details the actions necessary to ensure compliance with applicable Federal, state, and local requirements • Presents an operation and maintenance plan, capital improvement plan, and financial plan to address the first two items Since Edmonds is primarily a built out city, most of the identified issues are a result of: • Aging infrastructure • Current size of infrastructure in relation to current and future population • Root intrusion • Infiltration and Inflow Mr. Williams described reasons the Plan needs to be updated: • Last Plan 2006 • Re -prioritize capital projects • Updates to reflect actual changes due to population growth. • Updates to future population growth projections. • Include Wastewater Treatment Plant • Improved record tracking methods: o Video recordings of each pipe reach o GIS o Use of metering data Mr. Williams Drovided operation and maintenance Droeram information: City Owned Item Quantity Flow Meters 10 Manholes (junctions) 3,200 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Main 679,227 LF/128 miles Lift Stations 14 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) 1 WWTP Primary Clarifiers 3 WWTP Aeration Basins 3 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 7 of 554 WWTP econdary Clarifiers 3 WWTP Incinerator 1 Mr. Williams described capital projects in the Plan: • Conveyance Projects: Provide a basic or essential level of service for the sanitary sewer utility o Complete citywide pipe replacement/restoration projects ■ Excessive root intrusion ■ Conveyance problems ■ Old/damaged pipe • Wastewater Treatment Plant o Replacement of Emergency Power Switchgear System o Incinerator Regulatory Compliance Improvements o Recoating of clarifiers • 100% Sanitary Sewer rate funded (incl. revenue bond payments). He described how to pay for needs: • Fees collected for the Sanitary Sewer Utility have been used for an increasing number of items, driven by: o Aging infrastructure requiring more maintenance as time goes by. o Increased population growth and accompanying development • Sanitary Sewer utility rate study o Proposed rate adjustment needs City Council approval Mr. Williams displayed a spreadsheet of capital funding and revenue requirements 2013-2018, explaining a 6.5% annual rate adjustment is necessary to cover current O&M expenses and escalation and the capital plan. He referred to the revenue bonds in the next agenda item, explaining that out of the $14.5 million net to the City in revenues, $8 million is related to the wastewater system; the rate increase includes the debt service on the $8 million as well. The Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan anticipates borrowing or having funds available for additional sewer conveyance work every few years. This rate increase only includes the initial borrowing in 2013. He displayed a spreadsheet of capital funding and revenue requirements 2013-2018, explaining a 10% annual rate increase would be necessary for 2014-2018 to generate the capital necessary to continue funding of conveyance improvements. Mr. Williams acknowledged that was a substantial rate increase but the City currently has one of the lowest wastewater rates. He provided a comparison of other cities' monthly rates: Seattle $116.50 Kirkland $ 91.15 Ronald Wastewater District $ 75.14 Arlington $ 70.15 Woodinville Water District $ 65.77 Mukilteo Water and Sewer District $ 57.59 Lake Forest Park $ 55.44 Redmond $ 52.89 Alderwood Water & Wastewater $ 51.46 Lynnwood $ 39.57 Everett $ 34.94 Edmonds $ 27.85 Olympia View Water & Sewer District $ 23.66 Mr. Williams stated staff will present the Plan to the Council at a future meeting, request a public hearing be scheduled, and request the Council adopt the Plan and make decisions with regard to rate adjustments. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 8 of 554 Councilmember Buckshnis commented on the cost to issue revenue bonds and anticipated rates would not remain stable in the future. She supported the concept of using rates to pay for capital projects. She asked about conveyance pipes in Esperance. Mr. Williams stated most of Esperance is served by Olympic View Water & Sewer District (OVWSD) which is responsible for the maintenance of their pipes. OVWSD charges their customers for service and set their rates to meet their needs. OVWSD has a contract with Edmonds for treatment at the WWTP. The cost is calculated based on the percentage of flow OVWSD represents at the WWTP. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that was the reason OVWSD's rates were also low. Mr. Williams answered he was unable to comment on OVWSD's rate calculation; OVWSD customers pay the same amount for treating wastewater as Edmonds residents. Each has separate capital needs; partners share in the cost of capital projects for the WWTP based on a fixed percentage. Councilmember Bloom referred to a list of planned improvements (page 577 of the packet) and asked what was meant by Low Impact Development Retrofit Projects. Mr. Williams was not certain but said there was a tie between stormwater and wastewater; during a heavy rainstorm, water enters the sewer lines which increases the flow at the WWTP. The system must be sized to handle peak flows which costs money; reducing infiltration and inflow via an LID project would benefit the sewer system. Councilmember Bloom asked if the Plan addressed reducing the amount of water that is treated via low flow toilets or other start at the source methods. Mr. Williams answered new construction uses more efficient toilets and appliances. With Edmonds' limited population growth, flows in the past 10-20 years have stayed nearly the same, even trending downward. He attributed that to more efficient plumbing. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the Plan addressed a further reduction. Mr. Williams responded since he has been with the City, there has not been an incentive program to stimulate replacement rather than waiting for remodels or new construction to use more efficient plumbing fixtures. He offered to research what was meant by the LID Retrofit Project and respond. Council President Petso referred to Councilmember Buckshnis' question, explaining OVWSD is geographically blessed with gravity flows; nearly every resident in OVWSD lives above the sewer conveyance system thus providing low cost conveyance. Targeting that as a rate target for a city that sprawls to the north away from the WWTP may not be appropriate. Council President Petso referred to water reuse mentioned in the Plan and the indication that water reuse does not price out at this time. She asked if water reuse was only reported in the Comprehensive Plan or was the City actively interested in pursuing it regardless of the cost. Mr. Williams answered both, the City is required to look at reuse in the new Comprehensive Plan to determine if there are ways to reuse effluent from the WWTP for some purpose such as irrigating areas the public does not have immediate access to, golf courses, etc. That usually requires a significant upgrade in treatment; the capital cost of those upgrades and the long term O&M costs must be balanced with the benefit of not purchasing water for irrigation. He noted that is typically difficult in the Northwest; it is more common in areas where water is extremely expensive in dry, and climates. He noted there were not large tracts of land within the City limits that require irrigation. Council President Petso relayed her understanding that since the City did not have a golf course to irrigate, the numbers were in the Plan simply for information. Mr. Williams responded the City is required to address water reuse in the Comprehensive Plan. If that analysis indicated there would be a plausible project, the City would pursue it. Councilmember Peterson referred to the comment that the City was unique in its disposal of solids via incineration. He asked if the Plan considered other methods. Mr. Williams answered there are a total of five facilities in Washington and only a few hundred nationwide that incinerate solids on site. It works well in Edmonds. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) new regulations have been legally challenged. While that legal challenge continues, staff is researching/testing whether the WWTP can meet the new regulations which primarily address mercury. Much of the mercury in the wastewater system Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 9 of 554 comes from dental facilities. The City works with dental facilities in the waste -shed to be in compliance with all recommended guidelines and use separators to keep mercury out of wastewater. To the extent less mercury enters the WWTP, there is less mercury released from the incinerator. If the limit cannot be met, the fix is installing carbon absorption, a large, expensive process that runs the hot air from the incinerator through activated carbon. Reducing the amount of mercury that enters the plant is a less costly strategy. Councilmember Peterson asked if the Sewer Comprehensive Plan will investigate the district energy idea or other ways to monetize the heat that is generated. Mr. Williams acknowledged the WWTP is the single largest consumer of energy in the City; staff constantly works to reduce the energy footprint. The WWTP has a good history of reducing costs and energy consumption over the last ten years, receiving a number of grants and incentive payments from the utility to do projects. He was uncertain whether district heating would ultimately be cost effective and the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan does not address that. Councilmember Peterson asked about solar panels on the WWTP. Mr. Williams answered when the most recent solar project was proposed, several possible projects at the WWTP were considered; only one penciled out. He suggested continuing to watch that technology and equipment prices, acknowledging it would be a great thing to do if it was cost effective. Councilmember Johnson recalled at the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee meeting, this update was presented to the Council as part of the next agenda item. She asked when the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan will be presented to the Council for adoption. Mr. Williams answered next month; it was not completed in time to precede the revenue bond sale but there was some urgency to complete the revenue bond sale before rates increase. He recalled the Council had concerns with adjusting rates before the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan was completed. Councilmember Johnson recalled the Planning Board reviewed the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan and recommended forwarding it to the City Council. She asked what remained to be done. Mr. Williams responded the financials are being tweaked. There will also need to be a separate discussion with the Council regarding rates; the Plan can recommend rates but the rates are set by the Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the heat from the incinerator can be captured. Mr. Williams answered that was Councilmember Peterson's question regarding district energy. A lot of the heat is recaptured and some of the heat is left in the stack by design to prevent a steam plume emanating from the WWTP. If the public sees a plume leaving the WWTP there is an assumption/expectation it is pollution when it may be condensed water vapor due to moisture in the stack. Leaving the stack hot results in a clear plume; there was a desire in the past not to have a visible plume. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about using captured heat to heat buildings away from the site. Mr. Williams stated there were locations around the WWTP where captured energy could be marketed. He acknowledged that was a possibility but the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan was not tasked with developing a proposal. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether that energy could be sold. Mr. Williams answered it could; the intent would be to sell the energy to offset the cost of gathering the energy and possibly make a profit. That was difficult with the energy prices in the northwest. 9. REQUESTING APPROVAL OF BOND ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CITY SALE OF $16.2 MILLION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING FOR WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, A DEPOSIT TO THE DEBT SERVICE RESERVE ACCOUNT AND COSTS OF SALE AND ISSUANCE. Finance Director Roger Neumaier explained the Council has reviewed the purpose of the bonds and discussed their structure. The purpose of the ordinance is to authorize the sale of the bonds. He introduced Alice Ostdiek, Foster Pepper, who was present to answer questions. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 10 of 554 COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3933, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE COMBINED WATER AND SEWERAGE SYSTEMS COMPRISING THE WATERWORKS UTILITY OF THE CITY; SPECIFYING, ADOPTING AND ORDERING THE CARRYING OUT OF A SYSTEM OR PLAN OF ADDITIONS TO AND BETTERMENTS AND EXTENSIONS OF THE COMBINED WATERWORKS UTILITY; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ONE OR MORE SERIES OF WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS IN AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $16,200,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING THE FUNDS NECESSARY: (A) TO PAY ALL OR A PORTION OF THE COSTS OF CARRYING OUT THAT PLAN OF ADDITIONS, (B) TO MAKE A DEPOSIT TO THE DEBT SERVICE RESERVE ACCOUNT, AND (C) TO PAY THE COSTS OF ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE BONDS; FIXING OR SETTING PARAMETERS WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN TERMS AND COVENANTS OF THE BONDS; APPOINTING THE CITY'S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE TO APPROVE THE FINAL TERMS OF THE SALE OF THE BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER RELATED MATTERS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. QUARTERLY REPORT — EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS ECA Executive Director Joe McIalwain advised the quarterly report is required by the agreement between the ECA and the City. He provided an overview of the Strategic Business Plan: • Background o Original ECA business plan done in 2003-2004 o Changes in operation led to need for new plan • Assets o Positive perception of ECA in community o Raised City's profile and cultural front o Brought visitors to the community to attend performances and spend time and money in local restaurants, shops and galleries o Beautiful campus and facilities o Offer a range of programs and event opportunities Strengths o Great, significant community support o Successful presentation series o Dedicated and expanding audience o Reputation as an excellent venue o Diverse funding base that includes corporations, foundations, individuals, and government agencies o Operations financial solvent and improving each year Challenges o Eliminating current debt service shortage that is the result of sales tax revenue downturn o Managing portions of facility that were not renovated such as gymnasium and classrooms Planning Process o Stakeholder and Community engagement ■ Individual interviews ■ Focus groups o Edmonds EPFD and ECA Board involvement o Consulting Team ■ Berk Consulting ■ AdvisArts Consulting o Facility and Financial Assessment Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 11 of 554 Mr. McIalwain reviewed specifics of the Plan: Vision, Mission and Values o Vision: A vibrant community in which the performing arts are woven into our daily lives and valued for their power to entertain educate and inspire entertain, inspire. o Mission: To celebrate the performing arts, strengthen and inspire our community, and steward the development and creative use of the ECA campus. o Values: Creativity, Quality, Partnership, Service, Diversity, Stewardship, Transparency, Accountability Key Strategic Focal Points o Arts Programming and Outreach o Funding and Finances o Facility Maintenance and Capital Improvements o Facility Redevelopment Planning o Governance and Organizational Capacity Assignment of Plan Oversight, Implementation o Steering Committee: Overall implementation of SBP (subject to quarterly review by District Board), Facility Redevelopment Planning o Marketing/Programming Committee: Arts Programming & Outreach o Development Committee: Funding & Finances o Administration/Finance Committee: Governance & Organizational Capacity o Facilities/Operations Committee: Facility Maintenance and Capital Improvements Timing and Process for Plan Review Mr. McIalwain reviewed operating revenue/expenses: Operating Revenue/Expense Revenue 2013 Budget 2013 YTD 6/30/13 % Budget YTD 6/30/13 Contributions -Operating $ 650,000 $298,978 46% Ticket Sales & Fees 485,000 279,140 58% Rental Revenue 340,000 249,090 73% Concessions 105,000 51,601 49% Total $1,580,000 $878,808 56% Expense Presenting/MarketingPresenting/Marketing 485,000 294,996 61 % Facilities/Operations 290,000 149,029 51 % Labor costs 675,000 353,213 52% Other Expenses 75,000 18,046 53% Total $1,525,000 $815,284 53 % Net Revenue $ 55,000 $ 63,524 Mr. McIalwain reviewed non -operating revenue/expenses: Non- Operating Revenue/Expense Revenue 2013 Budget 2013 YTD 6/30/13 Budget PYE Sales Tax Rebates 435,000 219,256 438,000 Transfer from Operations 35,000 -- 40,000 Interest Earnings 130 45 130 Total $470,130 $219,301 $478,130 Expense Debt Service Interest $256,226 $142,761 $256,226 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 12 of 554 Debt Service Principal 380,000 -- 380,000 Capital Expenditures 20,000 -- 20,000 Total $656,226 $142,761 $656,226 Net Revenue(Shortfall) (186,096) ($76,540) ($178,096) Mr. McIalwain provided an update on the annual State audit: • Entrance Conference completed — May 16, 2013 • Site work in progress through mid -August • Audit report for FY 2012 expected by October 1 Mr. McIalwain reviewed governance and operation: • PFD Board o Retiring PFD Members: John McGibbon, Terry Vehrs o New Members: Larry Ehl and Susan Loreen o PFD Board Leadership: Bob Rinehart, President; Marla Miller, Vice President • ECA Board o David Brewster, President o Susan Dunn, Vice President • Steering Committee o Steve Shelton, Chair • ECA Staff — Reorganization of Development & Marketing o Director of Advancement: Jamie Herlich o Development Manager: Amy Hutchings o Education Coordinator: Gillian Jones o Communications Manager: Search in progress o Interim Communications Manager: Kris McRea o Purpose: to steward relationships with audience members, donors and the community at large through clearer communication and improved programs and services Mr. McIalwain reviewed programs and services: • 2013-2014 Season o 27 Presentations 0 77 Full Season Subscribers 0 161 Choice Subscribers 0 1000 tickets ahead of last year's pace • Education & Family Programs o Summer Camps o Student Matinees o Family Presentation Series (in process) o KIDSTOCK! —Saturday, February 8, 2014 Mr. McIalwain highlighted projects and events of note: • Edmonds Arts Summit • Volunteer Celebration • Summer Gymnasium Activity • Facilities Project: Seismic Reinforcement and Roof Repair o Pursuing FEMA grant • Red Carpet Gala — September 28, 2013 Mr. McIalwain summarized: • Programming continues to expand and improve Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 13 of 554 • Cultural and economic impact of ECA continues to grow, gaining more local and regional recognition • Operating performance is strengthening • Strategic Business Plan is complete and in the implementation phase Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the City Task Force fits with the Steering Committee. Mr. McIalwain explained the PFD charter requires the City's Administration/Finance Director to be the ex- officio treasurer of the PFD Board and therefore serves on the Administration/Finance Committee. The City's Finance Directors have actively participated in the PFD Board and the Admin/Finance Board. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to plans to create a capital reserve policy. She asked if the ECA had an operating reserve. Mr. McIalwain answered no; the Admin/Finance Committee will be addressing that. Councilmember Bloom asked whether more information regarding the Capital Improvement Plan will be included in future Strategic Plan updates. Mr. McIalwain referred to a matrix for two of the five committees; the other three committees have not yet completed their process. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the Capital Improvement Plan will address the lack of ADA accessible restrooms in the gymnasium. Mr. McIalwain advised any renovations will require ADA compliance. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the ECA had explored grants to use the gym as a staging facility during a disaster. Mr. McIalwain advised the ECA has an agreement with the Red Cross to use the ECA during a disaster. Issues such as the roof and seismic need to be addressed; the FEMA grant is a possible funding source to address those issues. Councilmember Bloom expressed support for family programming on Saturdays, relaying she often hears the desire for family and arts programming. Mr. McIalwain agreed the stakeholder and community involvement also expressed that desire. Mayor Earling recognized two PFD Board Members and three ECA Board Members in the audience. 11. UPDATE ON BUDGET FORECAST Mayor Earling explained this update would illustrate an improved financial situation for the coming year and hopefully coming years. The improvement is due to, 1) the improving economy, 2) budget cuts that were made last year, and 3) all departments doing a great job of managing their current budgets. He emphasized part of the reason for the improvement is the reductions that were made last year. He cautioned the improved situation should not be an invitation to spend freely; the City needs to continue to be frugal and cautious. Although the economy is improving, any dramatic economic event could have a severe impact on the City's budget. Finance Director Roger Neumaier explained financial projection is better than when the 2013 budget was adopted. Most of the 2013 improvements were driven by strong revenues in the last two quarters of 2012. In summer 2012 when the 2013 budget was being developed, there were concerns about the economy. Fears about Spain's financial health caused many economists to believe the global economy was in the worst shape since 2009. Six of the seventeen countries that use the euro currency were in recession and economists were concerned the U.S. economy was beginning to struggle. China, India, Brazil, which had been driving the world economy were beginning to slow and some economists were laying odds the United States was about to enter a recession. The Federal Reserve Bank rescued the economy, consumer confidence, low interest rates, an improving real estate market, and new car sales have stabilized the economy and caused some growth. Things are looking better as was shown in the second half of 2012 and that recovery appears to be continuing into 2013. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 14 of 554 Mr. Neumaier reviewed projected General Fund revenue changes from the 2013 Adopted Budget: General Fund Operations: Revenue Category 2013 Projection 2013 Budget Increase from Adopted Budget Property Tax $13,472,493 13,472,493 -- Retail Sales Tax 5,232,849 4,913,150 319,699 Other Sales & Use Tax 529,123 529,123 -- Utility Tax 6,484,143 6,484,143 -- Other Taxes 274,466 274,466 -- Licenses/Permits/Franchise 1,241,456 1,152,737 88,719 Construction Permits 478,000 395,436 82,564 Grants 17,191 17,191 -- State Revenues 650,881 569,336 81,545 Inter ov't Services Charges 3,030 3,030 -- Interfund Service Charges 1,526,196 1,526,196 -- Charges for Goods & Services 2,717,295 2,622,029 95,266 Fines and Forfeits 616,970 526,342 90,628 Misc Revenues 408,916 372,916 36,000 2013 Revenue $33,653,010 32,858,588 794,000 Mr. Neumaier reviewed a spreadsheet entitled Edmonds General Fund: 2011 — 2019 Revenue and Expense, summarizing the outlook for 2019 is more promising. The variables used in prior projections have, for the most part, not changed. Preliminary projections have been made for all General Fund revenues. Departments are beginning to review those numbers and will have a much better idea of revenues going forward. Salary and benefit trends have been adjusted based upon recommendations from Human Resources. Sales tax has shown some strength; projections use a 4.5% growth trend. No assumptions have been made regarding budgetary increases in resource levels; for example, the projection assumes the City continues to have virtually no street overlays and no new staff. The 2014 budget projects to have a surplus of just under 4% of annual projected expenditures. Mr. Neumaier offered to provide Councilmembers a copy of his presentation tomorrow. Mr. Neumaier displayed and reviewed a spreadsheet entitled: Edmonds General Fund: 2011 — 2019 Projected Fund Balance. He explained this projection ties together all the elements of the Edmonds General Fund. The General Operations Fund balance includes both the operating fund balance that increases and decreases during the year due to revenue cycles and budget variances and the General Operations Contingency. The projected 2013 General Operations Fund Balance is approximately $10,600,000. There are several other fund balances that the City includes in its General Fund. They are reflected as Other Specific General Fund fund balances in the worksheet. The General Fund Balance shows an increasing balance going forward. The worksheet projects that at year end 2013, total General Fund fund balance will be just over 33% of 2013 revenues. Mr. Neumaier provided responses to anticipated questions, first, why the improvement? The economy has improved significantly. The City was conservative in projecting revenue, something for which it deserves credit. As a result of this conservatism, 2013 will produce a stronger bottom line than originally anticipated in the budget. However, that is not the main reason that the City is in this position. City leadership has made difficult decisions throughout the Great Recession, cutting positions in every department, cutting back on discretionary expenditures, and not adding expenditures in areas where pressure exists to add. For example, the City did not initiate a road overlay over the past five or six years except in instances where grants were obtained for that purpose. By making difficult cuts and not making adds, the cost of government in Edmonds has been reduced. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 15 of 554 He displayed a graph illustrating Edmonds General Fund expenditures growth compared to Seattle CPI-W 2007-2017. The graph shows that decisions made by the City have reduced the cost of government from what it would have been if cost controls hadn't been introduced. It also shows that while revenue has grown slightly more than expected, the reason that fund balance is growing is because the City has cut expenditures. So the natural question is where were these cuts? Because municipal services from the General Fund are people dependent, cutting General Fund costs means reducing the number of staff working for the City. Mr. Neumaier displayed a graph comparing the budgeted number of City regular employees 2006-2013. The reduction in Police staff does not reflect the fact that the police operations have also lost 5-6 volunteer staff. Although the Fire Department was part of City staff in 2006, they are excluded from this graph; the City now pays the Fire District directly and the Fire District employs the staff. He displayed another graph comparing the budgeted number of City regular employees and the percent reduction between 2006 and 2013 by department. The overall reduction in City funded staff over this period was 11.2%. Mr. Neumaier summarized the City reduced its budget and, in spite of the Great Recession, was able to build up fund balance and achieve a surplus for 2013 via deep cuts to the budget. Needs in the City have not been reduced during this period and needs for current citizens have not decreased. Some needs from the General Fund have increased. The level of alternative revenues to fund Street Overlay has gone down. Thus there is a need for General Fund contributions to Street Overlay programs. Realistically, the City will not have sufficient resources to replace most of the positions that have been eliminated. In response to a second anticipated question, does this mean the City is in great financial shape, Mr. Neumaier explained the City is being well managed from a financial perspective. Its income statement and balance sheet are solid which bond raters will like. If the question is asked whether the City is in a position to fund the positions that were eliminated and to do the additional things that citizens have expressed interest in, the answer is probably no. As the City works on its 2014 budget, it must prioritize its diverse needs and determine which of the things that people want to add or add back to the budget are affordable. To the question of what is an appropriate fund balance level, Mr. Neumaier answered there is no hard and fast rule. Moody's and S&P have indicated in the past that fund balance is one of the most critical measures of financial health. They regard cities and counties with a 25% to 35% fund balance as healthy. Recognizing the City has made difficult decisions to build its fund balance to the 33% level, he recommended maintaining it at this level. A healthy fund balance gives a government the ability to absorb an economic downturn or major disaster without slashing staff and services. In addition, it reduces the cost of bonds. To the question of how this affects the 2014 budget, Mr. Neumaier explained this projection is a preliminary draft. As departments complete their budget requests and estimate revenues, there will be a better idea of what additional things the City can afford. The Council had expressed interest in a prioritized budget process for the future. The essence of prioritized budgets is the process identifying needs and making decisions regarding which of those needs can be funded in the context of available dollars. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the recent FTE additions had been added to the projections. Mr. Neumaier replied that he used the 2013 expenditure budget; adjustments for additional FTE have not been made. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for a copy of Mr. Neumaier's presentation. She observed the largest change was the increase in sales tax revenue. Mr. Neumaier responding he increased the 2% trend to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 16 of 554 4.5%. In addition he used 2012 actuals which were higher than what was used to prepare the 2013 budget. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if she could use the 2013 budget book to review the forecast. Mr. Neumaier answered yes. 12. SR 104 MINI PARK NAMING. RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite requested the Council adopt a name for the SR 104 Mini Park. At the request of the Planning Board, the community was given the opportunity in May to submit names for the SR 104 Mini Park. The Planning Board created a subcommittee to review the name and the Planning Board held a public hearing on June 26. A few people offered testimony at the public hearing; the Planning Board discussed the name and forwarded a recommendation to the Council. Planning Board Member Neil Tibbott thanked the numerous people who participated in the process; over 100 suggested names were submitted by the community. Two names stood out, one to honor the memory of veterans in the community and a second to recognize the outstanding public service contributions of Richard Anway. Mr. Tibbott relayed the Planning Board recommendation that the Council adopt the name Richard F. Anway Park. He explained the Planning Board reviewed Mr. Anway's service record in the City; he gave over 30 years of volunteer service to the City, serving as a police officer at the waterfront. Many of the people using the ferry lanes were impacted by Mr. Anway's service. One citizens' submission stated he gave of his time generously to the city and to its citizens. He was well known for doing the many extra things to help his fellow human beings, providing transportation, a jump start, giving funds out of his own pocket, unlocking a car with keys left in the ignition, talking with a kid to make a positive impression of law enforcement. Mr. Tibbott summarized Mr. Anway's service was a compelling story for a park that serves those who use the ferry service. The Planning Board would also like to have improvements made to the park to invite travelers to explore Edmonds. Many travelers do not know about the City's parks, recreational opportunities, shopping and the waterfront. Improvements could include a small stage, interactive elements, etc. Mr. Tibbott relayed the tremendous outpouring of support for the name Veterans Memorial Park. The Planning Board found that a compelling opportunity but did not think this location was conducive to public gatherings because it is a small park; there is no parking and the location is not a thoughtful or reflective place for a memorial. The Planning Board recommended naming this park Richard F. Anway Park but would like another park naming opportunity for a Veterans Memorial or another public location to honor veterans. Mr. Tibbott restated that the Planning Board recommended naming the park Richard F. Anway Park along with the installation of a plaque recognizing his public service. Alternate names could be Richard Anway Park or Anway Park. Councilmember Peterson asked if the park naming process required a public hearing only at the Planning Board and not at the City Council. Ms. Hite explained the park naming process requires the Planning Board hold a public hearing, deliberate and provide a recommendation to Council. No public hearing is required at Council; the Council could request a public hearing. Councilmember Peterson recalled Council discussion as part of a previous park naming. Ms. Hite agreed that occurred with the naming of the Hazel Miller Plaza. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the location of the SR 104 Mini Park. Ms. Hite responded it is near the coffee cart and adjacent to the ferry holding lanes. There is no parking; it is accessible by pedestrians or by vehicles parked in ferry lanes. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 17 of 554 Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the request to name the park arose. Ms. Hite answered following the naming of the Hazel Miller Plaza, the Planning Board requested an opportunity to name the SR 104 Mini Park. Councilmember Yamamoto asked if there was a veterans' memorial in any of the City's parks. Ms. Hite answered there was not an official Veterans Memorial Park. The centennial plaza is not specifically for veterans. There are a few pieces in front of the Edmonds Historical Museum that honor veterans. Councilmember Yamamoto observed there is little gathering space near the ferry holding lanes. Ms. Hite agreed it would be difficult to hold gatherings at the SR 104 Mini Park due to its location. Councilmember Bloom expressed appreciation for the Planning Board's thoughtful process in balancing the issues related to the two names. She agreed it would be appropriate for the City to identify a Veterans Memorial Park or a portion of a park. She asked why the Planning Board recommended Richard F. Anway Park instead of Anway Park. Mr. Tibbott responded Richard F Anway was selected as a full descriptor of the person behind the story. There was some concern the name Anway could be confused with a major corporation. Councilmember Peterson echoed Councilmember Bloom's comments regarding the Planning Board's thoughtful consideration. Although members of veterans groups such as the VFW were initially disappointed by the Planning Board's selection, they were assured the Planning Board and staff will endeavor to identify an appropriate way to honor veterans. Mr. Tibbott assured that priority would be forwarded to the Planning Board. Councilmember Johnson recalled when the Planning Board recommended Hazel Miller Plaza, Mr. Clarke was concerned that no other Edmonds parks had a first and last name. She understood the desire to avoid confusion with the company name that is similar to Anway and asked whether the full name would change the direction of the park naming process. Mr. Tibbott responded the subcommittee suggested the name Anway Park. As the Planning Board discussed it, they wanted to be clear who was being honored and avoiding any confusion with the corporation name. Main Motion #1 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO NAME THE PARK, RICHARD (DICK) F. ANWAY MEMORIAL PARK. Council President Petso observed that name was not recommended by the Planning Board. Ms. Hite responded the Planning Board recommended Richard F. Anway. The Council has the discretion to select a variation of the name. Councilmember Peterson asked why the Planning Board did not recommend that name. Mr. Tibbott responded the nickname was omitted for the purpose of shortening the name. Councilmember Bloom preferred Richard F. Anway Park, finding the name in the motion a little long. Action on Main Motion #1 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. Main Motion #2 COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO NAME THE PARK RICHARD F. ANWAY MEMORIAL PARK. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 18 of 554 Mr. Tibbott clarified the Planning Board's recommendation was Richard F. Anway Park, and did not include "Memorial." Action on Main Motion #2 COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Main Motion #3 COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO NAME THE PARK RICHARD F. ANWAY PARK. Action on Main Motion #3 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. POTENTIAL ACTION: RESOLUTION ADOPTING ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AS THE CITY COUNCIL'S NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE. Council President Petso explained this is before Council with the changes that were recommended to City Attorney Jeff Taraday with one exception; Mr. Taraday determined one of the modifications the Council agreed to is unnecessary as it is the way Roberts Rules of Order would resolve the issue. She also relayed Mayor Earling's suggestion to be specific with regard to the implementation date of August 6, 2013. Mr. Taraday suggested adding Section 5 to the resolution that states August 6, 2013 as the date Roberts Rules officially are the Council's rules of procedure. Main Motion COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 1295 WITH THE ALTERATION AS SUGGESTED BY MR. TARADAY THAT THE RESOLUTION BE EFFECTIVE AUGUST 6, 2013. Councilmember Johnson recalled there were three proposed amendments. Since the Council did not have access to the online packet, she requested the amendments be summarized. Mr. Taraday reviewed the resolution: Section 1: Repeals Resolution 292 Section 2: Adopts Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised, I Ph Edition as its official rules for conducting Council meetings and addresses Roberts Rules of Order in Brief Section 3: Modifications to Roberts' Rules: The city council hereby adopts the following modifications to the Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, I Ith Edition: 1. Contrary to the ** footnote on Page 35 and first bullet point on page 488, motions before the city council must be seconded. 2. Contrary to page 43, line 23 of Robert's Rules of Order, 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. Mr. Taraday explained the Roberts Rule that this undoes reads, "except in committees and small boards, the presiding officer should not enter into discussions of the merits of pending questions unless in rare instances he leaves the chair until the pending business has disposed of as described on pages 3, 94 and 95." 3. Notwithstanding Sections 35 and 38 of Robert's Rules of Order, actions taken on matters at the same meeting after public hearings will not be substantially modified without advance notice to the public and all Councilmembers. Mr. Taraday explained the "same meeting" language is important. If the Council held a public hearing and the Council took action on the proposal at that meeting, and at a subsequent meeting a Councilmember wants to bring back the motion either because Councilmembers were missing or had changed their minds, the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 16 Packet Page 19 of 554 modification would require advance public notice before the action taken at the public hearing could be modified. Section 4: Matters not covered. Order of precedent is State law, City ordinance, Roberts Rules. Councilmember Johnson explained she is in favor of adopting Roberts Rules and would approve modifications 1 and 2 but had concerns with modification 3. She asked why modification 3 was proposed. Council President Petso responded citizens often attend a meeting specifically for the public hearing. She provided the following example: the Council holds a public hearing regarding a cat ordinance and the Council approves a change to the cat ordinance. Robert's Rules would allow the Council to change their vote the following week. Modification 3 requires public notice when a change is made to an action taken at a public hearing. Councilmember Johnson asked if that meant the Council could not modify the proposal without public notice. Council President Petso responded modification 3 applies after action has taken; the Council could modify the proposal at the public hearing. Mr. Taraday explained under Robert's Rules reconsideration and amendment of something previously adopted are addressed under Rule 35. Because modification states notwithstanding Section 35, and uses the wording substantially modified, he advised without advance notice to the public, the Council could not substantially modify an action taken the evening of the public hearing. If the Council held a public hearing and deliberations are continued to a subsequent Council meeting, this exception would not apply. His reading of advance notice to the public was the Council agenda stating reconsideration, amendment or renewal of the ordinance. He requested the Council indicate if they wanted something more than agenda notice. Councilmember Peterson expressed concern with modification 3, envisioning a scenario where a Councilmember asked for a reconsideration because he/she changed their mind but the Mayor who approves the final agenda or the Council President who creates the agenda disagreed and it was placed on the agenda. He was uncertain there was a Council procedure to address that other than for a Councilmember to demand at a public meeting that it be placed on the agenda. Council President Petso assumed the recourse for the Council President not placing something on the agenda was to bring a motion to the Council. She agreed unless a Councilmember found a way for public notice, there would be an additional meeting's delay in order to provide public notice. It was her sincere hope no Council President would force that issue but understood it could result in a week's delay. Councilmember Peterson envisioned the delay could be longer than a week depending on the Council meeting schedule. Amendment COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REMOVE MODIFICATION 3. Councilmember Bloom asked why Modification 3 was proposed to be removed. Council President Petso explained a concern has been raised that it could be used to manipulate the process. Recognizing that the Council's adoption of Robert's Rules was an attempt to avoid that, it would be easier to adopt the resolution tonight without Modification 3 and propose the modification at a later date. Action on Amendment THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Taraday clarified the amendment removed Item 3 under Section 3, not Section 3 entirely. Action on Main Motion as Amended THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 14. RESTORATION OF THE PARKS IRRIGATION BUDGET Council President Petso explained the proposal was to authorize the Parks Department to water parks for which insufficient watering was budgeted. The budget cut was made in hopes of a wet summer. The Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 17 Packet Page 20 of 554 estimated amount to water and mow is $15,000 to restore basic maintenance to parks and playfields that were not being watered in the 2013 budget. With Finance Director Neumaier's indication there will be hundreds of thousands of dollars in ending cash, this seems like a good investment of $15,000. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding if the fields are not watered, the turf goes dry, and if people play on the fields, the turf can be damaged to the point it will need to be replaced which would be a much larger expense. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite answered when grass goes dormant it does not automatically default to be being ruined. There can be damage to turf if continued dry weather dries the grass to its roots. In the fall, rather than replacing the full turf, it would be top dressed and watered to bring it back. Fall also typically brings wetter weather to assist with watering. Staff will continue to monitor fields and if there is a tremendous impact and more dry weather, it may result in closing fields so they can be restored more easily in the fall. Councilmember Bloom observed if the Council did not pass this budget amendment, some parks may be closed. Ms. Hite agreed some of the larger grass areas may need to be closed. That was identified in the 2013 budget as part of a service level cut. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled at the Finance Committee presentation, Ms. Hite referred to specific parks where scheduled games would need to be cancelled. Ms. Hite responded the fields/parks that were identified are Hickman, Seaview, Sierra, Mathay-Ballinger, Hummingbird and Pine Street Parks. Staff usually waters 5-6 days a week during peak summer weather; those parks are being watered 2-3 days a week. Some higher impact fields are watered 3-4 days week. If the hot weather continues, she anticipates the irrigation budget will be depleted by the end of July. Without a restoration of the irrigation budget, irrigation will be discontinued to avoid going over budget and the fields will be monitored for turf damage and possible closure to avoid additional expense in the fall to replace turf. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if this had ever been done before. Ms. Hite said she was not aware it had been done in Edmonds before although it is a common practice. Parks Departments have experienced several years of difficult cuts and it has been a common practice to reduce watering. Other common practices include removing garbage cans to reduce garbage pickup, turning off water, not mowing, etc. Councilmember Buckshnis observed if the irrigation budget is restored, staff will be selective with the parks that are watered. Ms. Hite agreed high use fields would be watered five days/week to maintain the root integrity of the turf. She noted it is a balancing act all summer. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO RESTORE THE PARKS IRRIGATION BUDGET UP TO AN AMOUNT OF $15,000. Councilmember Peterson did not support the motion. All departments made difficult decisions in the 2013 budget. As the Finance Director's presentation indicated, one of the reasons the City is doing well is because of those difficult decisions. At some point the reality is that levels of service will decline. He acknowledged it was not a lot of money but many believe that government needs to live within its means just like individuals do. He was happy with monitoring and limited watering. These are still difficult economic times and the Council needs to lead by example and show they are willing to make difficult choices. He assumed every department could find $10,000 - $20,000 in items they wanted restored. He preferred to stand by the decision that was made as part of the difficult 2013 budget. Councilmember Yamamoto said he also would not support the motion. Ms. Hite has plans to monitor the situation; not watering will not destroy the parks. He questioned whether watering was one of the top priorities in the Strategic Plan. The Council needs to utilize the available funds; he was uncertain of the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 18 Packet Page 21 of 554 source of the $15,000. He cited the importance of staying within budget and questioned whether the same would be done for another department. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for the motion, preferring to restore this small amount to prevent a larger expenditure in the fall. Councilmember Bloom expressed support for the motion. This has been an unseasonably warm and wonderful summer and she wanted children and families to enjoy all Edmonds' parks for the entire summer and into the fall. She trusted Ms. Hite and her staff to judicially use the funds for irrigation and envisioned it will prevent park closures. She viewed closing parks as a public health issue; the inability to play sports and games is detrimental to the community. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BLOOM, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, YAMAMOTO, AND JOHNSON VOTING NO. 15. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JULY 9, 2013 Finance Committee Councilmember Yamamoto reported the committee considered: • Reinstating Court Clerk Position — approved on Consent Agenda • L & I Claim Management —committee members expressed support • Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County regarding City Park Project funding — approved on Consent Agenda • Restoration of the Parks Irrigation Budget — scheduled for full Council • Authorization to Contract with James G. Murphy to Sell Surplus City Vehicle — approved on Consent Agenda • May 2013 Month Financial Report — Consent Agenda • Budget Amendment to Fund Development Services Director Position — split decision between Finance Committee Members; Councilmember Yamamoto supported forwarding to the Public Safety & Personnel Committee and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas supported forwarding it to full Council • Park Impact Fee — scheduled for full Council on July 23 • Public comment by Mr. Witenberg and Mr. Wambolt Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested the Finance Committee minutes be amended to state Councilmember Yamamoto will pursue Mr. Witenberg's concerns with the City Attorney. Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee Councilmember Buckshnis reported the committee considered: • Quarterly Public Works Project Report — approved on Consent Agenda • Authorization to Advertise a Request for Bids for Construction Services for the 224`h Street SW Waterline Replacement Project — approved on Consent Agenda • Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of easements for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Project — approved on Consent Agenda • Discussion on critical areas `allowed uses' provisions — recommended Planning Board review and develop recommendation for full Council consideration • Continued discussion on Park Impact Fees — scheduled for full Council discussion on July 23 • Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County regarding City Park Project — approved on Consent Agenda Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 19 Packet Page 22 of 554 Public Safety & Personnel Committee Councilmember Bloom reported the committee considered: • Review of appointment of two new members to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board — approved on the Consent Agenda. Committee members would like to review and clarify the process for future appointments • Reinstating Court Clerk position — approved on Consent Agenda • L & I Claims Management — committee members expressed support • Discussion: Edmonds City Code Chapter 2 Revisions — City Attorney incorporated suggested revisions into ordinance for review by full Council • Discussion regarding Code of Ethics — schedule for discussion by full Council 15.5. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. At 9:59 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 5 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Action may occur in open session as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley- Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Public Works Director Phil Williams, Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 10:05 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 10:07 p.m. 16. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION No action was taken as a result of meeting in executive session. 17. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling requested Councilmembers provide feedback on the new seating arrangement. 18. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Petso recalled one of the committee reports indicated there was a split decision of the committee members and a committee forwarded an item to the Planning Board. She expected a split decision was an item that needed to be discussed by full Council. She will schedule a discussion regarding committee procedures and processes on the August Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee agenda. Councilmember Peterson congratulated the Edmonds Petanque Club on their successful tournament that included 54 competitors from several cities including Tacoma and Bainbridge Island. Mayor Earling commented he saw the exciting, final match. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee's referral of the critical areas allowed uses provisions to the Planning Board without full Council discussion. She pointed out there are some issues that the committees should be able to forward to Boards and Commissions. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 20 Packet Page 23 of 554 Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Councilmember Bloom who will represent the City at WRIA 8 in her absence. The agenda includes a $200,000 Edmonds Marsh restoration project that she hopes will be funded. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern that the Council's intervention stalled the Westgate project. She expressed support for the Planning Board completing that project. 19. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:09 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 16, 2013 Page 21 Packet Page 24 of 554 AM-5974 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/23/2013 Time• Consent Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Review Committee: Type: Action Tnfnrmntinn Submitted By: 3. B. Nori Jacobson Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Subject Title Approval of claim checks #203230 through #203359 dated July 18, 2013 for $661,388.69. Approval of payroll direct deposit & checks #60316 through #60341 for $472,345.11, benefit checks #60342 through #60349 and wire payments of $203,264.40 for the period July 1, 2013 through July 15, 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• Revenue• Expenditure• Fiscal Impact: Claims $661,388.69 2013 1,336,998.20 Fiscal Impact Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $472,345.11 Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $203,264.40 Total Payroll $675,609.51 AttarhmPntc Claim checks 07-18-13 Project Numbers 07-18-13 Packet Page 25 of 554 Payroll Suminary 07-19-13 Payroll Benefits 07-19-13 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Roger Neumaier 07/18/2013 10:32 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/18/2013 01:36 PM Mayor Dave Earling 07/18/2013 01:45 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 07/18/2013 01:48 PM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 07/18/2013 09:45 AM Final Approval Date: 07/18/2013 Packet Page 26 of 554 vchlist 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 1 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203230 7/18/2013 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC Cr32802-JUN-13 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 610.06 Total: 610.06 203231 7/18/2013 074498 ABRAHAM & NEENA MATHEW 3-33941 #607731 UTILITY REFUND #607731 Utility Refund due to estimal 411.000.233.000 196.83 Total: 196.83 203232 7/18/2013 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 713396 TENNIS TEAM SHIRTS TENNIS TEAM SHIRTS 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 12.06 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 1.15 Total: 13.21 203233 7/18/2013 074407 AGES, PHILIP MARC FOLK VOICE JULY 13 JULY 23 CONCERT IN THE HMP JULY 23 CONCERT IN THE HMP 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 200.00 Total: 200.00 203234 7/18/2013 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 9348 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER Cl- MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER Cl- 421.000.74.534.80.33.00 146,534.51 Total: 146,534.51 203235 7/18/2013 073626 ALPHA ECOLOGICAL 2232404 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 203236 7/18/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6904336 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE Page: 1 Packet Page 27 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203236 7/18/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 30.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 2.88 Total: 33.15 203237 7/18/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6833161 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 5.18 655-6833163 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 1.76 655-6837635 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 28 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 203237 7/18/2013 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 0.38 655-6837636 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 0.47 655-6837637 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 0.60 655-6845023 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 56.07 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 3 Packet Page 29 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 203237 7/18/2013 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 5.32 655-6845025 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 1.76 655-6849424 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 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 0.38 655-6849425 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFOR Page: 4 Packet Page 30 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 203237 7/18/2013 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 0.47 655-6849426 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 4.61 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.36 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.44 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.60 655-6856881 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 5.18 655-6856883 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 1.76 655-6861347 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 001.000.65.519.91.41.00 1.07 Page: 5 Packet Page 31 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 203237 7/18/2013 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 0.38 655-6861348 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 0.47 655-6861349 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 25.68 Page: 6 Packet Page 32 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 203237 7/18/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 5.83 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 2.44 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.55 655-6868701 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 57.82 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.11 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 5.49 655-6868703 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 1.76 655-6873139 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 33 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 203237 7/18/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 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 0.38 655-6873140 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 0.47 655-6873141 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 35.95 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.56 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 3.42 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.62 655-6880675 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 54.82 Page: 8 Packet Page 34 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 203237 7/18/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.11 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 5.21 655-6880677 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 1.76 655-6885126 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 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 Page: 9 Packet Page 35 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203237 7/18/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 655-6885127 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 0.47 655-6885128 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 15.41 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.56 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 1.47 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.62 Total: 713.89 203238 7/18/2013 064343 AT&T 425-776-5316 PARKS FAX MODEM PARKS FAX MODEM 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 50.72 Tota I : 50.72 203239 7/18/2013 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 70113 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 89.47 UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 89.47 UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 92.19 UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 309.07 UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage Page: 10 Packet Page 36 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 203239 7/18/2013 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 203240 7/18/2013 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 70154 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #700 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing area #700 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 Total 80809 Service Awards Service Awards 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 203241 7/18/2013 012005 BALLAND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2O113-700 Total INV 20113-700 EDMONDS PD PRE -EMPLOY SCREEN SCHICK Amount 309.07 8.50 8.50 8.76 22.79 22.79 23.47 100.51 2.17 2.17 2.22 100.51 1,191.66 356.30 33.85 390.15 Page: 11 Packet Page 37 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203241 7/18/2013 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH (Continued) 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 150.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 7.00 Total: 157.00 203242 7/18/2013 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 3494 LISTINGS IN GUIDE TO EDMONDS LISTINGS IN GUIDE TO EDMONDS 001.000.64.571.22.44.00 140.00 3505 CEMETERY AD CEMETERY AD 130.000.64.536.20.44.00 35.00 Total: 175.00 203243 7/18/2013 073041 BECK & ASSOCIATES PLLC 2013-EDM-06 2013-0459 & 0562 Community Heal& 2013-0459 & 0562 Community Health 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 2,909.30 Total: 2,909.30 203244 7/18/2013 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 0708216-IN Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 500 G Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 500 G 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 690.00 0708807-IN Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 450 G Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 450 G 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 621.85 Total: 1,311.85 203245 7/18/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 9715 INV#9715 - EDMONDS PD - MCCLU S/S UNIFORM SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 67.95 SEW NAME ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 1.00 NAME TAG FOR SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 4.95 SGT CHEVRONS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 2.95 Page: 12 Packet Page 38 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 203245 7/18/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP (Continued) 9726-01 203246 7/18/2013 074497 BRANDON GRAHAM & JESSICA UPP 2-18600 203247 7/18/2013 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA CARLSON 16853 PO # Description/Account Amount SEW CHEVRONS ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 2.50 L/S UNIFORM SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 89.95 SGTS CHEVRONS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 2.95 SEW CHEVRONS ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 2.50 UNIFORM WOOL PANTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 108.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 26.86 INV#9726-01 - EDMONDS PD - MCC SGTS CHEVRONS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 5.90 SEW CHEVRONS ON COGS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 5.00 NAME TAGS FOR SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 9.90 SEW NAME TAGS ON COGS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 2.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 2.17 Total : 334.58 #01148-20616 UTILITY REFUND #01148-20616 Utility Refund due to 411.000.233.000 10.35 Total : 10.35 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING 16853 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING 16853 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 422.50 Total: 422.50 Page: 13 Packet Page 39 of 554 vchlist 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 14 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203248 7/18/2013 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN06130989 WWTP - CYLINDER RENTAL -PROP) WWTP - CYLINDER RENTAL -PROP) 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 58.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 5.51 Total: 63.51 203249 7/18/2013 064291 CENTURY LINK 206-Z02-0478 WWTP TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE WWTP TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 138.73 Total: 138.73 203250 7/18/2013 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 451202-1306 E3GA.SERVICES THRU JUNE 2013 E3GA.Services thru June 2013 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 1,873.98 451301-1306 E3JB.T.O. 13-01 SERVICES THRU J E3JB.Task Order 13-01 Services thru 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 4,029.02 Total: 5,903.00 203251 7/18/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2570550 Fac Maint - TT, Towels, Floor pads Fac Maint - TT, Towels, Floor pads 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 526.62 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 50.03 Total: 576.65 203252 7/18/2013 072848 COPIERS NW INV891667 COPIER MAINT COPIER MAINT 001.000.23.512.50.45.00 18.97 Total: 18.97 203253 7/18/2013 069529 D & G BACKHOE INC E3JA.Pmt 2 E3JA.PMT 2 THRU 6/28/13 E3JA.Pmt 2 thru 6/28/13 421.000.74.594.34.65.10 305,900.06 E3JA.Ret 2 Page: 14 Packet Page 40 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203253 7/18/2013 069529 D & G BACKHOE INC (Continued) 421.000.223.400 -13,968.04 Total: 291,932.02 203254 7/18/2013 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 2014-WA0024058 W WTP - WASTEWATER PERMIT, Al WWTP - WASTEWATER PERMIT, Al 423.000.76.535.80.51.00 33,431.40 Total: 33,431.40 203255 7/18/2013 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2013060358 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 Scan Services for June 2013 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 940.00 Total: 940.00 203256 7/18/2013 061860 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES 234977 YOST POOL SHOWER BOILER PEF YOST POOL SHOWER BOILER PEF 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 71.50 Total: 71.50 203257 7/18/2013 007253 DUNN LUMBER 1943466 BALLINGER PARK TIMBER BALLINGER PARK TIMBER 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 672.27 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 63.87 Total: 736.14 203258 7/18/2013 007253 DUNN LUMBER 1946792 FAC - Trex Decking FAC - Trex Decking 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 90.56 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.61 Total: 99.17 203259 7/18/2013 074492 EARTHCORPS EARTH CORP 6/24/2013 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PR1 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PR1 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 8,648.80 Page: 15 Packet Page 41 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203259 7/18/2013 074492 074492 EARTHCORPS (Continued) Total: 8,648.80 203260 7/18/2013 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP CORDOVA 17019 CORDOVA 17019 DAY CAMP CORDOVA 17019 DAY CAMP 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 75.00 Total: 75.00 203261 7/18/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-00025 CITY MARINA BEACH PARK CITY MARINA BEACH PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 657.49 6-00200 CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROOM CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROOM 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 735.88 6-00410 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 488.13 6-00475 MINI PARK MINI PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,007.56 6-01250 CITY PARK BALLFIELD CITY PARK BALLFIELD 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 703.90 6-01275 CITY PARK PARKING LOT CITY PARK PARKING LOT 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,272.25 6-02125 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD PINE STREET PLAYFIELD 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 507.63 6-02727 310 6TH AVE N 310 6TH AVE N 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 204.28 6-02730 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD - SPRIN CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD - SPRIN 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 196.09 6-02900 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (S ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (S Page: 16 Packet Page 42 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203261 7/18/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,249.91 6-03000 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 364.79 6-03275 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 119.66 6-03575 CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 217.95 6-04400 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 346.25 6-04425 8100 185TH PL SW 8100 185TH PL SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 389.74 6-04450 SIERRA PARK SIERRA PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 371.78 6-07775 BALLINGER PARK BALLINGER PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 236.18 6-08500 YOST PARK SPRINKLER YOST PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,104.48 6-08525 YOST PARK POOL YOST PARK POOL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,881.49 Total: 12,055.44 203262 7/18/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 0892441 PARKS MAINT COPIER MAINT PARKS MAINT COPIER MAINT 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 15.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1.49 Page: 17 Packet Page 43 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203262 7/18/2013 008812 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINE: (Continued) Total: 17.14 203263 7/18/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 0891571 Meter charges for Planning Dept. C1( Meter charges for Planning Dept. C1( 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 23.13 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 2.20 0891581 Building Div. C1030 copier meter Building Div. C1030 copier meter 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 29.79 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 2.83 Total: 57.95 203264 7/18/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 0891591 Additional images - Council Additional images - Council 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 7.57 Total: 7.57 203265 7/18/2013 074505 ERIC BEHLA 4-40237 #005128817 UTILITY REFUND #005128817 Utility Refund due to 411.000.233.000 357.50 Total: 357.50 203266 7/18/2013 074501 ESTATE OF KENNETH BOOTH 8-37950 #13-355-JMO UTILITY REFUND #13-355-JMO Utility Refund due to 411.000.233.000 13.72 Total: 13.72 203267 7/18/2013 065958 EZ-LINER 050595 Unit 46 - Valve Unit 46 - Valve 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 40.98 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.49 Tota I : 54.47 203268 7/18/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU28948 PHSQ Page: 18 Packet Page 44 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203268 7/18/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY (Continued) PHSQ 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 47.63 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.52 WAMOU28969 BOTTOM TAP BOTTOM TAP 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.33 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.79 WAMOU29007 HOOK HOOK 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 24.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.32 Tota I : 87.99 203269 7/18/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU28987 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 82.70 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 7.86 Tota I : 90.56 203270 7/18/2013 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0383781 WWTP - COUPLINGS WWTP - COUPLINGS 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 308.66 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 58.55 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 34.88 Total: 402.09 203271 7/18/2013 069469 FLINT TRADING INC 158422 HANDICAP SYMBOL HANDICAP SYMBOL 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 601.92 Page: 19 Packet Page 45 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203271 7/18/2013 069469 FLINT TRADING INC (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 57.18 Total: 659.10 203272 7/18/2013 011900 FRONTIER 425-775-1344 BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHIN BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHIN 001.000.64.574.35.42.00 56.03 Total: 56.03 203273 7/18/2013 072515 GOOGLE INC 6638902 C/A#396392 MESSAGE DISCOVER' Internet Anti -Virus & Spam Maint Fee 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 369.00 Total: 369.00 203274 7/18/2013 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 137458/1 Water - Valve Boxes and lids Water - Valve Boxes and lids 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 810.60 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 77.01 137752/1 Water - 2" Brass pipe - 40 feet - Water - 2" Brass pipe - 40 feet - 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,360.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 129.20 137753/1 Water - Supplies - Resetters Water - Supplies - Resetters 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4,692.73 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 445.81 138151/1 Water Inventory - W-PIPECO-0.75-01 Water Inventory - W-PIPECO-0.75-01 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 1,494.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 141.93 Page: 20 Packet Page 46 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203274 7/18/2013 069733 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC (Continued) Total: 9,151.28 203275 7/18/2013 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 13374473 Water - Adapter for Tapping Machine Water - Adapter for Tapping Machine 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 118.14 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 11.22 Total: 129.36 203276 7/18/2013 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC 00088624-B WWTP - SWTCHGEAR/STANDBY P, WWTP - SWTCHGEAR/STANDBY P, 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 2,106.43 Total: 2,106.43 203277 7/18/2013 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 62 LEOFF Reimbursement LEOFF Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 214.00 Total: 214.00 203279 7/18/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1047221 City Hall - Picture Hanging Supplies City Hall - Picture Hanging Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.57 1047282 Traffic - Hydro -Barrier Plugs Traffic - Hydro -Barrier Plugs 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 3.93 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 0.37 1082191 Sewer LS 2 - Gate Caster Sewer LS 2 - Gate Caster 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 17.48 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.66 2032164 Plaza - Supplies Plaza - Supplies Page: 21 Packet Page 47 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203279 7/18/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.23 2032263 FAC - Screen FAC - Screen 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.49 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.85 2047057 Sewer LS 8 - Supplies Sewer LS 8 - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 22.37 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.13 2047079 Fac Maint - Shop Supplies Fac Maint - Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 131.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.53 2062058 Sewer LS 8 - Supplies Sewer LS 8 - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 30.25 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.87 2252048 Sewer - LS8 - Returns Sewer - LS8 - Returns 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 -30.25 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 -2.87 262889 Sewer LS 8 - Wood Supplies Sewer LS 8 - Wood Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 20.59 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.96 3081869 Sewer LS 2 - Wood materials Page: 22 Packet Page 48 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203279 7/18/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) Sewer LS 2 - Wood materials 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 85.23 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 8.10 4073797 Water Supplies - Brass fittings and he Water Supplies - Brass fittings and he 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 129.68 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 12.32 4083935 Sewer - Supplies Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 7.96 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.76 4262447 Fac Maint Shop Unit 5 - Sand Paper, Fac Maint Shop Unit 5 - Sand Paper, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.69 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.73 44635 FAC - Supplies FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 22.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.18 44783 FAC - Dumpster Supplies FAC - Dumpster Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 42.13 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.00 47563 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Circular Saw Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Circular Saw 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 119.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 11.31 Page: 23 Packet Page 49 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203279 7/18/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 47739 Parks - Water ball A frame supplies Parks - Water ball A frame supplies 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 71.78 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.82 5038119 PS - Primer, Mount Tape PS - Primer, Mount Tape 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 27.53 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.62 5048670 Parks - Fishing Pier - Supplies Parks - Fishing Pier - Supplies 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 168.66 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 16.02 5048755 FAC - Main St Kids - Supplies FAC - Main St Kids - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.71 5262963 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 20.69 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.97 590225 Street - Spring Clip for Weed Wacker Street - Spring Clip for Weed Wacker 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 6.96 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 0.66 590285 Water - PVC Supplies Water - PVC Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 26.57 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 24 Packet Page 50 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203279 7/18/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2.52 6031345 Traffic - Plug for Water filled Barriers Traffic - Plug for Water filled Barriers 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 9.78 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 0.93 6037978 FAC - Mortar Mix FAC - Mortar Mix 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.98 PS - Adhesive Remover 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 26.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.61 6040824 City Hall - Supplies City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.76 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.55 6040830 Fac Maint - Unit 95 - Dewalt Battery Fac Maint - Unit 95 - Dewalt Battery 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 99.00 City Park Bldg - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 31.35 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.38 6043076 Fac Maint - Shop Supplies Fac Maint - Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 45.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.36 6088567 Fac Maint Unit 95 - 2 gal Bag Filters Fac Maint Unit 95 - 2 gal Bag Filters 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.94 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 25 Packet Page 51 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203279 7/18/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.13 6577066 City Hall - Door Chime City Hall - Door Chime 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 21.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.09 7033206 Sewer - Eye Bolts Sewer - Eye Bolts 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.18 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.11 7040546 FAC - Dumpster Supplies FAC - Dumpster Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 158.42 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.05 7040683 Fac Maint - Supplies Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.97 FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 36.34 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.78 7071244 FAC - Screen Spline FAC - Screen Spline 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.38 7202909 FAC - Wheelborrow FAC - Wheelborrow 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 69.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.65 7251665 FAC - Return Spline Page: 26 Packet Page 52 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203279 7/18/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) FAC - Return Spline 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -3.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -0.38 7580256 Street - Supplies Street - Supplies 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 216.95 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 20.61 8039224 Sewer LS #2 - Concrete Mix Sewer LS #2 - Concrete Mix 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 13.93 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.32 8039234 Sewer LS 2 - Concrete Sewer LS 2 - Concrete 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 13.93 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.32 8040337 Sewer - Supplies Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 24.95 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.37 8040339 Plaza - Supplies Plaza - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.86 8094488 Fac Maint - Supplies Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 20.93 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.99 Page: 27 Packet Page 53 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203279 7/18/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 8280348 Fac Maint Unit 5- Tape Measurer, Coi Fac Maint Unit 5- Tape Measurer, Coi 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.34 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.55 9030772 Traffic- Plug for Water Filled Barricade Traffic- Plug for Water Filled Barricade 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 4.93 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 0.47 9040057 Plaza - Supplies Plaza - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.98 City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.34 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.84 9047877 Fishing Pier - Supplies Fishing Pier - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.86 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.56 9590378 FAC - Hitchball FAC - Hitchball 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.76 97866 Water Supplies - Water Supplies - 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 40.55 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3.85 Tota I : 2,145.44 203280 7/18/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2306505 Misc. office supplies including ink Page: 28 Packet Page 54 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203280 7/18/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) Misc. office supplies including ink 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 497.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 47.31 Tota I : 545.19 203281 7/18/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2306701 office supplies office supplies 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 57.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 5.50 Total: 63.40 203282 7/18/2013 071634 INTEGRATELECOM 11088195 C/A768328 PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 1,978.07 Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929; 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 32.99 Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 32.86 Total: 2,043.92 203283 7/18/2013 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 725517 GLOVES GLOVES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 284.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 27.01 Total: 311.31 203284 7/18/2013 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 465220 Unit M-16 - Battery Unit M-16 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 212.45 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 20.18 61222730 Unit M-16 - Batteries Page: 29 Packet Page 55 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203284 7/18/2013 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS (Continued) Unit M-16 - Batteries 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 351.80 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 33.42 61222819 Unit 775 - Battery Unit 775 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 186.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.76 61222976 Unit 31 - Batteries Unit 31 - Batteries 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 326.85 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 31.05 722477 Unit 454 - Charger Unit 454 - Charger 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 23.94 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.27 723639 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 46.98 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 4.46 724294 Unit 72 - Trailer Lights Unit 72 - Trailer Lights 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.86 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.32 724560 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 8.42 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 0.80 Page: 30 Packet Page 56 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203284 7/18/2013 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS (Continued) 724848 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 32.78 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 3.11 724970 Unit 51 - Tail Light Combo Unit 51 - Tail Light Combo 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 39.90 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.79 Total: 1,362.09 203285 7/18/2013 074499 JANET MOTT 8-05577 #E13-6966KRM UTILITY REFUND #E13-6966KRM Utility Refund due to 411.000.233.000 10.40 Total: 10.40 203286 7/18/2013 074502 JOEL & DANA HADFIELD 1-15930 #4201-2028045 UTILITY REFUND #4201-2028045 Utility Refund due to 411.000.233.000 205.41 Total: 205.41 203287 7/18/2013 074496 JOHN & JANET BEAUDREAU 2-33075 #40115029-805-CR3 UTILITY REFUl' #40115029-805-CR3 Utility Refund dt 411.000.233.000 20.06 Total: 20.06 203288 7/18/2013 016600 KROESENS INC 13583 INV#13583 CUST#1320 - EDMONDE BLACK MACRO FLEECE JACKET 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 22.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 2.14 Total: 24.64 203289 7/18/2013 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 07082013-01 INV#07082013-01 - EDMONDS PD Page: 31 Packet Page 57 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203289 7/18/2013 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH (Continued) 40 CAR WASHES @ $5.03 (INCTX) 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 201.20 Total: 201.20 203290 7/18/2013 072059 LEE, NICOLE 1267 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 144.75 Total: 144.75 203291 7/18/2013 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC JULY-2013 07-13 LEGALS FEES 07-13 Legal fees 001.000.36.515.31.41.00 32,000.00 Total: 32,000.00 203292 7/18/2013 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 681884 Unit 24 - Rear Wheel Seal Unit 24 - Rear Wheel Seal 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 37.88 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.60 682044 Unit 775 - Cup holders Unit 775 - Cup holders 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 30.90 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.94 682287 Unit 7 - Cleaner Unit 7 - Cleaner 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.74 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.02 682297 Unit 7 - Fittings Unit 7 - Fittings 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.37 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.23 682499 Unit 72 - Supplies Page: 32 Packet Page 58 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203292 7/18/2013 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC (Continued) Unit 72 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 31.63 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.00 682630 Unit 35 - Air filter Unit 35 - Air filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.52 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.90 682907 Unit 81 -Air Filter Unit 81 -Air Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.06 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.05 683514 Unit 106 - Oil Filter Unit 106 - Oil Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.38 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.65 683565 Unit 105 - Oil Filter Unit 105 - Oil Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.05 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.48 683568 Unit 106 - Air Filter Unit 106 - Air Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 46.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.37 683588 Unit 106 - Air Filter Unit 106 - Air Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.83 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.31 Page: 33 Packet Page 59 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 34 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203292 7/18/2013 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC (Continued) 683595 Unit 106 - Oil Filter Unit 106 - Oil Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.24 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.40 683639 Unit 48 - Oil Filter Unit 48 - Oil Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.73 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.83 683643 Unit 48 - Air Filter Unit 48 - Air Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.74 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.64 Total: 258.49 203293 7/18/2013 019305 MACAULAY AND ASSOC LTD 13-141 PROPERTY APPRAISAL Property appraisal at 80th Ave W and 001.000.61.519.70.41.00 4,450.00 Total: 4,450.00 203294 7/18/2013 071140 MAD SCIENCE OF KING COUNTY MAD SCIENCE 16860 MAD SCIENCE CAMP 16860 MAD SCIENCE CAMP 16860 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 2,616.00 Total: 2,616.00 203295 7/18/2013 074500 MARILEE FINLEY 5-04625 #13-372-RDW UTILITY REFUND #13-372-RDW Utility Refund due to 411.000.233.000 58.62 Total: 58.62 203296 7/18/2013 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1226 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 Page: 34 Packet Page 60 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 35 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203296 7/18/2013 069362 MARSHALL, CITA (Continued) 1259 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 1262 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 1264 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 88.32 1266 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 Tota I : 441.60 203297 7/18/2013 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 61 LEOFF Reimbursement LEOFF Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.29.00 7,971.75 Total: 7,971.75 203298 7/18/2013 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 54822879 WWTP - HIGH TEMP CERAMIC WWTP - HIGH TEMP CERAMIC 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 424.51 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 36.60 Total: 461.11 203299 7/18/2013 068309 MERCURY FITNESS REPAIR INC P-13071407 SERVICE AGREE FOR FITNESS EQ SERVICE AGREE FOR FITNESS EQ 001.000.64.575.54.48.00 177.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.54.48.00 16.82 Total: 193.82 203300 7/18/2013 063773 MICROFLEX 00021373 06-13 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM TAX AUDIT PROGRAM Page: 35 Packet Page 61 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 36 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203300 7/18/2013 063773 MICROFLEX (Continued) 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 50.72 Total: 50.72 203301 7/18/2013 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 170761 SAW CIRCULAR SAW CIRCULAR 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 419.10 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 39.81 Total: 458.91 203302 7/18/2013 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 167313 WWTP - PROPANE WWTP - PROPANE 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 58.28 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 5.54 171519 WWTP - PROPANE WWTP - PROPANE 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 46.07 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 4.38 Total: 114.27 203303 7/18/2013 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 169483 Fishing Pier - Rental - Scissor Lift Fishing Pier - Rental - Scissor Lift 001.000.66.518.30.45.00 169.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.45.00 16.05 Total: 185.05 203304 7/18/2013 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0349387-IN E9GA.SUPPLIES FOR LS REHABS Winch Adv Digital 60' SS Power 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 2,209.00 FP 23 1/2-42 1/2 Adj Offset up 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 2,049.00 FP 33" Working Length Lower Mast Page: 36 Packet Page 62 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 37 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203304 7/18/2013 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC (Continued) 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 693.50 FP 45" Working Length Lower Mast 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 818.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 548.11 Total: 6,317.61 203305 7/18/2013 074306 NEBCO/NPRIT 8/1/13 - 8/31/13 LEOFF health insurance coverage LEOFF health insurance coverage 617.000.51.522.20.23.00 1,148.97 LEOFF ins premiums 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 8,189.74 Total: 9,338.71 203306 7/18/2013 024600 NEUERT, L L 63 LEOFF Reimbursement LEOFF Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 1,873.09 Total: 1,873.09 203307 7/18/2013 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 53497 WWTP - PLASTER, GROUT, CONCF WWTP - PLASTER, GROUT, CONCF 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 2,024.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 186.21 Total: 2,210.21 203308 7/18/2013 070045 NORTHUP GROUP 2758 INV 2758 EDMONDS PD PRE -EMPLOY EXAM VAN DOORN 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 340.00 PRE -EMPLOY EXAM CLARK 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 340.00 Total: 680.00 203309 7/18/2013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-699202 MADRONA RENTALS MADRONA RENTALS Page: 37 Packet Page 63 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 38 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203309 7/18/2013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 102.50 1-699203 SIERRA PARK RENTALS SIERRA PARK RENTALS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 1-699204 EDMONDS ELEMENTARY RENTALS EDMONDS ELEMENTARY RENTALS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 1-699703 RENTALS MARINA BEACH RENTALS MARINA BEACH 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,418.55 Total: 1,745.75 203310 7/18/2013 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 339 Planning Board Meeting minutes on Planning Board Meeting minutes on 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 320.00 Total: 320.00 203311 7/18/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 405740 WHITE PAPER, PENS WHITE PAPER, PENS 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 166.70 ARTS SUMMIT SUPPLIES 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 55.91 PENS FOR POOL 001.000.64.575.51.31.00 5.03 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 15.84 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 5.31 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.51.31.00 0.48 Total: 249.27 203312 7/18/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 403057 INV#403057 ACCT#520437 250POL POST IT NOTES 3X3 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 25.94 Page: 38 Packet Page 64 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 39 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203312 7/18/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC (Continued) POST IT NOTES 1.5X2 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 11.24 KLEENEX TISSUES - 36 BOXES 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 44.68 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 7.78 Total: 89.64 203313 7/18/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 396471 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 71.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 6.83 Total: 78.71 203314 7/18/2013 073751 OKANOGAN COUNTRY SHERIFF JUNE 2013 INMATE HOUSING JUNE 2013 - EDD 56 HOUSING DAYS @$53.50 001.000.41.523.60.51.00 2,996.00 Total: 2,996.00 203315 7/18/2013 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 3962 YOST POOL SUPPLIES YOST POOL SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 390.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 37.05 Total: 427.05 203316 7/18/2013 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00067810 Freight Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 19.53 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.86 Total: 21.39 203317 7/18/2013 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. 954023037699 Plaza - Wall Paint Page: 39 Packet Page 65 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 40 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203317 7/18/2013 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. (Continued) Plaza - Wall Paint 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 22.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.18 Total: 25.17 203318 7/18/2013 062296 PETTY CASH 07162013 WWTP - LEADERSHIP TRAINING M WWTP - LEADERSHIP TRAINING M 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 31.97 WWTP - DISHWASH DETERGENT 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 15.08 WWTP - PAPER PRODUCTS FOR E 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 45.95 WWTP - POSTAGE, MAIL CONTRAC 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 1.32 WWTP - OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE 1 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 14.18 WWTP- LAUNDRY SOAP 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 64.35 WWTP CLEANING SUPPLIES 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 13.40 WWTP - DISH SOAP FOR KITCHEN 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 3.79 WWTP - PARKING FOR ELECTRIC 1 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 13.00 WWTP - REPLACE DEAD PLANT IN 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 24.06 WWTP - PARKING FOR ELECTRIC 1 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 24.09 WWTP - REFRESHMENTS FOR TE/ 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 18.41 Total: 269.60 203319 7/18/2013 068411 PHILLIPS 66 - CONOCO 76 5788006 CAR WASH #114 CAR WASH #114 Page: 40 Packet Page 66 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 41 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203319 7/18/2013 068411 PHILLIPS 66 - CONOCO 76 (Continued) 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 4.59 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 0.44 Total: 5.03 203320 7/18/2013 064552 PITNEY BOWES 9607730JY13 POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE Lease 6/30 to 7/30 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 718.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 68.26 Total: 786.86 203321 7/18/2013 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 CITY STORMWATER RENT TO POR CITY STORMWATER RENT TO POR 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,513.24 Total: 2,513.24 203322 7/18/2013 065021 PRINTING PLUS 73390 WOTS BROCHURES WOTS BROCHURES 123.000.64.573.20.49.00 2,436.98 9.5% Sales Tax 123.000.64.573.20.49.00 241.26 73399 WOTS POSTER WOTS POSTER 123.000.64.573.20.49.00 189.57 9.5% Sales Tax 123.000.64.573.20.49.00 18.77 Total: 2,886.58 203323 7/18/2013 074504 R GALE WALD 8-14350 #4245-2090956 UTILITY REFUND #4245-2090956 Utility Refund due to 411.000.233.000 14.22 Total: 14.22 203324 7/18/2013 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 84334 INV#84334 - EDMONDS PD Page: 41 Packet Page 67 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 42 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203324 7/18/2013 070955 R&R STAR TOWING (Continued) TOW 2007 PICK UP #B93816C 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01 84714 INV#84714 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2008 CHRYSLER # NOT TO Ci 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01 Total: 346.02 203325 7/18/2013 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0807770 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLIN, WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLIN, 423.000.76.535.80.47.66 12.64 Total: 12.64 203326 7/18/2013 006841 RICOH USA INC 5026701329 Meter charges for large copier 907EX Meter charges for large copier 907EX 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 49.41 5026701330 Meter charges for Eng. Dept MPC60C Meter charges for Eng. Dept MPC60C 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 210.15 Total: 259.56 203327 7/18/2013 070042 RICOH USA INC 89312803 Rent on reception copier MP171 SPF Rent on reception copier MP171 SPF 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 30.66 89347535 Rent on Eng. MPC6000 for billing per Rent on Eng. MPC6000 for billing per 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 443.48 89347541 Rent on large copier R907EX for billir Rent on large copier R907EX for billir 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 827.00 Total: 1,301.14 Page: 42 Packet Page 68 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 43 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203328 7/18/2013 066188 RTC MANUFACTURING 22815 Traffic - School Zone Time Relays Traffic - School Zone Time Relays 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 354.00 Total: 354.00 203329 7/18/2013 074335 SAVAGE, LINDA SAVAGE 17542 ETIQUETTE 17542 ETIQUETTE 17542 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 350.00 Total: 350.00 203330 7/18/2013 071159 SEATTLE SHAKESPEARE COMPANY WOODEN 0 JULY 2013 CONERT IN THE PARK JULY 21, 20' CONERT IN THE PARK JULY 21, 20' 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 1,700.00 Total: 1,700.00 203331 7/18/2013 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC 198629 Unit K93 - Towing Unit K93 - Towing 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 15.01 Total: 173.01 203332 7/18/2013 071725 SKAGIT GARDENS INC 52208397 PRAIRIE BLUES PRAIRIE BLUES 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 151.72 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 14.41 Total: 166.13 203333 7/18/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2006-5164-4 PARK & MAINTENANCE SHOP PARK & MAINTENANCE SHOP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 447.11 2008-6924-6 PLAYFIELD BLEACHERS PLAYFIELD BLEACHERS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 92.37 2011-8453-8 RICHMAND PARK Page: 43 Packet Page 69 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 44 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203333 7/18/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) RICHMAND PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 141.73 2013-8327-0 PARK GAZEBO PARK GAZEBO 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.80 2014-5305-7 PLAYFIELD LIGHTS PLAYFIELD LIGHTS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 121.30 Total: 834.31 203334 7/18/2013 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 53274 INV#53274 - EDMONDS PD - CLARH LOCKER MAGNET - CLARK 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 4.50 LOCKER MAGNET - VAN DOORN 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 4.50 MAILBOX MAGNET - CLARK 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 6.00 M,AILBOX MAGNET - VAN DOORN 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 6.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 2.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 2.23 Total: 25.73 203335 7/18/2013 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L99276 AUDIT FEES 12-12 FEB-JUN 2013 Audit Fees Feb - June 2013 001.000.39.519.90.51.00 2,866.16 Audit Fees Feb - June 2013 422.000.72.531.90.51.00 143.31 Audit Fees Feb - June 2013 421.000.74.534.80.51.00 477.69 Audit Fees Feb - June 2013 423.000.75.535.80.51.00 477.69 Audit Fees Feb - June 2013 Page: 44 Packet Page 70 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 45 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203335 7/18/2013 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.51.00 477.69 Audit Fees Feb - June 2013 111.000.68.543.30.51.00 143.31 Audit Fees Feb - June 2013 511.000.77.548.68.51.00 191.08 Total: 4,776.93 203336 7/18/2013 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100555659.001 Sewer LS 8 - Roof Brackets Sewer LS 8 - Roof Brackets 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 53.93 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 5.12 Total: 59.05 203337 7/18/2013 068360 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 62925 Legal services - public works Legal services - public works 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 403.00 Legal services - public works 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 403.00 Total: 806.00 203338 7/18/2013 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT LLC SUNSET 16763 BEACH CAMP 16763 BEACH CAMP 16763 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 12,752.00 Total: 12,752.00 203339 7/18/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1826091 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance #3930 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 24.08 1826092 NEWSPAPER ADS Ordinance 3931 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 24.08 Total: 48.16 203340 7/18/2013 074503 TIMOTHY BIRD 3-24725 #4243-2044843 UTILITY REFUND Page: 45 Packet Page 71 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 46 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203340 7/18/2013 074503 TIMOTHY BIRD (Continued) #4243-2044843 Utility Refund due to 411.000.233.000 63.08 Total: 63.08 203341 7/18/2013 068322 TRANE 32183135 PS - Repairs PS - Repairs 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 3,560.00 9.5% Sales Tax 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 338.20 Total: 3,898.20 203342 7/18/2013 074495 TRAVELHOST WESTERN WASHINGTON EDM-713 TOURISM PROMOTIONALAD Tourism promotional ad July -Sept 20' 001.000.61.558.70.44.00 900.00 Total: 900.00 203343 7/18/2013 074494 UK SOCCER ELITE UK SOCCER 16824 UK SOCCER 16824 UK SOCCER 16824 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 2,112.00 Total: 2,112.00 203344 7/18/2013 043935 UPS 00002T4T13273 PICK UP CHARGES FOR NEWEGG. UPS pick up charges 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 8.66 Total: 8.66 203345 7/18/2013 062693 US BANK 4675 PARKS AND REC CC DAY CAMP SUPPLIES 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 142.99 CABLE TIES 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 19.69 YOST POOL SUPPLIES 001.000.64.575.51.31.00 89.78 SUPPLIES FOR TOUCH TANK 001.000.64.574.35.31.00 69.17 Page: 46 Packet Page 72 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 47 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 203345 7/18/2013 062693 US BANK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) SHRIMP EGGS 001.000.64.574.35.31.00 27.00 TOUCH TANK 001.000.64.574.35.31.00 22.75 TENNIS BALLS 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 120.36 HP INK 001.000.64.575.51.31.00 35.57 FIRST AID TWEEZERS 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 8.37 ORCA CARD FOR SENIOR CAMPEF 001.000.64.575.53.43.00 100.00 DAYPLANNER 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 67.88 HMP TABLE/CHAIRS 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 514.05 HOTEL FOR KEYNOTE SPEAKER 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 112.49 POOL FOR CAMP GOODTIME 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 10.94 TOUCH TANK FOOD 001.000.64.574.35.31.00 4.07 ORCA CARD UPLOAD FOR SENIOF 001.000.64.575.53.43.00 100.00 FIRST AID EQUIPMENT FOR GYMN, 001.000.64.575.55.31.00 166.60 DAY CAMP SUPPLIES 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 72.48 SENIOR ADVENTURE ADMISSION F 001.000.64.575.53.49.00 54.00 WOTS REGISTRATION SITE 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 350.00 GYMNASTIC SUMMER CAMP CRAF 001.000.64.575.55.31.00 93.25 Page: 47 Packet Page 73 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 48 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203345 7/18/2013 062693 US BANK (Continued) 6254 DIRECTOR'S CC WATCH FOR DAVE TIMBROOK RET 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 62.50 ARTS SUMMIT BREAKFAST 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 124.80 ARTS SUMMIT LUNCH 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 2,250.29 Total: 4,619.03 203346 7/18/2013 062693 US BANK 5923 PARKING, TOURISM AD, ART SUMh Parking expenses while attending APR 001.000.61.519.70.49.00 34.00 Meal expenses for key note speaker < 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 110.44 Tourism promotion ad in June 2013 120.000.31.575.42.44.00 1,070.00 Total: 1,214.44 203347 7/18/2013 062693 US BANK 3181 INV#3181 07/08/13 - BARD - EDMOI` MINDFLASK-MO FEE FOR ONLINE- 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 179.10 TLO SEARCHES 05/2013 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 11.75 REG. PUBLIC DISC LAWS/MARSH 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 85.00 REG. PUBLIC DISC LAWS/BROMAN 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 85.00 REG. PUBLIC DISC LAWS/DIEHL 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 85.00 OTTERBOX BELT CLIPS 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 22.50 SPORT SKILLS INSTRUCTION 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 71.74 TLO SEARCHES 06/2013 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 8.50 Page: 48 Packet Page 74 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 49 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203347 7/18/2013 062693 US BANK (Continued) MINDFLASH-MO FEE FOR ONLINE 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 179.10 3314 INV#3314 07/08/13 - LAWLESS - ED CYALUME SNAPLIGHTS (SWAT) 001.000.257.410 165.79 FLEX CUFS (SWAT) 001.000.257.410 147.34 CARDBOARD TARGET BACKER (SV 001.000.257.410 479.46 RETIREMENT PLAQUE (CAMERON' 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 98.55 3520 INV#3520 07/08/13 - TRAINING - ED FEDEX CHG #13-2198,3446,4925 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 13.50 FEDEX CHG #1999,2038,2175,2196, 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 13.50 FEDEX CHG #13-2314,2276,2296 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 10.50 7914 INV#7914 07/08/13 - THOMPSON - E DISPOSABLE SCALPELS 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 135.40 COVEY PLAN REFILL-THOMPSON 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 32.81 ENGRAVING EPD NUMBERS ON IT[ 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 9.58 TAX NOT CHARGED ON 12/19/12 RI 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 17.10 REG. PUBLIC DISC LAWS/THOMPS 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 85.00 Total: 1,936.22 203348 7/18/2013 062693 US BANK 3249 EXCEL & WORD TRAINING CD EXCEL & WORD TRAINING CD 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 369.95 Page: 49 Packet Page 75 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 50 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203348 7/18/2013 062693 US BANK (Continued) POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 106.05 Total: 476.00 203349 7/18/2013 062693 US BANK 3470 DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION, IPA Apple iTunes Store - FileBrowser app 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 5.46 BulkRegister.com - SSL certificate GE 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 900.00 BulkRegister.com - writeonthesound.c 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 13.95 BulkRegister.com - edmondspolice.n( 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 27.90 UPS shipping pickup charges 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 35.88 BulkRegister.com - SSL certificate GE 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 99.00 5848 WFOA DOR EXCISE TAX CLASS-S I Washington Finance Officers Associa 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 195.00 5855 GFOAGASB WEBINAR D SHARP Government Finance Officers 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 85.00 Total: 1,362.19 203350 7/18/2013 062693 US BANK 8313 ENG CREDIT CARD CHARGES JUN CTR Incentive Gift Cards 001.000.39.517.90.49.00 500.00 McConnell.iPad Cover 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 41.94 Hallway Remodel Purchases:- 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 259.01 Hallway Remodel Purchases:- 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 259.01 Hallway Remodel Purchases: — Page: 50 Packet Page 76 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 51 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203350 7/18/2013 062693 US BANK (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 259.01 Total: 1,318.97 203351 7/18/2013 062693 US BANK 3389 Refreshments for Council 6/17 Mini Refreshments for Council 6/17 Mini 001.000.11.511.60.31.00 62.24 Total: 62.24 203352 7/18/2013 062693 US BANK 3447 Craigslist recruitment postings Craigslist recruitment postings 001.000.22.518.10.44.00 75.00 Professional memberships 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 360.00 Service Awards 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 159.50 Professional membership 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 100.00 Total: 694.50 203353 7/18/2013 062693 US BANK 5593 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CARD Books -Roberts Rules 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 13.14 Recording of Utility Liens 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 214.50 Recording of Utility Liens 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 214.50 Total: 442.14 203354 7/18/2013 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 988325 Sewer LS - Float Weights Sewer LS - Float Weights 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 155.60 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 26.75 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 17.32 Page: 51 Packet Page 77 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 52 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 203354 7/18/2013 064423 064423 USA BLUE BOOK (Continued) Total: 199.67 203355 7/18/2013 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 29484647 WWTP- ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTAI WWTP- ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTAI 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 537.50 Total: 537.50 203356 7/18/2013 074231 VPCI 00001135 KODAK COLOR SCANNERS FOR C Kodak Color Scanners i2600, 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 3,660.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 347.70 Total: 4,007.70 203357 7/18/2013 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 49365 INV#49365 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2000 NISSAN #083VOE 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01 Total: 173.01 203358 7/18/2013 049902 WHITMAN, TIMOTHY 60 LEOFF Reimbursement LEOFF Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 228.53 Total: 228.53 203359 7/18/2013 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0163756 Traffic - Blanks 66x12 Traffic - Blanks 66x12 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 35.85 Blanks 66x6 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 87.20 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 19.38 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 13.53 Total: 155.96 Page: 52 Packet Page 78 of 554 vchlist Voucher List Page: 53 07/18/2013 8:58:04AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 129 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 129 Vouchers in this report Invoice PO # Description/Account Bank total Total vouchers Amount 661,388.69 661,388.69 Page: 53 Packet Page 79 of 554 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 7/18/2013 Packet Page 80 of 554 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 7/18/2013 Packet Page 81 of 554 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 7/18/2013 Packet Page 82 of 554 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 E3FC c408 ��reek Stor�v Reduction etrofit S udy 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 dh WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Projec STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project General JW6MA R99 Enhancement Progr STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements 228th St. SW Corrido provements STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road E7FG PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza ift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from Us 13 - 09/01 /08) SWR E8GC c300 BNSF Double Track Project SWR E8GD City -Wide Sewer Improvements PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program 26th Street Walkway Project STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design PM E91MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 7/18/2013 Packet Page 83 of 554 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number Project Title WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) 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 7/18/2013 Packet Page 84 of 554 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 WTR c418 E3JB 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) Revised 7/18/2013 Packet Page 85 of 554 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number STIR i005 E7AC STM m013 E7FG Project Title 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements NPDES Revised 7/18/2013 Packet Page 86 of 554 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project 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 EYA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3JB 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 ElCA 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 Revised 7/18/2013 Packet Page 87 of 554 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA 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 E21FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive c410 EYE STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E31FC 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 E1DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1 FA WWTP WWTP Switchgear Upgrade c385 N/A STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB Revised 7/18/2013 Packet Page 88 of 554 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Proiect Title STIR Transportation Plan Update Project Engineering Accounting Project Number Number c391 E2AA Revised 7/18/2013 Packet Page 89 of 554 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 90 of 554 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 617 (07/01/2013 to 07/15/2013) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 111 ABSENT NO PAY LEAVE 80.00 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 559.00 18,262.57 122 VACATION VACATION 1,816.30 65,227.28 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 165.00 6,284.98 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 107.70 3,040.86 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 231.25 8,129.34 129 SICK Police Sick Leave L & 1 12.00 459.38 131 MILITARY MILITARY LEAVE 10.00 429.48 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Day Used 236.00 8,173.66 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 94.92 3,816.19 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 31.00 1,594.80 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 15,566.05 464,427.40 196 REGULAR HOURS LIGHT DUTY 22.50 939.64 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 137.75 5,660.38 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 48.00 2,109.36 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 13.00 1,149.36 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 374.20 22,736.97 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 9.00 592.11 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 225.92 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 942.77 600 RETROACTIVE PAY RETROACTIVE PAY 0.00 1,191.13 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 121.25 0.00 603 COMP HOURS Holiday Comp 1.0 18.00 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 78.55 0.00 606 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.00 0.00 607 COMP HOURS Holiday Compensatory Time 1.5 9.00 0.00 903 MISCELLANEOUS CLOTHING ALLOWANCE 0.00 3,541.41 acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 23.56 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 160.89 boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC 11 Certification 0.00 80.05 cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 137.44 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION Ill PAY 0.00 582.15 det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 95.89 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 795.84 07/18/2013 Page 1 of 2 Packet Page 91 of 554 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 617 (07/01/2013 to 07/15/2013) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 727.08 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 834.14 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 4,699.81 furls SICK FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 219.75 7,667.96 fmly VACATION Familv Medical Leave Vacation 35.00 782.79 hol HOLIDAY HOLIDAY 1,117.80 37,157.81 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 108.23 Iq1 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 1,924.79 Iq2 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 4% 0.00 1,527.86 Iq3 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY 6% 0.00 4,448.81 Iq4 LONGEVITY Longevity 1 % 0.00 392.77 Iq5 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 3% 0.00 66.98 Iq6 LONGEVITY Longevity .5% 0.00 288.93 Iq7 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1.5% 0.00 599.97 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 phv MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 1,613.58 prof MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SER 0.00 147.00 sdp MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5% 0.00 290.85 sqt MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 147.00 slw SICK SICK LEAVE ADD BACK 128.44 0.00 traf MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC 0.00 302.03 21,242.46 $685,014.92 Total Net Pay: $472,345.11 07/18/2013 Page 2 of 2 Packet Page 92 of 554 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 617 - 07/01/2013 to 07/15/2013 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 60342 07/19/2013 mebt AST TTEE 78,516.39 0.00 60343 07/19/2013 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 2,749.50 0.00 60344 07/19/2013 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 436.50 0.00 60345 07/19/2013 flex FLEX -PLAN SERVICES, INC 483.83 0.00 60346 07/19/2013 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 3,361.05 0.00 60347 07/19/2013 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 4,231.68 0.00 60348 07/19/2013 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,015.57 0.00 60349 07/19/2013 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 15,920.50 0.00 107,715.02 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 2019 07/19/2013 front FRONTIER BANK 95,384.98 0.00 2021 07/19/2013 flex FLEX -PLAN SERVICES, INC 164.40 0.00 95,549.38 0.00 Grand Totals: 203,264.40 0.00 7/18/2013 Page 1 of Packet Page 93 of 554 AM-5966 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/23/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Committee: Subiect Title May 2013 Monthly Financial Report Recommendation N.A. For informational purposes only. Previous Council Action N.A. Narrative May 2013 Monthly Financial Report Inbox Finance City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Fonn Started By: Sarah Mager Final Approval Date: 07/18/2013 Reviewed By Roger Neumaier Sandy Chase Dave Earling Sandy Chase Submitted By: Sarah Mager Type: Tnfnrm atinn Attachments Form Review Information Date 07/12/2013 12:15 PM 07/17/2013 02:18 PM 07/17/2013 02:44 PM 07/18/2013 08:48 AM Started On: 07/12/2013 12:11 PM 3. C. Packet Page 94 of 554 of E "0 MAY 2013 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT ln�. 1$90 General Fund activity through May brought an increase of $3.1 million to fund balances, while the first quarter brought a deficit of $4.2 million. The general fund deficit change from April to May is due mainly to tax revenue received in May. Several specific revenue line items are tracking ahead of budget so far through May. These include Natural Gas Tax (54% of budget), Electric Utility Tax (53% of budget), Gas Utility Tax (54% of budget), Amusements (72% of budget), Franchise Fees (average of 56% of budget), General Business License (88% of budget), Non -Resident Business License (77% of budget), and Real Estate Excise Tax (54% of budget). At the end of May, 42% of the year had expired. Overall, General Fund expenditures are on track with 40% of budget spent to date. Salaries and Wages for all departments are at 41 % of budget, and Overtime is at 32% of budget. No departments are over budget. GENERAL FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES FUND ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31/2012 Q1 5/31/2013 Q1 YTD 001-General Fund $ 4,635,301 $ 761,983 $ 8,112,857 $ (3,873,318) $ 3,477,556 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 388,509 295,877 243,767 (92,632) (144,742) 011-Risk Management Fund 114,000 (130,000) (130,000) (244,000) (244,000) 012- Contingency Reserve Fund 5,278,152 5,279,249 5,279,868 1,097 1,716 013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD 55,859 55,859 55,859 - - 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 1,063 945 972 (118) (91) 016-Building Maintenance 214,026 213,578 203,022 (448) (11,004) Total General Fund $ 10,686,910 $ 6,477,491 $ 13,766,344 $ (4,209,419) $ 3,079,434 General Fund 16 $13.77 14 12 10 8 8 ❑ General 0 6 Fund 4 2 Dec 2012 Mar 2013 Mav 2013 1 Packet Page 95 of 554 MAY 2013 DASHBOARD YEAR TO DATE TREND COMPARED TO PROJECTIONS REFERENCE GENERAL FUND REVENUES General Fund Revenue Positive 9.67% Page 9 Sales & Use Tax Revenue Positive 6.12% Page 10 Gas Utility Tax Revenue V Negatived -13.14% Page 10 Telephone Utility Tax Revenue 44 Neutral 110 -1.73% Page 11 Electric Utility Tax Revenue Positive 2.24% Page 11 EXPENDITURES General Fund Expenditures Page 12 NON -GENERAL FUND REVENUES Real Estate Excise Tax Positive 46.49% 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 96 of 554 GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW Combined governmental fund activity through May brought an increase of $4.6 million to fund balances. The General Fund was responsible for an increase of $3.1 million, the special revenue funds for an increase of $1.5 million, and the remaining was due to an increase of $56,270 in the debt service funds. CHANGE IN FUND FUND BALANCES BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2012 Q1 5/31 /2013 Q1 YTD General Fund $ 10,686,910 $ 6,477,491 $ 13,766,344 $ (4,209,419) $ 3,079,434 Special Revenue 4,324,145 5,715,093 5,826,759 1,390,948 1,502,614 Debt Service 26,229 32,150 82,499 5,921 56,270 Governmental Funds $ 15,037,284 $ 12,224,734 $ 19,675,603 $ (2,812,550) $ 4,638,319 Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group Governmental Fund Balances - Combined 16 $19.68 14 $13.77 18 12 $15.04 $10.69 General 10 $12.22 c Fund c 12 2 o 8 (Special $6.48 Revenue 6 $5.83 ' Debt 6 4 4.32Service 2 $0.03 $0.03 $0.08 Dec 2012 Mar 2013 May 2013 Dec 2012 Mar 2013 May 2013 3 Packet Page 97 of 554 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW Activity in all special revenue funds through May brought an increase of $1.5 million. The graph below shows the total fund balances for all twenty special revenue funds as of December 2012, March 2013, and the current ending balance as of May 2013. Special Revenue Funds 6 $5.72 $5.83 5 $4.32 4 N 0 3 Specia I Revenue 2 1 Dec 2012 Mar 2013 May 2013 4 FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- Special Revenue Packet Page 98 of 554 ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW Utility Fund Activity through May brought a deficit of $374,779 in the Enterprise Funds. 70,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 Enterprise Funds- Fund Balances 43,942,247 43,697,210 w�iw�.i-IT�R tL•lL"a ip ARM D- t421- Water Utility Fund 42,766,705 f422- Storm Utility Fund 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund --X--411- Combined Utility Fund 12,783,154 7,797,729 94,547 May 2013 ENTERPRISE FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31/2012 Q1 5/31/2013 Q1 YTD 421 - Water Utility Fund $ 12,322,592 $ 12,698,431 $ 12,783,154 $ 375,839 $ 460,562 422 - Storm Utility Fund 7,552,075 7,800,453 7,797,729 248,378 245,654 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 43,942,247 43,697,210 42,766,705 (245,037) (1,175,542) 411 - Combined Utility Operation - 57,446 94,547 57,446 94,547 Enterprise Funds $ 63,816,914 $ 64,253,540 $ 63,442,135 $ 436,626 $ (374,779) $ 50, 000,000 $40, 000,000 $ 30, 000,000 $ 20, 000,000 $10, 000,000 a Enterprise Fund Balances as of May 31, 2013 Combined Utility Operation Water Utility Fund Storm Utility Fund Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 5 Packet Page 99 of 554 SUMMARY OVERVIEW At the end of May, 42% of the year had expired. Year-to-date activity brought an increase of $4.5 million to the City -Wide fund balances, bringing the total to $90.1 million. Of the year-to-date increase, an increase of $4.6 million was generated by governmental funds, a deficit of $374,779 was generated by Enterprise (Utility) Funds, an increase of $262,111 was generated by Internal Service Funds, and an increase of $518 was generated by the Pension Trust Fund. CHANGE IN FUND FUND BALANCES BALANCES CITY-WIDE ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2012 Q1 5/31 /2013 01 YTD Governmental Funds $ 15,037,284 $ 12,224,734 $ 19,675,603 $ (2,812,550) $ 4,638,319 Enterprise Funds 63,816,914 64,253,540 63,442,135 436,626 (374,779) Internal Services Fund 6,536,284 6,670,593 6,798,395 134,309 262,111 Pension Trust Fund 216,719 178,018 217,237 (38,701) 518 City-wide Total $ 85,607,201 $ 83,326,884 $ 90,133,370 $ (2,280,317) $ 4,526,169 Governmental Fund Balances as of May 31, 2013 2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund L.I.D. Guaranty Fund L.I.D. Fund Control 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 Pen -nit Fund Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund Memorial Street Fund Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund Combined Street Const/Improve Street Fund Drug Enforcement Fund General Fund i $50,842 $25,741 $5,916 1 $23,411 $9,050 $ 24,036 $150,114 $53 ,495 $48,806 $152,161 $234,76 $6E 3,238 $1,343,663 $77,429 $14,451 $76,112 $117,320 $17,677 $424, 26 $ 70,038 $122,937 $122,431 66,344 $1 $2,000,000 Packet Page 100 of 554 Q INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW Internal Service Fund activity through May brought an increase of $334,672. We began the year with a fund balance of $6.5 million and currently at the end of May; we see an ending fund balance of $6.8 million. FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND INTERNAL SERVICE BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2012 Q1 5/31 /2013 Q1 YTD 511 - Equipment Rental Fund $ 6,463,723 $ 6,670,593 $ 6,798,395 $ 206,870 $ 334,672 Internal Service Funds $ 6,463,723 $ 6,670,593 $ 6,798,395 $ 206,870 $ 334,672 8 $6.46 6 c 0 4 2 Dec 2012 Internal Service Fund Balances $ 6.67 $ 6.80 Mar 2013 May 2013 ■ 511- Equipment Rental Fund Packet Page 101 of 554 7 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 May 31, 2013 (a) Term Purchase Purchase Maturity/ Call* Yield to Weighted (months) Date Price Date Maturity Average Various $15,832,457 Various 0.13% 0.110% 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% 0.015% 60 12/28/2012 1,000,000 6/28/2013 ** 0.90% 0.047% 54 12/27/2012 1,000,000 6/27/2013 0.75% 0.039% 45 12/19/2012 1,000,000 3/19/2013 0.54% 0.028% 0.24% 0.238% % of Total Summary 81.9% Current 6-month treasury rate 0.08% 2.6% Current State Pool rate 0.13% 15.5% Blended Edmonds rate 0.24% Packet Page 102 of 554 N City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund 2013 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals 36,000,000 January $ 1,216,011 $ 1,216,011 $ 1,818,957 49.58% February 3,001,808 1,785,798 3,696,503 23.14% 30,000,000 March 5,069,810 2,068,001 5,680,288 12.04% 24,000,000 April 7,688,984 2,619,174 9,354,134 21.66% May 15,056,423 7,367,439 16,512,344 9.67% 18,000,000 June 16,705,631 1,649,208 July 18,630,860 1,925,229 12,000,000 August 20,240,653 1,609,794 6,000,000 September 21,816,557 1,575,904 Octohpr 24.495.090 2.678522 General Fund November 31,203,426 6,708,346 I JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC I December 32,858,589 1,655,163 t Seriesl Budget 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 $ 55,653 $ 55,653 $ 69,441 24.77% February 88,310 32,657 115,535 30.83% March 129,657 41,347 257,285 98.43% April 187,545 57,887 311,272 65.97% May 241,350 53,805 353,545 46.49% June 303,047 61,697 July 363,652 60,605 August 430,206 66,554 September 492,808 62,602 October 555,912 63,105 November 604,828 48,916 December 650,000 45,172 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 Real Estate Excise Tax JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC I Seriesl Budget *The variance shown above is due to a larger number of sales transactions than were expected. O Packet Page 103 of 554 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax 2013 Sales and Use Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 6 000 000 January $ 390,013 $ February 884,364 March 1,235,989 April 1,600,252 May 2,031,316 June 2,414,769 July 2,801,571 August 3,255,906 September 3,657,629 October 4,069,329 November 4,525,665 December 4,913,150 390,013 $ 406,956 4.34% 5,000,000 494,351 894,736 1.17 4,000,000 351,625 1,265,893 2.42% 364,263 1,641,662 2.59% 3,000,000 431,064 2,155,612 6.12% 383,453 2,000,000 386,802 1,000,000 454,335 401,723 Sales and Use Tax 411,700 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 456,336 387,485-Seriesl Budget City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Gas Utility Tax 2013 Gas Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % Gas Utility Tax January $ 112,509 $ 112,509 $ 94,836 -15.71% February 230,573 118,064 220,665 -4.30% March 338,041 107,468 303,170 -10.32% April 428,064 90,023 369,694 -13.64% May 504,039 75,974 437,820 -13.14% June 561,033 56,994 July 602,742 41,709 August 632,326 29,584 September 659,759 27,432 October 688,968 29,210 November 738,628 49,660 December 811,174 72,546 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --*--Seriesl Budget *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 104 of 554 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Telephone Utility Tax 2013 Telephone Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Telephone Utility Tax Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 1,600,000 January $ 95,577 $ 95,577 $ 134,596 40.82% 400,000 February 229,350 133,773 252,444 10.07% 1,200,000 March 376,493 147,142 366,495 -2.66% April 479,057 102,564 484,087 1.05% 1,000,000 May 608,761 129,705 598,247 -1.73% 800,000 June 713,226 104,465 600,000 July 853,959 140,733 400,000 August 989,418 135,459 September 1,092,061 102,643 200,000 October 1,256,775 164,714 - November 1,349,920 93,146 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 1,529,498 179,578 t Seriesl Budget City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax 2013 FAectric Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % Electric Utility Tax 1,600,000 January $ 151,925 $ 151,925 $ 153,240 0.87% 1,400,000 February 320,049 168,124 326,077 1.88% March 474,600 154,551 487,478 2.71% 1,200,000 April 631,769 157,169 641,845 1.59% 1,000,000 May 769,731 137,963 787,005 2.24% 800,000 June 882,641 112,909 July 989,535 106,895 �'0� August 1,081,971 92,436 400,000 September 1,180,465 98,494 200,000 October 1,265,812 85,346 November 1,372,881 107,070 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 1,475,638 102,757 Seriesl Budget 11 Packet Page 105 of 554 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund 2013 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 36,000,000 January $ 3,211,752 $ 3,211,752 $4,106,837 27.87% February 5,660,240 2,448,488 5,821,040 2.84% 30,000,000 March 7,874,761 2,214,521 9,553,606 21.32% 24,000,000 April 10,938,142 3,063,381 11,303,195 3.34% May 12,920,118 1,981,976 13,034,788 0.89% 18,000,000 June 16,195,870 3,275,752 July 18,970,269 2,774,399 12,000,000 August 21,423,098 2,452,829 6,000,000 September 24,244,769 2,821,671 October 26551.229 2306.460 General Fund November 29,074,901 2,523,672 I JAN FEB MAR APR MAY TUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC I December 32,959,503 3,884,602 t Seriesl Budget City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental 2013 Non -Departmental Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance BudeetForecast BudeetForecast Actuals % January $ 1,818,292 $ 1,818,292 $ 2,450,235 34.75% February 2,358,291 539,999 2,488,604 5.53% March 2,684,562 326,271 4,520,241 68.38% April 3,827,781 1,143,219 4,569,788 19.38% May 4,037,949 210,168 4,665,570 15.54% June 5,809,316 1,771,367 July 6,611,919 802,602 August 6,990,130 378,211 September 7,896,141 906,011 October 8,278,209 382,068 November 8,689,214 411,005 December 11,467,569 2,778,355 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 Non -Departmental JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC I Seriesl Budget *The variance shown above is due to the 2nd quarter Fire District #1 payment made in March 2013. 12 Packet Page 106 of 554 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Council 2013 City Council Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December Office of 20,374 $ 43,014 66,053 85,839 105,708 127,575 152,874 175,926 194,771 221,092 242,345 273,623 300,000 20,374 $ 15,899 -21.96% 22,641 38,445 -10.62% 250,000 23,038 61,389 -7.06% 200,000 19,787 83,350 -2.90% 19,869 103,077 -2.49% 150,000 21,866 25,299 100,000 23,052 50,000 18,845 26321 City CouncH 21,253 I JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 31,278 t Seriesl Budget City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Office of Mayor 2013 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 300,000 January $ February $ March $ April $ May $ June $ July $ August $ September $ October $ November $ December $ 20,148 $ 40,542 $ 60,202 $ 79,760 $ 99,078 $ 118,442 $ 138,932 $ 158,492 $ 177,640 $ 198,963 $ 219,266 $ 238,374 $ 20,148 $ 19,244 -4.49% 1250,000 20,394 38,426 -5.22% 19,660 59,435 -1.27% 1 200,000 19,559 78,215 -1.94% 150,000 19,317 97,801 -1.29% 19,364 100,000 20,491 19,559 50,000 Office of Mayor 19,148 21,322 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 20,304 19,108 Seriesl Budget Packet Page 107 of 554 13 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources 2013 Human Resources Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 21,417 $ 43,437 71,550 94,953 119,752 141,891 165,641 186,678 212,715 233,346 254,495 287,190 300,000 21,417 $ 19,264 -10.05% 250,000 22,020 39,680 -8.65% 28,113 59,024 -17.51% 200,000 23,403 84,440 -11.07% 24,799 105,495 -11.91% 150,000 22,139 23,750 100,000 21,037 50,000 26,036 20,631 Human Resources 21,149 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 32,695 +Seriesl Budget City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court 2013 Municipal Court Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 53,643 $ 112,911 175,311 237,725 296,077 360,063 418,105 479,445 537,638 599,224 660,765 729,506 NUU,000 53,643 $ 51,789 -3.46% 700,000 59,267 115,326 2.14% 600,000 62,400 172,514 -1.60% 62,414 232,844 -2.05% 500,000 58,352 289,036 -2.38% 400,000 63,987 300,000 58,042 200,000 61,340 58,193 100,000 61,585 - Municipal Court 61,541 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 68,741 Seriesl Budget Packet Page 108 of 554 14 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 % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December City Clerk 23,621 $ 59,476 90,712 120,039 152,347 179,102 217,136 242,932 271,956 302,512 328,886 373,314 400,000 23,621 $ 23,455 -0.70% 350,000 35,855 54,572 -8.24% 31,236 82,365 -9.20% 300,000 29,327 112,729 -6.09% 250,000 32,308 141,547 -7.09% 200,000 26,755 150,000 38,034 25,796 100,000 29,024 50,000 30,556 Economic Development/Community Services 26,374 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 44,428 Seriesl Budget City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Clerk 2013 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 1600,000 January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 46,581 $ 92,331 145,417 190,728 246,108 293,563 344,299 388,440 438,924 482,314 532,305 586,831 46,581 $ 37,742-18.98% 1500,000 45,750 83,146 -9.95% 400,000 53,085 132,277 -9.04% 45,311 174,295 -8.62% 300,000 55,380 211,369 -14.12% 47,455 200,000 50,736 100,000 44,142 50,484 City Clerk 43,390 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 49,991 54,526 Seriesl Budget Packet Page 109 of 554 15 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Information Services 2013 Information Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December Finance Information Services 800,000 41,302 $ 41,302 $ 92,733 124.53% 1. 700,000 107,298 65,997 139,675 30.17% 600,000 158,751 51,453 195,470 23.13% 207,167 48,416 243,433 17.51% 500,000 262,166 54,999 273,992 4.51% 400,000 315,619 53,452 300,000 362,425 46,806 200,000 424,811 62,386 471,078 46,267 100,000 532,480 61,402 602,576 70,096 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 723,534 120,958 t -Budget City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Finance 2013 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 72,772 $ 139,622 202,376 261,262 319,205 386,389 447,973 502,922 563,970 632,771 699,652 768,484 800,000 72,772 $ 57,510 -20.97% 700,000 66,850 132,734 -4.93% 600,000 62,753 195,061 -3.61% 58,886 288,223 10.32% 500,000 57,944 350,529 9.81% 400,000 67,183 300,000 61,584 200,000 54,949 61,048 100,000 68,802 - Finance 66,881 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 68,832 Seriesl Budget *The variance shown above is due to overtime and temporary contract work utilized until the permanent Finance Director position was filled. 16 Packet Page 110 of 554 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Attorney 2013 City Attorney Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December Police January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 41,600 $ 83,200 124,800 166,400 208,000 249,600 291,200 332,800 374,400 416,000 457,600 499,200 500,000 41,600 $ 45,000 8.17% 41,600 85,261 2.48% 400,000 41,600 110,418 -11.52% 41,600 163,684 -1.63% 300,000 41,600 192,124 -7.63% 41,600 200,000 41,600 41,600 100,000 41,600 41,600 City Attorney 41,600 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 41,600 +Seriesl Budget City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Police 2013 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Police 711,698 $ 1,410,348 2,145,943 2,840,086 3,527,398 4,308,719 5,026,944 5,739,849 6,480,625 7,196,799 8,160, 013 8,931,185 orecas c ua s 9,000,000 8,000,000 711,698 $ 711,651 -0.01% 7,000,000 698,649 1,406,388 -0.28% 6,000,000 735,595 2,104,655 -1.92% 694,143 2,792,819 -1.66% 5,000,000 687,312 3,483,129 -1.25% 14,000,000 781,321 3,000,000 718,225 2,000,000 712,905 1,000,000 740,777 716,174 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 963,214 771,172 Seriesl Budget Packet Page 111 of 554 17 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 673,721 134,199 651,747 -3.26% 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 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC +Seriesl Budget City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Parks & Recreation 2013 Parks & Recreation Cumulative Monthly TrD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 218,823 $ 455,695 711,038 958,565 1,214,257 1,530,104 1,920,254 2,310,306 2,615,670 2,863,419 3,094,270 3,398,517 3,500,000 218,823 $ 206,466 -5.65% 3,000,000 236,872 441,862 -3.04% 255,343 687,221 -3.35% 2,500,000 247,527 940,767 -1.86% 2,000,000 255,692 1,200,892 -1.10% 315,847 1,500,000 390,150 1,000,000 390,052 305,363 500,000 247,750 - Parks & Recreation 230,851 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC I 304,247 Seriesl Budget Packet Page 112 of 554 18 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Public Works 2013 Public Works Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 27,007 $ 52,806 79,315 104,820 130,712 156,718 192,014 217,880 244,097 270,921 295,226 324,517 ,+UV,V W 27,007 $ 26,193 -3.01% 350,000 25,799 53,241 0.82% 26,509 80,244 1.17% 300,000 25,505 106,672 1.77% 250,000 25,892 135,132 3.38% 200,000 26,006 35,296 150,000 25,866 100,000 26,217 50,000 26,824 Public Works 24,305 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 29,291 +Seriesl Budget City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Facilities Maintenance 2013 Facilities Maintenance Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 106,672 $ 106,672 $ 98,355 -7.80% February 220,921 114,249 209,083 -5.36% March 343,665 122,743 320,411 -6.77% April 478,949 135,284 434,291 -9.32% May 552,523 73,574 553,398 0.16% June 670,350 117,826 July 775,460 105,110 August 878,941 103,481 September 997,041 118,100 October 1,099,774 102,733 November 1,211,822 112,048 December 1,344,159 132,337 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 Facilities Maintenance JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --#---Seriesl Budget Packet Page 113 of 554 19 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering 2013 Engineering Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast ActuaIs % Engineering 1,400,000 January $ 114,876 $ 114,876 $ 116,885 1.75% 1,200,000 February 230,249 115,373 232,112 0.81% March 344,770 114,522 347,757 0.87% 1,000,000 April 468,067 123,296 462,638 -1.16% 800,000 May 577,602 109,535 579,950 0.41% June 692,761 115,159 600000 July 811,020 118,259 400,000 August 927,980 116,960 September 1,048,722 120,742 200,000 October 1,171,901 123,179 November 1,285,284 113,383 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 1,394,458 109,174 Seriesl Budget 20 Packet Page 114 of 554 CITY OF EDMONDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund No. Title 2013 Amended Budget 5/31/2013 Revenues 001 GENERAL FUND $ 32,858,589 $ 16,512,344 $ 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 350,350 105 011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 418,200 220,100 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 123,223 1,716 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 15,000 709 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 56,900 69 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 20,175 17,245 III STREET FUND 1,406,800 575,639 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 6,223,755 801,175 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 59,891 6,924 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 27 6 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 52,870 20,134 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 18,120 6,041 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 2,025 16 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 13,762 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 662,600 353,909 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 650,600 353,683 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 20,483 25,873 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 222,800 166,187 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 119,950 46,473 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,010,350 143,231 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 228 223 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 14,600 5,392 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 3,517 403 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 645,000 265,443 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND - 23,411 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 22,130 5,916 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 22,230 8 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,009,902 50,346 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 94,547 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 10,625,680 2,287,100 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 3,486,716 1,418,074 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 11,020,123 3,357,735 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,361,972 599,721 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 45,400 49,553 $ 73.569.206 S 27.423.213 S Variance %Received (16,346,245) (350,245) (198,100) (121,507) (14,291) (56,831) (2,930) (831,161) (5,422,580) (52,967) (21) (32,736) (12,079) (2,009) (5,238) (308,691) (296,917) 5,390 (56,613) (73,477) (1,867,119) (5) (9,208) (3,114) (379,557) 23,411 (16,214) (22,222) (959,556) 94,547 (8,338,580) (2,068,642) (7,662,388) (762,251) 4,153 1 85 41 21 38 1 7 41 10 3 21 Packet Page 115 of 554 CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund No. Title 2013 Amended Budget 5/31/2013 Expenditures Variance 001 GENERAL FUND $ 32,959,503 $ 13,034,788 $ (19,924,715) 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 619,400 144,847 (474,553) 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 11,073 (193,927) 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 80,033 13,351 (66,682) III STREET FUND 1,557,715 575,683 (982,032) 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 6,324,984 315,398 (6,009,586) 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 139,800 14,549 (125,251) 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 68,500 6,606 (61,894) 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,726 1,429 (25,297) 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 4,000 1,512 (2,488) 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 2,249 (16,751) 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,286,500 42,006 (1,244,494) 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 668,534 - (668,534) 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 32,317 7,608 (24,709) 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 222,800 19,760 (203,040) 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 152,761 51,267 (101,494) 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,093,200 5,559 (2,087,641) 136 PARKS TRUST FUND - - - 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 4,600 135 (4,466) 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 645,000 265,443 (379,557) 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 1,826,538 (7,375,313) 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 4,565,772 1,172,420 (3,393,352) 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 16,830,109 4,533,277 (12,296,832) 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,095,372 337,610 (757,762) 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 108,790 49,035 (59,755) $ 80,620,299 $ 22,897,044 $ (57,723,255) % S 1 3 1 1 3 41% 31% 22 Packet Page 116 of 554 CITY OF EDMONDS CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE- SUMMARY Fund 1/1/2013 2013 2013 5/31/2013 No. Title Beg. Balance Revenues Expenditures Difference End. Balance 001 GENERALFUND $ 4,635,301 $ 16,512,344 $ 13,034,788 $ 3,477,556 $ 8,112,857 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 388,509 105 144,847 (144,742) 243,767 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 114,000 220,100 464,100 (244,000) (130,000) 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 5,278,152 1,716 - 1,716 5,279,868 013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 55,859 - - - 55,859 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 1,063 709 800 (91) 972 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 214,026 69 11,073 (11,004) 203,022 TOTAL GENERAL FUND PER CAFR 10,686,910 16,735,042 13,655,608 3,079,434 13,766,344 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 118,537 17,245 13,351 3,894 122,431 111 STREET FUND 122,981 575,639 575,683 (44) 122,937 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 384,261 801,175 315,398 485,777 870,038 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 432,251 6,924 14,549 (7,625) 424,626 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,671 6 - 6 17,677 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 103,792 20,134 6,606 13,528 117,320 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 71,500 6,041 1,429 4,612 76,112 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 15,947 16 1,512 (1,496) 14,451 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 65,916 13,762 2,249 11,513 77,429 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,031,760 353,909 42,006 311,903 1,343,663 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ 309,555 353,683 - 353,683 663,238 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 216,500 25,873 7,608 18,265 234,765 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 5,734 166,187 19,760 146,427 152,161 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 53,600 46,473 51,267 (4,794) 48,806 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 396,823 143,231 5,559 137,672 534,495 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 149,891 223 - 223 150,114 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUSTFD 818,644 5,392 - 5,392 824,036 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 8,782 403 135 268 9,050 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - 265,443 265,443 - - 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND - 23,411 - 23,411 23,411 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL - 5,916 - 5,916 5,916 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 25,733 8 - 8 25,741 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 496 50,346 - 50,346 50,842 234 LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND, - - - - - 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 94,547 - 94,547 94,547 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 12,322,592 2,287,100 1,826,538 460,562 12,783,154 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 7,552,075 1,418,074 1,172,420 245,654 7,797,729 423 SEWER/WWTPUTILITY FUND 43,942,247 3,357,735 4,533,277 (1,175,542) 42,766,705 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 6,536,284 599,721 337,610 262,111 6,798,395 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 216,719 49,553 49,035 518 217,237 TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 85,607,201 $ 27,423,213 $ 22,897,044 $ 4,526,169 $ 90,133,370 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. *The beginning fund balance for all other funds is based on the unaudited 2012 financial statement amounts. 23 Packet Page 117 of 554 Title CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2013 Amended 5/31/2013 Budget Revenues Variance Pagel of 3 %Received TAXES: REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX $ 9,781,109 $ 5,532,324 $ (4,248,785) 57% EMS PROPERTY TAX 2,775,282 1,714,241 (1,061,041) 62% VOTED PROPERTY TAX 916,103 545,440 (370,663) 60% LOCAL RETAIL SALES✓USE TAX 4,913,150 2,155,612 (2,757,538) 44% NATURAL GAS USE TAX 8,706 4,666 (4,040) 54% 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 520,417 233,544 (286,873) 45% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,475,638 787,005 (688,634) 53% GASUTILITYTAX 811,174 437,820 (373,354) 54% SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 287,710 124,735 (162,975) 43% WAT ER UT ILIT Y T AX 904,613 351,303 (553,310) 39% SEWER UTILITY TAX 470,000 176,218 (293,782) 37% STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 274,600 147,302 (127,298) 54% T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 730,910 328,331 (402,579) 45% TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,529,498 598,247 (931,251) 39% PULLTABS TAX 61,385 30,224 (31,161) 49% AMUSEMENT GAMES 731 100 (631) 14% LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 212,350 53,966 (158,384) 25% PENALTIES ON GAMBLING TAXES - - - 0% 25,673,376 13,221,079 (12,452,297) 51% LICENSES AND PERMITS: FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE 5,555 4,840 (715) 87% PROF AND OCC LICENSE -TAXI 1,030 630 (400) 61% AMUSEMENTS 6,060 4,350 (1,710) 72% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -COMCAST 627,816 331,451 (296,365) 53% 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 214,415 121,813 (92,602) 57% GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 106,297 93,531 (12,766) 88% DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 18,422 9,600 (8,822) 52% NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 39,274 30,050 (9,224) 77% RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 9,500 9,773 273 103% BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 345,436 149,242 (196,194) 43% ANIMAL LICENSES 13,205 4,788 (8,417) 36% STREET AND CURB PERMIT 50,000 5,816 (44,184) 12% OT R NON -BUS LIC/PERMIT S 7,070 4,767 (2,303) 67% DIVE PARK PERMIT FEE - - - 0% 1,548,173 825,186 (722,987) 53% INTERGOVERNMENTAL: DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 1,191 - (1,191) 0% ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE GRANT - 23,500 23,500 0% TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 10,000 3,656 (6,344) 37% HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 6,000 776 (5,224) 13% SMART COMMUTER PROJECT GRANT - 600 600 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 6,268 (6,304) 50% 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% 591,057 149,499 (440,058) 25% 24 Packet Page 118 of 554 Title CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2013 Amended 5/31/2013 Budget Revenues Variance Page 2 of 3 %Received CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,065 818 (248) 77% D/M COURT REC SER 172 14 (158) 8% MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURREXPEN 188 71 (117) 38% SALE MAPS & BOOKS 72 96 24 133% PHOTOCOPIES 4,572 1,266 (3,306) 28% POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 4,500 1,736 (2,764) 39% ASSESSMENT SEARCH 5 - (5) 0% ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 100,000 58,293 (41,707) 58% ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES 1,011 - (1,011) 0% SNO-ISLE 57,236 36,542 (20,694) 64% PASSPORTSAND NATURALIZATION FEES 9,571 4,500 (5,071) 47% POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 - (26,000) 0% OCDETF OVERTIME - 2,144 2,144 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% DRE REIMBURSEABLE - 143 143 0% DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES 532 404 (128) 76% FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 27,808 29,993 2,185 108% ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 60,000 21,767 (38,233) 36% ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 165 - (165) 0% BOOKING FEES 5,711 2,269 (3,442) 40% FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 5,577 2,590 (2,987) 46% EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 23,976 5,612 (18,364) 23% DUI EMERGENCY AID 67 - (67) 0% EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 814,318 412,923 (401,395) 51% POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 496 45 (451) 9% CRIM CNV FEE DUI 698 218 (480) 31 % CRIM CONV FEE CT 4,360 1,914 (2,446) 44% CRIM CONV FEE CN 1,624 578 (1,046) 36% FIBER SERVICES 36,438 13,700 (22,738) 38% INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES 7,272 3,000 (4,272) 41% FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 213 528 315 248% ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 6,616 2,200 (4,416) 33% ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 38,000 35,417 (2,583) 93% PLAN CHECKING FEES 216,457 112,030 (104,427) 52% FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 2,911 725 (2,186) 25% PLANNING 1 % INSPECTION FEE 1,200 966 (234) 81 % S.E.P.A. REVIEW 5,000 3,880 (1,120) 78% CRITICAL AREA STUDY 12,000 7,285 (4,715) 61% DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 10,921 4,613 (6,308) 42% SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 56,000 3,026 (52,974) 5% GYM AND WEIGHT ROOM FEES 5,500 2,725 (2,775) 50% LOCKER FEES 300 - (300) 0% SWIM CLASS FEES 32,000 796 (31,204) 2% INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE-SSCCFH 69,300 - (69,300) 0% PROGRAM FEES 780,000 347,623 (432,377) 45% TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 115,500 72,775 (42,725) 63% SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM 31,600 26,927 (4,673) 85% BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 660 - (660) 0% INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS 1,520,248 709,395 (810,853) 47% 4,148,225 1,943,316 (2,204,909) 47% 25 Packet Page 119 of 554 Title CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2013 Amended 5/31/2013 Budget Revenues Variance Page 3 of 3 %Received FINES AND FORFEITURES: PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 10,214 4,075 (6,139) 40% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 24,000 11,172 (12,828) 47% NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 213,000 105,628 (107,372) 50% CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA) 20,086 8,089 (11,997) 40% SPEEDING DOUBLE 77 77 (0) 100% NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 2,034 - (2,034) 0% OTHER INFRACT IONS'04 1,002 831 (171) 83 % PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 31,592 19,502 (12,090) 62% PR -HANDICAPPED 794 - (794) 0% PARKING INFRACTION LOC 404 - (404) 0% PARK/INDDISZONE 3,000 1,306 (1,694) 44% DWI PENALTIES 9,200 666 (8,534) 7% DUI - DP ACCT 415 793 378 191% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 8 - (8) 0% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 33,000 14,073 (18,927) 43% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT - 103 103 0% OT HER NON-T RAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 539 61 (478) 11 % OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 14,000 (1,695) (15,695) -12% COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 1,491 628 (863) 42% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN - 92 92 0% CRIMINAL COST S-RECOUPMENTS 113,265 40,442 (72,823) 36% PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 40,000 10,469 (29,531) 26% COURT INTERPRETER COSTS 292 37 (255) 13% BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 7,444 3,205 (4,239) 43% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 485 1,510 1,025 311% 526,342 221,062 (305,280) 42% MISCELLANEOUS: INVESTMENT INTEREST 8,000 329 (7,671) 4% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 1,250 808 (442) 65% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 5,491 1,371 (4,120) 25% PARKING 8,790 4,062 (4,728) 46% SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS 140,000 44,432 (95,568) 32% BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 3,040 2,440 (600) 80% LEASES LONG-TERM 143,000 70,688 (72,312) 49% VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 4,500 1,281 (3,219) 28% OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 6,200 3,510 (2,690) 57% PARKS DONAT IONS 4,300 9,100 4,800 212% BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 1,400 700 (700) 50% PARKS GRANTS- PRIVATE SOURCES - 1,235 1,235 0% SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 1,486 - (1,486) 0% SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 1,750 2,384 634 136% CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY - 358 358 0% OTHER JUDGEMENT SETTLEMENT - 6,367 6,367 0% POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 465 40 (425) 9% CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES 44 6 (39) 13 % OTHER MISC REVENUES 3,000 2,572 (428) 86% SMALL OVERPAYMENT 66 13 (53) 20% NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 182 30 (152) 16% NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 978 388 (590) 40% NSF FEES- POLICE 91 - (91) 0% NSF FEES - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT - 90 90 0% 334,033 152,202 (181,921) 46% 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 S 32,858,589 S 16,512,344 $ (16,344,835) 50% 26 Packet Page 120 of 554 Page 1 of 6 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 INTERFUND 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-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE (009) BENEFITS IN HOME LTC CLAIMS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011) MISCELLANEOUS HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVERTISING MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REPAIRS & MAINTENANENCE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS DRUG INFO RC EMENT FUND (104) SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED SMALL EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATIONS REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVTL SVC C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Amended 5/31/2013 Budget Expenditures $ 12,069,872 $ 4,890,874 $ 415,100 134,673 193,388 802 4,094,462 1,679,116 61,110 20,514 374,244 125,714 117,050 50,010 1,949,484 558,409 204,660 71,168 36,742 4,110 40,865 6,420 834,943 343,395 396,193 397,566 414,600 182,847 320,547 138,800 279,880 116,623 8,099,655 3,927,871 190,000 - 5,500 1,267 1,325,185 255,078 85,000 22,735 946,595 - 64,014 64,014 - 478 185,614 22,304 5,000 - 201,800 - 4K000 20,000 $ 435,000 $ 94,526 $ 176,400 43,990 8,000 6,081 - 250 Variance (7,178,998) (280,427) (192,586) (2,415,346) (40,596) (248,530) (67,040) (1,391,075) (133,492) (32,632) (34,445) (491,548) 1,373 (231,753) (181,747) (163,257) (4,171,784) (190,000) (4,233) (1,070,107) (62,265) (946,595) (0) 478 (163,310) (5,000) (201,800) (28,000) (340,474) (132,410) (1,919) 250 % Used 41% 32% 0% 41% 34% 34% 35% 11% 16% 41% 100% 0% 23% 19% 27% 0% 100% 0% 12% 0% 0% 0%1 $ 661,000 464,100 (196,900) 70% 661,000 464,100 19 ,900 70% $ 2,000 $ - $ (2,000) 0% 2,000 - (2,000) 0% 1,000 - (1,000) 0% 10.000 800 (9.200) 8% $ 10,000 $ - $ (10,000) 0% 20,000 8,716 (11,284) 44% 5,000 493 (4,507) 10% - 1,865 1,865 0% 170,000 - (170,000) 0% 205,000 11,073 (25,791) 5% $ $ - $ - 0% 2,000 1,871 (129) 94% 5,000 - (5,000) 0% 2,233 1,419 (814) 64% 800 - (800) 0% 20,000 - (20,000) 0% 50,000 10,061 (39,939) 20% Packet Page 121 of 554 27 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 TTY O F IDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Amended 5/31/2013 Budget Expenditures $ 447,655 $ 168,861 $ 18,400 8,483 197,283 73,776 6,000 3,542 240,000 66,537 26,000 - 32,700 4,089 3,500 1,078 1,000 210 350 - 159,134 65,563 87,204 87,201 267,750 85,036 25,000 10,813 8,000 405 4,000 89 31,665 - 074 _ Variance (278,794) (9,917) (123,507) (2,458) (173,463) (26,000) (28,611) (2,422) (790) (350) (93,571) (3) (182,714) (14,187) (7,595) (3,911) (31,665) (2.074) % Used 38% 46% 37% 59% 28% 0% 13% 31% 21% 0% 41% 100% 32% 43% 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% $ 1,152,100 $ 193,641 $ (958,459) 17% 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 46,166 (259,834) 15% $ 4,200 $ 27 $ (4,173) 1 % 1,000 - (1,000) 0% 116,700 5,973 (110,727) 5% 50 42 (8) 84% 4,000 3,700 (300) 93% 550 - (550) 0% 300 - (300) 0% 10,000 4,807 (5,193) 4 8% 3.000 - (3,000) 0% $ $ $ 0% $ $ 0% $ 14,500 $ - $ (14,500) 0% 37,500 6,506 (30,994) 17% 2,500 100 (2,400) 4% 14,000 - (14,000) 0% 68,500 6,606 (61,894) 10% $ 1,640 $ 874 $ (766) 53% - 555 25,086 - (25,086) 0% 26,726 1,429 (25,852) 5% $ 4,000 $ 1,512 $ (2,488) 38% 4,000 1,512 (2,488) 38% $ 10,500 $ 1,697 $ (8,803) 16% 4,500 553 (3,948) 12% 4,000 - (4,000) 0% Packet Page 122 of 554 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 Amended 5/31/2013 Budget Expenditures $ 29,000 $ 26,407 $ 337,000 3,925 - 148 185,000 11,526 635,500 - 100,000 - 438,910 - 200,000 - 17,550 - 12,074 - 668,534 - $ 14,020 $ 1,458 $ 6,000 6,150 12,297 - 32,317 7,608 $ 31,700 $ 2,202 $ 171,600 - 19,500 17,558 222,800 19,760 $ 68,605 $ 28,775 $ 3,500 1,154 33,188 13,243 1,000 - 7,000 429 20,000 3,117 1,000 200 1,412 583 500 - 3,000 287 5,256 2,190 3,800 - 500 - 4,000 1,290 1,907,500 4,445 182,700 3.000 1 A 14 Variance (2,593) (333,075) 148 (173,474) (635,500) (100,000) (438,910) (200,000) (17,550) (12,074) (668,534) (12,562) 150 (29,498) (171,600) (1,942) (203,040) (39,830) (2,346) (19,945) (1,000) (6,571) (16,883) (800) (829) (500) (2,714) (3,066) (3,800) (500) (2,710) (1,903,055) (182,700) (1.886) % Used 91% 1% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 103% 0% 24% 7% 0% 33% 40% 0% 6% 16% 20% 41% 0% 10% 42% 0% 0% 32% 0% 0% 34% 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 $ 5,000 258,687 1,756 - (381,313) 0% 100% 40% 645,000 S 265,443 (379,557) 41% 29 Packet Page 123 of 554 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 Amended 5/31/2013 Budget Expenditures $ 22,130 $ - $ 22,130 - $ 825,372 $ - $ 184,530 - 1,009,902 - $ 756,455 $ 298,530 $ 24,180 7,664 285,866 122,965 6,840 2,836 143,505 37,645 1,725,000 392,199 140,000 41,075 10,400 4,743 173,136 100,228 30,280 14,849 3,400 - 560 - 91,205 38,379 67,699 67,607 28,000 17,709 24,160 1,371 307,630 132,197 30,000 10,079 904,893 351,303 927,500 - 85,000 - 2,532,580 - 2,025 - 209,471 - 45,839 - 280,306 - 16,553 - - 175 349,368 184,938 - 48 Variance (22.1 (825,372) (184,530) (457,925) (16,516) (162,901) (4,004) (105,860) (1,332,801) (98,925) (5,657) (72,908) (15,431) (3,400) (560) (52,826) (92) (10,291) (22,789) (175,433) (19,921) (553,590) (927,500) (85,000) (2,532,580) (2,025) (209,471) (45,839) (280,306) (16,553) 175 (164,430) 48 Page 4 of 6 % Used 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 39% 32% 43% 41% 26% 0% 58% 49% 0% 0% 42% 100% 34% 39% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 53% 0% Packet Page 124 of 554 30 Title C ITY O F IDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Amended 5/31/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance Page 5 of 6 %Used STORM FUND (422) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 568,591 $ 235,657 $ (332,934) 41% OVERTIME 6,000 3,566 (2,434) 59% BENEFITS 232,141 95,884 (136,257) 41% UNIFORMS 6,540 4,032 (2,508) 62% SUPPLIES 50,000 11,810 (38,190) 24% SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,400 164 (4,236) 4% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 599,190 301,357 (297,833) 50% COMMUNICATIONS 3,480 587 (2,893) 17% TRAVEL 4,300 864 (3,436) 20% ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 217,412 88,602 (128,810) 41% INSURANCE 8,418 8,407 (11) 100% UTILITES 10,000 4,084 (5,916) 41% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 11,860 5,962 (5,898) 50% MISCELLANEOUS 106,100 40,257 (65,843) 38% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 45,000 16,763 (28,237) 37% INTERFUND TAXESAND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 291,600 124,834 (166,766) 43% 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 300,391 229,506 (70,885) 76% 4,565,772 1,172,420 (3,393,352) 26% SEWER FUND (423) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 1,653,859 $ 643,751 $ (1,010,108) 39% OVERTIME 73,000 45,338 (27,662) 62% BENEFITS 677,979 262,959 (415,020) 39% UNIFORMS 11,190 6,901 (4,289) 62% SUPPLIES 482,505 92,519 (389,986) 19% FUEL CONSUMED 90,000 72,896 (17,104) 81% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE 3,000 - (3,000) 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 16,400 7,393 (9,007) 45% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,024,236 558,991 (465,245) 55% COMMUNICATIONS 40,280 14,815 (25,465) 37% TRAVEL 7,400 - (7,400) 0% ADVERTISING 2,500 - (2,500) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 133,736 54,700 (79,036) 41% INSURANCE 157,117 156,092 (1,025) 99% UTILITIES 931,200 448,060 (483,140) 48% REPAIR&MAINTENANCE 90,000 49,630 (40,371) 55% MISCELLANEOUS 211,100 86,223 (124,877) 41% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 290,000 42,648 (247,352) 15% INTERFUND TAXESAND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 470,000 198,685 (271,315) 42% INTERFUND TRANSFERS (to 414, 423) 1,125,280 - (1,125,280) 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 141,000 - (141,000) 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 7,924,700 1,560,557 (6,364,143) 20% 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 574,489 231,078 (343,411) 40% 16,830,109 4,533,277 12,296,832 27% 31 Packet Page 125 of 554 Page 6 of 6 Title EQ UIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511) 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 FIROMEN'S PENSION FUND (617) BENEFITS PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS PROF SERVICES TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Amended 5/31/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance $ 228,064 $ 1,000 100,397 1,000 76,000 1,000 321,800 8,000 1,000 3,000 9,996 34,083 14,000 60,000 6,000 2,500 217,532 10,000 % Used 64,044 $ (164,020) 28% 886 (114) 89% 30,285 (70,112) 300/c 385 (615) 38% 26,754 (49,247) 35ON - (1,000) 0ON 93,047 (228,753) 290/c 2,874 (5,126) 360/c 977 (23) 98% 531 (2,469) 180/c 3,871 (6,125) 390/c 34,153 70 1000/c 5,808 (8,192) 41ON 23,096 (36,904) 38ON 3,855 (2,145) 64°/a 119 (2,381) 5% 46,927 (170,605) 220/c - (10.000) 0% $ 63,000 $ 14,229 $ (48,771) 2 43,790 33,636 (10,154) 7 2.000 1.169 (831) 5 Packet Page 126 of 554 32 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 Amended 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 $ 5/31/2013 penditures 103,077 $ 97,801 105,495 289,036 211,369 624,521 192,124 4,665,570 3,483,129 141,547 651,747 1,200,892 715,082 553.398 13.034.788 Variance (170,546) (140,574) (181,695) (440,470) (375,462) (867,497) (307,076) (6,801,999) (5,448,056) (231,767) (967,295) (2,197,625) (1,003,893) (790,761) (19.924.715) CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN S UMMARY 2013 Amended Budget $ 9,201,851 $ 4,565,772 16,830,109 $ 30,597,732 $ 5/31/2013 penditures 1,826,538 $ 1,172,420 4,533,277 7,532,235 $ Variance (7,375,313) (3,393,352) (12,296,832) (23,065,497) % Used % Used 38% 41% 37% 40% 36% 42% 38% 41% 39% 38% 40% 35% 42% 41% 40% 20% 26% 27% 25% Packet Page 127 of 554 33 Page 1 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2013 Amended 5/31/2013 Title Budget Expenditures Variance %Used CITY COUNCIL SALARIES $ 114,618 $ 49,296 $ (65,322) 43% OVERTIME 2,000 255 (1,745) 13% BENEFIT S 68,165 28,938 (39,227) 42% SUPPLIES 1,000 88 (912) 9% PROFESSIONAL SVC 53,082 22,348 (30,734) 42% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 1,041 (1,959) 35% TRAVEL 2,500 393 (2,107) 16% RENTAL/LEASE 490 186 (304) 38% REPAIRS✓MAINT 1,500 - (1,500) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 27,268 532 (26,736) 2% 273,623 103,077 (170,546) 38% OFFICEOFMAYOR SALARIES $ 183,722 $ 77,494 $ (106,228) 42% OVERTIME - - - 0% BENEFITS 41,852 17,418 (24,434) 42% SUPPLIES 2,000 869 (1,131) 43% PROFESSIONAL SVC 1,500 29 (1,471) 2% COMMUNICATION 1,400 340 (1,060) 24% TRAVEL 2,000 449 (1,551) 22% RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 839 (1,561) 35% REPAIR/MAINT 500 - (500) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 363 (2,637) 12% 238,374 S 97,801 (140,574) 1% HUMAN RES O URC ES SALARIES $ 169,000 S 66,715 $ (102,285) 39% OVERTIME - - - 0% BENEFITS 6L680 20,039 (41,641) 32% SUPPLIES 2,000 1,477 (523) 74% SMALL EQUIPMENT 100 - (100) 0% PROFESSIONAL SVC 32,000 8,574 (23,426) 27% COMMUNICATIONS 500 160 (340) 32% TRAVEL 500 100 (400) 20% ADVERTISING 5,000 1,517 (3,483) 30% RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 839 (1,161) 42% REPAIR/MAINT 6,000 5,349 (651) 89% MISCELLANEOUS 8 410 725 (7,685) 9% 287,190 105,495 (181,695) 37% MUNIC IPAL C O URT SALARIES $ 464,471 $ 187,664 $ (276,807) 40% OVERTIME 100 - (100) 0% BENEFITS 168,526 61,876 (106,650) 37% SUPPLIES 9,159 3,180 (5,979) 35% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,000 1,003 (997) 50% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 60,500 27,872 (32,628) 46% COMMUNICATIONS 2,600 743 (1,857) 29% TRAVEL 1,250 1,379 129 110% RENTAL/LEASE 650 319 (331) 49% REPAIR/MAINT 1,000 409 (591) 41 % MISCELLANEOUS 19,250 4,592 (14,658) 24% 729,506 289,036 (440,470) 40% 34 Packet Page 128 of 554 Title CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2013 Amended 5/31/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance Page 2 of 4 %Used CITY C LERK SALARIES AND WAGES $ 305,572 $ 126,391 $ (179,181) 41% BENEFIT S 92,771 38,389 (54,382) 41% SUPPLIES 13,760 2,706 (11,054) 20% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 84,751 9,086 (75,665) 11% COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 18,852 (31,148) 38% TRAVEL 250 - (250) 0% ADVERTISING 3,690 2,299 (1,391) 62% RENTAL/LEASE 25,000 6,652 (18,348) 27% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 8,037 4,795 (3,242) 60% MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 2,201 (799) 73% 586,831 211,369 375,462 36% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SALARIES $ 682,370 $ 269,380 $ (412,990) 39% OVERTIME 4,000 5,582 1,582 140% BENEFITS 220,100 83,491 (136,609) 38% SUPPLIES 35,700 9,647 (26,053) 27% SMALL EQUIPMENT 87,500 41,769 (45,731) 48% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 126,350 82,538 (43,812) 65% COMMUNICATIONS 58,960 21,384 (37,576) 36% TRAVEL 3,300 - (3,300) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 8,988 3,681 (5,307) 41% REPAIR/MAINT 171,750 74,574 (97,176) 43% MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 9,739 1,739 122% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 85,000 22,735 (62,265) 27% 1,492,018 624,521 (867,497) 42% CITY ATTORNEY PROFESSIONAL SVC $ 499,200 $ 192,124 $ (307,076) 38% MISC PROSECUTOR - - 0% 499,200 192,124 (307,076) 38% NON -DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES $ 136,000 $ - $ (136,000) 0% BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT 40,000 12,434 (27,566) 31 % PROFESSIONAL SVC 380,000 88,436 (291,564) 23% 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 3,780,228 (3,752,684) 50% ECA LOAN PAYMENT 190,000 - (190,000) 0% EXCISE TAXES 5,500 1,267 (4,233) 23% 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) 100% OTHER DEBT - - - 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 185,614 22,304 (163,310) 12% DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS 5,000 - (5,000) 0% FISCAL AGENT FEES - 478 478 0% INTERFUND SERVICES 201,800 - (201,800) 0% 11,467,569 4,665,570 (6,801,999) 41% 35 Packet Page 129 of 554 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 Amended 5/31/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance %Used $ 5,169,010 $ 2,125,211 $ (3,043,799) 41% 400,000 125,386 (274,614) 31% 193,388 802 (192,586) 0% 1,728,703 742,574 (986,129) 43% 52,410 17,980 (34,430) 34% 94,100 30,145 (63,955) 32% 14,300 3,267 (11,033) 23% 95,200 27,379 (67,821) 29% 33,592 8,276 (25,316) 25% 16,300 1,285 (15,015) 8% 375 36 (339) 10% 538,344 223,062 (315,282) 41% 16,115 3,280 (12,835) 20% 35,300 11,803 (23,497) 33% 496,048 142,643 (353,405) 29% 48,000 20,000 (28,000) 42% 8,931,185 3,483,129 (5,449,056) 39% $ 213,304 $ 89,058 $ (124,246) 42% 62,052 26,011 (36,041) 42% 1,500 280 (1,220) 19% 800 - (800) 0% 60,804 22,874 (37,930) 38% 1,490 626 (864) 42% 2,000 - (2,000) 0% 24,500 - (24,500) 0% 2364 989 (1,375) 42% 500 - (500) 0% 4,000 1,709 (2,292) 43% 373,314 141,547 (231,767) 38% $ 1,032,549 $ 460,503 $ (572,046) 45% 1,300 25 (1,275) 2% 358,465 150,960 (207,505) 42% - - - 0% 13,000 4,299 (8,701) 33% 1,100 - (1,100) 0% 145,600 9,152 (136,448) 6% 4,000 1,881 (2,119) 47% 1,600 12 (1,588) 1% 3,000 1,635 (1,365) 54% 32,828 13,683 (19,145) 42% 500 - (500) 0% 25,100 9,598 (15,502) 38% 1,619,042 651,747 967,295 40% $ 1,007,140 $ 416,098 $ (591,042) 41% 5,000 947 (4,053) 19% 342,150 148,577 (193,573) 43% 360 - (360) 0% - - - 0% 2,000 1,093 (907) 55% 5,000 840 (4,160) 17% 6,700 2,087 (4,613) 31 % 600 10 (590) 2% - 264 264 0% 13,408 5,585 (7,823) 42% 1,800 38 (1,762) 2% 10,300 4,411 (5,890) 43% 1,394,458 579,950 (814,508) 42% Packet Page 130 of 554 36 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 Amended 5/31/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance %Used $ 1,745,631 $ 661,100 $ (1,084,531) 38% - 2,373 2,373 0% 584,326 228,330 (355,996) 39% 5,340 1,987 (3,353) 37% 131,925 43,743 (88,182) 33% 3,250 1,820 (1,430) 56% 405,297 67,137 (338,160) 17% 28,218 9,919 (18,299) 35% 5,942 483 (5,459) 8% 4,300 668 (3,632) 16% 149,152 63,361 (85,791) 42% 135,000 60,394 (74,606) 45% 51,845 25,036 (26,809) 48% 77,596 29,542 (48,054) 38% 70,695 5,000 (65,695) 7% 3,398,517 1,200,892 (2,197,625) 35% $ 225,381 $ 101,841 $ (123,540) 45% 200 - (200) 0% 76,157 27,405 (48,752) 36% 5,100 2,333 (2,767) 46% 200 20 (180) 10% 1,200 644 (556) 54% 500 - (500) 0% 10,779 1,785 (8,994) 17% 2,600 1,075 (1,525) 41% 1,000 - (1,000) 0% 1,400 30 (1,370) 2% 324,517 135,132 (189,385) 42% $ 621,104 $ 260,124 $ (360,980) 42% 2,500 105 (2,395) 4% 249,515 92,675 (156,840) 37% 3,000 547 (2,453) 18% 65,000 26,947 (38,053) 41 % - - 0% 6,000 1,059 (4,942) 18% 13,000 5,216 (7,784) 40% 44,940 18,815 (26,125) 42% 277,000 121,378 (155,622) 44% 60,000 25,319 (34,681) 42% 2,100 1,214 (886) 58% 1,344,159 553,398 790,761 41°0 32,959,503 13,034,788 (19,924,715) 40% Packet Page 131 of 554 37 AM-5969 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/23/2013 Time: Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Type: Action Information Committee Action: 3. D. Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Frontier Communications ($7,050.15). Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative A Claim for Damages has been received from the following: Frontier Communications 3831 - 204th St. SW Lynnwood, WA 98036 ($7,050.15) Frontier Communications Claim Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 07/18/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 07/17/2013 02:33 PM Sandy Chase 07/18/2013 08:48 AM Started On: 07/17/2013 01:18 PM Packet Page 132 of 554 RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM Date Claim Form DMONk�if*N Ot I Please take note that f Z4-,)TtEIC who currently resides at '31 _L:�[ c.3 �„yocr W mailing address 3`63 ( 7_0t4_ri't IG f LYO1i w6A I-w X , home phone # work phone # RZI-6)III and who resided at at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is _, is claiming damages against _[`_,T o_t in the sum of $ 7Q50.J_Sarising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: L,12_i0_1 1_3> LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: !A t C_r o-'f'W 7PtNQ_!. DESCRIPTION: TIME: $ '.3(5 AI -A. 1. Describe the conduct and circumstance that brouaht about the iniury or damaae. Also describe the iniury or damaae. (attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. 'Drl 'e 1124!31 IM me. S E _ _*4LO� EL-,,,.,.,Lt &.03 A _gt_ r % q z5-77 3 _.�4,;�a 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes —4— No If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * * License Plate # W65 a \ I T Driver License # Type Auto: o' _10(c G(nC_ S`aC0 ( ear) (make) (model) DRIVER: LLv OL-t 0 L IR OWNER: Address: it 3 i L0 C Address: LW t[f- STE�1E+J5 wA cli7-5� Phone#: 4a5 D`7L1 �5(03 _ Phone#: Passengers: Name: Name: Address: Address: `y+N�M4�\ iJ Form Revised 07/16/09 Packet Page 133 of 554 Page 1 of 2 * * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * * i, '" n �V1 1 being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the sari e to be trt e. x x Signature of Claimant(s) State of Washi to County of -3hol R I I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that '� is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/siKe) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/hfree and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 7 1l Lty% Signature 1 [KRISTI L. RATLIFFNOTARY PUBLICTitle 4 } ATE OF WASHINGTONy I�0 COMMISSION hXPIRESMy appointment expires: V�MBER 17, 2015 Please present the completed claim form to: City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Form Revised 07/16/09 Packet Page 134 of 554 Page 2 of 2 AM-5972 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/23/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Stephen Clifton Department: Review Committee: Type: Community Services Information Information Committee Action: Subject Title Community Services/Economic Development Department Quarterly Report - July, 2013. Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative 3. E. The attached report provides an update on major projects currently worked on by staff of the Community Services and Economic Development Departments. Attachments Communitv Services/Economic Development Ouarterlv Report - July. 2013 Attachment 1 - July 2, 2013 Sound Transit Presentation Outline Attachment 2 - Economic Development Department - Projects, Programs and Initiatives Attachment 3 - Updated List of Grants Secured by the City of Edmonds Attachment 4 - Updated Map Depicting Location of Projects Funded Using Grant Dollars Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Final Approval Date: 07/18/2013 Form Review Date 07/18/2013 01:36 PM 07/18/2013 01:47 PM 07/18/2013 01:48 PM Started On: 07/18/2013 09:05 AM Packet Page 135 of 554 City of Edmonds L+ f: Community Services Department Economic Development Department Date: July 17, 2013 To: Mayor Earling and City Council members From: Stephen Clifton, AICP Community Services and Economic Development Director Subject: Community Services and Economic Development Quarterly Report — July, 2013 This report provides an update on major projects currently worked on by staff of the Community Services and Economic Development Departments. Community Services I. EDMONDS CROSSING Project Description Edmonds Crossing is a regional project intended to provide a long-term solution to current operational and safety conflicts between ferry, rail, automobile, bus, and pedestrian traffic in downtown Edmonds and along State Route 104. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) (including Washington State Ferries [WSF]), and City of Edmonds propose to relocate the existing state ferry terminal from Main Street, in downtown Edmonds, to Pt. Edwards, south of the downtown core. In the process, a multimodal center would be established that would integrate ferry, rail, and transit services into a single complex. A realigned SR 104 from its current intersection with Pine Street would provide access. The new complex would provide an upgraded ferry terminal designed to meet the operational requirements for accommodating forecast ferry ridership demand; a new rail station designed to meet intercity passenger (Amtrak) and commuter rail (Sounder) service; a transit center that would meet local bus system and regional transit system loading requirements; facilities that allow both vehicular commuters and walk-on passengers to utilize various transportation modes; parking, drop-off areas, retail/concessionaire space, waiting areas; and a system linking these facilities to allow for the safe movement of users. Significant Activities Since April, 2013 • July, 2013 — As mentioned in the April, 2013 Quarterly Report, all Federal Funding appropriated to the project has been deactivated or de -obligated by the Federal Transit Packet Page 136 of 554 Administration and Federal Highway Administration due to inactivity of the project. De- obligation/deactivation is a step used by FTA in order for federally appropriated funds to be returned to the federal government. II. SOUND TRANSIT (PHASE 1, AKA SOUND MOVE) Project Description During the past several years, Sound Transit has been implementing what is called the Sound Move Plan. One element calls for commuter rail services, otherwise known as Sounder. Commuter rail will eventually link Everett in the north with Seattle, Tacoma and Lakewood in the South, a total of 82 miles through three counties. Sounder is being implemented in three phases, one of which includes Everett to Seattle or the North Commuter Rail corridor. Three commuter rail stations exist along this corridor, i.e., Everett, Mukilteo and Edmonds. Sound Transit Sounder currently operates 8 trains per day between Everett and Seattle, i.e., four round trips. This is a reduction of two round trips from the originally proposed operational plan. The first roundtrip train run began in December, 2003. Located between Main and Dayton Streets along both sides of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) tracks and co -located with Amtrak's and Community Transit, Edmonds Commuter Rail Station includes ADA accessible rail platforms, shelters, signage, lighting fixtures, hanging flower baskets, ticket vending machines, on -site parking, and Community Transit bus station. Significant Activities since April, 2013 • July, 2013 — Salish Crossing owners have completed construction of a new parking area at the south end of their site (between Dayton Street and existing structures) which will serve as supplemental parking to the Edmonds Sounder Commuter Rail Station (Edmonds Station). III. SOUND TRANSIT 2 Expanding the regional mass transit system On Nov. 4, 2008, voters of the Central Puget Sound region approved a Sound Transit 2 ballot measure. The plan adds regional express bus and commuter rail service while building 36 additional miles of light rail to form a 55-mile regional system. For additional information, visit http://soundtransit.org/. Sound Transit is preparing to extend light rail from Northgate to Lynnwood, which voters approved as part of the Sound Transit 2 Plan in 2008 along with funding to continue planning future service all the way to Everett. This project relies on competing for and receiving significant federal funding. The Sound Transit Board took a major step in year 2012 by confirming that light rail is the best mode of transit and Interstate 5 is the right corridor to study based on ridership, travel times, service levels and cost. Significant Activities since April, 2013 • April, May, June and July, 2013 — Construction is currently underway on a light rail extension to the University of Washington scheduled to open in 2016, followed by Packet Page 137 of 554 service to Northgate targeted for opening in 2021. Voter -approved additions will bring 36 new miles of service north, south and east of Seattle, creating more than 50 miles of regional light rail service. July 2, 2013 — Michelle Ginder, Project Manager for Sound Transit Lynnwood Link, provided an update on Sound Transit North Link project and potential siting of the Sound Transit North Link Maintenance Facility. Attachment 1 is the PowerPoint outline used during the presentation. IV. UNOCAL AKA CHEVRON SITE CLEANUP Project Description The UNOCAL property currently consists of a lower yard which currently contains petroleum contamination resulting from more than 60 years of operation. Chevron, which acquired UNOCAL, is now the entity responsible for cleaning up the site. Cleanup work at the lower yard, which began in 2007, was a continuation of remediation work that has been ongoing at the site since 2001. Chevron conducted cleanup work from summer 2007 through fall 2008 and has since been monitoring the site since. Significant Activities since April, 2013 • April, May, June and July, 2013 — Interim actions have addressed most of the contamination at the site. Chevron Environmental Management Company, on behalf of Unocal, is performing a Feasibility Study to assess remedial alternatives to cleaning up contamination that remains. Chevron EMC, Ecology, Washington State Ferries, and the Edmonds Citizen's Awareness Committee continue to meet at key points during the study to discuss the work. The draft Feasibility Study is due to Ecology at the end of 2013. Once the Study is finalized, Ecology will select cleanup actions to be taken at the Site. The selected actions will be presented to the public in a draft Cleanup Action Plan. V. EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT Overview The City Council, pursuant to state law, approved the formation of the Public Facilities District (PFD) at its April 24, 2001 meeting. A PFD is a separate municipal corporation that has authority to undertake the design, construction, operation, promotion and financing of a Regional Center in the city. The Public Facilities District board consists of five members originally appointed by the City Council on June 19, 2001. Phase 1A renovation of the original Edmonds High School Auditorium into a first class Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) and multipurpose facility was completed in September of 2006. Significant Activities Since April, 2013 • June, 2013 — ECA announced their 2013-2014 performance schedule. VI. SNOHOMISH COUNTY PAINE FIELD Overview On October 14, 2004, a Mead & Hunt Inc. Business Travel Survey was issued which focused on the market potential and options for Paine Field. On August 20, 2004, a Snohomish County Citizen Cabinet issued an Economic Development Final Report -Blueprint for the Packet Page 138 of 554 Economic Future of Snohomish County. Both reports put Paine Field in the regional spotlight as they highlight the possibility of using Paine Field for commercial aircraft operations, thus changing its general aviation status. Although many elected officials have said they do not support commercial air service at Paine Field, federal law obligates the county to accommodate commercial service. Federal law does not allow the county to prohibit or limit scheduled passenger air service. Instead, it requires that the county negotiate with the airlines in good faith to accommodate their proposed service. Allegiant has said it plans to operate twice a week to Las Vegas, using 150-seat MD83 jet aircraft. Horizon Airlines, via Alaska Airlines, has indicated that it will not serve Paine Field unless another airlines begin service; this being said it wants to operate four times a day to Portland and twice per day to Spokane, using 75-seat Bombardier Q400 turboprop airplanes on both routes. Before airlines may begin commercial service, the FAA must amend the county's operating certificate for Paine Field as well as the airlines' operating specifications. The county was required to prepare an environmental assessment for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval before those amendments can occur. Significant Activities Since April, 2013 • July 15, 2013 — Click here to read an article in the Everett Herald that describes how Las Vegas -based Allegiant Air, the primary carrier interested in flying from the Snohomish County -owned airport, has not agreed to the county's financial terms for building a passenger terminal. The airline instead offered to build the terminal but wanted the land for free, without a lease. VII. RAILROAD QUIET ZONE Overview As discussed in the past, there is an expressed desire of the City Council and Port of Edmonds to establish a full or partial quite zone along the City's shoreline. A quiet zone is a section of rail line that contains one or more consecutive public crossings at which locomotive horns are not routinely sounded. Significant Activities Since April, 2013 • April, May, June and July, 2013 — No new information at this time. Economic Development I. PARTNERSHIPS Goal 1, Policy is of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan is to promote a results - oriented permit and licensing process, which consolidates review timelines, eliminates unnecessary steps, and maintains a strong customer service approach. Significant Activities Since April, 2013 • April, May, June and July, 2013 — The Public Works Director, Acting Development Services Director, Building Official, and other staff have been meeting with me to Packet Page 139 of 554 discuss potential changes in operations to improve development review efficiencies. This includes moving towards re -structuring the City's development code in year 2013. • June and July, 2013 — At the Mayor's request, City staff is compiling information on all City fee structures. Goal 1 of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states "foster a healthy business community that provides employment and other economic opportunities." Significant Activities Since April, 2013 • April, May, June and July, 2013 — Economic Development staff continue recruiting businesses to, and helping businesses expand or relocate within, the City of Edmonds. Economic Development Commission Overview On June 2, 2009 — The City Council approved Ordinance 3735 which creates a new Citizens Economic Development Commission (EDC) in order to determine new strategies for economic development within the City and identify new sources of revenues. In conjunction with the Planning Board, the new commission is to review and consider strategies designed to improve commercial viability, tourism development, and activity. The ED Commission consists of 17 members appointed by the Mayor and the City Council. The commission is staffed by the City's Economic Development Director and Executive Assistant. Frances Chapin and Rob Chave also attend regularly. The Commission is to make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council, as well as to other City boards or commissions as appropriate, regarding economic development strategies. Minutes from monthly meetings (once approved by the Edmonds EDC) can be found at http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/EconDevMinutes.stm. Significant Activities Since April, 2013 • May 15, 2013 — The Edmonds Economic Development Commission conducted a meeting in the Brackett Meeting Room. Agenda topics included Updates on Communications and Community Outreach, Technology, Tourism, Land Use (incentive zoning, train mitigation and limiting many office uses on the 1st 45 feet of the ground floor within the BD1 zone) and Strategic Plan. • June 19, 2013 - The Edmonds Economic Development Commission conducted a meeting in the Brackett Meeting Room. Agenda topics included Updates on Communications and Community Outreach, Technology, Tourism, Land Use (incentive zoning, train mitigation and limiting many office uses on the 1st 45 feet of the ground floor within the BD1 zone) and Strategic Plan. • July 17 2013 - The Edmonds Economic Development Commission conducted a meeting in the Brackett Meeting Room. Agenda topics included Updates on Communications and Community Outreach, Technology, Tourism, Land Use (incentive zoning and limiting many office uses on the 1st 45 feet of the ground floor within the BD1 zone) and Strategic Plan. Packet Page 140 of 554 Goal 1, Policy 1f of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: "Continue to partner with business and economic development organizations, and address feedback from the business community." Significant Activities Since April, 2013 • April, May, June and July, 2013 — I continue attending monthly Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee meetings, Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association (DEMA) meetings, and Downtown Edmonds Business Improvement District (BID) Board meetings in order to collaboratively share information about City/Chamber/DEMA/BID issues/projects/programs, etc. II. BUSINESS EXPANSION, RETENTION, AND DIVERSIFICATION OF TAX BASE Goal 1, Policy is of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: 'Encourage and expand business expansion and retention programs. Goal 3 calls for diversifying the tax base and increasing revenues to support local services." Significant Activities Since April, 2013 • April, May, June and July, 2013 — I continue working with property and business owners in attempts to help find leasable space in addition to discussing potential leasing and redevelopment of buildings and land. June 14, 2013 — Swedish/Edmonds announced plans for a $63.5 million expansion at its existing hospital campus, including a new emergency department — complete with a dedicated behavioral health unit and urgent care center — aimed at reducing emergency room waiting times. According to Swedish, the two-story, 77,000- square-foot facility will also include a new outpatient diagnostic imaging center, observation unit, front entry and parking garage. The building's second floor will be reserved for future expansion of hospital services. Construction is expected to begin in spring 2014, with completion of the emergency department and urgent care center in fall 2015. Goal 1, Policy if of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: "Continue to partner with business and economic development organizations, and address feedback from the business community." Significant Activities Since April, 2013 • May 15, 2013 — Representatives from the Kingston Chamber of Commerce, Port of Kingston and Kitsap County government attended a meeting in the Brackett meeting room to learn about Economic Development related programs and activities in Edmonds. They were particularly interested in learning about the evolution of Edmonds Economic Development Commission (EDC) since its creation in 2009. In addition to wanting to learn about the interface between the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, City of Edmonds, Port of Edmonds, Edmonds EDC, etc., they wanted to learn about the City's Strategic Planning Process. Representatives from the Port of Packet Page 141 of 554 Edmonds, Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development Commission and City of Edmonds attended the meeting. Prior to the meeting, I prepared an overview of economic development related activities at the regional level, City-wide level and efforts tied to each commercial area within the City of Edmonds (Attachment 2). This document has also been provided to the City Council, Planning Board, Edmonds Economic Development Commission and others. Following the May 15, 2013 meeting, I received the following comments from Ron Kazmar, Kingston representative who served as the main contact for the Kingston/Kitsap officials' visit to Edmonds: "First, we were all impressed by the cordial welcome and the willingness of the many members from Edmonds' EDC staff, CEDC, Chamber, Port, BID, Cultural Services and the Mayor to give our Kingston group several hours of their time. Thank you. Being a small unincorporated town, the parallels between our volunteer organizations working on economic development and the more structured organization of Edmonds was quite apparent to us Edmonds is several years ahead of us and has now reached the point where the Strategic Implementation/Action plan, formation of the BID & CEDC is complete. The discussions of how Edmonds reached this point and the process used to integrate all of the various master plans, comprehensive plans, 5 year plans of the various organizations and interest groups into Strategic priorities and actions with input from the community, businesses, government, stakeholders, youth etc. was an opportunity for us to peek into our future options. Knowledge of the methodology used to arrive at your Strategic planning level is and will continue to be an important resource for us The retreats, charrettes, hearings survey questions, analysis and details of the Plan could be a major influence to us as we continue to evolve and fit our EDC goals and efforts to the greater Kingston area. We are now beginning to embark on the phase where we identify "WHO we are, WHERE we want to go, HOW we will get there, and how we will MEASURE our success overtime" Our May 15th meeting was most timely. We have looked at numerous Washington city EDC websites and engaged in some initial phone discussions about their EDC plans and status Edmonds stands out as unique. The information Edmonds is willing to share whether by phone, meeting or website is second to none and so much appreciated by a small town with limited resources. Somehow, perhaps in the future we can contribute to Edmonds economic vitality as related to our own and repay in a some way the help you have given us. " Goal 2, Policy 2i of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: "Create synergy for commercial businesses where possible, for example, by implementing a "retail core" area in the downtown." Packet Page 142 of 554 Significant Activities Since April, 2013 Amendments to Downtown BD Zones - The Planning Board discussed four potential amendments to the downtown BD zones during meetings on March 9, March 23, April 13, April 27, and June 8, 2011. During the June 8, 2011 Planning Board meeting, the Board voted 7-0 (with amendments) to forward a recommendation to approve the proposed amendments to the City Council. For additional information, see the Planning Board agenda webpage which contains a staff memorandum, draft code language, and June 8, 2011 Planning Board minutes. On October 26, 2011, the City Council held a public hearing on the four potential amendments to Downtown BD Zones and discussed these items further during City Council meetings held on August 9 and 23, 2011. Limiting Office Uses along the ground floor of designated commercial street frontages • One of the amendments to the BD1 zone includes limiting office only uses in ground floor storefronts of designated street frontages within the BD1 zone. On September 27, 2011, the City Council voted against this amendment. The City Council discussed this topic again on October 4, 2011. On February 7, 2012, the City Council discussed reconsideration of this issue and studying it further. On August 6, 2012, the City Council voted to have the issue of limiting office only uses in ground floor storefronts of the designated street frontages within the BD1 zone to the August 14, 2012 Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee as a discussion item and to reschedule before the full council at the following City Council meeting. On August 14, 2012, the City Council Planning, Parks and Public Works committee discussed the issue of limiting office only uses in ground floor storefronts of the designated street frontages within the BD1 zone. On August 21, 2012, the Edmonds City Council voted to refer the issue of limiting office only uses to the Planning Board and Economic Development Commission, more specifically what kind of office only uses should be limited and any other proposals the EDC and Planning Board feel are appropriate. May 13, 2013 —2013, City representatives and Roger Brooks, Destination Development Inc. (DDI), met with downtown Edmonds property/building owners to discuss the topic of limiting office and other similar uses along designated ground level street frontages (first 45 feet measured from front of building) in the Edmonds downtown core, i.e., BD 1 Zone. At the conclusion of meeting, Mr. Brooks asked property/building owners attending the meeting to express their thoughts on this proposal. Preliminary support was expressed by several individuals and others wanted to discuss this issue further; no one expressed outright opposition to the proposal. Additionally, a request was made for the City to conduct an inventory of what uses currently exist along designated ground level street frontages in the Edmonds downtown core, i.e., BD 1 Zone; this task has been completed. I am in the process of preparing a second invitation to property owners and scheduling a meeting to discuss the issue further. Packet Page 143 of 554 III. IMPROVING BUSINESS CLIMATE Goal 2, Policy 2e of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: "explore options such as Business Improvement Districts/Areas (special assessment districts) as a way to help shopping areas fund marketing and beautification in a sustainable fashion." Significant Activities Since April, 2013 • April, May, June and July, 2013 — The Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID) Interim Members Advisory Board conducted meetings nearly every two weeks. • June 11, 2013 - Edmonds City Code Section 3.75.120, as amended by Ordinance 3914, requires the EDBID Interim Members Advisory Board to recommend a work program and budget for year 2013, in addition to EDBID bylaws. The City Council Finance Committee met on June 11, 2013 Council Finance Committee and recommended that this item be placed on the City Council agenda. • June 25, 2013 — Following a presentation by the EDBID Interim Members Advisory Board and a question and answer period, the City Council approved the EDBID proposed 2013 work plan, but did not approve the proposed bylaws. The bylaws will be placed back on the July 23, 2013 City Council agenda for reconsideration. Goal 2, Policy 2h of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: "Work to identify and "brand" distinct business districts, where there is a natural synergy, such as the Highway 99 International District, the Stevens Hospital Medical Corridor, and the 41" Avenue Arts Corridor." Significant Activities Since April, 2013 • Highway 99 Enhancement Project: includes adding street lighting fixtures and artwork along the portion of Highway 99 passing through the International District. The main project components include the following: • Replace 6 cobra head light poles with decorative poles that have attached artist made pedestrian level light lanterns and banner signage — east side. • Replace 7 cobra head light poles with decorative poles that have attached standard pedestrian level lights and banner signage — east side both north and south of original 6. • Add at least 3 new pedestrian level lights on west side near an island at 76tn Avenue. • Resurface island at 76t" Avenue, add new ADA curb ramps, and install sculptural lantern artwork with solar panel. • Replace service cabinet. The goal is to create a visual gateway and identity for the Edmonds International District while enhancing the pedestrian experience and safety. July, 2013 — Construction is nearly complete. The City is waiting for replacement parts needed for installing banners. Packet Page 144 of 554 IV. TECHNOLOGY Goal 3, Policy 3b of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: 'Leverage technology assets, such as existing fiber connections, to pursue new revenue streams." Significant Activities Since April, 2013 • April 23, 2013 — As a follow-up to a meeting between me, Darrol Haug, Community Technology Advisory Committee Chair, and Peter Thomas with Averetek, City staff met with representatives from local companies Averetek, TenGun, HDR, Operation Military Families, Landau, etc., about ways to attract smaller tech/design based companies to Edmonds. One task identified as needing to be completed was to prepare a draft Request for Proposal/Qualifications (REFQ/RFP) related to dark fiber. July 12, 2013 — As a result of Carl Nelson leaving the City, I took on the task of preparing a rough draft Request for Proposal/Qualifications outline related to dark fiber. Although I provided the draft to Darrol Haug and Brian Tuley for review, I am also providing the draft to Community Technology Advisory Committee, EDC Technology Subgroup, and tech forum representatives for their review. I have asked that while reviewing the RFQ/RFP, they think about how this might eventually tie to collectively recruiting start up or young tech companies. V. TOURISM Goal 3, Policy 3g of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: "Expand tourism efforts to take advantage of regional trends, such as nature tourism." Significant Activities Since April, 2013 • April, May, June and July, 2013 — I continue to serve on the Snohomish County Tourism Promotion Board and attend board meetings. • April, May, June and July, 2013 — The City has recently contracted with Destination Marketing to create a video for tourism. The company is filming events that take place throughout the year as well as scenic shots in order to create a 3 minute video that can be posted to the City's website. We have also discussed using the film footage to also create a 1 minute video for the purposes of Economic Development. Items of Interest ■ Burlington Northern Santa Fe — Installation of Second Rail Line As a part of the Sound Transit's Sound Move, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) will be installing a second rail line alongside the existing rail line between the areas north of Downtown Edmonds and south of Marina Beach Park. Regarding a timeline related to the installation of a BNSF second rail line, I have been trying to obtain a definitive date from BNSF as to when installation of the second rail line; BNSF has not provided a commencement date. Packet Page 145 of 554 Significant Activities Since April, 2013 • April, May, June and July, 2013 — No new information. Grants Over the past few years, City of Edmonds staff have been quite successful in securing both state and federal grants to help fund a variety of projects throughout the City. Attachment 3 includes an updated list of grants while Attachment 4 is an updated map that depicts the location of the projects. Packet Page 146 of 554 IFSOuNDTRANSIT Sound Transit Edmonds City Council briefing July 2, 2013 RIDE THE WAVE Packet Page 147 of 554 Briefing topics • Lynnwood Link Extension — Project overview — DEIS process, schedule and public outreach • Operations/Maintenance Satellite Facility — Overview and process Packet Page 148 of 554 Lynwwvad ,�tw LY..d FW& CWW 4k *nwbod Link light rail system map Edmonds rri0Urt1'. - Tramh a tCFt GxRCnSton tb r i Lynnwood ■ Mburrtlake Terrace inGnorrvsA fo�nlr i Nk ai�rF Y' North f�� €rxr�Kr ■ F#grth Link East Link extension @xft'A9ron t4 i a Redmond ""NE 1Vtb St `*w� University Shordlne L in.k st l nt n Lynnwood % NE 1 sth construtteorr} BellevueDowntown SeatliI * a" e •�+ I link * f:rnRxal Link fin service} FtarShgd#e Link 54rNi% 11: I 1ll�li Extension UndeF 00%1rucii0„ SeaTat � Ailrport In plannning �d4511,31 $Guth Lmk Brooklyn 1 $xtPn3ir11 ' Redondo - LIR�l+rersity R>1 a WM $ Ca" Aj WWelslGake _ Uri ivemity 5twt = 5T2 MarE representative light rail stations and alignment North Corridor Project area Pioneer Squaw: hivrrtationdlDistriefJ FuretP6a4r1YF4 Chinatown • xa irf7�r I Alternatives Analysis • 2010-2011 work • Developed BRT and light rail alternatives in multiple corridors • Based on early public input • Assessed against project purpose & need • Narrowed alternatives to evaluate in detail 0 •�,� erj 5.��.xa. ' Packet Page 150 of 554 Draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) scoping • Shared AA results at 3 public meetings in October 2011 • Public and agency comments: — Strong preference for light rail over bus — Strong support for more work on 1-5 light rail alternatives — Limited support for more work on SR 99 alternatives Packet Page 151 of 554 EIS alternatives development • December 2011 — ST Board narrowed range of alternatives to 1-5 light rail • Winter 201: — ST analyzed multiple 1-5 light rail alternatives • April201') — Board identified alternatives to advance in DEIS • 2012-2013 — DEIS analysis and conceptual design of alternatives Packet Page 152 of 554 �41den�wod F411� Lffw" Libra) 195th 5t SW remoras f Lynnwood [ammunity Cd�ege 204th St$Wa". iransi#Cente! Seg ent C 208thStSW I thst5wl dmonds 212�y I 220th 5t SW ; s Segment B` _ Pramera flue {ras5 r 'f t: 9} Mwr�n,x� ' _ rare l,hrary f hundbke Teua e i ' rawmWkeTwace lienwXSWEas Zrantlenter tree jjjomish (oufity 236th$tSW King County N 205th St 5 I f f � � - I '"r,_ Mountlake I Terrace Segment A irefine � I tihrag St oreline CommunrtyCgliga '� N 155th5t L T Legend N 145th St � �� Potential Routes N3300St ••••• Borer Late Ccmmurny Ceric NE 125th 5t Potential 5tatiarts 000 HE Northgate Way Future Northgate 5tatian � for North LINX (k dffW I FUtlgateMal I i Ak Shoreline Shoreline , {anmunity (allege Seattle N 185th St CU Segment C 1 $,Fp-1 1 N 145th St N 130th St future HorthgateStation for North gate Link{inde4nj lalfaon Park HE 1251h St F NE Northgate Way )rthaate Mall Legend Potential 0 Stations Potential L Added Parking Potential Routes A '1}yade a H1 ,J,, ,,,,,J •wiwi�t�r xm Nlmllml Q elewatedtract Ora Ofdi ljon Of both 0 be eroloated far rose aption. Segment A DEIS Alternatives 6 alternatives, all on east side of 1-5, vary by: • Amount of elevated guideway • Stations Station combinations • 145th + 185th • 130th + 155th + 185th • 130th + 145th + 185th Packet Page 153 of 554 Edmonds Snohomish county King County 99 212th St Pne�reo � > ■re Q nth St SW P oneweOPW r,+� Mountlake Mountlake .-.....�..:.K.Rot. � mareLibrary Terrace Mountlake ferrare Freew�k 5tatian Mountlake TerraceTransir&nwr 2361h St SW nA__ ______________________- I N 185 h St i i � N Segment y Legend Potential Stations Potential p Added Parking Potential Routes ,,MMM., elevated tracks ore cor 6r►atroa of both wfi he emQ gated fir auh roue 00607. Segment B DEIS Alternatives 4 alternatives vary by: • MLT station location • Alignment north of M LT TC • Station at 220t" ST SW in or out hPacket Page 154 of 554 Edmonds Segment C DEIS Alternatives Lynnwood EdWndf Community dal 212th St S Alderwood Mall L}rnnwood ILihrary 1 96th St Sly St1�f f lynmvood Transit tenter .--Segment Legend Potential 000 Stations Potential Added Parking Potential Routes ..MM .. At-FadejW n"m""m"U= elewted tracks ora combinotion ofb06 W ryeewAwtedWwda rants option, 3 alternatives, all elevated, with station options at: • 200t' St SW • Next to Lynnwood Transit Center • South edge of the Lynnwood Park and Ride Packet Page 155 of 554 MMM" .,aarir�rr.. Forecast Daily Boardings Ridership Segment C Lynnwood TC 19,400 — 20,000 • 60,000-70,000 daily riders in 220th 2035 1,800 MLT Freeway • Up to 23,000 new Segment B • Station tradeoffs: MLTTC 3,400-4,600 — Adding 3rd Segment A station = 185th 400 more daily boardings 7,200 — Moving 145' station to 155' = 200 fewer SegmentA 155th 1,600 — Reusing MLT freeway station = 1,000 fewer v. station at transit 145th 2,200 — 3,400 center 130th — Adding 220t" station = 3,200 - 3,600 200 more Northgate TC 14,000 — 15,600 Packet Page 156 of 554 0 a4 Costs (2012 $) 2008 Estimate Change Since 2013 TIP Lowest Cost Alt. Highest Cost Alt. Difference from TIP Difference from TIP E E $1,552 M ($230 M) $1,322 M $1,230 M $1,510 M ($92 M) $188 M Findings: — Segment A at -grade cheaper than elevating — 3rd Segment A station adds—$30-$50 M — Retrofitting MLT freeway station saves—$20-$30 M v. new TC station — Segment B west side —$50 M > median; 220t" station adds—$30-50 M Vehicles, O&M facilities budgeted separately, system -wide All alternatives add ^'$15 M annual O&M Financial plan assumes $600 M YOE FTA New Starts grant Packet Page 157 of 554 Summary Impact Findings • Acquisitions and displacements — Designs place as much infrastructure in WSDOT rights -of -way as possible — Still numerous property impacts along 1-5 and Lynnwood • Visual and Aesthetics — Elevated guideways & stations will be high visual change — Scale of station & garage structures in residential neighborhoods — Noise walls — many WSDOT walls to be relocated or added — Mature trees removed along 1-5 — Mitigation includes guideway placement & design, landscaping, screening Summary Impact Findings • Transportation — 1-5 bridge rebuilds, local road relocations, hide & ride, MLT freeway station, construction impacts • Noise &vibration — Many impacts but all can be mitigated — New & relocated 1-5 sound walls; guideway barriers, RSIP • Parks — Minor impacts to Ridgecrest Park & Shoreline Stadium in Shoreline — Lynnwood considering Scriber Creek Park impacts Packet Page 159 of 554 Lynnwood Link schedule • July: Publish DEIS, 45-day public comment period begins • Late July/early August: DEIS public open houses and hearings • Fall 2013: ST Board identifies preferred alternative • 2014: Prepare and issue Final EIS • Early 2015: FTA issues record of decision (ROD), completing environmental review • Mid-2015: ST Board selects project to be built • 2015-2018: Final design, property acquisition • 2018 — 2023: Construction, testing • 2023: Light rail service to Lynnwood begins Packet Page 160 of 554 Light Rail Operations & Maintenance Satellite Facility (OMSF) Packet Page 161 of 554 Why an OMSF? • System expansion to Lynnwood Transit Center, Bellevue/Overtake and Kent/Des Moines requires more storage area and greater maintenance capacity • The OMSF must be located to support efficient and reliable operations and deployment of vehicles to serve the entire Link system. • Augments existing facility in Seattle Packet Page 162 of 554 OMSF Site Alternatives Lynnwood Link Extension Stations (Nternnta dlig.� �nK&Stano.�: U�dei f�...o.im.�tW A..i.w) I — / L owood Transit Center( 11 kand-Ride - Lynnwood Link Extensions (Aft— ANp7menn Under fnNtmmmtnl Revfew) One site in Lynnwood + train storage in Bellevue Lynnwood-L k Extension Stations (ANarnoae Stet und—U.—) � - '� 1 Overlake Transit Center Station �'23fiN515W 4 � 5 r N 0—lak. VIM B LE (IN ,- ronny�,^ War i -OMSF Alternative 2: BNSF - - �� p —_ „ 100a �/ l fa 6 NE NM p ay -- 520� NE2<tdt J St - OMSF Alternative 4:'SR-520 130th Ave Sta 'err Three sites i n e l l ev u e East Link Adapted Alignment Bellevue KJ 120th Ave Station @g7.11a� L Hospital Station — < xE 8th A 5Z0 — NE Bih St , r OMSF Alternative 3: BNSF Modified Packet Page 163 of 554 Alternative 1: Lynnwood + Bellevue storage tracks F 711 i =r" - i i� low LYNNW �ILIIIP:�NNWOOD LINK ESITE! I / , SITE Lynnwood Link E-denslons n ,I / Enw.nnm�w, Ilf� � ` East Link II VICINITY MAP I`I VICINITY MAP" VM- VEEMACESENCE ��: —� MSC - MAINTENANCE SERVICE CENTER O&S- OFFICE AND SUPPORT BUILDING DPAFT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR TPSS -TRACTION POWER SUBSTATION ENVIRONMEMAL REVIEW AND MOW - MAINTENANCE OF WAY BUILDING — 1 aiwE nes CAST ESTIMATING PURPOSES s _ ranott5 I / W , Former BNSF OW - " �L // /// LYNNWOODLINK ALTERNATIVE C3 a , \ 1 LYNNWOOD LINK ALTERNATIVE C11C2 LYNNWOODALTERNATIVE INCLUDES STORAGE TRACKS IN THE FORMER 1 9NSf RAIL CORRIDOR IN BELLEVUE `—,.. I YNNVV )Mi) a w RFI I EVUE Lynnwood alternative requires storage track for 32 Light rail vehicles (8 trains) in Bellevue Packet Page 164 of 554 Alternative 2: BNSF in Bellevue J L- s� w 0 Former BNSF 'ROW MSC I CJVE2EDSTCR GP I SITE I 4p <h -� NE T AVE130THSATION T Q 120TH AVE STATION o `1 �x.akRD5a HOSPITAL STATION Y � it VICINITY MAP MSF Site located between the former BNSF right- of-way and 120tn Ave NE Alternative 3: BNSF Modified in Bellevue mac Former1166.f5�4' B(N\\SAF TPacket Pa e SITE • - � NONTHl IAWaV -- � NE3my ST �i y �j 130TH AVE STATION AVE STATION �`.REORO N£tt�sr f I., i HOSPIFAL STATION � o Nf eri 5 1., F VICINITY MAP L I I I I I I I I I I I j I � I I I I \ I I I + r -- - - I �i �fr 5tAT}ON OMSF site spans the former BNSF right-of-way Alternative 4: SR-520 in Bellevue — - SR 520 I ?.TCRAGE R4C KS TP55 fImTPT(mTmil _COVERED_ ■ VM AUMIP 3TGHAGE� OHRIRRIHiiv umOPERATIONS ano■ Uh`-SF'Cf� WASH sEw,cE Q I NE p7H ST �I I i 21 Packet Page 167 of 554 CT N�flTYIUP NXT SITE f—%✓ r W ME ]OrX ET 120TH AVE VATIC) " 00M AVE STATION W � V HOSPITALSTATMIN �yJ�y! S NF BTM 5T A XE.TIET Site located between SR520 and NE 20t" St. between 130t" Ave NE and 13 6t" Ave NE EAST LINK ALONG 136TH OMSF schedule • Late 2013: Publish DEIS; comment period • Early 2014: Comment period ends and Capital Committee recommends preferred site to ST Board • 1st quarter 2014: ST Board identifies preferred alternative • Spring 2014: Begin FEIS & preliminary engineering • Early 2015: Publish FEIS; Record of Decision; ST Board selects preferred site • 2015-2020: Final design, property acquisition, construction, commissioning • 2020-21: OMSF in use Packet Page 168 of 554 City of Edmonds 121 FIFTH AVENUE N. EDMONDS, WA 98020 •425-771-0251 COMMUNITY SERVICES / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Economic Development City of Edmonds Population - 39,800 Sq. Miles - 8.9 square miles Tax base - Roughly 77% of General Fund revenues are generated primarily from three tax sources: property, sales, and utility. Regional Effort • Economic Alliance of Snohomish County (EASC) • City of Edmonds Community Services/Economic Development Director (CSED) serves on the Resources and Industry Board • Snohomish County Tourism Bureau (SCTB) • The designated, year-round, tourism and convention marketing and sales organization contracted by Snohomish County to promote the area as a desirable destination for visitors and meeting planners. The Bureau produces a number of promotional brochures and materials and works collaboratively with the City of Edmonds. • Snohomish County Tourism Promotional Area (TPA) • Established by the lodging industry to increase overnight stays in Snohomish County. The TPA is looking to support new ideas and events that bring loads of life and overnight lodging to the county with a new grant program intended to increase overnight stays, support the improvement and development of tourism attractions, and promote tourism in new markets. • City of Edmonds CSED Director serves on TPA Board • Washington Tourism Alliance — member • Seattle Convention Visitor's Bureau - member • Puget Sound Regional Council Prosperity Partnership City-wide Effort a. City hired its first Economic Development Director in 2005 b. The City's first Economic Development Plan approved in 2006 -The City of Edmonds Economic Development Plan is not one that was adopted and sits on a shelf. Community Service and Economic Development Department Quarterly Reports contain information on how the Plan's four primary goals and related sub goals and policies are being implemented. Four goals of the plan: Packet Page 169 of 554 • Foster a healthy business community that provides employment and other economic opportunities. • Revitalize the city's business districts, balancing redevelopment, preservation and the need for consumer amenities • Diversify the tax base and increase revenues to support local services. • Strengthen the quality of life and vitality of the community for residents, workers and visitors to enjoy. c. Economic Development Commission (July, 2009) • Purpose: Propose programs/initiatives to generate revenue and increase tourism • 17-members + City Council and Port of Edmonds liaisons + City staff • Monthly meetings occur the 3rd Wednesday of each month. The Edmonds EDC and Planning Board submitted and recommended the following six higher priority proposals in early 2010 requested support from the Edmonds City Council to allow work to begin. 1. Ensure that the City's economic development position can devote full time to economic development activities and adequately fund proposed programs and activities (Clifton and Cruz will continue to work on Economic Development Department matters/initiatives) 2. Develop a strategic plan and commit to reviewing/updating this plan every year, ideally corresponding to the City Council's annual retreat; this includes setting goals and continually assessing progress metrics (Strategic Action Plan Approved on April 2, 2013). 3. Initiate Neighborhood Business Center plans for Five Corners (Neighborhood Center), Perrinville, and Westgate (Neighborhood Community Center) in order to position these areas to attract redevelopment (Five Corners / Westgate Neighborhood Studies - The City of Edmonds has been working with a team of faculty and graduate students from the University of Washington, College of Built Environment, to create plans for expanding the role of its neighborhood centers as more active and vital parts of the community. The first two neighborhood commercial areas to be addressed are Westgate and Five Corners. The project will develop concepts that exemplify sustainable approaches for redevelopment in suburban cities and preparation of a Special District Plan for each of the two neighborhood commercial areas). 4. Support the process to redevelop Harbor Square with public involvement that recognizes the need to generate revenue while emphasizing environmental/community needs and concerns (Master Planning Process is currently underway). 5. Initiate a business/marketing plan for the City -owned fiber optic network (The City's Community Technology Advisory Committee meets on a quarterly basis to address this issue; the City has court authorization to sell excess capacity). 6. Initiate a business/marketing plan for tourism development (The City's Economic Development Commission created a tourism subgroup to study ways of increasing tourism). 7. Develop a community vision that addresses quality of life and growth objectives while furthering Edmonds' "green" initiatives. (The City has a number of environmental groups that are working to address the issue of sustainability. Mayor's Climate Protection Committee Sustaining Edmonds — Sound Future AWC Award 2012 - The City of Edmonds won an Association of Washington Cities Municipal Excellence Award for its Sustaining Edmonds program. Packet Page 170 of 554 d. City of Edmonds Economic Development Department Website e. City of Edmonds Website - Doing Business in Edmonds webpages f. City of Edmonds Community Cultural Plan (updated 2008, next update 2013-2014) • Promote and Sustain a Vibrant Cultural Community — Edmonds Arts Commission i. Build upon Edmonds Identity as a Cultural Destination ii. Encourage Effective Partnerships to Support Cultural Opportunities iii. Develop Cultural Facilities iv. Increase Visibility and Accessibility of Cultural Events v. Broaden Community Involvement and Participation g. Business Education • Edmonds Chamber of Commerce — coordinates/collaborates to produce programs • Edmonds Community College (EdCQ Business Training Center h. Shop Local Program (ongoing) • City of Edmonds Government TV — Reminder messages • Edmonds Theater • The 3/50 Protect • City, Chamber and DEMA work to promote this program i. Fiber Optic Initiative • 24 strands — owned by the City • The City has court authorization to sell excess capacity • Savings and revenue is expected to payback expenditures by late 2014 • The City has wired nearly all City buildings, Edmonds Center for the Arts, Edmonds Library and private businesses such as Europe Through the Back Door and 110 James Street; working on connecting fiber to a tech company. Chamber of Commerce • One of the fastest growing chambers in the State — Has grown by 100 members over the past year to 450 members • Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee — meetings held the 2nd Wednesday morning of each month. Attendees include representatives from the Chamber, City, Port, and citizens. • Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association — meetings held on the 1st Friday morning of each month. • Networking Breakfasts —weekly • Monthly Chamber lunches • Monthly After Hours • 425 Launch Program — Next event is on May 22, 2013 (Cloud Computing) i. Developed in partnership with Edmonds Community College. A program designed to strengthen the community by promoting and fostering entrepreneurship. By providing a forum for aspiring and existing entrepreneurs to exchange ideas and experiences, we can improve communication and strengthen entrepreneurship in the Edmonds community • Annual Business Expo i. Presented by the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce. Sponsored in part by City and Port of Edmonds, EdCC, and EcICC Conference Center. An opportunity for service businesses and the public to connect in person, discuss service offerings in the area and to network • Ambassador program — networking, ribbon cuttings, etc. Packet Page 171 of 554 • Young Professionals Network — monthly meetings i. The Edmonds Chamber Young Professionals Network (YPN) is a group of young leaders interested in expanding their network within the Edmonds community, exchanging ideas and growing professionally. Those in their 20's and 30's with an interest in Edmonds business and/or community in general are invited to attend any YPN event. k. Taxes - No head tax and no proposed Business and Occupation Tax. This was discussed in 2008 and the City Council approved a resolution to not support the creation of a B&O tax. I. Sales tax distribution (creating maps depicting sales tax distribution by commercial area) m. Events — Numerous events held each year, e.g., Third Thursday Art Walks, Garden and Summer markets (Saturdays), Waterfront Festival, Edmonds Arts Festival, 4t" of July Parade and Fireworks, Taste of Edmonds, Classic Car Show, Halloween Trick or Treat Night, Tree Lighting Ceremony, Edmonds Center for the Arts Events, newly proposed Wednesday night Farmers' Market, etc. n. Tourism — City budgeted marketing $ are used to complement efforts funded using lodging taxes. Port of Edmonds — Destination Port of Edmonds i. Purpose is to promote and identify economic benefit brought to the Edmonds community through Port of Edmonds guest moorage visitors. The Port's program attracts boaters to their Marina to utilize Port moorage areas and services, introduce them to the City of Edmonds and connect their visits with businesses in the downtown Edmonds area. • Annual Community Calendar of Events (updated twice each year) • Annual Attendance Sheet - Estimated numbers of individuals visiting/attending City amenities, community events and port of Edmonds. • Edmonds Public Art Walking Tour (map) • Edmonds Economic Development Commission Tourism subgroup • Snohomish County Tourism Promotional Area (TPA) • Print, magazines, and radio - moving more towards social media/videos • Sports Tourism - North Sound Seawolves FC SEris o. Speakers • Snohomish County EDC Director • Economic Development Directors/City Managers from other Cities • Port of Edmonds Executive Director • Roger Brooks presented information on the Seven Deadly Sins of Market and 20 Ingredients for an Outstanding Downtown (November 8, 2013) Packet Page 172 of 554 Commercial Areas Highway 99 Corridor Study of the Highway 99 Corridor resulted in the creation of four distinct districts - identified within the Comprehensive Plan (2004): • Medical Activity Area - Hospital Community and Family Retail Center • International District • Residential Area and Retail Center • Commercial Redevelopment/Hotel Transportation Study (2004) Identified 12 high priority projects related to improving access, public safety and vehicular and pedestrian safety 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project - new roadway will be added from Highway 99 to 76th Avenue West creating a new east / west connection from Highway 99 to 1-5 and the Mountlake Terrace Park-n-Ride (Fully funded from $4,769,000 in grants). Established Highway 99 Task Force (2005) Modifications to General Commercial Zoning (2007) SWIFT Greatly reduced regulatory footprint. Before 2007, buildings up to 6 or 7 stories required a conditional use; these buildings are now allowed outright Highway 99 Task Force — reviewing opportunities for creating Transit Oriented Development around Community Transit SWIFT Stations Swedish Edmonds Campus Swedish Representatives recently met with City staff to discuss development issues prior to Swedish undertaking master planning for the campus. Swedish opened a new Oncology Center on April 2, 2013. Connecting With Our Business Community (2013): The Edmonds Community College hosted a "Connecting With Our Community" breakfast on Wednesday, March 6, 2013. Essentially this was a "meet and greet" event to begin the process of connecting with business owners in the vicinity of the International District as a first step in improving relationships. Attendees included business owners from the International District area, Edmonds Community College, City of Edmonds and Chamber of Commerce representatives. Packet Page 173 of 554 Highway 99 Enhancement Project - International District In 2006, the City received a federal grant which is being used to identify and enhance an area known as Edmonds' International District (one of the four districts established within the City's Comprehensive Plan following the Highway 99 Corridor study . The goal is to help strengthen the International District identity by improving visual identity/aesthetics and pedestrian comfort with new gateway elements including new artist made pedestrian level lighting, new district identification signage on custom light poles, resurfacing of the island at 76th and the addition of a solar lit sculptural piece on the island as part of the gateway. • Replace 6 cobra head light poles with decorative poles that have attached artist made pedestrian level light lanterns and banner signage — east side. • Replace 7 cobra head light poles with decorative poles that have attached standard pedestrian level lights and banner signage — east side both north and south of original 6. • Add at least 3 new pedestrian level lights on west side near an island at 76th Avenue. • Resurface island at 76th Avenue, add new ADA curb ramps, and install sculptural lantern artwork with solar panel. • Replace service cabinet Construction is underway and should be completed by the end of June, 2013. A celebration event will then be scheduled. Edmonds Gateway/SR99 Revitalization Project Phase 1: With the tremendously successful transformation of HWY99 within the Shoreline City limits, the opportunity and precedent exists to extend similar safety, capacity, and aesthetic improvements to that portion of HWY99 within the City limits of Edmonds. While meeting these objectives, it will also be possible to create a recognizable "Gateway" that identifies this portion of Highway 99 as Edmonds from both the North and South. The project would include, among other features, wider replacement sidewalks or new sidewalks where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for safety, access control and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, as well as landscaping and other softscape treatments to warm-up this corridor and create a sense of place. The project will require multiple phases. City staff and administration are working with State elected officials to help fund the project. Firdale Village 2009 — Modification of existing zoning — to attract a developer interested in creating a more densely mixed used environment. Packet Page 174 of 554 Five Corners and Westgate Areas Five Corners and Westgate Special District Studies - The City of Edmonds has been working with a team of faculty and graduate students from the University of Washington, College of Built Environment, to create plans for expanding the role of its neighborhood centers as more active and vital parts of the community. The first two neighborhood commercial areas to be addressed are Westgate and Five Corners. The project will develop concepts that exemplify sustainable approaches for redevelopment in suburban cities and preparation of a Special District Plan for each of the two neighborhood commercial areas (planning process underway). Five Corners Roundabout - The City of Edmonds has completed the environmental documents and 90% design plans for the Five Corners Roundabout project. A roundabout will be installed in year 2014 to improve traffic flow and safety at the intersection. The project will also add street lighting, landscaping, stormwater improvements, replacement of watermain and services, and the underground conversion of all overhead utility lines. Downtown Waterfront Activity Area Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (January, 2013)—The City Council approved Ordinance 3909 on January 15, 2013 which created an Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District. An 11 member Interim BID Members Advisory Board will be presenting draft bylaws, work plan and budget for year 2013 to the City Council's Finance Committee tomorrow night. The Finance Committee will then forward a recommendation to the City Council. Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association Port of Edmonds Harbor Square - Master Planning Process (2011— current) Public Market Code Revisions (May and June, 2013) — Revising City codes to allow public markets in commercial zones any time of the year. New Wednesday evening food and produce only market begins June 12, 2013 (this is in addition to the existing weekly Saturday Garden and Summer Markets). Benches — Installation of 14 benches were completed within the downtown area (2009). Main Street Project — new benches planned between 5t" and 6t" Streets. Packet Page 175 of 554 Wayfinding Signage — Public Parking signs have been and are planned to be installed to direct visitors to commercial areas, venues and parking areas. The City is currently working on wayfinding templates and plans fabricate and install new signage this year. Flower Poles — Several new poles with artwork have been installed on 5t" Avenue and Main Street (more are planned). Parking - Modified existing parking regulations — parking no longer required for commercial development. Outdoor Dining changes (2010) - Modified right of way requirements to allow outdoor dining provided certain requirements are met. BD (Downtown Business) Zone — Changes Eliminated 15-foot step -back requirement beginning at the 25 foot high elevation (April, 2013) - Buildings within the Downtown BD1— BD4 zones will be treated equally as it relates to applying design standards. Design standards — Applies to BD2, BD3 and BD4 Zones (April, 2013). Exempting small decorative 'blade signs' from sign code area calculation limitations - Business owners are now able to install blade signs (up to 4 square feet in area) and not have the square footage of the blade sign count against the total allowable signage footage (April 2013). Designated street front and commercial depth requirements - Commercial depth has been changed to a consistent 45-feet and is tied to a new expanded map covering all BD zones. This replaces the 30- foot requirement in the BD1 zone and the 60 foot requirement elsewhere. The map of 'designated street fronts' is expanded in the code to include all BD zones, not just the BD1 zone. This helps clarify where the primary pedestrian areas are throughout the downtown BD zones. Currently Under Review Limiting office uses — within the Downtown Business (BD) Zone (Retail Core). A proposal to limit office and other similar uses along designated ground level street frontages (first 45 feet measured from front of building) within the Edmonds downtown core, more specifically, property zoned Downtown Business 1 (BD1). This ties to creating critical mass. Development Agreements — Development agreements are authorized in the proposed amendments (see ECDC 16.43.030.A and 16.43.050). The language in ECDC 16.43.050 includes sample criteria and authorizes what can be modified by a development agreement. Approval hinges on meeting at least two of three criteria, generally including (1) attaining at least a LEED Gold or equivalent level of green building certification; (2) the development incorporates one or more uses designed to further the city's economic development goals (such as a hotel, post office, farmers market, or space for artists); (3) the development includes enhanced public space and amenities. Development agreements are authorized as an alternative development approval process, requiring public hearings at both the Planning Board and City Council, with final approval by the Council. Notwithstanding the other criteria, a development agreement cannot increase the height of a building to be more than 35 feet. Packet Page 176 of 554 Sound Transit Edmonds Station — Renovated station opened in 2010 Additional parking is being added at the south of the Salish Crossing property. Edmonds Crossing — Multimodal Terminal Newer Businesses or Events Economic Development Staff - Work with property and business owners to help find leasable space for new and existing relocating businesses, in addition to discussing potential redevelopment of buildings and land. Proposed, new, retained or expanded businesses in the past several years include: ■ North Sound Seawolves (PDL Soccer Club — Moved to Edmonds 2012) • Premiere Development League (PDL) —The top development league in North America, the 2013 PDL feature 65 teams, in four conferences, throughout the U.S. and Canada (one team is located in Bermuda). SeaWolves play in the Northwest Division ■ Art Spot (downtown — 2012) ■ Bill The Butcher (downtown 2013) ■ Cline Jewelry (relocated from Hwy 99 to downtown) ■ Gallagher's U-Brew (retention and relocation to the Port of Edmonds - 2011) ■ American Brewing Company (new business at the Port of Edmonds -2011) ■ Saetia (new downtown business — 2012) ■ Caravan Kabab's (Firdale Village — 2010) ■ Demetri's Woodstone Taverna (downtown/waterfront — 2010) ■ Dick's Drive In (recruitment — new Highway 99 business — 2011) ■ Panera Bread (new business at SR104/205t" Street — 2011) ■ Averetek (downtown - 2011) ■ Peters and May Hydroplane business (Near Hwy 99 — 2011). • Local racing boat — U.S and international ■ Revelations Yogurt (downtown — 2011) ■ Cheesemonger's Table (downtown — 2012) ■ Rusty Pelican Restaurant (downtown — 2012) ■ Salish Sea Brewery (downtown — 2013) ■ Goodwill (Westgate (2011) ■ Segway (downtown — 2011) ■ Swedish Edmonds (working on master plan for the Swedish Edmonds campus) • New Oncology Center opened April 2, 2013 ■ Premier Clinic (relocation and name change near Hwy 99 — 2012) ■ Foundation For International Services (downtown — 2011) - 22 employees ■ United Parcel Service (Westgate — 2013) ■ Red Petal Cakes (downtown — 2012) ■ PCC (Westgate ) ■ Embellishments (downtown — 2012) ■ Canarino Gelato (downtown — 2013) ■ Salish Sea Brewery (downtown — September, 2013) Packet Page 177 of 554 Grants Secured by City of Edmonds, WA 1. Historic Preservation - Preserve America Grant in the amount of $24,000 for a matching grant to implement artist made interpretive signage to identify sites of historic interest downtown, and another $7,500 State Certified Local Government Grant for a city-wide historic sites survey. 2. 228th and HWY 99 (228th St. SW Corridor Improvements) - $536,000 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Surface Transportation Program Grant for design and right of way acquisition to improve access and safety at the intersection. $4,233,000 FHWA Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant for additional design and ROW acquisition costs, as well as complete construction. 3. Main Street - $725,000 FHWA Enhancements Grant and $500,000 State appropriation for design and reconstruction of Main Street (between 5th and 6th Streets). 4. Five Corners — $2,399,000 FHWA Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Grant for design of a roundabout, Right of Way acquisition, and construction. 5. Highway 99 (Phase 1 and 2) - $289,000 FHWA Enhancements Grant for International District Illumination Enhancements along Hwy. 99 from 230th St. SW to 220th St. SW (This is an additional allocation to the original $373,000 grant for a total of $662,000). 6. Highway 99 (Phase 3) - $685,000 FHWA Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant for lighting improvements along Hwy. 99 from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW. 7. 5th Ave. South Overlay— $551,000 FHWA Preservation Grant for design and construction of an overlay 5th Ave. S from Elm Way to Walnut St., as well as upgrades to all non-ADA compliant curb ramps along stretch. 8. 76th Ave W/212th Street — $940,397 CMAQ grant for design and right of way acquisition to improve the intersection and reduce congestion. 9. Shell Valley — $100,000 Department of Ecology Stormwater Grant and $250,000 Washington State appropriation for Shell Valley Emergency Access Road. 10. Stormwater Improvements - $128,115 Department of Ecology Stormwater Grant for programmatic stormwater improvements and a $259,000 Ecology Stormwater Grant for a new decant facility at the Public Works shops complex. 11. 84th Avenue - Washington Traffic Safety Commission Grant in the amount of $6,250 for installation of a radar reader board which depicts the speed of cars. 12. 226th Street Walkway - $185,000 FHWA Safety Grant for design and construction of 300 feet of new sidewalk and ADA curb ramps. 13. Interurban Trail - $577,000 Washington State Wildlife and Recreation Coalition Grant and $750,000 CMAQ Grant to construct the final segment of the Interurban Trail. 14. City Park Enhancement - $500,000 Recreation Conservation Office Grant to construct improvements to City Park Updated April, 2013 Page 1 Packet Page 178 of 554 15. Efficiency Conservation - $160,000 Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant to purchase equipment and implement programs that conserve energy. 16. Citywide Safety Improvements - $300,000 FHWA Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant for upgrades to several traffic signal cabinets and pedestrian countdown display. 17. Commute Trip Reduction program - $2,630 Community Transit grant for an incentives program to City employees using alternative modes of transportation to driving alone as their commute to work. October, 2012 — January, 2013 18. Walkway on 15th St. SW from SR-104 to 8th Ave. S — $374,000 (100% grant funded w/ no local match for design and construction) for an addition of approximately 600 feet of sidewalk on the south side of 15th St. SW, with upgrades to all existing non -compliant ADA curb ramps within the project limits, addition of stormwater drainage facilities, and sharrows on both sides of the street (from the eastern end of the project limits to Sherwood Elementary). The grant also assists funding for an already education program that promotes bicycle riding safety through an in -school and on -bike curriculum. 19. Walkway on 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. $591,000 Safe Routes to School Grant (100% grant funded w/ no local match for design and construction) for the addition of approximately 1,200 feet of sidewalk on one side of the 238th St. SW, with ADA compliant curb ramps, addition of stormwater drainage facilities, and sharrows on both sides of the street along the project limits. The grant also assists funding for an already existing education program that promotes bicycle riding safety through an in -school and on -bike curriculum. 20. Sunset Ave. Walkway from Edmonds St. to Caspers St. $159,000 Safe Routes to School Grant (design only) to construct 2,000 feet of waterfront trail on the west side of Sunset Avenue from Bell St. to Caspers. St. Curb bulb - outs at pedestrian crossings, new curb, stormwater facilities, benches, trash receptacles, signage, a mid -block crossing, and curb ramp upgrades will also be included in this project. Note: for this project, the City is currently resolving Lease / ROW issues with BNSF, in order to comply with all Federal requirements since a Federal grant was secured. 21. ADA curb ramp upgrades along 3rd Ave. S from Main St. to Pine St. $50,000 CMAQ aka Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program Grant (construction) for upgrading all non -compliant ADA curb ramps along this stretch. 22. ESCO project - $187,500 State Commerce grant for (March 13, 2013)? January —April, 2013 23. Madrona Elementary Walkway (236th St. SW from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary) - The City was informed last week that grant funding has been awarded a grant in the amount of $494,000 through Safe Routes to School Program. The only item remaining to secure the funds is the approval from the State Legislature. This project will construct approximately 600 feet of curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the south side of 236th St. SW connecting Madrona Elementary School to Edmonds Way / SR-104, with ADA curb ramps on all street corners within the project limits, addition of stormwater drainage facilities, and bicycle sharrows on both sides of the street. The project will also consist in an education program, where kids attending Madrona Elementary will be taught different bicycle riding safety tips, with in -class education and bicycle rodeos. The design phase is scheduled to begin in Summer 2013 and the construction is planned for Summer'14. Updated April, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 179 of 554 1. Historic Preservation 18. Walkway on 15th St SW -2. 228th and HWY 99 Improvement � 19. Walkway on 238th St SW 3. Main St Enhancements - 20. Sunset Ave. Walkway 4. Five Corners Roundabout 21. ADA Curb Ramps on 3rd Ave S 5. Highway 99 Phase 1 Et 2 23. Madrona Elementary Walkway 6. Highway 99 Phase 3 7. 5th Ave S Overlay 3 W 8. 76th Ave W Et 212th St SW 9. Shell Valley 10. Stormwater Improvements 11 11. 84th Ave W 3 —12. 226th Street Walkway 13. Interurban Trail 5Y4 — 14. City Park Enhancement 6TH ST SW I OOTH sT s 3 �� 20 1 2 Vj 7 10 wit �i! !ffld/tom � or al fflm- 04 RAM June 2013 1. Historic Preservation 18. Walkway on 15th St SW -2. 228th and HWY 99 Improvement � 19. Walkway on 238th St SW 3. Main St Enhancements - 20. Sunset Ave. Walkway 4. Five Corners Roundabout 21. ADA Curb Ramps on 3rd Ave S 5. Highway 99 Phase 1 Et 2 23. Madrona Elementary Walkway 6. Highway 99 Phase 3 7. 5th Ave S Overlay 3 W 8. 76th Ave W Et 212th St SW 9. Shell Valley 10. Stormwater Improvements 11 11. 84th Ave W 3 —12. 226th Street Walkway 13. Interurban Trail 5Y4 — 14. City Park Enhancement 6TH ST SW I OOTH sT s 3 �� 20 1 2 Vj 7 10 wit �i! !ffld/tom � or al fflm- 04 RAM June 2013 AM-5950 5 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/23/2013 Time: 45 Minutes Submitted For: Jerry Shuster Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Department: Engineering Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title Presentation on Stormwater Low Impact Development (LID) - Using Rain Gardens for Stormwater Management. Recommendation For information only. Previous Council Action None. Narrative Low Impact Development (LID) techniques for stormwater management are a key part of the Department of Ecology's new municipal stormwater permit. This permit becomes effective on August 1, 2013. Edmonds and 79 other permittees must review and revise their local development -related codes, rules, and standards to incorporate and require LID principles and LID stormwater best management practices on or before December 31, 2016. This item provides an introduction to LID stormwater techniques and highlights the use of rain gardens. Rain gardens are planted depressions that allow rainwater runoff from impervious areas, like roofs, driveways, walkways, parking lots, and compacted lawn areas, the opportunity to be absorbed into the soil and taken up by plants rather than becoming surface runoff. The presentation will include a rain garden class/seminar by David Hymel of Rain Dog Designs, LLC, who has worked with several municipalities in the Puget Sound Region on promoting residential rain gardens. Fiscal Impact: None at this time. Attachments LID Rain Garden Presentation Packet Page 182 of 554 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Engineering Megan Luttrell Public Works Kody McConnell City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Final Approval Date: 07/19/2013 Date 07/18/2013 08:02 AM 07/18/2013 04:07 PM 07/18/2013 04:31 PM 07/19/2013 09:15 AM 07/19/2013 10:47 AM Started On: 07/10/2013 02:47 PM Packet Page 183 of 554 Stormwater Low Impact Zvelopment (LID) —Using Rain ardens for Stormwater Management July 23, 2013 1 Outline What is Low Impact Development? Why Use LID such as a Rain Gardens? Rain Gardens in Edmonds Rain Dog Designs — David Hymel iat is Low Impact Development? er and land use management strives to mimic pre -disturbance rocesses of infiltration, filtration, poration and transpiration bv emphasizing conservation, use of on -site natural features, site planning, and distributed stormwater management practices that are integrated into a project design."' Dept. of Ecology, 2012 0 0 3 constantly flawing stream 100% 90% 80% 70% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Where does the Rain Go? 35% 52% 47% 100% Forested 50% Impervious 50% Forested Groundwater ■ Suface Runoff Evapotranspiration Why Use LID such as a Rain Gardens? -F dr '` 90% � 1 i 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Where does the Rain Go? 3roundwater ►uface Runoff :vapotranspir ition ■ Limitations? Steep Slopes or landslide hazard area Hard pan or Till soil Space Limitations Underground Utilities 10011, Ave W I- 1,1191molalwom m L L �-t 03. 1-8.2013 10 loot"AveW 1 1� L `1 A X�A , 01,,' IV -Mi \C 1 t r i N T- 1 0 cY) 1 0) 70 w 4-J 0 -0 I'M 41 LEA D, I jr 10. Ir LO �' , • `use ,1 •!' 1.. \ ,. , y r,- /7 \ '-• - _.,._ - �' a�� .cam i 1 �iih�a•tj'\� ti��y� �.J 1 ' .. '�. !; `1gRlt` 'ail Y�ot�♦ ,1 Uh r 6! 1 A 1 I 1 �: 1 ` R �'.r � tat♦ t',� � rt� \ ♦�� ;. �'� +} ti 71 1 {4f� `�1� �+.j�IrA '71p n ♦ I T �. j \ �•tl A � ! �ati��1 t� Y* d 1! 1a1. u:. iR. � w � i' _ iA (tl i� 1�'t" �� yi ` I�ir �yi �� 1\t1 1 � 1\�♦ !, •.�,: 1 l` i��f�t ��Ah,,{t I�� y1 S'Ja ,"�� °�� `Yti� t a `� l� ♦�, 1 i 0 I i 1.•7 �`1� �F�i' 41�'d ! 1 \t S v ! ` i� �A4f+ iti+ �� tln1 v��l41,��1 �� IAA♦��\. t�-At t4►- a� i i_, 1 1 � �, 3 I h+ lk� �l+•� ��k{� 1�, I� tS -` � -� 1 i } IS 1 a 1 1 11 M I� ti�l��, �♦�� 1' �� ? �♦ � A it�� ... � N 3 'd I. Ja All \ 41 A ��'��j 'I��Lpl, ��f1t1 �� Yi��', Ala � ii�p'♦t� YAt�1,e 'i ,�� .hr Fr�,vi 1��/ 1.6�IAi � 1',A it �� '-fa�1 +�tv��! �r ��•�. � � � �I��o dY V1 �7 �{� I il,'1 l�A i ��A i♦fit ',�1♦ 1 !1�� ''1 A •�,. � aA 'lrF� AI 1 uR-t.�iA I � :1 ♦ ,� ` I to ., ! 1 �-•, ` v a � ,.� , r A II rl 1 rl rr1� r� rl/LrL lWhAve -r1y, A,.y � A....• Y � �. F V 1. F I El lio 7 r ., ,g"✓ 1 !'. Y I' 'P r4 3..: w � � a t• e:6' f Pa d,f, �.7[i ;'dam � �, .l � F go � ♦t v �- � � 4rt 'V IN PROVve ■MEIRiiT- 4 4 4 AM-5970 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/23/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted By: Carrie Hite Department: Parks and Recreation Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Action Information Subiect Title Park Levy Exploration Committee Recommendation of Reconsideration 717 Recommendation This agenda item is being forwarded to full Council for discussion and reconsideration of Resolution 1290. Previous Council Action City Council received a presentation on the formation of a Metropolitan Park District on March 27, 2012. The Council requested the Finance committee to work with staff to formulate a plan to explore a MPD. The Finance Committee met on April 10th, and decided to appoint Council member Frank Yamamoto and Council member Diane Buckshnis in a lead role to engage the community to explore this option for Edmonds. Council received a report and recommendation from the MPD Exploratory Committee on July 17, 2012, and decided to request the Exploratory Committee to continue its work, but not to put it on a ballot in 2012. Council received a report and discussed this committee's work at the Council retreat in Februrary 2013. Council member Yamamoto committed to reconvene the Exploratory Committee, discuss the merits of forming and MPD or exploring a Park Levy, and bring a recommendation back to Council. On May 14, 2013, the Finance Committee discussed and is forwarding to Council for discussion and consideration. The Parks committee discussed and Councilmember Buckshnis referred this to the Finance Committee for discussion. Councilmember Johnson referred this to full Council for discussion. On May 21, 2013, the Committee requested the Council consideration of a resolution to bring forth a ballot measure for Parks services, with additional allocation for budget authority for street overlays. The Council passed Resolution #1290 committing to consider a ballot measure for the November 2013 ballot. Narrative Packet Page 202 of 554 Council member Frank Yamamoto and Council member Diane Buckshnis recruited 40 people to serve on an MPD exploratory committee and formalize a recommendation for City Council prior to the August ballot deadline. The MPD Exploratory committee met in May and June to research, ask questions, talk to other people in the community in order to measure the merits of the formation of a MPD for Edmonds. In addition to the committee, Council members Yamamoto and Buckshnis, and city staff Hite and Hunstock delivered several community presentations, and sent information to the media about the MPD. Upon careful consideration, the MPD committee recommended to the City Council that they consider placing the MPD on a future ballot, for an Edmonds only service area, and governed by the City Council. The committee also recommended that they continue to explore this and other options, and come back to Council with a recommendation on the timing and level of a ballot measure. The committee thought it was too soon to put it on the November ballot. Council member Yamamoto, lead for the MPD Exploratory Committee, in consultation with staff, discussed this at the Council retreat in February 2013. The Council charged Council member Yamamoto and staff to continue exploring the merits of forming a Metropolitan Park District or a Park Levy with the Exploratory Committee. The committee reconvened and discussed many options. The consensus of the committee was that although the MPD is appealing, and makes sense for Edmonds, they did not think there was enough tolerance in the community to vote in an MPD at this time. The committee also considered the priorities in the strategic plan, and had several discussions about the need to prioritize street overlays. Since the strategic plan demonstrated a high priority for both streets and parks, the committee wanted to ensure there were funds for both. The committee recommended a $2 million, 3 year Park Levy Lid Lift, to be voted in November 2013. They also recommended that any unburdened funds that are a result of the Park Levy be dedicated to street overlays. They were also interested in having the Exploratory Committee continue its work toward an eventual goal of establishing a Metropolitan Park District. Two representatives from the Park Exploratory Committee presented the recommendation to the City Council and requested the Council's adoption of the resulting resolution, and the Parks funding options. The Council passed Resoultion 1290 on May 21, 2013. After further discussion with several members of the Council, the Mayor, and staff, the Committee would like to request that the Council reconsider this resolution and the possible ballot for November 2013. Two representatives from the committee will be present at the Council meeting to further explain their new recommendation to the City Council. The Committee's presentation will include the following reasons why they would reccomend the Council reconsider the resolution and the intent to file a ballot in the Fall of 2013: 1. The Committee received feedback from a few Council members that the Fall 2013 timing may not be the best, and to continue researching this. 2. The Mayor shared some preliminary information about the 2014 and 2015 budget forecast, and was more optimistic that the City will be able to have a balanced budget in the next year, if not two. So, it seems more appropriate than not to proceed with continued efforts/research to solve the longer term budgetary issue the city will be facing, and not rush into this. 3. The Parks department will be completing the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space plan, and has funds set aside to conduct polling as to the desires of the citizenry. We think this will help inform our process Packet Page 203 of 554 for any future levy, or MPD, so would like to stay informed about this process and consider this in any future recommendations. 4. In consultation with a firm that is experienced in running levy campaigns ( Trust for Public Land), their recommendation was to focus on one issue ( i.e. parks, or streets), and poll the tolerance of the community to find a feasible amount the citizens are willing to support. 5. Next steps that this committee and/or staff would like to pursue, include: • Consult with the Trust for Public Land to help research and strategize a future revenue source for the City. ( i.e. streets, parks, public safety, etc.). This could include contracting with them to help the City work through this process. • Conduct Parks research in process with the PROS plan update. • Continue to explore an MPD option, Sr. Ctr, Levy lid lift, if Parks revenue is the optimal solution. Attachments Park Lew Options Park Lew Lid Lift Resolution Original Press Release re: Committee formation MPD Committee Meeting Sign in sheets MPD Presentation MPD FAA's MPD Comparisons MPDQ&A MPD News Article MPD/Parks Levy Pros/Cons Strategic Plan and Parks Minutes 3.5.13 Minutes 3.18.13 Minutes 4.08.13 Minutes 5 212013 Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Fonn Started By: Carrie Hite Final Approval Date: 07/18/2013 Form Review Date 07/17/2013 02:18 PM 07/17/2013 02:39 PM 07/18/2013 08:48 AM Started On: 07/17/2013 01:28 PM Packet Page 204 of 554 Park Levy Options 2013 FUNDS Levy REET 2 Impact GF Impact Notes Restore 2012 cuts $ 80,000 These would be restored, so would 2013 cuts $165,000 not create a savings in the general fund Retain Flower Program $150,000 $150,000 Yost Pool, Ops $85,000 $85,000 Yost Pool, Capital $120,000 This is a new subsidy Cemetery $35,000 This is a new subsidy Beach Rangers $62,000 $62,000 Seasonal Labor $35,000 $35,000 Maintenance and ops $218,000 $218,000 Capital $750,000 $750,000 This will save $ in REET 2 Enhance Deferred Maintenance: Restroom Improvements $40,000 Play structure upgrades $100,000 Pathways/trails upgrades $45,000 Citywide turf upgrades and drainage $60,000 Tree maintenance/pruning $15,000 Tennis Courts/bball crt upgrades $25,000 Park entrances/signs $15,000 Total $300,000 Total $2,000,000 $750,000 $550,000 1.31VI could be used for gf balancing and street overlays Packet Page 205 of 554 Park Levy Options 2013 Packet Page 206 of 554 RESOLUTION NO. A Resolution of the City of Edmonds, Washington, regarding submission of a Park Levy ballot proposition for the general election of 2013. WHEREAS, in April 2012, the City Council called for action to form a Metropolitan Park District Exploratory Committee, and appointed two Council members to lead this committee; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a recommendation from this committee in July 2012, and requested this committee continue exploring Park revenue options for the City; and WHEREAS, this committee has met several times and has decided to forward a recommendation to City Council in the form of a Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City recently adopted a strategic plan, which included a wide range of community input, and demonstrated strong citizen support and priority for Parks and Recreation services; and WHEREAS, this strategic plan also demonstrated a high priority to create a mechanism to fund street maintenance and overlays; and WHEREAS, this committee recommends the City Council adopt the following resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council intends to adopt an ordinance to submit a Park Levy Lid Lift ballot proposition not later than August 6, 2013, for submission to the voters in the November, 2013 general election; Section 2. The Park Levy Lid Lift ballot proposition is intended to raise $2,000,000per year for three years commencing in 2014 and ending December 31, 2016. The ballot proposition will require that the Levy funds be used for restoring, retaining, and providing for capital expenditures for the City of Edmonds Parks, to be more fully defined before the Park Levy Lid Lift ordinance is adopted; Section 3. If the Levy Lid Lift is passed by voters, the City Council will revise the REET 2 policy to dedicate all revenue generated by REET 2 to street overlays during the three years covered by the Parks Levy Lid Lift. Section 4. If the Levy Lid Lift is passed by voters, the City Council will dedicate any unburdened amount of the general fund, as a result of this levy, to street overlays during the three years covered by the Parks Levy Lid Lift; Section S. If the Levy Lid Lift is passed by voters, the Metropolitan Park District Exploratory Committee will continue to investigate and explore the establishment of a Metropolitan Park District and provide its recommendation to the City Council prior to the 2017 expiration of the Parks Levy Lid Lift. RESOLVED THIS DAY OF , 2013. Packet Page 207 of 554 Press Release City of Edmonds Movor David O. Earlina .(Oe 1 S9%J For Immediate Release: April 18, 2012 To: City Council The Edmonds Beacon The Edmonds Enterprise The Seattle Times The Everett Herald My Edmonds News Edmonds Patch Edmonds KOMO edmondseditor@vourbeacon.net mwilliams@heraldnet.com newstips@seattletimes.com mwilliams@heraldnet.com teresa@myedmondsnews.com riffzv@comcast.net susieberesford@hotmail.com Contact: Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, carrie.hite(@ci.edmonds.wa.us. 425-771-0256. CITY SEEKS CITIZENS FOR METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE (Edmonds — WA) The City of Edmonds is seeking interested individuals to participate in the exploration of forming a Metropolitan Park District ( MPD ) in Edmonds. The positions are non -paid, volunteer positions. All participants must be a registered voter, and a resident within the city of Edmonds. This MPD Exploratory Committee will be charged with gathering and interpreting information about the pros and cons of a Metropolitan Park District ( MPD ); explore goals, issues, needs and priorities of Edmonds Parks and Recreation system; direct public outreach strategies such as citizen surveys and town hall meetings and prepare conclusions and recommendations for Council consideration. This Committee will meet over the months of May and June, and be prepared to make a recommendation to City Council in July. If City Council were to consider placing this on the November ballot, it would need to be filed in August. The first two meetings have been schedules as follows: May 7th: 6:00-8:00 p.m. Library Plaza Room, 2nd floor, Edmonds Library May 23rd, 6:00-8:00 p.m. Library Plaza Room, 2nd floor, Edmonds Library Interested residents of the city of Edmonds may pick up an application at the reception desk in the lobby of City Hall located as 121 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds, or may download an application from the city website (www.ci.edmonds.wa.us). Deadline for application is 4:30 p.m., April 27, 2012. Packet Page 208 of 554 Contact Group Name: MPD Exploratory Committee Members: Alex Araujo a.araujo@frontier.com Barbara Chase bfchase@gmail.com Barbara Tipton barbaratipton@gmail.com Bea O'Rourke bjorourke2@frontier.com Becky Tilbury becky.tilbury@gmail.com Bob McChesneybmcchesney@portofedmonds.org Bob Rinehart Rines54@comcast.net Bob White margebob@comcast.net Brian Harding hardingb@edmonds.wednet.edu Bruce Witenberg bpwatty@msn.com Buckshnis, Diane diane.buckshnis@ci.edmonds.wa.us Careen Rubenkonig grinchrubenkonig@msn.com Charles Day cdday@comcast.net Christi Flynn christiflynn@comcast.net Craig Cooke Craig@pacificrimtalent.com Darrol Haug dkhaug3@msn.com Diana White diana.whitel@comcast.net Dick Van Hollebeke dickvanh@hotmail.com Don Hall HaIIDB12@gmail.com Ed Peters PetersE@edmonds.wednet.edu Edward Peters peterse@edmondswednet.edu Packet Page 209 of 554 Evelyn Wellington evewell@msn.com Farrell Fleming execdirector@scscedmonds.org Hunstock, Shawn shawn.hunstock@ci.edmonds.wa.us Janice Noe janicenoe@comcast.net Jerry Fireman jfirel5@comcast.net Jim Metcalfe captainjimmetcalfe@gmail.com John Quast jntq@comcast.net Katy Araujo katybaraujo@gmail.com Kristiana Johnson Kristianaj@msn.com Laura Spehar edmondsbwh@gmail.com Lisa Conley cometconley@comcast.net Liz Windgate lizwindgate@gmail.com Melissa Johnson missyinedmondsl@yahoo.com Michael Kealy mkealy@windermere.com Phil Lovell philov@comcast.net Ray Bachmann raybachmann755@yahoo.com Ron Wambolt rrwambolt@msn.com Rose Cantwell RC—well@comcast.net Todd Carlson todd.mickel.carlson@gmail.com Yamamoto, Frank Frank.Yamamoto@edmondswa.gov Packet Page 210 of 554 Metropolitan Park District Exploratory Committee May 7, 2012 Name Email Address Phone Affiliation L'o / J-) �./ e 4tV �Ovtll �✓vCC YY��e1l4�er�/ 9,P�Nc�f EY i�S�J, cam &72_fj <rc*w,%Lr( � ` 2_f"69Z ��l041 LE8,707�S Li � y7,./-- L %Y -6 FW =JLtx� - S r r f q A4OA�-I Ne ( 6- I F �7 �6 �.��i Z o l _ �ci m U�1cpI .y- i3LGb•�r �VAR V ►NS RV t, Co w-+ e� 1-) Paz,r- 6'0 i-a� a) Cn m a Metropolitan Park District Exploratory Committee May 7, 2012 Name Email Address Phone Affiliation r, Aw,t-r',a )dAAAVM ry M"d 1�1S ,4 _JQMU L za I � �,1 A •,.��-- �-1/ P C r ).P I + rn,) 1!1 .1 Vhir� � ,�i .. � � l�-Z�L l/1 Di f ,� : �' • �� " / r'l.T,c.cl�l l�'i� C, �Y wALL At, ❑ I�,�C bra,+L leg tea� ILL JA S 30 94 57%5)22 501 r A! %'A- ►c 3a}�-fr)Iq-�"I� o sag A- �3f®yam eo rr1 R'S? eL o Cj2A Cc rc�4. [['� � Q �Cr��L��M �s! � � CAM t�o17� 1( 4&u`�� 1 i Vrl' i7OJ �T7� �n bcL\r-�iP�Orte am ,\. C-0 r'l g3�o t 8 �{25 -fo72--6 Co7 J,4V<eAI LO N N a) a Metropolitan Park District Exploratory Committee May 7, 2012 Name Email Address y,- r, Phone Affiliation �i=Inck:1h-v(foO'r467.A,�-T �,1(t rie ik u I S� Aa k.a a)(0 fyqla 9/�`�/ ui�s°z'' r 1�5 -T� vZz� 11.50► G/JeV (COA4 CCA i v i� �,uea ` (, e3�� —76-326' &:�—(S ke'2-t 121 rk 14 (lei n Lit9L, 4 ��s� ►�e,r1��s �%v� ��a��:I�_C�Z. .. ,1glnc�zr►oe,@ COw►c� h� 'r�Yld�1�t�� 9_,_��(s 3 S r� l �'`A:kak/"q 3 , car6 lt/ �� 1 gV�za � 2S n �-f ram b a. M u a- 3 o3-gyp - v U u LO 0 CO N a) a Metropolitan Park District Exploratory Committee May 7, 2012 Name Emobil Address, Phone Affiliation 't LO f 0 Metropolitan Park District Exploratory Committee May 23, 2012 Name Email Address Phone Affiliation '0 tT?-�/` ,t ( \[I/,le-,7 11 �JnL�70.T�tieo►�S�?•Gc,� �?!2S Zar.n�r+�7c�S4��^�� mzfh C—h/- _ _ V V LO O _U') N O (0 a Metropolitan Park District Exploratory Committee May 23, 2012 Name _ Email _ A. Address Phone Affiliation IAA g $ ` 2 0 sk 7�iz 37�-5� GcTiti Mi on ©c.rnall•c v,,, VIA( V, r L Rt4 y&AZA tt WON 7SS w'A f PE-AT Ce u „ LO LO 0 0 CD N a) m (D a Metropolitan Park District Exploratory Committee May 23, 2012 Name Email Address Phone Affiliation tvti55e. ��h� Y�is��chv�a CJ . c o,,, r i r G"a. n �W3er4r-OtIv4 Fu;3. Ko 1� c - �,s�l . co i .�c�� s L C;Afz�e� �1�t('l—�lcr Lk ZS ,275 .Z T7 A L� 77n--S96d Ed s P1 ,ti� r Qvc/ Metropolitan Park District Exploratory Committee June 25, 2012 Name Email Address Phone Affiliation N 7 A 2 zo k IT I LA filvol E�,c f, t, C 1) f( 6--LI%A- 5 A, C Ll '7 v L�,aZj r, A'\;( (AP z -n4�'.\ Zci� L)',- L1 2-�5- -A J� L Ll 'r LO 2 0 ?2 04 (D CM M CL Metropolitan Park District Exploratory Committee June 25, 2012 Name Email Address Phone Affiliation 7 Y -L Ar'1J— "Pk 12AYBA4cAW ANN %itW,4A►, ,Coom ;5D AA 0n� ®� �� 7 Fj�rl -.Stec Ajf 3rLj /cam VVl1p/q 4",V ��+w i�Y �✓►+S✓1. cc-- 17 11 7 j Arlj: ) �`M , �J�/ -A �1; _ L% , QU V C4rL1 ;r.- Metropolitan Park District Exploratory Committee March 5, 2013 Name Email Address _ � _ Phone Affiliation Ob / h��i�e��i�Cfl/f>�if7�i►fe - L334s� �-�1�77� %39 . �--� % L e!lo:;�; �NIY / ['h be V G h1,4 �e -c u 3. lz*VYI o� w�a�� RvJi�o�Tc� M S�1l� CoM �3 d j7 c1��T 3aaS-��6- 6 3o t i u� Y�1 II''_ (' �� ' jVy1 C u I fi � 11 (Z-7 ! l _ C a �-� ,1 "l , 7-7 1�/217 r/r .��t v�'�n X� Cv�,�hs7.ry LO LO 0 0 0 N N a) m M a Metropolitan Park District Exploratory Committee March 5, 2013 Name Email Address Phone Affiliption � e . Z" 20 GS 25H3 / - -7170 Metropolitan Park District Exploratory Committee March 5, 2013 Name Email Address Phone Affiliation �3 / �i�� r2-��J�S' S-F L C rv� i�il,�� ?-' c 27 $t {fir_ — Oq 61)MLI�' WA 18'0� 42 5--7 74- 2-3 Sa C' �1GV&L �V/`/��i/ ///.7/!J.'"�r\//i � I.S! 7 /A�i !✓f �L� -ad � G "swI - �Q�y�V `,! 2 5 > .. �0I'T w," GC t9 v C`n �r744 &F alY - 1 csCSGe �q�i n Q rQ �ii L •Gt��L.S�"yi r LO f 0 N N N W 0) M d Metropolitan Park District Exploratory Committee March 18, 2013 Name Email Address Phone Affiliation IOU I-Oltll 1pCVO L16 ,� z� 'Irz-7 ff rue (�j l 6,,C Ce rr S°�2S I`Zti�f��c. Lgne Z-(O��i j7 C -" M5 a , e-OM 5 3 o VAy-TVV ST )Aj rr 3 of �� 7 X --4So 1 VT NO 1-'jpvN AA r , 00,64265� ¢/0 Z. 7f_ y0?3 �0)ihe—% ref f I�Itzg y ►� �I 71 z c r `^ f �w. ��4CXL `�Z 7 7/ k I ��ttc��rL e� � - c (�� fa. nL s1N �(�`� 275 a%7 3 f hza- S1 i di 4jo? )U ZS-? 76- 231% (fltfAt& i2. /{/��_Ll�l'Lri /V' e-vea_1� �1��1�15�1,Cc'711 �i�. l�-l��'�.- �G � �-5�/�=� �.�/%C-IPl LO LO 0 0 CO N N a) m a Metropolitan Park District Exploratory Committee V" Name Email Addresss/ Phone Affiliation / I -776 -Z-3Sb 6"6e, l a(bQCCL I► doh barl�ar��-I� �C , a� �� zs--(o-rz-&9 7 ,bd#k6a-7'c. Ms, . c'ok 5 3 v PfV7ml 7 6- 6 501 �i1 S M y.l�c,ytic Lcn fDlI j Z O✓d/ pogo vr &�cajt - r '7¢25- !4raev�., A5--l-7- I3-L /-013, � �� Lam- f i' �� -3 � �� 4 SOy C� 4/2 -u3nJF4�j A;S6. T —r W k n,,e Le.W�►�� JO/(- t 1 An1 IkOS O �IGKI)Q�l1 yat/�9��c , C%, a /a1,�2_ C � ' �0� -714cl v LO 0 N N a) a METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT Aii Packet Page 225 of 554 Purpose A Metropolitan Park District may be created for the management, control, improvement, maintenance, and acquisition of parks, parkways, boulevards, and recreational facilities. Advantages of an MPD Boundary is May include jurisdictions. Governance City Council combination Flexible both City and County is Simplified or County Council or may govern the MPD. o Simple majority vote. Levy up to $0.75 per 1,000 AV o Further up the list of junior taxing districts. o Permanent! ENNEFTnq Packet Page 227 of 554 Current MPD's o Tacoma (1909) o Fall City (2009) o Pullman (2002) o William Shore - o Si View -North Bend Clallam County (2009) (2003) o Des Moines (2009) o Bainbridge Island (2004) o Normandy Park (2009) o Eastmont -Douglas County (2004) o Shelton (2010) o Key Pennisula (2004) o Village Green (2010) o Peninsula (2004) o Tukwila (2011) o Greater Clark (2005) o Orcas Island (2011 ) MPD Options Regional Local General Purpose Special Purpose c� Governance: City council or Board of Commissioners City Council Charge Explore a local, general purpose Metropolitan Parks District, with City Council as authorizing board. Formation of an MPD MPD's may be proposed by local government resolution or by citizen petition. Resolution - each local government with all or part of the MPD within their jurisdiction must vote to put it on the ballot. Petition - 15% of the registered voters in the proposed MPD area must sign. If in more than one county, the petition is submitted to the county Xnii+h tho I�rgest area within the MPD. LOCAL MPD MODEL Packet Page 232 of 554 IN Why was Pullman Formed? City facing a $1.7 million shortfall for calendar year 2003. Unable to sustain Parks and Rec Department. o Parks and Rec utilizing a large portion of the General Fund Budaet. MMMI Packet Page 233 of 554 Pullman MPD Formed in September 2002 City Council serves as Board Levy rate of $0.39/1,000 A.V. Well Supported • 60%Approval A u�° Orcas Island Petition of the people to support high quality of life "A parks and rec junior taxing sign of a responsible, healthy community that provides vital for children — and adults" Formed in 2011 IM" district is a programs Bainbridge Island Spurred by Rotary First adopted in 1965 as a district, to save the swimming pool Converted to MPD in 2004, for general purpose. MPD Tax Authority What could be included? General Fund $2,164,282 Includes Yost, flower program, park maintenance, recreation, Frances Anderson Center, Senior Center, Beach rangers, etc. Levy rate: $0.38 per $1,000 of assessed value, for General Fund programs For an average home of $337,300 in value, this is less than $11 per month. Packet Page 238 of 554 What could this include? Parks Dept. Cemetery Fund REET 2 Park Capital REET 1 Debt Deferred Maint. Senior Center 2011 Act. $251645282 $25,000 $600,000 $214,000 $300,000 $60,000 Levy rate .38 <.01 .11 .04 .05 .01 Levy Rate Total levy rate from all: $0.59 Maximum allowable levy: $0.75 Difference: $0.16 Principal amount of debt that could be funded with difference: $12.1 M Estimate $16.7 M $12M $ 5M $4-10M What could this include? Capital Projects: Aquatics facility: Woodway Fields: Civic Stadium: Sr. Ctr. Other Questions? 1 -J 0 f. Metropolitan Park District FAQ City of Edmonds May 2012 What is a Metropolitan Park District: It is a junior taxing district that Cities, Counties, or dedicated area of citizens can form to pay for Parks and Recreation services. What other communities in Washington have formed MPD's and how are they governed ( Council or Board of Commissioners?) 1. Bainbridge Island MPD, founded 40 years ago, over 1500 acres, 90% of which is protected open space, 5 Elected Board of Commissioners, 6 year terms without pay 2. Des Moines MPD (Mt. Rainier Pool), created 11/2009, same boundaries as City limits, 5 Elected Metro Park Commissioners 3. Eastmont MPD, created 5/2004, 44 acres of parks & 7 miles of Columbia River waterfront asphalt trails, Park Board members elected for 6 year terms. There are 5 elected board positions. Every 2 years elections are held. Positions are staggered at 2 year intervals. 4. Fall City MPD, created 2/2009, governed by 5 elected commissioners 5. Greater Clark Parks District, created 2/2005, governed by Board of Clark County Commissioners; also 30+ citizen advisory committees provide input. District provides funding for maintenance, operations & construction of 30 new neighborhood parks, 5 new community parks, 7 miles of new walking trails & an additional 41 sports fields. 6. Key Peninsula MPD, created 5/2004, 25 miles long and 5 miles wide at widest point (65 sq. miles), Board of Commissioners — 5 members 7. Normandy Park MPD, 11/2009, 100 acres of park land — 6 major parks, 2 of which are low intensity nature preserves. Also, 1 rec center and several mini parks, Board of Park Commissioners, 7 members appointed for 7 year terms 8. Orcas Island P&R District (OIPRD), 5 Elected Commissioners, 4 year terms each, except positions 1 & 3 have 2 year terms. 9. Peninsula MPD (PenMetParks), 5/2004, 585 acres on the Gig Harbor Peninsula, Board of 5 elected Commissioners, Six year staggered terms 10. Port Angeles /William Shore Memorial Pool MPD. Boundaries are City of Port Angeles and Port Angeles School District. Governed by board composed of members of City Council and the County Commissioners to serve ex officio as the Board of MPD through selection of 1 or more members. 11. Pullman MPD, 9/2002, Governed by City Council Packet Page 243 of 554 12. Shelton MPD, 4/10, same as City boundaries, governed by the City Commission serving as ex- officio Board of Directors 13. Si View MPD. 2/2003, 27 square miles (17,310 acres), 5 elected commissioners with staggered 6 year terms 14. Tacoma MPD. 1909, 5 member Board of Park Commissioners with 6 year staggered terms 15. Tukwila Pool MPD, Same boundaries as City of Tukwila, governed by City Council serving as the Board of Commissioners in an ex officio capacity. 16. Village Green MPD (Kingston), 8/10, 5 member Board of Commissioners elected at large Which communities in the state have put an MPD on the ballot that failed? Unfortunately we do not know how many may have been proposed and failed to pass. Since local elections are done county by county and there is no place that information is collected on a statewide basis. What is the RCW that allows Metropolitan Park Districts? RCW 35.61 authorizes cities, counties or a combination of both to form Metropolitan Park Districts by majority vote. This RCW is quite lengthy, and can be found by this link: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=35.61&full=true#35.61.001 What is the net expenditure amount needed to provide the same level of service as today? $2,164,282. What is included in the $2,164,282? Yost pool operations, recreation programs, discovery programs, athletics, day camps, fitness, gymnastics, Meadowdale preschool, Parks maintenance (mowing, bed maintenance, leaf removal, trash, restroom maintenance, equipment repair, irrigation repairs, backflow testing and playground, turf management, etc.), parks administration. What is the total scope of what's in parks and recreation. 1. Park Maintenance includes 11 FTE's, and several seasonal employees that maintain 146 park and city areas, spanning close to 345 acres and 20 facilities, and includes 133 seasonal flower baskets, a cemetery, underwater dive park, and Yost pool. Maintenance duties include turf mowing, trimming, edging, aerating, fertilizing, filling, ballfield maintenance, trash and litter pick up, restroom maintenance and repair, flower program, leaf maintenance, playground inspection and repairs, landscaping, bed maintenance and pruning year around, sprinkler installation and repair which includes parks plumbing & drinking fountains, Yost Pool maintenance, parks equipment repair, such as various types of lawnmowers, weed eaters and chain saws and other small gasoline and diesel equipment, picnic table & bench repairs, walkways & pathways cleaning and repair, park and city building parking lot maintenance, park sign maintenance, responses to vandalism, street tree pruning & maintenance, city wide park trail & pedestrian foot bridge maintenance, staffing for community events ( Arts festival, 4t" of july, Wenatchee Youth Circus, Egg Hunt, Taste of Edmonds, Holiday decorating and lighting and other small events). Packet Page 244 of 554 Recreation includes providing close to 3000 classes per year with 50,000 people participating in these classes. It includes operating Yost Pool, Frances Anderson Center, and Meadowdale Clubhouse providing a comprehensive aquatics program, environmental education, athletics, fitness, gymnastics, preschool, day camps, general recreation programs, and special events throughout the year. The Recreation program also manages the business operations for the Parks Department, including facility rentals, concessions, instructor contracts, city wide special events, class registrations, website maintenance, marketing, etc. Administration includes oversight of all services, policy and strategic planning, capital projects, Department and City wide leadership, promotion of economic tourism and development, oversight of five citizen boards/commissions. What is on the deferred maintenance list? The deferred maintenance list for parks was created after a thorough analysis of the condition of the current park system. This list would be an ideal level of service needed to maintain the park system without adding longer term costs because of deferred maintenance issues. The cost estimate is $300,000 per year. This includes ongoing play structure repair and replacement, city wide restroom improvements, replacement and updates at park entrances, gateways to the city, city wide parking lot and asphalt pathway improvements, city wide upgrades of turf and drainage, replacement of turf and soil at several ballfields, tennis court and basketball court resurfacing, park amenity maintenance and replacement (Le garbage cans, landscape, picnic tables, benches, etc), tree maintenance. What is in the Capital Improvement Plan ( CIP )? An average of $600,000 per year for the next five years is budgeted for various parks capital improvement projects. These include City Park revitalization, Mathay Ballinger Park playground replacement, former Woodway High School field development, Yost pool boiler replacement, Yost pool slide addition, Marina Beach Park playground replacement, Dayton Street Plaza completion, Upgrades to Civic Stadium fields and campus, Edmonds Marsh feasibility study and revitalization, city wide beautification, and sports field upgrades. What is in the Capital Facilities Plan ( CFP )? The City's CFP seeks to identify longer range plans for facilities for the City of Edmonds. Currently, the Parks CFP identifies the need for a new Aquatic Center, Civic Playfield acquisition and/or development, Former Woodway High School development ( this is also in the CIP, because we are starting to set aside funds for the future development), and a Parks maintenance facility. If the MPD is successful who hires/fires Parks Director? The Parks Director will still report to the Mayor who will do the hiring/firing. All Parks and Recreation services would be provided by the City to the MPD. The MPD Board (City Council) could certainly have input on the hiring selection as well as input on regular performance evaluations, but ultimately these items are the responsibility of the Mayor until/unless the MPD hires its own employees. If the MPD is successful who does the budget? The Parks Director prepares the budget, submits it to the Mayor, and the Mayor presents it to City Council. At that point it is the Council's budget to modify as it sees fit (this is the same as the City budget). Can the MPD decrease if the economy gets better? Packet Page 245 of 554 The MPD can always, at any time, levy less than what it currently does and less than what it is enabled to levy based on the ballot language that voters approved. If we vote in .38 or .59 and it needs to be increased does it have to go back to a vote? The process is the same as for the City. The levy can increase by any amount in order to capture the 1% increase in total revenue. For instance, if assessed valuation in Edmonds drops by a significant amount (10% or more), the levy rate could increase by a significant amount in order to capture the 1% increase in total revenue. The 1% limit is on total tax collections, not on the levy rate. The only difference between the MPD levy and the City levy is that the MPD will always be limited to $0.75 per $1,000 of AV, and will also be limited to the amount included in the ballot language that voters approved. If the MPD needs to increase revenues beyond the allowable 1% increase, it can ask the voters for a levy lid lift increase. The $0.75 limitation will always be in effect, though, and the MPD could not ask the voters to exceed that. Can you say the Council is the governing board and then change it later to a Board? Yes, but this would have to go back to the voters. This would essentially be creating a new MPD and dissolving the old one. Will the MPD be charged for City services? The MPD would be charged all the same expenses ( with the exception of Cultural Arts )that are now charged to the Parks and Recreation General Fund budget. This includes salaries and benefits, supplies, professional services, operations and maintenance costs, etc. There would not be a separate, added fee just because there is an MPD. However, if the MPD were to be completely independent of the City (with a Board of Commissioners rather than City Council acting as the governing body), it would not be uncommon for there to be an administrative fee or overhead for providing services to the MPD. For instance, if the MPD was completely independent of the City but the City still provided accounting, payroll, financial reporting, risk management, legal, HR, recruiting, and other services to the MPD there could be an administrative cost in addition to the direct cost of providing that service to the MPD. The administrative cost would not be automatic, though, and would be negotiable between the City and the MPD. This, again, though would probably only occur if the MPD were completely separate from the City. Will the employees still be City employees? Yes, in the model being considered by City Council the employees now working in Parks and Recreation would continue to be City employees providing services to the MPD. The MPD could opt to hire its own employees, either initially or later, but there is a likelihood that that would increase total costs due to duplication of effort. For instance, rather than having one accounting and HR staff providing service to both the City and the MPD there would be two separate staffs at each entity. If the MPD is successful can there be an ordinance stating how the money could/should be used, including savings? Will you ask the City Attorney? It would be interesting to know their opinion. Packet Page 246 of 554 Metropolitan Park District Comparison Jurisdiction Level Council/Commission Reason Other/Tips Si View MPD .47/1000 Commission Regional entity, outside the boundaries If PR operations are to stay completely under one city, makes sense for MPD to be governed by City of one city. Council. Commissions usually used for unincorporated, multiple city areas. 0&M, C PenMet Parks .59/1000 Commission Outside one city's boundaries, regional Consider service level, and don't sell yourself short. If operating in one city, would be much more entity. efficient to have City Council oversee operations. 0&M, C KeyPen MPD .37/1000 Commission Covers unincorporated County area Current a/v dropping, have to plan for pro rationing. 0&M, C Shelton .55/1000 City Council Use of existing form of government, Identify indirect costs and services the city will provide, build this into the levy rate. less duplication of services O&M, C Normandy Park .45/1000 City Council City desired to maintain control over Timing: If on a November ballot, can't create a new district until 90 days after the adoption of initial parks and rec programs, facilities. property tax levy. So, would have to wait for one year. 0&M, C Pullman .50/1000 City Council Maintain control over park system, Set aside funds for capital, plan for need, go as high as community will tolerate. assets, quality programs. 0&M,C Greater Clark .27/1000 County Council County boundaries, maintain control Didn't budget accurately, have subsequently suspended any capital development for MPD parks. Protect MPD levy, so it is not subject to pro -rationing due to dropping ay. Capital Commission Operated: Pros: Can cover larger territory, specifically set up for Parks and Recreation, flexibility, operated independently. Cons: Forming a new administrative body is time consuming, and costs money, City loses control over assets, need for duplicate staffing and supplies( i.e. accounting, software, telecommunications, etc) Need for duplicate equipment ( staying as part of the city, shared use of larger equipment, without it costing more money). Packet Page 247 of 554 Metropolitan Park District Further questions, answers June 25, 2012 1. How is REET 1 and 2 allocated? Through the CIP/Budget process. See attachment for the policy direction on REET. 2. Are we talking about the MPD being the boundaries of the City and not including the unincorporated areas? Yes, City boundaries only. 3. Who has the operational control of non city owned property, such as Woodway Fields? Whoever owns it, unless the City enters into an Interlocal agreement to gain operational control. 4. P & R advisory committee — would their functions change? This is a function of the Planning Board currently. If there was a Commission that was elected in an oversight capacity for the MPD, then this would no longer be the function of the Planning Board. If the City Council is charged with oversight of the MPD, the Planning Board could still function in an advisory capacity. 5. If we put forward .50/thousand, is the bonding over and above that? The current rate to keep same level of service is .38/thousand ay. If we decided to put .50 on the ballot, that would raise an additional $660,000 and could be used for capital, bonding, deferred maintenance issues, etc. 6. What is the plan for this group to come to some kind of consensus? We would like the exploratory group to make a recommendation to the City Council, by majority vote. 7. How is this different than the 2011 proposition that failed? The propositions that were placed on the ballot in 2011 only represented $300,000 for parks deferred maintenance. This proposition was for an additional service level ( deferred maintenance), and was placed on the ballot with not a lot of time, wasn't preceded with an exploratory committee, and was lumped in with two other proposals. This would be a stand alone, be able to maintain adequate service levels, and possibly add some capital. 8. What would be the cost of total labor and benefit costs with escalation? Labor costs are built in at 2.5%, benefits at 10%. 9. If this is successful, how long will it be before the City's finances are in trouble? This would lead the city into at least 2017 without having to cut service level. 10. Do we have enough time to sell it? How long do we need to prepare a ballot measure and educate the public? Could we hear from the ESD on this since they run successful campaigns? A majority of the committee last meeting felt there was not enough time to sell this before November. A pro/con committee would need to be formed, and best case scenario is that they would have 6-8 months to prepare. 11. Is this similar to the library becoming a library district? Yes. Packet Page 248 of 554 12. What are we going to do with the savings? Can we commit those dollars? Can we commit future Councils? The savings would help to balance the GF long term. If voted for, the MPD would be permanent. Future Councils could repeal the MPD if they so choose. You could also add ballot language to have it expire, and renewable. 13. What are special election costs? This depends on if there are other districts running levies. It would range from $20,000 ( on the general or primary), to $106,000 ( special election with only Edmonds). If there were a few jurisdictions on the special election, this cost would go down. Packet Page 249 of 554 City of Edmonds Explores a Metropolitan Park District As the City of Edmonds prepares for a difficult task of developing a balanced budget for 2013, the Mayor and City Council will need to consider service level cuts, efficiencies, revenue tools, or all of the above. Recently, Council decided to explore the formation of a Metropolitan Park District (MPD), one possible tool that could help balance the budget, and secure dedicated funding for the much loved flower baskets, Yost pool, recreation programs, Senior Center, and parks among other areas. A Metropolitan Park District can be formed for the management, control, improvement, maintenance, and acquisition of parks, parkways, and recreational facilities. If formed as a Citywide MPD, a City Council serves as the governing body. First, an MPD must be voter approved and pass with a simple majority. MPDs allow jurisdictions to levy up to $35 per $1,000 assessed value. At the maximum levy rate, this would cost a homeowner, with an average home value of $350,000, approximately $21 per month. The Parks budget has been struggling since 2009. This can be evidenced by declining Parks Capital improvement fund and fund balances as a result of decreasing Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) and the Cemetery funds. For example, in 2006-2009, the average annual REET revenue was $3.5 Million. In 2010-2011, the average was $500,000. This reduction in revenue has resulted in an unprecedented drop in ongoing maintenance levels of our parks system. The City has responded in a number of ways to balance the budget such as increasing revenue options, including non-resident fees, concessions in parks; renegotiating instructor contracts; hiring less seasonal staff; and relying on residents to help with Parks projects. Despite these efforts, residents may experience parks that are less attractive, and there is increasing concern that the impacts of deferring maintenance will soon become more visible and in the long run, more costly to address. As the City faces a projected deficit in 2013, there is little to cut within the Parks and Recreation budget without impacting service levels. Providing a dedicated fund for Parks, similar to what's been created in Bainbridge Island, Des Moines, Tacoma, Pullman, etc., would help maintain the same service level citizen's currently enjoy, while alleviating some of the burden on the City's general fund. This would also help curb service level cuts in parks as well as other areas, such as police and public works. There are exciting opportunities that could be explored with the formation of an MPD. The City's previous feasibility study for an expanded aquatic complex at Yost pool is of high interest in the community. Discussions with the School District in regard to adding soccer fields at old Woodway High School, and the renovation of Civic Stadium are also starting to gain interest. The City is conducting a feasibility study on next steps to rehabilitate Edmonds Marsh. In addition, the city's long partnership with the Senior Center could benefit with increased funding for much needed capital needs. The City Council has decided to form an MPD Exploratory Committee which will be led by Councilmember Frank Yamamoto with support from Councilmember Diane Buckshnis. The Committee will be charged with gathering information about the pros and cons of forming a Metropolitan Park District; re-examining needs and priorities of the Edmonds Parks and Recreation system; developing public outreach strategies such as citizen surveys and town hall meetings; and preparing recommendations for Council consideration. Packet Page 250 of 554 The Committee will meet during the months of May and June, and will make a recommendation to City Council in July, 2012. If the City Council were to consider placing this on the November ballot, a ballot measure would need to be filed in August. The first two meetings for the MPD Exploratory Committee have been scheduled for May 7 and 23 from 6:00-8:00 p.m. in the 2nd floor Edmonds Library Plaza Room (650 Main Street); the public is welcome to attend. If anyone is interested in serving on the committee, there is an application on the city's website [ link to website ], or for pick up at City Hall or the Frances Anderson Center. For further information, please contact Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director, at carrie.hite@ci.edmonds.wa.us, or 425-771-0230. Packet Page 251 of 554 Levy Approach Pros • Scope clearly defined • Duration clearly defined • Taxpayers understand that this represents an above -board, 'announced' methodology for creating additional funding for specific matters/causes • Less work administratively to set up • Funding amount(s) stay the same throughout the duration of the levy measure regardless of fluctuations in the budget or economy • Citizens familiar with Park Board model and the P & R relationship to it • Important because of need for revenue • Maintains staff • Fixed amount • Frees up dollars for other purposes Cons • Passage/adoption by the voters dependent upon degree of support by 'Parks & Rec advocates/devotees'—is this enough to 'get it done' • Allocated funds via levy 'run out' or prove to be insufficient to cover described scope within the originally passed levy proposal/vote • Unfavorable economic climate for soliciting 'new taxes' • Potential for disputes between levy scope and 'left behind' GF/budget makeup funds heretofore helping to support Parks & Rec (like REET, etc.) • TBD: duration/longevity of levy status/expenditures • Will voters see potential levy vote for bond issuance [say for Yost or new aquatic center] as 'piling on' • Focused funds Packet Page 252 of 554 MPD Approach Pros • Isolates the Parks and Rec. program $$$ from annual budget struggles carried out by the city/council • Creates flexibility within the department for future budgeting and planning based on revenue derived from taxation [or 'taxing authority'] • Assures Parks and Rec. 'protected' from budget 'raiding' during remainder of annual challenge • Potential for increased revenue for P&R based upon improving economy and RE assessment increases • As envisioned for Edmonds, puts Council as MPD'board' • Much more comprehensive • Matches Edmonds Strategic Plan better • Frees up dollars for other purposes • More transparent Cons • More administrative infrastructure • Some may see structure and 'empowerment' as a runaway train costwise (in spite of RCW $.75/1,000 taxing cap) • Negative perception of additional taxing authority — concern that same thing could happen here as happened with Snolsle library situation • Council 'posture' in board duties may not be comparable to separate board governing MPD • Challenge in ascertaining initial tax rate [scope to be included, future upgrades/improvements, 'leave behinds'] could set up perception/basis for 'double taxation scenario by the public • Too risky — concept • City Council or additional Board to oversee/regulate • Permanent • AV fluctuates — stability of fund • Fear we'd have to set aside dollars for reserves • Bait and switch/double taxation • Would max out junior taxing district capacity Packet Page 253 of 554 Edmonds Strategic Plan March, 2013 Proposed actions that involve Parks and Recreation The scores were grouped into 1-2, 3, 4-5 then ranked where 4-5 scores were: Very High (VH) 68%-50% Moderate -High (MH) 49%-40% Moderate -Low (ML) 39%-32% Low (L) 32%-21% Very Los (VL) 21%-13% What are Edmonds Strategic Action Plan's objectives and action tasks? The Edmonds strategic action planning process identified 66 specific tasks that are ranked in order of priority from very highest (VH), to moderately high (MH), moderately low (ML), low (L), to very lowest (VL) within 5 overall Strategic Objectives: The left columns below indicate the City Department, i.e., DS, P&R, etc., that would serve as lead or co - lead in working on a action item. DS = Development Services P&R = Parks and Recreation Strategic Objective 1: Create economic health, vitality & sustainability — diversify and stabilize the Edmonds economy to achieve sustainability for business, employment, and commercial services; quality mixed use development within Edmonds business districts, in ways that preserve and conserve the city's unique heritage and natural context. la Foster dynamic/diverse economy Economic sustainability (VH) — Marketing business districts (VH) — Interim storefronts (VH) MMPromotion for business development (VH) �— Business outreach (VH) — Design of storefronts (MH) Mixed use standards for the International District (MH) la.8 Mixed use standards for ground floor retail requirements (ML) 1a.9 Mixed use standards for Westgate (ML) 1a.10 Mixed use standards for the downtown/waterfront (ML) la.11 Mixed use standards for Perrinville (L) la.12 Mixed use standards for Firdale Village (L) la.13 Mixed use standards for 5 Corners (L) 1a.14 Mixed use standards for other commercial districts (L) Packet Page 254 of 554 lb lb: Take advantage of special/unique characteristics of areas lb.1 Health and medical industries (VH) lb.2 High tech industries (VH) 1b.3 Harbor Square (VH) lb.4 Shoreline/waterfront (VH) lb.5 Antique Mall (VH) lb.6 Swedish Hospital (VH) lb.7 Organization Main Street (H) 1b.8 International District (ML) 1b.9 Financing (BID) (ML) 1b.9 Car dealerships (VL) lc Enhance economic and employment opportunities I.C.I. Employment for youth (VH) P&R 1c.2 Participation for youth (VH) 1c.3 ' Database for business recruitment (ML) ld Build on the community's heritage, natural resources, and livability to promote Edmonds as a tourism destination P&R ld.1 Design for arts and culture (L) P&R 1d.2 Marketing for arts and culture (L) le Effectively develop, market, and promote the City's arts and cultural heritage and brand (Arts & Culture) P&R..jEj0jh.. Organization for arts and culture (MH) P&M� Promotion for arts and culture (MH) P&10— Edmonds Cultural Center - ECA (MH) P&R 1e.4 4th Ave Cultural Corridor (MH) l e.5 Artists live/work (L) le.6 Art and history walking tours (L) le.7 Fine arts museum (L) if Promote a permit and licensing process to promote business recruitment, expansion, and retention lf.l Economic incentives (MH) Strategic Objective 2: Maintain, enhance, and create a sustainable environment — focusing on the sustainability of natural systems and processes in Edmonds. 2a Build a community that balances environmental protection, economic health, and social needs 2a.1 A Recycling (VH) 2a.2 Farmers/Public Market (VH) 2a.3 Stormwater at SR-104 and Dayton (VH) P&R 2a.4 Native habitat (MH) 2a.4 Stormwater for the flooding of Lake Ballinger (MH) 2a.5 Energy (MH) P&R 2a.5 Food production (MH) 2a.6 Stormwater and habitat along Willow Creek (ML) Packet Page 255 of 554 ME Stormwater and habitat in a green features code (ML) P&R 2a.8 Coordination of environmental outreach (L) Strategic Objective 3: Maintain and enhance Edmonds' community character and quality of life - conserving and enhancing community facilities and amenities that service and define the city, and that support residents needs and interests. P&R 3a.1 3a.1 Senior Center rehabilitation (VH) 3a.2 3a.2 Downtown restrooms (VH) P&R 3a.3 3a.3 Anderson Center (VH) P&R 3a.4 3a.4 Greenways and Parks(VH) P&R 3a.5 3a.5 Activities for youth (VH) P&R 3a.6m 3a.6 Yost Pool financing (VH) 3a.7 " 3a.7 Public view preservation (MH) P&R 3a.8 3a.8 Yost Pool improvement (ML) P&R 3a.9 3a.9 Civic Field (ML) 3a.10 3a.10 Design standards (ML) 3a.11 3a.11 Diversify housing options (ML) 3a.12 3a.12 Affordable housing (L) P&R 3a.13 3a.13 Woodway athletic fields (L) P&R 3a.14 3a.14 Dog Park relocation (L) P&R 3a.15 3a.15 Senior Center relocation (VL) Strategic Objective 4: Develop and maintain a transportation and infrastructure system to meet current and future demand - providing multimodal balance and integration of pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, transit, railroads, and the ferry system. 4a Build a community that balances environmental protection, economic health, and social needs 4a.1 BNSF Railroad coal trains (VH) 4a.2 Street maintenance (VH) 4a.3 Walkways (VH) 4a.4 Sounder Train (MH) 4a.5 , Sound Transit Link (MH) P&R 4a.6 J1 Trails (MH) 4a.7JO Highway 99 enhancement (MH) 4a.8 Intermodal Station development (MH) 4a.9 Waterfront connection (MH) 4a.10 Ferry Terminal loading strategy (MH) 4a.11 Crosswalks (ML) 4a.12 SR-104 transit service (ML) 4a.13 Bikeway network (L) 4a.14 Shuttle service between downtown and Highway 99 (L) 4a.15 Swift Bus Rapid Transit - SBRT (L) 4a.16 Shuttle service between the waterfront and downtown (L) 4b Provide quality services, facilities, and infrastructure Packet Page 256 of 554 4b.1 Provide quality services, facilities, and infrastructure Packet Page 257 of 554 Strategic Objective 5: Provide responsible, accountable, and responsive government — expanding outreach and communication, creating sustainable fiscal strategies, and joint venturing with other local public and nonprofit partners. 5a Provide efficient and effective delivery of services 5a.1jd Fiscal sustainability (VH) 5a.2M Permitting process (VH) 5a.3_ Assess performance results (VH) All development for MStrategy public/private investments (VH) 5as. Non -governmental organization (NGO) participation (MH) 5a.6 Fiscal sustainability for funding Parks and Recreation (MH) 5b Promotion and encouragement of an active and involved community 5b.1 Public access (MH) 5b.2 Public communication (MH) Sc Ensure a safe and secure environment for residents, businesses, and visitors 5c.1 Safe and secure environment (VH) Packet Page 258 of 554 Packet Page 259 of 554 MPD meeting notes from March 5, 2013 Present: Bob Rinehart, Jerry Fireman, Ron Wambolt, Bruce Witenberg, Phil Lovell, Jim Metcalfe, Bob White, Brian Harding, Ed Peters, Dick Van Hollebeke, Farrell Fleming Staff: Carrie Hite, Ron Cone, Renee McRae Carrie introduced Ron Cone, Interim Finance Director. Meeting opened with a reminder that following the meetings of this committee last year, City Council was informed that there is support for Parks, but it was too ambitious to put a measure on last year's ballot. The committee wanted to continue to explore and look at a ballot issue for a future date, possibly this year. Economy is slowly improving. 2014 looks okay, but 2015-2017 will have $500,000 shortfall/year. Members received a handout on Park Revenue Options — MPD and Levy. The sheet included budget options, levy rate and cost per household. Discussion and questions included: Would a park levy be a certain number of years or perpetuity? What happens to debt with MPD? Could it free up money for streets? Didn't think you could say how dollars would be spent in perpetuity. Future councils could change that. Parks and Recreation is not a basic city service. Cuts didn't need to be made. $9.2 million in reserves. More than we need. What is the large growth in reserve attributed to? Conservative budget for revenue. What kind of litigation do we have general fund exposure for? Mayor Earling is the first mayor who wants to balance the budget on an annual basis. Easier to get mind around levy; assuming it's needed it's a better tool. All three levies failed two years ago. Should be having two separate discussions. What is the case statement about parks? Focus on parks — levy. Free up money— MPD. What happens under park levy option with respect to Yost Pool if expenditures go beyond the allocated $200,000? Fund Yost at this level and continue with maintenance needed. Lincoln Pool is 70 years old. The City needs other things — Police has had cuts over the years. Is P & R more important other services? Roads are falling apart. Who is going to pay for these services? Strategic Plan — P & R didn't rank high. Parks falls under quality of life, greenways. Are we premature until the City Council decides on Strategic Plan? Packet Page 260 of 554 Isn't this committee providing direction to City Council? If we wait too long we will be too late to get anything on ballot this year for a revenue package. Should we wait and work with the new permanent Finance Director? Ron Cone assured committee that he will be working very closely with Carrie and they should continue their work. His goal is do everything the Finance Director did whether permanent or not. If we are in better shape than we thought how do we know this is needed? Need to know how much balance actually exists. Ron Cone will review fund balance policy. What is the level of risk the voters are willing to make? We need to figure out what is more saleable to the citizens, Levy or MPD? Consider MPD as a parks fund resource. You know how much money you have and can plan on how much you need for the future. Levy is project specific, generally time specific. Would like to have control over dollars freed up. Can citizens vote to say that money is dedicated to roads or public safety? Huge point in selling. Can it be in the ballot language to restrict it? At the next meeting we will list the pros and cons of each revenue option - MPD and levy. Meeting concluded with Carrie informing committee that for the next meeting she would: • Get clarification on where we are with regards to the budget • Check with city attorney regarding if ballot language can designate where the freed up money can be spent • Will provide Strategic Plan information • Will provide city comparisons for staffing, budgets, park acreage, etc. Packet Page 261 of 554 MPD meeting notes from March 18, 2013 Present: Carolyn Rubenkonig, Jerry Fireman, Bob Rinehart, Evelyn Wellington, Ron Wambolt, Bruce Witenberg, Phil Lovell, Jim Metcalfe, Diana White, Bob White Elected Officials: Mayor Earling, Diane Buckshnis, Frank Yamamoto Staff: Carrie Hite, Ron Cone, Renee McRae Mayor Earling discussed the budget beyond 2014, the need for a new revenue stream to bring forward to the voters this year, and his resistance to any reserves being spent. Diane Buckshnis updated the committee on the reserve policy (16% contingency reserve, 2% risk reserve). Both responded to questions from the committee before departing. Members received a packet of information that included responses to questions previously raised, Strategic Plan nexus with P&R, park department comparisons, MPD comparison, pros/cons received from Phil Lovell, and local ballot measure results. Carrie clarified information on the park department comparison handout. Discussion and questions included: Three years ago the City had three levies on the ballot and they all failed. Whatever we recommend we need to educate the public this time. There is a necessity for a communication plan. At that time there was a consensus that the City didn't have a spending problem; they had a revenue problem. Parks are not a mandated service and will be subject to additional cuts when they need to be made if we don't come up with a new revenue stream. All cuts should be included in the restore portion of the park levy options. Need a compelling case in order to pass a levy. What happens if we don't do anything? In two years there will be a compelling case if nothing is done before then — flower beds empty and parks are overgrown. Need a super majority of City Council with whatever recommendation we make accompanied with a recommendation to use a certain amount of savings for street overlays. City Council should act on that at the same time they vote yes or no to put a levy on the ballot. Very important to be able to use the savings for street overlays. Need to know if we can do this. Time was spent listing pros/cons of a levy and MPD. The handout received from Phil Lovell with his pros/cons has been revised to include additions/deletions discussed. A straw poll was taken to determine what members felt has the best chance with voters - 7 to 2 for a levy. A second straw poll was taken to add language with whatever recommendation is made regarding using the savings to the general fund for street overlays - 7 to 2. Could there be a public survey before we go to City Council with recommendation? Meeting concluded with plans for the next meeting to explore the communication plan and finalize the recommendation to Council. Packet Page 262 of 554 MPD meeting notes from April 8, 2013 Present: Bruce Witenberg, Barbara Tipton, Bob White, Ed Peters, Farrell Fleming, Ron Wambolt, Bob Rinehart, Phil Lovell, Darrol Haug, Dick Van Hollenbeke Elected Officials: Frank Yamamoto, Mayor Dave Earling Staff: Carrie Hite, Renee McRae City Attorney: Jeff Tarraday Carrie introduced Jeff Tarraday, City Attorney, who was present to answer questions from the committee. Bruce clarified that the levy can't state that the dollars savings from parks can go to streets. Jeff confirmed that doing so would foreclose on a portion of the City Council's budget authority. Bruce then asked if the at the same time the City Council approves putting a levy on the ballot, could they commit to putting the savings from the general fund into street overlays to show Council support for streets. Jeff responded that they could to the extent that they want to express what they want to do with the money that they no longer have to spend on parks. However, it is not legally binding. Jeff stated that you can raise money for parks and streets without separate measures on the ballot. The levy would dedicate money to two purposes. Jeff left the meeting at 5:50pm. Carrie, Frank and Mayor Earling have met with all but one Councilmember since our last meeting. Carrie and Frank shared the information from those meetings. The majority will support a levy. There are concerns regarding timing and amount. Is the August ballot too ambitious as language would have to be ready by the May filing date? Should it be the general election this November or a special election next April or May? If we wait for the primary ballot in 2014 the first collection will be in April 2015. Council would like to hear a recommendation from this committee. What will help the general fund? Parks has a budget, even if it isn't enough. Street overlays have no budget, but a levy for that doesn't help the general fund. Funding both would cost the taxpayers too much. There was continued discussion on what is needed to move forward. Is it strictly parks? How much? What does it encompass? What are we going to do with savings from the general fund? Carrie reviewed the park revenue options handout regarding the park levy options for restore, retain and enhance. Bob mentioned that he is surprised that there is not a separate recreation and parks board. He would like this committee, assuming that they recommend a park levy, to consider the formation of a recreation and parks board to serve as an advisory board to consider an MPD. The following motion was made by Bob, seconded by Barbara: Recommend to City Council a special parks levy for a three year period beginning in 2014, voted on in 2013, up to $2,000,000 the first year, and further, the freed up general fund money be used primarily for street maintenance/restorations. Barbara Tipton amended the motion to include the November 2013 general election, Bruce seconded. Discussion continued to include in the recommendation to Council that a recreation and parks board be formed to study an MPD. Packet Page 263 of 554 Amendment vote: 3-1, 2 abstained. Original motion: 5-0, 1 abstained. Carrie will craft a resolution and email to the committee for review. She will schedule a one hour meeting to discuss the resolution and finalize the recommendation to City Council. Meeting ended at 6:55pm. Packet Page 264 of 554 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES May 21, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 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 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 Ronald Cone, Interim Finance Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr. Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Rob English, City Engineer Renee McRae, Recreation Manager Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr. I Kernen Lien, Senior 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. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING AND POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) At 6:01 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding pending and potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 60 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Public Works Director Phil Williams, City Engineer Rob English, Reporting Human Resources Director Carrie Hite and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 7:02 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:03 p.m. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council President Petso relayed the following changes to the agenda: • Move Agenda Item 15, Park Levy Exploration Committee Recommendation, to 9b • Reschedule Agenda Item 10, Alternative Chart Format for Monthly Report, on a future agenda Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 1 Packet Page 265 of 554 • Reschedule Agenda Item 12, Direction to Planning Board and Economic Development Commission Regarding Council Priorities on Westgate and Five Corners, on a future agenda COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Bloom requested Item N be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 7, 2013. B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2013. C. APPROVAL OF CORRECTION TO THE APRIL 16, 2013 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES. D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #201948 THROUGH #202075 DATED MAY 9, 2013 FOR $164,517.44 AND CLAIM CHECKS #202076 THROUGH #202228 DATED MAY 16, 2013 FOR $530,404.60 (REISSUED CHECKS #202127 $215.00 AND #202128 $70.39). APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS #60190 THROUGH #60205 FOR $438,176.54, BENEFIT CHECKS #60206 THROUGH #60213 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $188,318.09 FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1, 2013 THROUGH MAY 15, 2013. E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF TWO CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES, ONE FROM BILL STAPLETON ($290.73) AND THE OTHER FROM ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY FOR $15,438.00. F. APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS' BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR LIQUOR LICENSE WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, MAY 2013. G. MARCH 2O13 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT. H. AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH MIG FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROS PLAN. I. AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR A/E SERVICES FOR CITY PARK. J. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE 224TH STREET SW SEWER UPGRADE PROJECT TO LASER UNDERGROUND AND EARTHWORKS. K. AUTHORIZATION TO APPROVE A STORM UTILITY EASEMENT FOR INSTALLATION OF INFILTRATION AND STORM PIPE THAT WILL BE PART OF IMPROVEMENTS TO BE DONE AS PART OF THE 238TH STORM DRAIN PROJECT. L. FINAL CONTRACT ACCEPTANCE, WWTP A -BASIN UPGRADE PROJECT. M. FINAL CONTRACT ACCEPTANCE, WWTP BUILDING ROOF REPLACEMENT. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 266 of 554 ITEM N: ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING THE TIME LIMIT FOR PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. Councilmember Bloom requested this be rescheduled for discussion on a future agenda. She questioned the Council's action, to send this back to staff to return with a draft ordinance, noting that was not the original motion but rather the second motion. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO RESCHEDULE THIS ITEM FOR DISCUSSION ON A FUTURE AGENDA. Council President Petso offered to schedule this item on the June 4 agenda. Councilmember Peterson asked what additional information Councilmember Bloom was seeking. Councilmember Bloom responded several questions raised by citizens warrant further discussion. The Council meeting when this was discussed was not on camera and although citizens may have been able to listen to the recording, they were unable to watch the discussion as usual. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, BLOOM AND JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. 5. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: MEMORIAL DAY CEREMONY Dale Hoggins, Cemetery Board Member, explained Chair Fred Apgar, Commander of Edmonds VFW Post 8870, is a key member of the Planning Committee for the Memorial Day Program. On behalf of the Cemetery Board and Chair Lisa Palmatier, he invited the public to the 31" annual Memorial Day Ceremony on Monday, May 27, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. at the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery and Columbarium. The program remembers and honors the memory of those who died while serving our country and says thank you to all veterans, current, active and reserve personnel, many who have had numerous deployments. The event will also honor those who have been awarded the Purple Heart or MIA. Army Private First Class Bowe Bergdahl from Idaho has been a POW of the Taliban since 2009. July 7, 2013 will mark the 60`h anniversary of the signing of the Korean Peace Accord, ending three years of war. The Cemetery Board joins the VFW in its efforts to remember and honor Korean War Veterans and extend a special invitation to all Korean War Veterans and their families to join them on Memorial Day. The War Memorial located in front of the Edmonds Memorial Museum lists eight Snohomish County men who died or are MIAs in Korea. Two are buried in the Edmonds Cemetery and one is MIA and presumed dead. He invited anyone interested in loaning their Korean War Veteran burial flag for the ceremony to call him at 425-776-1543. Mr. Hoggins assured the ceremony is different than most; it does not have a political agenda and the emphasis is on remembering and features youth. The special guest this year is Tom Hallums, a south Snohomish County resident, who was stationed in Japan on June 25, 1950, a member of the first US Troops deployed to Korea. Mayor Earling will share his visit to the Korean War Memorial located in Washington DC and the impression the memorial made on him. 6. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS WEEK MAY 19, 2013 THROUGH MAY 25, 2013. Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring the week of May 19, 2013 through May 25, 2013 as Edmonds Public Works Week. He presented the proclamation to Public Works and Utilities Director Phil Williams. Mr. Williams thanked the Council for the proclamation on behalf of all the employees in the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 267 of 554 department, noting the proclamation lists an impressive number of duties the department is proud to perform for the citizens. He invited the Council to a Public Works Employee Appreciation luncheon at 11:30 on Thursday, presented by the Public Works Department management team. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Denise Bossieux, Edmonds, President, Edmonds Arts Festival (EAF) Association, commented the EAF is an example of community pride and civic participation as it is one of the only festivals in the Northwest not sponsored by the city for which it is named. All proceeds from the Arts Festival go to the Edmonds Festival Foundation, the non-profit half of the organization, for disbursement to Edmonds School District and the City in the form of scholarships, grants and community art. Over 5,000 people attend the festival, many also visiting shops, galleries and restaurants which generate revenue for the City. She referred to the rewrite of the Edmonds City Code 4.12, specifically permitting and licensing of street vendors, motorized and non -motorized mobile vending units. The EAF has juried and contracted with 28 vendors for the Father's Day Arts Festival weekend, a process that was completed by April 5, 2013, prior to the completed rewrite of ECC 4.12. Only 3 of the vendors have home bases in Edmonds, many drive 3-4 hours and several are from different states. At least 17 of the vendors will not participate in the Festival if they are forced to pay the $235 fee. She requested the Council reconsider enforcement of the April rewrite of ECC 4.12; the consequences could be catastrophic to the Festival and ultimately the art students and programs of the Edmonds School District and to the community. Mayor Earling advised a Councilmember planned to bring this issue up during Council comments (Agenda Item 19). Don Hall, Edmonds, recalled a few years ago the City became a leader in the endeavor to clean up streams, lakes, Puget Sound and the ocean by passing a ban on plastic bags. More cities have also done so, including Shoreline. There was discussion in the past about banning Styrofoam containers; Shoreline indicated they plan to consider banning Styrofoam containers because it is an even bigger environmental issue. He urged Council to consider banning Styrofoam containers, noting Portland banned Styrofoam containers and over 40 cities in California, mainly coastal cities, have banned Styrofoam containers. He thanked the businesses and restaurants in Edmonds that have already switched to environmental friendly products. He noted Seattle has banned Styrofoam containers and most major corporations with cafeterias such as Boeing and Microsoft have banned Styrofoam containers. Edmonds could join the cities who have banned Styrofoam containers and return as a leader in environmental issues. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented he is awaiting a response from Mayor Earling to his question and planned to attend Council meetings until he heard an answer. His question was whether state law allowed city planning staff approval of a variance to the lot requirements as specified in ECDC 16, sub districts, without public notice and without a hearing. He indicated he had been contacted by Code Enforcement Officer Mike Thies. He expressed concern that the City seemed to be using a different dictionary than the rest of the world; the dictionary definition of motel says a hotel that caters mostly to a drive -up business. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented he had not had a response to his challenge a couple meetings ago to the legality of the hearing on step -backs in the BC/BD zone. Four Councilmembers voted to raise building heights, yet the public hearing notice did not mention building heights. The result will now be 30-foot box buildings with flat roofs with no requirement for an architectural feature. Next, he referred to the park levy, noting the exploratory committee had narrowed the levy to parks, but a close reading indicates there are funds for roads and funds are shuffled into the General Fund. Mr. Hertrich referred to the 2013 March Financial Report and REET projections, relaying the Finance Director's indication that those were five year projections. He relayed the Park & Recreation Director's indication that there was unlikely to be $1.3 million in REET in 2013 and reality was closer to $800,000. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 268 of 554 8. EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION 2012 ANNUAL REPORT AND 2013 SCHOLARSHIP AWARDS Lois Rathvon, Chair, Edmonds Arts Commission, explained the Edmonds Arts Commission (EAC) is a group of seven members who work with the Cultural Services Division on various projects. The commission has existed since 1975 with the ongoing mission to promote the arts as a part of the central identity of Edmonds and as an integral part of the quality of life and economy of the city. The EAC contributes to cultural tourism in a number of ways. For the past 27 years the EAC has presented the Write on the Sound Writers Conference. The 21/2 day event in October brings in local residents as well as attendees from all over the country. In 2012 the event sold out with 275 participants, which generated 74 hotel night stays. The City received a grant from the new Snohomish County Tourism Promotion Area which helped fund development of a new website for the conference. The EAC facilitates Tourism Promotion awards. In 2012, $9,500 from the lodging tax fund was awarded to Olympic Ballet Theatre, Cascade Symphony, Driftwood Players, Edmonds Arts Festival/ Studio Tour, Friends of Frank DeMeiro Jazz Fest, and Sno-King Community Chorale. Visual, performing and literary arts enhance the community's quality of life. An average of 400 people per week enjoy the free summer Concerts in the Park, drawing out-of-towners as well as local residents. The EAC handles rotating exhibits of Visual Arts in the Edmonds library and the Frances Anderson Center. The EAC was involved in implementing the Public Art elements at the Hazel Miller Plaza. Work continued on the SR99 enhancements with the new artist made lanterns installed at the end of the year, this project will be completed next month. As mandated by Council, the EAC oversees acquisition and upkeep of publically owned artwork. The City's art collection includes over 150 original pieces with 30 permanently sited —including the terrazzo floor in the lobby of the Public Safety Complex and sculptures outside. More art enhanced flower basket poles were added in 2012 and 8 more were added recently. The assistance of the Parks Maintenance and Public Works Crew to this project is invaluable. The flower basket poles are partially funded by donations and intended as an opportunity for commemoration. Of the 22 poles, 7 have been commemorated to date. In arts education, last year the EAC co -sponsored five literary workshop sessions at College Place Middle School. The EAC hosted a Best -Book Poster Contest for third grade students. The EAC supports arts education through scholarships to local students. The EAC works with a limited budget; however the community offers strong support for the arts through volunteers, grants, and community partnerships. Looking forward, the EAC is excited to present an Edmonds Arts Summit on June 29th at the Edmonds Center for the Arts. This gathering of the arts and culture community, initiated by the Mayor, is supported by a broad array of sponsors. She encouraged everyone to register and attend this free event; further information is available on the Edmonds Arts Commission website. Ms. Rathvon thanked the City Council and the Edmonds community for their continued support for arts and culture as an important component in the economic vitality and identity of Edmonds. Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin explained the scholarship program was established by the Arts Commission in 1986 with the goal of encouraging students who have a serious commitment to a career in the performing or literary arts. The program has been supported for many years by proceeds from the Write on the Sound Writers' Conference presented annually by the Arts Commission and by donations. In the 2013 budget, the General Fund allocation to the EAC for programs was suspended and the proceeds for the conference will now be used to support EAC programs such as the summer concerts, the Best Book Poster Contest for Third graders, and other free events. This is the last year that the literary and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 269 of 554 performing arts scholarships will be awarded by the Arts Commission. Tonight is a celebration of the three final recipients of Arts Commission scholarships as well as the total of 60 students who have been awarded scholarships over the past 28 years. Many of the recipients have gone on to successful careers in the arts as performers, writers and music teachers. This year the Arts Commission is awarding scholarships to three talented students who aspire to a career in the arts. Each of these three students exhibit excellence in their art forms, but in addition, it is clear from the reference letters and their own statements that each has exceptional qualities of leadership, strong personal ethics, kindness, and a commitment to helping others. She introduced the three student scholarship recipients and described their background and educational goals: • Sydney Bennett — is graduating from Edmonds Woodway High School and plans to attend the University of Washington. She has always had an interest in the arts, from dancing to cheerleading, and more recently in writing. Sydney is awarded a literary arts scholarship to pursue her goal of a career as a political columnist • Marco Voli — is graduating from Edmonds Woodway High School and will be attending Cornish College of the Arts in Seattle. He has been involved in the jazz band and has been an active part of the play production program for three years, both acting and playwriting. Marco is awarded a performing arts scholarship to pursue his goal of a career in theater. • Taylor Zickefoose - is graduating from Meadowdale High School and plans to attend Central Washington University. Studying music from an early age, Taylor is already an accomplished jazz vocalist and has received numerous honors and awards, including recognition as an outstanding high school performance as a vocal jazz soloist in Downbeat Magazine. Taylor is awarded a performing arts scholarship to pursue her goal of a career in music. 9. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SOUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Council President Petso suggested the Council finally end this Comprehensive Plan amendment process, get to work over the next couple weeks to see if a new Comprehensive Plan amendment process can be started in June by motion of the Council. She favored ending this process and starting a new process because it would guarantee whatever the Council developed would be given a full public process, meaning it would be reviewed by the Planning Board and City Council with public hearings at both levels. It will also provide a clean Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Since the process began, questions and concerns have been raised about the legal process used. Starting over with a clean process would also allow the Council to put the threat of potential litigation behind them. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. She asked why the process needed to be stopped and started over again when the Council has begun and is moving through a process. City Attorney Jeff Taraday responded the Council did not have to stop the process and start over, but it could. He relayed the three primary ways the Council could proceed were, 1) to do as Council President Petso suggested, 2) to do as Councilmember Buckshnis suggested, or 3) to end the process and not take any further action. The City's code allows the Council to amend a Comprehensive Plan amendment that is presented to the City Council. The City Council has not yet proceeded far enough along that route. Mr. Taraday explained he was asked to compare and contrast two drafts; however, the Council has not yet approved the staff revised draft. If a majority of the Council had stated they wanted to adopt the staff revised draft, an analysis would be done to determine whether it was within the scope of the alternatives considered by the Planning Board or whether it had been changed so significantly that legally it was better to start over to avoid any question whether there had been a sufficient public process. He explained what has been confusing to many is it is not yet known what the City Council's plan for Harbor Square would look like. Therefore the City Council's plan cannot be compared/contrasted to the Port's proposal. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 270 of 554 Councilmember Buckshnis noted Exhibit 2, Harbor Square Subarea Plan — City Council Discussion Draft, contains some of the issues she raised and emailed to staff. There are other items in Exhibit 2 that she does not support. She asked how the City could be open to a lawsuit when the Council was still discussing Harbor Square. Mr. Taraday responded he has not suggested there was a significant legal risk. Because some citizens are confused by the process, in the interest of simplification and to avoid any further confusion, the City Council may opt to start over but the Council does not have to start over. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the process continued would the plan return to staff to incorporate the Council's ideas into a more succinct plan and then go through the Planning Board process. Mr. Taraday answered maybe, but it was as yet unknown what the plan will look like at the conclusion of the process. If at the conclusion of the process the amendments are minor enough to justify the GMA required public process had been conducted, there would be no reason to return it to the Planning Board. He reiterated that determination could not be made yet because the Council was not at that point in the process. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her opinion the plan would be significantly different because there was discussion of incentive zoning and incentivizing things such as bulk, height, parking. Once the Council process was concluded, she anticipated the plan would need to return to the Planning Board review process. Mr. Taraday commented Councilmember Buckshnis may have a better sense than he does regarding what the City Council approved plan will look like. If the plan is dramatically different, it would be prudent to send it back to the Planning Board for further public participation and public hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, THAT WE FORMALLY END THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS. Council President Petso restated her rationale; if a new process is begun, it is guaranteed to be a full process including Planning Board review and public hearing and City Council review and public hearing and is more likely to be a clean process where a proposal is made and the citizens understand how the City Council is working through the process. Councilmember Yamamoto was uncertain what starting over would entail. He recognized starting over would be a lot of work, repeating a lot of information that was already gathered, holding numerous public hearings that have already been held, and ignoring the work done by Port, the Planning Board and staff. He did not see the advantage of starting the process over as the Council has received more than enough information. He agreed the plan needs to be tweaked and add to the current process. He preferred to continue the current process and make the necessary changes. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the motion was to cancel the current process and start a new process. Council President Petso clarified the motion was to end the current Comprehensive Plan amendment process. If the motion was successful, her intent was to then initiate a new process. Councilmember Peterson stated he will vote against the motion. The implication that the process has been unclean is insulting to the Port, another elected body, insulting to the Planning Board who put an incredible number of hours into the plan, and insulting to the process. This process has been open and clean. He acknowledged it may be a confusing process but that is government. Because the process is confusing, it takes time. He expressed concern with the proposal to end the process that has been underway for years and to present a new City Council process that will be clean and easy to understand, pointing out it will be the same process. If the Council decides to reject the plan at the completion of the process, so be it. He reiterated it was insulting to everyone who has worked so many hours to reject the plan based on assertions the process had been unclean or muddy. Councilmember Buckshnis said she will vote against the motion. She echoed Councilmember Peterson's comments, pointing out some citizens like to make noise. She provided the example that the code allows Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 271 of 554 building heights of 25 + 5 feet, yet a member of the public has stated the height limit was increased. The City has done a good job moving this process forward. She urged the public to review Exhibit 2, noting there were items she agreed with and some she did not. She viewed the changes as significant and envisioned it would go through the Planning Board process. Councilmember Bloom noted she was baffled by Councilmembers Yamamoto and Peterson's comments; ending this process does not mean the information gathered has to be thrown out or the input from citizens ignored. All the information can be used to start a new process that focuses on what can be agreed on versus this process which has focused on what is disagreed on. She supported the motion, envisioning the Council could better move forward after saying no to the Port's process. She pointed out in addition the Port has withdrawn their proposal. The Council is no longer working off the Port's proposal as the Council previously voted 4-3 to work off staff's proposal, essentially denying the Port's proposal. Councilmember Bloom explained by working off staff's draft, the Council was formalizing their previous action and acknowledging the Port's withdrawal of their application. She disagreed it was disrespectful, finding this the most respectful way to proceed, by acknowledging the Port's withdrawal of their proposal, formally denying the Port's proposal and starting with what can be agreed on. Council President Petso assured she did not intend to insult anyone by saying the process would be cleaner if it started over. There has been confusion with the process; the Council recently received a letter signed by nine citizens stating they do not understand where the Council stands legally in the process. She relayed the Council can start its own Comprehensive Plan amendment by motion. That process would be distinct from this process, would have citizen input at the outset and guarantee a full public process. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested a simpler process was possible; the Council did not have to formally deny the Port's plan because the Port has withdrawn their plan. Mr. Taraday explained the Council had the option via President Petso's motion to acknowledge the Port's withdrawal of their application and terminate the process in light of that withdrawal. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there was no longer a Port plan to work from as the Port has withdrawn their plan. The Port does not have to accept what the Council does, it is their property. She viewed including the Port in the development of a Council plan as a first step. She concluded it would be simpler to move ahead. Councilmember Johnson agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas's comments. She was willing to move ahead to discuss the substance of the plan, setting aside some of the process issues at this time. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the subarea plan for Westgate, asking whether the City Council was the ultimate decision -maker for a subarea plan. Mr. Taraday agreed the Council was. Councilmember Buckshnis supported proceeding with Exhibit 2. Mr. Taraday responded it is up to the Council's discretion to adopt subarea plans and any other Comprehensive Plan amendments. It would be prudent at some point to ensure any subarea plan the Council is considering adopting will ultimately be feasible for development; otherwise the Council is wasting its time. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING YES. Council President Petso observed the Council was now back to considering the matrix in Exhibit 3. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the Council have a facilitated discussion at a work session on commonalities. Council President Petso suggested scheduling discussion at the Council's June 17 mini - retreat. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred a longer discussion that did not have time constraints. She preferred to devote an entire Council meeting to this topic. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Council had started reviewing Exhibit 3, a matrix with Council comments and suggestions communicated to staff and how those were addressed in the revised Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 272 of 554 Harbor Square subarea plan. The minutes indicate there were decisions made on some items. Exhibit 3 incorporates incentive zoning, retains the base height and allows additional height for a parking structure. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out everything changed with the withdrawal of the Port's plan; there is no starting point for a matrix. She recommended the Council discuss commonalities and differences. She feared reviewing Exhibit 3 would result in the Council spinning its wheels. Council President Petso suggested an additional option would be for three Councilmembers with widely differing viewpoints to meet with representatives from the Port and staff. She asked whether the Council would be interested in hearing the recommendations of such a group. Councilmember Buckshnis read the comments she offered to staff and suggested Councilmembers reread the information in the packet: • Special district for incentive zoning — brewery, distillery, brew pub zone. Create distinct energy area using waste heat from the treatment plant • Campus for tech firms or other businesses • Tourist destinations • Year-round farmers market Councilmember Yamamoto suggested the Harbor Square subarea plan developed by staff dated March 19, 2013 was a good starting point. Councilmember Peterson agreed with Council President Petso's suggestion, noting regardless of the Port's withdrawal of their plan, the Port owns the property and should be at the table. He offered to participate and suggested inviting the Port to participate. Councilmember Johnson supported involving the Port, finding it a good compromise and a place to start. Council President Petso volunteered to participate; she suggested involving 1-2 Planning Board Members. Councilmember Peterson reminded parallel to this item is the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Discussions regarding the Master Plan will require discussion regarding the SMP. Councilmember Johnson agreed the SMP is supposed to be coordinated with the Comprehensive Plan and the Harbor Square Master Plan is integral to both. She agreed with the suggestion to involve the Planning Board, noting the Council never reviewed the Planning Board's recommendations, which was one of the Port's criticisms when they withdrew their amendment. Mayor Earling asked to provide comment. There were no objections. Mayor Earling echoed the concern that the Council never reviewed the Planning Board's recommendations. He was glad to hear that the recommendations would be considered in the revised process. He stressed the importance of inviting the Port to participate, noting some pretty offensive things occurred during the process and the Port was justifiably smarting from some of the comments that were made. He also cautioned the Council about the Planning Department's workload. Beyond their normal workload, they are in the middle of rewriting the code, will receive Strategic Plan assignments, the permit process has dramatically increased in recent months, and the department is down one planner. 9B. PARK LEVY EXPLORATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION (formerly Agenda Item 15) Parks and Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained in March 2012 the Council requested the formation of a Metropolitan Parks District (MPD) Exploratory Committee. Forty people were recruited to be on the committee; the first few meetings were well attended with robust discussion regarding an MPD. In July Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 273 of 554 2012, the committee recommended continued exploration of park revenue options via an MPD or a Park Levy but not to put it on a 2012 ballot. The Council agreed and directed the committee to continue its work. At the Council retreat, Councilmember Yamamoto and she presented information and the Council directed the committee to continue their exploration. Three committee meetings were held following the Council retreat. She referred to a list of all attendees at MPD Exploratory Committee meetings included in the Council packet, clarifying not everyone attended all meetings. The Council packet also includes material that informed the committee's decision. Phil Lovell, MPD Exploratory Committee Member, explained this report is being presented by a committee of volunteers hosted by Ms. Hite and Councilmembers Yamamoto and Buckshnis. The committee was formed in 2012 at the request of Council to study the feasibility of establishing a MPD for Edmonds. Last year's work did not reach a concluding recommendation and further study was undertaken this spring at Council's request during their 2013 retreat. He advised the presentation would not include all backup information; it is available to the public and key elements of the work product have been included in the Council's packet for reference. He thanked the Council, committee members and staff for their assistance in researching and supporting the committee's efforts. By way of background and to highlight the importance of this matter, Mr. Lovell referred to the April 2, 2013 Council approved Edmonds Strategic Action Plan, available on the City's website. The plan is organized around five major objective categories, the third, "Maintain and Enhance Edmonds Community Character and Quality of Life." Seven of the fifteen action plans associated with this objective are directly related to the facilities or programs led by the Parks & Recreation Department and rated as high or very high priority in the plan. The specific actions proposed cover everything from maintaining physical facilities to enhancing programs and activities for all ages. Based on the Strategic Action Plan, Parks & Recreation infrastructure can be considered the highest priority beyond public safety and quality of governance. Unfortunately the physical and management components of the park infrastructure have suffered necessary budget cutbacks. The committee recommends the Council take action now to remedy this situation and prevent further erosion of Edmonds Parks & Recreation programming. In partnership with such Council action, the committee is committed to continuing its feasibility study for a potential MPD in Edmonds as enabled by RCW 35.41. However at this time, in order to initiate high priority action toward addressing this major quality of life objective within the Strategic Plan, the committee unanimously agreed to recommend a 3- year Levy Lid Lift in the amount of $2 million per year on behalf of Parks & Recreation in Edmonds. A draft resolution is proposed for Council approval that would initiate further action necessary to place a Parks Levy measure on the November 2013 ballot. If passed by the voters, the ballot measure would ensure restoration of eroded parks funds plus establish a 3-year accrual of capital funds for long deferred physical needs within the system. Bruce Witenberg, MPD Exploratory Committee Member, explained the committee discussed the critical importance of a unified commitment from Council for a Parks Levy in order to rally citizen support for its passage. The committee also reviewed the "disaster" of multiple levies on the 2011 ballot, none of which received more than 42% voter approval. The committee discussed the importance of the Council's unanimously adopted Strategic Action Plan as it relates to parks as a high priority item to citizens and how to incorporate another high citizen priority in the plan into the parks levy, the long neglected street overlay program. A high priority action item in the Strategic Action Plan was to create a financing mechanism to generate approximately $1.4 million/year for annual street maintenance. In discussing these issues with the City Attorney, the committee understood him to say one ballot measure could contain funding for both parks and streets. Nonetheless the committee determined, based on past experience, voters were more likely to approve a single issue levy. Given these economic times, a levy Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 274 of 554 asking for $1 million for streets and $2 million for parks was viewed as too expensive to garner voter support. In addition, the ballot title is limited to 25 words which would not be enough to sufficiently explain a dual subject levy. Mr. Witenberg explained a $2 million parks levy would cost a homeowner whose home was assessed at $350,000 approximately $10/month and $12/month for a home assessed at $400,000. The committee discussed a creative method of funding both parks and street overlays. The Parks Levy, if passed, would free up $750,000 in REET 2 funds which the committee felt could be reallocated by Council to street overlays. Currently only the amount in excess of $750,000 is allocated to street overlays. There has not been any substantial excess for street overlays in the last several years. Up to $150,000 in General Fund savings resulting from the passage of the parks levy could also be used for street overlays. The specific strategy and program for street overlays would need to be developed by the Public Works and Finance Departments but should not prevent the Council from approving the committee's recommended resolution. Some of the General Fund savings would undoubtedly have to be allocated for General Fund deficit based on current budget projections for the three years. The Parks Levy is designed to: • Restore $245,000 in cuts to the Parks budget in 2012 and 2013. • Retain $750,000 for capital improvements • Leverage funds for use in grant matching • Retain $150,000 for the flower program • Retain $85,000 for Yost Pool operations • Retain $62,000 for the Beach Ranger Program • Retain $35,000 for seasonal labor • Retain $218,000 for maintenance and operations • Provide $120,000 for Yost Pool capital improvements • Provide $35,000 for the cemetery • Provide $300,000 for deferred maintenance o Restroom improvements o Play structure upgrades o Pathways/trail upgrades o Citywide turf upgrades and drainage o Tree maintenance/pruning o Tennis and basketball courts upgrades o Park entrance signs Mr. Witenberg explained most of these non -essential programs and services would likely have to be cut in the next three years if there was not a levy or the levy failed. It is critical for the Council to pass the proposed resolution now. There are less than six months to educate voters prior to the November 5 vote and only 21/2 months before the measure is filed for placement on the ballot. Next steps include the City Attorney preparing and presenting ballot language to Council for approval and the formation of pro and con committees to prepare and submit statements for the voters' pamphlets. To increase the chances of success, funding support will likely need to be obtained by a campaign organization. Passing the committee's resolution as written, the Council will not only demonstrate its further commitment to the unanimously adopted Strategic Action Plan as well as to two very high citizen priorities in the Plan, parks and street overlays. The committee is reasonably confident by the end of the three year levy, enough will be known about the economy and its influence on the City's financial strategies required for long term sustainability for Parks & Recreation programs and street overlay programs. He urged the Council to support the resolution. Mayor Earling expressed his appreciation to the committee for the work they have done. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 275 of 554 Councilmember Buckshnis also thanked the committee for their work. She clarified Mr. Hertrich's comment regarding BEET; it is a 1 year projection, not a 5-year projection. The projection simply adds the budget divided by 12. Council President Petso asked whether the proposed resolution was binding on City Council in any way. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered not in any legal way. Council President Petso asked if a levy could be placed on the ballot later without passing the resolution tonight. Ms. Hite advised to place a measure on the November ballot, it needs to be filed by August 6. Councilmember Buckshnis asked staff to explain when the funds from the levy would be received if it was passed in November. Ms. Hite explained if the levy passes in November 2013, the City would begin collecting in 2014. Preliminary budget projections indicate the 2014 budget deficit is $230,000, $878,000 in 2015 and $1.583 million in 2016. Councilmember Bloom referred to the committee vote on April 8, 2013, noting there were 10 committee members present but only 6 voted. Ms. Hite explained a few members left early and School District representatives who were present as levy experts abstained from the vote. Councilmember Bloom noted the vote on the original motion was 5-0 with one abstention. The vote on the amendment for the November ballot was 3-1 with two abstentions. Ms. Hite recalled members who voted against the park levy during the last three meetings did so because they preferred to pursue a MPD. Councilmember Yamamoto agreed. Mr. Lovell explained after spirited discussion, the committee agreed to consider pros and cons of a MPD and a Parks Levy Lid Lift. Attendance at meetings varied and at the conclusion of the comparative process, the quorum present voted on whether to proceed with a MPD or a levy. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the Edmonds School District representatives indicated the amount of time necessary to educate the public. Ms. Hite answered their indication was 6-8 months to educate the public. The School District has a group of parents who call voters and the School District typically utilizes the special election so the levy is a single issue on the ballot. Councilmember Peterson recalled the Council retreat included discussion regarding the timing of the ballot measure and the Council concluded the November 2013 ballot was preferable so that the funds could be collected in 2014. The timing for the primary election would have required the ballot to be filed two weeks ago. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Ms. Hite explained at the April 8 meeting, two committee members voted no on a Park Levy specifically because they wanted to pursue a MPD. In the end, they agreed to pursue a Park Levy, reflected in the 5-0 vote. Councilmember Peterson commented this has been a very well put together process and the committee did an incredible amount of work. He liked the end result and appreciated the straightforward and honest structure that would free up funds for street overlays, a huge deficit in the community. He acknowledged the resolution was not legally binding but felt it was binding politically. He recognized parks and street overlays were two of the most critical issues in the community, ensuring parks do not reach the level streets are at now. He also appreciated the funds the levy would provide for Yost Pool. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1290, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REGARDING SUBMISSION OF A PARK LEVY BALLOT PROPOSITION FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 2013. Mayor Earling explained the resolution provides an indication of intent; another ordinance would be required for Council to take action to file the ballot measure. Mr. Taraday agreed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 276 of 554 Councilmember Yamamoto thanked the committee members and Ms. Hite for their hard work. He noted there was a good amount of information present in order to make a decision. Councilmember Peterson commented the intent of starting with a resolution was to determine whether the Council wanted to move forward and provide an opportunity for citizen input prior to the Council considering an ordinance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she had no problem supporting the resolution but preferred there be some clarity regarding the road overlays and the amount that would be allocated to overlays to ensure citizens were clear how the funds would be spent. Councilmember Bloom said she would vote against the motion. It was important to her that the permitting process and code be addressed and she did not feel in good conscience she could support a levy when the 2013 budget did not include dedicated funds for a Development Services Director to guide that process. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 10. ALTERNATIVE CHART FORMAT FOR MONTHLY REPORT This item was to be rescheduled via action taken under Agenda Item 3. 11. 2013 MAY BUDGET AMENDMENT Interim Finance Director Ron Cone reviewed the 2013 May budget amendment: • Reallocate funds from the Finance Director's salary to professional services to cover the costs of an Interim Finance Director • Reallocate funds from the Finance Director's salary to overtime to cover costs associated with additional staff time needed as the City searches for a new Finance Director • Transfer of funds to reinstate .5 FTE Parks Senior Office Specialist position (previously approved by Council) • Professional services covered by grants • Miscellaneous Street/Storm Public Works COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3920, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3913 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Accountant Deb Sharp for her efforts. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. DIRECTION TO PLANNING BOARD AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGARDING COUNCIL PRIORITIES ON WESTGATE AND FIVE CORNERS This item was rescheduled via action taken under Agenda Item 3. 13. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AND POTENTIAL AMENDMENT WITH TETRA TECH TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR THE PERRINVILLE CREEK STORMWATER FLOW REDUCTION RETROFIT STUDY. Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster explained this project is in the 2013 budget. He referred to Agenda Item 14, a grant the City recently received to expand the scope of this project. He displayed a map, identifying Perrinville Creek and Perrinville Basin, noting all the rainfall in the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 277 of 554 Perrinville Basin goes into Perrinville Creek. Approximately half the drainage basin is in the City of Lynnwood. Most of the open channel is in Edmonds and most of the problems are in Edmonds. Mr. Shuster displayed an aerial map, identifying the mouth of Perrinville Creek and the culvert under Talbot Road. He explained there was a project in the 2012 CIP to replace the culvert. He displayed a photograph of the existing hanging culvert which is a fish passage barrier. He reviewed a drawing of the existing 30-inch diameter culvert and the recommended 16-foot wide, 7-foot high culvert for fish passage according to Department of Fish and Wildlife guidelines. That culvert will increase the amount of water flowing through the culvert because the smaller culvert acts as a dam. The problem with Perrinville Creek is there is too much stormwater. In order to replace the culvert with a fish passable culvert, flows must be reduced. If flows are not reduced and the culvert is replaced with a wider culvert, the remaining fish habitat will be destroyed as well as potentially flood five homes. Ms. Shuster reviewed the goals of the project: • Reduce peak flows and durations by reducing and controlling stormwater runoff, including the use of Low Impact Development Techniques. • The flow reduction will provide multiple hydrologic and biological benefits to both the Creek and Brown's Bay in the Sound such as: o Allow for the replacement of an anadromous fish barrier culvert o Reduce erosion and sedimentation that is impacting aquatic habitat and City infrastructure o Reduce the amount of pollutants in the aquatic environment. o Support base flows in Perrinville Creek He reviewed the scope of work: 1. Define the Current Watershed Hydrology 2. Define the Target Conditions in Perrinville Creek 3. Identify Flow Reduction Opportunities 4. Evaluate Candidate Flow Reduction Performance 5. Public Information and Engagement 6. Recommended Flow Reduction Plan 7. Project Management, Coordination and Reporting 8. Geologic/Geotechnical Characterization 9. Expanded Stream Flow Monitoring 10. Pre -Design and Report 11. Additional Project Management Mr. Shuster explained the first seven items are funded by the current City budget. Items 8 — 11 are funded by the grant. He described the grant: • Competitive grant from Department of Ecology's National Estuary Program, Watershed Protection & Restoration Program. • Goal: Conduct watershed -based stormwater retrofit planning and pre -design in target watersheds in the Puget Sound Basin. • Moves the project beyond the analysis stage into the predesign phase, thereby accelerating retrofit of the watershed. • $188,772 - No required match but leveraging of funds is encouraged He identified $200,000 in the 2013 budget for this project plus the $188,772 grant for a total of $388,772. He referred to a letter of support submitted with the grant from Lynnwood's City Engineer stating Lynnwood will work with Edmonds on the project. Councilmember Buckshnis advised she provided Mr. Shuster a baseline of 50 creeks WRIA 8 is studying; Perrinville Creek is one of them. Perrinville Creek does well in regard to wooded areas but not as well with regard to fish and insects. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 278 of 554 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AND POTENTIAL AMENDMENT WITH TETRA TECH TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR THE PERRINVILLE CREEK STORMWATER FLOW REDUCTION RETROFIT STUDY. Councilmember Bloom asked if there was an agreement with Lynnwood to partner on this project. Mr. Shuster responded it was not an agreement; Lynnwood submitted a letter of support with the grant. Once the project begins, City staff will discuss issues with Lynnwood. Councilmember Bloom asked if Lynnwood was allocating any funds to study Perrinville Creek or seeking any grants. Mr. Shuster answered Lynnwood did not have any funds allocated in their 2013 budget; he has been discussing an allocation in their 2014 budget. Councilmember Bloom asked if the LID techniques would be utilized in only areas that have public access. Mr. Shuster advised all options are being considered. Rich Schaefer, Project Manager, Tetra Tech, advised different techniques and best management practices will be considered regardless of their location. The areas where solutions that can be implemented most quickly are those where the City has control of the land such as rights -of -way. These could range from rain gardens on individual properties to something more significant such as intercepting a trunk line storm flow and infiltrating or significantly detaining it. Lynnwood is a partner because much of this will happen on their side of the watershed. Councilmember Bloom asked if the grant is for the studies and to make recommendations but not implementation. Mr. Schaefer answered the City had planned to fund the study itself; with the grant the rigor of the study can be enhanced via more soil exploration to better calibrate estimates of the amount of water that can be removed from the system as well as fund preliminary design of priority projects. Mr. Shuster explained DOE is providing these grants because the Legislature has asked DOE to provide a list of LID projects to fund. Pre -design studies need to be completed by October 2014. These studies will position the City for funding. Councilmember Johnson commented this is a tremendous step forward compared to the project a few years ago, a large pipe going into Browns Bay. This is a more natural approach and is the way the State Legislature wants these problems addressed. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 14. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR $188,772 TO CONDUCT PRE -DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE PERRINVILLE CREEK STORMWATER FLOW REDUCTION RETROFIT STUDY. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR $188,772 TO CONDUCT PRE -DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE PERRINVILLE CREEK STORMWATER FLOW REDUCTION RETROFIT STUDY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 16. INTERIM ORDINANCE TO ALLOW PUBLIC MARKETS IN THE BUSINESS COMMERCIAL (BC), BUSINESS DOWNTOWN (BD) AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) ZONES - PROPOSED CHANGES TO TITLES 16 AND 21 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC). ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 4.90 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE (ECC) — LICENSING. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained there are two ordinances for Council review and potential action. The first is an interim ordinance amending Titles 16 and 21 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) to allow public markets in the Business Commercial (BC), Business Downtown (BD) and General Commercial (CG) Zones. The second Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 279 of 554 ordinance would amend Title 4.90 of the Edmonds City Code (ECC) related to licensing. The interim ordinance, if approved, would be effective for six months; a public hearing must be held on the ordinance within the six month timeframe. The interim ordinance is scheduled for Planning Board review in May and June and likely before the Council in June. The ordinance related to ECC 4.90 can be approved tonight and does not require a public hearing. The City Council's Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee recommended approval of both ordinances at their May 14, 2013 meeting. Mr. Clifton explained the agenda memo contains background information regarding how this issue came to the City Council in September 2012, what City staff's review of ECDC Titles 16 and 21 and ECC 4.90 revealed, goals of the proposed amendments, how the goals would be met if the amendments are approved by Council and how the proposed amendments relate to the recently approved Strategic Action Plan. He invited Council feedback on the narrative for use in preparing future agenda memos. Mr. Clifton explained in the summer of 2012, Edmonds Historical Museum representatives contacted City staff about a seasonal produce and food market in September 2012. The site they were considering at the time was the Salish Crossing property located at the intersection of SR 104 and Dayton Street. Staff determined that would be allowed but the use could not operate beyond the month of September. On September 18, 2012, the City Council passed an interim ordinance that would have allowed community oriented open-air and/or farmers' markets to operate within BD and BC zones throughout the year. Unfortunately, market sponsors were not able to move forward with this proposal and the interim ordinance has since expired. The Edmonds Historical Museum is now able to move forward with this proposal and would like to begin operations on June 12, 2013 on the Salish Crossing property. Although the initial request was simple, upon the review of existing regulations applicable to such a proposal, City staff found numerous issues in the existing code related to the proposal as well as the current market operation and plans for the future. Specifically, the current regulations would preclude the proposed produce and farmers market from operating Wednesday evenings any month of the year and existing regulations conflict with the current operation of the Edmonds Historical Museum Garden and Summer Market that take place each Saturday. The code allows a community oriented open-air market to operate only during the months of July, August and September of each year, the Garden and Summer Market operates from early May through early October. Existing regulations prohibit any other open air market to exist other than what exists today. Currently regulations preclude the ability to establish a year- round farmers market and many within the community, including the Council, have expressed a desire to create a year-round farmers market. Although Community Oriented Open -Air Markets are allowed within the BD and BC zones, it is not defined in Title 21. Instead, the definition is contained in ECC Section 4.90. Although it defines a Community Oriented Open -Air Markets, it states activities must take place on Saturday and/or Sunday and can only take place during the months of July, August and September. It also precludes the ability for any other Community Oriented Open -Air Market to exist. The code states Chapter 4.90 was established by the City Council to study the effects of Open -Air Markets, which occurred in 1994, and references a 1994 working test. A Farmers Market is not defined in the code. A Seasonal Farmers Market is defined in Title 21 but it states it can only operate during the months of May, June, July, August and September, limiting the timeframe to five months. The goals of amending ECDC Titles 16 and 21 in addition to ECC Chapter 4.90 are to: 1. Create one definition that would be located in ECDC Title 21 - Definitions and could apply to community open-air markets, farmers' markets, seasonal farmers' markets, or public markets; the term Public Market is the preferred term included within the proposed attached draft 2. Allow public markets to operate as open-air activities, within buildings, or both 3. Allow public markets to operate in public rights of way, private property, and public property not located within public rights of way Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 16 Packet Page 280 of 554 4. Establish operational hours to minimize disruption to traffic, residential properties, etc. 5. Allow public markets to operate for longer periods of time, e.g., four months, 8 months, or year- round 6. Remove provisions of ECC Chapter 4.90, Section 4.90.060, that are more land use oriented and move them to ECDC Sections 16.43 and 16.50 He described amendments to the code to meet the above goals: • Goals 1 and 2: The term Community Oriented Open -Air Market has been deleted from ECC Section 4.90.010 - Definitions. A new Section 21.80.103, entitled "Public Market," would be added to the Edmonds Community Development Code. The term Public Market would allow a stand-alone produce only farmers market, or a farmers market with produce, meats, cheeses, flowers and products produced from these (food), or the kind of spring and summer market that is currently operated by the Edmonds Historical Museum, i.e., produce, flowers, meats, bread, bakery items, arts and crafts, etc. The term also allows the use to take place indoors or outdoors. • Goals 3 and 4: To minimize disruption to roadways, activities of the market shall be limited to daylight hours on Saturday and Sunday of each week within public rights of way. If the market takes place on private or public property not within public rights -of -way, hours can be extended up to 10 p.m. for any day of the week. • Goal 5: Amendments to ECDC Titles 16 and 21, and ECC Chapter 4.90, do not place restrictions on what months a public market can operate, thus allowing a market to operate year-round. • Goal 6: ECC Section 4.90.060 has been deleted and relocated to ECDC Title 16. This language relates more to land use which is why it has been moved to Sections 16.43.040 and 16.50.030 - Operating restrictions. Mr. Clifton noted the existing ECDC Section 16.60.010 - General Commercial (CG) zoning allows "All permitted or conditional uses in any other zone in this title, except as specifically prohibited by subsection (C) of this section or limited by subsection (D) of this section", thus, a public market would be allowed in this zone as well, just as community oriented open-air and seasonal farmers' markets are today. A workshop is scheduled with the Planning Board at their May 22 meeting, a public hearing will be held in June, and the Planning Board's recommendation forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Clifton referred to how the proposed changes to ECDC Titles relate to the Strategic Action Plan. He planned wherever possible to mention how changes relate to the Strategic Action Plan to illustrate how the Plan is being implemented. The proposed ordinance relates to the following plan actions: • Plan Action 2a.2 (33) Farmers'/Public Market. "Expand into a year-round activity with available all-weather structures, available parking, and increased visibility to attract out -of -area customers and tourists." The proposed amendment would implement that plan action. • Plan Action lb.5 (21) Antique Mall aka Salish Crossing. "Encourage packaging the Safeway/Antique Mall aka Salish Crossing and nearby properties for the purpose of enhancing redevelopment opportunities of this significant gateway site." The Wednesday evening market is proposed for the Salish Crossing property. Mr. Clifton summarized the proposed ordinances, if approved, would allow for a year round public market that could take place indoors, outdoors and/or both. Additionally, approval would also allow a Wednesday evening produce and food farmers' market to take place on the Salish Crossing property. Councilmember Bloom expressed her appreciation for Mr. Clifton's references to the Strategic Action Plan. She referred to 4.90.020.0 that states the activities of the public market shall be limited to daylight hours on Saturday and Sunday of each week within public rights of way and asked what was meant by Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 17 Packet Page 281 of 554 daylight hours. Mr. Clifton responded sunrise to sunset; the purpose was to minimize disruption within the public right-of-way, but could be extended. Council President Petso expressed appreciation for Mr. Clifton's agenda memo format. She asked if markets would be allowed in BC zones adjacent to single family zones. Mr. Clifton stated they would be allowed in any BD zone. The market hours were limited to 10 p.m. to limit disruption to neighbors. He noted it was unlikely a market would occur anywhere other than where it currently exists plus the Wednesday market. Council President Petso noted there were several BC zones immediately adjacent to single family residential. She suggested an amendment that markets would only be allowed in BC zones that were not adjacent to single family residential. Mr. Clifton noted there was one area where BD2 exists near residential. Council President Petso clarified her concern was BC zones along Highway 99 and other areas that were adjacent to single family residential. Mr. Clifton advised Council President Petso may be referring to the CG zone, BC zoning was limited to Salish Crossing, the WSDOT lot and the Vatika lot. Council President Petso asked whether a farmers market started in a BC zone could vest. Mr. Taraday answered the proposed amendment contemplates an annual license; the market would need to apply annually unless it specified the market was permanent. Council President Petso asked whether a farmers market in a BC zone such as behind the Safeway on Highway 99 that identified itself as permanent could not be discontinued. Mr. Taraday asked for an opportunity to research. Councilmember Bloom referred to language in the first ordinance, when a location is utilized for a business use in addition to a public market, the public market use shall not decrease the required available parking for the other business use below the standards established by Chapter 17.50. She assumed there was plenty of parking on the Salish Crossing property. Mr. Clifton explained prior to permitting, the owner must demonstrate they have enough parking for the current use and the proposed Wednesday evening market. Councilmember Bloom asked the cost for permitting. Mr. Clifton answered it was currently $50. The revisions to Title 4.90 increase the cost to $100. Councilmember Buckshnis complimented Mr. Clifton on the narrative in the agenda memo. She referred to Council President Petso's concern with BC zones. Mr. Clifton advised there are two small areas near 224'h and near 78 h & 2251h. Council President Petso noted there is also an area near Westgate. In response to Council President Petso's earlier question, Mr. Taraday referred to language in the ordinance, unless a public market is identified on a business license as a year-round market within the City of Edmonds, a premise license as a public market shall be considered a temporary use. That language would allow someone to apply on a business license as a year -year market and it would not be a temporary use. He concluded it would theoretically be possible for a market to vest on something other than a temporary basis. If that was not the Council's intent, he suggested making an amendment. Mr. Taraday noted language in an earlier draft may have been inadvertently deleted from this draft; Section 10 should have another sentence that reads, "This ordinance shall only be effective for six months from the effective date." Mr. Clifton relayed Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave's indication that BC zones have a 15-foot setback from residential property. If the Council wished, public markets or open air markets could be prohibited when adjacent to single family. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 18 Packet Page 282 of 554 If the intent was to allow the Wednesday evening market to proceed, Council President Petso asked if all markets could be temporary and the loose ends tied up as part of the Planning Board's review. Mr. Taraday replied yes, but it would require an amendment to the proposed ordinance. He suggested language such as "no market permitted under this interim ordinance shall have a duration that exceeds six months." Main Motion COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3921, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM AMENDMENTS TO ZONING REGULATIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW PUBLIC MARKETS IN THE BC, BD AND CG ZONES, ESTABLISHING SIX MONTHS AS THE TENTATIVE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Amendment #1 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO SPECIFY THAT NO PUBLIC MARKET PERMITTED UNDER THIS INTERIM ORDINANCE SHALL HAVE A DURATION LONGER THAN SIX MONTHS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Amendment #2 COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD A SENTENCE IN SECTION 10, "THIS ORDINANCE SHALL ONLY BE EFFECTIVE FOR 6 MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Vote on Main Motion as Amended MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3922, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 4.90 RELATED TO LICENSING AND PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC MARKETS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 17. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF MAY 14, 2013. Finance Committee Councilmember Yamamoto reported on the items the Finance Committee discussed: 0 2013 COPS Hiring Grant Solicitation: A 4-year federal grant for a police officer, 75/25 cost share the first 3 years. Edmonds School District is considering paying all or part of the 25%. Committee members supported staff submitting the grant application 0 2013 May Budget Amendment — approved on tonight's agenda 0 2013 Quarterly Financial Report — approved on the Consent Agenda 0 Issuance of 2013 Water, Sewer and Stormwater Utility Bonds — presentation will be made to full Council in the future Alternative Chart Format for Monthly Report — will be scheduled for full Council review in the future Park Levy Exploration Committee Recommendation — discussed on tonight's agenda Public comment from Ron Wambolt and Roger Hertrich Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Councilmember Buckshnis reported on items the Committee discussed: • Park Levy Exploration Committee Recommendation — discussed on tonight's agenda Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 19 Packet Page 283 of 554 • Authorize Mayor to sign a contract with MIG for development of the PROS Plan — approved on Consent Agenda • Authorize Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with A/E services for City Park — approved on Consent Agenda • Interim Ordinance to allow Public Markets in the Business Commercial (BC), Business Downtown (BD) and General Commercial (CG) Zones — Proposed changes to 16 and 21 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Ordinance to amend Chapter 4.90 of the Edmonds City Code (ECC) — Licensing — discussed and approved on tonight's agenda. • Edmonds City Code Chapter 2 Revisions — schedule on future Council agenda • Issuance of 2013 Water, Sewer and Stormwater Utility Bonds — presentation will be made to full Council in the future • Authorization for Mayor to sign a Grant Agreement with the Department of Ecology for $188,772 to conduct pre -design services for the Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study — discussed and approved on tonight's agenda • Authorization to award construction services for the 224th Street SW Sewer Upgrade project to Laser Underground and Earthworks — approved on Consent Agenda • Authorization to approve a storm utility easement for installation of infiltration and storm that will be part of improvements to be done as part of the 238th Storm Drain Project — approved on Consent Agenda • Proposed Ordinance authorizing the acquisition by negotiation or condemnation of real property interests needed for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Project — scheduled for presentation to full Council on June 4, 2013 • Final Contract Acceptance, WWTP A -Basin Upgrade Project — approved on Consent Agenda • Final Contract Acceptance, WWTP Building Roof Replacement — approved on Consent Agenda • Title 19 Building Code Updates — schedule for presentation and public hearing at full Council Personnel and Public Safety Committee Councilmember Bloom reported on items the Committee discussed: • Proposed changes to the Economic Development Commission Ordinance: o Allow up to two City Councilmembers to be appointed by the Council President as liaisons — committee recommended approval o 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 — withdrawn due to lack of committee consensus • 2012 Fire Code Update — scheduled for public hearing on June 4 • Annual renewal of Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force Interlocal Agreement (2013- 2014) — approval on future Consent Agenda • Interlocal Agreement — North Sound Metro SWAT — approval on future Consent Agenda • 2013 COPS Hiring Program Grant Solicitation — committee consensus to proceed with submitting the grant application Councilmember Peterson added the Personnel and Public Safety Committee also discussed and recommended approval of advertising vacancies on the Economic Development Commission. 18. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported on a situation involving dogs on a property near 76th. The police have been pursuing the issue for some time and finally accumulated enough evidence to obtain a search warrant. The search found 20+ animals inside the house. Two residents of the home were arrested. A court date has been scheduled and the City plans to pursue the matter to the full extent of the law. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 20 Packet Page 284 of 554 Mayor Earling reported the Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) was a participant on the Seattle Foundation's May 15 GiveBIG campaign and raised $164,000, the 4tn highest in the State. With matching grants, that amount totaled $180,000. He commended the Seattle Foundation, ECA and citizens for their accomplishment raising that amount. 19. COUNCIL COMMENTS In response to Councilmember Bloom's earlier question, Councilmember Buckshnis explained Lynnwood is not a participant in WRIA 8. Lake Forest Park Councilmember Fiene and she plan to encourage Lynnwood, Brier and Woodway to participate in WRIA 8. She noted Perrinville Creek has great wooded areas but the water flows negatively impact fish and insects. Councilmember Buckshnis reported she will be out of town next week. She encouraged the public to watch the presentation by Keely O'Connell and Jerry Shuster at next week's Council meeting regarding the Willow Creek Daylighting Feasibility Study. A walkabout of the Edmonds Marsh with WRIA 8 will take place on May 22. Councilmember Buckshnis invited the public to help at the annual Hutt Park clean-up from 9:00 a.m. to noon on Saturday, May 25. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported on the May 18 SeaWolves game. She encouraged the public to visit www.SeaWolves.come for information regarding upcoming games. She congratulated Jim Underhill and the SeaWolves management for proceeding with this sports tourism. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported on the Health Food Fair at the Lynnwood Convention Center where PCC and organic farms provide information on healthy eating, cooking and growing. She encouraged the public to attend this free event next year. Council President Petso reported a mini Council retreat will be held on June 17, from 8:30 a.m. to noon. She invited Councilmembers to submit agenda items. The agenda will include public records retention training by the City Clerk Sandy Chase, City Attorney and other experts. Councilmember Johnson reported she and Mayor Earling attended the Edmonds Museum Guild Tea today that honors their volunteers. Councilmember Peterson referred to the comments made under Audience Comments about food vendors at the Edmonds Arts Festival. The Council's passage of the street vendor ordinance late last year had unintended consequences; he did not believe it was the Council's intent to charge food vendors at festivals the $235 fee to participate. He proposed language for Section 4.12.030.E, Exemptions: Annual events that are under contract with the City such as the Arts Festival, Summer Market, 4tn of July Parade and Fireworks, Taste of Edmonds, Classic Car Show and Edmonds Waterfront Festival. He suggested Mr. Taraday prepare the amendment for Council consideration at next week's meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether vendors at City events are currently charged a fee. City Clerk Sandy Chase answered there was specific language in the 4tn of July contract that related to vendors obtaining a license. The amendment made to the code regarding street vendors requires vendors at all events obtain a license. Mr. Taraday advised the street vendor definition only applies to vendors with wheels. Mayor Earling advised many do have wheels. Mr. Taraday was directed to prepare an ordinance and revise the language as necessary in consultation with Councilmember Peterson. Councilmember Peterson reported he attended the Police Ceremony sponsored by the Edmonds Police Foundation, VFW and Rotary. The event included commendations for citizens who pulled a baby from a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 21 Packet Page 285 of 554 burning car and Officer Kenneth Crystal, a great officer and humanitarian, was awarded Officer of the Year. He encouraged the public to attend the event next year. He plans to work with the Police Foundation to better advertise the event. Councilmember Bloom reported she attended the Floretum Garden Club's final meeting of the year. She also expressed her excitement about the Council's passage of the ordinance related to a year-round market. She looked forward to the June 12 opening of the evening market at Salish Crossing from 3:00 to 7:00 p.m. 20. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). At 10:07 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding pending litigation per RCW 42.30.110(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. Action may occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 10:23 p.m. 21. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 10:25 p.m. No action was taken as a result of meeting in executive session. 22. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:26 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 21, 2013 Page 22 Packet Page 286 of 554 AM-5973 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/23/2013 Time: 20 Minutes Submitted For: Stephen Clifton Department: Committee: Community Services Submitted By: Tyne: Stephen Clifton Action Information Subject Title Potential Action: Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Interim Members Advisory Board's Proposed Bylaws. Recommendation The Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Interim Members Advisory Board is requesting the City Council approve Attachment 1 Bylaws as amended. The Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Interim Members Advisory Board is asking the City Council not approve Attachment 2 Bylaws which includes proposed amendments contained in Attachment 1 Bylaws and additional proposed amendments to Section 5. La. 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 hnprovement District. June 11, 2013 - The City Council Finance Committee recommended that this item be placed on the City Council agenda as a 30 minute item. During the June 25, 2013 City Council meeting, members of the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID) Interim Members Advisory Board will present information on proposed EDBID work program and budget for year 2013 in addition to bylaws. A question and answer session may follow. June 25, 2013 — Following a presentation by the EDBID Interim Members Advisory Board and a question and answer period, the City Council approved the EDBID proposed 2013 work plan, but did not approve the proposed bylaws. 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 a work program and budget for year 2013, in addition to EDBID bylaws, to the City Council for review and consideration within 90 days after the City Council confimis the Mayor's appointment of an interim board. As referenced under the Previous Council Action item above, the Interim Members Advisory Board was appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council on March 12, 2013. Since that time, the Interim Members Advisory Board has been meeting to draft bylaws in addition to a work program and budget for year 2013. On June 25, 2013, representatives of the EDBID presented information on the following documents: 1. Proposed EDBID Bylaws 2. Proposed EDBID work program and related budget for year 2013 On June 25, 2013 — Following a presentation by the EDBID Interim Members Advisory Board and a question and answer period, the City Council approved the EDBID proposed 2013 work plan, but did not approve the proposed bylaws. Attachment 1 Bylaws contain minor amendments (highlighted in red text) proposed by Council member Bloom that were provided to the City Council in hard copy form just prior to the June 25, 2013 City Council meeting. During the June 25, 2013 meeting, Council member Bloom proposed an additional amendment to Section 5.1.a of the bylaws. Attachments 2 Bylaws include proposed amendments contained in Attachment 1 (highlighted in red text) and additional proposed amendments to Section 5. La. (highlighted in blue text). The following summarizes the proposed amendments to Section 5. La. Red underlined text reflects Council member Blooms' amendment that were included in a handout provided to the City Council on June 25, 2013. The blue underlined and stricken text reflects the additional proposed amendments Council member Bloom made during the June 25, 2013 City Council meeting. Section 5.1.a - Composition: The EDBID Board shall consist of seven to eleven EDBID members with the goal being eleven members at all times but seven members at a minimum. 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 vercentage of oven door and by appointment businesses in the EDBID district. 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. Following the June 25, 2013 City Council meeting, questions were raised about the effect of the proposed amendment could have on the makeup of the EDBID Board. The information below is my interpretation of how the amendment would literally be applied if approved by the City Council and was e-mailed to the City Council and EDBID Board on July 1, 2013. When the Board was appointed in March, pursuant to Ordinance 3909, the interim appointments were based on rough proportion to the dollar value of assessment to be levied on each classification of business. At the time, total rough proportional representation of businesses operating businesses subject to the BID assessment was 50.6% "open door" and 49.4% "by appointment". Because a slightly larger percentage of the overall amount collected came from "open door" businesses, 6 of the appointments are "open door" and 5 "by appointment"; this generally meets the intent of the ordinance. Based on the above proposed amendment, appointments would be based on the rough proportion to the "percentage of open door and by appointment businesses in the EDBID district". Packet Page 287 of 554 Packet Page 288 of 554 Based on the current number of "open door" and "by appointment" businesses, a literal interpretation of the proposed amendment means that there would be 7.4 "by appointment" and 3.6 "open door" BID board members. What this means is.....although the open door business group pays a higher percentage of the total amount generated annually, "by appointment" business owners would outnumber "open door" business owners on the board by approximately 2:1. There is not likely to be any significant changes in the mix of businesses in the near future, so the split of the overall amount collected annually will likely stay at approximately 50150 "by appointment" vs. "open door", give or take a few percentage points. January 15, 2013 City Council meeting link (Agenda Item #4): http://aizenda.ei.edmonds.wa.us/aeenda Dublish.cfrn?mt=ALL&eet month=l&set year-2013&dsn=aimr&sea=5382&rev=0&ae=767&ln=17937&nsea=&mev=&nsea=5389&nrev=0 March 12, 2013 City Council meeting link (Agenda Item #5): httn://asenda.ci.edmonds.wa.us/aeenda Dublish.cfm?mt=ALL&eet month=3&eet year=2013&dsn=aem&sea=5560&rev=0&ae=795&ln=18662&nsea=&mev=&nsea—&Dreg= June 25, 2013 City Council meeting link (Agenda Item #11): http://asenda.ci.edmonds.wa.us/aeenda Dublish.cfrn?mt=ALL&eet month=6&eet year=2013&dsn=aem&sea=5876&rev=0&ae=831&1n=19806&nsea=5875&nrev=0&nsea=5879&nrev= Attachments Attachment 1 - Proposed EDBID Bylaws with proposed amendments Attachment 2 - Proposed EDBID Bylaws with proposed amendments Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/18/2013 0136 PM Mayor Dave Ealing 07/18/2013 01:45 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 07/18/2013 0148 PM Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 07/18/2013 09:14 AM Final Approval Date: 07/18/2013 Packet Page 289 of 554 Packet Page 290 of 554 BY-LAWS OF THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT MEMBERS ADVISORY BOARD ARTICLE I Section 1.1 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 Section 2.1 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: 1 Packet Page 291 of 554 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 ARTICLE IV ESTABLISHMENT OF EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Section 4.1. 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 a defined EDBID boundary (see Attachment A). 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 Composition: The EDBID Board shall consist of seven to eleven EDBID members with the coal beinc eleven members at all times but seven members at a minimum. 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 2 Packet Page 292 of 554 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 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 3 Packet Page 293 of 554 reward in connection with such contract from any other person beneficially interested therein, except as provided by paragraph (b) below. (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 in addition to posting EDBID meeting minutes on the EDBID website. 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 4 Packet Page 294 of 554 administrator or board contracted agent on all employee, state and federal tax reporting. 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. 5 Packet Page 295 of 554 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. 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. Membershia 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). 11 Packet Page 296 of 554 ARTICLE VI PROGRAM MANAGEMENT Pursuant to ECC.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 VI 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 consist be ^epeR to of 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. 7 Packet Page 297 of 554 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 in addition to posting EDBID meeting minutes on the EDBID website. 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 W Packet Page 298 of 554 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. 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 to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the EDBID may adopt. E] Packet Page 299 of 554 10 Packet Page 300 of 554 BY-LAWS OF THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT MEMBERS ADVISORY BOARD ARTICLE I Section 1.1 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 Section 2.1 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: 1 Packet Page 301 of 554 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 ARTICLE IV ESTABLISHMENT OF EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Section 4.1. 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 a defined EDBID boundary (see Attachment A). 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 Composition: The EDBID Board shall consist of seven to eleven EDBID members with the coal beinc eleven members at all times but seven members at a minimum. 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 percentage of open door and by appoint dollarvalue of aRts to be '^wi^d An ^;;c" businesses in the EDBID district. 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 2 Packet Page 302 of 554 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 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 PUFF nt to EGG 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 3 Packet Page 303 of 554 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. (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 in addition to posting EDBID meeting minutes on the EDBID website. 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 4 Packet Page 304 of 554 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. 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 VIII, 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. 5 Packet Page 305 of 554 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. 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). 11 Packet Page 306 of 554 ARTICLE VI PROGRAM MANAGEMENT Pursuant to ECC.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 VI 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 consist be opera te of 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 7 Packet Page 307 of 554 continue in the capacity until the receipt of written notice, from an officer of the member firm, naming a replacement. 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 in addition to DostinR EDBID meeting minutes on the EDBID website. 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. H-* Packet Page 308 of 554 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. 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 to M Packet Page 309 of 554 which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the EDBID may adopt. 10 Packet Page 310 of 554 AM-5976 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: Time: Submitted By: Department: Review Committee: Type: 07/23/2013 45 Minutes Rob Chave Planning Information Subject Title Re -introduction of Westgate / 5 Corners. Recommendation N/A Committee Action: Information g. Previous Council Action Council received recommendations from the Economic Development Commission to pursue redevelopment options for neighborhood centers, including Westgate an Corners, in January 2010. A report from a partnership between the University of Washington and the City was delivered in June 2011, with the Council voting to ask Planning Board to review the proposals (see Exhibit 7). Narrative This will be a presentation and overview by some of the principals involved in the City's partnership with the University of Washington on the form -based planning t code development process for Westgate and Five Corners. The Planning Board has nearly completed its work on the Westgate project, and will be working on the Fi, Comers project the second half of this year. Given that the Council will be reviewing the Planning Board's recommendations, it seems like an opportune time to 're -introduce' the subject to the full Council. Extensive documentation on the Westgate and Five Corners planning processes can be found on the city's website at: h"://www. edmondswa. gov/govemment/departments/development-services-home/planning-division-home/plans-long-range-planning/planning-plans-fivecomers-ar Also attached to this memo are a number of (brief) background materials on form -based plans and codes, as well as broader trends in mixed use and suburban develo Attachments Exhibit 1: Plannine Presentation on Form Based Codes Exhibit 2: ULI Placemakine Article Exhibit 3: Form Based Codes I Local Govt Study Comm Exhibit 4: Green Valley Fact Sheet Exhibit 5: ULI I Mixed Use Article Exhibit 6: ULI I New Suburbanism Article Exhibit 7: City Council Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/19/2013 08:59 AM Mayor Dave Farling 07/19/2013 09:15 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 07/19/2013 10:47 AM Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 07/18/2013 04:58 PM Final Approval Date: 07/19/2013 Packet Page 311 of 554 d Five the and ticle.html pment. Packet Page 312 of 554 Edmonds Planning Division FORM -BASED CODES OVERVIEW Form -Based Codes vs. `Traditional' Coding ■ Traditional zoning codes regulate and emphasize the separation of uses as their basic approach to managing urban form. ■ Form -based codes are an alternative, emphasizing the importance of context and design in addressing the relationship between buildings and their surroundings. ■ Form -based codes focus on the relationship between public and private space, buildings and streetscapes, encouraging interaction among the space's users and fostering a unique local character. Defining a parcel Traditional zoning Ily Design guidelinesll=* Form -based codes II=* arm -Based c_nd R U R A L I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U R B A N ® ■■■ NATURAL ZONE RURAL ZONE SUBURBAN ZONE GENERAL URBAN ZONE URBAN CENTER ZONE URBAN CORE ZONES WORK PLACE Packet Page 316 of 554 arm-HasPr. Ili rB rede" Building Lot n+u I I I I J I I LB Lined Building Lot MU Mixed -Use BuildingLEG Lot I - mu Iu I mu j mu mu Mu I AB Apartment Building L¢t CO Court Building Lot 1 I I I F r and mu \CO r LW Live -Work Rulldlhg Lot I I RH Rowhoux LU4 , I +I hl$+IsHIsHI s7w�- sHl$"I H 1 AH Apartment House Lot DL Duples Lot CH Cmttage Huse Lot _ � T 7777 I I 5H 5ideraid House Lot A6 I I IsHI5HISH:SHIsm SH H I H H House Lot CB Civic Building Lot CS Civic Space. J I i �, CS H' i i H 1I L 1 I =I - I Packet Page 317 of 554 11 r- u u i-O Sr7 i--t If Sri VS Pleasant Hill BART Station Building Envelope Standards hopfront Buildiug Sites ThrhuY2.6.eaa1r. hc—_a Ac rm.r. nhri W,—Fi .6.n rri.nv..-.rc tiac rr r. rt. ua'r�ihn�:� aha eo%�.nf.c.-rddN.im 75 fr. lwvn�,Ldr Ui- nr CCmdde o: I_aT I NK.hil 6m . ITIRU I .LL '.d,inq i46,—d fia ud_i r—. Li*a Th. —mJ 9or..4raic. J.V 6. bo i8 di F�mg mwmk J� ti.I..a Mn aF d. V—dh—.6il 6u. a l... it yd- d.va.�c h. W d 8 . of dru q.r p".. 6m 8 iiu cknrc �. mom.T r.�d. a.o 6a a.srr, d.. rmare�o.rfnY�, . ?w rrdm 75 f.n aF.q amn.fcewnti a.d&Sari 1—w. w�rz�drxnvrrRo:rrT.r� u6il6u.. mr�T �..u.alm;>4 -.r,..c a f..r..d iS f.nm6.46c far ..l.:I- to mi... 6o ..; d d 6.. {.— 27 ..=m. r -.Q{amoRoox L--. Copr;. -.';.mg.ipLd.V a....a. "6. oa d.., duo a5 ra.r f..r. o.x ...ihNa,VANLR (... p. h.. ad.— d..pr.d an.6. :v.W14wTGOF1{ ..d�m..c#ud ic+f.n.b—d,. f—=% .d r...dr..po u...00...�i pr.r.ar., rr.r.. aces, h... 6.rwa. M.. raf anti .: rciarr�-�k i..a.v.1 loraach.� h.wa.5 a.d 4 f.ar 'F.a.p� f.c.dri aNn� T.. Rkd udf a.0 pd,.. W da.n'.Ow. dr. rp.m.x n.c.w h.w asir x.�r� ha'h7ws an p.m.me if u.Ypr.e aed .rnn-.n.e it .enn_x_ arr. crirar u.x rc �- ku r 1.7 �r- �nr • •• compl.r kp. YT.. pound _Yxi:.F.11 In.... mIT or..l ar ompnovl aAfc.:..w ,isn:nchr u.c acy.r rr Ypc on '..pf.: =m.r In dim.: iUr k Aa a.m.J,.r fBAQLkA rnmr ..vasanem.ka.ils—OF— i. . A ud R. d. n h.1 c. F --C r! 1 A—C do. s-7.T faaL .r .--dk r.or p.u.r d— !& f.c Y'r.. pr.p it yr. kx nh.k..0 L.—"n,F�.a— ab lk. u r.r-far 6= jLmgL4. P mj, .c... d. r.;.-0agru.am as aouw�ac Packet Page 318 of 554 Key form -based elements ■ Regulating plan... map showing where different form standards apply ■ Building forms and standards ■ Public space specifications & relationships ■ Administration & process ■ Definitions ■ Use visuals and tables to organize and simplify requirements ■ May also employ architectural, landscape, signage and other standards QF EDr�n Packet Page 320 of 554 Packet Page 321 of 554 Published by Urban Land Institute copyright 2006 www.uli.org Place Mating with Form - Based Codes MARY E. MADDEN AND BILL SPIKOWSKI "Form -based codes" are on the minds of developers, planning professionals, and even citizens. Most references to them are enthusiastic, but some express fear and trepidation. What are these codes really about? More user friendly than conventional zoning, form -based codes are written in plain English and make liberal use of matrices, diagrams, and other illustrations. FORM -BASED CODES ARE land develop- ment regulations that emphasize the future physical form of the built environment. This alone sparks public interest in the arcane field of zoning codes. Other enthusiasm stems from a widespread distrust of today's fragmented processes for approving new development — the system is broken on many levels, and new approaches are desperately needed. Form -based codes are becoming increas- ingly popular in communities seeking practical ways to grow smarter. Most zoning and subdi- vision ordinances actually promote the sprawl- ing development patterns that citizens oppose. Developers often agree with the citizens, yet find that mixed uses and pedestrian -friendly streets are difficult, if not illegal, to build. Large cities have begun to consider form - based codes. In Denver, for instance, officials have started to rewrite their entire zoning code after discovering that it contains disin- centives for the very types of development the city is seeking. Miami is in the midst of rewriting its entire code, using form -based techniques on a larger BuHding Envelop* Shndads: Shophaof Coknnd*Sitm , WWp•�P^^W •.""q. s...ea .A,w.�.nr.Awl'6p�r�.e dip. w.n.n GW. ter:."' ' •r�.r::®..,« ... lr� •may �- W�:a. �� ._,.. "`r. .�-• �..,......,..,,.. m�.n..°..y....�r. ra�v 1 A,d,.lm •.°ir �w ih. _i.ee . n,..� .�,..r.swua..c.0 �M,.y...e + j. ��,.�'�iwaa..,a. m. vrww G4 W'"-� -�•� a.rn��[[,�.,p ..,. f.n h•...r«s:ae..w a�►.r.o...n......:...��.°..�i,.n. t R r.,.w{ .sk^•d .r.. ��rr"�.•�..n.�, ri,.:..i-. +: ' �r•e+r• m ��5�T_ .l.iw.YH tiWW n�dfemWGW a �.wyry��e4eey�b�'Mnl?,xY�L.rA�g[0.,��w�w.e. H.. m,•an�.wefullw 4'.er.'-. .ndMWtw.�•l..A n.Rry 61' _'�'ir.� J �[,�I'Ir�r.}e ��T OY i� •[ «�e`,x'`w��: °•"�'F..nnw.. �'Tw. cAr��r��..��yy�fy�yrv�� ..rrun_n � a�Y•^�Aw.�4,.ry�..,l,m�µ�,iq 'w..��.-°..y �V+•n[^r.�..� AMo1�i .W,...�..w h��••+. ... wow. .a��`s r..... r+..w-��'""�:"°..`.S-..a�...� ��nn nS�.-.� rry a l ��Mr Y�u,.•.:�r :.r.i..,� few. �'Y'.a .r�..n�.��. �. �. �v_.... n,. ••m.•..u�..,. ip.a scale than ever before attempted. But even with the enthusiasm they currently generate, form -based codes often are not well understood. How exactly do they differ from other regulatory techniques? If a city wants to evaluate form -based coding, what do elected officials, devel- opers, and planning staffers need to know? The Basics Form -based code is a new term for the evolving tech- niques that regulate the development of land forthe purpose ofachieving a spe- cific urban form. Cities and counties across the country are findingthat conven- tional zoning is not fulfilling this essential goal of town planning. The failure of zoning to w carry out physical plans LL for a community's future 174 URBAN LAND SEPTEMBER 2006 Packet Page 322 of 554 TES should not be surprising, because zoning originated as a means to isolate and segre- gate land uses. Eighty years after the U.S. Supreme Court authorized local governments to zone land, zoning practice is still mired in solving problems of that era rather than the current one. Some land uses must be segregated because they create excessive noise or truck traffic. However, many other land uses can coexist and benefit from their proximity to each other, yet are forbidden from doing so because the techniques of zoning by use have become so entrenched as to seem utterly nat- ural to citizens and elected officials alike. One key to the harmonious mixing of land uses is to arrange them on streets and blocks that function together to create an attractive "public realm." This realm may be a dignified park or plaza, but it is most often a street of moderate dimensions and traffic flow with sidewalks and rows of street trees. In urban settings, frontyards are small or nonexistent; in less intensive settings, they are ample and effectively extend the public realm to include the frontyards on both sides. When buildings and the public realm are consistently shaped in this manner, the uses within indi- vidual structures are far less important than in conventional suburban configurations. Form -based codes regulate the key aspects of urban form, such as the height of build- ings, how close structures are to the street, and windows and doors on walls facing streets and other public spaces. They also govern the streets themselves so that the streets and buildings work together to create a desirable public realm —adding value to every property in the process. Form -based codes are sometimes con- fused with design guidelines, which try to control how buildings look. Design guidelines emerged from the historic preservation world Downtown Kendall THIRTY - FIVE YEARS AGO, Dadeland Mall's first buildings emerged on Kendall Drive, a narrow country road just beyond the Miami metropolis. Fast -forward to today, when two transit stops are located within walking dis- tance —but who would walk clear across a mall parking lot in the Florida heat? Now that the region has sprawled as far as it can go toward the Everglades, great sites like the 338 acres (136.8 ha) that include the 1.4 million -square -foot (130,232- sq-m) Dadeland Mall seem wasted on a low -slung automobile -dominated pattern. Redevelopmentplanningwas instigated bya local business group, ChamberSouth. The resulting plan seemed unreal atthetime. The parking lots and single -use apartment buildingswere gone; the mail remained but was hidden behind newstructures. The master plan featured mixed -use buildings fronting on a network of intercon- nected streets, parking garages placed and are well suited to evaluating how a reno- vation or new structure would fit into the con- text of a historic district. Design guidelines are also used to influence the architectural style of buildings in other contexts. Design guidelines usually require laborious reviews by public agencies, eliminating the pre- dictability that is the hallmark of a good regula- tion. Well -written form -based codes are more objective and easier to implement than design guidelines and they avoid most of the types of quarrels that erupt over architectural style. Beyond Greenfield Development Initially, form -based codes were developed as sets of instructions for developers to use when developing greenfield sites. Later, they were The vision for downtown Kendall. mid -block to replace the vast expanses of surface parking, and the transit stops be- coming the focal points with the greatest intensity of development. To implement this vision, a form -based code was adopted by officials of Miami — Dade County in 1999 to replace the prior suburban zoning. Downtown Kendall is now emerging from the ground, remarkably like the 1998 master plan. adapted through the planned unit develop- ment (PUD) process as a regulatory tool for local governments to ensure that promised development patterns were carried out. Gaithersburg, Maryland, for example, used this approach to accommodate the develop- ment of the Kentlands during the late 198os; there was no other regulatory technique avail- able for creating new traditional neighbor- hoods in that city. A dozen years ago, form -based codes began being used in redevelopment and revi- talization scenarios. Coding techniques had to evolve once the interests of hundreds of dif- ferent property owners would be affected. West Palm Beach, Florida, adopted a form - based code in 1994 for its entire downtown. SEPT EMBER 2006 URBAN LAND 175 Packet Page 323 of 554 LA W WRITES Columbia Pike ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA, has seen explosive development along the Metro (subway) corridors over the past 30 years, while Columbia Pike, the 3.5-mile (5.6-I(m) "Main Street' for the southern portion of the county, has languished. Although it is a historic thoroughfare running from the Pentagon to the Arling- ton/Fairfax County line, its current form resembles strip commercial zones every- where: an arterial that carries approxi- mately 30,000 vehicles a day, varying in width from four to six lanes and lined pri- marily with parking lots and low buildings. Columbia Pike was the most underde- veloped area in a county that is otherwise In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, many coastal communities are discovering that their historic cores cannot be rebuilt after disaster strikes. The magnitude of the recovery effort built out. County leaders wanted to encour- age economic development and also create a mixed -use pedestrian environment that would allow for future light rail or bus rapid transit. During an intensive two-year visioning process, the county recognized that its reg- ulations would never produce the desired results, a traditional Main Street. The effort led to the adoption of a form -based code in 2003. The Columbia Pike code is optional — all existing zoning remains in place —with incentives such as expedited review to encourage its use. Since passage, the vast majority of development proposals have opted to use the new form -based code. has led many of them to explore a model form -based code known as the SmartCode to sidestep the need for customized codes for each community. The goal is to re-create the historic form of the older sections of town, rather than the sprawl around the edge, and to rebuild "better than before." The next frontier for form -based codes is to carry out regional planning. By extending the tools used to regulate urban form in small areas, regional development patterns can also be coded (for instance, laying out intercon- nected road networks and allowing for re- gional stormwater management). It is no longer credible to believe that incremental development decisions are sufficient to shape regional growth patterns. Form -based codes focus on end results — the creation of desirable physical places. They are ideal for jurisdictions seeking a funda- mental change in urban form and character — for instance, when redeveloping areas that have become obsolete or which were poorly planned at the outset. Whether it is a greyfield conversion of a dead mall or revitalization of an aging com- mercial corridor, a shared physical vision for the desired character is the essential first step. Form -based codes quantify that vision into physical parameters that replace the pre- existing zoning standards. Typically, the result is the regulation of pri- vate and public development to create valu- able public spaces that did not exist before. For instance, overly wide streets can be con- verted into places where pedestrians and com- merce can meet to their mutual benefit; new public spaces such as plazas can create cen- ters of attention in homogeneous subdivisions. Form -based codes can also be used for finer -grained projects, such as infill redevelop- ment downtown or in bypassed city neighbor- hoods, or as a tool for regulating new con- struction in historic districts. These codes can be written to protect the existing urban fabric, or they can serve to transform it. National Trends Cities and counties across the country are replacing parts of their conventional zoning with form -based codes, to enable local governments to carry out visionary place -making plans. One prominent example is in unincorpo- rated Dade County, Florida, where land around the Dadeland Mall, a regional shopping attrac- tion, is being converted into a downtown for the sprawling community of Kendall. 176 URBAN LAND SEPTEMBER 2006 Packet Page 324 of 554 Another is Columbia Pike, where Arlington County, Virginia, officials seek to revitalize an aging commercial corridor that has seen little development over the past 40 years. Even under the current strong market conditions, redevelopment under existing zoning has proven virtually impossible. In St. Lucie County, Florida, 28 square miles (72 sq km) on the outskirts of Fort Pierce have been planned by county officials for several new towns and villages. A new form -based code has just been adopted to ensure that the towns and villages are built with traditional neighborhoods while the sur- rounding countryside is preserved for agricul- ture and habitat restoration. Municipal officials in Petaluma, California, have created a new vision for Central Peta- luma, which has been dominated by freight transport along the Petaluma River and rail lines. A new form -based code has replaced the city's conventional zoning for the entire area and promotes narrower streets, wider sidewalks, and minimum building heights to create urban character near the historic downtown. Advantages More user friendly than conventional zoning, form -based codes are written in plain English and make liberal use of matrices, diagrams, and other illustrations. Form -based codes are written to fulfill a specific physical vision for a place. Which neighborhood patterns should be retained and protected? Which are obsolete and should be replaced? These decisions need to be based on a broad public consensus. This "upfront" agreement on the desired future, often reached through a public participa- tion charrette or some othervisioning method, allows for the creation of precise and objective codes that can remove much of the politics and uncertainty from the approval process. A code with clear and concise rules can deliver predictability for both the developer and the community. For fundamental issues about the creation of public spaces, such as avoiding blank walls or parking lots along sidewalks, the rules are very strict. Other is- sues are truly less important for urban form, such as micromanagement of parking or of what uses can take place in each building St. Lucie County WAVES OF DEVELOPMENT across Florida are rendering many communities unrecog- nizable. As the wave began to displace valuable agricultural lands on the outskirts of Fort Pierce in St. Lucie County, it collided with local residents who understood the damage inherent in poorly planned, widely dispersed development. After growth was temporarily stopped, residents began to realize it was the form of new development —not growth itself — that was their real concern. Assisted by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the community and county officials agreed on a master plan for 28 square miles (72 sq km) of farmland. This plan included several new towns and villages surrounded by countryside that would be preserved for agriculture and habitat restoration. A central backbone system for water management would Central Petaluma CITY OFFICIALS IN PETALUMA, Califor- nia, have created a new vision for Central Petaluma, a 40o-acre (162-ha) area adja- cent to Petaluma's historic downtown. This plan would extend the form and character of the pedestrian -oriented down- town into an area historically occupied by industrial uses that depended on a river - based economy and transport system that no longer exists. With other parts of Petaluma already built out, this area represented a unique opportunity for new development that could complement the historic downtown and connect it to the river. Central Petaluma will contain a range of residential and commercial uses that can coexist in proximity to one another to create a lively urban environment. The his- toric Petaluma Depot would be restored for passenger service and become the bus transit center while the river itself becomes the focus of civic life. A new form -based code, based on the model SmartCode, has replaced the city's conventional zoning for the entire area. Dif- Concept for Towns/Villages/Countryside plan in St. Lucie County. replace the current system of straight-line agricultural canals that overdrain the land and pollute the Indian River Lagoon. A new form -based code has just been adopted to ensure that the towns and vil- lages are built with traditional neighbor- hoods while the surrounding countryside is permanently preserved through the transfer of development rights. First Street warehouses in central Petaluma in January 2004. I, A First Street condos and warehouses in July 2oo6. 41, J',Lkl, ferent sections of the site are coded for varying densities, minimum and maximum building heights, parking areas, and per- centages of frontage types. The code clearly describes new streets, open spaces, roads, and even structures facing the river. Of greatest importance, the new code allows for the mixing of stores, homes, and work- places as found in the historic downtown. SEPTEMBER 2 00 6 URBAN LAND 177 Packet Page 325 of 554 LA R' ^WRITES For More Information Form -based codes: www.formbasedcodes.org Downtown Kendall: doverkohl.com/ project_detail_pages/kendall_new.html Columbia Pike: See "New Planning Tool Adopted," Urban Land, June 2003, page 32 D St. Lucie County: tcrpc.org/departments/ studio/st_lucie_charrette/implementation _schedule.htm Central Petaluma: cityofpetaluma.net/ cdd/cpsp.html overtime; those rules are much more lenient than in today's zoning codes. A well -written form -based code avoids the typical scenarios facing developers: D Wasting time and money on a concept that ends up being unacceptable to a community. D Fearing to propose something desirable because too many variances or discretionary approvals would be required. D Inquiring as to desirable uses on a site and being told with a shrug to come back with a proposal. The guessing game is removed when a community writes what is desired into its codes. The new process can replace grueling public hearings in which each proposal is picked apart, redesigned from the dais, or sent back to the drawing board, only to end up with unexpected special conditions or out- right denial influenced by whoever shows up at the final public hearing. When consensus has been built at the beginning of the planning and coding process, and the rules are clear and concise, the approval process can be much quicker, if not absolutely streamlined. As Peter Park, Denver's planning director, has asked, "Why shouldn't Denver streamline permitting of development that matches what the city wants?" Disadvantages The advantages of form -based codes come with certain costs. Building consensus on a physical Vision takes time, patience, and resources —and there is no guarantee of success. Once a shared vision has been reached, it must be converted into objective code provi- sions that replace contradictory provisions in the existing ordinances. Without this step, a visionary plan stands little chance of influenc- ing the future of a community. It is a true test of patience and persever- ance for elected officials to stay the course when the inevitable naysayers appear at the last minute and want to rethink the shared vision that they were too busy to help formu- late. Developers, who stand to benefit from the new system, often remain silent or even block the new code's path if they are focused only on their current project rather than the long-term vitality of the community. Developers who are locked into old devel- opment patterns may also object to form - based codes. Change can be difficult; devel- opers of conventional strip centers may admire more intense mixed -use buildings, but fear the risk of a different development pat- tern or fear out-of-town competitors with more experience with mixed -use buildings or tradi- tional neighborhood development techniques. The development approval process in much of the United States has proven to be antagonistic, expensive, unpredictable, and unsustainable. Form -based codes are crafted around consensus, straightforward to imple- ment, and built on the ideal of creating places of enduring value. As Arlington devel- oper David DeCamp stated when discussing the Columbia Pike experience, "It helps to begin with the end in mind." MARY MADDEN isa principal in the Washington, D.C.-based urban design and town planning firm Fer- rell Madden Associates, U.C. BILL SPIKOWSKI Isa principal in Spikowski Planning Associates, located in Fort Myers, Florida. They are founding board members of the Form -Based Codes Institute. 178 URBAN LAND SEPTEMBER 2006 Packet Page 326 of 554 n the two years since the Local Government Commission's Smart Growth Zoning Codes: A Resource Guide was first published, the movement to reform zoning codes has gained momentum. Today, form -based codes have become an increasingly popular approach to achieve these reforms and create communities where people want to live, work and play. The old adage "form follows function" describes the common approach behind land use regulation as it has been practiced in the past. Form -based codes turn that relationship on its head. Since the primary basis for regulation is the buildings, not the uses, "function follows form." These codes concentrate first on the visual aspect of development: building height and bulk, facade treatments, the location of parking, and the relationship of the buildings to the street and to one another. Simply put, form -based codes emphasize the appearance and qualities of the public realm, the places created by buildings. As with other smart growth concepts, form -based codes have been applied in new growth areas, in existing neighborhoods, in limited situations to special districts, and in wholesale code revisions for entire communities. orm-based codes place a primary emphasis on building type, dimensions, 1 parking location and facade features, and less emphasis on uses. They 1 stress the appearance of the streetscape, or public realm, over long lists 1 ,f different use types. These codes have the following characteristics: 1 + Zoning Districts — Form -based codes are defined around districts, 1 neighborhoods and corridors where conventional zoning districts may 1 bear no relationship to the transportation framework or the larger area. 1 + Regulatory Focus — Form -based codes de-emphasize density and use 1 regulation in favor of rules for building form. They recognize that uses 1 may change over time, but the building will endure. 1 + Uses — Form -based codes emphasize mixed use and a mix of housing types 1 to bring destinations into close proximity to housing and provide housing 1 choices to meet many individuals' needs at different times in their lives. 1 + Design — Greater attention is given to streetscape and the design of the 1 public realm, and the role of individual buildings in shaping the public realm. 1 Form -based codes recognize how critical these public spaces are to defining 1 and creating a "place." 1 + Public Participation —A design -focused public participation process is 1 essential to assure thorough discussion of land use issues as the code is created. 1 This helps reduce conflict, misunderstanding and the need for hearings as 1 individual projects are reviewed. 1 Modified from definition by Paul Crawford, AICP 1 1 Packet Page 327 of 554 Why are form -based codes effective? he focus on building and street design in form -based codes allows graphics and photos — instead of lengthy, repeti- tive text — to explain the details of zoning requirements. In turn, these codes are much more democratic instruments, because they are more readily understood by residents who are not otherwise involved in land use or development professions. ■ Pictures tell the story Form -based codes can greatly reduce discussions about the meaning of zoning terms and arguments over the interpretation of code language, allowing every- body involved in a public partici- pation process to focus their time and energy on the essence of the regulations, rather than on "word- smithing." Using form -based codes, a picture really can be worth a thousand words. ■ Easy -to -find information Another improvement offered by form -based codes is that they contain all relevant information in a concise format. By contrast, conventional codes usually include this information in several different sections of the code, sometimes even in side documents that may not be readily apparent or available to the inexperienced user. By consolidating information and using a simple pictorial style that avoids jargon and complex, repeti- tive language, form -based codes offer a much more accessible format. ■ Great for mixing uses Another key characteristic of form -based codes is the way they treat different use types. Since the dawn of zoning, conventional codes were built around the concept of separating uses. They seldom allow uses from a different category (retail, single-family, multi -family, office, etc.) within the same zoning district. When uses from different categories are proposed by project developers, extra processes and additional hearings are often required. In contrast, form -based codes assume a mix of uses, especially in neighborhood or town centers. '----- - - - - - - --------------- New state law authorizes use of form -based codes 1 1 ike many unconventional ideas, form -based codes were met with 1 considerable skepticism in many communities, and at times it was 1 1 argued that they were not even a legal means of regulating land 1 use. To clarify that issue, the California legislature weighed in by adopting legislation specifically authorizing form -based codes. Assembly Bill 1268 1 was signed into law in July 2004, resulting in very clear language in the state's General Plan Guidelines and the statutes governing zoning that allow form -based codes. ■ Better, faster, cheaper process This clarity of format and intent can lead to a shift in approval processing from a hearing -heavy process to one that is largely administrative. Simply put, if all the details are discussed and clarified when the code is developed, and if they are accurately represented in a format that leaves no doubt as to the requirements, then a "build - by -right" approach is possible. This means the review of a project application follows procedures similar to those for obtaining building permits. If the proposed project meets all of the code's requirements, the application can be approved administratively. Obviously, this reduces time, expense and uncertainty for the developer, but it also reduces processing and hearing costs for the jurisdiction involved. This can free up staff time for more proactive planning. V Form -based codes use pictures to tell the story. -------- ---------------------- feet im um Public ROW and Build -to -line --------------------- Packet Page 328 of 554 R U R A L I I I I I I I I I I I I I T R A N S E C T I I I I I I I I I I I I I U R B A N 1 RURAL I URBAN DISTRICTS 1 O 0' ° 0 0 0� O � O / NI ayr,�JJ% oee0 � O O; O o0 y o o ,, o� o O O 00 QO 0 CO O 0 o0o voo O a,o V urn mrrd • --- O ° . O O ° o °y O Q• I°u O 101,9� ��e1 I°Ir �01101 �a�� I��■�I°I L.I - —Cr,► iel�r .—I!I► �o�� I I'11;1 �60 of oTq:o:o7 cl — � „I cl — I, , •Eo'oTeTv ��nrn1 V�ViV1 ��- 3� ;�; �� II , I�� e>.n n �}%JV v r.Y1o101 �: o� Paollr ��D o o of � � �a>•al \ �I.Ii:I� I �Ol•OI �'O'e'O-ooa ��► ::. .. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L———————————————————————————————————————————————— — — — — — a A Seeing development and zoning codes as part of a land use continuum — an urban/rural "transect" or cross-section — helps us better understand where different uses and building types belong, and where they might be inappropriate. The Transect: ommunities differ greatly in size, topography, density and growth rates. In some areas, the primary concerns are about new development taking place on previously undeveloped land or "greenfields." Other com- munities are mostly built out, and focus more on codes that guide infill or reshape and revitalize neglected neighborhoods. Still others need new codes to address development opportunities around new transit systems. One of the beauties of form -based codes is that they can be applied in so many different communities and situations. Andres Duany, one of the Ahwahnee Principles' authors and a founder of the Congress for New Urbanism, has taken the idea of the "transect" from natural science and applied it to land use planning. The transect, as used in ecological studies, draws a cross- section through different habitats to better understand their inter- relationships along a continuum. Seeing land uses in context Applied to an urban/rural contin- uum, the transect helps us better understand where different uses and building types fit well or where they are inappropriate. Seen from this perspective, we learn that a controversial use or development project is not inherently bad, but may simply have been proposed for the wrong location. Duany codes all the features and concepts that guide communities, neighborhoods and development into six different districts along the transect (T1 to T6), from rural preserve districts to those in the urban core. He also includes a special district for uses such as a university campus, airport or stadium. Setbacks, for instance, shrink as development progresses from the rural to the more highly urban. Likewise, there is less area devoted to greenery in the urban core than in the rural districts. Building heights, however, increase. This unified development ordi- nance, or "SmartCode," links all commonly regulated dimensions and features, building bulk, street lighting, sidewalks, parking and landscaping to the different districts. This framework allows for a com- mon understanding that relates development characteristics to places within the urban fabric. This common language allows developers, planners and residents — even in different cities — to readily comprehend the context for different uses and building types. In Petaluma, California (see next page), this shared comprehension overcame the confusion and con- flicts that stood in the way of good intentions, and all too often, good projects. The graphical nature of the transect fits very well with form -based codes. Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company has been instrumental in bringing this classification methodology into real -world application in form -based code projects across the country. Packet Page 329 of 554 Steps for preparing a form -based code ow does a community go about preparing a form -based code? What are the steps that need to be taken to prepare a form -based code? According to planner Paul Crawford, one of the nation's experts on form -based codes, the typical steps are required to prepare this type of code include: 1 Existing conditions analysis and inventory Before embarking on development of the code it is critical to under- stand clearly what the existing patterns of development are in a community. This record of existing conditions — especially of areas that the community identifies as special, or significant — can help develop a code that fits local characteristics. Using diagrams and notes, a typical analysis will look at: ➢ Street types (by setback, walk- way, roadway, and landscape) ➢ Block types (shape, size, alleys, parcelization) ➢ Building types (footprint, profile, streetfront, access by car or pedestrian, service areas) ➢ Open space types (front, back and side yards, squares and parks, undeveloped parcels with urban zoning) ➢ Parking types and location (parallel, diagonal, lots) ➢ Natural features (creeks, signif- icant trees, views, hills, etc.) 2 Public visioning and charrette Input from the community is gathered early in the process through a public visioning and charrette process. The charrette is a collaborative planning process that brings together residents and design professionals in an intensive multi - day process that typically includes focus group meetings, workshops, presentations, and public engage- ment exercises to develop a feasi- ble plan for future revitalization and development. V Step 1: Existing conditions' inventory from the City of Sonoma's development code update - --- - - - -- ---- 7-- -- A Step 3: AZU&'s code divides the city into open space, residential areas, commercial corridors and commercial districts. 3 Determine appropriate spatial basis for regulation (districts, transect, streets or special zones) There are a number of different approaches that can be taken in determining how the form -based code will be defined and regulated. Although there is some overlap between these approaches, Crawford describes four basic alternatives that are typically used by different practitioners: ➢ Neighborhoods, districts, corridors Transect ➢ Street -based regulating plan ➢ Special purpose zones This process entails identifying which parts of the community are appropriate for different types of development. For example, if the transect-based approach is used the plan would identify those areas that are suburban (T3), general Packet Page 330 of 554 Form -based codes: Good vintage for wine country ■ Sonoma, California 0 ne of California's oldest cities and located in the scenic wine country, the city of Sonoma had seen post-war suburbia grow into older neighborhoods built around its old pueblo that dates back to Spanish colonial times. This jumble of neighborhoods and building types represented a significant challenge to those developing a new code. Adopted in 2001, the new form -based code covers the entire city. To break the daunting task of a wholesale code revision into more readily understood pieces, the city was divided into 13 planning areas in four cate- gories — residential, commercial district, commercial corridor and open space. Within each area, the existing situation was inventoried and compared to the desired future state. This allows the code to recognize existing development while imposing a new regulatory framework on future development. Areas of special concern such as rural roads, the urban edge and creeks are highlighted, and subject to specified guidelines. Code prepared by Crawford, Multari and Clark Associates urban (T4), urban center (T5), urban core (T6) and special districts such as schools, civic centers or industry. 4 Develop urban standards (streets, blocks, building placement, height, land uses, etc.) The next step is to define and code the urban standards for the different parts of the community mapped in Step 3. The results will be a set of diagrams for each zone that clearly establish standards for some of the following key ingredi- V Step 4: Form -based codes show where parking must be located. F L ® MMMM ARMMMM M ARM MMM IUMMMMMMM INMMMMMMM MMIM ®MMM ME IRMMMMMMM A Step 5: A simple lot -width table shows how Ventura's code regulates building profiles. ents of an urban place: street and sidewalk widths, building placement, building height and profile, and, if relevant, location of on -site parking. CJ Develop architectural standards (building or frontage typologies, etc.) The inventory conducted in Step 1 and the public visioning and charrette process in Step 2, help to identify the different types of buildings and how they front the street to define the public realm. The form -based code builds on this information to define what types of buildings fit into different parts of the community. The i form-based code for the City of Ventura, California, for example, identifies the following types of buildings as appropriate for differ- ent parts of the community: single family, carriage house, duplex, triplex, quadplex, mansion apart- ment, bungalow court, townhouse, sideyard housing, live/work, court- yard, stacked flats, commercial block, and blended development. The code then lays out very clearly which types of buildings are appropriate in the different districts for different lot widths through a table on the left. 6 Allocate and illustrate standards The final step in the process is to prepare the standards in a format that is graphic, well -illustrated, jar- gon -free, and easy to understand. This format should include all information and regulation relevant to a particular district (street type, neighborhood, etc.) in one concise piece. This avoids the confusion that cross-referencing, scattered requirements, and obscure terms can introduce. Packet Page 331 of 554 ---------------------- Zoning for consensus and revitalization ■ Petaluma, California can't tell if the SmartCode is a radical, green, left-wing docu- ment or a developer -friendly, market based right-wing one," a Santa Rosa Press -Democrat reporter wrote in April 2003. The view underscores the broad appeal of form -based codes. The City of Petaluma struggled for seven years to achieve consensus on a specific plan for a 400-acre redevelopment site adjacent to its downtown. Despite extensive public outreach, political battles continued between residents, developers and environmentalists. The proposed zoning code was full of legalese and numbers and did not assure the stake- holders that new devel- opment would mimi the existing historic downtown. To move forward, the city hired a consultant who introduced the transect SmartCode. This code focused less on separating uses and more on describing the building forms that V Revitalizing Petaluma's downtown: Code for street front types (below), the new Boulevard Cinema (bottom left) and new mixed -use development (left). Code prepared by Fisher & Hall Urban Design }+.n.}4ey}R.l.M�t/y.F!litiMMF.�l.1W Mltr l.Il�y r.y1.1l�r�.'t...r 1 1 a +aA.•+�.na.u:l•M Nl.w►ryt1W..1i 4e ar•rw�o."r�..r wfl.1/t.rlltt.�r 1 1 a.M• Yw • fy�r rr.ln N �.� ..N ErA ' 1 rwww►.N u+r•flu qf. h4 �s w Y./li � 1 LM ./.,.nwlf. wl.v.q.rnarM.q[s. owe" r w rs•F..!r-ft" tF!.4.V 1 rwro rr.Mr a Who M' 1 ' rw...l4f,awr.,.IV We ' l.fw.�nrrNrw �wfwnlrrrMwf+nrf►! ' h+.�nMaMfr. N..11w.rk 1 � 1 i...f. oo Up*COLF row" +rr.9. IrM. r. 1 bq 1ln M Ys..r rn Or w� A4A W" rr trp.. r � 1 . frvt .....11• m.} rw. � rlYa nu.ry w f f1a.. �M. FaNI r.r..M ft F.•I Ki bm ptY .oar.+ tt.r..r.,�e.a.►�a+v ' 1 1 "t..o%, M. AM..rMr..6~04....tf. r 1 ; rr.✓.wa..�6s.•..•+srr� A.1.+ 1 neur r alelrf •lnyl P InrsM .A a.. eu�. 1 Ipw }�.Iw h fba�ut..n�'rr h.d..wa 1 1 1 ffl.q • h.q.~ r. kow a 0" da N i 1 1 .. v .+ .r• rr lew +rr AI.A. +M fti .M..r 1 would realize the com- 1 .r..a u.lw fr•a ■ n .ryra f,..,,.. 1 1 ,r,.•. .y.trfrrq 1M. k...n.,..r.. 1 munity's vision of a 1 - 1 pedestrian -oriented, 1 MM oef. 1. nr �M!• w r. fr w+lkarrrMN • f mixed —use district. w-r►..a TM•+d•.�w.+r•...r..+►M• 1 lmrvr 94M ■ w wr•w..M"M *W" POW 1 Residents have been P"�"'•"'�'""'""""""°` ; reassured by the clarity "'r •'° �"" "'�"'•'�"'°°""' rr.nr...r wrfu.awr...ar..e v r V+rye 1 .srr.aa.rv>o rr.�../i 1P •,.v.vwr. 1 and relative simplicity .1. w ++.4.6" r+}yaft fy tf.r.r yu 1 .70Kr.r. rrw N!N Ib.MbrM7wrM 1 of the new code, and , developers appreciate its m" clear rules and expedited 1 "`••• �•"" "�.fa...."' 1 .r. rr.4.. rr. r rr.e.rr �.o.. � >.. fr . , M*Iwswrfwrvlr.w 1 permitting process. ________________ After only nine months of c - munity visioning and consensus- The Central Petaluma Specific building, former adversaries agreed Plan, adopted in June 2003, has on the new form -based code, jump-started the construction of breaking a long-time logjam. a new, mixed -use theater district. Packet Page 332 of 554 Code for a new town center ■ Hercules, California he "Regulating Code," adopted for the small city of Hercules across the bay from San Francisco in the summer of 2001, is similar to another pre- pared by the same firm for the City of Winter Springs, in Florida. Intended to foster smart growth development in newly created town centers, both codes have been extremely successful, immediately triggering develop- ment projects conforming to the principles and details embodied in the code. The Hercules code covers four districts in the central part of town. It includes eight street types, though not all will appear in each zone. The use table is a mercifully short three pages, with a half -page of footnotes. Four times that number of pages are devoted to fagade details and architectural standards. A Attractive new homes in Hercules look out onto the San Francisco Bay. This architectural material features photographs and drawings of desired and unwelcome features, signs, porches, trim and so on. These details precede the use tables in the code, consistent with form -based codes' emphasis on building form and the public realm. One page is devoted to each street type, detailing streetscape features such as pavement width, curbs, on - street parking, landscaping, corner radii, sidewalks, building setbacks, eaves, awnings and balconies. This format allows the user to quickly access all the most relevant requirements and standards for a piece of property, just by referenc- ing the street type that fronts the property. Hercules' new Regulating Code has clearly been a success. Since its adoption, development has flourished in the area it covers. Several traditional -appearing residential projects have been built, with a total of 300 units, and construction is under way on the first phase of the main street area of the Waterfront District. That main street building includes fifteen 2,700-square-foot owner- ship units with commercial space on the ground floor and two-story townhouse units above. The single- family projects include a number of creatively designed duplex, triplex, and fourplex units that blend in very well with the sur- rounding housing. Building styles are varied. The structures, landscaping, street design, and even the street lamps have design details specified in the code. This thorough approach to the details can make all the differ- ence in the finished appearance and appeal of a project. Code prepared by Dover, Kohl & Partners This simple, illustrated page for two -laved avenues (right) in Hercules covers pertinent streetscape details as well as building mass and placement. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Congress for New Urbanism: IL—Lodifyi the New Urbanism .I 10901f, orm-based Codes Alliance: A newly formed alliance ofadinwwractitioners . Realtors' Smart Growth: Land Use, Zoning, and Online compenditV of community -based Dover, Kohl & Partners www.doverkoM.corV- Duany Plater-Zyberk Fisher & Hall Urban Design Crawford Multari & Clark IIIIIIIIIIII`1111111p Local ,,,, Government WHR'§ Commission 1414 K Street, Suite 600 Sacramento, CA 95814-3966 (916) 440-1198 a fax (916) 448-8246 www.lgc.org i wa:.: ,:r i ,.1:qI.:,..:,,. ,.AL the Two Iane A%vouc a quxt addrns especially well suitcd to 1 eafdefMidwrto6keuw� 1 1 1 1 A. Building Placement: 1 Bidld�linrlxation OmtOft ken 1 {�r�tl Property 4..- 1 5p.er ttetwrr-n 1 SwBatngs: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L — — —. B. Building volume. B'.dg. Md& t6ft ntirsaum 160k max tmnrn 1 BUX. Dcptk 125 ft rw%mum 1 Ride, F{afgltt: 2 dories aurdm utn 4 elpeks mauimum 1 Sift hlaztmum 1 The Post hoar stall be a mi,Mom of twt:lW fl2j ftt LA 1-ght 1 C. Notc$ 1 v It if attychod 1. Apparr+ umi-s m,y ftwnd b&ymW the height sma_ tr I0 ft d d,4 s hid 2- 8udding Frond ur MVIMd W prMli WW-Itn Io the UJI,-AIL by M"M of at lean orw of the folluwnnS an.4L, colonnade. martlote. mydny or 1 krnnd (6w L.k- w •. 1 1. TlwAlgnuwnt of noQF-io.fbor neigh to of abuttayt bru:dwgs u Encouraged to allow ke Ourtd tar of eie�atm r � ftaild-la 13r.r 1 � 1 I ' 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 -- — — A Other Points to Consider arge-scale revisions of zoning codes always have the potential for unanticipated problems, whether a form -based approach, or a more conventionally structured code built around smart growth principles, is used. The need to monitor and revise these new codes after they are adopted must not be overlooked with any format. With form - based codes, these problems will likely surface when the underlying basis for regulation is changed from a focus on uses within and around buildings to a focus on the structures first. Form -based codes require re-educating everyone in the community — elected and appointed officials, planners, engineers, developers and residents. This begins with a broad public participation effort as the code is developed, of course, but it must also continue after the code is adopted. Code modi- fications should be expected over time, and must be explained to everyone involved. Some cities have hired an architect or urban designer to work with builders and developers to help implement the code's objectives. This education — particularly of staff— will help reassure developers and the public that application approvals will meet the code's intent. If code reform streamlines the process in a way that eliminates hearing check- points, people must be confident that staff are trained to properly assess whether proposed projects comply with detail requirements in the code. Packet Page 334 of 554 1 editing+design: dove davis reen V4% J alley INSTITUTE The Green Valley Institute exists to help the Quinebaug-Shetucket National Heritage Corridor communities and citizens sustain their environment and quality of life while growing their economics. We are a non -regulatory organization dedicated to: • Improving the knowledge base from which land use and natural resource decisions are made, • Building local capacity to protect and manage natural resources as our region grows. The GVI was created through a formal partnership of the Quinebaug-Shetucket National Heritage Corridor and the University of Connecticut's College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Massachusetts' Cooperative Extension System and other partners. QUINEBAUG-SHETUCKET HERITAGE CORRIDOR, INC. Preserving the Last Green Valley University of Connecticut College of Agriculture and Natural Resources " IXTIUNMSIONASS COMMUNITY PLANNING FACT SHEET #8 Innovative Zoning Techniques Form-Based Zoning Innovative Zoning Techniques were identified as one of the top three areas of interest in the Green Valley Institute's most recent needs assessment survey. Communities in the Quinebaug Shetucket Heritage Corridor are interested in finding new ways to address community growth. Innovative zoning techniques can provide new solutions for focusing growth, protecting natural resources and retaining rural character. Form -Based Zoning which focuses on "...shaping the form of the built environment rather than on uses," is one of the most innovative zoning techniques being used today. It has not been used extensively in New Eng- land but is being used extensively in higher growth ar- eas of the country such as California and the south. Following the destruction of Hurricane Katrina many communities in the south are turning to form -based zoning as a redevelopment tool. These communities will have more control over their character in the future by using this innovative zoning technique.1 Many communities have found that traditional land use regulations encourage a separate -use, automobile dependent pattern of settlement that is no longer working for much of society today. Form -based zoning was developed in response to conventional zoning's inability to define and create character, and walkable, mixed use communities.2 Before These before and after images of Petaluma, CA are an example of what form -based zoning can look like when implemented. This type of new development would fit in well with the character of many New England town centers today. w 41 !i =11 I011fflBN WN •G:e }J �:: _ ■I j� } %f��{ �•' �S k . ;�� y ��3, k �! �. � ^fir ;i'�' Temple Terrace (Florida) Code Form -based codes focus on "...building exteriors, the placement of buildings on lots, the nature of streets and public spaces...." 3 These codes consider land use but it is secondary to design. Certain undesirable uses may be prohibited without prescribing which specific uses are allowed. "Form -based coding is a land development regulatory tool that places primary emphasis on the physical form of the built environment with the end goal of producing a specific type of `place'.,, 4 Graphics are an essential component of form -based codes which are supplemented with drawings to clarify regulatory requirements. Form -based codes are very place specific and usually regulate at the neighborhood scale or smaller. These codes are especially useful in urban centers but can also used in existing or new village centers. They may be integrated into existing zoning ordinances and may be mandatory or implemented as an optional overlay zone (see GVI fact sheet #6). "Incentives such as faster permitting and higher density are often offered to make pedestrian -oriented, mixed use development enticing to developers." 5 Saratoga Springs, NY. (population 36,000) has three form -based districts in its core urban center. The remaining town area is regulated by a traditional zoning ordinance. The city adopted a form -based code in 2003 Saratoga Springs c 1925 courtesy Walker Evans after years of trying other ways to preserve and add onto the historic fabric of its downtown.6 The form -based districts are designed to preserve and create mixed -use, pedestrian character streets and neighborhoods that relate to nearby natural areas and neighborhood centers.7 Saratoga's three form -based districts are Urban Neighborhood, Neighborhood Center and Urban Core. The Urban Neighborhood District, illustrated below, has a primarily residential character with both attached and de- tached low-rise buildings. J_A/NL AM The Neighborhood Center/ promotes a wider mix of `•J residential and non-residential uses and building types. The ' Urban Core incorporates the downtown area which has Saratoga Urban Neighborhood District the densest business, cultural and entertainment concentration in the city and the region.$ The ordinance's key mandates are that buildings be built close to the street, they must occupy most k of the frontage and be at least 2 stories but less than 70 feet L tall.9 In Saratoga, form-. based zoing has resulted in new deveopment that is consistance with the historic character of the city. A recent critique of form- based codes identifies Saratoga Urban Core District advantages such as "better results on the ground, stronger connections between plans and regulations, effective illustration of building rules, and greater consistency of the built environment with stated community desires." The same article however, notes that form -based codes will not sup- plant conventional zoning because they are so place specific and that these codes can be complicated.10 Form -based coding is still a new regulatory technique and there may be issues to work through. Form -based codes are another tool communities in the QSHC can use to maintain the New England character of villages, downtowns and new town centers. Form -based zoning may provide the best in- novative tools and regulatory techniques available to address these goals. Footnotes 1 Langdon, P. (2006). The Not -So -Secret Code. Planning, Vol. 72, No. 1. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 http://www.farmersbranch.info/Planning/codes7FAQs.html 5 Langdon (2006). 6 Ibid. 7 Zoning Ordinance of The City of Saratoga Springs N.Y., 2005. Available at: http:// www.saratoga-springs.org/sszoartl I. pdf 8 Ibid. 9 Langdon (2006). 10 Weitz, J. (2005). Form -Based Codes: A Supportive but Critical Perspective. Prac- ticing Planner, Vol. 3, No. 3. Green Valley Institute: www.theLastGreenValley.org/GVI Form -based Code Institute http://formbasedcodes.org/index.html SmartCode — model ordinance http://placemakers.com. National Association of Realtors http://www.realtor.org/SG3.nsf/Pages/summerO4sm?OpenDocument reen_ JVA4% alleyINSTITUTE A publication of the Green Valley Institute. Please contact us at 860-774-9600 to schedule a workshop on this topic. Mixed Use in an Overretai led Landscape IL urban Ian d.uILorg /Articles/2013/Jun/Myers Landscape Thousands of retail complexes across the United States, from small strip centers to megamalls, stand vacant or suffer from double-digit vacancy rates. Sears, JCPenney, and RadioShack, for decades among the most profitable retailers in America, may need to close a combined 1,000 or more stores over the next year or two, say some independent researchers. And several publications, as well as many Wall Street analysts, have declared that rising internet sales on websites such as Amazon.com and eBay will bring the demise of thousands more bricks- and- mortar stores and hundreds of malls sooner rather than later. But, to paraphrase Mark Twain, the death of the retail real estate market has been greatly exaggerated. Many older centers are getting facelifts, particularly those in urban areas where residents have above -average incomes. Development in suburban markets, stagnant over the past decade, is expected to pick up in the years ahead as rebounding home sales and values help fuel slow but steady growth in consumer spending. And while sales over the internet will continue to chip away at those in traditional retail centers, the rate of that incursion is slowing —in part because more savvy retailers are launching aggressive online marketing efforts of their own. "Retail developers, owners, and retailers themselves are not going to roll over and play dead," says Matt Kircher, executive managing director of Cassidy Turley's Terranomics retail services unit in Burlingame, California. "They're altering their marketing strategies, floor plans, tenant mix, and the like to ready themselves for the future." Housing, Spending, and Retail City Creek Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. Retail real estate development is as cyclical as homebuilding—perhaps even more so. Builders of retail centers, whether they specialize in big malls or smaller complexes, not only have to consider interest rates, the health of the overall economy, and local supply and demand trends, but also must factor in such dynamics as changes in disposable income and evolving consumer spending habits as they plan projects and decide whether to move forward with them. "People always need a place to live, but they can always delay or even cancel their plans to buy a new plasma TV or bracelet," Kircher says. "That's one reason why retail development can be a little riskier than homebuilding. And besides, you can't really buy a new house over the internet as easily as you can a new pair of jeans." New suburban development closely tracks local homebuilding trends, experts say, primarily because it brings new people —and potential retail customers —to the area where the shopping center would be located. Even a medium-sized new housing tract or an increase in home resales can have a dramatic impact on profits: buyers of new homes often need new appliances and other costly items, while those who purchase an existing home may quickly want to replace Packet Page 337 of 554 carpets or drapes, or buy supplies for painting or remodeling. When the housing market is strengthening, retail sales rise. That is good for the center's owner and/or developer, especially if they share in their tenants' gross revenue, and often leads to an upswing in new retail construction. "New retail construction almost always follows the path of new rooftops," summed up Jesse Tron, a spokesman for the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC). That "path," though, can have a lot of potholes. When the housing market began to tank around 2006, homebuilding dropped sharply and new retail development —which was already on a downslide —went into freefall. Most plans for new retail projects were postponed or canceled, while owners of existing centers found themselves dealing with tenants who wanted to downsize or slash their rent payments, or who had vacated their space altogether. Infill Retail Spaces that allow for congregation are key components of vibrant developments. The downturn prompted many retail real estate companies to focus or refocus on high -density urban projects, whether the deal involved rehabbing an older building in a good location in the city's core or demolishing the structure and building a new one. It is a trend expected to continue for at least the next year or two, most experts say. "There are a lot of infill properties out there that have 'good bones' and are in highly trafficked areas with solid demographics," Kircher says. "Those are the properties that are ripe for rehabbing. But we've also seen a steady increase in the number of developers who are buying those infill properties, knocking the existing structure down, and rebuilding from the ground up. That's a trend that's going to stay with us for at least a few more years, too." Los Angeles —based Caruso Affiliated, for example, about ten years ago purchased a small orchard and nursery in the densely populated Fairfax District of its hometown, bulldozed them, and replaced them with the Grove, an open-air, 600,000- sq ua re- foot (56,000 sq m) retail/entertainment center whose 18 million annual visitors now surpass the number of people who go to Disneyland. And just this spring, the privately held firm announced a $60 million makeover of its similarly sized Americana at Brand shopping complex on Brand Boulevard in nearby Glendale that will connect it to the Glendale Galleria shopping center about 900 feet (275 m) away. Caruso Affiliated owns the Galleria with General Growth Properties, a Chicago -based real estate investment trust. Americana at Brand, which opened in 2008 (project profile, Urban Land, September/October 2011) represents two other growing trends in the retail real estate industry: the addition of residential property inside, atop, or adjacent to the retail center, and the inclusion of ample community meeting space and government -related offices. These two elements attract visitors who may shop after attending a neighborhood confab or transacting business with city or county agencies Americana's 600,000 square feet (56,000 sq m) of retail space is topped by 100 upscale condominiums, plus 242 luxury rental apartments that are 98 percent leased. There is ample meeting space that community groups can use at no Packet Page 338 of 554 charge, and free public events are held regularly —including three- times- a -week yoga classes at the development's two -acre (0.8 ha) park, which features a "dancing fountain" by WET Design of Sun Valley, California, the same design firm that created the famed waterworks show in front of the Bellagio Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. The development includes a police substation that not only helps make visitors and residents feel safe, but also helps generate foot traffic from people who venture to the mall to resolve minor issues with local law enforcement. Thus traffic tickets can turn into retail traffic. Caruso Affiliated has similar public -oriented events and services at most of its other southern California properties. "We don't want to build town centers," says Rick J. Caruso, company founder and chief executive officer. "We want to build the center of town." A growing number of retail developers and owners are adopting similar strategies to bolster their chances of success at new projects or to breathe fresh air into old ones. "We will definitely see the inclusion of more residential space and even offices at many retail projects in the future," says Ian F. Thomas, chairman of Vancouver, Canada —based Thomas Consultants, who has worked with owners around the world to design or redesign their projects and formulate the right tenant mix. "Residential and office components, as well as all those recreational and amusement attractions that have popped up at centers across North America, ramp up the 'body heat' of a property by making it busier and more exciting to go to," says Thomas. "Residents and office workers are sort of a captive audience of the owner. If you want to buy a handbag or go out to dine, you can do so by taking a short walk to the center rather than jumping into your car and driving several miles." Retail centers large and small are also getting a boost from a growing number of tenants who want to establish relatively small franchise operations —a trend recently fueled by the struggling economy. "The true mom-and-pop stores are leaving, but they're being replaced with some familiar names," says Michael V. Pappagallo, chief operating officer of Kimco Realty, based in New Hyde Park, New York. Among the fastest -growing groups of new tenants at Kimco's nearly 900 neighborhood and community centers in the United States are such franchise operations as Dunkin' Donuts, Subway, and Chipotle Mexican Grill, he says. "Small entrepreneurs who want to start a business are still out there, but the tough economy we've had has pushed them toward the franchises so they can work with proven concepts and a proven playbook," he says. "A startup today would rather have a Supercuts sign over their front door rather than one that says Joe's Barber Shop." Rusting Anchors Still, there are not enough startups today to take the place of the myriad department stores and other large-scale retailers that have announced —or are expected to announce —plans to shutter more of their outlets in the years ahead. The parent company of Borders bookstores closed the last of its roughly 625 U.S. stores in late 2011, leaving large amounts of vacant space at many centers; some of the 567 stores closed by bankrupt big -box consumer electronics giant Circuit City remain unoccupied long after its final outlets were padlocked in 2009. The mixed -use City Creek Center in Salt Lake City is the only enclosed mall built since 2006. It has a retractable roof. Packet Page 339 of 554 More bad news may lie ahead, especially for owners of power centers and big suburban malls that depend on the financially weakest retailers as their anchor tenants. A comprehensive study based on financial data and other information from retail chains was compiled earlier this year by 24/7 Wall St., an online financial news service based in New York City. It predicted that big -box electronics retailer Best Buy likely would have to close 200 to 250 of its outlets this year alone if it wants "to sharply increase its prospects financially." Sears Holding Corporation, which last year announced plans last to shut 172 stores, may have to close another 100 to 125 to get healthy, while its Kmart unit would have to shutter between 175 and 225 stores, the study says. JCPenney, which reported a net loss of $985 million in 2012, would have to close 300 to 350 of its stores to significantly improve its financials, the 24/7 study says, and RadioShack, which has a much smaller space footprint than the others, would need to shut as many as 550. It is important to note that none of those retailers has announced store -closing plans as drastic as those suggested by 24/7 Wall St., but the report suggests the magnitude of closings that might be on the way. "All of these retailers have a common enemy —the growth in sales over the internet," Thomas says. Online retail sales in the United States totaled $231 billion last year, according to a recent report by Cambridge, Massachusetts —based research and advisory firm Forrester Research. Online sales are expected to grow at a 10 percent compounded annual rate through 2017, when they will reach an expected $370 billion. Adding salt to the wound inflicted by rising internet sales is the growing trend of "showrooming," in which consumers visit stores to look at a new TV or outfit they would like to buy, but then go home and hunt for the identical item online for less Counterstrategies Savvy retailers are fighting back. Many have spruced up their own online presence and are more aggressively marketing in-store sales through their websites and e-mails. A few will even allow consumers to purchase an item online, but insist that it be picked up or returned at the nearest store. The reasoning is that if, for instance, a customer buys a new grill on the retailer's website but has to take delivery at the store itself, there is a good chance that the customer might also decide to purchase a new set of barbecue utensils or other items as well. "We're also seeing more stores and even entire shopping centers offering free [software] applications that customers can put on their home computer, cellphone, or other handheld device," Thomas says. The apps "can let shoppers know what's on sale, get coupons for discounts, and find out about new products as they walk through the center or enter a particular store. It's a powerful marketing tool for retailers and mall owners." Federal lawmakers may also help. In early May, the U.S. Senate approved the Marketplace Fairness Act, a measure that would give all 50 states the power to tax most internet sales. The proposal, which most traditional retailers and the ICSC say would go a long way toward leveling the playing field with online competitors, was sent to the House of Representatives on May 7 for consideration. Even if Congress strips away some of the advantages that pure online retailers such as Amazon enjoy today, experts say it will not be enough to save many older suburban malls unless their owners are willing to launch massive modernization programs or simply raze their buildings and start from scratch. "It's not that malls are overbuilt," says Gar Herring, president and chief executive of Dallas -based developer MGHerring Group. "The problem is that they are under -demolished." That is a phrase many retail property owners and developers are now using, from East Coast to West. Remarkably, the ICSC reports that only one traditional enclosed mall —City Creek Center in Salt Lake City, a mixed -use project with about Packet Page 340 of 554 700,000 square feet (65,000 sq m) of retail space —has been built in either urban or suburban markets since 2006. And while ShoppingCenters.com's latest Directory of Major Malls found 15 proposed projects across the United States that would each have 1.2 million square feet (111,500 sq m) or more of retail space, nearly all languish on the drawing board or are just beginning to have dirt moved around. Hipness on Display City Creek Center in Salt Lake City. Most of the malls and smaller centers that will be built in coming years will look different than the ones shoppers see today, experts say. Exterior design and signs will be enhanced to advertise the hippest or most popular stores and restaurants inside, Thomas says. Showroom and promotional space will take up a greater percentage of individual store space, but overall square footage will probably shrink as retailers seek to keep rents down and need less storage space as they continue to "morph their in-store and online marketing schemes together," says Charles J. DiRocco Jr., managing director at Real Capital Analytics. Shoppers will also see even more movie theaters, eclectic eateries, and cutting -edge attractions at larger centers in the years ahead, Thomas says, as developers and owners seek to woo consumers away from their online shopping habits and return them to local malls —or at least blend the two experiences through new "clicks and bricks" strategies. "Owners have to give shoppers a reason to come to their centers," Thomas says. "Otherwise, people will just stay home and buy things on their computer." Those interested in mixed -use best practices may wish to purchase ULI's Mixed -Use Development Handbook. .1 Packet Page 341 of 554 New Suburbanism: Reinventing Inner -Ring Suburbs IL urban Ian d.uILorg /Articles/2013/Jun/RusinSuburbanism As inner -ring suburbs in the United States become denser, demand for access to nearby walkable urban environments is rising. Residents are looking for shorter driving distances to commercial, cultural, leisure, and work opportunities. Municipalities are also interested in promoting compact development near transit. As a result, the next big wave of development will focus on creating nodes of mixed -use infill projects in these suburbs. The challenge is to integrate these nodes into suburbs that were originally built to accommodate the automobile, with single -use zoning that often limited mixed -use development. The principles of new urbanism provide a useful framework for infill development and redevelopment in these areas, as long as they are informed by the best practices of successful retail and mixed -use design, awareness of the capital allocation and financing realities faced by developers, attention to market demand and demographic trends, and new approaches to coping with —and parking — the automobile. Cities that developed before the advent of the automobile provide a useful model. Out of necessity, these cities were pedestrian oriented and featured a mix of uses within walking distance of each other. Early new urbanist efforts to apply these principles to new projects were largely residential, such as Seaside, Florida, in 1981 and Disney's Celebration, Florida, in 1996. They transformed the concept of the American suburb. A key concept was form -based codes, which regulate the physical form of the built environment as well as the type of use, and which brought back a focus on qualities that make the urban realm vibrant. These kinds of developments have had success with the residential component; the challenge is getting commercial uses to thrive. It takes significant population density to support a retail center, especially a regional one. In addition, a new Main Street —style retail project may have difficulty competing with existing regional retail projects in the suburbs. The idea of "build it and they will come" may not pan out for developers unless the demographics are right, the population numbers support it, and individual uses are timed to market needs. The new urbanist projects that have succeeded with commercial uses have had a dedicated individual —"`town founders,' we call them," says Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, dean of the University of Miami School of Architecture and founder and principal of Miami -based Duany Plater-Zyberk, a firm that pioneered new urbanist planning, including the design of Seaside. "These town founders are very aware of local conditions and have their ear to the ground; they know what uses will succeed and when. Working in various increments of development, with the ability to be flexible and allow for organic development, has helped a number of our projects succeed beyond market expectations. This happens in well -established communities, too. In the flatlands of Berkeley, California, after a plan for an industrial park on Fourth Street failed, a small, local design/build firm, Abrams/Millian & Kent, began building a pedestrian - focused retail district that drew the attention of developers from across the country and helped them see the street as a focus of new development. The Fourth Street shops mix independent retailers with a few national chains and have created a thriving upscale shopping district. For larger -scale projects that incorporate a mall or regional shopping center, the key is to integrate the development into the streets. "The old way was to separate and buffer uses with space," says Galina Tachieva, author of Sprawl Repair Manual and partner and director of town planning for Duany Plater-Zyberk. "We want to avoid a gulf of parking between uses and prefer to focus on the transition of uses, not their separation. And if the streets and parking can be laid out so that a parking field is the ideal size for a future parking structure, then density can be added in the future. It is important to size the blocks in a way that the parking structure accommodates active liner uses to support pedestrian - friendly streets." Complicating matters, real estate deals tend toward simplicity: developers prefer buildings to either contain a single use, or at least to have a strong leading use. Municipalities have not always had success trying to regulate the mixing of uses: requiring developers to put in ground -floor retail space does not always work in the current market. A better Packet Page 342 of 554 alternative is to get individual deals to add up to mixed use. A flexible form -based code focusing on place, infrastructure, and urban form dovetails well with this, giving the market freedom to enable the right uses to come in. The plan should be flexible enough to accommodate changes in the market. T ? k Mueller's town center, a 39-acre (16 ha) portion of the overall 700-acre (280 ha) project, creates a sustainable urban village environment that includes retail space, offices, entertainment, and multifamily housing. The 39-acre (16 ha) town center at Mueller in Austin, Texas, was created with flexibility in mind. The product of a public/private partnership between the city and the Oakland, California —based Catellus Development Corporation, Mueller is the 700-acre (280 ha) redevelopment of the Robert Mueller Municipal Airport. Mueller's town center will include local, regional, and national retailers, restaurants, and entertainment tenants, as well as residential, office, hotel, and museum uses. The first phase of Mueller is complete, representing more than one-third of the project's commercial component, one -quarter of the residential component, and half the open space planned by the project's completion. Within Mueller's town center, anchors already complete or in development total 1,022 residential units, over 200,000 square feet (18,600 sq m) of occupied commercial office space, the Austin Children's Museum opening in December, and the 30-acre (12 ha) Lake Park. Catellus is responsible for building the infrastructure of streets and utilities upfront, while the city retains landownership until vertical development takes place, relieving Catellus of carried land costs and allowing development of individual parcels to proceed incrementally to meet market demand. This has allowed the development of Mueller's downtown core to come after the residential and other pieces are established. "It was important to develop the town center/downtown later in the project, when there would also be more internal demand," says Greg Weaver, executive vice president of development for Catellus. "One collateral benefit of waiting is that local [commercial/retail] tenants that may need to be incubated are given the best possible conditions to succeed." Mixed Use, Not Mixed -Up Use Mixing uses horizontally, in separate buildings, allows more flexibility than stacking different uses vertically in the same building. Church Street Plaza in Evanston, Illinois, is an example. The project began with a 7.5-acre (3 ha) parcel —used for surface parking next to Northwestern University —part of which was owned by the university and the other part by the municipality. Instead of mixing uses vertically, local developer Arthur Hill & Co. proposed a horizontal mixed -use development spreading across the entire acreage. This approach enabled the creation of a fully realized public realm virtually all at once. It also allowed the design to focus on the blocks and the streets needed to tie the development together, with street -level retail shops around the entire site serving as the glue. Packet Page 343 of 554 Adding to the sense of authenticity and community, Mueller includes noncommercial anchors, such as the Austin Children's Museum, the Dell Children's Hospital, University of Texas research facilities, and public parks. As master developer, Arthur Hill & Co. brought in other developers with specific expertise in the office, hotel, and residential components. These developers each have relationships with their own banks, easing the process of getting financing for their portion of the project. "There is no need to complicate matters by trying to attract capital to a project with two or more uses in the same structure when there is much more flexibility in keeping things simple," says Arthur Hill, founder and chairman of the development company. "Most capital sources prefer to focus on a single use that relates to their core interest and expertise. Even if capital is available for integrated -use projects, why reduce flexibility when a project with a horizontal array is often more user friendly and less costly to build?" Sequencing Uses At Church Street Plaza, the various uses happened to be built in quick succession. But mixing uses horizontally rather than vertically means that the development can respond to the marketplace over time in future phases as it evolves. "This way, you don't have to predict the sequencing or timing of separate markets," says Bruce Reid, president of Arthur Hill & Co. "We did not predict the sequence of Church Street uses precisely, but that wasn't important to the success of the project. Having the right combination of uses, not the timing of their delivery, is what matters." Downtown Summerlin in Las Vegas is an example of a greenfield development that is evolving over time. Early developments in the downtown area, planned to serve as the mixed -use core for the entire 22,500-acre (9,100 ha) master -planned residential community of Summerlin, include a resort casino, multifamily housing, and small retail/commercial projects fronting Charleston Boulevard and Town Center Drive, the northern and eastern borders of the roughly 400-acre (160 ha) core. The first phase of Chicago -based General Growth Properties' original plan for Summerlin Centre, a 100-acre (40 ha) regional center located within the core, was intended to provide a high -quality off -strip mix of retail, residential, and office development. General Growth conceived Summerlin Centre as an alternative to the Las Vegas strip —a place that would provide for the entire community a complementary identity, character, and purpose. The original design plan called for a traditional downtown and a series of flexible development parcels defined by a network of landscaped boulevards, streets, shaded sidewalks, and public open spaces. The 1.6 million- square -foot (148,600 sq m) initial development plan included regional retail, restaurant, and office uses. Future phases would be developed in surface parking lots in response to market conditions, and would likely include a mix of low- and medium - density housing, entertainment, and office uses. In 2010, the Howard Hughes Corporation, based in Dallas, assumed ownership of the project and is revising the master plan. Designing Retail That Thrives Successful retail development is inseparable from successful urban places —places where people of all ages and backgrounds can gather and engage in a spontaneous, unprogrammed way. Packet Page 344 of 554 Blending local and regional tenants, Mueller's town center strives for a minimum of 30 percent locally owned businesses. "For retail to work, it must be designed to support and animate these places, not get in the way," says Jim Adams, principal of McCann Adams Studio in Austin and overall master planner for Mueller. "It must help create an authentic experience that reinforces the unique aspects of the place. This is particularly important today when retail has become so homogenized and banal." He names the Grove at Farmers Market in Los Angeles and Americana at Brand in Glendale, California, as models of shopping complexes that successfully incorporate an urban aspect. "They are places with the typical retail uses, but packaged in an urbanist venue with carefully crafted public spaces that are actually successful in encouraging people to stay longer and to spend more," he says. To help ensure the success of mixed -use developments, developers should not give higher priority to one use, Adams says. "Each use should optimize its own operational requirements," he says. "Retail has high bay space and is configured to engage and enliven the public environment. Upper -level residential space is designed to be livable with appropriate privacy and amenities. Residents are not forced to mingle with shoppers. Office components have a clear address. Hotel uses have required [visitor] drop-offs that don't interrupt the continuity or character of the pedestrian environment." Other strategies for successfully integrating retail space include collecting tenants in one part of the project so there is a clear, walkable path through the retail area; giving each tenant high visibility so customers can find them easily and each tenant can showcase its individual identity; and creating a streamlined relationship between parking and stores so shoppers can easily park, see where they are going, find their way there, and return to their cars with their purchases. Struggling suburban shopping centers in inner -ring suburbs present opportunities for reinvention as mixed -use, pedestrian -friendly environments. There is no incentive to change very successful centers, and those that have died will be torn down and redeveloped. The best opportunity lies in the very difficult middle ground: shopping centers that have cash flow and lease commitments but face an uphill battle to survive in a consolidating market. It is difficult to improve and add density to a center that is operating. The best way to reinvent a struggling shopping center varies by context. One conclusion in the 2006 ULI publication Ten Principles for Rethinking the Mall is that there is no one -size -fits -all approach. (Coauthor of this article D. Jamie Rusin was one of the authors of the Ten Principles publication.) In the instance of an apartment/strip retail center complex in Silver Spring, Maryland, Tower Companies, based in Rockville, Maryland, recently announced redevelopment plans that will add 450,000 square feet (41,800 sq m) of new commercial space and double the number of apartment units. Landscaped parks are to take the place of the surface parking lot, and emphasis will be placed on the pedestrian realm. Townhouses or storefronts will wrap around new parking structure podiums. The Parking Challenge Packet Page 345 of 554 Y Served by two commuter train lines and adjacent to Northwestern University, Church Street Plaza in Evanston, Illinois, created a retail and entertainment pavilion, a hotel, offices, and a residential tower on a former brownfield site. This campus gateway project reduced the need for residents and students to travel out of the area for shopping or for evening entertainment. Parking plays a crucial role in the success of all mixed -use projects, especially in suburbs that remain automobile focused. Although in -line shops lend themselves to new urban formats, "it is hard to integrate large anchor stores and parking lots easily within pedestrian environments," says Matt Taecker, principal of Taecker Planning & Design in Berkeley. "And yet the anchors and parking are needed to attract patrons from beyond a comfortable walking distance. Auto access and bigger buildings are often essential. Consequently, a hybrid approach is often called for, and not all forms of retail will be pedestrian oriented." Nevertheless, enormous progress has been made in the development of new urban retail formats in the past 15 years. "Ralphs [supermarket] stores in San Diego were some of the first," Taecker says. "Now urban Safeway stores are springing up everywhere. Even really big boxes like Target use multistory parking formats that work well in urban settings. Major retailers are using compact formats to access urban markets that were previously untapped." The first step in adding density and diversity to large existing sites is to free up land that is now devoted to surface parking. Projects start, and often die, at this crucial juncture because of the cost of structured parking and the sometimes artificially high requirements for parking spaces set by minimum parking standards. Currently, most structured parking needs a public financing component in order to pencil out. "Municipalities have a vested interest in successful retail centers and have often participated in funding parking structures to overcome the financial hurdle," says Adams. At the 2ND Street District in Austin, for example, the city constructed three levels of subterranean parking below city hall that supports the retail district, he notes. Another example is Block 89, an office complex in downtown Madison, Wisconsin. Madison's community development authority sold taxable revenue bonds to finance construction of parking for the complex; the private developer developed the parking ramp under a fixed -price contract for the authority, which leases it to the city, which leases it back to an affiliate of the developer. Because most city budgets are tight, other strategies beyond relying on the public sector are going to be necessary to make structured parking economically feasible. Suburbanites are less willing to pay for parking than urbanites and are more accustomed to surface parking, but habits can change. A multipronged approach is required —one that reduces demand and slowly introduces paid parking. Key elements include understanding differences among markets, unbundling the cost of parking from the associated use, and eliminating minimum parking requirements. "The solution is to place parking in more of a free-market environment so that it can become financially and resource efficient," says Patrick Siegman, principal of Nelson\Nygaard, a consulting firm in San Francisco. Separating and understanding the parking uses by market and type —employee, resident, customer —make it possible to look for opportunities for change. Unbundling the cost of parking —required by some cities —means that tenants pay for parking separately from the apartment or office space. Discounting the rent on the unitioffice and charging for the parking appropriately give tenants an incentive to reduce demand, or at least developers can tune supply precisely to demand. "Having fewer parking spaces uses up less land and fewer construction dollars and allows for more units, which enables developers to come out ahead," says Siegman. "Office tenants may pass the parking cost —and option Packet Page 346 of 554 —to employees or use it as a perk for employees." Shopping center employee parking can be managed to reduce peak demand, which drives parking capacity requirements. For example, many shopping centers use off -site parking for % t employees between Thanksgiving and Christmas, significantly reducing the annual peak E demand that determines parking -lot size. At shopping centers, charging for close -in premium parking is a first step toward acclimating customers to paid parking. In Main Street —style projects, parking meters on the street can bring in revenue while encouraging turnover; merchants benefit because customers can _ generally find a spot to park. Many cities are introducing modern parking meters that enable users to pay for their space with a credit card or smartphone. "It's crazy for a customer to be ••-� able to buy merchandise in the mall with a phone or card and then have to fish around for ;. change and be anxious about having cash for parking," Siegman says. Offering a 90- minutes-free parking program for the less convenient spaces gives shoppers enough time for short purchase trips. Using technology that is already in place for bridges and toll roads to make payments effortless will go a long way in implementing these kinds of policies. For example, in the San Francisco Bay area, the FastTrak bridge toll -collection system also works at the parking structures for San Francisco International Airport. Districtwide parking charges with dynamic parking rates —adjusted frequently in response to parking demand —will come eventually, Siegman thinks. "Ideally, rate changes will be informed by data from occupancy sensors at each space, but they can be done manually in the interim —say, on a three-month schedule," he says. "Currently, some cities only update their parking rates every ten or 20 years." Use of paid parking and demand management will help the parking supply match demand, eliminating the excessive supply generated by minimum parking standards. Elimination of minimum parking standards should be a major goal of planners seeking to add density to suburbs. Achieving it requires creating neighborhood parking districts with permits so parking does not spill into neighborhoods; changing the practice in many cities of using reduced parking requirements as a negotiating chip with developers; and managing on -street parking with meters, returning the money to the district. Attaining Authenticity Mashpee Commons (above, today, and below, in 1960) in Mashpee, Massachusetts, planned by DPZ, is a lively, mixed -use, mixed -income, and pedestrian -friendly town center, redeveloped incrementally over 15 years from a strip shopping center. Packet Page 347 of 554 Another challenge in creating large mixed -use developments is creating that elusive quality of authenticity that customers want, especially younger ones. No matter how much the form of a project echoes pre -automobile town centers or how much the architectural style takes its cues from the region, if all the tenants are the familiar national chains that occupy every other retail center, the place likely will lack a sense of authenticity and fail to attract members of younger generations. Customers want both national and local tenants, yet real estate developers are largely reliant on national chains to make sizable retail projects pencil out. Mom-and-pop tenants usually are not considered creditworthy by the institutions that finance mixed -use projects. However, there are ways to blend local and regional tenants. With Mueller's town center, Catellus and Austin agreed that the town center would seek to have 30 percent of its tenants be locally owned businesses. Reliance on restaurants and other food services will play a big role in helping Mueller meet this target. Whereas fashion and technology tend to become homogeneous at a national scale, food can retain and embody local culture in an enduring and profitable way. The local -ownership agreement also addresses Mueller's goal of playing a role in the city's economic development and counts local owners of national franchises in the target. Another way to help create a sense of authenticity is to add noncommercial uses that relate to the locale and that diversify and broaden the user base. "To the extent possible, retail developments should connect to existing places that have meaning in the community," says Adams. "They should be designed as seamless extensions of existing neighborhoods or districts and should include other activities, such as places of employment, cultural uses, and residential components that give further meaning to the place beyond shopping." This approach also helps ensure long-term economic stability and local relevance. Anchors at Mueller include the Austin Children's Museum, the Dell Children's Hospital, University of Texas research facilities, and public parks —all stable and long-term uses. Farmers markets, pop-up retailers, food courts, entertainment -driven events, and other temporary uses also help tie a district to its community and give customers an opportunity to feel ownership of a place. Reflecting the specific ethnic makeup of a community also helps. Many inner -ring suburbs have substantial ethnic diversity, and the particular mix of ethnicities varies from region to region and suburb to suburb. In Atlanta, a failing enclosed mall was remodeled in an architectural style that drew on Mexican street markets. With national as well as Latin American retailers, the 350,000-square-foot (32,500 sq m) center, renamed Plaza Fiesta, has been doing well since it opened in 2000, catering to the region's large Latin American population. Similarly, a 1960s-era mall in Fort Worth, Texas, was repositioned and renamed La Gran Plaza in 2008 to appeal to the area's sizable local Latin American population. La Gran Plaza includes a Cinema Latino and an arena for rodeos and concerts. Whereas the revitalization of the core of cities was the siren call for previous generations of urban planners, the focus now should be on redeveloping the anonymous arterial roads, dispersed uses, and strip centers that dominate so much of the American landscape. It is possible to create vibrant, pedestrian -friendly environments that take cues from cities built before the age of the automobile, while also accommodating the automobile in ways that work for the 21st century. It is possible to combine big -box tenants and national chain retailers with more local and regional uses in environments that convey a sense of authenticity and connection to the specific qualities of the community. It is possible to locate a variety of uses near each other in ways that allow for flexibility in the kinds of uses and enable each use to be added only when market demand exists. The result will be a radical reworking of the nation's suburbs —a new suburbanism. D. Jamie Rusin is principal, Sean Slater is director of retail and mixed use, and Ryan Call is senior associate of ELS Architecture and Urban Design in Berkeley, California. ELS was involved in the planning for Church Street, Summedin, and Packet Page 348 of 554 Mueller. Those interested in more information may want to purchase Creating Great Town Centers at the ULI Bookstore. Packet Page 349 of 554 cities. He pointed out studies have found that a bicycle lane separating pedestrians results in increased traffic flow and increased pedestrian safety. He also supported agenda item 6, reduced setbacks in the Westgate area. He was involved in the Bartell project and they wanted the reduced setback to bring the building closer to the street but were unable to do so and make the parking work. The proposed amendment will allow buildings to be located closer to the street and allow parking to work. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented he drove through the Westgate and Five Corners areas today enjoying the sunshine from all angles as well as the foliage and greenery. He feared the five story buildings along the road edge as proposed in the UW study would block the sun. People in Edmonds like plantings, greenery, openness, views and low buildings and he feared the proposed increase in building heights would fuel discussion during the upcoming election. Craig Dela, Edmonds, expressed support for the Complete Streets ordinance, explaining he is teaching his 4 and 5-year olds to ride their bikes in their neighborhood where the streets are wide and quiet and some streets have bike lanes. Expanding bike lanes throughout the City will allow them to ride safety in other areas. He pointed out the buses and trains that serve this area all have bicycle racks; there needs to be bicycle lanes to reach the bus and train via bicycle lanes. Mark Bailey, Edmonds, echoed the support for the Complete Streets ordinance. He and his wife walk and ride their bicycles in Edmonds. He cited the importance of using the public roads which is a big part of what makes Edmonds such a wonderful place to live. Council President Peterson apologized for the length of tonight's agenda. Next week's Council meeting is a workshop regarding levy options that is open to the public. 5. UPDATE ON THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PLANNING FOR FIVE CORNERS AND WESTGATE. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the UW was here to present an interim report. The study was initiated by the Economic Development Commission (EDC) to plan for eventual changes in Five Corners and Westgate. This is not a redevelopment scheme but a planning approach for long term redevelopment of these areas. There have been changes in these areas such as the new Bartell's in Westgate and refurbishing such as the PCC. This planning is an attempt to position these areas to take advantage of changes that may occur in the future so that they better match what the community wants to see. He requested the Council accept the results of the study to date and refer it to the Planning Board for formal review and deliberation on alternatives. The Planning Board will ultimately forward a product to the Council for adoption. He explained this had been a multi -month process that involved several classes and a large number of students. There was a great turnout at public meetings and good interest from residents and property owners in the areas. Jill Sterritt, Department of Urban Design and Planning, UW, acknowledged the many students involved in the process. The process began in the fall quarter 2010 as part of an undergraduate class; that team included Elizabeth Abrahamson, Cristina Haworth, and Brad Shipley. Brad Shipley continued throughout the process and in January they hired a group of student interns that represent urban planners, landscape architects and built environment. She introduced students present tonight, Betsy Jacobson, Masters in Urban Planning and Landscape Architect, and Jeanine Matthews, Masters in Landscape Architecture. Ms. Sterritt explained this is the sixth project she has done where they are hired by a city and they in turn hire students to work on a project. It has been a win -win for the cities and the students, many of whom said they got their full-time job based on experience gained from this work. The city also receives the work for a fraction of the cost of a consultant. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 21, 2011 Page 10 Packet Page 350 of 554 Nancy Rottle, Department of Landscape Architecture, UW, displayed a timeline for the process, explaining they will continue to refine the plan and develop it into a form based code working with the Planning Board. The first phase of the process began with a citizen survey that was available on the City's website for four months. At the same time students conducted site surveys particularly looking at walkability, parking at the two centers and existing conditions. Their partners at Cascade Land Conservancy (CLC) provided examples of exemplary commercial centers throughout the Pacific NW with the goal of making communities that are complete, compact and connected. She recognized Jeff Aken, CLC, for his participation in the process. The second phase included two public listening sessions, one for Westgate and one for Five Corners. These were open houses to listen, gather information and learn from the public regarding how they used the centers. Instant polling was also used to tally visual preferences. The students also began researching form based code and held meetings with property owners to learn their desires. The third phase included a Saturday design workshop attended by over 50 people and volunteer professionals where they collected information about preferences and realities regarding the two centers. The approach used was life space building that allows participants to explore the type of life, activities, spaces that support that life, and buildings that form and activate the spaces within the two centers. Six teams worked on Five Corners and three worked on Westgate. The students compiled the information developed by each team. She displayed examples of concepts developed by the Five Corners and Westgate teams. From those nine alternatives, the students developed two alternatives for each center. The alternatives were presented to the public at a public forum and included examples of life space for each center. The public was asked to provide feedback regarding the qualities they liked in each alternative. She explained form based code will define the qualities the public and the City would like developers to provide as they develop. It is a more flexible approach to development but tends to provide more of the desired physical qualities. The public preferred 2-3 stories with housing for Five Corners and 3-4 stories at Westgate. In both areas, the public felt it was important to increase public space with the most popular recommendations being plazas, sitting space and green space. The public was interested in improving walkability in both centers. At Five Corners there was initial concern about congestion and traffic speeds due to the roundabout; as information was provided, the fears were allayed. Services people wanted include restaurants, street cafes, bakery, and overwhelmingly preferred buildings at the street front and cared a great deal about landscaping and the use of native plants. Two alternatives for each center were then presented to the EDC at three meetings. She described the alternatives for Five Corners; both are oriented around the planned roundabout. Public space around the roundabout was envisioned; in one alternative the building fronts the roundabout and in the other buildings formed courtyards. The alternatives illustrate different building heights; in one 2-3 stories and the other 3-4 stories. Two alternatives were also developed for Westgate. Taller buildings are at the corner and there is internal circulation. She described the location of commercial, residential, and office use on the sites. She displayed maps identifying needs and opportunities for better pedestrian and bicycle connections to the center as well as to schools and parks and better connected green space that can enhance walkability and habitat. The centers are envisioned as having slightly less parking as it is expected people will get there via means other than driving vehicles. The studies found Edmonds has a separated stormwater system which although this prevents overflows, polluted stormwater continues to enter Puget Sound and likely in the future the NPDES permit will require cities to treat their stormwater before discharge. They also made recommendations to encourage Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 21, 2011 Page 11 Packet Page 351 of 554 green features in the two commercial centers that would help treat stormwater such as bioswales, green roofs, and permeable paving. Those features could be integrated into open space the public wants. Ms. Sterritt explained with the input of the EDC and Planning Board at joint meetings, the preferred elements from the two alternatives were combined into an illustrative plan for each site. She emphasized the plans were examples of how development could occur on the site after form based code is developed. The plans do not dictate or determine a specific outcome. She displayed the illustrative plan for Five Corners that emphasizes open space for public gathering particularly around the roundabout. It emphasized mixed use with low cost smaller dwelling units and affordable housing in the upper stories. A recent EDC decision allows for three stories near the roundabout with one additional possible story, a total of four, if the developer provides additional amenities such as green features or affordable housing. On the periphery, the base height is two stories and a possible one story bonus. Ms. Sterritt displayed the building massing plan for Five Corners related to the illustrative site plan that provides an indication of building heights and types of uses. Commercial is typically on the ground floor, residential on upper floors and office uses. She reviewed life space options for Five Corners such as smaller shops in plazas, buildings fronting on plazas and streets, row houses or life/work units, and a variety of uses and housing options. Ms. Sterritt displayed the illustrative site plan for Westgate which permits three stories overall; additional stories require a development agreement. The EDC recommended one additional story be allowed for meeting certain criteria and a second additional story for meeting further criteria. The EDC emphasized five story buildings would relate to the topography and be located primarily on the periphery of the site where there are steep hillsides so there is less impact on surrounding residential uses and less impact on the street. She displayed the building massing for Westgate, highlighting features such as the internal street and connections to the residential area. There is some massing around the intersection as well as key open spaces to highlight the intersection. There are a great deal of residential uses to the south. She reviewed life space options for Westgate such as bicycle lanes on both SR-104 and 100''. She relayed the public's preference to retain the PCC and QFC. She noted redevelopment of those uses could provide the opportunity for a green roof. Ms. Sterritt reviewed the contents of a form based code that includes, 1) introduction with intent and goals, summary of the public process, and how to use the code; 2) regulating framework that addresses street types, frontage types, building types and public space and green feature types; 3) building standards, 4) civic investment — streetscape and public space standards; 5) private investment — gathering spaces and green features, and 6) administration and implementation standards. She acknowledged this was a different approach than the typical zoning code that establishes setback, height restrictions, and parking requirements. It includes those but addresses how the public space is arranged and how buildings are massed and formed. They are recommending five building types: residential building types includes rowhouse, live/work, courtyard residential; commercial building types include side court and commercial block. She displayed photo examples of each building type. Ms. Sterritt displayed and reviewed examples of streetscape standards for Five Corners and Westgate. She requested the Council refer the plan to the Planning Board to review and refine the plan and the form based code. Additional public meetings will be held and she anticipated a complete plan for each site will be presented to the Council by year end. Councilmember Buckshnis, liaison to the EDC, agreed this has been a very interesting process; the students have worked very hard and produced a great product. She relayed a resident's concern that the City Council did not understand "spot rezone." She asked why a form based code was not a spot rezone. Ms. Sterritt answered both areas are zoned BN. The form based code they are developing would apply to the BN zone. They are not establishing zoning for individual properties. Councilmember Buckshnis Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 21, 2011 Page 12 Packet Page 352 of 554 summarized they were establishing a template to specify what was desired in certain areas. Ms. Sterritt explained spot zoning specifies what happens on a single parcel; the form based code would apply within the BN zone. Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged Ms. Johnson's concerns and asked whether those had been taken into consideration. Ms. Sterritt advised they are looking closely at that. The examples provided are illustrative; they will be working with Public Works staff to refine them to ensure they are consistent with the Council's decision regarding setbacks and/or Complete Streets. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why a development agreement is not a spot rezone. Ms. Sterritt answered in most jurisdictions certain things can be agreed to via a development agreement. The things that can be allowed in a development agreement would be established by the form based code. A developer would need to meet the code requirements for additional height and in order to obtain the additional height, complete the development agreement public process. Councilmember Petso observed the street standard for 100th south of the corner shows it reduced to three lanes, one lane each way and a turn lane. The current configuration is two lanes each way plus a turn lane. She asked whether a level of service analysis had been conducted to study the effect of reducing the travel lanes. Ms. Sterritt emphasized the street standards were very preliminary. Staff also pointed out there are four travel lanes in that area. There was some discussion that that configuration may be workable if it is needed to accommodate bike lanes. Further discussion is planned; this is only an initial effort to look at the right-of-way and how it could accommodate bike lanes, bioswales, parking, etc. Councilmember Petso observed if a travel lane, bike lane, a safe pedestrian area was desired, buildings should not yet be moved closer to the street until the right-of-way has been measured to determine if all those things can be accommodated. Ms. Sterritt responded those are two separate issues. They are considering the right-of-way as it exists and then the amount of setback and the buildings. They are not considering expansion of the right-of-way; they are working within the existing right-of-way. If there is interest in expanding the right-of-way and acquiring additional right-of-way, that is a different question and not what their plan assumes. Mr. Chave commented there has also been discussion about alternate routing for bicycles such as taking them off SR-104 and onto the internal streets through the development. The cross sections that were displayed were simply possibilities. Councilmember Petso asked how many residences the Westgate plan envisioned. Ms. Jacobson answered 650 [this was later clarified to be 650 people and 282 dwelling units]. Councilmember Petso observed the public put a high priority on public space. She expressed concern that for 650 residences, the only park area was approximately the size of her side yard. Ms. Sterritt identified park and plaza/open space areas throughout the Westgate plan, noting those areas were envisioned as hardscape with landscape elements. She agreed this plan does not have any large expanses of green space or park. One of the things that has been discussed is the City providing underground parking with a park above which could foster redevelopment. Councilmember Petso observed there was no park within a mile of the Westgate center and it may be appropriate to consider some form of recreation for the proposed 650 residences. Ms. Sterritt clarified it would be 650 people and 282 dwelling units. Under the direction of the EDC and Planning Board, smaller dwelling units were assumed for this center, a 900 square foot average, with the idea of encouraging young families and seniors who are downsizing and providing places they can live affordably in the City. Councilmember Petso asked if the plan was driven by the EDC or the citizens. Ms. Sterritt stated the plan was initiated by the EDC but there has been an extensive, hands-on public process to gather public input. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 21, 2011 Page 13 Packet Page 353 of 554 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about traffic from 282 dwelling units that are envisioned at Westgate. Mr. Chave answered development would occur over a long period of time, it would likely not be developed by a single developer. The level of traffic created is basically background as the largest volume is through traffic. It is hoped more of the traffic will stop at the Westgate center. Given overall levels of traffic on SR-104, traffic generated by the development would be minor. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas observed that piece has not yet been investigated. Mr. Chave answered that is part of the review that will occur at the Planning Board. Five Corners is somewhat different because the Comprehensive Plan already envisions four stories and the Transportation Plan considered up to four stories. The long term traffic needs at Five Corners was one of the things that drove the roundabout. He advised a Transportation Plan update was planned for next year that would consider updated land uses. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas assumed the intent of reducing the traffic lanes was to provide additional space for sidewalks and alternate mobility surfaces. She pointed out the plan adds more vehicles with less roadway space than exists today. Ms. Sterritt answered in most areas the travel lanes are not reduced; the possibility of reducing from four travel lanes to two travel lanes with a common turn lane is only considered on 100`h south of SR-104. In all other areas there are the same number of travel lanes although they may be slightly narrower. On mixed use sites with a variety of uses including residential, the number of trips per unit are typically less because residents can walk to uses on the site. Mr. Chave pointed out both areas are well served by transit and to the extent that walking can be encouraged, that will reduce traffic. He pointed out in the sample cross sections, the reduction to three lanes does not occur at the intersection. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented it was difficult to understand how everything will work together. Councilmember Plunkett asked how the number of units at Westgate was determined, envisioning the free market would determine the number of units. Ms. Sterritt agreed, explaining 282 was determined by the building footprints and number of residential floors to provide a square footage of residential which was then divided by 900 square feet per unit. Because this is form based code and not a development plan, the market, property owners and developers will determine the number of units. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the plan is based on existing buildings, however, as the economy improves, he envisioned some buildings will be removed. Ms. Sterritt responded the majority of buildings in the plan are new, developed at a reasonable upper level of development with a couple exceptions due to favored uses that people wanted to retain. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the 900 square foot average size of residences. Ms. Sterritt answered 900 square feet per unit was used due to the EDC's interest in smaller units. Councilmember Plunkett responded he thought the EDC was interested in economic development; if they want economic development, telling a developer he can have 900 square foot units will retard economic development because most developers do not want to build a 900 square foot condominium. Ms. Sterritt answered the plan does not dictate the size of units. Councilmember Plunkett observed the intent was not a plan but to have the marketplace to build it. Ms. Sterritt explained they wanted to create building envelopes and standards that make good public places. Within those building envelopes, the property owners and developers will have a great deal of flexibility to determine what the market will bear. Mr. Chave recalled the EDC discussed target populations. They hoped these urban areas would attract young professionals and smaller households that would add to the vibrancy and activity in the area. Given that idea, the smaller housing units make sense. Ultimately the marketplace will determine the size of the units. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 21, 2011 Page 14 Packet Page 354 of 554 Councilmember Petso asked if the process included a market study. Mr. Chave stated a market analysis was conducted and factored into the plan. For example the market study indicated underground parking probably would not pencil out in these locations. That dictated more surface and tuck -under parking. Councilmember Petso asked if the market analysis commented on the feasibility of mixed use. She noted the Unocal mixed use development has only residential and mixed use downtown is condominiums over empty space. Mr. Chave stated the market analysis indicated mixed use was very viable at both locations. Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for the motion, relaying his interest in creativity in City planning which in his opinion has not occurred in the four years he has been on the Council. The downtown stepback has not generated any development. Before he was on the City Council, he actively promoted student involvement in City planning. He recalled the designs developed by the students at Edmonds-Woodway High School for the Skippers and Antique Mall properties provided very valuable information. Five Corners and Westgate were identified as centers where development could occur. This has been an exciting and vibrant process for the residents and the public meetings have been well attended. He was eager for the Planning Board to begin their review. MOTION CARRIED 5-1, COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. 6. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) SECTION 16.45.020 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED STREET SETBACKS IN THE BN ZONE FOR THE WESTGATE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CENTER FROM TWENTY (20) TO EIGHT (8) FEET ALONG SR-104 AND FROM TWENTY (20) FEET TO FIVE (5) FEET ALONG 100TH AVENUE WEST. THE AMENDMENT IS RECOMMENDED TO SUNSET ONE YEAR AFTER ADOPTION. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the current BN zoning requires buildings be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the street front which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the current direction being developed for Westgate and Five Corners. The current BN setback pushes buildings into the site and encourages placement of parking or drive aisles between buildings and the street. It is hoped that reducing the minimum setback will push buildings closer to the street and allow improvement of the street front and pedestrian amenities provided on private property adjacent to the street front. The proposed change would apply only to the Westgate area. He displayed an aerial photograph of Westgate that shows buildings are typically set well back inside property lines. Mr. Chave provided photographs of the Bartell/Starbucks development. On the 100`h side, the businesses are setback from the street with a landscape strip between the sidewalk and parking between the sidewalk and building; the traditional design encouraged by the existing BN zoning requirement. As a result, anyone walking in that area must cross the parking/drive aisle to reach the building front. On the SR-104 side of that development, the building is approximately 9 feet from the existing right-of-way. Placing the building closer to the right-of-way allows the parking to be moved to the side and the street front to be enhanced with walkways and landscaping. The SR-104 side of that building is what the setback as recommended by the Planning Board would provide opportunity for. He explained under the existing BN zone, the SR-104 side is non -conforming. Mr. Chave explained the recommendation is only for the BN zone for the Westgate area. There is ample policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Westgate Community Center with regard to accommodating transit and pedestrian access and providing pedestrian walkways. The design objectives in the Comprehensive Plan speak to buildings oriented to the street front with pedestrian access. The UW plan contains setbacks similar to those recommended by the Planning Board. Mr. Chave relayed the Planning Board's recommendation: Reduced street setback only applies to Westgate Community Commercial area, as defined in Comprehensive Plan Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 21, 2011 Page 15 Packet Page 355 of 554 AM-5854 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/23/2013 Time: 20 Minutes Submitted For: Mike De Lilla Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Finance Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Type: Information Information Subject Title Discussion regarding future city utility rate adjustments. Recommendation NA Previous Council Action 9. On June 11, 2013, the Finance and Planning, Parks and Public Works committees reviewed this item and recommended it be reviewed by the City Council. 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. Attachments Sewer Baseline Sewer Cash Funding Transition Water Baseline Water Cash Funding Transition Stormwater Baseline Stormwater Cash Funding Transition Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 07/19/2013 08:45 AM Public Works Phil Williams 07/19/2013 08:51 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/19/2013 08:53 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/19/2013 09:17 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 07/19/2013 10:47 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 06/12/2013 04:01 PM Final Approval Date: 07/19/2013 Packet Page 356 of 554 Packet Page 357 of 554 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility 2013 Bond 2013 Revenue Bond Summary Net Bond Proceeds $ 14,500,000 Debt Reserve Funding 863,587 Issuance Cost and Misc. 250,601 Total $ 15,614,188 Net Proceeds Debt Reserve Assumed Net Proceeds for the 2013 Bond Provided by Dashen & Associates => Net Proceeds Needed by the Utility to Fund Capital Program => $ 14,500,000 $ 8,300,000 Ratio of Net Proceeds Needed to Net Proceeds for the Given Payment Schedule => 1 0.57 Total of 2013 Revenue Bond 2013 2014 2015 2016 $ 863,587 $ 494,329 0.57 2017 2018 2019 2013 Bond Debt Service - As Provided by Dashen & Associates Annual Interest Payment $ 195,028 $ 702,100 $ 698,900 $ 695,600 $ 692,200 $ 687,100 $ 679,900 Annual Principal Payment - 160,000 165,000 170,000 170,000 180,000 185,000 Total Annual Payment $ 195,028 $ 862,100 $ 863,900 $ 865,600 $ 862,200 $ 867,100 $ 864,900 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - Water Utility's Share 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2013 Bond Debt Service - Propared for the Water Utility Annual Interest Payment $ 111,637 $ 401,892 $ 400,060 $ 398,171 $ 396,225 $ 393,306 $ 389,184 Annual Principal Payment - 91,586 94,448 97,310 97,310 103,034 105,897 Total Annual Payment $ 111,637 $ 493,478 $ 494,508 $ 495,481 $ 493,535 $ 496,340 $ 495,081 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) 867-1802 2013 Bond Page 1 Packet Page 358 of 554 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Summary Total Capital Projects Revenue Bond Proceeds Use of Capital Fund Balance Direct Rate Funding Total Funding Sources Revenues Rate Revenues Under Existing Rates Non -Rate Revenues Total Revenues Expenses 411 Sewer Cash O&M Expenses [a] 411 Treatment O&M - Edmonds Only Transfer to Fund 414 (excl. Capital) Existing Debt Service New Debt Service Rate Funded System Reinvestment Rate Funded CIP Total Expenses Annual Rate Adjustment Rate Increases Dictated by: Rate Revenues After Rate Increase Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase taxes due to Operating Fund Capital Fund Debt Reserve Fund Total Combined Minimum Target Balance $ 7,555,499 $ 4,566,577 $ 3,460,518 $ 3,223,992 $ 3,286,681 $ 3,3589787 $ 299799367 1,155,362 - - 2,733,826 - 2,950,903 - 6,353,137 4,566,577 3,460,518 490,166 3,286,681 407,884 2,979,367 .y /,JJJ,Y�� y Y,JV V,J/ / y J,YVu,J IV y J,44J,Vz?4 1y J,LVV,VV 1 1y J,JJV,IVI y L,JIJ,JVI $ 4,935,000 $ 4,959,675 $ 4,984,473 $ 5,009,396 $ 5,034,443 $ 5,059,615 $ 5,084,913 69,030 69,670 73,953 78,432 88,356 94,579 108,748 $ 5,004,030 $ 5,029,345 $ 5,058,427 $ 5,087,828 $ 5,122,798 $ 5,154,194 $ 5,193,661 $ 2,193,939 $ 2,279,110 $ 2,368,721 $ 2,462,948 $ 2,562,107 $ 2,666,539 $ 2,776,614 1,888,449 1,962,640 2,040,811 2,123,256 2,210,296 2,302,282 2,399,595 130,201 130,500 130,807 130,785 130,098 129,695 129,979 352,792 193,771 193,561 192,803 192,476 192,138 191,252 111,637 493,478 494,508 1,018,941 1,016,994 1,543,258 1,541,999 $ 4,677,018 $ 5,059,498 $ 5,228,408 $ 5,928,732 $ 6,111,972 $ 6,833,913 $ 7,0399439 Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy $ 4,935,000 $ 5,257,256 $ 5,600,554 $ 5,966,270 $ 6,355,868 $ 6,770,906 $ 7,213,046 327,012 267,427 446,100 115,971 332,252 31,572 282,355 $ 931,197 $ 965,158 $ 1,000,904 $ 1,038,488 $ 1,077,995 $ 1,109,567 $ 1,163,931 7,816,336 3,512,765 490,166 3,358,237 407,884 3,064,195 368,782 629,455 629,455 629,455 1,152,914 1,152,914 1,676,374 1,676,374 $ 9,3769988 $ 5,107,378 $ 2,120,524 $ 5,549,639 $ 29638,793 $ 5,850,136 $ 3,209,086 $ 961,374 $ 1,315,763 $ 1,343,602 $ 1,896,223 $ 1,923,907 $ 2,481,474 $ 2,513,363 FCS GROUP p Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425)P86 e$Page 359 of 554 Summary Page 2 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Assumptions Economic & Financial Factors 1 General Cost Inflation 2 Construction Cost Inflation 3 Labor Cost Inflation 4 Customer Growth 5 General Inflation plus Growth 6 Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase 7 Benefits Inflation 8 No Escalation Fund Earnings Local / State Excise Tax State B&O Tax 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 0.00% 4.02% 4.08% 4.14% 4.21% 4.27% 4.34% 10.00% 0% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.25% 0.25% 0.50% V5% 1.00iff 1.25% 1.504 3.85% 3.85% 3.85% 3.85% 3.85% 3.85%W 3.85% 3.85°/� 1.80% 1.65% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50°/ Accounting Assumptions 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 FISCAL POLICY RESTRICTIONS Min. Op. Fund Balance Target (days of O&M expense) 45 45 45 45 45 45 Max. Op. Fund Balance (days of O&M expense) 60 60 60 60 60 60 SEWER - Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target Select Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target 1 Defined as % of Plant 1 - Defined as % of Plant Plant -in -Service in 2012 $ 12,630,486 Minimum Capital Fund Balance - % of plant assets 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 - Amount at Right =_> $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - TREATMENT PLANT - Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target Select Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target 2 Defined as % of Plant 1 - Defined as % of Plant Plant -in -Service in 2012 $ 41,691,158 Minimum Capital Fund Balance - % of plant assets 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 - Amount at Right =_> $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) g67-1 Assumptions Page 3 Packet Page 360 of 554 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Assumptions RATE FUNDED SYSTEM REINVESTMENT Select Reinvestment Funding Strategy 4 System Reinvestment is not Funded Amount of Annual Cash Funding from Rates 1 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense 2 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense less Annual Debt Principal Payments 3 - Equal to Amount at Right =_> $ - $ - $ - $ 4 - Do Not Fund System Reinvestment Capital Financing Assumptions 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 GENRAL FACILITIES CHARGE (GFC) REVENUES General Facilities Charge Revenues $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ REVENUE BONDS Term (years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost (incl. issuance costs, per City staff's direction) 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Issuance Cost 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement 1.25 PWTF LOAN Term (years; 10 year minimum and no more than 20 years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% OTHER LOANS & REVENUE -SUPPORTED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS [a] Term (years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Issuance Cost 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% [a] Tax -supported general obligation bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund; terms and annual obligations of such bonds are not factors in this analysis. 2019 10,000 20 5.00% 0.00% 20 1.00% 20 5.00% 0.00% FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) g67-1 Assumptions Page 4 Packet Page 361 of 554 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Existing Debt Input Existing Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2011 Water/Sewer Refunding and New Issue Annual Interest Payment $ 43,420 $ 41,261 $ 40,061 $ 38,816 $ 37,541 $ 36,221 $ 34,856 Annual Principal Payment 107,920 40,000 41,500 42,500 44,000 45,500 46,500 Total Annual Payment $ 151,340 $ 81,261 $ 81,561 $ 81,316 $ 81,541 $ 81,721 $ 81,356 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - TOTAL REVENUE BONDS Annual Interest Payment $ 43,420 $ 41,261 $ 40,061 $ 38,816 $ 37,541 $ 36,221 $ 34,856 Annual Principal Payment 107,920 40,000 41,500 42,500 44,000 45,500 46,500 Total Annual Payment $ 151,340 $ 81,261 $ 81,561 $ 81,316 $ 81,541 $ 81,721 $ 81,356 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds 151,340 98,416 98,416 98,416 98,416 98,416 98,416 Existina Debt Service - PWTF Loans PWTF LOAN 02-691-019 2002 Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment 2005 PWTF LOAN 05-691-015 Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment TOTAL PWTF LOANS Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $ 1,823 $ 1,640 $ 1,458 $ 1,276 $ 1,094 $ 911 $ 729 36,450 36,450 36,450 36,450 36,450 36,450 36,450 $ 38,273 $ 38,090 $ 37,908 $ 37,726 $ 37,544 $ 37,361 $ 37,179 $ 4,395 $ 4,057 $ 3,719 $ 3,381 $ 3,043 $ 2,705 $ 2,367 67,615 67,615 67,615 67,615 67,615 67,615 67,615 $ 72,010 $ 71,672 $ 71,334 $ 70,996 $ 70,657 $ 70,319 $ 69,981 $ 6,217 $ 5,697 $ 5,177 $ 4,656 $ 4,136 $ 3,616 $ 3,096 104,065 104,065 104,065 104,065 104,065 104,065 104,065 $ 110,282 $ 109,762 $ 109,242 $ 108,721 $ 108,201 $ 107,681 $ 107,160 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) g67-1 Existing Debt Page 5 Packet Page 362 of 554 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Existing Debt Input Existing Debt Service - Other Loans [a] 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 [a] Enter payments for other loans and revenue -supported G.O. issues only. Tax -supported bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund and do not impact this 2007 LTGO BOND Annual Interest Payment $ 1,115 $ 1,055 $ 994 $ 929 $ 862 $ 792 $ 719 Annual Principal Payment 1,620 1,692 1,764 1,836 1,872 1,944 2,016 Total Annual Payment $ 2,735 $ 2,747 $ 2,758 $ 2,765 $ 2,734 $ 2,736 $ 2,735 TOTAL OTHER LOANS Annual Interest Payment $ 1,115 $ 1,055 $ 994 $ 929 $ 862 $ 792 $ 719 Annual Principal Payment 1,620 1,692 1,764 1,836 1,872 1,944 2,016 Total Annual Payment $ 2,735 $ 2,747 $ 2,758 $ 2,765 $ 2,734 $ 2,736 $ 2,735 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update 425 g67-1 Existin Debt Page 6 Packet Page 363 of 554 g City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Existing Debt Input - Fund 411 Existing Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2011 Water/Sewer Refunding and New Issue Annual Interest Payment $ 1,734 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Annual Principal Payment 86,702 - - - - - Total Annual Payment $ 88,436 $ $ $ $ $ $ Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - TOTAL REVENUE BONDS Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds $ 1,734 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 86,702 $ 88,436 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 88,436 - - - - - FCS GROUP p Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425)P86 e$Page 364 of 554 Treatment Existing Debt - 411 Page 7 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Operating Revenue and Expenditure Forecast Revenues FORECAST BASIS Actual 2012 4.29% Budget 2013 Projection 2014 Projection 2015 Projection 2016 Projection 2017 Projection 2018 Projection 2019 Rate revenues 4 Customer Growth $ 4,732,018 $ 4,935,000 $ 4,959,675 $ 4,984,473 $ 5,009,396 $ 5,034,443 $ 5,059,615 $ 5,084,913 Miscellaneous revenues 8 No Escalation 112,328 57,567 57,567 57,567 57,567 57,567 57,567 57,567 Intergov. Services - Alderwood 6 Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase 78,748 Intergov. Services - Lynwood 6 Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase 17,487 5,000 5,201 5,413 5,637 5,875 6,126 6,392 Intergov. Services - North Bend 6 Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase - - Ballinger P.S. Reim. - MLT 6 Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase - Ballinger P.S. Reim. - Ronald 6 Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase - - - - - - Side sewer permits 8 No Escalation 000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 TOTAL REVENUES $ 4,943,700 $ 5,000,567 $ 5,025,443 $ 5,050,454 $ 5,075,600 $ 5,100,884 $ 5,126,308 $ 5,151,872 Expenditures FORECAST BASIS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Salaries and Wages Labor Cost Inflation $ 447,096 $ 452,838 $ 466,423 $ 480,416 $ 494,828 $ 509,673 $ 524,963 $ 540,712 Overtime Labor Cost Inflation 21,606 17,0004 17,510 18,035 18,576 19,134 19,708 20,299 Benefits Benefits Inflation 212,270 207,630 228,393 251,232 276,356 303,991 334,390 367,829 Uniforms General Cost Inflation 3,400 5,100 5,253 5,411 5,573 5,740 5,912 6,090 Supplies General Cost Inflation 48,554 61,005 62,835 64,720 66,662 68,662 70,722 72,843 Sewer Inventory General Cost Inflation 3,300 3,000 3,090 3,183 3,278 3,377 3,478 3,582 Small Equipment General Cost Inflation 3,075 6,000 6,180 6,365 6,556 6,753 6,956 7,164 Professional Services General Cost Inflation 14,039 53,836 55,451 57,115 58,828 60,593 62,411 64,283 Communications General Cost Inflation 27,048 30,000 30,900 31,827 32,782 33,765 34,778 35,822 Travel General Cost Inflation - 2,400 2,472 2,546 2,623 2,701 2,782 2,866 Advertising General Cost Inflation - 500 515 530 546 563 580 597 Rental / Lease General Cost Inflation 3,255 1,800 1,854 1,910 1,967 2,026 2,087 2,149 Insurance General Cost Inflation 94,658 89,832 92,527 95,303 98,162 101,107 104,140 107,264 Public Utility General Cost Inflation 585,154 535,00 551,050 567,582 584,609 602,147 620,212 638,818 Anticipated One -Time Payment to Lynnwood - Repair / Maintenance ■ General Cost Inflation 16,306 15,000 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,883 17,389 17,911 Miscellaneous (excl. Taxes) General Cost Inflation 67,039 66,8344 68,839 70,904 73,031 75,222 77,479 79,803 State Taxes Excise and B&O Tax Rate 71,105 69,266 65,197 60,974 56,464 51,643 46,488 40,972 Intergov. Services 1 I General Cost Inflation 32,468 140,000 144,200 148,526 152,982 157,571 162,298 167,167 Buildings 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - Equipment 1 General Cost Inflation 141,000 145,230 149,587 154,075 158,697 163,458 168,361 Interfund Services 1 General Cost Inflation 220,672 161,435 166,278 171,266 176,404 181,697 187,147 192,762 Interfund Rental 1 General Cost Inflation 128,244 117,912 121,449 125,093 128,846 132,711 136,692 140,793 Interfund Repair / Maintenance 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - Interfund Transfer Out [a] 1 I General Cost Inflation - - - Debt Issue Cost 8 No Escalation 1.379 16,551 16,551 16,551 16,551 16,551 16,551 Decision Package 8 No Escalation Total Cash O&M Expenditures $ 2,000,669 $ 2,193,939 $ 2,267,648 $ 2,344,989 $ 2,426,089 $ 2,511,206 $ 2,600,620 $ 2,694,639 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) 8NIX& Page 365 of 554 O&M Page 8 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Operating Expenditure Forecast Actual Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Treatment Plant Expenditures FORECAST BASIS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Salaries and Wages 3 Labor Cost Inflation $ 1,134,894 $ 1,177,688 $ 1,213,019 $ 1,249,409 $ 1,286,891 $ 1,325,498 $ 1,365,263 $ 1,406,221 Overtime 3 Labor Cost Inflation 77,444 56,000 57,680 59,410 61,193 63,028 64,919 66,867 Benefits 7 Benefits Inflation 420,804 462,439 508,683 559,551 615,506 677,057 744,763 819,239 Uniforms 1 General Cost Inflation 6,268 6,050 6,232 6,418 6,611 6,809 7,014 7,224 Supplies 1 General Cost Inflation 358,276 421,500 434,145 447,169 460,584 474,402 488,634 503,293 Fuel Consumed 1 General Cost Inflation 150,546 90,000 92,700 95,481 98,345 101,296 104,335 107,465 Small Equipment General Cost Inflation 798 10,000 10,300 10,609 10,927 11,255 11,593 11,941 Professional Services General Cost Inflation 151,056 151,000 155,530 160,196 165,002 169,952 175,050 180,302 Communications General Cost Inflation 11,459 10,000 10,300 10,609 10,927 11,255 11,593 11,941 Travel & Training General Cost Inflation 1,448 5,000 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 5,796 5,970 Advertising 1 General Cost Inflation 1,525 2,000 2,060 2,122 2,185 2,251 2,319 2,388 Rental / Lease 1 General Cost Inflation 3,136 5,000 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 5,796 5,970 Insurance 1 General Cost Inflation 68,242 67,285 69,304 71,383 73,524 75,730 78,002 80,342 Public Utility 1 General Cost Inflation 405,705 396,200 408,086 420,329 432,938 445,927 459,304 473,084 Repair/ Maintenance 1 General Cost Inflation 55,801 75,000 77,250 79,568 81,955 84,413 86,946 89,554 Miscellaneous 1 General Cost Inflation 74,315 75,000 77,250 79,568 81,955 84,413 86,946 89,554 Intergov. Services 1 General Cost Inflation 55,973 150,000 154,500 159,135 163,909 168,826 173,891 179,108 Interfund Services (see below) 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - Interfund Supplies 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - Interfund Rental 1 General Cost Inflation 7,308 9,024 9,295 9,574 9,861 10,157 10,461 10,775 Machinery / Equipment 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - Interfund Transfer Out 1 General Cost Inflation - WL - - - - - - Decision Package 8 No Escalation Allocable O&M Expenditures $ 2,985,000 $ 3,169,186 $ 3,296,632 $ 3,431,139 $ 3,573,242 $ 3,723,525 $ 3,882,624 $ 4,051,236 Interfund Services - Edmonds Only.1 General Cost Inflation 183,698 171,454 176,598 181,896 187,352 192,973 198,762 204,725 Total Cash O&M Expenditures $ 3,168,698 $ 3,340,640 $ 3,473,230 $ 3,613,035 $ 3,760,594 $ 3,916,498 $ 4,081,386 $ 4,255,961 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) N'40&age 366 of 554 Treatment O&M Page 9 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Operating Expenditure Forecast Treatment O&M Allocations 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Allocable O&M Expenditures $ 2,985,000 $ 3,169,186 $ 3,296,632 $ 3,431,139 $ 3,573,242 $ 3,723,525 $ 3,882,624 $ 4,051,236 less: Revenues from King County 8 No Escalation (466,885) Adjusted Total $ 2,518,115 $ 3,169,186 $ 3,296,632 $ 3,431,139 $ 3,573,242 $ 3,723,525 $ 3,882,624 $ 4,051,236 plus: Overhead Charge 10.00% 251,812 316,919 329,663 343,114 357,324 372,352 388,262 405,124 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALLOCATIONS $ 2,769,927 $ 3,486,105 $ 3,626,296 $ 3,774,253 $ 3,930,566 $ 4,095,877 $ 4,270,887 $ 4,456,360 % Shares of O&M Expenditures City of Edmonds 49.25% � 49.25% 49.25% 49.25% 49.25% 49.25% 49.25% 49.25% City of Mountlake Terrace 29.66% 29.66% 29.66% 29.66% 29.66% 29.66% 29.66% 29.66% Ronald Wastewater District 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% Olympic View Water & Sewer Dist. 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Allocable O&M Expenditures City of Edmonds City of Mountlake Terrace Ronald Wastewater District Olympic View Water & Sewer Dist. Total Treatment O&M Contributions Treatment Edmonds Share Allocated O&M Expenditures plus: Interfund Services Edmonds Treatment Plant O&M $ 1,364,259 $ 1,716,995 $ 1,786,042 $ 1,858,915 $ 1,935,903 $ 2,017,323 $ 2,103,520 $ 2,194,870 821,686 1,034,137 1,075,724 1,119,615 1,165,984 1,215,023 1,266,939 1,321,959 219,962 276,834 287,967 299,716 312,129 325,257 339,154 353,883 364,020 458,139 476,562 496,007 516,549 538,274 561,274 585,648 $ 2,769,927 $ 3,486,105 $ 3,626,296 $ 3,774,253 $ 3,930,566 $ 4,095,877 $ 4,270,887 $ 4,456,360 1,872,553 1,769,110 1,840,253 1,915,338 1,994,663 2,078,554 2,167,367 $ 1,364,259 $ 1,716,995 $ 1,786,042 $ 1,858,915 $ 1,935,903 $ 2,017,323 $ 2,103,520 $ 2,194,870 183,698 171,454 176,598 181,896 187,352 192,973 198,762 204,725 $ 1,547,957 $ 1,888,449 $ 1,962,640 $ 2,040,811 $ 2,123,256 $ 2,210,296 $ 2,302,282 $ 2,399,595 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) N'40&age 367 of 554 Treatment O&M Page 10 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Capital Improvement Program Project Costs in Year: 2013 TOTAL FORECASTED PROJECT COSTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN CURRENT DOLLARS Project ID Project Name Life in Years 2013 - 2019 TOTAL COSTS 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitations Lift Stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, & 15 50 $ 4,822,810 $ 4,822,810 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Sewer Main Replacement and CIPP 2012 Sewer Replacement / Rehab /Improvements 50 $ 1,199,029 $ 350,000 $ 849,029 $ $ $ $ $ 2013 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements 50 1,927,767 120,000 1,807,767 2015 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements (2014 50 191,262 - 191,262 City-wide Sewer Improvements (2014 only) 50 33,981 - 33,981 City-wide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation (2013 & 2014) 50 739,493 302,600 436,893 - City-wide Annual Repair and Replacement Projects 50 10,000,000 - - 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Other Studies & Projects Meter Installations Basin LS-01 50 $ 72,600 $ 72,600 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Meter Installations Basin Edmonds Zone 50 19,417 - 19,417 Smoke Test in Basin LS-01 50 75,000 75,000 - Sewer Comp Plan Update 6 99,100 99,100 - - - - - - Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars $ 19,180,460 $ 5,842,110 $ 3,338,350 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 FCS GROUP p2 Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) KN',5 Rage 368 of 554 CIP Input Page 11 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Capital Improvement Program Cumulative Inflation 0.00% 3.00% 6.09% 9.27% 12.55% 15.93% 19.41% Annual Inflation 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN INFLATED DOLLARS Project ID Project Name Life in Years 2013 - 2019 TOTAL COSTS 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitations Lift Stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, & 15 50 $ 4,822,810 $ 4,822,810 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Sewer Main Replacement and CIPP 2012 Sewer Replacement / Rehab /Improvements 50 $ 1,224,500 $ 350,000 $ 874,500 $ $ $ $ $ 2013 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements 50 1,982,000 120,000 1,862,000 2015 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements (2014 50 197,000 - 197,000 City-wide Sewer Improvements (2014 only) 50 35,000 - 35,000 City-wide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation (2013 & 2014) 50 752,600 302,600 450,000 City-wide Annual Repair and Replacement Projects 50 11,264,924 - - 2,121,800 2,185,454 2,251,018 2,318,548 2,388,105 Other Studies & Projects Meter Installations Basin LS-01 50 $ 72,600 $ 72,600 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ Meter Installations Basin Edmonds Zone 50 20,000 - 20,000 Smoke Test in Basin LS-01 50 75,000 75,000 - Sewer Comp Plan Update 6 99,100 99,100 - - - - - Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars $ 17,163,172 $ 5,842,110 $ 3,438,500 $ 2,121,800 $ 2,185,454 $ 2,251,018 $ 2,318,548 $ 2,388,105 FCS GROUPEdmondsEdmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) Packet Page 369 of 554 CIP Input Page 12 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Capital Improvement Program MAINTENANCE RELATED WWTP PROJECTS (EDMONDS' SHARE) Project Project Name Life in Years 2013 - 2019 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 ID TOTAL COSTS Total Cost by Year in 2013 Dollars 50 $ 3,384,000 $ 743,000 $ 597,000 $ 754,000 $ 440,000 $ 425,000 $ 425,000 $ - Total Cost by Year in Inflated Dollars 50 $ 3,609,661 $ 743,000 $ 614,910 $ 799,919 $ 480,800 $ 478,341 $ 492,691 $ FCS GROUPEdmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) Ira ', F02 �age 370 of 554 CIP Input Page 13 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Capital Funding Analysis Summary of Exoenditures 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Sewer Capital Projects $ 5,842,110 $ 3,438,500 $ 2,121,800 $ 2,185,454 $ 2,251,018 $ 2,318,548 $ 2,388,105 Maintenance Related WWTP Projects (Edmonds' Share) 743,000 614,910 799,919 480,800 478,341 492,691 - Capital Related Contributions to Fund 414 - Edmonds 970,389 513,167 538,799 557,738 557,322 547,547 591,263 CAPITAL PROJECTS $ 7,555,499 $ 4,566,577 $ 3,460,518 $ 3,223,992 $ 3,286,681 $ 3,358,787 $ 2,979,367 Capital Financing Plan 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 OTHER FUNDING SOURCES [NOTE A] Other Sources (Transfer fr. 414) $ 47,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - PWTF Loan Proceeds - Other Loan Proceeds - - - - - - - Capital Fund Balance 6,353,137 4,566,577 3,460,518 490,166 3,286,681 407,884 2,979,367 Revenue Bond Proceeds [Note B] 1,155,362 - - 2,733,826 - 2,950,903 - Rates Total $ 7,555,499 $ 4,566,577 $ 3,460,518 $ 3,223,992 $ 3,286,681 $ 3,358,787 $ 2,979,367 TOTAL CAPITAL RESOURCES $ 7,555,499 $ 4,566,577 $ 3,460,518 $ 3,223,992 $ 3,286,681 $ 3,358,787 $ 2,979,367 Info: Capital Contingency Deficit - - - - - - - NOTE A: SELECTION OF RESIDUAL CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCE Select the Residual Funding Source 1 Revenue Bond Proceeds 1 - Revenue Bond Proceeds 2 - Rates NOTE B: USER INPUT FOR REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS Select Amount of Bond Proceeds 1 User Defined 1 - Amounts at Right =_> $ 8,300,000 $ - $ - $ 6,000,000 $ - $ 6,000,000 $ 2 - Calculated by the Model FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) a 1keOj Page 371 of 554 Capital Funding Page 14 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Capital Funding Analysis New Debt Computations 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 REVENUE BONDS Amount to Fund $ - Is - $ - $ 6,000,000 $ - $ 6,000,000 $ - Issuance Costs - - Reserve Required 523,459 523,459 Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ 6,523,459 $ $ 6,523,459 $ OTHER LOANS Amount to Fund $ $ $ $ - $ $ - $ Issuance Costs Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PWTF LOAN Amount to Fund $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Debt Service Summary 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXISTING DEBT SERVICE - SEWER (411) Annual Interest Payments $ 50,752 $ 48,014 $ 46,232 $ 44,402 $ 42,540 $ 40,629 $ 38,671 Annual Principal Payments 213,605 145,757 147,329 148,401 149,937 151,509 152,581 Total Debt Service Payments $ 264,356 $ 193,771 $ 193,561 $ 192,803 $ 192,476 $ 192,138 $ 191,252 Revenue Bond Payments Only 151,340 81,261 81,561 81,316 81,541 81,721 81,356 EXISTING DEBT SERVICE - TREATMENT (411) Annual Interest Payments $ 1,734 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Annual Principal Payments 86,702 Total Debt Service Payments $ 88,436 $ $ $ $ $ $ Revenue Bond Payments Only 88,436 - NEW DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ 111,637 $ 401,892 $ 400,060 $ 724,344 $ 712,533 $ 1,025,430 $ 1,000,568 Annual Principal Payments - 91,586 94,448 294,597 304,461 517,829 541,431 Total Debt Service Payments $ 111,637 $ 493,478 $ 494,508 $ 1,018,941 $ 1,016,994 $ 1,543,258 $ 1,541,999 Revenue Bond Payments Only 111,637 493,478 494,508 1,018,941 1,016,994 1,543,258 1,541,999 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS $ 375,993 $ 687,249 $ 688,069 $ 1,211,743 $ 1,209,471 $ 1,735,396 $ 1,733,251 Total Interest Payments 164,122 449,905 446,292 768,746 755,073 1,066,059 1,039,239 Total Principal Payments 300,307 237,343 241,777 442,997 454,398 669,338 694,012 Total Revenue Bond Payments Only 351,412 574,739 576,070 1,100,257 1,098,536 1,624,980 1,623,355 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) acke2f Page 372 of 554 Capital Funding Page 15 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Revenue Requirements Analysis Cash Flow Sufficiency Test 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES Sewer Cash Operating Expenses $ 2,193,939 $ 2,267,648 $ 2,344,989 $ 2,426,089 $ 2,511,206 $ 2,600,620 $ 2,694,639 Treatment O&M Expenses - Edmonds Share 1,888,449 1,962,640 2,040,811 2,123,256 2,210,296 2,302,282 2,399,595 Fund 414 Cont. for Debt (excl. Capital Financing) - Edmonds 130,201 130,500 130,807 130,785 130,098 129,695 129,979 Existing Debt Service - 411 Debt (Sewer & Treatment) 352,792 193,771 193,561 192,803 192,476 192,138 191,252 New Debt Service - Fund 412-300 111,637 493,478 494,508 1,018,941 1,016,994 1,543,258 1,541,999 Rate -Funded CIP - - - - - - - Rate Funded System Reinvestment - - - - - Additions Required to Meet Minimum Op. Fund Balance - - - - - - Total Expenses $ 4,677,018 $ 5,048,036 $ 5,204,676 $ 5,891,873 $ 6,061,070 $ 6,767,994 $ 6,957,463 REVENUES Rate Revenue $ 4,935,000 $ 4,959,675 $ 4,984,473 $ 5,009,396 $ 5,034,443 $ 5,059,615 $ 5,084,913 Other Revenue 65,567 65,768 65,980 66,204 66,442 66,693 66,959 Operating Fund & Debt Reserve Fund Interest Earnings 3,463 3,902 7,973 12,228 21,914 27,886 41,789 Total Revenue $ 5,004,030 $ 5,029,345 $ 5,058,427 $ 5,087,828 $ 5,122,798 $ 5,154,194 $ 5,193,661 NET CASH FLOW (DEFICIENCY) $ 327,012 $ (18,691) $ (146,249) $ (804,045) $ (938,272) $ (1,613,800) $ (1,763,802) FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 373 of 554 Tests Page 16 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Revenue Requirements Analysis Sufficiencv Test EXPENSES Cash Operating Expenses - Fund 411 Sewer Treatment Operating Expenses - Fund 411 Fund 414 Contributions (excl. Financing of Capital) - Edmonds Revenue Bond Debt Service - Fund 411 (Sewer & Treatment) Revenue Bond Debt Service - Fund 414 Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement at 1.25 Total Expenses ALLOWABLE REVENUES Rate Revenue Payments from Other Agencies (411 - Treatment O&M) Other Revenue Interest Earnings - All Funds Total Revenue Individual Coverage Realized INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE SURPLUS (DEFICIENCY) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $ 2,193,939 $ 2,267,648 $ 2,344,989 $ 2,426,089 $ 2,511,206 $ 2,600,620 $ 2,694,639 3,340,640 3,473,230 3,613,035 3,760,594 3,916,498 4,081,386 4,255,961 130,201 130,500 130,807 130,785 130,098 129,695 129,979 351,412 574,739 576,070 1,100,257 1,098,536 1,624,980 1,623,355 38,760 39,367 38,491 38,783 39,040 38,095 39,483 97,543 153,526 153,640 284,760 284,394 415,769 415,710 $ 6,152,495 $ 6,639,009 $ 6,857,033 $ 7,741,268 $ 7,979,770 $ 8,890,545 $ 9,159,127 $ 4,935,000 $ 4,959,675 $ 4,984,473 $ 5,009,396 $ 5,034,443 $ 5,059,615 $ 5,084,913 1,774,110 1,845,454 1,920,751 2,000,300 2,084,429 2,173,493 2,267,882 65,567 65,768 65,980 66,204 66,442 66,693 66,959 19,421 23,601 25,919 16,577 56,531 34,454 89,732 $ 6,794,098 $ 6,894,498 $ 6,997,124 $ 7,092,478 $ 7,241,844 $ 7,334,254 $ 7,509,485 13.09 8.05 8.08 4.24 4.31 2.91 2.97 $ 641,603 $ 255,489 $ 140,091 $ (648,790) $ (737,926) $ (1,556,292) $ (1,649,642) FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 374 of 554 Tests Page 17 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Revenue Requirements Analysis Maximum Revenue Deficienc Sufficiency Test Driving the Deficiency Maximum Deficiency From Tests less: Net Revenue From Prior Rate Increases Revenue Deficiency Plus: Adjustment for State Excise Tax Total Revenue Deficiency 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 None Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash $ $ 18,691 $ 146,249 $ 804,045 $ 938,272 $ 1,613,800 $ 1,763,802 ' (287,548) (595,311) (924,616) (1,276,877) (1,653,599) $ $ 18,691 $ - $ 208,734 $ 13,656 $ 336,924 $ 110,203 749 8.363 547 13,498 4 415 $ $ 19,440 $ - $ 217,096 $ 14,203 $ 350,422 $ 114,618 Rate Increases 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Rate Revenue with no Increase $ 4,935,000 $ 4,959,675 $ 4,984,473 $ 5,009,396 $ 5,034,443 $ 5,059,615 $ 5,084,913 Revenues from Prior Rate Increases - - 299,068 619,161 961,659 1,328,032 1,719,848 Rate Revenue Before Rate Increase (Incl. previous increases) 4,935,000 4,959,675 5,283,542 5,628,557 5,996,102 6,387,647 6,804,761 Required Annual Rate Increase 0.00% 0.39% 0.00% 3.86% 0.24% 5.49% 1.68% Number of Months New Rates Will Be In Effect 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Info: Percentage Increase to Generate Required Revenue 0.00% 0.39% 0.00% 3.86% 0.24% 5.49% 1.68% Policy Induced Rate Increases 0.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% ANNUAL RATE INCREASE CUMULATIVE RATE INCREASE 0.00% 0.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 12.36% 6.00% 19.10% 6.00% 26.25% 6.00% 33.82% 6.00% 41.85% Impacts of Rate Increases 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Rate Revenues After Rate Increase $ 4,935,000 $ 5,257,256 $ 5,600,554 $ 5,966,270 $ 6,355,868 $ 6,770,906 $ 7,213,046 Full Year Rate Revenues After Rate Increase 4,935,000 5,257,256 5,600,554 5,966,270 6,355,868 6,770,906 7,213,046 Additional State Taxes Due to Rate Increases - 11,463 23,731 36,859 50,901 65,919 81,976 Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase 327,012 267,427 446,100 115,971 332,252 31,572 282,355 Individual Coverage After Rate Increase 8.04 5.34 5.77 3.26 3.57 2.59 2.83 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 375 of 554 Tests Page 18 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Fund Activity Funds 411: OPERATING FUND Beginning Balance plus: Net Cash Flow after Rate Increase less: Transfer of Surplus to Capital Fund Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance Maximum Funds to be Kept as Operating Reserves Info: No of Days of Cash Operating Expenses 412: SEWER CAPITAL FUND Beginning Balance plus: Rate Funded System Reinvestment plus: Grants / Developer Donations / Other Outside Sources plus: Capital Facilities Charges plus: Net Debt Proceeds Available for Projects plus: Interest Earnings plus: Transfer of Surplus from Operating Fund plus: Direct Rate Funding less: Capital Expenditures Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance DEBT RESERVE Beginning Balance plus: Reserve Funding from New Debt less: Use of Reserves for Debt Service Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance $ 7,603,137 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $ 1,250,000 $ 931,197 $ 965,158 $ 1,000,904 $ 1,038,488 $ 1,077,995 $ 1,109,567 327,012 267,427 446,100 115,971 332,252 31,572 282,355 (645,816) (233,466) (410,354) (78,387) (292,745) (227,991) $ 931,197 $ 965,158 $ 1,000,904 $ 1,038,488 $ 1,077,995 $ 1,109,567 $ 1,163,931 698,398 723,868 750,678 778,866 808,496 839,799 872,948 931,197 965,158 1,000,904 1,038,488 1,077,995 1,119,732 1,163,931 60 60 60 60 60 59 60 $ 6,353,137 $ 7,816,336 $ 3,512,765 $ 490,166 $ 3,358,237 $ 407,884 $ 3,064,195 47,000 - - - - - - 10, 000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 8,300,000 - - 6,000,000 - 6,000,000 - 15,883 19,541 17,564 3,676 33,582 5,099 45,963 645,816 233,466 410,354 78,387 292,745 - 227,991 (7,555,499) (4,566,577) (3,460,518) (3,223,992) (3,286,681) (3,358,787) (2,979,367) $ 7,816,336 $ 3,512,765 $ 490,166 $ 3,358,237 $ 407,884 $ 3,064,195 $ 368,782 $ 135,126 $ 629,455 $ 629,455 $ 629,455 $ 1,152,914 $ 1,152,914 $ 1,676,374 494,329 - - 523,459 - 523,459 - $ 629,455 $ 629,455 $ 629,455 $ 1,152,914 $ 1,152,914 $ 1,676,374 $ 1,676,374 262,976 591,894 592,925 1,117,357 1,115,411 1,641,675 1,640,415 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425)P86. t gPage 376 of 554 Funds Page 19 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Existing Debt Input - Fund 414 Existing Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2011 Water/Sewer Refunding and New Issue Annual Interest Payment $ 10,758 $ 10,197 $ 9,322 $ 8,447 $ 7,537 $ 6,592 $ 5,647 Annual Principal Payment 28,002 29,169 29,169 30,336 31,503 31,503 33,836 Total Annual Payment $ 38,760 $ 39,367 $ 38,491 $ 38,783 $ 39,040 $ 38,095 $ 39,483 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - TOTAL REVENUE BONDS Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds $ 10,758 $ 10,197 $ 9,322 $ 8,447 $ 7,537 $ 6,592 $ 5,647 28,002 29,169 29,169 30,336 31,503 31,503 33,836 $ 38,760 $ 39,367 $ 38,491 $ 38,783 $ 39,040 $ 38,095 $ 39,483 39,483 39,483 39,483 39,483 39,483 39,483 39,483 FCS GROUP p Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425)P86 e$Page 377 of 554 414 Existing Debt Page 20 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Existing Debt Input - Fund 414 Existing Debt Service - PWTF Loans 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2002 PWTF Loan PW-02-691-019 Annual Interest Payment $ 1,744 $ 1,569 $ 1,395 $ 1,221 $ 1,046 $ 872 $ 698 Annual Principal Payment 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 Total Annual Payment $ 36,619 $ 36,444 $ 36,270 $ 36,096 $ 35,921 $ 35,747 $ 35,573 TOTAL PWTF LOANS Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment $ 1,744 $ 1,569 $ 1,395 $ 1,221 $ 1,046 $ 872 $ 698 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 $ 36,619 $ 36,444 $ 36,270 $ 36,096 $ 35,921 $ 35,747 $ 35,573 FCS GROUP p Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425)P86 e$Page 378 of 554 414 Existing Debt Page 21 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Existing Debt Input - Fund 414 Existing Debt Service - Other Loans [a] 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 [a] Enter payments for other loans and revenue -supported G.O. issues only. Tax -supported bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund and do not impact this ar 2012 LTGO Bond Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment 2007 LTGO Bond Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment TOTAL OTHER LOANS Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment $ 5,624 $ 5,082 $ 4,540 $ 3,965 $ 3,391 $ 2,800 $ 2,192 27,093 27,093 28,735 28,735 29,556 30,377 30,377 $ 32,717 $ 32,175 $ 33,275 $ 32,700 $ 32,947 $ 33,177 $ 32,569 $ 60,431 $ 57,225 $ 53,876 $ 50,385 $ 46,751 $ 42,945 $ 38,992 87,840 91,744 95,648 99,552 101,504 105,408 109,312 $ 148,271 $ 148,969 $ 149,524 $ 149,937 $ 148,255 $ 148,353 $ 148,304 $ 66,055 $ 62,307 $ 58,416 $ 54,350 $ 50,142 $ 45,745 $ 41,184 114,933 118,837 124,383 128,287 131,060 135,785 139,689 $ 180,988 $ 181,144 $ 182,799 $ 182,637 $ 181,202 $ 181,530 $ 180,873 FCS GROUP p Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425)P86 e$Page 379 of 554 414 Existing Debt Page 22 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Capital Improvement Program Project Costs in Year: 2013 TOTAL FORECASTED PROJECT COSTS Project ID project Name Life in Years 2013 - 2019 TOTAL COSTS 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 WWTP-1-Switchgear Upgrade 50 $ 1,297,724 $ 1,297,724 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - W WTP-2 - Incinerator Testing and Compliance 50 1,040,000 100,000 90,000 850,000 - - - - WWTP-3- Control System Upgrades 50 637,469 67,469 250,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 - WWTPA- Ameresco Energy Project 50 15,000 15,000 - - - - - - WWTP-5- Facility Improvement 50 350,000 350,000 - - - - - - WWTP-6- Variable Frequency Drive upgrade 50 25,000 25,000 - - - - - - W WTP-7 - Upgrade Flow Telemetry Equipment 50 25,000 15,000 10,000 - - - - - WWTP-8- Secondary Clarifier#3 Steel Coating, weir 50 175,000 - 175,000 - - - - - WWTP-9- Secondary Clarifier#1 Steel Coating, weir 50 125,000 - - - 125,000 - - - WWTP-10- Chlorine Contact Chamber Inspection an 50 500,000 - 250,000 - 250,000 - - - WWTP-11-Diesel Day Tank 50 6,000 - 6,000 - - - - - W WTP-12 - Polymer Make Up Equipment 50 80,000 - 80,000 - - - - - WWTP-13- Unanticipated Plant and Operational Imp 50 2,075,000 - 50,000 50,000 50,000 425,000 750,000 750,000 WWTP-14- Screenings Improvements 50 120,000 - 20,000 - - - - 100,000 W WTP-15 - Belt Filter Press Energy Project 50 570,000 - 50,000 20,000 500,000 - - - WWTP-16- Convert 200 HP blower to Turbo Blower 50 350,000 - - - 350,000 - - W WTP-17 - Upgrade Heat Pumps in Building 700 50 50,000 - - - 50,000 - - W WTP-18 - Ugrade Control Valve Actuators on Efflw 50 35,000 - - - - 35,000 - - WWTP-19- Automatic Flow Shearing Process 50 35,000 - - - - 35,000 - - WWTP-20- Recoat Primary Clarifier#1 Steel Equipn 50 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 - WWTP-21- Chemical Use Area 50 125,000 - - - - - - 125,000 Unspent Funds from 2012 50 40,511 40,511 - - - - - - 50 - - - - - - - Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars $ 7,776,704 $ 1,910,704 $ 981,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,005,000 $ 975,000 $ 930,000 $ 975,000 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) 86Va8cket Page 380 of 554 414 CIP Input Page 23 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Capital Improvement Program Cumulative Inflation 1 0.00 % 3.00% 6.09 % 9.27 % 12.55 % 15.93 % 19.41 % Annual Inflatio.1 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN INFLATED DOLLARS Project ID Project Name Life in years 2 OS 019 TOTAL COSTS 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 WWTP-1- Switchgear Upgrade 50 $1,297,724 $1,297,724 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - WWTP-2- Incinerator Testing and Compliance 50 1,094,465 100,000 92,700 901,765 - - - - WWTP-3- Control System Upgrades 50 680,042 67,469 257,500 84,872 87,418 90,041 92,742 - WWTP4- Ameresco Energy Project 50 15,000 15,000 - - - - - - WWTP-5- Facility Improvement 50 350,000 350,000 - - - - - - W WTP-6 - Variable Frequency Drive upgrade 50 25,000 25,000 - - - - - - WWTP-7- Upgrade Flow Telemetry Equipment 50 25,300 15,000 10,300 - - - - - WWTP-8- Secondary Clarifier#3 Steel Coating, weir 50 180,250 - 180,250 - - - - - WWTP-9- Secondary Clanfier#1 Steel Coating, weir 50 136,591 - - - 136,591 - - - WWTP-10-Chlorine Contact Chamber Inspection an 50 530,682 - 257,500 - 273,182 - - - WWTP-11-Diesel Day Tank 50 6,180 - 6,180 - - - - - W WTP-12 - Polymer Make Up Equipment 50 82,400 - 82,400 - - - - WWTP-13- Unanticipated Plant and Operational Imp 50 2,402,517 - 51,500 53,045 54,636 478,341 869,456 895,539 WWTP-14- Screenings Improvements 50 140,005 - 20,600 - - - - 119,405 WWTP-15- Belt Filter Press Energy Project 50 619,082 - 51,500 21,218 546,364 - - - WWTP-16- Convert 200 HP blower to Turbo Blower 50 393,928 - - - - 393,928 - W WTP-17 - Upgrade Heat Pumps in Building 700 50 56,275 - - - - 56,275 - - W WTP-18 - Ugrade Control Valve Actuators on Efflw 50 39,393 - - - - 39,393 - WWTP-19- Automatic Flow Shearing Process 50 39,393 - - - - 39,393 - - WWTP-20 - Re -at Primary Clarifier#1 Steel Equipn 50 115,927 - - - - - 115,927 - WWTP-21- Chemical Use Area 50 149,257 - - - - - - 149,257 Unspent Funds from 2012 50 40,511 40,511 - - - - - - 0 50 - - - - - - - - Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars $ 8,419,922 $ 1,910,704 $ 1,010,430 $ 1,060,900 $ 11098,191 $ 1,097,371 $ 1,078,125 $ 1,164,201 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) 86Va8cket Page 381 of 554 414 CIP Input Page 24 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant (Fund 414) Capital Funding Analysis Summary of Capital Exaenditures 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Treatment Plant CIP $ 1,910,704 $ 1,010,430 $ 1,060,900 $ 1,098,191 $ 1,097,371 $ 1,078,125 $ 1,164,201 Capital Financing Plan 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Direct Billing of Agencies 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Project to be Funded 1,910,704 1,010,430 1,060,900 1,098,191 1,097,371 1,078,125 1,164,201 OTHER FUNDING SOURCES [NOTE A] Outside Sources $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - PWTF Loan Proceeds - Other Loan Proceeds Use of Fund 414 Balance Revenue Bond Proceeds [Note B] - - - - - - - Agency Contribution Deficiency 1,910,704 1,010,430 1,060,900 1,098,191 1,097,371 1,078,125 1,164,201 Total $ 1,910,704 $ 1,010,430 $ 1,060,900 $ 1,098,191 $ 1,097,371 $ 1,078,125 $ 1,164,201 TOTAL CAPITAL RESOURCES Info: Capital Contingency Deficit $ 1,910,704 $ 1,010,430 $ 1,060,900 $ 1,098,191 $ 1,097,371 $ 1,078,125 $ 1,164,201 (236,746) (223,587) (210,205) (196,532) (182,497) (168,028) (153,049) NOTE A: SELECTION OF RESIDUAL CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCE Select the Residual Funding Source 2 Rates 1 - Revenue Bond Proceeds 2 - Rates NOTE B: USER INPUT FOR REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS Select Amount of Bond Proceeds 1 User Defined 1 - Amounts at Right ==> $ - $ 2 - Calculated by the Model FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 382 of 554 414 Capital Funding Page 25 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant (Fund 414) Capital Funding Analysis New Debt Computations 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 REVENUE BONDS Amount to Fund $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Issuance Costs Reserve Required Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ OTHER LOANS Amount to Fund $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Issuance Costs Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PWTF LOAN Amount to Fund $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Debt Service Summary 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXISTING DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ 78,556 $ 74,074 $ 69,134 $ 64,018 $ 58,726 $ 53,209 $ 47,529 Annual Principal Payments 177,810 182,881 188,427 193,498 197,438 202,163 208,400 Total Debt Service Payments $ 256,366 $ 256,955 $ 257,561 $ 257,516 $ 256,163 $ 255,371 $ 255,929 Revenue Bond Payments Only 38,760 39,367 38,491 38,783 39,040 38,095 39,483 NEW DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Annual Principal Payments Total Debt Service Payments $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Revenue Bond Payments Only - TOTAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS $ 256,366 $ 256,955 $ 257,561 $ 257,516 $ 256,163 $ 255,371 $ 255,929 Total Interest Payments 78,556 74,074 69,134 64,018 58,726 53,209 47,529 Total Principal Payments 177,810 182,881 188,427 193,498 197,438 202,163 208,400 Total Revenue Bond Payments Only 38,760 39,367 38,491 38,783 39,040 38,095 39,483 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 383 of 554 414 Capital Funding Page 26 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Fund (Fund 414) Activity Fund 414 Total Projected Contributions for Debt Service Beginning Balance plus: Contributions from King County plus: Interest Earnings plus: Misc. Revenues (AWD biosolids, rebate from PUD) plus: Contribution from Participating Agencies for Debt Service Mountlake Terrace Ronald Sewer District Olympic View Sewer District Edmonds subtotal: Contributions plus: Capital Funding Sources Outside Sources Net Debt Proceeds Available for Projects Direct Billing of Agencies for Capital Agency Contribution Deficiency for Capital subtotal: Capital Funding Sources less: Fund 414 Expenditures Fund 414 Existing Debt Service Payments Fund 414 New Debt Service Payments Capital Project Expenditures subtotal: Fund 414 Expenditures Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance Capital Contributions from Agencies Share of Edmond's Contribution Share of Mountlake Terrace Share of Ronald Sewer District Share of Olympic View Sewer District Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $ 256,366 $ 256,955 $ 257,561 $ 257,516 $ 256,163 $ 255,371 $ 255,929 $ 30,179 $ 63,254 $ 76,413 $ 89,795 $ 103,468 $ 117,503 $ 131,972 75 158 382 673 1,035 1,469 1,980 33,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 $ 59,410 $ 59,547 $ 59,687 $ 59,677 $ 59,363 $ 59,180 $ 59,309 24,324 24,380 24,437 24,433 24,305 24,230 24,283 42,431 42,529 42,629 42,622 42,398 42,266 42,359 130,201 130,500 130,807 130,785 130,098 129,695 129,979 $ 256,366 $ 256,955 $ 257,561 $ 257,516 $ 256,163 $ 255,371 $ 255,929 1,910,704 1,010,430 1,060,900 1,098,191 1,097,371 1,078,125 1,164,201 $ 1,910,704 $ 1,010,430 $ 1,060,900 $ 1,098,191 $ 1,097,371 $ 1,078,125 $ 1,164,201 (256,366) (256,955) (257,561) (257,516) (256,163) (255,371) (255,929) (1,910,704) (1,010,430) (1,060,900) (1,098,191) (1,097,371) (1,078,125) (1,164,201) $ (2,167,070) $ (1,267,385) $ (1,318,461) $ (1,355,707) $ (1,353,534) $ (1,333,496) $ (1,420,130) $ 63,254 $ 76,413 $ 89,795 $ 103,468 $ 117,503 $ 131,972 $ 146,951 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,910,704 $ 1,010,430 $ 1,060,900 $ 1,098,191 $ 1,097,371 $ 1,078,125 $ 1,164,201 50.787% $ 970,389 $ 513,167 $ 538,799 $ 557,738 $ 557,322 $ 547,547 $ 591,263 23.174% 442,787 234,157 245,853 254,495 254,305 249,845 269,792 9.488% 181,288 95,870 100,658 104,196 104,119 102,292 110,459 16.551% 316,241 167,236 175,590 181,762 181,626 178,440 192,687 100.000% $ 1,910,704 $ 1,010,430 $ 1,060,900 $ 1,098,191 $ 1,097,371 $ 1,078,125 $ 1,164,201 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) Packe802age 384 of 554 Fund 414 Page 27 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility 2013 Bond 2013 Revenue Bond Summary Net Bond Proceeds $ 14,500,000 Debt Reserve Funding 863,587 Issuance Cost and Misc. 250,601 Total $ 15,614,188 Net Proceeds Debt Reserve Assumed Net Proceeds for the 2013 Bond Provided by Dashen & Associates => Net Proceeds Needed by the Utility to Fund Capital Program => $ 14,500,000 $ 8,300,000 Ratio of Net Proceeds Needed to Net Proceeds for the Given Payment Schedule => 1 0.57 Total of 2013 Revenue Bond 2013 2014 2015 2016 $ 863,587 $ 494,329 0.57 2017 2018 2019 2013 Bond Debt Service - As Provided by Dashen & Associates Annual Interest Payment $ 195,028 $ 702,100 $ 698,900 $ 695,600 $ 692,200 $ 687,100 $ 679,900 Annual Principal Payment - 160,000 165,000 170,000 170,000 180,000 185,000 Total Annual Payment $ 195,028 $ 862,100 $ 863,900 $ 865,600 $ 862,200 $ 867,100 $ 864,900 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - Water Utility's Share 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2013 Bond Debt Service - Propared for the Water Utility Annual Interest Payment $ 111,637 $ 401,892 $ 400,060 $ 398,171 $ 396,225 $ 393,306 $ 389,184 Annual Principal Payment - 91,586 94,448 97,310 97,310 103,034 105,897 Total Annual Payment $ 111,637 $ 493,478 $ 494,508 $ 495,481 $ 493,535 $ 496,340 $ 495,081 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) 867-1802 2013 Bond Page 1 Packet Page 385 of 554 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Summary Total Capital Projects $ 7,5559499 $ 495669577 $ 394609518 $ 3,2239992 $ 3,286,681 $ 393589787 $ 299799367 Revenue Bond Proceeds 1,155,362 - - 2,204,618 - 2,000,000 - Use of Capital Fund Balance 6,353,137 4,566,577 3,460,518 1,019,374 3,286,681 1,301,280 1,567,703 Direct Rate Funding - - - - - 57,506 1,411,664 Total Funding Sources $ 7,555,499 $ 4,566,577 $ 3,460,518 $ 3,223,992 $ 3,286,681 $ 3,358,787 $ 2,979,367 Revenues Rate Revenues Under Existing Rates $ 4,935,000 $ 4,959,675 $ 4,984,473 $ 5,009,396 $ 5,034,443 $ 5,059,615 $ 5,084,913 Non -Rate Revenues 69,030 69,670 73,953 78,432 87,221 93,161 101,964 Total Revenues $ 5,004,030 $ 5,029,345 $ 5,058,427 $ 5,087,828 $ 5,121,664 $ 5,152,776 $ 5,186,877 Expenses 411 Sewer Cash O&M Expenses [a] $ 2,193,939 $ 2,285,797 $ 2,383,203 $ 2,486,473 $ 2,596,080 $ 2,712,537 $ 2,836,408 411 Treatment O&M - Edmonds Only 1,888,449 1,962,640 2,040,811 2,123,256 2,210,296 2,302,282 2,399,595 Transfer to Fund 414 (excl. Capital) 130,201 130,500 130,807 130,785 130,098 129,695 129,979 Existing Debt Service 352,792 193,771 193,561 192,803 192,476 192,138 191,252 New Debt Service 111,637 493,478 494,508 905,524 903,578 1,080,869 1,079,610 Rate Funded System Reinvestment - - - - - - - Rate Funded CIP - 57,506 1,411,664 Total Expenses $ 4,677,018 $ 5,066,185 $ 5,242,889 $ 5,838,841 $ 6,032,528 $ 6,475,028 $ 8,0489508 Annual Rate Adjustment 0 00'. • 0', 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% Rate Increases Dictated by: Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Rate Revenues After Rate Increase $ 4,935,000 $ 5,430,844 $ 5,976,508 $ 6,576,998 $ 7,237,822 $ 7,965,042 $ 8,765,329 Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase 327,012 434,329 807,572 816,589 1,292,515 1,583,175 818,786 taxes due to Operating Fund $ 931,197 $ 965,158 $ 1,000,904 $ 1,038,488 $ 1,077,995 $ 1,119,732 $ 1,163,931 Capital Fund 7,816,336 3,679,667 1,019,374 3,292,033 1,301,280 1,567,703 808,103 Debt Reserve Fund 629,455 629,455 629,455 1,039,498 1,039,498 1,213,985 1,213,985 Total $ 9,3769988 $ 592749280 $ 2,6499733 $ 5,370,019 $ 39418,773 $ 3,901,420 $ 3,186,018 Combined Minimum Target Balance $ 961,374 $ 1,315,763 $ 1,343,602 $ 1,782,807 $ 1,810,491 $ 2,019,085 $ 2,050,974 FCS GROUP p Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425)P86 e$Page 386 of 554 Summary Page 2 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Assumptions Economic & Financial Factors 1 General Cost Inflation 2 Construction Cost Inflation 3 Labor Cost Inflation 4 Customer Growth 5 General Inflation plus Growth 6 Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase 7 Benefits Inflation 8 No Escalation Fund Earnings Local / State Excise Tax State B&O Tax 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 0.00% 4.02% 4.08% 4.14% 4.21% 4.27% 4.34% 10.00% 0% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.25% 0.25% 0.50% V5% 1.00iff 1.25% 1.504 3.85% 3.85% 3.85% 3.85% 3.85% 3.85%W 3.85% 3.85°/� 1.80% 1.65% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50°/ Accounting Assumptions 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 FISCAL POLICY RESTRICTIONS Min. Op. Fund Balance Target (days of O&M expense) 45 45 45 45 45 45 Max. Op. Fund Balance (days of O&M expense) 60 60 60 60 60 60 SEWER - Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target Select Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target 1 Defined as % of Plant 1 - Defined as % of Plant Plant -in -Service in 2012 $ 12,630,486 Minimum Capital Fund Balance - % of plant assets 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 - Amount at Right =_> $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - TREATMENT PLANT - Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target Select Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target 2 Defined as % of Plant 1 - Defined as % of Plant Plant -in -Service in 2012 $ 41,691,158 Minimum Capital Fund Balance - % of plant assets 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 - Amount at Right =_> $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) g67-1 Assumptions Page 3 Packet Page 387 of 554 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Assumptions RATE FUNDED SYSTEM REINVESTMENT Select Reinvestment Funding Strategy 4 System Reinvestment is not Funded Amount of Annual Cash Funding from Rates 1 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense 2 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense less Annual Debt Principal Payments 3 - Equal to Amount at Right =_> $ - $ - $ - $ 4 - Do Not Fund System Reinvestment Capital Financing Assumptions 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 GENRAL FACILITIES CHARGE (GFC) REVENUES General Facilities Charge Revenues $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ REVENUE BONDS Term (years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost (incl. issuance costs, per City staff's direction) 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Issuance Cost 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement 1.25 PWTF LOAN Term (years; 10 year minimum and no more than 20 years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% OTHER LOANS & REVENUE -SUPPORTED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS [a] Term (years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Issuance Cost 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% [a] Tax -supported general obligation bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund; terms and annual obligations of such bonds are not factors in this analysis. 2019 10,000 20 5.00% 0.00% 20 1.00% 20 5.00% 0.00% FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) g67-1 Assumptions Page 4 Packet Page 388 of 554 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Existing Debt Input Existing Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2011 Water/Sewer Refunding and New Issue Annual Interest Payment $ 43,420 $ 41,261 $ 40,061 $ 38,816 $ 37,541 $ 36,221 $ 34,856 Annual Principal Payment 107,920 40,000 41,500 42,500 44,000 45,500 46,500 Total Annual Payment $ 151,340 $ 81,261 $ 81,561 $ 81,316 $ 81,541 $ 81,721 $ 81,356 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - TOTAL REVENUE BONDS Annual Interest Payment $ 43,420 $ 41,261 $ 40,061 $ 38,816 $ 37,541 $ 36,221 $ 34,856 Annual Principal Payment 107,920 40,000 41,500 42,500 44,000 45,500 46,500 Total Annual Payment $ 151,340 $ 81,261 $ 81,561 $ 81,316 $ 81,541 $ 81,721 $ 81,356 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds 151,340 98,416 98,416 98,416 98,416 98,416 98,416 Existina Debt Service - PWTF Loans PWTF LOAN 02-691-019 2002 Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment 2005 PWTF LOAN 05-691-015 Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment TOTAL PWTF LOANS Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $ 1,823 $ 1,640 $ 1,458 $ 1,276 $ 1,094 $ 911 $ 729 36,450 36,450 36,450 36,450 36,450 36,450 36,450 $ 38,273 $ 38,090 $ 37,908 $ 37,726 $ 37,544 $ 37,361 $ 37,179 $ 4,395 $ 4,057 $ 3,719 $ 3,381 $ 3,043 $ 2,705 $ 2,367 67,615 67,615 67,615 67,615 67,615 67,615 67,615 $ 72,010 $ 71,672 $ 71,334 $ 70,996 $ 70,657 $ 70,319 $ 69,981 $ 6,217 $ 5,697 $ 5,177 $ 4,656 $ 4,136 $ 3,616 $ 3,096 104,065 104,065 104,065 104,065 104,065 104,065 104,065 $ 110,282 $ 109,762 $ 109,242 $ 108,721 $ 108,201 $ 107,681 $ 107,160 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update 425 g67-1 Existin Debt Page 5 Packet Page 389 of 554 g City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Existing Debt Input Existing Debt Service - Other Loans [a] 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 [a] Enter payments for other loans and revenue -supported G.O. issues only. Tax -supported bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund and do not impact this 2007 LTGO BOND Annual Interest Payment $ 1,115 $ 1,055 $ 994 $ 929 $ 862 $ 792 $ 719 Annual Principal Payment 1,620 1,692 1,764 1,836 1,872 1,944 2,016 Total Annual Payment $ 2,735 $ 2,747 $ 2,758 $ 2,765 $ 2,734 $ 2,736 $ 2,735 TOTAL OTHER LOANS Annual Interest Payment $ 1,115 $ 1,055 $ 994 $ 929 $ 862 $ 792 $ 719 Annual Principal Payment 1,620 1,692 1,764 1,836 1,872 1,944 2,016 Total Annual Payment $ 2,735 $ 2,747 $ 2,758 $ 2,765 $ 2,734 $ 2,736 $ 2,735 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) g67-1 Existing Debt Page 6 Packet Page 390 of 554 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Existing Debt Input - Fund 411 Existing Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2011 Water/Sewer Refunding and New Issue Annual Interest Payment $ 1,734 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Annual Principal Payment 86,702 - - - - - Total Annual Payment $ 88,436 $ $ $ $ $ $ Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - TOTAL REVENUE BONDS Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds $ 1,734 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 86,702 $ 88,436 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 88,436 - - - - - FCS GROUP p Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425)P86 e$Page 391 of 554 Treatment Existing Debt - 411 Page 7 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Operating Revenue and Expenditure Forecast Revenues FORECAST BASIS Actual 2012 4.29% Budget 2013 Projection 2014 Projection 2015 Projection 2016 Projection 2017 Projection 2018 Projection 2019 Rate revenues 4 Customer Growth $ 4,732,018 $ 4,935,000 $ 4,959,675 $ 4,984,473 $ 5,009,396 $ 5,034,443 $ 5,059,615 $ 5,084,913 Miscellaneous revenues 8 No Escalation 112,328 57,567 57,567 57,567 57,567 57,567 57,567 57,567 Intergov. Services - Alderwood 6 Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase 78,748 Intergov. Services - Lynwood 6 Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase 17,487 5,000 5,201 5,413 5,637 5,875 6,126 6,392 Intergov. Services - North Bend 6 Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase - - Ballinger P.S. Reim. - MLT 6 Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase - Ballinger P.S. Reim. - Ronald 6 Allocable Treatment Plant O&M Increase - - - - - - Side sewer permits 8 No Escalation 000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 TOTAL REVENUES $ 4,943,700 $ 5,000,567 $ 5,025,443 $ 5,050,454 $ 5,075,600 $ 5,100,884 $ 5,126,308 $ 5,151,872 Expenditures FORECAST BASIS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Salaries and Wages Labor Cost Inflation $ 447,096 $ 452,838 $ 466,423 $ 480,416 $ 494,828 $ 509,673 $ 524,963 $ 540,712 Overtime Labor Cost Inflation 21,606 17,0004 17,510 18,035 18,576 19,134 19,708 20,299 Benefits Benefits Inflation 212,270 207,630 228,393 251,232 276,356 303,991 334,390 367,829 Uniforms General Cost Inflation 3,400 5,100 5,253 5,411 5,573 5,740 5,912 6,090 Supplies General Cost Inflation 48,554 61,005 62,835 64,720 66,662 68,662 70,722 72,843 Sewer Inventory General Cost Inflation 3,300 3,000 3,090 3,183 3,278 3,377 3,478 3,582 Small Equipment General Cost Inflation 3,075 6,000 6,180 6,365 6,556 6,753 6,956 7,164 Professional Services General Cost Inflation 14,039 53,836 55,451 57,115 58,828 60,593 62,411 64,283 Communications General Cost Inflation 27,048 30,000 30,900 31,827 32,782 33,765 34,778 35,822 Travel General Cost Inflation - 2,400 2,472 2,546 2,623 2,701 2,782 2,866 Advertising General Cost Inflation - 500 515 530 546 563 580 597 Rental / Lease General Cost Inflation 3,255 1,800 1,854 1,910 1,967 2,026 2,087 2,149 Insurance General Cost Inflation 94,658 89,832 92,527 95,303 98,162 101,107 104,140 107,264 Public Utility General Cost Inflation 585,154 535,00 551,050 567,582 584,609 602,147 620,212 638,818 Anticipated One -Time Payment to Lynnwood - Repair / Maintenance ■ General Cost Inflation 16,306 15,000 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,883 17,389 17,911 Miscellaneous (excl. Taxes) General Cost Inflation 67,039 66,8344 68,839 70,904 73,031 75,222 77,479 79,803 State Taxes Excise and B&O Tax Rate 71,105 69,266 65,197 60,974 56,464 51,643 46,488 40,972 Intergov. Services 1 I General Cost Inflation 32,468 140,000 144,200 148,526 152,982 157,571 162,298 167,167 Buildings 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - Equipment 1 General Cost Inflation 141,000 145,230 149,587 154,075 158,697 163,458 168,361 Interfund Services 1 General Cost Inflation 220,672 161,435 166,278 171,266 176,404 181,697 187,147 192,762 Interfund Rental 1 General Cost Inflation 128,244 117,912 121,449 125,093 128,846 132,711 136,692 140,793 Interfund Repair / Maintenance 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - Interfund Transfer Out [a] 1 I General Cost Inflation - - - Debt Issue Cost 8 No Escalation 1.379 16,551 16,551 16,551 16,551 16,551 16,551 Decision Package 8 No Escalation Total Cash O&M Expenditures $ 2,000,669 $ 2,193,939 $ 2,267,648 $ 2,344,989 $ 2,426,089 $ 2,511,206 $ 2,600,620 $ 2,694,639 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) 8NIX& Page 392 of 554 O&M Page 8 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Operating Expenditure Forecast Actual Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Treatment Plant Expenditures FORECAST BASIS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Salaries and Wages 3 Labor Cost Inflation $ 1,134,894 $ 1,177,688 $ 1,213,019 $ 1,249,409 $ 1,286,891 $ 1,325,498 $ 1,365,263 $ 1,406,221 Overtime 3 Labor Cost Inflation 77,444 56,000 57,680 59,410 61,193 63,028 64,919 66,867 Benefits 7 Benefits Inflation 420,804 462,439 508,683 559,551 615,506 677,057 744,763 819,239 Uniforms 1 General Cost Inflation 6,268 6,050 6,232 6,418 6,611 6,809 7,014 7,224 Supplies 1 General Cost Inflation 358,276 421,500 434,145 447,169 460,584 474,402 488,634 503,293 Fuel Consumed 1 General Cost Inflation 150,546 90,000 92,700 95,481 98,345 101,296 104,335 107,465 Small Equipment General Cost Inflation 798 10,000 10,300 10,609 10,927 11,255 11,593 11,941 Professional Services General Cost Inflation 151,056 151,000 155,530 160,196 165,002 169,952 175,050 180,302 Communications General Cost Inflation 11,459 10,000 10,300 10,609 10,927 11,255 11,593 11,941 Travel & Training General Cost Inflation 1,448 5,000 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 5,796 5,970 Advertising 1 General Cost Inflation 1,525 2,000 2,060 2,122 2,185 2,251 2,319 2,388 Rental / Lease 1 General Cost Inflation 3,136 5,000 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 5,796 5,970 Insurance 1 General Cost Inflation 68,242 67,285 69,304 71,383 73,524 75,730 78,002 80,342 Public Utility 1 General Cost Inflation 405,705 396,200 408,086 420,329 432,938 445,927 459,304 473,084 Repair/ Maintenance 1 General Cost Inflation 55,801 75,000 77,250 79,568 81,955 84,413 86,946 89,554 Miscellaneous 1 General Cost Inflation 74,315 75,000 77,250 79,568 81,955 84,413 86,946 89,554 Intergov. Services 1 General Cost Inflation 55,973 150,000 154,500 159,135 163,909 168,826 173,891 179,108 Interfund Services (see below) 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - Interfund Supplies 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - Interfund Rental 1 General Cost Inflation 7,308 9,024 9,295 9,574 9,861 10,157 10,461 10,775 Machinery / Equipment 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - Interfund Transfer Out 1 General Cost Inflation - WL - - - - - - Decision Package 8 No Escalation Allocable O&M Expenditures $ 2,985,000 $ 3,169,186 $ 3,296,632 $ 3,431,139 $ 3,573,242 $ 3,723,525 $ 3,882,624 $ 4,051,236 Interfund Services - Edmonds Only.1 General Cost Inflation 183,698 171,454 176,598 181,896 187,352 192,973 198,762 204,725 Total Cash O&M Expenditures $ 3,168,698 $ 3,340,640 $ 3,473,230 $ 3,613,035 $ 3,760,594 $ 3,916,498 $ 4,081,386 $ 4,255,961 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) N'40&age 393 of 554 Treatment O&M Page 9 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Operating Expenditure Forecast Treatment O&M Allocations 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Allocable O&M Expenditures $ 2,985,000 $ 3,169,186 $ 3,296,632 $ 3,431,139 $ 3,573,242 $ 3,723,525 $ 3,882,624 $ 4,051,236 less: Revenues from King County 8 No Escalation (466,885) Adjusted Total $ 2,518,115 $ 3,169,186 $ 3,296,632 $ 3,431,139 $ 3,573,242 $ 3,723,525 $ 3,882,624 $ 4,051,236 plus: Overhead Charge 10.00% 251,812 316,919 329,663 343,114 357,324 372,352 388,262 405,124 GRAND TOTAL FOR ALLOCATIONS $ 2,769,927 $ 3,486,105 $ 3,626,296 $ 3,774,253 $ 3,930,566 $ 4,095,877 $ 4,270,887 $ 4,456,360 % Shares of O&M Expenditures City of Edmonds 49.25% � 49.25% 49.25% 49.25% 49.25% 49.25% 49.25% 49.25% City of Mountlake Terrace 29.66% 29.66% 29.66% 29.66% 29.66% 29.66% 29.66% 29.66% Ronald Wastewater District 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% 7.94% Olympic View Water & Sewer Dist. 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% 13.14% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Allocable O&M Expenditures City of Edmonds City of Mountlake Terrace Ronald Wastewater District Olympic View Water & Sewer Dist. Total Treatment O&M Contributions Treatment Edmonds Share Allocated O&M Expenditures plus: Interfund Services Edmonds Treatment Plant O&M $ 1,364,259 $ 1,716,995 $ 1,786,042 $ 1,858,915 $ 1,935,903 $ 2,017,323 $ 2,103,520 $ 2,194,870 821,686 1,034,137 1,075,724 1,119,615 1,165,984 1,215,023 1,266,939 1,321,959 219,962 276,834 287,967 299,716 312,129 325,257 339,154 353,883 364,020 458,139 476,562 496,007 516,549 538,274 561,274 585,648 $ 2,769,927 $ 3,486,105 $ 3,626,296 $ 3,774,253 $ 3,930,566 $ 4,095,877 $ 4,270,887 $ 4,456,360 1,872,553 1,769,110 1,840,253 1,915,338 1,994,663 2,078,554 2,167,367 $ 1,364,259 $ 1,716,995 $ 1,786,042 $ 1,858,915 $ 1,935,903 $ 2,017,323 $ 2,103,520 $ 2,194,870 183,698 171,454 176,598 181,896 187,352 192,973 198,762 204,725 $ 1,547,957 $ 1,888,449 $ 1,962,640 $ 2,040,811 $ 2,123,256 $ 2,210,296 $ 2,302,282 $ 2,399,595 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) N'40&age 394 of 554 Treatment O&M Page 10 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Capital Improvement Program Project Costs in Year: 2013 TOTAL FORECASTED PROJECT COSTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN CURRENT DOLLARS Project ID Project Name Life in Years 2013 - 2019 TOTAL COSTS 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitations Lift Stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, & 15 50 $ 4,822,810 $ 4,822,810 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Sewer Main Replacement and CIPP 2012 Sewer Replacement / Rehab /Improvements 50 $ 1,199,029 $ 350,000 $ 849,029 $ $ $ $ $ 2013 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements 50 1,927,767 120,000 1,807,767 2015 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements (2014 50 191,262 - 191,262 City-wide Sewer Improvements (2014 only) 50 33,981 - 33,981 City-wide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation (2013 & 2014) 50 739,493 302,600 436,893 - City-wide Annual Repair and Replacement Projects 50 10,000,000 - - 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Other Studies & Projects Meter Installations Basin LS-01 50 $ 72,600 $ 72,600 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Meter Installations Basin Edmonds Zone 50 19,417 - 19,417 Smoke Test in Basin LS-01 50 75,000 75,000 - Sewer Comp Plan Update 6 99,100 99,100 - - - - - - Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars $ 19,180,460 $ 5,842,110 $ 3,338,350 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 FCS GROUP p2 Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update F N', Pa (425) ge 395 Of 554 CIP Input Page 11 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Capital Improvement Program Cumulative Inflation 0.00% 3.00% 6.09% 9.27% 12.55% 15.93% 19.41% Annual Inflation 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN INFLATED DOLLARS Project ID Project Name Life in Years 2013 - 2019 TOTAL COSTS 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitations Lift Stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, & 15 50 $ 4,822,810 $ 4,822,810 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Sewer Main Replacement and CIPP 2012 Sewer Replacement / Rehab /Improvements 50 $ 1,224,500 $ 350,000 $ 874,500 $ $ $ $ $ 2013 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements 50 1,982,000 120,000 1,862,000 2015 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements (2014 50 197,000 - 197,000 City-wide Sewer Improvements (2014 only) 50 35,000 - 35,000 City-wide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation (2013 & 2014) 50 752,600 302,600 450,000 City-wide Annual Repair and Replacement Projects 50 11,264,924 - - 2,121,800 2,185,454 2,251,018 2,318,548 2,388,105 Other Studies & Projects Meter Installations Basin LS-01 50 $ 72,600 $ 72,600 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ Meter Installations Basin Edmonds Zone 50 20,000 - 20,000 Smoke Test in Basin LS-01 50 75,000 75,000 - Sewer Comp Plan Update 6 99,100 99,100 - - - - - Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars $ 17,163,172 $ 5,842,110 $ 3,438,500 $ 2,121,800 $ 2,185,454 $ 2,251,018 $ 2,318,548 $ 2,388,105 FCS GROUPEdmondsEdmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) Packet Page 396 of 554 CIP Input Page 12 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Capital Improvement Program MAINTENANCE RELATED WWTP PROJECTS (EDMONDS' SHARE) Project Project Name Life in Years 2013 - 2019 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 ID TOTAL COSTS Total Cost by Year in 2013 Dollars 50 $ 3,384,000 $ 743,000 $ 597,000 $ 754,000 $ 440,000 $ 425,000 $ 425,000 $ - Total Cost by Year in Inflated Dollars 50 $ 3,609,661 $ 743,000 $ 614,910 $ 799,919 $ 480,800 $ 478,341 $ 492,691 $ FCS GROUPEdmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) Ira ', F02 �age 397 of 554 CIP Input Page 13 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Capital Funding Analysis Summary of Exoenditures 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Sewer Capital Projects $ 5,842,110 $ 3,438,500 $ 2,121,800 $ 2,185,454 $ 2,251,018 $ 2,318,548 $ 2,388,105 Maintenance Related WWTP Projects (Edmonds' Share) 743,000 614,910 799,919 480,800 478,341 492,691 - Capital Related Contributions to Fund 414 - Edmonds 970,389 513,167 538,799 557,738 557,322 547,547 591,263 CAPITAL PROJECTS $ 7,555,499 $ 4,566,577 $ 3,460,518 $ 3,223,992 $ 3,286,681 $ 3,358,787 $ 2,979,367 Capital Financing Plan 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 OTHER FUNDING SOURCES [NOTE A] Other Sources (Transfer fr. 414) $ 47,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - PWTF Loan Proceeds - Other Loan Proceeds - - - - - - - Capital Fund Balance 6,353,137 4,566,577 3,460,518 1,019,374 3,286,681 1,301,280 1,567,703 Revenue Bond Proceeds [Note B] 1,155,362 - - 2,204,618 - 2,000,000 - Rates 57,506 1,411,664 Total $ 7,555,499 $ 4,566,577 $ 3,460,518 $ 3,223,992 $ 3,286,681 $ 3,358,787 $ 2,979,367 TOTAL CAPITAL RESOURCES $ 7,555,499 $ 4,566,577 $ 3,460,518 $ 3,223,992 $ 3,286,681 $ 3,358,787 $ 2,979,367 Info: Capital Contingency Deficit - - - - - - - NOTE A: SELECTION OF RESIDUAL CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCE Select the Residual Funding Source 1 Revenue Bond Proceeds 1 - Revenue Bond Proceeds 2 - Rates NOTE B: USER INPUT FOR REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS Select Amount of Bond Proceeds 1 User Defined 1 - Amounts at Right =_> $ 8,300,000 $ - $ - $ 4,700,000 $ - $ 2,000,000 $ 2 - Calculated by the Model FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) a 1keOj Page 398 of 554 Capital Funding Page 14 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Capital Funding Analysis New Debt Computations 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 REVENUE BONDS Amount to Fund $ - Is - $ - $ 4,700,000 $ - $ 2,000,000 $ - Issuance Costs - - Reserve Required 410,043 174,486 Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ 5,110,043 $ $ 2,174,486 $ OTHER LOANS Amount to Fund $ $ $ $ - $ $ - $ Issuance Costs Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PWTF LOAN Amount to Fund $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ - Debt Service Summary 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXISTING DEBT SERVICE - SEWER (411) Annual Interest Payments $ 50,752 $ 48,014 $ 46,232 $ 44,402 $ 42,540 $ 40,629 $ 38,671 Annual Principal Payments 213,605 145,757 147,329 148,401 149,937 151,509 152,581 Total Debt Service Payments $ 264,356 $ 193,771 $ 193,561 $ 192,803 $ 192,476 $ 192,138 $ 191,252 Revenue Bond Payments Only 151,340 81,261 81,561 81,316 81,541 81,721 81,356 EXISTING DEBT SERVICE - TREATMENT (411) Annual Interest Payments $ 1,734 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Annual Principal Payments 86,702 Total Debt Service Payments $ 88,436 $ $ $ $ $ $ Revenue Bond Payments Only 88,436 - NEW DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ 111,637 $ 401,892 $ 400,060 $ 653,673 $ 644,000 $ 741,692 $ 725,763 Annual Principal Payments - 91,586 94,448 251,851 259,578 339,178 353,847 Total Debt Service Payments $ 111,637 $ 493,478 $ 494,508 $ 905,524 $ 903,578 $ 1,080,869 $ 1,079,610 Revenue Bond Payments Only 111,637 493,478 494,508 905,524 903,578 1,080,869 1,079,610 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS $ 375,993 $ 687,249 $ 688,069 $ 1,098,327 $ 1,096,055 $ 1,273,007 $ 1,270,862 Total Interest Payments 164,122 449,905 446,292 698,075 686,540 782,321 764,434 Total Principal Payments 300,307 237,343 241,777 400,252 409,515 490,687 506,428 Total Revenue Bond Payments Only 351,412 574,739 576,070 986,841 985,119 1,162,591 1,160,966 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) acke2f Page 399 of 554 Capital Funding Page 15 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Revenue Requirements Analysis Cash Flow Sufficiency Test 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES Sewer Cash Operating Expenses $ 2,193,939 $ 2,267,648 $ 2,344,989 $ 2,426,089 $ 2,511,206 $ 2,600,620 $ 2,694,639 Treatment O&M Expenses - Edmonds Share 1,888,449 1,962,640 2,040,811 2,123,256 2,210,296 2,302,282 2,399,595 Fund 414 Cont. for Debt (excl. Capital Financing) - Edmonds 130,201 130,500 130,807 130,785 130,098 129,695 129,979 Existing Debt Service - 411 Debt (Sewer & Treatment) 352,792 193,771 193,561 192,803 192,476 192,138 191,252 New Debt Service - Fund 412-300 111,637 493,478 494,508 905,524 903,578 1,080,869 1,079,610 Rate -Funded CIP - - - - - 57,506 1,411,664 Rate Funded System Reinvestment - - - - - - Additions Required to Meet Minimum Op. Fund Balance - - - - - - Total Expenses $ 4,677,018 $ 5,048,036 $ 5,204,676 $ 5,778,457 $ 5,947,654 $ 6,363,111 $ 7,906,738 REVENUES Rate Revenue $ 4,935,000 $ 4,959,675 $ 4,984,473 $ 5,009,396 $ 5,034,443 $ 5,059,615 $ 5,084,913 Other Revenue 65,567 65,768 65,980 66,204 66,442 66,693 66,959 Operating Fund & Debt Reserve Fund Interest Earnings 3,463 3,902 7,973 12,228 20,780 26,469 35,006 Total Revenue $ 5,004,030 $ 5,029,345 $ 5,058,427 $ 5,087,828 $ 5,121,664 $ 5,152,776 $ 5,186,877 NET CASH FLOW (DEFICIENCY) $ 327,012 $ (18,691) $ (146,249) $ (690,629) $ (825,990) $ (1,210,335) $ (2,719,861) FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 400 of 554 Tests Page 16 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Revenue Requirements Analysis Sufficiencv Test EXPENSES Cash Operating Expenses - Fund 411 Sewer Treatment Operating Expenses - Fund 411 Fund 414 Contributions (excl. Financing of Capital) - Edmonds Revenue Bond Debt Service - Fund 411 (Sewer & Treatment) Revenue Bond Debt Service - Fund 414 Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement at 1.25 Total Expenses ALLOWABLE REVENUES Rate Revenue Payments from Other Agencies (411 - Treatment O&M) Other Revenue Interest Earnings - All Funds Total Revenue Individual Coverage Realized INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE SURPLUS (DEFICIENCY) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $ 2,193,939 $ 2,267,648 $ 2,344,989 $ 2,426,089 $ 2,511,206 $ 2,600,620 $ 2,694,639 3,340,640 3,473,230 3,613,035 3,760,594 3,916,498 4,081,386 4,255,961 130,201 130,500 130,807 130,785 130,098 129,695 129,979 351,412 574,739 576,070 986,841 985,119 1,162,591 1,160,966 38,760 39,367 38,491 38,783 39,040 38,095 39,483 97,543 153,526 153,640 256,406 256,040 300,171 300,112 $ 6,152,495 $ 6,639,009 $ 6,857,033 $ 7,599,498 $ 7,838,000 $ 8,312,559 $ 8,581,141 $ 4,935,000 $ 4,959,675 $ 4,984,473 $ 5,009,396 $ 5,034,443 $ 5,059,615 $ 5,084,913 1,774,110 1,845,454 1,920,751 2,000,300 2,084,429 2,173,493 2,267,882 65,567 65,768 65,980 66,204 66,442 66,693 66,959 19,421 23,601 26,753 20,546 54,735 44,203 60,501 $ 6,794,098 $ 6,894,498 $ 6,997,958 $ 7,096,447 $ 7,240,048 $ 7,344,004 $ 7,480,254 13.09 8.05 8.08 4.73 4.80 4.08 4.12 $ 641,603 $ 255,489 $ 140,926 $ (503,051) $ (597,952) $ (968,555) $ (1,100,887) FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 401 of 554 Tests Page 17 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Revenue Requirements Analysis Maximum Revenue Deficienc Sufficiency Test Driving the Deficiency Maximum Deficiency From Tests less: Net Revenue From Prior Rate Increases Revenue Deficiency Plus: Adjustment for State Excise Tax Total Revenue Deficiency 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 None Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash $ $ 18,691 $ 146,249 $ 690,629 $ 825,990 $ 1,210,335 $ 2,719,861 ' (455,285) (958,591) (1,514,754) (2,129,097) (2,807,477) $ $ 18,691 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 749 $ $ 19,440 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Rate Increases 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Rate Revenue with no Increase $ 4,935,000 $ 4,959,675 $ 4,984,473 $ 5,009,396 $ 5,034,443 $ 5,059,615 $ 5,084,913 Revenues from Prior Rate Increases - - 473,525 996,995 1,575,440 2,214,396 2,919,954 Rate Revenue Before Rate Increase (Incl. previous increases) 4,935,000 4,959,675 5,457,998 6,006,391 6,609,883 7,274,011 8,004,867 Required Annual Rate Increase 0.00% 0.39% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Number of Months New Rates Will Be In Effect 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Info: Percentage Increase to Generate Required Revenue 0.00% 0.39% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Policy Induced Rate Increases 0.00% 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% ANNUAL RATE INCREASE CUMULATIVE RATE INCREASE 0.00% 0.00% 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% 19.90% 9.50% 31.29% 9.50% 43.77% 9.50% 57.42% 9.50% 72.38% Impacts of Rate Increases 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Rate Revenues After Rate Increase $ 4,935,000 $ 5,430,844 $ 5,976,508 $ 6,576,998 $ 7,237,822 $ 7,965,042 $ 8,765,329 Full Year Rate Revenues After Rate Increase 4,935,000 5,430,844 5,976,508 6,576,998 7,237,822 7,965,042 8,765,329 Additional State Taxes Due to Rate Increases - 18,149 38,213 60,384 84,874 111,917 141,770 Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase 327,012 434,329 807,572 816,589 1,292,515 1,583,175 818,786 Individual Coverage After Rate Increase 8.04 5.63 6.40 4.23 4.83 4.61 5.22 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 402 of 554 Tests Page 18 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Fund Activity Funds 411: OPERATING FUND Beginning Balance plus: Net Cash Flow after Rate Increase less: Transfer of Surplus to Capital Fund Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance Maximum Funds to be Kept as Operating Reserves Info: No of Days of Cash Operating Expenses 412: SEWER CAPITAL FUND Beginning Balance plus: Rate Funded System Reinvestment plus: Grants / Developer Donations / Other Outside Sources plus: Capital Facilities Charges plus: Net Debt Proceeds Available for Projects plus: Interest Earnings plus: Transfer of Surplus from Operating Fund plus: Direct Rate Funding less: Capital Expenditures Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance DEBT RESERVE Beginning Balance plus: Reserve Funding from New Debt less: Use of Reserves for Debt Service Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance $ 7,603,137 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $ 1,250,000 $ 931,197 $ 965,158 $ 1,000,904 $ 1,038,488 $ 1,077,995 $ 1,119,732 327,012 434,329 807,572 816,589 1,292,515 1,583,175 818,786 (645,816) (400,368) (771,826) (779,005) (1,253,008) (1,541,437) (774,587) $ 931,197 $ 965,158 $ 1,000,904 $ 1,038,488 $ 1,077,995 $ 1,119,732 $ 1,163,931 698,398 723,868 750,678 778,866 808,496 839,799 872,948 931,197 965,158 1,000,904 1,038,488 1,077,995 1,119,732 1,163,931 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 $ 6,353,137 $ 7,816,336 $ 3,679,667 $ 1,019,374 $ 3,292,033 $ 1,301,280 $ 1,567,703 47,000 - - - - - - 10, 000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 8,300,000 - - 4,700,000 - 2,000,000 - 15,883 19,541 18,398 7,645 32,920 16,266 23,516 645,816 400,368 771,826 779,005 1,253,008 1,541,437 774,587 57,506 1,411, 664 (7,555,499) (4,566,577) (3,460,518) (3,223,992) (3,286,681) (3,358,787) (2,979,367) $ 7,816,336 $ 3,679,667 $ 1,019,374 $ 3,292,033 $ 1,301,280 $ 1,567,703 $ 808,103 $ 135,126 $ 629,455 $ 629,455 $ 629,455 $ 1,039,498 $ 1,039,498 $ 1,213,985 494,329 - - 410,043 - 174,486 - $ 629,455 $ 629,455 $ 629,455 $ 1,039,498 $ 1,039,498 $ 1,213,985 $ 1,213,985 262,976 591,894 592,925 1,003,941 1,001,994 1,179, 286 1,178, 026 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425)Pac7et gPage 403 of 554 Funds Page 19 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Existing Debt Input - Fund 414 Existing Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2011 Water/Sewer Refunding and New Issue Annual Interest Payment $ 10,758 $ 10,197 $ 9,322 $ 8,447 $ 7,537 $ 6,592 $ 5,647 Annual Principal Payment 28,002 29,169 29,169 30,336 31,503 31,503 33,836 Total Annual Payment $ 38,760 $ 39,367 $ 38,491 $ 38,783 $ 39,040 $ 38,095 $ 39,483 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - TOTAL REVENUE BONDS Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds $ 10,758 $ 10,197 $ 9,322 $ 8,447 $ 7,537 $ 6,592 $ 5,647 28,002 29,169 29,169 30,336 31,503 31,503 33,836 $ 38,760 $ 39,367 $ 38,491 $ 38,783 $ 39,040 $ 38,095 $ 39,483 39,483 39,483 39,483 39,483 39,483 39,483 39,483 FCS GROUP p Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425)P86 e$Page 404 of 554 414 Existing Debt Page 20 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Existing Debt Input - Fund 414 Existing Debt Service - PWTF Loans 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2002 PWTF Loan PW-02-691-019 Annual Interest Payment $ 1,744 $ 1,569 $ 1,395 $ 1,221 $ 1,046 $ 872 $ 698 Annual Principal Payment 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 Total Annual Payment $ 36,619 $ 36,444 $ 36,270 $ 36,096 $ 35,921 $ 35,747 $ 35,573 TOTAL PWTF LOANS Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment $ 1,744 $ 1,569 $ 1,395 $ 1,221 $ 1,046 $ 872 $ 698 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 34,875 $ 36,619 $ 36,444 $ 36,270 $ 36,096 $ 35,921 $ 35,747 $ 35,573 FCS GROUP p Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425)P86 e$Page 405 of 554 414 Existing Debt Page 21 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Existing Debt Input - Fund 414 Existing Debt Service - Other Loans [a] 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 [a] Enter payments for other loans and revenue -supported G.O. issues only. Tax -supported bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund and do not impact this ar 2012 LTGO Bond Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment 2007 LTGO Bond Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment TOTAL OTHER LOANS Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment $ 5,624 $ 5,082 $ 4,540 $ 3,965 $ 3,391 $ 2,800 $ 2,192 27,093 27,093 28,735 28,735 29,556 30,377 30,377 $ 32,717 $ 32,175 $ 33,275 $ 32,700 $ 32,947 $ 33,177 $ 32,569 $ 60,431 $ 57,225 $ 53,876 $ 50,385 $ 46,751 $ 42,945 $ 38,992 87,840 91,744 95,648 99,552 101,504 105,408 109,312 $ 148,271 $ 148,969 $ 149,524 $ 149,937 $ 148,255 $ 148,353 $ 148,304 $ 66,055 $ 62,307 $ 58,416 $ 54,350 $ 50,142 $ 45,745 $ 41,184 114,933 118,837 124,383 128,287 131,060 135,785 139,689 $ 180,988 $ 181,144 $ 182,799 $ 182,637 $ 181,202 $ 181,530 $ 180,873 FCS GROUP p Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425)P86 e$Page 406 of 554 414 Existing Debt Page 22 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Capital Improvement Program Project Costs in Year: 2013 TOTAL FORECASTED PROJECT COSTS Project ID project Name Life in Years 2013 - 2019 TOTAL COSTS 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 WWTP-1-Switchgear Upgrade 50 $ 1,297,724 $ 1,297,724 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - W WTP-2 - Incinerator Testing and Compliance 50 1,040,000 100,000 90,000 850,000 - - - - WWTP-3- Control System Upgrades 50 637,469 67,469 250,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 - WWTPA- Ameresco Energy Project 50 15,000 15,000 - - - - - - WWTP-5- Facility Improvement 50 350,000 350,000 - - - - - - WWTP-6- Variable Frequency Drive upgrade 50 25,000 25,000 - - - - - - W WTP-7 - Upgrade Flow Telemetry Equipment 50 25,000 15,000 10,000 - - - - - WWTP-8- Secondary Clarifier#3 Steel Coating, weir 50 175,000 - 175,000 - - - - - WWTP-9- Secondary Clarifier#1 Steel Coating, weir 50 125,000 - - - 125,000 - - - WWTP-10- Chlorine Contact Chamber Inspection an 50 500,000 - 250,000 - 250,000 - - - WWTP-11-Diesel Day Tank 50 6,000 - 6,000 - - - - - W WTP-12 - Polymer Make Up Equipment 50 80,000 - 80,000 - - - - - WWTP-13- Unanticipated Plant and Operational Imp 50 2,075,000 - 50,000 50,000 50,000 425,000 750,000 750,000 WWTP-14- Screenings Improvements 50 120,000 - 20,000 - - - - 100,000 W WTP-15 - Belt Filter Press Energy Project 50 570,000 - 50,000 20,000 500,000 - - - WWTP-16- Convert 200 HP blower to Turbo Blower 50 350,000 - - - 350,000 - - W WTP-17 - Upgrade Heat Pumps in Building 700 50 50,000 - - - 50,000 - - W WTP-18 - Ugrade Control Valve Actuators on Efflw 50 35,000 - - - - 35,000 - - WWTP-19- Automatic Flow Shearing Process 50 35,000 - - - - 35,000 - - WWTP-20- Recoat Primary Clarifier#1 Steel Equipn 50 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 - WWTP-21- Chemical Use Area 50 125,000 - - - - - - 125,000 Unspent Funds from 2012 50 40,511 40,511 - - - - - - 50 - - - - - - - Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars $ 7,776,704 $ 1,910,704 $ 981,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,005,000 $ 975,000 $ 930,000 $ 975,000 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) 86Va8cket Page 407 of 554 414 CIP Input Page 23 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Capital Improvement Program Cumulative Inflation 1 0.00 % 3.00% 6.09 % 9.27 % 12.55 % 15.93 % 19.41 % Annual Inflatio.1 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN INFLATED DOLLARS Project ID Project Name Life in years 2 OS 019 TOTAL COSTS 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 WWTP-1- Switchgear Upgrade 50 $1,297,724 $1,297,724 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - WWTP-2- Incinerator Testing and Compliance 50 1,094,465 100,000 92,700 901,765 - - - - WWTP-3- Control System Upgrades 50 680,042 67,469 257,500 84,872 87,418 90,041 92,742 - WWTP4- Ameresco Energy Project 50 15,000 15,000 - - - - - - WWTP-5- Facility Improvement 50 350,000 350,000 - - - - - - W WTP-6 - Variable Frequency Drive upgrade 50 25,000 25,000 - - - - - - WWTP-7- Upgrade Flow Telemetry Equipment 50 25,300 15,000 10,300 - - - - - WWTP-8- Secondary Clarifier#3 Steel Coating, weir 50 180,250 - 180,250 - - - - - WWTP-9- Secondary Clanfier#1 Steel Coating, weir 50 136,591 - - - 136,591 - - - WWTP-10-Chlorine Contact Chamber Inspection an 50 530,682 - 257,500 - 273,182 - - - WWTP-11-Diesel Day Tank 50 6,180 - 6,180 - - - - - W WTP-12 - Polymer Make Up Equipment 50 82,400 - 82,400 - - - - WWTP-13- Unanticipated Plant and Operational Imp 50 2,402,517 - 51,500 53,045 54,636 478,341 869,456 895,539 WWTP-14- Screenings Improvements 50 140,005 - 20,600 - - - - 119,405 WWTP-15- Belt Filter Press Energy Project 50 619,082 - 51,500 21,218 546,364 - - - WWTP-16- Convert 200 HP blower to Turbo Blower 50 393,928 - - - - 393,928 - W WTP-17 - Upgrade Heat Pumps in Building 700 50 56,275 - - - - 56,275 - - W WTP-18 - Ugrade Control Valve Actuators on Efflw 50 39,393 - - - - 39,393 - WWTP-19- Automatic Flow Shearing Process 50 39,393 - - - - 39,393 - - WWTP-20 - Re -at Primary Clarifier#1 Steel Equipn 50 115,927 - - - - - 115,927 - WWTP-21- Chemical Use Area 50 149,257 - - - - - - 149,257 Unspent Funds from 2012 50 40,511 40,511 - - - - - - 0 50 - - - - - - - - Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars $ 8,419,922 $ 1,910,704 $ 1,010,430 $ 1,060,900 $ 11098,191 $ 1,097,371 $ 1,078,125 $ 1,164,201 FCS GROUP Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) 86Va8cket Page 408 of 554 414 CIP Input Page 24 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant (Fund 414) Capital Funding Analysis Summary of Capital Exaenditures 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Treatment Plant CIP $ 1,910,704 $ 1,010,430 $ 1,060,900 $ 1,098,191 $ 1,097,371 $ 1,078,125 $ 1,164,201 Capital Financing Plan 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Direct Billing of Agencies 0.00% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Project to be Funded 1,910,704 1,010,430 1,060,900 1,098,191 1,097,371 1,078,125 1,164,201 OTHER FUNDING SOURCES [NOTE A] Outside Sources $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - PWTF Loan Proceeds - Other Loan Proceeds Use of Fund 414 Balance Revenue Bond Proceeds [Note B] - - - - - - - Agency Contribution Deficiency 1,910,704 1,010,430 1,060,900 1,098,191 1,097,371 1,078,125 1,164,201 Total $ 1,910,704 $ 1,010,430 $ 1,060,900 $ 1,098,191 $ 1,097,371 $ 1,078,125 $ 1,164,201 TOTAL CAPITAL RESOURCES Info: Capital Contingency Deficit $ 1,910,704 $ 1,010,430 $ 1,060,900 $ 1,098,191 $ 1,097,371 $ 1,078,125 $ 1,164,201 (236,746) (223,587) (210,205) (196,532) (182,497) (168,028) (153,049) NOTE A: SELECTION OF RESIDUAL CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCE Select the Residual Funding Source 2 Rates 1 - Revenue Bond Proceeds 2 - Rates NOTE B: USER INPUT FOR REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS Select Amount of Bond Proceeds 1 User Defined 1 - Amounts at Right ==> $ - $ 2 - Calculated by the Model FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 409 of 554 414 Capital Funding Page 25 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant (Fund 414) Capital Funding Analysis New Debt Computations 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 REVENUE BONDS Amount to Fund $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Issuance Costs Reserve Required Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ OTHER LOANS Amount to Fund $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Issuance Costs Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PWTF LOAN Amount to Fund $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Debt Service Summary 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXISTING DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ 78,556 $ 74,074 $ 69,134 $ 64,018 $ 58,726 $ 53,209 $ 47,529 Annual Principal Payments 177,810 182,881 188,427 193,498 197,438 202,163 208,400 Total Debt Service Payments $ 256,366 $ 256,955 $ 257,561 $ 257,516 $ 256,163 $ 255,371 $ 255,929 Revenue Bond Payments Only 38,760 39,367 38,491 38,783 39,040 38,095 39,483 NEW DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Annual Principal Payments Total Debt Service Payments $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Revenue Bond Payments Only - TOTAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS $ 256,366 $ 256,955 $ 257,561 $ 257,516 $ 256,163 $ 255,371 $ 255,929 Total Interest Payments 78,556 74,074 69,134 64,018 58,726 53,209 47,529 Total Principal Payments 177,810 182,881 188,427 193,498 197,438 202,163 208,400 Total Revenue Bond Payments Only 38,760 39,367 38,491 38,783 39,040 38,095 39,483 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 410 of 554 414 Capital Funding Page 26 City of Edmonds Sewer Utility Treatment Plant Fund (Fund 414) Activity Fund 414 Total Projected Contributions for Debt Service Beginning Balance plus: Contributions from King County plus: Interest Earnings plus: Misc. Revenues (AWD biosolids, rebate from PUD) plus: Contribution from Participating Agencies for Debt Service Mountlake Terrace Ronald Sewer District Olympic View Sewer District Edmonds subtotal: Contributions plus: Capital Funding Sources Outside Sources Net Debt Proceeds Available for Projects Direct Billing of Agencies for Capital Agency Contribution Deficiency for Capital subtotal: Capital Funding Sources less: Fund 414 Expenditures Fund 414 Existing Debt Service Payments Fund 414 New Debt Service Payments Capital Project Expenditures subtotal: Fund 414 Expenditures Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance Capital Contributions from Agencies Share of Edmond's Contribution Share of Mountlake Terrace Share of Ronald Sewer District Share of Olympic View Sewer District Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $ 256,366 $ 256,955 $ 257,561 $ 257,516 $ 256,163 $ 255,371 $ 255,929 $ 30,179 $ 63,254 $ 76,413 $ 89,795 $ 103,468 $ 117,503 $ 131,972 75 158 382 673 1,035 1,469 1,980 33,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 $ 59,410 $ 59,547 $ 59,687 $ 59,677 $ 59,363 $ 59,180 $ 59,309 24,324 24,380 24,437 24,433 24,305 24,230 24,283 42,431 42,529 42,629 42,622 42,398 42,266 42,359 130,201 130,500 130,807 130,785 130,098 129,695 129,979 $ 256,366 $ 256,955 $ 257,561 $ 257,516 $ 256,163 $ 255,371 $ 255,929 1,910,704 1,010,430 1,060,900 1,098,191 1,097,371 1,078,125 1,164,201 $ 1,910,704 $ 1,010,430 $ 1,060,900 $ 1,098,191 $ 1,097,371 $ 1,078,125 $ 1,164,201 (256,366) (256,955) (257,561) (257,516) (256,163) (255,371) (255,929) (1,910,704) (1,010,430) (1,060,900) (1,098,191) (1,097,371) (1,078,125) (1,164,201) $ (2,167,070) $ (1,267,385) $ (1,318,461) $ (1,355,707) $ (1,353,534) $ (1,333,496) $ (1,420,130) $ 63,254 $ 76,413 $ 89,795 $ 103,468 $ 117,503 $ 131,972 $ 146,951 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,910,704 $ 1,010,430 $ 1,060,900 $ 1,098,191 $ 1,097,371 $ 1,078,125 $ 1,164,201 50.787% $ 970,389 $ 513,167 $ 538,799 $ 557,738 $ 557,322 $ 547,547 $ 591,263 23.174% 442,787 234,157 245,853 254,495 254,305 249,845 269,792 9.488% 181,288 95,870 100,658 104,196 104,119 102,292 110,459 16.551% 316,241 167,236 175,590 181,762 181,626 178,440 192,687 100.000% $ 1,910,704 $ 1,010,430 $ 1,060,900 $ 1,098,191 $ 1,097,371 $ 1,078,125 $ 1,164,201 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Sewer Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) Packe802age 411 of 554 Fund 414 Page 27 City of Edmonds Water Utility 2013 Bond 2013 Revenue Bond Summary Net Bond Proceeds $ 14,500,000 Debt Reserve Funding 863,587 Issuance Cost and Misc. 250,601 Total $ 15,614,188 Net Proceeds Debt Reserve Assumed Net Proceeds for the 2013 Bond Provided by Dashen & Associates => Net Proceeds Needed by the Utility to Fund Capital Program => $ 14,500,000 $ 5,000,000 Ratio of Net Proceeds Needed to Net Proceeds for the Given Payment Schedule => 1 0.34 Total of 2013 Revenue Bond 2013 2014 2015 2016 $ 863,587 $ 297,789 0.34 2017 2018 2019 2013 Bond Debt Service - As Provided by Dashen & Associates Annual Interest Payment $ 195,028 $ 702,100 $ 698,900 $ 695,600 $ 692,200 $ 687,100 $ 679,900 Annual Principal Payment - 160,000 165,000 170,000 170,000 180,000 185,000 Total Annual Payment $ 195,028 $ 862,100 $ 863,900 $ 865,600 $ 862,200 $ 867,100 $ 864,900 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - Water Utility's Share 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2013 Bond Debt Service - Propared for the Water Utility Annual Interest Payment $ 67,251 $ 242,103 $ 241,000 $ 239,862 $ 238,690 $ 236,931 $ 234,448 Annual Principal Payment - 55,172 56,897 58,621 58,621 62,069 63,793 Total Annual Payment $ 67,251 $ 297,276 $ 297,897 $ 298,483 $ 297,310 $ 299,000 $ 298,241 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) 867-1802 2013 Bond Page 1 Packet Page 412 of 554 City of Edmonds Water Utility Summary Total Capital Projects Revenue Bond Proceeds Use of Capital Fund Balance Direct Rate Funding Total Funding Sources Revenues Rate Revenues Under Existing Rates Non -Rate Revenues Total Revenues Expenses Cash O&M Expenses [a] Existing Debt Service New Debt Service Rate Funded System Reinvestment Rate Funded CIP Total Expenses Annual Rate Adjustment Rate Increases Dictated by: Rate Revenues After Rate Increase Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase Coverage After Rate Increases $ 2,984,880 $ 3,723,900 $ 3,616,899 $ 3,539,200 $ 3,091,399 $ 3,327,500 $ 2,3885105 - - - 3,336,213 - 2,998,460 - 2,984,880 3,723,900 3,081,324 202,986 2,719,478 329,040 1,928,679 535,575 - 371,921 - 459,426 $ 2,984,880 $ 3,723,900 $ 3,616,899 $ 3,539,200 $ 3,091,399 $ 3,327,500 $ 2,388,105 $ 5,189,800 $ 5,215,749 $ 5,241,828 $ 5,268,037 $ 5,294,377 $ 5,320,849 $ 5,347,453 177,460 148,734 152,712 156,839 166,012 171,693 183,319 $ 5,367,260 $ 5,364,483 $ 5,394,540 $ 5,424,876 $ 5,460,389 $ 5,492,542 $ 5,530,772 $ 4,037,474 $ 4,221,089 $ 4,415,315 $ 4,620,033 $ 4,835,912 $ 5,063,669 $ 5,304,074 537,640 630,007 629,843 608,856 610,608 609,552 610,174 67,251 297,276 297,897 787,045 785,872 1,171,432 1,170,673 - 535,575 - 371,921 - 459,426 $ 4,642,365 $ 5,148,372 $ 5,878,628 $ 6,015,933 $ 6,604,313 $ 6,844,653 $ 7,544,347 Analysis Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy $ 5,189,800 $ 5,541,733 $ 5,917,532 $ 6,318,815 $ 6,747,309 $ 7,204,861 $ 7,693,441 724,895 542,096 191,616 459,721 309,008 531,901 332,413 2.42 1.69 1.90 1.36 1.54 1.32 1.49 [a] Includes additional State Excise and B&O Taxes due to the proposed rate increases. tr 91 L 2n14 Operating Fund $ 663,694 $ 691,183 $ 720,219 $ 750,771 $ 782,933 $ 816,809 $ 852,509 Capital Fund 6,249,992 3,081,324 202,986 2,719,478 329,040 1,928,679 350,644 Debt Reserve Fund 872,441 872,441 872,441 1,361,003 1,361,003 1,744,873 1,744,873 Total $ 7,786,127 $ 4,644,948 $ 1,795,646 $ 4,831,252 $ 2,472,976 $ 4,490,360 $ 2,948,025 Combined Minimum Target Balance $ 1,415,116 $ 1,437,514 $ 1,949,576 $ 1,972,526 $ 2,383,492 $ 2,409,508 FCS GROUP p Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425)P86 e$Page 413 of 554 Summary Page 2 City of Edmonds Water Utility Assumptions Economic & Financial Factors 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 1 General Cost Inflation 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 2 Construction Cost Inflation 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3 Labor Cost Inflation 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 4 Customer Growth 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 5 General Inflation plus Growth 0.50% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 6 Alderwood Water Rate Increase 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 7 Benefits Inflation 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 8 No Escalation 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Fund Earnings 0.25% 0.25% 0.50% 0.75% 1.00% 1.25% 1.50% State Excise Tax 5.03% 5.03% 5.03% 5.03% 5.03% 5.03% 5.03% 5.03% State B&O Tax 1.80% 1.65% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% Accounting Assumptions 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 FISCAL POLICY RESTRICTIONS Min. Op. Fund Balance Target (days of O&M expense) 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Max. Op. Fund Balance (days of O&M expense) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target Select Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target 1 Defined as % of Plant 1 - Defined as % of Plant Plant -in -Service in 2012 $ 13,882,377 Minimum Capital Fund Balance - % of plant assets 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 - Amount at Right =_> $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) 867-18P2 Assumptions Page 3 Packet age 414 of 554 City of Edmonds Water Utility Assumptions RATE FUNDED SYSTEM REINVESTMENT Select Reinvestment Funding Strategy 4 System Reinvestment is not Funded Amount of Annual Cash Funding from Rates 1 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense 2 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense less Annual Debt Principal Payments 3 - Equal to Amount at Right =_> $ - $ - $ 4 - Do Not Fund System Reinvestment Capital Financing Assumptions 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 GENERAL FACILITIES CHARGE (GFC) REVENUES General Facilities Charge Revenues $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ REVENUE BONDS Term (years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost (incl. issuance costs, per City staff's direction) 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Issuance Cost 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement 1.25 PWTF LOAN Term (years; 10 year minimum and no more than 20 years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% OTHER LOANS & REVENUE -SUPPORTED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS [a] Term (years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Issuance Cost 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% [a] Tax -supported general obligation bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund; terms and annual obligations of such bonds are not factors in this analysis 2019 25,000 20 5.00% 0.00% 20 1.00% 20 5.00% 0.00% FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) 867-18P2 Assumptions Page 4 Packet age 415 of 554 City of Edmonds Water Utility Existing Debt Input Existing Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2011 Water/Sewer Refunding and New Issue Annual Interest Payment $ 277,362 $ 273,172 $ 263,988 $ 254,530 $ 244,814 $ 234,749 $ 224,409 Annual Principal Payment 209.471 306,140 315,277 323,868 335,504 344,641 355,732 Total Annual Payment $ 486,832 $ 579,312 $ 579,265 $ 578,397 $ 580,318 $ 579,389 $ 580,141 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - TOTAL REVENUE BONDS Annual Interest Payment $ 277,362 $ 273,172 $ 263,988 $ 254,530 $ 244,814 $ 234,749 $ 224,409 Annual Principal Payment 209,471 306,140 315,277 323,868 335,504 344,641 355,732 Total Annual Payment $ 486,832 $ 579,312 $ 579,265 $ 578,397 $ 580,318 $ 579,389 $ 580,141 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds 599,453 599,453 599,453 599,453 599,453 599,453 599,453 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 416 of 554 Existing Debt Page 5 City of Edmonds Water Utility Existing Debt Input Existing Debt Service - PWTF Loans 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 PWTF LOAN 04-691-031 Five Corners Water Pump Station Project Annual Interest Payment $ 1,550 $ 1,421 $ 1,292 $ 1,163 $ 1,034 $ 904 $ 775 Annual Principal Payment 25.839 25.839 25.839 25.839 25.839 25.839 25.8A Total Annual Payment $ 27,389 $ 27,260 $ 27,131 $ 27,002 $ 26,873 $ 26,743 $ 26,614 PWTF LOAN PP09-951-014 2009 Water Comprehensive Plan Annual Interest Payment $ - $ - $ - $ Annual Principal Payment 20,000 20,000 20.000 Total Annual Payment $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ - $ - $ - $ TOTAL PWTF LOANS Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment $ 1,550 $ 1,421 $ 1,292 $ 1,163 $ 1,034 $ 904 $ 775 45,839 45,839 45,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 $ 47,389 $ 47,260 $ 47,131 $ 27,002 $ 26,873 $ 26,743 $ 26,614 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 417 of 554 Existing Debt Page 6 City of Edmonds Water Utility Existing Debt Input Existing Debt Service - Other Loans [a] 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 [a] Enter payments for other loans and revenue -supported G.O. issues only. Tax -supported bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund and do not impact this ana 2007 LTGO Bond Annual Interest Payment $ 1,393 $ 1,319 $ 1,242 $ 1,162 $ 1,078 $ 990 $ 899 Annual Principal Payment 2,025 2,115 2,205 2,295 2,340 2,430 2,520 Total Annual Payment $ 3,418 $ 3,434 $ 3,447 $ 3,457 $ 3,418 $ 3,420 $ 3,419 TOTAL OTHER LOANS Annual Interest Payment $ 1,393 $ 1,319 $ 1,242 $ 1,162 $ 1,078 $ 990 $ 899 Annual Principal Payment 2,025 2,115 2,205 2,295 2,340 2,430 2,520 Total Annual Payment $ 3,418 $ 3,434 $ 3,447 $ 3,457 $ 3,418 $ 3,420 $ 3,419 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) Packe02age 418 of 554 Existing Debt Page 7 City of Edmonds Water Utility Operating Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 8.70% Actual Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Revenues FORECAST BASIS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Rate Revenues Rate Revenues 4 Customer Growth $ 4,588,700 $ 4,988,000 $ 5,012,940 $ 5,038,005 $ 5,063,195 $ 5,088,511 $ 5,113,953 $ 5,139,523 Fire Hydrand Revenues (8.7%) 4.05% Portion of the City Utility Tax 166,942 201,800 202,809 203,823 204,842 205,866 206,896 207,930 Total Rate Revenues Based on 2013 $ 4,755,641 $ 5,189,800 $ 5,215,749 $ 5,241,828 $ 5,268,037 $ 5,294,377 $ 5,320,849 $ 5,347,453 Non -Rate Revenues Miscellaneous revenues 8 No Escalation $ 122,749 $ 127,273 $ 97,894 $ 97,894 $ 97,894 $ 97,894 $ 97,894 $ 97,894 Recycling Grants 8 No Escalation 53,743 47,000 47,000 47,000 47,000 47,000 47,000 47,000 [Other] 8 No Escalation - - - - - - - - Total Non -Rate Revenues $ 176,492 $ 174,273 $ 144,894 $ 144,894 $ 144,894 $ 144,894 $ 144,894 $ 144,894 TOTAL REVENUES $ 4,932,133 $ 5,364,073 $ 5,360,643 $ 5,386,722 $ 5,412,931 $ 5,439,271 $ 5,465,743 $ 5,492,347 FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) %cke2f Page 419 of 554 O&M Page 8 City of Edmonds Water Utility Operating Revenue and Expenditure Forecast Expenditures FORECAST BASIS Actual 2012 8.70% Budget 2013 Projection 2014 Projection 2015 Projection 2016 Projection 2017 Projection 2018 Projection 2019 Salaries and Wages 3 Labor Cost Inflation $ 680,930 $ 733,122 $ 755,116 $ 777,769 $ 801,102 $ 825,135 $ 849,889 $ 875,386 Overtime 3 I Labor Cost Inflation 24,061 24,180 24,905 25,653 26,422 27,215 28,031 28,872 Benefits 7 Benefits Inflation I 274,852 277,956 305,752 336,327 369,959 406,955 447,651 492,416 Uniforms 1 General Cost Inflation 2,962 6,800 7,004 7,214 7,431 7,653 7,883 8,120 Supplies 1 General Cost Inflation 145,455 143,505 147,810 152,244 156,812 161,516 166,362 171,352 Water Purchased 6 Alderwood Water Rate Increas 1,448,400 1,725,000 1,811,250 1,901,813 1,996,903 2,096,748 2,201,586 2,311,665 Supplies for Inventory/Resale 1 General Cost Inflation 98,400 140,000 144,200 148,526 152,982 157,571 162,298 167,167 Small Equipment 1 General Cost Inflation 6,531 10,000 10,300 10,609 10,927 11,255 11,593 11,941 Professional Services 1 General Cost Inflation 26,978 82,136 84,600 87,138 89,752 92,445 95,218 98,075 Communications 1 General Cost Inflation 27,266 30,000 30,900 31,827 32,782 33,765 34,778 35,822 Travel 1 General Cost Inflation - 3,400 3,502 3,607 3,715 3,827 3,942 4,060 Advertising 1 General Cost Inflation - 560 577 594 612 630 649 669 Rental/Lease 1 General Cost Inflation 3,121 1,500 1,545 1,591 1,639 1,688 1,739 1,791 Insurance 1 General Cost Inflation 70,440 67,699 69,730 71,822 73,977 76,196 78,482 80,836 Public Utility 1 General Cost Inflation 29,456 28,000 28,840 29,705 30,596 31,514 32,460 33,433 Repair/ Maintenance 1 General Cost Inflation 12,713 24,160 24,885 25,631 26,400 27,192 28,008 28,848 Miscellaneous (excl. Taxes) 1 ' General Cost Inflation 86,103 43,347 44,647 45,987 47,366 48,787 50,251 51,759 State Taxes Excise and B&O Tax Rate 242,338 264,283 264,848 266,160 267,478 268,803 270,134 271,472 Intergov. Services 1 I General Cost Inflation 25,415 30,000 30,900 31,827 32,782 33,765 34,778 35,822 Interfund Services 1 General Cost Inflation 262,072 210,568 216,885 223,392 230,093 236,996 244,106 251,429 RCP - Salaries 3 Labor Cost Inflation RCP - Benefits 3 Labor Cost Inflation RCP - Travel 1 General Cost Inflation RCP - Miscellaneous 1 General Cost Inflation Interfund Rental 1 General Cost Inflation 104,484 89,705 92,396 95,168 98,023 100,964 103,993 107,112 Interfund Repair / Maintenance 1 General Cost Inflation 33 - - - - - - - Buildings 1 General Cost Inflation - Improvements/Projects 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - Machinery / Equipment 1 General Cost Inflation 85,000 87,550 90,177 92,882 95,668 98,538 101,494 Interfund Transfer Out [d] 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - Amortized Debt Issue Cost 8 No Escalation 18,164 16,553 16,553 16,553 16,553 16,553 16,553 16,553 Decision Package 8 No Escalation - - Add'I O&M - 1/3 New GIS 3 I Labor Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - Total Cash O&M Expenditures $ 3,590,173 $ 4,037,474 $ 4,204,695 $ 4,381,333 $ 4,567,189 $ 4,762,844 $ 4,968,922 $ 5,186,094 FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) %ck�eif Page 420 of 554 O&M Page 9 City of Edmonds Water Utility Capital Improvement Program Project Costs in Year: 2013 CIP No Description Life in Years 2013-2018 TOTAL COSTS 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010 Replacement Program 50 $ $ $ - S - S - $ - $ - $ 2011 Replacement Program 50 2012 Replacement Program 50 10,000 10,000 2012 Waterline Overlays 50 5,000 5,000 2013 Replacement Program 50 2,087,980 2,087,980 - 2014 Replacement Program 50 2,927,737 95,000 2,832,737 - 2015 Replacement Program 50 2,635,072 - 92,409 2,542,663 - 2016 Replacement Program 50 2,708,371 - 93,306 2,615,065 - 2017 Replacement Program 50 2,734,736 - 94,212 2,640,525 - 2018 Replacement Program 50 2,857,717 - 95,126 2,762,591 2019 Replacement Program 50 96,612 - 96,612 Pioneer Way Road Repair/ Monitoring 50 - - - Five Corners 3.0 MG Reservoir Recoating 10 681,308 681,308 - Five Corners 1.5 MG Reservoir Recoating 10 436,797 - 436,797 76th Ave Waterline Replacement (includes PRV Impr) 50 490,800 490,800 - - - - - TelemetrySystemlmprovements 50 123,155 68,600 10,680 10,840 10,890 11,017 11,128 2016 Water System Plan Update 6 163,063 - - 81,158 81,905 - - 0 Transfer to Sewer Utility Fund 412-300 (Lift Station 2) 50 Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Main St) 50 - - Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Five Corners) 50 679,612 - 679,612 Transfer to Street Fund 112 (5th Ave. Overlay) 50 222,500 222,500 - Transfer to Street Fund 117 (2013 Watermain) 50 5,000 5,000 Transfer to Street Fund 117 (2010 Watermain) 50 - - Transfer to Street Fund 117 (Shell Valley) 50 Transfer to Street Fund 117 (LS 2) 50 0 Annual Replacement Programs 0 - - - - - - - 2,000,000 Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars $ 18,865,459 $ 2,984,880 $ 3,615,437 $ 3,409,274 $ 3,238,869 $ 2,746,668 $ 2,870,331 $ 2,000,000 FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) 1paclkei Page 421 of 554 CIP Input Page 10 City of Edmonds Water Utility Capital Improvement Program Project Costs in Year: 2013 Cumulative Inflation 0.00% 3.00% 6.09% 9.27% 12.55% 15.93% 19.41% Annual Inflation 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN INFLATED DOLLARS CIP No Description Life in Years 2013-2018 TOTAL COSTS 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010 Replacement Program 50 $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2011 Replacement Program 50 - 2012 Replacement Program 50 10,000 10,000 2012 Waterline Overlays 50 5,000 5,000 2013 Replacement Program 50 2,087,980 2,087,980 - 2014 Replacement Program 50 3,012,719 95,000 2,917,719 - 2015 Replacement Program 50 2,792,692 - 95,181 2,697,511 - 2016 Replacement Program 50 2,956,540 - 98,988 2,857,552 - 2017 Replacement Program 50 3,074,882 - 102,948 2,971,934 - 2018 Replacement Program 50 3,309,665 - 107,065 3,202,600 2019 Replacement Program 50 112,000 - 112,000 Pioneer Way Road Repair/ Monitoring 50 - - - Five Corners 3.0 MG Reservoir Recoating 10 722,800 722,800 - Five Corners 1.5 MG Reservoir Recoating 10 477,300 - 477,300 76th Ave Waterline Replacement (includes PRV Impr) 50 490,800 490,800 - - - - - Telemetry System Improvements 50 128,300 68,600 11,000 11,500 11,900 12,400 12,900 2016 Water System Plan Update 6 175,600 - - 86,100 89,500 - - Transfer to Sewer Utility Fund 412-300 (Lift Station 2) 50 Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Main St) 50 - - Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Five Corners) 50 700,000 - 700,000 Transfer to Street Fund 112 (5th Ave. Overlay) 50 222,500 222,500 - Transfer to Street Fund 117 (2013 Watermain) 50 5,000 5,000 Transfer to Street Fund 117 (2010 Watermain) 50 - - Transfer to Street Fund 117 (Shell Valley) 50 Transfer to Street Fund 117 (LS 2) 50 Annual Replacement Programs - - - 2,388,105 Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars $ 20,283,778 $ 2,984,880 $ 3,723,900 $ 3,616,899 $ 3,539,200 $ 3,091,399 $ 3,327,500 $ 2,388,105 FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) 1paclkei Page 422 of 554 CIP Input Page 11 City of Edmonds Water Utility Capital Funding Analysis Summary of Expenditures 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $ 2,984,880 $ 3,723,900 $ 3,616,899 $ 3,539,200 $ 3,091,399 $ 3,327,500 $ 2,388,105 Capital Financing Plan 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Other Outside Sources $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - PWTF Loan Proceeds Other Loan Proceeds - - - - - - - Capital Fund Balance 2,984,880 3,723,900 3,081,324 202,986 2,719,478 329,040 1,928,679 Revenue Bond Proceeds [Note B] - - - 3,336,213 - 2,998,460 - Rates 535,575 371,921 459,426 Total $ 2,984,880 $ 3,723,900 $ 3,616,899 $ 3,539,200 $ 3,091,399 $ 3,327,500 $ 2,388,105 TOTAL CAPITAL RESOURCES $ 2,984,880 $ 3,723,900 $ 3,616,899 $ 3,539,200 $ 3,091,399 $ 3,327,500 $ 2,388,105 Info: Capital Contingency Deficit NOTE A: SELECTION OF RESIDUAL CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCE Select the Residual Funding Source 1 Revenue Bond Proceeds 1 - Revenue Bond Proceeds 2 - Rates NOTE B: USER INPUT FOR REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS Select Amount of Bond Proceeds 1 User Defined 1 - Amounts at Right ==> $ 5,000,000 $ - $ - $ 5,600,000 $ - $ 4,400,000 $ 2 - Calculated by the Model FCS GROUPEdmonds Water Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) Packep2t Page 423 of 554 Capital Funding Page 12 City of Edmonds Water Utility Capital Funding Analysis New Debt Computations 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 REVENUE BONDS Amount to Fund ® $ - $ - $ 5,600,000 $ - $ 4,400,000 $ - Issuance Costs - - - Reserve Required 488,562 383,870 Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ 6,088,562 $ $ 4,783,870 $ OTHER LOANS Amount to Fund $ $ $ $ - $ $ - $ Issuance Costs Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PWTF LOAN Amount to Fund [a] $ - $ - $ - $ [a] 2004 and 2005 PWTF loan payment schedules input as existing debt. Amounts shown for reference. Debt Service Summary 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXISTING DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ 280,305 $ 275,913 $ 266,522 $ 256,854 $ 246,925 $ 236,643 $ 226,083 Annual Principal Payments 257,334 354,094 363,320 352,001 363,683 372,909 384,090 Total Debt Service Payments $ 537,640 $ 630,007 $ 629,843 $ 608,856 $ 610,608 $ 609,552 $ 610,174 Revenue Bond Payments Only 486,832 579,312 579,265 578,397 580,318 579,389 580,141 NEW DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ 67,251 $ 242,103 $ 241,000 $ 544,290 $ 533,911 $ 761,679 $ 741,812 Annual Principal Payments - 55,172 56,897 242,755 251,961 409,753 428,862 Total Debt Service Payments $ 67,251 $ 297,276 $ 297,897 $ 787,045 $ 785,872 $ 1,171,432 $ 1,170,673 Revenue Bond Payments Only 67,251 297,276 297,897 787,045 785,872 1,171,432 1,170,673 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS $ 604,891 $ 927,282 $ 927,739 $ 1,395,900 $ 1,396,480 $ 1,780,985 $ 1,780,847 Total Interest Payments 347,556 518,016 507,522 801,144 780,836 998,322 967,895 Total Principal Payments 257,334 409,266 420,217 594,756 615,644 782,663 812,952 Total Revenue Bond Payments Only 554,083 876,588 877,161 1,365,442 1,366,190 1,750,821 1,750,814 FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) g6acke7-18, t Page 424 of 554 Capital Funding Page 13 P City of Edmonds Water Utility Revenue Requirements Analysis Cash Flow Sufficiency Test EXPENSES Cash Operating Expenses Existing Debt Service New Debt Service Rate -Funded CIP Rate Funded System Reinvestment Additions Required to Meet Minimum Op. Fund Balance Total Expenses 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $ 4,037,474 $ 4,204,695 $ 4,381,333 $ 4,567,189 $ 4,762,844 $ 4,968,922 $ 5,186,094 537,640 630,007 629,843 608,856 610,608 609,552 610,174 67,251 297,276 297,897 787,045 785,872 1,171,432 1,170,673 - - 535,575 - 371,921 - 459,426 $ 4,642,365 $ 5,131,978 $ 5,844,647 $ 5,963,089 $ 6,531,245 $ 6,749,906 $ 7,426,368 REVENUES Rate Revenue $ 5,189,800 $ 5,215,749 $ 5,241,828 $ 5,268,037 $ 5,294,377 $ 5,320,849 $ 5,347,453 Other Revenue 174,273 144,894 144,894 144,894 144,894 144,894 144,894 Operating Fund & Debt Reserve Fund Interest Earnings 3,187 3,840 7,818 11,945 21,118 26,799 38,425 Total Revenue $ 5,367,260 $ 5,364,483 $ 5,394,540 $ 5,424,876 $ 5,460,389 $ 5,492,542 $ 5,530,772 NET CASH FLOW (DEFICIENCY) Sufficiencv Test EXPENSES Cash Operating Expenses Revenue Bond Debt Service Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement at 1.25 Total Expenses ALLOWABLE REVENUES Rate Revenue Other Revenue Interest Earnings - All Funds Total Revenue Individual Coverage Realized INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE SURPLUS (DEFICIENCY) COVERAGE SURPLUS (DEFICIENCY) $ 724,895 $ 232,505 $ (450,107) $ (538,214) $ (1,070,857) $ (1,257,364) $ (1,895,595) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $ 4,037,474 $ 4,204,695 $ 4,381,333 $ 4,567,189 $ 4,762,844 $ 4,968,922 $ 5,186,094 554,083 876,588 877,161 1,365,442 1,366,190 1,750,821 1,750,814 138,521 219,147 219,290 341,361 341,548 437,705 437,704 $ 4,730,078 $ 5,300,431 $ 5,477,785 $ 6,273,992 $ 6,470,581 $ 7,157,448 $ 7,374,612 $ 5,189,800 $ 5,215,749 $ 5,241,828 $ 5,268,037 $ 5,294,377 $ 5,320,849 $ 5,347,453 174,273 144,894 144,894 144,894 144,894 144,894 144,894 11,787 19,465 23,225 13,467 48,313 30,912 67,355 $ 5,375,860 $ 5,380,108 $ 5,409,946 $ 5,426,398 $ 5,487,584 $ 5,496,655 $ 5,559,703 2.42 1.34 1.17 0.63 0.53 0.30 0.21 $ 645,782 $ 79,678 $ (67,838) $ (847,593) $ (982,998) $ (1,660,793) $ (1,814,909) $ 645,782 $ 79,678 $ (67,838) $ (847,593) $ (982,998) $ (1,660,793) $ (1,814,909) FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 425 of 554 Tests Page 14 City of Edmonds Water Utility Revenue Requirements Analysis Maximum Revenue Deficienc Sufficiency Test Driving the Deficiency Maximum Deficiency From Tests less: Net Revenue From Prior Rate Increases Revenue Deficiency Plus: Adjustment for State Excise Tax Total Revenue Deficiency 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 None None Cash Coverage Cash Coverage Cash $ $ - $ 450,107 $ 847,593 $ 1,070,857 $ 1,660,793 $ 1,895,595 ' (311,139) (644,932) (1,002,924) (1,386,764) (1,798,212) $ $ - $ 138,969 $ 202,662 $ 67,933 $ 274,029 $ 97,383 7.359 10.732 3.597 14.511 5.157 $ $ - $ 146,327 $ 213,393 $ 71,530 $ 288,540 $ 102,540 Rate Increases 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Rate Revenue with no Increase $ 5,189,800 $ 5,215,749 $ 5,241,828 $ 5,268,037 $ 5,294,377 $ 5,320,849 $ 5,347,453 Revenues from Prior Rate Increases - - 327,614 679,083 1,056,032 1,460,197 1,893,432 Rate Revenue Before Rate Increase (Incl. previous increases) 5,189,800 5,215,749 5,569,442 5,947,120 6,350,409 6,781,046 7,240,886 Required Annual Rate Increase 0.00% 0.00% 2.63% 3.59% 1.13% 4.26% 1.42% Number of Months New Rates Will Be In Effect 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Info: Percentage Increase to Generate Required Revenue 0.00% 0.00% 2.63% 3.59% 1.13% 4.26% 1.42% Policy Induced Rate Increases 6.25% 6.25% 6.25% 6.25% 6.25% 6.25% ANNUAL RATE INCREASE 0.00% 6.25% 6.25% 6.25% 6.25% 6.25% 6.25% CUMULATIVE RATE INCREASE 0.00% 6.25% 12.89% 19.95% 27.44% 35.41% 43.87% Impacts of Rate Increases 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Rate Revenues After Rate Increase $ 5,189,800 $ 5,541,733 $ 5,917,532 $ 6,318,815 $ 6,747,309 $ 7,204,861 $ 7,693,441 Full Year Rate Revenues After Rate Increase 5,189, 800 5,541,733 5,917,532 6,318,815 6,747,309 7,204,861 7,693,441 Additional State & City Taxes Due to Rate Increases - 16,394 33,981 52,844 73,068 94,747 117,980 Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase 724,895 542,096 191,616 459,721 309,008 531,901 332,413 Individual Coverage After Rate Increase 2.42 1.69 1.90 1.36 1.54 1.32 1.49 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 426 of 554 Tests Page 15 City of Edmonds Water Utility Fund Activity Funds OPERATING FUND Beginning Balance plus: Net Cash Flow after Rate Increase less: Transfer of Surplus to Capital Fund Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance Maximum Funds to be Kept as Operating Reserves Info: No of Days of Cash Operating Expenses CAPITAL FUND Beginning Balance plus: Rate Funded System Reinvestment plus: Grants / Developer Donations / Other Outside Sources plus: Capital Facilities Charges plus: Net Debt Proceeds Available for Projects plus: Interest Earnings plus: Transfer of Surplus from Operating Fund plus: Direct Rate Funding less: Capital Expenditures Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance DEBT RESERVE Beginning Balance plus: Reserve Funding from New Debt less: Use of Reserves for Debt Service Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance $ 4,140,071 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $ 700,000 $ 663,694 $ 691,183 $ 720,219 $ 750,771 $ 782,933 $ 816,809 724,895 542,096 191,616 459,721 309,008 531,901 332,413 (761,201) (514,608) (162,580) (429,169) (276,845) (498,026) (296,713) $ 663,694 $ 691,183 $ 720,219 $ 750,771 $ 782,933 $ 816,809 $ 852,509 497,771 518,387 540,164 563,078 587,200 612,607 639,381 663,694 691,183 720,219 750,771 782,933 816,809 852,509 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 $ 3,440,071 $ 6,249,992 $ 3,081,324 $ 202,986 $ 2,719,478 $ 329,040 $ 1,928,679 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 5,000,000 - - 5,600,000 - 4,400,000 - 8,600 15,625 15,407 1,522 27,195 4,113 28,930 761,201 514,608 162,580 429,169 276,845 498,026 296,713 - - 535,575 - 371,921 - 459,426 (2,984,880) (3,723,900) (3,616,899) (3,539,200) (3,091,399) (3,327,500) (2,388,105) $ 6,249,992 $ 3,081,324 $ 202,986 $ 2,719,478 $ 329,040 $ 1,928,679 $ 350,644 $ 574,652 $ 872,441 $ 872,441 $ 872,441 $ 1,361,003 $ 1,361,003 $ 1,744,873 297,789 - - 488,562 - 383,870 - $ 872,441 $ 872,441 $ 872,441 $ 1,361,003 $ 1,361,003 $ 1,744,873 $ 1,744,873 666,704 896,729 897,350 1,386,498 1,385,326 1,770,885 1,770,127 FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) 86.K-18P02 Funds Page 16 Pac et age 427 of 554 City of Edmonds Water Utility 2013 Bond 2013 Revenue Bond Summary Net Bond Proceeds $ 14,500,000 Debt Reserve Funding 863,587 Issuance Cost and Misc. 250,601 Total $ 15,614,188 Net Proceeds Debt Reserve Assumed Net Proceeds for the 2013 Bond Provided by Dashen & Associates => Net Proceeds Needed by the Utility to Fund Capital Program => $ 14,500,000 $ 5,000,000 Ratio of Net Proceeds Needed to Net Proceeds for the Given Payment Schedule => 1 0.34 Total of 2013 Revenue Bond 2013 2014 2015 2016 $ 863,587 $ 297,789 0.34 2017 2018 2019 2013 Bond Debt Service - As Provided by Dashen & Associates Annual Interest Payment $ 195,028 $ 702,100 $ 698,900 $ 695,600 $ 692,200 $ 687,100 $ 679,900 Annual Principal Payment - 160,000 165,000 170,000 170,000 180,000 185,000 Total Annual Payment $ 195,028 $ 862,100 $ 863,900 $ 865,600 $ 862,200 $ 867,100 $ 864,900 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - Water Utility's Share 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2013 Bond Debt Service - Propared for the Water Utility Annual Interest Payment $ 67,251 $ 242,103 $ 241,000 $ 239,862 $ 238,690 $ 236,931 $ 234,448 Annual Principal Payment - 55,172 56,897 58,621 58,621 62,069 63,793 Total Annual Payment $ 67,251 $ 297,276 $ 297,897 $ 298,483 $ 297,310 $ 299,000 $ 298,241 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) 867-1802 2013 Bond Page 1 Packet Page 428 of 554 City of Edmonds Water Utility Summary Total Capital Projects Revenue Bond Proceeds Use of Capital Fund Balance Direct Rate Funding Total Funding Sources Revenues Rate Revenues Under Existing Rates Non -Rate Revenues Total Revenues Expenses Cash O&M Expenses [a] Existing Debt Service New Debt Service Rate Funded System Reinvestment Rate Funded CIP Total Expenses Annual Rate Adjustment Rate Increases Dictated by: Rate Revenues After Rate Increase Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase Coverage After Rate Increases $ 2,984,880 $ 3,723,900 $ 3,616,899 $ 3,539,200 $ 3,091,399 $ 3,327,500 $ 2,3885105 - - - 2,904,633 - 1,500,000 - 2,984,880 3,723,900 3,217,544 634,566 1,989,460 436,808 478,417 399,355 - 1,101,939 1,390,692 1,909,688 $ 2,984,880 $ 3,723,900 $ 3,616,899 $ 3,539,200 $ 3,091,399 $ 3,327,500 $ 2,388,105 $ 5,189,800 $ 5,215,749 $ 5,241,828 $ 5,268,037 $ 5,294,377 $ 5,320,849 $ 5,347,453 177,460 148,734 152,712 156,839 164,441 169,730 177,169 $ 5,367,260 $ 5,364,483 $ 5,394,540 $ 5,424,876 $ 5,458,818 $ 5,490,579 $ 5,524,622 $ 4,037,474 $ 4,228,302 $ 4,430,919 $ 4,645,351 $ 4,872,429 $ 5,113,049 $ 5,368,182 537,640 630,007 629,843 608,856 610,608 609,552 610,174 67,251 297,276 297,897 630,007 628,835 761,389 760,630 - 399,355 - 1,101,939 1,390,692 1,909,688 $ 4,642,365 $ 5,155,585 $ 5,758,013 $ 5,884,214 $ 7,213,811 $ 7,874,683 $ 8,648,674 Analysis Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy $ 5,189,800 $ 5,685,166 $ 6,227,816 $ 6,822,261 $ 7,473,445 $ 8,186,786 $ 8,968,214 724,895 678,316 622,515 1,094,886 424,076 481,833 496,709 2.42 1.85 2.24 1.94 2.30 2.42 2.82 [a] Includes additional State Excise and B&O Taxes due to the proposed rate increases. tr 91 L 2n14 Operating Fund $ 663,694 $ 691,183 $ 720,219 $ 750,771 $ 782,933 $ 816,809 $ 852,509 Capital Fund 6,249,992 3,217,544 634,566 1,989,460 436,808 478,417 493,186 Debt Reserve Fund 872,441 872,441 872,441 1,203,965 1,203,965 1,334,830 1,334,830 Total $ 7,786,127 $ 4,781,168 $ 2,227,226 $ 3,944,196 $ 2,423,706 $ 2,630,056 $ 2,680,524 Combined Minimum Target Balance $ 1,415,116 $ 1,437,514 $ 1,792,538 $ 1,815,488 $ 1,973,449 $ 1,999,465 FCS GROUP p Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425)P86 e$Page 429 of 554 Summary Page 2 City of Edmonds Water Utility Assumptions Economic & Financial Factors 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 1 General Cost Inflation 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 2 Construction Cost Inflation 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3 Labor Cost Inflation 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 4 Customer Growth 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 5 General Inflation plus Growth 0.50% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 3.52% 6 Alderwood Water Rate Increase 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 7 Benefits Inflation 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 8 No Escalation 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Fund Earnings 0.25% 0.25% 0.50% 0.75% 1.00% 1.25% 1.50% State Excise Tax 5.03% 5.03% 5.03% 5.03% 5.03% 5.03% 5.03% 5.03% State B&O Tax 1.80% 1.65% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% Accounting Assumptions 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 FISCAL POLICY RESTRICTIONS Min. Op. Fund Balance Target (days of O&M expense) 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Max. Op. Fund Balance (days of O&M expense) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target Select Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target 1 Defined as % of Plant 1 - Defined as % of Plant Plant -in -Service in 2012 $ 13,882,377 Minimum Capital Fund Balance - % of plant assets 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 - Amount at Right =_> $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - FCS GROUP p Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425)P86 18Page 430 of 554 Assumptions Page 3 City of Edmonds Water Utility Assumptions RATE FUNDED SYSTEM REINVESTMENT Select Reinvestment Funding Strategy 4 System Reinvestment is not Funded Amount of Annual Cash Funding from Rates 1 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense 2 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense less Annual Debt Principal Payments 3 - Equal to Amount at Right =_> $ - $ - $ 4 - Do Not Fund System Reinvestment Capital Financing Assumptions 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 GENERAL FACILITIES CHARGE (GFC) REVENUES General Facilities Charge Revenues $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ REVENUE BONDS Term (years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost (incl. issuance costs, per City staff's direction) 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Issuance Cost 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement 1.25 PWTF LOAN Term (years; 10 year minimum and no more than 20 years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% OTHER LOANS & REVENUE -SUPPORTED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS [a] Term (years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Issuance Cost 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% [a] Tax -supported general obligation bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund; terms and annual obligations of such bonds are not factors in this analysis 2019 25,000 20 5.00% 0.00% 20 1.00% 20 5.00% 0.00% FCS GROUP p Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425)P86 18Page 431 of 554 Assumptions Page 4 City of Edmonds Water Utility Existing Debt Input Existing Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2011 Water/Sewer Refunding and New Issue Annual Interest Payment $ 277,362 $ 273,172 $ 263,988 $ 254,530 $ 244,814 $ 234,749 $ 224,409 Annual Principal Payment 209.471 306,140 315,277 323,868 335,504 344,641 355,732 Total Annual Payment $ 486,832 $ 579,312 $ 579,265 $ 578,397 $ 580,318 $ 579,389 $ 580,141 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - TOTAL REVENUE BONDS Annual Interest Payment $ 277,362 $ 273,172 $ 263,988 $ 254,530 $ 244,814 $ 234,749 $ 224,409 Annual Principal Payment 209,471 306,140 315,277 323,868 335,504 344,641 355,732 Total Annual Payment $ 486,832 $ 579,312 $ 579,265 $ 578,397 $ 580,318 $ 579,389 $ 580,141 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds 599,453 599,453 599,453 599,453 599,453 599,453 599,453 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) Packlet age 432 of 554 Existing Debt Page 5 City of Edmonds Water Utility Existing Debt Input Existing Debt Service - PWTF Loans 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 PWTF LOAN 04-691-031 Five Corners Water Pump Station Project Annual Interest Payment $ 1,550 $ 1,421 $ 1,292 $ 1,163 $ 1,034 $ 904 $ 775 Annual Principal Payment 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 Total Annual Payment $ 27,389 $ 27,260 $ 27,131 $ 27,002 $ 26,873 $ 26,743 $ 26,614 PWTF LOAN PP09-951-014 2009 Water Comprehensive Plan Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment 20,000 20,000 20,000 _ $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ TOTAL PWTF LOANS Annual Interest Payment $ 1,550 $ 1,421 $ 1,292 $ 1,163 $ 1,034 $ 904 $ 775 Annual Principal Payment 45,839 45,839 45,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 25,839 Total Annual Payment $ 47,389 $ 47,260 $ 47,131 $ 27,002 $ 26,873 $ 26,743 $ 26,614 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) Packe02age 433 of 554 Existing Debt Page 6 City of Edmonds Water Utility Existing Debt Input Existing Debt Service - Other Loans [a] 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 [a] Enter payments for other loans and revenue -supported G.O. issues only. Tax -supported bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund and do not impact this ana 2007 LTGO Bond Annual Interest Payment $ 1,393 $ 1,319 $ 1,242 $ 1,162 $ 1,078 $ 990 $ 899 Annual Principal Payment 2,025 2,115 2,205 2,295 2,340 2,430 2,520 Total Annual Payment $ 3,418 $ 3,434 $ 3,447 $ 3,457 $ 3,418 $ 3,420 $ 3,419 TOTAL OTHER LOANS Annual Interest Payment $ 1,393 $ 1,319 $ 1,242 $ 1,162 $ 1,078 $ 990 $ 899 Annual Principal Payment 2,025 2,115 2,205 2,295 2,340 2,430 2,520 Total Annual Payment $ 3,418 $ 3,434 $ 3,447 $ 3,457 $ 3,418 $ 3,420 $ 3,419 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) Packe02age 434 of 554 Existing Debt Page 7 City of Edmonds Water Utility Operating Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 8.70% Actual Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Revenues FORECAST BASIS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Rate Revenues Rate Revenues 4 Customer Growth $ 4,588,700 $ 4,988,000 $ 5,012,940 $ 5,038,005 $ 5,063,195 $ 5,088,511 $ 5,113,953 $ 5,139,523 Fire Hydrand Revenues (8.7%) 4.05% Portion of the City Utility Tax 166,942 201,800 202,809 203,823 204,842 205,866 206,896 207,930 Total Rate Revenues Based on 2013 $ 4,755,641 $ 5,189,800 $ 5,215,749 $ 5,241,828 $ 5,268,037 $ 5,294,377 $ 5,320,849 $ 5,347,453 Non -Rate Revenues Miscellaneous revenues 8 No Escalation $ 122,749 $ 127,273 $ 97,894 $ 97,894 $ 97,894 $ 97,894 $ 97,894 $ 97,894 Recycling Grants 8 No Escalation 53,743 47,000 47,000 47,000 47,000 47,000 47,000 47,000 [Other] 8 No Escalation - - - - - - - - Total Non -Rate Revenues $ 176,492 $ 174,273 $ 144,894 $ 144,894 $ 144,894 $ 144,894 $ 144,894 $ 144,894 TOTAL REVENUES $ 4,932,133 $ 5,364,073 $ 5,360,643 $ 5,386,722 $ 5,412,931 $ 5,439,271 $ 5,465,743 $ 5,492,347 FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) %cke2f Page 435 of 554 O&M Page 8 City of Edmonds Water Utility Operating Revenue and Expenditure Forecast Expenditures FORECAST BASIS Actual 2012 8.70% Budget 2013 Projection 2014 Projection 2015 Projection 2016 Projection 2017 Projection 2018 Projection 2019 Salaries and Wages 3 Labor Cost Inflation $ 680,930 $ 733,122 $ 755,116 $ 777,769 $ 801,102 $ 825,135 $ 849,889 $ 875,386 Overtime 3 I Labor Cost Inflation 24,061 24,180 24,905 25,653 26,422 27,215 28,031 28,872 Benefits 7 Benefits Inflation I 274,852 277,956 305,752 336,327 369,959 406,955 447,651 492,416 Uniforms 1 General Cost Inflation 2,962 6,800 7,004 7,214 7,431 7,653 7,883 8,120 Supplies 1 General Cost Inflation 145,455 143,505 147,810 152,244 156,812 161,516 166,362 171,352 Water Purchased 6 Alderwood Water Rate Increas 1,448,400 1,725,000 1,811,250 1,901,813 1,996,903 2,096,748 2,201,586 2,311,665 Supplies for Inventory/Resale 1 General Cost Inflation 98,400 140,000 144,200 148,526 152,982 157,571 162,298 167,167 Small Equipment 1 General Cost Inflation 6,531 10,000 10,300 10,609 10,927 11,255 11,593 11,941 Professional Services 1 General Cost Inflation 26,978 82,136 84,600 87,138 89,752 92,445 95,218 98,075 Communications 1 General Cost Inflation 27,266 30,000 30,900 31,827 32,782 33,765 34,778 35,822 Travel 1 General Cost Inflation - 3,400 3,502 3,607 3,715 3,827 3,942 4,060 Advertising 1 General Cost Inflation - 560 577 594 612 630 649 669 Rental/Lease 1 General Cost Inflation 3,121 1,500 1,545 1,591 1,639 1,688 1,739 1,791 Insurance 1 General Cost Inflation 70,440 67,699 69,730 71,822 73,977 76,196 78,482 80,836 Public Utility 1 General Cost Inflation 29,456 28,000 28,840 29,705 30,596 31,514 32,460 33,433 Repair/ Maintenance 1 General Cost Inflation 12,713 24,160 24,885 25,631 26,400 27,192 28,008 28,848 Miscellaneous (excl. Taxes) 1 ' General Cost Inflation 86,103 43,347 44,647 45,987 47,366 48,787 50,251 51,759 State Taxes Excise and B&O Tax Rate 242,338 264,283 264,848 266,160 267,478 268,803 270,134 271,472 Intergov. Services 1 I General Cost Inflation 25,415 30,000 30,900 31,827 32,782 33,765 34,778 35,822 Interfund Services 1 General Cost Inflation 262,072 210,568 216,885 223,392 230,093 236,996 244,106 251,429 RCP - Salaries 3 Labor Cost Inflation RCP - Benefits 3 Labor Cost Inflation RCP - Travel 1 General Cost Inflation RCP - Miscellaneous 1 General Cost Inflation Interfund Rental 1 General Cost Inflation 104,484 89,705 92,396 95,168 98,023 100,964 103,993 107,112 Interfund Repair / Maintenance 1 General Cost Inflation 33 - - - - - - - Buildings 1 General Cost Inflation - Improvements/Projects 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - Machinery / Equipment 1 General Cost Inflation 85,000 87,550 90,177 92,882 95,668 98,538 101,494 Interfund Transfer Out [d] 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - Amortized Debt Issue Cost 8 No Escalation 18,164 16,553 16,553 16,553 16,553 16,553 16,553 16,553 Decision Package 8 No Escalation - - Add'I O&M - 1/3 New GIS 3 I Labor Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - Total Cash O&M Expenditures $ 3,590,173 $ 4,037,474 $ 4,204,695 $ 4,381,333 $ 4,567,189 $ 4,762,844 $ 4,968,922 $ 5,186,094 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (a2s) %cxe2 O&M Page 9 Page 436 of 554 City of Edmonds Water Utility Capital Improvement Program Project Costs in Year: 2013 CIP No Description Life in Years 2013-2018 TOTAL COSTS 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010 Replacement Program 50 $ $ - $ - S - S - $ - $ - $ 2011 Replacement Program 50 - 2012 Replacement Program 50 10,000 10,000 2012 Waterline Overlays 50 5,000 5,000 2013 Replacement Program 50 2,087,980 2,087,980 - 2014 Replacement Program 50 2,927,737 95,000 2,832,737 - 2015 Replacement Program 50 2,635,072 - 92,409 2,542,663 - 2016 Replacement Program 50 2,708,371 - 93,306 2,615,065 - 2017 Replacement Program 50 2,734,736 - 94,212 2,640,525 - 2018 Replacement Program 50 2,857,717 - 95,126 2,762,591 2019 Replacement Program 50 96,612 - 96,612 Pioneer Way Road Repair/ Monitoring 50 - - - Five Corners 3.0 MG Reservoir Recoating 10 681,308 681,308 - Five Corners 1.5 MG Reservoir Recoating 10 436,797 - 436,797 76th Ave Waterline Replacement (includes PRV Impr) 50 490,800 490,800 - - - - - TelemetrySystemlmprovements 50 123,155 68,600 10,680 10,840 10,890 11,017 11,128 2016 Water System Plan Update 6 163,063 - - 81,158 81,905 - - 0 Transfer to Sewer Utility Fund 412-300 (Lift Station 2) 50 Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Main St) 50 - - Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Five Corners) 50 679,612 - 679,612 Transfer to Street Fund 112 (5th Ave. Overlay) 50 222,500 222,500 - Transfer to Street Fund 117 (2013 Watermain) 50 5,000 5,000 Transfer to Street Fund 117 (2010 Watermain) 50 - - Transfer to Street Fund 117 (Shell Valley) 50 Transfer to Street Fund 117 (LS 2) 50 0 Annual Replacement Programs 0 - - - - - - - 2,000,000 Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars $ 18,865,459 $ 2,984,880 $ 3,615,437 $ 3,409,274 $ 3,238,869 $ 2,746,668 $ 2,870,331 $ 2,000,000 FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) 'Pac�Cei Page 437 of 554 CIP Input Page 10 City of Edmonds Water Utility Capital Improvement Program Project Costs in Year: 2013 Cumulative Inflation 0.00% 3.00% 6.09% 9.27% 12.55% 15.93% 19.41% Annual Inflation 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN INFLATED DOLLARS CIP No Description Life in Years 2013-2018 TOTAL COSTS 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010 Replacement Program 50 $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2011 Replacement Program 50 - 2012 Replacement Program 50 10,000 10,000 2012 Waterline Overlays 50 5,000 5,000 2013 Replacement Program 50 2,087,980 2,087,980 - 2014 Replacement Program 50 3,012,719 95,000 2,917,719 - 2015 Replacement Program 50 2,792,692 - 95,181 2,697,511 - 2016 Replacement Program 50 2,956,540 - 98,988 2,857,552 - 2017 Replacement Program 50 3,074,882 - 102,948 2,971,934 - 2018 Replacement Program 50 3,309,665 - 107,065 3,202,600 2019 Replacement Program 50 112,000 - 112,000 Pioneer Way Road Repair/ Monitoring 50 - - - Five Corners 3.0 MG Reservoir Recoating 10 722,800 722,800 - Five Corners 1.5 MG Reservoir Recoating 10 477,300 - 477,300 76th Ave Waterline Replacement (includes PRV Impr) 50 490,800 490,800 - - - - - Telemetry System Improvements 50 128,300 68,600 11,000 11,500 11,900 12,400 12,900 2016 Water System Plan Update 6 175,600 - - 86,100 89,500 - - Transfer to Sewer Utility Fund 412-300 (Lift Station 2) 50 Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Main St) 50 - - Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Five Corners) 50 700,000 - 700,000 Transfer to Street Fund 112 (5th Ave. Overlay) 50 222,500 222,500 - Transfer to Street Fund 117 (2013 Watermain) 50 5,000 5,000 Transfer to Street Fund 117 (2010 Watermain) 50 - - Transfer to Street Fund 117 (Shell Valley) 50 Transfer to Street Fund 117 (LS 2) 50 Annual Replacement Programs - - - 2,388,105 Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars $ 20,283,778 $ 2,984,880 $ 3,723,900 $ 3,616,899 $ 3,539,200 $ 3,091,399 $ 3,327,500 $ 2,388,105 FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) 'Pac�Cei Page 438 of 554 CIP Input Page 11 City of Edmonds Water Utility Capital Funding Analysis Summary of Expenditures 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $ 2,984,880 $ 3,723,900 $ 3,616,899 $ 3,539,200 $ 3,091,399 $ 3,327,500 $ 2,388,105 Capital Financing Plan 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Other Outside Sources $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - PWTF Loan Proceeds Other Loan Proceeds - - - - - - - Capital Fund Balance 2,984,880 3,723,900 3,217,544 634,566 1,989,460 436,808 478,417 Revenue Bond Proceeds [Note B] - - - 2,904,633 - 1,500,000 - Rates 399,355 1,101,939 1,390,692 1,909,688 Total $ 2,984,880 $ 3,723,900 $ 3,616,899 $ 3,539,200 $ 3,091,399 $ 3,327,500 $ 2,388,105 TOTAL CAPITAL RESOURCES $ 2,984,880 $ 3,723,900 $ 3,616,899 $ 3,539,200 $ 3,091,399 $ 3,327,500 $ 2,388,105 Info: Capital Contingency Deficit NOTE A: SELECTION OF RESIDUAL CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCE Select the Residual Funding Source 1 Revenue Bond Proceeds 1 - Revenue Bond Proceeds 2 - Rates NOTE B: USER INPUT FOR REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS Select Amount of Bond Proceeds 1 User Defined 1 - Amounts at Right ==> $ 5,000,000 $ - $ - $ 3,800,000 $ - $ 1,500,000 $ 2 - Calculated by the Model FCS GROUPEdmonds Water Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) Packep2t Page 439 of 554 Capital Funding Page 12 City of Edmonds Water Utility Capital Funding Analysis New Debt Computations 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 REVENUE BONDS Amount to Fund ® $ - $ - $ 3,800,000 $ - $ 1,500,000 $ - Issuance Costs - - - Reserve Required 331,524 130,865 Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ 4,131,524 $ $ 1,630,865 $ OTHER LOANS Amount to Fund $ $ $ $ - $ $ - $ Issuance Costs Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PWTF LOAN Amount to Fund [a] $ - $ - $ - $ [a] 2004 and 2005 PWTF loan payment schedules input as existing debt. Amounts shown for reference. Debt Service Summary 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXISTING DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ 280,305 $ 275,913 $ 266,522 $ 256,854 $ 246,925 $ 236,643 $ 226,083 Annual Principal Payments 257,334 354,094 363,320 352,001 363,683 372,909 384,090 Total Debt Service Payments $ 537,640 $ 630,007 $ 629,843 $ 608,856 $ 610,608 $ 609,552 $ 610,174 Revenue Bond Payments Only 486,832 579,312 579,265 578,397 580,318 579,389 580,141 NEW DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ 67,251 $ 242,103 $ 241,000 $ 446,438 $ 439,018 $ 512,243 $ 500,407 Annual Principal Payments - 55,172 56,897 183,569 189,816 249,146 260,224 Total Debt Service Payments $ 67,251 $ 297,276 $ 297,897 $ 630,007 $ 628,835 $ 761,389 $ 760,630 Revenue Bond Payments Only 67,251 297,276 297,897 630,007 628,835 761,389 760,630 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS $ 604,891 $ 927,282 $ 927,739 $ 1,238,862 $ 1,239,443 $ 1,370,941 $ 1,370,804 Total Interest Payments 347,556 518,016 507,522 703,292 685,944 748,886 726,490 Total Principal Payments 257,334 409,266 420,217 535,570 553,499 622,055 644,314 Total Revenue Bond Payments Only 554,083 876,588 877,161 1,208,404 1,209,152 1,340,778 1,340,771 FCS GROUPEdmonds Water Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) Packep2t Page 440 of 554 Capital Funding Page 13 City of Edmonds Water Utility Revenue Requirements Analysis Cash Flow Sufficiency Test EXPENSES Cash Operating Expenses Existing Debt Service New Debt Service Rate -Funded CIP Rate Funded System Reinvestment Additions Required to Meet Minimum Op. Fund Balance Total Expenses 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $ 4,037,474 $ 4,204,695 $ 4,381,333 $ 4,567,189 $ 4,762,844 $ 4,968,922 $ 5,186,094 537,640 630,007 629,843 608,856 610,608 609,552 610,174 67,251 297,276 297,897 630,007 628,835 761,389 760,630 - - 399,355 - 1,101,939 1,390,692 1,909,688 $ 4,642,365 $ 5,131,978 $ 5,708,427 $ 5,806,052 $ 7,104,225 $ 7,730,555 $ 8,466,586 REVENUES Rate Revenue $ 5,189,800 $ 5,215,749 $ 5,241,828 $ 5,268,037 $ 5,294,377 $ 5,320,849 $ 5,347,453 Other Revenue 174,273 144,894 144,894 144,894 144,894 144,894 144,894 Operating Fund & Debt Reserve Fund Interest Earnings 3,187 3,840 7,818 11,945 19,547 24,836 32,275 Total Revenue $ 5,367,260 $ 5,364,483 $ 5,394,540 $ 5,424,876 $ 5,458,818 $ 5,490,579 $ 5,524,622 NET CASH FLOW (DEFICIENCY) Sufficiencv Test EXPENSES Cash Operating Expenses Revenue Bond Debt Service Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement at 1.25 Total Expenses ALLOWABLE REVENUES Rate Revenue Other Revenue Interest Earnings - All Funds Total Revenue Individual Coverage Realized INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE SURPLUS (DEFICIENCY) COVERAGE SURPLUS (DEFICIENCY) $ 724,895 $ 232,505 $ (313,887) $ (381,176) $ (1,645,407) $ (2,239,976) $ (2,941,964) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $ 4,037,474 $ 4,204,695 $ 4,381,333 $ 4,567,189 $ 4,762,844 $ 4,968,922 $ 5,186,094 554,083 876,588 877,161 1,208,404 1,209,152 1,340,778 1,340,771 138,521 219,147 219,290 302,101 302,288 335,195 335,193 $ 4,730,078 $ 5,300,431 $ 5,477,785 $ 6,077,694 $ 6,274,284 $ 6,644,894 $ 6,862,058 $ 5,189,800 $ 5,215,749 $ 5,241,828 $ 5,268,037 $ 5,294,377 $ 5,320,849 $ 5,347,453 174,273 144,894 144,894 144,894 144,894 144,894 144,894 11,787 19,465 23,906 16,704 39,442 30,296 39,451 $ 5,375,860 $ 5,380,108 $ 5,410,628 $ 5,429,635 $ 5,478,713 $ 5,496,039 $ 5,531,798 2.42 1.34 1.17 0.71 0.59 0.39 0.26 $ 645,782 $ 79,678 $ (67,157) $ (648,059) $ (795,571) $ (1,148,855) $ (1,330,260) $ 645,782 $ 79,678 $ (67,157) $ (648,059) $ (795,571) $ (1,148,855) $ (1,330,260) FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 441 of 554 Tests Page 14 City of Edmonds Water Utility Revenue Requirements Analysis Maximum Revenue Deficienc Sufficiency Test Driving the Deficiency Maximum Deficiency From Tests less: Net Revenue From Prior Rate Increases Revenue Deficiency Plus: Adjustment for State Excise Tax Total Revenue Deficiency 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 None None Cash Coverage Cash Cash Cash $ $ - $ 313,887 $ 648,059 $ 1,645,407 $ 2,239,976 $ 2,941,964 ' (448,039) (941,084) (1,483,442) (2,079,830) (2,735,418) $ $ - $ - $ - $ 161,965 $ 160,145 $ 206,546 8.577 8.480 10.937 $ $ - $ - $ - $ 170,541 $ 168,626 $ 217,483 Rate Increases 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Rate Revenue with no Increase $ 5,189,800 $ 5,215,749 $ 5,241,828 $ 5,268,037 $ 5,294,377 $ 5,320,849 $ 5,347,453 Revenues from Prior Rate Increases - - 471,764 990,918 1,561,995 2,189,964 2,880,266 Rate Revenue Before Rate Increase (Incl. previous increases) 5,189,800 5,215,749 5,713,592 6,258,955 6,856,372 7,510,813 8,227,720 Required Annual Rate Increase 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.49% 2.25% 2.64% Number of Months New Rates Will Be In Effect 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Info: Percentage Increase to Generate Required Revenue 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.49% 2.25% 2.64% Policy Induced Rate Increases 9.00% 9.00% 9.00% 9.00% 9.00% 9.00% ANNUAL RATE INCREASE 0.00% 9.00% 9.00% 9.00% 9.00% 9.00% 9.00% CUMULATIVE RATE INCREASE 0.00% 9.00% 18.81% 29.50% 41.16% 53.86% 67.71% Impacts of Rate Increases 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Rate Revenues After Rate Increase $ 5,189,800 $ 5,685,166 $ 6,227,816 $ 6,822,261 $ 7,473,445 $ 8,186,786 $ 8,968,214 Full Year Rate Revenues After Rate Increase 5,189, 800 5,685,166 6,227,816 6,822,261 7,473,445 8,186, 786 8,968,214 Additional State & City Taxes Due to Rate Increases - 23,607 49,585 78,162 109,585 144,128 182,088 Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase 724,895 678,316 622,515 1,094,886 424,076 481,833 496,709 Individual Coverage After Rate Increase 2.42 1.85 2.24 1.94 2.30 2.42 2.82 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 442 of 554 Tests Page 15 City of Edmonds Water Utility Fund Activity Funds OPERATING FUND Beginning Balance plus: Net Cash Flow after Rate Increase less: Transfer of Surplus to Capital Fund Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance Maximum Funds to be Kept as Operating Reserves Info: No of Days of Cash Operating Expenses CAPITAL FUND Beginning Balance plus: Rate Funded System Reinvestment plus: Grants / Developer Donations / Other Outside Sources plus: Capital Facilities Charges plus: Net Debt Proceeds Available for Projects plus: Interest Earnings plus: Transfer of Surplus from Operating Fund plus: Direct Rate Funding less: Capital Expenditures Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance DEBT RESERVE Beginning Balance plus: Reserve Funding from New Debt less: Use of Reserves for Debt Service Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance $ 4,140,071 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $ 700,000 $ 663,694 $ 691,183 $ 720,219 $ 750,771 $ 782,933 $ 816,809 724,895 678,316 622,515 1,094,886 424,076 481,833 496,709 (761,201) (650,827) (593,479) (1,064,334) (391,914) (447,957) (461,010) $ 663,694 $ 691,183 $ 720,219 $ 750,771 $ 782,933 $ 816,809 $ 852,509 497,771 518,387 540,164 563,078 587,200 612,607 639,381 663,694 691,183 720,219 750,771 782,933 816,809 852,509 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 $ 3,440,071 $ 6,249,992 $ 3,217,544 $ 634,566 $ 1,989,460 $ 436,808 $ 478,417 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 5,000,000 - - 3,800,000 - 1,500,000 - 8,600 15,625 16,088 4,759 19,895 5,460 7,176 761,201 650,827 593,479 1,064,334 391,914 447,957 461,010 - - 399,355 - 1,101,939 1,390,692 1,909,688 (2,984,880) (3,723,900) (3,616,899) (3,539,200) (3,091,399) (3,327,500) (2,388,105) $ 6,249,992 $ 3,217,544 $ 634,566 $ 1,989,460 $ 436,808 $ 478,417 $ 493,186 $ 574,652 $ 872,441 $ 872,441 $ 872,441 $ 1,203,965 $ 1,203,965 $ 1,334,830 297,789 - - 331,524 - 130,865 - $ 872,441 $ 872,441 $ 872,441 $ 1,203,965 $ 1,203,965 $ 1,334,830 $ 1,334,830 666,704 896,729 897,350 1,229,460 1,228,288 1,360,842 1,360,084 FCS GROUP Edmonds Water Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425)Pac7et gPage 443 of 554 Funds Page 16 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility 2013 Bond 2013 Revenue Bond Summary Net Bond Proceeds $ 14,500,000 Debt Reserve Funding 863,587 Issuance Cost and Misc. 250,601 Total $ 15,614,188 Net Proceeds Debt Reserve Assumed Net Proceeds for the 2013 Bond Provided by Dashen & Associates => Net Proceeds Needed by the Utility to Fund Capital Program => $ 14,500,000 $ 850,000 Ratio of Net Proceeds Needed to Net Proceeds for the Given Payment Schedule => 1 0.06 Total of 2013 Revenue Bond 2013 2014 2015 2016 $ 863,587 $ 50,624 0.06 2017 2018 2019 2013 Bond Debt Service - As Provided by Dashen & Associates Annual Interest Payment $ 195,028 $ 702,100 $ 698,900 $ 695,600 $ 692,200 $ 687,100 $ 679,900 Annual Principal Payment - 160,000 165,000 170,000 170,000 180,000 185,000 Total Annual Payment $ 195,028 $ 862,100 $ 863,900 $ 865,600 $ 862,200 $ 867,100 $ 864,900 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - Stormwater Utility's Share 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2013 Bond Debt Service - Propared for the Stormwater Utility Annual Interest Payment $ 11,433 $ 41,158 $ 40,970 $ 40,777 $ 40,577 $ 40,278 $ 39,856 Annual Principal Payment - 9,379 9,672 9,966 9,966 10,552 10,845 Total Annual Payment $ 11,433 $ 50,537 $ 50,642 $ 50,742 $ 50,543 $ 50,830 $ 50,701 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) 867-1802 2013 Bond Page 1 Packet Page 444 of 554 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Summary Total Capital Projects $ 1,914,934 $ 3,410,933 $ 4,893,578 $ 6,1345659 $ 551535916 $ 3,917,288 $ 1,194,052 Grants and Developer Donations 255,000 696,000 2,535,750 3,525,000 3,000,000 1,687,500 PWTF Loan Proceeds - - - - - - Other Debt Proceeds - - - - - Revenue Bond Proceeds - - - 2,536,530 - 2,124,653 - Use of Capital Fund Balance 1,659,934 2,714,933 1,495,718 73,129 1,756,650 105,135 1,126,168 Direct Rate Funding - - 862,110 - 397,266 - 67,884 Total Funding Sources $ 1,914,934 $ 3,410,933 $ 4,893,578 $ 6,134,659 $ 551535916 $ 359175288 $ 151945052 Revenues Rate Revenues Under Existing Rates Non -Rate Revenues Total Revenues Expenses Cash O&M Expenses [a] Existing Debt Service New Debt Service Rate Funded System Reinvestment Rate Funded CIP Total Expenses Annual Rate Adjustment Rate Increases Dictated by: Rate Revenues After Rate Increase Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase Coverage After Rate Increases $ 2,916,000 $ 2,923,290 $ 2,930,598 $ 2,937,925 $ 2,945,270 $ 2,952,633 $ 2,960,014 82,556 82,666 83,445 84,279 88,441 90,211 96,106 $ 2,998,556 $ 3,005,956 $ 3,014,043 $ 3,022,204 $ 3,033,710 $ 3,042,844 $ 3,056,120 $ 1,480,069 $ 1,534,291 $ 1,596,353 $ 1,661,984 $ 1,731,481 $ 1,805,149 $ 1,883,322 404,001 469,711 441,086 440,894 440,266 439,631 439,955 11,433 50,537 50,642 377,904 377,705 648,446 648,317 862,110 - 397,266 - 67,884 $ 1,895,503 $ 2,054,539 $ 2,950,192 $ 2,480,782 $ 2,946,718 $ 2,893,227 $ 3,039,478 Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis $ 2,916,000 $ 2,923,290 $ 2,930,598 $ 2,937,925 $ 2,945,270 $ 2,952,633 $ 2,960,014 1,103,053 951,417 63,852 541,421 86,993 149,617 16,642 6.70 4.46 4.29 2.07 2.00 1.33 1.28 [a] Includes additional B&O taxes due to the proposed rate increases. Operating Fund $ 243,299 $ 252,212 $ 262,414 $ 273,203 $ 284,627 $ 296,737 $ 309,587 Capital Fund 3,249,024 1,495,718 73,129 1,756,650 105,135 1,126,168 32,684 Debt Reserve Fund 50,624 50,624 50,624 377,786 377,786 648,240 648,240 Total $ 3,542,947 $ 1,798,554 $ 386,167 $ 254075639 $ 7675548 $ 2,071,145 $ 990,511 Combined Minimum Target Balance $ 480,200 $ 525,989 $ 533,746 $ 869,099 $ 877,468 $ 1,157,292 $ 1,166,800 FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) 867-18P2 Summary Page 2 Packet age 445 of 554 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Assumptions Economic & Financial Factors 1 General Cost Inflation 2 Construction Cost Inflation 3 Labor Cost Inflation 4 Customer Growth 5 General Inflation plus Growth 6 Benefits Inflation 7 [Other Escalation Factor] 8 No Escalation Fund Earnings Rate Revenue Taxed @ B&O Tax Other Revnues Taxed @ B&O Tax 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 1W. 00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.25% 0.25% 0.50% 0.75% 1.00% 1.25% 1.50% 1.80% 1.65% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.80% 1.65% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) 867-18 2 Assumptions Page 3 Packet Page 446 of 554 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Assumptions Accounting Assumptions 2013 2014 FISCAL POLICY RESTRICTIONS Min. Op. Fund Balance Target (days of O&M expense) 45 45 Max. Op. Fund Balance (days of O&M expense) 60 60 Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target Select Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target 2 User Input 1 - Defined as % of Plant Plant -in -Service in 2012 Minimum Capital Fund Balance - % of plant assets 0.00% 0.00% 2 - Amount at Right =_> $ - $ - $ RATE FUNDED SYSTEM REINVESTMENT Select Reinvestment Funding Strategy 4 System Reinvestment is not Funded Amount of Annual Cash Funding from Rates 1 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense 2 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense less Annual Debt Principal Payments 3 - Equal to Amount at Right =_> $ - $ - $ 4 - Do Not Fund System Reinvestment 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 45 45 45 45 45 60 60 60 60 60 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) 867-18P2 Assumptions Page 4 Packet age 447 of 554 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Assumptions Capital Financina Assumptions 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 GENERAL FACILITIES CHARGE (GFC) REVENUES General Facilities Charge Revenues $ 10,000 $ 11,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 REVENUE BONDS Term (years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost (incl. issuance costs, per City staff's direction) 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Issuance Cost 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement 1.25 PWTF LOAN Term (years; 10 year minimum and no more than 20 years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% OTHER LOANS & REVENUE -SUPPORTED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS [a] Term (years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Issuance Cost 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% [a] Tax -supported general obligation bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund; terms and annual obligations of such bonds are not factors in this analysis. FCS GROUP p Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425)P8ac e$Page 448 of 554 Assumptions Page 5 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Existing Debt Input Existing Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2011 Water/Sewer Refunding and New Issue Annual Interest Payment $ 133,340 $ 131,681 $ 127,191 $ 122,569 $ 117,820 $ 112,900 $ 107,850 Annual Principal Payment 82,905 149,691 154,054 158,297 163,993 168,357 173,932 Total Annual Payment $ 216,245 $ 281,372 $ 281,245 $ 280,866 $ 281,814 $ 281,257 $ 281,782 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - TOTAL REVENUE BONDS Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds Existina Debt Service - PWTF Loans PWTF LOAN 04-691-030 Storm Water Improvement Project Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment TOTAL PWTF LOANS Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment $ 133,340 $ 131,681 $ 127,191 $ 122,569 $ 117,820 $ 112,900 $ 107,850 82,905 149,691 154,054 158,297 163,993 168,357 173,932 $ 216,245 $ 281,372 $ 281,245 $ 280,866 $ 281,814 $ 281,257 $ 281,782 286,293 286,293 286,293 286,293 286,293 286,293 286,293 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $ 2,244 $ 2,084 $ 1,924 $ 1,763 $ 1,603 $ 1,443 $ 1,283 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 $ 34,307 $ 34,147 $ 33,986 $ 33,826 $ 33,666 $ 33,505 $ 33,345 $ 2,244 $ 2,084 $ 1,924 $ 1,763 $ 1,603 $ 1,443 $ 1,283 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 $ 34,307 $ 34,147 $ 33,986 $ 33,826 $ 33,666 $ 33,505 $ 33,345 FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) g67-1 Existing Debt Page 6 Packet Page 449 of 554 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Existing Debt Input Existing Debt Service - Other Loans [a] 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 [a] Enter payments for other loans and revenue -supported G.O. issues only. Tax -supported bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund and do not impact this < 2012 LTGO BOND Annual Interest Payment $ 1,115 $ 565 $ $ $ $ $ Annual Principal Payment 27,534 28,240 Total Annual Payment $ 28,649 $ 28,805 $ $ $ $ $ 2007 LTGO BOND Annual Interest Payment $ 50,865 $ 48,166 $ 45,348 $ 42,409 $ 39,351 $ 36,147 $ 32,820 Annual Principal Payment 73,935 77,221 80,507 83,793 85,436 88,722 92,008 Total Annual Payment $ 124,800 $ 125,387 $ 125,855 $ 126,202 $ 124,787 $ 124,869 $ 124,828 TOTAL OTHER LOANS Annual Interest Payment $ 51,980 $ 48,731 $ 45,348 $ 42,409 $ 39,351 $ 36,147 $ 32,820 Annual Principal Payment 101,469 105,461 80,507 83,793 85,436 88,722 92,008 Total Annual Payment $ 153,449 $ 154,192 $ 125,855 $ 126,202 $ 124,787 $ 124,869 $ 124,828 FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) g67-1 Existing Debt Page 7 Packet Page 450 of 554 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Operating Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 10.00% Actual Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Revenues FORECAST BASIS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Rate revenues 40 Customer Growth $ 2,650,806 $ 2,916,000 $ 2,923,290 $ 2,930,598 $ 2,937,925 $ 2,945,270 $ 2,952,633 $ 2,960,014 Misc. non -rate revenues 8 No Escalation 42,441 48,631 1 48,631 48,631 48,631 48,631 48,631 48,631 Grants 8 No Escalation - 33,300 33,300 33,300 33,300 33,300 33,300 33,300 [Other] 4 Customer Growth - - - - - - - [Other] 4 Customer Growth - - - - - - - TOTAL REVENUES $ 2,693,247 $ 2,997,931 $ 3,005,221 $ 3,012,529 $ 3,019,856 $ 3,027,201 $ 3,034,564 $ 3,041,945 Expenditures FORECAST BASIS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Salaries and Wages Labor Cost Inflation $ 454,146 'T"95%"IM $ 561,615 $ 578,463 $ 595,817 $ 613,692 $ 632,102 $ 651,065 Overtime Labor Cost Inflation 9,917 6,000 6,180 6,365 6,556 6,753 6,956 7,164 Benefits Benefits Inflation 189,910 224,231 246,654 271,320 298,451 328,297 361,126 397,239 Uniforms General Cost Inflation 5,475 6,50 6,695 6,896 7,103 7,316 7,535 7,761 Supplies General Cost Inflation 49,716 50,000 51,500 53,045 54,636 56,275 57,964 59,703 Minor Equipment General Cost Inflation 3,909 4,000 4,120 4,244 4,371 4,502 4,637 4,776 Professional Services General Cost Inflation 17,887 23,000� 23,690 24,401 25,133 25,887 26,663 27,463 Communications General Cost Inflation 1,625 3,200 3,296 3,395 3,497 3,602 3,710 3,821 Travel General Cost Inflation - 4,300 4,429 4,562 4,699 4,840 4,985 5,134 Advertising General Cost Inflation - 5004 515 530 546 563 580 597 Rental / Lease General Cost Inflation 8,452 6,500 6,695 6,896 7,103 7,316 7,535 7,761 Insurance General Cost Inflation 8,889 8,418 8,671 8,931 9,199 9,475 9,759 10,052 Public Utility General Cost Inflation 8,549 10,000 10,300 10,609 10,927 11,255 11,593 11,941 Repair/ Maintenance General Cost Inflation 6,072 11,860 12,216 12,582 12,960 13,349 13,749 14,161 Miscellaneous (excl. taxes) General Cost Inflation 53,789 56,469 58,163 59,908 61,705 63,557 65,463 67,427 State Taxes B&O Tax Rate 48,478 49,631 45,243 45,368 45,478 45,588 45,698 45,809 Intergov. Services General Cost Inflation 47,470 45,OO1M 46,350 47,741 49,173 50,648 52,167 53,732 Buildings General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - Land 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - Interfund Services 1 General Cost Inflation 268,090 214,291 220,720 227,341 234,162 241,186 248,422 255,875 Interfund Rental 1 General Cost Inflation 167,112 210,912 217,239 223,757 230,469 237,383 244,505 251,840 Interfund Transfer Out [a] 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - State Permit Fee 1 General Cost Inflation 2 1/3 FTEs 3 Labor Cost Inflation New Vehicle Rental/Maint. 8 No Escalation Lim Surface Water Monitoring 8 No Escalation Total Cash O&M Expenditures $ 1,349,484 $ 1,480,069 $ 1,534,291 $ 1,596,353 $ 1,661,984 $ 1,731,481 $ 1,805,149 $ 1,883,322 FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) rUeof Page 451 of 554 O&M Page 8 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Capital Improvement Program Project Costs in Year: r 2013 Project ID Description Useful Life Outside Funding 2013-2018 TOTAL COSTS 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 1 & 3 - Replace Infiltration Pipe (near 107th PL W) 50 0% $ 733,262 $ 300,000 $ 433,262 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 2 - Connect sumps near Robin Hood LN 50 0% 502,550 - - 98,973 403,577 - - - 0 0% _ _ _ _ _ Edmonds Marsh Related - Dayton St. & Hwy 104 Drainage Alternatives Study 6 0% 525,718 283,000 242,718 - - - - - Edmonds Marsh Related - Willow Creek Pipe Rehabilitation 50 0% 489,207 - - 489,207 - - - - 0 0% _ _ _ _ Northstream Projects - Northstream Culvert Abondonment South of Puget Dr. - Assessment 50 0% 10,000 10,000 - - - - - - Northstream Projects - Rehabilitation of Northstream Culvert under Puget Dr. 50 0% 167,075 - 72,816 94,260 - - - - 0 0% _ _ _ _ Perrinville Creek Basin Projects - Talbot Rd. / Perrinville Creek Drainage Imp, & Habitat Er 50 0% - - - - - - - - Perrinville Creek Basin Projects - Perrrinville Creek Culvert Replacement at Talbot Rd (Desil 50 0% - - - - - - - - Perrinville Creek Basin Projects - Perrinville Creek Culvert Rapt. At Talbot Rd (Permit/Consti 50 0% 560,696 - - - - - 560,696 - Perrinville Creek Basin Projects - Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction Study 6 0% 200,000 200,000 - - - - - - 0 0% _ _ Public Works Yard Water Quality Upgrades- Cover for Material Piles 50 0% - - - - - - - - PublicWorksYardWaterQualityUpgrades- Waste handling facility upgrade 50 0% 263,424 263,424 - - - - - - 0 0% _ _ _ Stone Drainage Improvement Projects - Dayton St. between 6th and 8th Ave. N. 50 0% 379,806 40,000 339,806 - - - - - Stow Drainage Improvement Projects - 88th Ave W and 194th St SW 50 0% 145,631 - 145,631 - - - - - Stow Drainage Improvement Projects - North Talbot Rd Drainage Improvement Project 50 0% - - - - - - - 0 0% - - - - - - - Annually Funded Projects- City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects 50 0% 2,221,165 149,000 149,515 151,758 457,571 666,365 646,957 - Annually Funded Projects- Lake Ballinger Association Projects 50 0% 648,932 106,000 106,796 108,399 108,902 109,284 109,551 - Annually Funded Projects - Low Impact Development Retrofit Project 50 0% 718,021 226,000 123,301 123,480 122,629 122,611 - - 0 0% - - - - - - - 5-Year Cycle Projects - Storm & Surface Water Comprehensive Plan 6 0% 235,649 - - 235,649 - - - - Additional Storm Projects - Goodhope Pond Basin Study 6 0% 194,175 - 194,175 - - - - - Additional Storm Projects - Storm System Video Assessment 6 0% 485,437 - 485,437 - - - - - Additional Storm Projects - Dayton St. Storm Cured in -place pipe (CIPP) Rehabilitation 50 0% - - - - - - - 0 0% - - - - - - - Tier 2 Projects - Perrinville Creek High Flow Management Project 50 75% 5,602,648 - 242,718 942,596 915,142 1,776,974 1,725,218 - Tier 2 Projects - Edmonds Marsh / Shellabarger Cr / Willow Cr- Feasibility Study / Marsh Rs 50 75% 8,208,408 100,000 485,437 2,244,321 3,386,024 1,776,974 215,652 - Tier 2 Projects - Shell Creek Channel Restoration in Yost Park 50 75% 172,816 - 172,816 - - - - - Transfer to 112 Street Fund - Five Comers Roundabout 50 0% 128,500 128,500 - - - - - - Transfer to112Street Fund - Sunset Ave Improvements 50 0% 91,514 - - - 91,514 - - - Transfer to 112 Street Fund - Main Street Low Impact Development Demonstration Project 50 0% - - - - - - - Transfer to112Street Fund - Transportation Projects 50 0% 606,243 100,000 100,000 99,915 99,750 103,064 103,513 - 0 0% - - - - - - - Transfer to 117 Arts - Main Street Low Impact Development Demonstration Project 50 0% 2,360 2,360 - - - - - - Transfer to 117 Arts - Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades 50 0% - - - - - - - Transfer to 117 Arts - SW Edmonds- Replace infiltration pipe near 107th PI W .... 50 0% 5,650 5,650 - - - - - - Transfer to117Arts - Five Corners Roundabout 50 0% 1,000 1,000 - - - - - - Transfer to 117 Arts - Interurban Trail Project Stormwater Vault (from Lake Ballinger Associs 50 0% - - - - - - - Transfer to 117 Arts - Other projects that meet 1 % for Art criteria 50 0% 111,656 - 17,158 24,110 28,972 23,915 17,501 - 0 0% - - - - - - - Transfer to 132 Parks Costruction - Interurban Trail Permeable Paving (incl. design costs) 50 0% - - - - - - - Transfer to 132 Parks Costruction - Stone pipe on 76th - part of Interurban Trail Project (fror 50 0% - - - - - - Transfer to 132 Parks Costruction - Interurban Trail Project Stormwater Vault (from Lake Bal 50 0% - - - - - - 0 0% Annual Replacement Program 50 0% 21000.000 - - - - - - 1,000,000 Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars $ 25,411,543 $ 1,914,934 $ 3,311,585 $ 4,612,667 $ 5,614,082 $ 4,579,188 $ 3,379,087 $ 1,000,000 Grant Funded Project Costs 10,487,904 75,000 675,728 2,390,188 3,225,874 2,665,461 1,455,652 Utility Funded Project Costs 14,923,639 1,839,934 2,635,857 2,222,479 2,388,208 1,913,726 1,923,435 1,000,000 FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) 86V1acket Page 452 of 554 CIP Input Page 9 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Capital Improvement Program Cumulative Construction Cost Inflation==> 0.00% 3.00% 6.09% 9.27% 12.55% 15.93% 19.41% Construction Cost Inflation =_> 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN INFLATED DOLLARS Project ID Description Useful Life Outside Funding 2013. 2018 TOTAL COSTS 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 1 & 3 - Replace Infiltration Pipe (near 107th PL W) 50 0% $ 746,260 $ 300,000 $ 446,260 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 2 - Connect sumps near Robin Hood LN 50 0% 546,000 - - 105,000 441,000 - - Edmonds Marsh Related - Dayton St. & Hwy 104 Drainage Alternatives Study 6 0% 533,000 283,000 250,000 - - - - - Edmonds Marsh Related - Willow Creek Pipe Rehabilitation 50 0% 519,000 - - 519,000 - - - - Northstream Projects - Northstream Culvert Abondonment South of Puget Dr. - Assessment 50 0% 10,000 10,000 - - - - - - Northstream Projects - Rehabilitation of Northstream Culvert under Puget Dr. 50 0% 175,000 - 75,000 100,000 - - - - Perrinville Creek Basin Projects - Talbot Rd. / Perrinville Creek Drainage Imp, & Habitat Er 50 0% - - - - - - - Perrinville Creek Basin Projects - Perrrinville Creek Culvert Replacement at Talbot Rd (Desil 50 0% - - - - - - - Perrinville Creek Basin Projects - Perrinville Creek Culvert Repl. At Talbot Rd (Permit/Consti 50 0% 650,000 - - - - - 650,000 - Perrinville Creek Basin Projects - Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction Study 6 0% 200,000 200,000 - - - - - - Public Works Yard Water Quality Upgrades- Cover for Material Piles 50 0% - - - - - - - - PublicWorksYardWaterQualily Upgrades- Waste handling facility upgrade 50 0% 263,424 263,424 - - - - - - Storm Drainage Improvement Projects - Dayton St. between 6th and 8th Ave. N. 50 0% 390,000 40,000 350,000 - - - - - Storm Drainage Improvement Projects - 88th Ave W and 1941h St SW 50 0% 150,000 - 150,000 - - - - - Storm Drainage Improvement Projects - North Talbot Rd Drainage Improvement Project 50 0% - - - - - - - - Annually Funded Projects - City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects 50 0% 2,464,000 149,000 154,000 161,000 500,000 750,000 750,000 - Annually Funded Projects - Lake Ballinger Association Projects 50 0% 700,000 106,000 110,000 115,000 119,000 123,000 127,000 - Annually Funded Projects - Low Impact Development Retrofit Project 50 0% 756,000 226,000 127,000 131,000 134,000 138,000 - - 5-Year Cycle Projects - Storm & Surface Water Comprehensive Plan 6 0% 250,000 - - 250,000 - - - - Additional Storm Projects - Goodhope Pond Basin Study 6 0% 200,000 - 200,000 - - - - - Additional Storm Projects - Storm System Video Assessment 6 0% 500,000 - 500,000 - - - - - Additional Storm Projects - Dayton St. Storm Cured in -place pipe (CIPP) Rehabilitation 50 0% - - - - - - - - Tier 2 Projects - Perrinville Creek High Flow Management Project 50 75% 6,250,000 - 250,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 - Tier 2 Projects - Edmonds Marsh / Shellabarger Cr / Willow Cr- Feasibility Study / Marsh Re 50 75% 8,931,000 100,000 500,000 2,381,000 3,700,000 2,000,000 250,000 - Tier 2 Projects - Shell Creek Channel Restoration in Yost Park 50 75% 178,000 - 178,000 - - - - - Transfer to 112 Street Fund - Five Comers Roundabout 50 0% 128,500 128,500 - - - - - - Transfer to 112 Street Fund - Sunset Ave Improvements 50 0% 100,000 - - - 100,000 - - - Transfer to 112 Street Fund - Main Street Low Impact Development Demonstration Project 50 0% - - - - - - - - Transfer to 112 Street Fund - Transportation Projects 50 0% 654,000 100,000 103,000 106,000 109,000 116,000 120,000 - Transfer to 117 Arts - Main Street Low Impact Development Demonstration Project 50 0% 2,360 2,360 - - - - - - Transfer to 117 Arts - Public Facilifies Water Quality Upgrades 50 0% - - - - - - - - Transfer to 117 Arts - SW Edmonds - Replace inflitration pipe near 107th PI W .... 50 0% 5,650 5,650 - - - - - - Transfer to 117 Arts - Five Comers Roundabout 50 0% 1,000 1,000 - - - - - - Transfer to 117 Arts - Interurban Trail Project Stormwater Vault (from Lake Ballinger Assow 50 0% - - - - - - - - Transfer to 117 Arts - Other projects that meet 1 % for Art criteria 50 0% 122,114 - 17,673 25,578 31,659 26,916 20,288 - Transfer to 132 Parks Costmction - Interurban Trail Permeable Paving (met. design costs) 50 0% - - - - - - - - Transfer to 132 Parks Costmction - Storm pipe on 76th - part of Interurban Trail Project (fror 50 0% - - - - - - - - Transfer to 132 Parks Costmction - Interurban Trail Project Stormwater Vault (from Lake Bal 50 0% - - - - - - - - Annual Replacement Program 50 0% 2,423,926 - - - - - - 1,194,052 Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars $ 27,849,234 $ 1,914,934 $ 3,410,933 $ 4,893,578 $ 6,134,659 $ 5,153,916 $ 3,917,288 $ 1,194,052 Grant Project Costs 11,519,250 75,000 696,000 2,535,750 3,525,000 3,000,000 1,687,500 - UtilityFundedProjectCosts 16,329,984 1,839,934 2,714,933 2,357,828 2,609,659 2,153,916 2,229,788 1,194,052 FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) 86V1acket Page 453 of 554 CIP Input Page 10 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Capital Funding Analysis Summary of Expenditures 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,914,934 $ 3,410,933 $ 4,893,578 $ 6,134,659 $ 5,153,916 $ 3,917,288 $ 1,194,052 Capital Financing Plan 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Project Specific Grants / Developer Donations (Tier 2) $ 75,000 $ 696,000 $ 2,535,750 $ 3,525,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 1,687,500 $ - Project to be Funded by the Utility 1,839,934 2,714,933 2,357,828 2,609,659 2,153,916 2,229,788 1,194,052 OTHER FUNDING SOURCES [NOTE A] Other Grants / Outside Funding Sources (PW Yard) $ 180,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - PWTF Loan Proceeds - - - - - - - Other Loan Proceeds - - - - - - - Capital Fund Balance 1,659,934 2,714,933 1,495,718 73,129 1,756,650 105,135 1,126,168 Revenue Bond Proceeds [Note B] - - - 2,536,530 - 2,124,653 - Rates 862,110 397,266 67,884 Total $ 1,839,934 $ 2,714,933 $ 2,357,828 $ 2,609,659 $ 2,153,916 $ 2,229,788 $ 1,194,052 TOTAL CAPITAL RESOURCES Info: Capital Contingency Deficit $ 1,914,934 $ 3,410,933 $ 4,893,578 $ 6,134,659 $ 5,153,916 $ 3,917,288 $ 1,194,052 NOTE A: SELECTION OF RESIDUAL CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCE Select the Residual Funding Source 1 Revenue Bond Proceeds 1 - Revenue Bond Proceeds 2 - Rates NOTE B: USER INPUT FOR REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS Select Amount of Bond Proceeds 1 User Defined 1 - Amounts at Right ==> $ 850,000 $ 2 - Calculated by the Model - $ - $ 3,750,000 $ - $ 3,100,000 $ FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 454 of 554 Capital Funding Page 11 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Capital Funding Analysis New Debt Computations 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 REVENUE BONDS Amount to Fund $ $ $ 3,750,000 $ $ 3,100,000 $ Issuance Costs - - Reserve Required 327,162 270,454 Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ 4,077,162 $ $ 3,370,454 $ OTHER LOANS Amount to Fund $ $ $ $ - $ $ - $ Issuance Costs Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PWTF LOAN Amount to Fund [a] $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - [a] 2004 and 2005 PWTF loan payment schedules input as existing debt. Amounts shown for reference. Debt Service Summary 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXISTING DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ 187,564 $ 182,497 $ 174,462 $ 166,742 $ 158,774 $ 150,490 $ 141,952 Annual Principal Payments 216,437 287,214 266,624 274,152 281,492 289,141 298,003 Total Debt Service Payments $ 404,001 $ 469,711 $ 441,086 $ 440,894 $ 440,266 $ 439,631 $ 439,955 Revenue Bond Payments Only 216,245 281,372 281,245 280,866 281,814 281,257 281,782 NEW DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ 11,433 $ 41,158 $ 40,970 $ 244,635 $ 238,270 $ 400,020 $ 387,705 Annual Principal Payments - 9,379 9,672 133,269 139,435 248,426 260,612 Total Debt Service Payments $ 11,433 $ 50,537 $ 50,642 $ 377,904 $ 377,705 $ 648,446 $ 648,317 Revenue Bond Payments Only 11,433 50,537 50,642 377,904 377,705 648,446 648,317 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS $ 415,434 $ 520,248 $ 491,728 $ 818,798 $ 817,971 $ 1,088,077 $ 1,088,272 Total Interest Payments 198,997 223,654 215,432 411,376 397,044 550,510 529,657 Total Principal Payments 216,437 296,594 276,296 407,422 420,927 537,567 558,615 Total Revenue Bond Payments Only 227,677 331,909 331,888 658,770 659,518 929,703 930,099 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 455 of 554 Capital Funding Page 12 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Revenue Requirements Analysis Cash Flow Sufficiency Test 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES Cash Operating Expenses $ 1,480,069 $ 1,534,291 $ 1,596,353 $ 1,661,984 $ 1,731,481 $ 1,805,149 $ 1,883,322 Existing Debt Service 404,001 469,711 441,086 440,894 440,266 439,631 439,955 New Debt Service 11,433 50,537 50,642 377,904 377,705 648,446 648,317 Rate -Funded CIP - - 862,110 - 397,266 - 67,884 Rate Funded System Reinvestment - - - - - - Additions Required to Meet Minimum Op. Fund Balance - - - - - - Total Expenses $ 1,895,503 $ 2,054,539 $ 2,950,192 $ 2,480,782 $ 2,946,718 $ 2,893,227 $ 3,039,478 REVENUES Rate Revenue $ 2,916,000 $ 2,923,290 $ 2,930,598 $ 2,937,925 $ 2,945,270 $ 2,952,633 $ 2,960,014 Other Revenue 81,931 81,931 81,931 81,931 81,931 81,931 81,931 Operating Fund & Debt Reserve Fund Interest Earnings 625 735 1,514 2,348 6,510 8,280 14,175 Total Revenue $ 2,998,556 $ 3,005,956 $ 3,014,043 $ 3,022,204 $ 3,033,710 $ 3,042,844 $ 3,056,120 NET CASH FLOW (DEFICIENCY) Sufficiencv Test EXPENSES Cash Operating Expenses Revenue Bond Debt Service Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement at 1.25 Total Expenses ALLOWABLE REVENUES Rate Revenue Other Revenue Interest Earnings - All Funds Total Revenue Individual Coverage Realized INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE SURPLUS (DEFICIENCY) COVERAGE SURPLUS (DEFICIENCY) $ 1,103,053 $ 951,417 $ 63,852 $ 541,421 $ 86,993 $ 149,617 $ 16,642 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $ 1,480,069 $ 1,534,291 $ 1,596,353 $ 1,661,984 $ 1,731,481 $ 1,805,149 $ 1,883,322 227,677 331,909 331,888 658,770 659,518 929,703 930,099 56,919 82,977 82,972 164,692 164,880 232,426 232,525 $ 1,764,666 $ 1,949,177 $ 2,011,212 $ 2,485,447 $ 2,555,879 $ 2,967,279 $ 3,045,946 $ 2,916,000 $ 2,923,290 $ 2,930,598 $ 2,937,925 $ 2,945,270 $ 2,952,633 $ 2,960,014 81,931 81,931 81,931 81,931 81,931 81,931 81,931 7,955 8,857 8,993 2,896 24,076 9,594 31,067 $ 3,005,886 $ 3,014,078 $ 3,021,522 $ 3,022,752 $ 3,051,277 $ 3,044,158 $ 3,073,012 6.70 4.46 4.29 2.07 2.00 1.33 1.28 $ 1,241,220 $ 1,064,901 $ 1,010,310 $ 537,305 $ 495,398 $ 76,880 $ 27,066 $ 1,241,220 $ 1,064,901 $ 1,010,310 $ 537,305 $ 495,398 $ 76,880 $ 27,066 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 456 of 554 Tests Page 13 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Revenue Requirements Analysis Maximum Revenue Deficiencv 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Sufficiency Test Driving the Deficiency None None None None None None None Maximum Deficiency From Tests $ $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ less: Net Revenue From Prior Rate Increases - - - - Revenue Deficiency $ $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ Plus: Adjustment for State Excise Tax - - - Total Revenue Deficiency $ $ - $ $ $ $ - $ Rate Increases 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Rate Revenue with no Increase $ 2,916,000 $ 2,923,290 $ 2,930,598 $ 2,937,925 $ 2,945,270 $ 2,952,633 $ 2,960,014 Revenues from Prior Rate Increases - - - - - - - Rate Revenue Before Rate Increase (Incl. previous increases) 2,916,000 2,923,290 2,930,598 2,937,925 2,945,270 2,952,633 2,960,014 Required Annual Rate Increase 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Number of Months New Rates Will Be In Effect 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Info: Percentage Increase to Generate Required Revenue 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Policy Induced Rate Increases ANNUAL RATE INCREASE 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% CUMULATIVE RATE INCREASE 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Impacts of Rate Increases 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Rate Revenues After Rate Increase $ 2,916,000 $ 2,923,290 $ 2,930,598 $ 2,937,925 $ 2,945,270 $ 2,952,633 $ 2,960,014 Full Year Rate Revenues After Rate Increase 2,916,000 2,923,290 2,930,598 2,937,925 2,945,270 2,952,633 2,960,014 Additional State Taxes Due to Rate Increases - - - - - - - Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase 1,103,053 951,417 63,852 541,421 86,993 149,617 16,642 Individual Coverage After Rate Increase 6.70 4.46 4.29 2.07 2.00 1.33 1.28 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 457 of 554 Tests Page 14 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Fund Activity Funds OPERATING FUND Beginning Balance plus: Net Cash Flow after Rate Increase less: Transfer of Surplus to Capital Fund Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance Maximum Funds to be Kept as Operating Reserves Info: No of Days of Cash Operating Expenses CAPITAL FUND Beginning Balance plus: Rate Funded System Reinvestment plus: Grants / Developer Donations / Other Outside Sources plus: Capital Facilities Charges plus: Net Debt Proceeds Available for Projects plus: Interest Earnings plus: Transfer of Surplus from Operating Fund plus: Direct Rate Funding less: Capital Expenditures Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance DEBT RESERVE Beginning Balance plus: Reserve Funding from New Debt less: Use of Reserves for Debt Service Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance $ 3,181,874 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $ 250,000 $ 243,299 $ 252,212 $ 262,414 $ 273,203 $ 284,627 $ 296,737 1,103,053 951,417 63,852 541,421 86,993 149,617 16,642 (1,109,754) (942,504) (53,650) (530,632) (75,569) (137,507) (3,792) $ 243,299 $ 252,212 $ 262,414 $ 273,203 $ 284,627 $ 296,737 $ 309,587 182,474 189,159 196,811 204,902 213,470 222,553 232,190 243,299 252,212 262,414 273,203 284,627 296,737 309,587 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 $ 2,931,874 $ 3,249,024 $ 1,495,718 $ 73,129 $ 1,756,650 $ 105,135 $ 1,126,168 255,000 696,000 2,535,750 3,525,000 3,000,000 1,687,500 - 10, 000 11,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 850,000 - - 3,750,000 - 3,100,000 - 7,330 8,123 7,479 548 17,567 1,314 16,893 1,109,754 942,504 53,650 530,632 75,569 137,507 3,792 - - 862,110 - 397,266 - 67,884 (1,914,934) (3,410,933) (4,893,578) (6,134,659) (5,153,916) (3,917,288) (1,194,052) $ 3,249,024 $ 1,495,718 $ 73,129 $ 1,756,650 $ 105,135 $ 1,126,168 $ 32,684 $ $ 50,624 $ 50,624 $ 50,624 $ 377,786 $ 377,786 $ 648,240 50,624 - - 327,162 - 270,454 - $ 50,624 $ 50,624 $ 50,624 $ 377,786 $ 377,786 $ 648,240 $ 648,240 297,726 336,830 336,935 664,197 663,998 934,739 934,610 FCS GROUP p Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Baseline July 18 Update (425)P86 e$Page 458 of 554 Funds Page 15 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility 2013 Bond 2013 Revenue Bond Summary Net Bond Proceeds $ 14,500,000 Debt Reserve Funding 863,587 Issuance Cost and Misc. 250,601 Total $ 15,614,188 Net Proceeds Debt Reserve Assumed Net Proceeds for the 2013 Bond Provided by Dashen & Associates => Net Proceeds Needed by the Utility to Fund Capital Program => $ 14,500,000 $ 850,000 Ratio of Net Proceeds Needed to Net Proceeds for the Given Payment Schedule => 1 0.06 Total of 2013 Revenue Bond 2013 2014 2015 2016 $ 863,587 $ 50,624 0.06 2017 2018 2019 2013 Bond Debt Service - As Provided by Dashen & Associates Annual Interest Payment $ 195,028 $ 702,100 $ 698,900 $ 695,600 $ 692,200 $ 687,100 $ 679,900 Annual Principal Payment - 160,000 165,000 170,000 170,000 180,000 185,000 Total Annual Payment $ 195,028 $ 862,100 $ 863,900 $ 865,600 $ 862,200 $ 867,100 $ 864,900 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - Stormwater Utility's Share 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2013 Bond Debt Service - Propared for the Stormwater Utility Annual Interest Payment $ 11,433 $ 41,158 $ 40,970 $ 40,777 $ 40,577 $ 40,278 $ 39,856 Annual Principal Payment - 9,379 9,672 9,966 9,966 10,552 10,845 Total Annual Payment $ 11,433 $ 50,537 $ 50,642 $ 50,742 $ 50,543 $ 50,830 $ 50,701 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) 867-1802 2013 Bond Page 1 Packet Page 459 of 554 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Summary Total Capital Projects $ 1,914,934 $ 3,410,933 $ 4,893,578 $ 6,1345659 $ 551535916 $ 3,917,288 $ 1,194,052 Grants and Developer Donations 255,000 696,000 2,535,750 3,525,000 3,000,000 1,687,500 PWTF Loan Proceeds - - - - - - Other Debt Proceeds - - - - Revenue Bond Proceeds - - - 2,140,665 - - - Use of Capital Fund Balance 1,659,934 2,714,933 1,625,292 468,994 2,153,916 1,270,193 213,763 Direct Rate Funding - - 732,536 - - 959,595 980,289 Total Funding Sources $ 1,914,934 $ 3,410,933 $ 4,893,578 $ 6,1345659 $ 551535916 $ 359175288 $ 151945052 Revenues Rate Revenues Under Existing Rates Non -Rate Revenues Total Revenues Expenses Cash O&M Expenses [a] Existing Debt Service New Debt Service Rate Funded System Reinvestment Rate Funded CIP Total Expenses Annual Rate Adjustment Rate Increases Dictated by: Rate Revenues After Rate Increase Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase Coverage After Rate Increases $ 2,916,000 $ 2,923,290 $ 2,930,598 $ 2,937,925 $ 2,945,270 $ 2,952,633 $ 2,960,014 82,556 82,666 83,445 84,279 88,223 89,939 91,722 $ 2,998,556 $ 3,005,956 $ 3,014,043 $ 3,022,204 $ 3,033,492 $ 3,042,571 $ 3,051,736 $ 1,480,069 $ 1,536,264 $ 1,600,398 $ 1,668,205 $ 1,739,987 $ 1,816,053 $ 1,896,743 404,001 469,711 441,086 440,894 440,266 439,631 439,955 11,433 50,537 50,642 356,093 355,894 356,181 356,052 732,536 - - 959,595 980,289 $ 1,895,503 $ 2,056,512 $ 2,824,662 $ 2,465,193 $ 2,536,147 $ 3,571,460 $ 3,673,039 Analysis Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy $ 2,916,000 $ 3,054,838 $ 3,200,287 $ 3,352,660 $ 3,512,289 $ 3,679,518 $ 3,854,709 1,103,053 1,080,992 459,070 971,746 1,064,365 197,996 273,392 6.70 4.85 5.10 2.78 2.95 3.09 3.22 [a] Includes additional B&O taxes due to the proposed rate increases. Operating Fund $ 243,299 $ 252,212 $ 262,414 $ 273,203 $ 284,627 $ 296,737 $ 309,587 Capital Fund 3,249,024 1,625,292 468,994 2,335,810 1,270,193 213,763 275,748 Debt Reserve Fund 50,624 50,624 50,624 355,975 355,975 355,975 355,975 Total $ 3,542,947 $ 1,928,129 $ 782,032 $ 259645988 $ 159105795 $ 866,476 $ 941,310 Combined Minimum Target Balance $ 480,200 $ 525,989 $ 533,746 $ 847,288 $ 855,657 $ 865,027 $ 874,536 FCS GROUP p Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425)P86 e$Page 460 of 554 Summary Page 2 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Assumptions Economic & Financial Factors 1 General Cost Inflation 2 Construction Cost Inflation 3 Labor Cost Inflation 4 Customer Growth 5 General Inflation plus Growth 6 Benefits Inflation 7 [Other Escalation Factor] 8 No Escalation Fund Earnings Rate Revenue Taxed @ B&O Tax Other Revnues Taxed @ B&O Tax 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 1W. 00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 3.26% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.25% 0.25% 0.50% 0.75% 1.00% 1.25% 1.50% 1.80% 1.65% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.80% 1.65% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) 867-18 2 Assumptions Page 3 Packet Page 461 of 554 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Assumptions Accounting Assumptions 2013 2014 FISCAL POLICY RESTRICTIONS Min. Op. Fund Balance Target (days of O&M expense) 45 45 Max. Op. Fund Balance (days of O&M expense) 60 60 Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target Select Minimum Capital Fund Balance Target 2 User Input 1 - Defined as % of Plant Plant -in -Service in 2012 Minimum Capital Fund Balance - % of plant assets 0.00% 0.00% 2 - Amount at Right =_> $ - $ - $ RATE FUNDED SYSTEM REINVESTMENT Select Reinvestment Funding Strategy 4 System Reinvestment is not Funded Amount of Annual Cash Funding from Rates 1 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense 2 - Equal to Annual Depreciation Expense less Annual Debt Principal Payments 3 - Equal to Amount at Right =_> $ - $ - $ 4 - Do Not Fund System Reinvestment 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 45 45 45 45 45 60 60 60 60 60 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% FCS GROUP o Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) 86 e$Page 462 of 554 Assumptions Page 4 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Assumptions Capital Financina Assumptions 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 GENERAL FACILITIES CHARGE (GFC) REVENUES General Facilities Charge Revenues $ 10,000 $ 11,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 REVENUE BONDS Term (years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost (incl. issuance costs, per City staff's direction) 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Issuance Cost 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement 1.25 PWTF LOAN Term (years; 10 year minimum and no more than 20 years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% OTHER LOANS & REVENUE -SUPPORTED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS [a] Term (years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Issuance Cost 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% [a] Tax -supported general obligation bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund; terms and annual obligations of such bonds are not factors in this analysis. FCS GROUP po Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425)P8ac e$Page 463 of 554 Assumptions Page 5 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Existing Debt Input Existing Debt Service - Revenue Bonds 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2011 Water/Sewer Refunding and New Issue Annual Interest Payment $ 133,340 $ 131,681 $ 127,191 $ 122,569 $ 117,820 $ 112,900 $ 107,850 Annual Principal Payment 82,905 149,691 154,054 158,297 163,993 168,357 173,932 Total Annual Payment $ 216,245 $ 281,372 $ 281,245 $ 280,866 $ 281,814 $ 281,257 $ 281,782 Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service - - - - - - - TOTAL REVENUE BONDS Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment Use of Debt reserve for Debt Service Annual Debt Reserve Target on Existing Revenue Bonds Existina Debt Service - PWTF Loans PWTF LOAN 04-691-030 Storm Water Improvement Project Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment TOTAL PWTF LOANS Annual Interest Payment Annual Principal Payment Total Annual Payment $ 133,340 $ 131,681 $ 127,191 $ 122,569 $ 117,820 $ 112,900 $ 107,850 82,905 149,691 154,054 158,297 163,993 168,357 173,932 $ 216,245 $ 281,372 $ 281,245 $ 280,866 $ 281,814 $ 281,257 $ 281,782 286,293 286,293 286,293 286,293 286,293 286,293 286,293 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $ 2,244 $ 2,084 $ 1,924 $ 1,763 $ 1,603 $ 1,443 $ 1,283 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 $ 34,307 $ 34,147 $ 33,986 $ 33,826 $ 33,666 $ 33,505 $ 33,345 $ 2,244 $ 2,084 $ 1,924 $ 1,763 $ 1,603 $ 1,443 $ 1,283 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 32,063 $ 34,307 $ 34,147 $ 33,986 $ 33,826 $ 33,666 $ 33,505 $ 33,345 FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) g67-1 Existing Debt Page 6 Packet Page 464 of 554 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Existing Debt Input Existing Debt Service - Other Loans [a] 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 [a] Enter payments for other loans and revenue -supported G.O. issues only. Tax -supported bonds are assumed to be accounted for in the General Fund and do not impact this < 2012 LTGO BOND Annual Interest Payment $ 1,115 $ 565 $ $ $ $ $ Annual Principal Payment 27,534 28,240 Total Annual Payment $ 28,649 $ 28,805 $ $ $ $ $ 2007 LTGO BOND Annual Interest Payment $ 50,865 $ 48,166 $ 45,348 $ 42,409 $ 39,351 $ 36,147 $ 32,820 Annual Principal Payment 73,935 77,221 80,507 83,793 85,436 88,722 92,008 Total Annual Payment $ 124,800 $ 125,387 $ 125,855 $ 126,202 $ 124,787 $ 124,869 $ 124,828 TOTAL OTHER LOANS Annual Interest Payment $ 51,980 $ 48,731 $ 45,348 $ 42,409 $ 39,351 $ 36,147 $ 32,820 Annual Principal Payment 101,469 105,461 80,507 83,793 85,436 88,722 92,008 Total Annual Payment $ 153,449 $ 154,192 $ 125,855 $ 126,202 $ 124,787 $ 124,869 $ 124,828 FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) g67-1 Existing Debt Page 7 Packet Page 465 of 554 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Operating Revenue and Expenditure Forecast 10.00% Actual Budget Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Revenues FORECAST BASIS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Rate revenues 40 Customer Growth $ 2,650,806 $ 2,916,000 $ 2,923,290 $ 2,930,598 $ 2,937,925 $ 2,945,270 $ 2,952,633 $ 2,960,014 Misc. non -rate revenues 8 No Escalation 42,441 48,631 1 48,631 48,631 48,631 48,631 48,631 48,631 Grants 8 No Escalation - 33,300 33,300 33,300 33,300 33,300 33,300 33,300 [Other] 4 Customer Growth - - - - - - - [Other] 4 Customer Growth - - - - - - - TOTAL REVENUES $ 2,693,247 $ 2,997,931 $ 3,005,221 $ 3,012,529 $ 3,019,856 $ 3,027,201 $ 3,034,564 $ 3,041,945 Expenditures FORECAST BASIS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Salaries and Wages Labor Cost Inflation $ 454,146 'T"95%"IM $ 561,615 $ 578,463 $ 595,817 $ 613,692 $ 632,102 $ 651,065 Overtime Labor Cost Inflation 9,917 6,000 6,180 6,365 6,556 6,753 6,956 7,164 Benefits Benefits Inflation 189,910 224,231 246,654 271,320 298,451 328,297 361,126 397,239 Uniforms General Cost Inflation 5,475 6,50 6,695 6,896 7,103 7,316 7,535 7,761 Supplies General Cost Inflation 49,716 50,000 51,500 53,045 54,636 56,275 57,964 59,703 Minor Equipment General Cost Inflation 3,909 4,000 4,120 4,244 4,371 4,502 4,637 4,776 Professional Services General Cost Inflation 17,887 23,000� 23,690 24,401 25,133 25,887 26,663 27,463 Communications General Cost Inflation 1,625 3,200 3,296 3,395 3,497 3,602 3,710 3,821 Travel General Cost Inflation - 4,300 4,429 4,562 4,699 4,840 4,985 5,134 Advertising General Cost Inflation - 5004 515 530 546 563 580 597 Rental / Lease General Cost Inflation 8,452 6,500 6,695 6,896 7,103 7,316 7,535 7,761 Insurance General Cost Inflation 8,889 8,418 8,671 8,931 9,199 9,475 9,759 10,052 Public Utility General Cost Inflation 8,549 10,000 10,300 10,609 10,927 11,255 11,593 11,941 Repair/ Maintenance General Cost Inflation 6,072 11,860 12,216 12,582 12,960 13,349 13,749 14,161 Miscellaneous (excl. taxes) General Cost Inflation 53,789 56,469 58,163 59,908 61,705 63,557 65,463 67,427 State Taxes B&O Tax Rate 48,478 49,631 45,243 45,368 45,478 45,588 45,698 45,809 Intergov. Services General Cost Inflation 47,470 45,OO1M 46,350 47,741 49,173 50,648 52,167 53,732 Buildings General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - Land 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - Interfund Services 1 General Cost Inflation 268,090 214,291 220,720 227,341 234,162 241,186 248,422 255,875 Interfund Rental 1 General Cost Inflation 167,112 210,912 217,239 223,757 230,469 237,383 244,505 251,840 Interfund Transfer Out [a] 1 General Cost Inflation - - - - - - - - State Permit Fee 1 General Cost Inflation 2 1/3 FTEs 3 Labor Cost Inflation New Vehicle Rental/Maint. 8 No Escalation Lim Surface Water Monitoring 8 No Escalation Total Cash O&M Expenditures $ 1,349,484 $ 1,480,069 $ 1,534,291 $ 1,596,353 $ 1,661,984 $ 1,731,481 $ 1,805,149 $ 1,883,322 FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) rUeof Page 466 of 554 O&M Page 8 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Capital Improvement Program Project Costs in Year: r 2013 Project ID Description Useful Life Outside Funding 2013-2018 TOTAL COSTS 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 1 & 3 - Replace Infiltration Pipe (near 107th PL W) 50 0% $ 733,262 $ 300,000 $ 433,262 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 2 - Connect sumps near Robin Hood LN 50 0% 502,550 - - 98,973 403,577 - - - 0 0% _ _ _ _ _ Edmonds Marsh Related - Dayton St. & Hwy 104 Drainage Alternatives Study 6 0% 525,718 283,000 242,718 - - - - - Edmonds Marsh Related - Willow Creek Pipe Rehabilitation 50 0% 489,207 - - 489,207 - - - - 0 0% _ _ _ _ Northstream Projects - Northstream Culvert Abondonment South of Puget Dr. - Assessment 50 0% 10,000 10,000 - - - - - - Northstream Projects - Rehabilitation of Northstream Culvert under Puget Dr. 50 0% 167,075 - 72,816 94,260 - - - - 0 0% _ _ _ _ Perrinville Creek Basin Projects - Talbot Rd. / Perrinville Creek Drainage Imp, & Habitat Er 50 0% - - - - - - - - Perrinville Creek Basin Projects - Perrrinville Creek Culvert Replacement at Talbot Rd (Desil 50 0% - - - - - - - - Perrinville Creek Basin Projects - Perrinville Creek Culvert Rapt. At Talbot Rd (Permit/Consti 50 0% 560,696 - - - - - 560,696 - Perrinville Creek Basin Projects - Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction Study 6 0% 200,000 200,000 - - - - - - 0 0% _ _ Public Works Yard Water Quality Upgrades- Cover for Material Piles 50 0% - - - - - - - - PublicWorksYardWaterQualityUpgrades- Waste handling facility upgrade 50 0% 263,424 263,424 - - - - - - 0 0% _ _ _ Stone Drainage Improvement Projects - Dayton St. between 6th and 8th Ave. N. 50 0% 379,806 40,000 339,806 - - - - - Stow Drainage Improvement Projects - 88th Ave W and 194th St SW 50 0% 145,631 - 145,631 - - - - - Stow Drainage Improvement Projects - North Talbot Rd Drainage Improvement Project 50 0% - - - - - - - 0 0% - - - - - - - Annually Funded Projects- City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects 50 0% 2,221,165 149,000 149,515 151,758 457,571 666,365 646,957 - Annually Funded Projects- Lake Ballinger Association Projects 50 0% 648,932 106,000 106,796 108,399 108,902 109,284 109,551 - Annually Funded Projects - Low Impact Development Retrofit Project 50 0% 718,021 226,000 123,301 123,480 122,629 122,611 - - 0 0% - - - - - - - 5-Year Cycle Projects - Storm & Surface Water Comprehensive Plan 6 0% 235,649 - - 235,649 - - - - Additional Storm Projects - Goodhope Pond Basin Study 6 0% 194,175 - 194,175 - - - - - Additional Storm Projects - Storm System Video Assessment 6 0% 485,437 - 485,437 - - - - - Additional Storm Projects - Dayton St. Storm Cured in -place pipe (CIPP) Rehabilitation 50 0% - - - - - - - 0 0% - - - - - - - Tier 2 Projects - Perrinville Creek High Flow Management Project 50 75% 5,602,648 - 242,718 942,596 915,142 1,776,974 1,725,218 - Tier 2 Projects - Edmonds Marsh / Shellabarger Cr / Willow Cr- Feasibility Study / Marsh Rs 50 75% 8,208,408 100,000 485,437 2,244,321 3,386,024 1,776,974 215,652 - Tier 2 Projects - Shell Creek Channel Restoration in Yost Park 50 75% 172,816 - 172,816 - - - - - Transfer to 112 Street Fund - Five Comers Roundabout 50 0% 128,500 128,500 - - - - - - Transfer to112Street Fund - Sunset Ave Improvements 50 0% 91,514 - - - 91,514 - - - Transfer to 112 Street Fund - Main Street Low Impact Development Demonstration Project 50 0% - - - - - - - Transfer to112Street Fund - Transportation Projects 50 0% 606,243 100,000 100,000 99,915 99,750 103,064 103,513 - 0 0% - - - - - - - Transfer to 117 Arts - Main Street Low Impact Development Demonstration Project 50 0% 2,360 2,360 - - - - - - Transfer to 117 Arts - Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades 50 0% - - - - - - - Transfer to 117 Arts - SW Edmonds- Replace infiltration pipe near 107th PI W .... 50 0% 5,650 5,650 - - - - - - Transfer to117Arts - Five Corners Roundabout 50 0% 1,000 1,000 - - - - - - Transfer to 117 Arts - Interurban Trail Project Stormwater Vault (from Lake Ballinger Associs 50 0% - - - - - - - Transfer to 117 Arts - Other projects that meet 1 % for Art criteria 50 0% 111,656 - 17,158 24,110 28,972 23,915 17,501 - 0 0% - - - - - - - Transfer to 132 Parks Costruction - Interurban Trail Permeable Paving (incl. design costs) 50 0% - - - - - - - Transfer to 132 Parks Costruction - Stone pipe on 76th - part of Interurban Trail Project (fror 50 0% - - - - - - Transfer to 132 Parks Costruction - Interurban Trail Project Stormwater Vault (from Lake Bal 50 0% - - - - - - 0 0% Annual Replacement Program 50 0% 21000.000 - - - - - - 1,000,000 Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars $ 25,411,543 $ 1,914,934 $ 3,311,585 $ 4,612,667 $ 5,614,082 $ 4,579,188 $ 3,379,087 $ 1,000,000 Grant Funded Project Costs 10,487,904 75,000 675,728 2,390,188 3,225,874 2,665,461 1,455,652 Utility Funded Project Costs 14,923,639 1,839,934 2,635,857 2,222,479 2,388,208 1,913,726 1,923,435 1,000,000 FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) 86J5acket Page 467 of 554 CIP Input Page 9 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Capital Improvement Program Cumulative Construction Cost Inflation==> 0.00% 3.00% 6.09% 9.27% 12.55% 15.93% 19.41% Construction Cost Inflation =_> 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN INFLATED DOLLARS Project ID Description Useful Life Outside Funding 2013. 2018 TOTAL COSTS 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 1 & 3 - Replace Infiltration Pipe (near 107th PL W) 50 0% $ 746,260 $ 300,000 $ 446,260 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 2 - Connect sumps near Robin Hood LN 50 0% 546,000 - - 105,000 441,000 - - Edmonds Marsh Related - Dayton St. & Hwy 104 Drainage Alternatives Study 6 0% 533,000 283,000 250,000 - - - - - Edmonds Marsh Related - Willow Creek Pipe Rehabilitation 50 0% 519,000 - - 519,000 - - - - Northstream Projects - Northstream Culvert Abondonment South of Puget Dr. - Assessment 50 0% 10,000 10,000 - - - - - - Northstream Projects - Rehabilitation of Northstream Culvert under Puget Dr. 50 0% 175,000 - 75,000 100,000 - - - - Perrinville Creek Basin Projects - Talbot Rd. / Perrinville Creek Drainage Imp, & Habitat Er 50 0% - - - - - - - Perrinville Creek Basin Projects - Perrrinville Creek Culvert Replacement at Talbot Rd (Desil 50 0% - - - - - - - Perrinville Creek Basin Projects - Perrinville Creek Culvert Repl. At Talbot Rd (Permit/Consti 50 0% 650,000 - - - - - 650,000 - Perrinville Creek Basin Projects - Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction Study 6 0% 200,000 200,000 - - - - - - Public Works Yard Water Quality Upgrades- Cover for Material Piles 50 0% - - - - - - - - PublicWorksYardWaterQualily Upgrades- Waste handling facility upgrade 50 0% 263,424 263,424 - - - - - - Storm Drainage Improvement Projects - Dayton St. between 6th and 8th Ave. N. 50 0% 390,000 40,000 350,000 - - - - - Storm Drainage Improvement Projects - 88th Ave W and 1941h St SW 50 0% 150,000 - 150,000 - - - - - Storm Drainage Improvement Projects - North Talbot Rd Drainage Improvement Project 50 0% - - - - - - - - Annually Funded Projects - City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects 50 0% 2,464,000 149,000 154,000 161,000 500,000 750,000 750,000 - Annually Funded Projects - Lake Ballinger Association Projects 50 0% 700,000 106,000 110,000 115,000 119,000 123,000 127,000 - Annually Funded Projects - Low Impact Development Retrofit Project 50 0% 756,000 226,000 127,000 131,000 134,000 138,000 - - 5-Year Cycle Projects - Storm & Surface Water Comprehensive Plan 6 0% 250,000 - - 250,000 - - - - Additional Storm Projects - Goodhope Pond Basin Study 6 0% 200,000 - 200,000 - - - - - Additional Storm Projects - Storm System Video Assessment 6 0% 500,000 - 500,000 - - - - - Additional Storm Projects - Dayton St. Storm Cured in -place pipe (CIPP) Rehabilitation 50 0% - - - - - - - - Tier 2 Projects - Perrinville Creek High Flow Management Project 50 75% 6,250,000 - 250,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 - Tier 2 Projects - Edmonds Marsh / Shellabarger Cr / Willow Cr- Feasibility Study / Marsh Re 50 75% 8,931,000 100,000 500,000 2,381,000 3,700,000 2,000,000 250,000 - Tier 2 Projects - Shell Creek Channel Restoration in Yost Park 50 75% 178,000 - 178,000 - - - - - Transfer to 112 Street Fund - Five Comers Roundabout 50 0% 128,500 128,500 - - - - - - Transfer to 112 Street Fund - Sunset Ave Improvements 50 0% 100,000 - - - 100,000 - - - Transfer to 112 Street Fund - Main Street Low Impact Development Demonstration Project 50 0% - - - - - - - - Transfer to 112 Street Fund - Transportation Projects 50 0% 654,000 100,000 103,000 106,000 109,000 116,000 120,000 - Transfer to 117 Arts - Main Street Low Impact Development Demonstration Project 50 0% 2,360 2,360 - - - - - - Transfer to 117 Arts - Public Facilifies Water Quality Upgrades 50 0% - - - - - - - - Transfer to 117 Arts - SW Edmonds - Replace inflitration pipe near 107th PI W .... 50 0% 5,650 5,650 - - - - - - Transfer to 117 Arts - Five Comers Roundabout 50 0% 1,000 1,000 - - - - - - Transfer to 117 Arts - Interurban Trail Project Stormwater Vault (from Lake Ballinger Assow 50 0% - - - - - - - - Transfer to 117 Arts - Other projects that meet 1 % for Art criteria 50 0% 122,114 - 17,673 25,578 31,659 26,916 20,288 - Transfer to 132 Parks Costmction - Interurban Trail Permeable Paving (met. design costs) 50 0% - - - - - - - - Transfer to 132 Parks Costmction - Storm pipe on 76th - part of Interurban Trail Project (fror 50 0% - - - - - - - - Transfer to 132 Parks Costmction - Interurban Trail Project Stormwater Vault (from Lake Bal 50 0% - - - - - - - - Annual Replacement Program 50 0% 2,423,926 - - - - - - 1,194,052 Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars $ 27,849,234 $ 1,914,934 $ 3,410,933 $ 4,893,578 $ 6,134,659 $ 5,153,916 $ 3,917,288 $ 1,194,052 Grant Project Costs 11,519,250 75,000 696,000 2,535,750 3,525,000 3,000,000 1,687,500 - Utility Funded Project Costs 16,329,984 1,839,934 2,714,933 2,357,828 2,609,659 2,153,916 2,229,788 1,194,052 FCS GROUP Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) 86J5acket Page 468 of 554 CIP Input Page 10 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Capital Funding Analysis Summary of Expenditures 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,914,934 $ 3,410,933 $ 4,893,578 $ 6,134,659 $ 5,153,916 $ 3,917,288 $ 1,194,052 Capital Financing Plan 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Project Specific Grants / Developer Donations (Tier 2) $ 75,000 $ 696,000 $ 2,535,750 $ 3,525,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 1,687,500 $ - Project to be Funded by the Utility 1,839,934 2,714,933 2,357,828 2,609,659 2,153,916 2,229,788 1,194,052 OTHER FUNDING SOURCES [NOTE A] Other Grants / Outside Funding Sources (PW Yard) $ 180,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - PWTF Loan Proceeds - - - - - - - Other Loan Proceeds - - - - - - - Capital Fund Balance 1,659,934 2,714,933 1,625,292 468,994 2,153,916 1,270,193 213,763 Revenue Bond Proceeds [Note B] - - - 2,140,665 - - - Rates 732,536 959,595 980,289 Total $ 1,839,934 $ 2,714,933 $ 2,357,828 $ 2,609,659 $ 2,153,916 $ 2,229,788 $ 1,194,052 TOTAL CAPITAL RESOURCES Info: Capital Contingency Deficit $ 1,914,934 $ 3,410,933 $ 4,893,578 $ 6,134,659 $ 5,153,916 $ 3,917,288 $ 1,194,052 NOTE A: SELECTION OF RESIDUAL CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCE Select the Residual Funding Source 1 Revenue Bond Proceeds 1 - Revenue Bond Proceeds 2 - Rates NOTE B: USER INPUT FOR REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS Select Amount of Bond Proceeds 1 User Defined 1 - Amounts at Right ==> $ 850,000 $ 2 - Calculated by the Model - $ - $ 3,500,000 $ - $ - $ FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 469 of 554 Capital Funding Page 11 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Capital Funding Analysis New Debt Computations 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 REVENUE BONDS Amount to Fund $ $ $ 3,500,000 $ $ $ Issuance Costs - Reserve Required 305,351 Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ 3,805,351 $ $ $ OTHER LOANS Amount to Fund $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ Issuance Costs Amount of Debt Issue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PWTF LOAN Amount to Fund [a] $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - [a] 2004 and 2005 PWTF loan payment schedules input as existing debt. Amounts shown for reference. Debt Service Summary 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXISTING DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ 187,564 $ 182,497 $ 174,462 $ 166,742 $ 158,774 $ 150,490 $ 141,952 Annual Principal Payments 216,437 287,214 266,624 274,152 281,492 289,141 298,003 Total Debt Service Payments $ 404,001 $ 469,711 $ 441,086 $ 440,894 $ 440,266 $ 439,631 $ 439,955 Revenue Bond Payments Only 216,245 281,372 281,245 280,866 281,814 281,257 281,782 NEW DEBT SERVICE Annual Interest Payments $ 11,433 $ 41,158 $ 40,970 $ 231,044 $ 225,091 $ 218,750 $ 211,984 Annual Principal Payments - 9,379 9,672 125,049 130,803 137,431 144,069 Total Debt Service Payments $ 11,433 $ 50,537 $ 50,642 $ 356,093 $ 355,894 $ 356,181 $ 356,052 Revenue Bond Payments Only 11,433 50,537 50,642 356,093 355,894 356,181 356,052 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS $ 415,434 $ 520,248 $ 491,728 $ 796,987 $ 796,160 $ 795,813 $ 796,007 Total Interest Payments 198,997 223,654 215,432 397,786 383,865 369,240 353,936 Total Principal Payments 216,437 296,594 276,296 399,201 412,295 426,573 442,071 Total Revenue Bond Payments Only 227,677 331,909 331,888 636,959 637,708 637,439 637,834 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 470 of 554 Capital Funding Page 12 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Revenue Requirements Analysis Cash Flow Sufficiency Test 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES Cash Operating Expenses $ 1,480,069 $ 1,534,291 $ 1,596,353 $ 1,661,984 $ 1,731,481 $ 1,805,149 $ 1,883,322 Existing Debt Service 404,001 469,711 441,086 440,894 440,266 439,631 439,955 New Debt Service 11,433 50,537 50,642 356,093 355,894 356,181 356,052 Rate -Funded CIP - - 732,536 - - 959,595 980,289 Rate Funded System Reinvestment - - - - - - Additions Required to Meet Minimum Op. Fund Balance - - - - - - Total Expenses $ 1,895,503 $ 2,054,539 $ 2,820,617 $ 2,458,972 $ 2,527,641 $ 3,560,557 $ 3,659,618 REVENUES Rate Revenue $ 2,916,000 $ 2,923,290 $ 2,930,598 $ 2,937,925 $ 2,945,270 $ 2,952,633 $ 2,960,014 Other Revenue 81,931 81,931 81,931 81,931 81,931 81,931 81,931 Operating Fund & Debt Reserve Fund Interest Earnings 625 735 1,514 2,348 6,292 8,008 9,791 Total Revenue $ 2,998,556 $ 3,005,956 $ 3,014,043 $ 3,022,204 $ 3,033,492 $ 3,042,571 $ 3,051,736 NET CASH FLOW (DEFICIENCY) Sufficiencv Test EXPENSES Cash Operating Expenses Revenue Bond Debt Service Revenue Bond Coverage Requirement at 1.25 Total Expenses ALLOWABLE REVENUES Rate Revenue Other Revenue Interest Earnings - All Funds Total Revenue Individual Coverage Realized INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE SURPLUS (DEFICIENCY) COVERAGE SURPLUS (DEFICIENCY) $ 1,103,053 $ 951,417 $ 193,427 $ 563,232 $ 505,851 $ (517,986) $ (607,882) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $ 1,480,069 $ 1,534,291 $ 1,596,353 $ 1,661,984 $ 1,731,481 $ 1,805,149 $ 1,883,322 227,677 331,909 331,888 636,959 637,708 637,439 637,834 56,919 82,977 82,972 159,240 159,427 159,360 159,459 $ 1,764,666 $ 1,949,177 $ 2,011,212 $ 2,458,183 $ 2,528,616 $ 2,601,948 $ 2,680,615 $ 2,916,000 $ 2,923,290 $ 2,930,598 $ 2,937,925 $ 2,945,270 $ 2,952,633 $ 2,960,014 81,931 81,931 81,931 81,931 81,931 81,931 81,931 7,955 8,857 9,641 5,865 29,650 23,885 12,997 $ 3,005,886 $ 3,014,078 $ 3,022,170 $ 3,025,721 $ 3,056,850 $ 3,058,449 $ 3,054,942 6.70 4.46 4.30 2.14 2.08 1.97 1.84 $ 1,241,220 $ 1,064,901 $ 1,010,958 $ 567,538 $ 528,234 $ 456,501 $ 374,327 $ 1,241,220 $ 1,064,901 $ 1,010,958 $ 567,538 $ 528,234 $ 456,501 $ 374,327 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 471 of 554 Tests Page 13 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Revenue Requirements Analysis Maximum Revenue Deficienc Sufficiency Test Driving the Deficiency Maximum Deficiency From Tests less: Net Revenue From Prior Rate Increases Revenue Deficiency Plus: Adjustment for State Excise Tax Total Revenue Deficiency 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 None None None None None Cash Cash $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 517,986 $ 607,882 ' (129,899) (266,307) (409,536) (559,910) (717,772) Rate Increases 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Rate Revenue with no Increase $ 2,916,000 $ 2,923,290 $ 2,930,598 $ 2,937,925 $ 2,945,270 $ 2,952,633 $ 2,960,014 Revenues from Prior Rate Increases - - 131,877 270,363 415,772 568,437 728,702 Rate Revenue Before Rate Increase (Incl. previous increases) 2,916,000 2,923,290 3,062,475 3,208,287 3,361,042 3,521,069 3,688,716 Required Annual Rate Increase 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Number of Months New Rates Will Be In Effect 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Info: Percentage Increase to Generate Required Revenue 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Policy Induced Rate Increases 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% ANNUAL RATE INCREASE 0.00% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% CUMULATIVE RATE INCREASE 0.00% 4.50% 9.20% 14.12% 19.25% 24.62% 30.23% Impacts of Rate Increases 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Rate Revenues After Rate Increase $ 2,916,000 $ 3,054,838 $ 3,200,287 $ 3,352,660 $ 3,512,289 $ 3,679,518 $ 3,854,709 Full Year Rate Revenues After Rate Increase 2,916,000 3,054,838 3,200,287 3,352,660 3,512,289 3,679,518 3,854,709 Additional State Taxes Due to Rate Increases - 1,973 4,045 6,221 8,505 10,903 13,420 Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase 1,103,053 1,080,992 459,070 971,746 1,064,365 197,996 273,392 Individual Coverage After Rate Increase 6.70 4.85 5.10 2.78 2.95 3.09 3.22 FCS GROUP 2 Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425) Packe02 age 472 of 554 Tests Page 14 City of Edmonds Stormwater Utility Fund Activity Funds OPERATING FUND Beginning Balance plus: Net Cash Flow after Rate Increase less: Transfer of Surplus to Capital Fund Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance Maximum Funds to be Kept as Operating Reserves Info: No of Days of Cash Operating Expenses CAPITAL FUND Beginning Balance plus: Rate Funded System Reinvestment plus: Grants / Developer Donations / Other Outside Sources plus: Capital Facilities Charges plus: Net Debt Proceeds Available for Projects plus: Interest Earnings plus: Transfer of Surplus from Operating Fund plus: Direct Rate Funding less: Capital Expenditures Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance DEBT RESERVE Beginning Balance plus: Reserve Funding from New Debt less: Use of Reserves for Debt Service Ending Balance Minimum Target Balance $ 3,181,874 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $ 250,000 $ 243,299 $ 252,212 $ 262,414 $ 273,203 $ 284,627 $ 296,737 1,103,053 1,080,992 459,070 971,746 1,064,365 197,996 273,392 (1,109,754) (1,072,079) (448,868) (960,958) (1,052,941) (185,886) (260,541) $ 243,299 $ 252,212 $ 262,414 $ 273,203 $ 284,627 $ 296,737 $ 309,587 182,474 189,159 196,811 204,902 213,470 222,553 232,190 243,299 252,212 262,414 273,203 284,627 296,737 309,587 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 $ 2,931,874 $ 3,249,024 $ 1,625,292 $ 468,994 $ 2,335,810 $ 1,270,193 $ 213,763 255,000 696,000 2,535,750 3,525,000 3,000,000 1,687,500 - 10, 000 11,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 850,000 - - 3,500,000 - - - 7,330 8,123 8,126 3,517 23,358 15,877 3,206 1,109,754 1,072,079 448,868 960,958 1,052,941 185,886 260,541 - - 732,536 - - 959,595 980,289 (1,914,934) (3,410,933) (4,893,578) (6,134,659) (5,153,916) (3,917,288) (1,194,052) $ 3,249,024 $ 1,625,292 $ 468,994 $ 2,335,810 $ 1,270,193 $ 213,763 $ 275,748 $ $ 50,624 $ 50,624 $ 50,624 $ 50,624 - - 305,351 $ 50,624 $ 50,624 $ 50,624 $ 355,975 $ 297,726 336,830 336,935 642,386 355,975 $ 355,975 $ 355,975 355,975 $ 355,975 $ 355,975 642,187 642,474 642,345 FCS GROUP p Edmonds Stormwater Model - 2013 - Cash Funding Transition July 18 Update (425)Pac e$Page 473 of 554 Funds Page 15 AM-5968 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/23/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted By: Carrie Hite Department: Parks and Recreation Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Finance Type: Action Information Subject Title Adoption of Park Impact Fees Ordinance 10. Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Recommendation City Council adopt Ordinance establishing ECC 3.36 Park Impact Fees. 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. On June 1 lth, the Parks and Finance Committees of the Council discussed various options for Park Impact Fees, and directed staff to come to full Council with options. On June 25th, Council adopted Ordinance 3928 establishing ECC 3.36 Park Impact Fees. On July 5, 2013, the Mayor vetoed this Ordinance. On July 9th, staff met with the Finance and Parks Council Committees to discuss amendments to the Park Impact Fee code that was adopted. Both Committees were favorable of the changes and forwarded it to full Council for discussion. 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: Packet Page 474 of 554 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. The Parks Committee and Finance Committees both discussed options, and directed staff to come back with an ordinance, and ECC language to address Park Impact Fees. On June 25th, the Council received a brief presentation by Mr. Young, including an overview of the Park Impact Fee code language, and an option for amended language. In addition, the Council held the public hearing, and discussed the merits and options of assessing a Park Impact Fee. Council voted 5-1 to adopt the Park Impact Fee ordinance and code language that was presented in the Council packet. On July 5th, the Mayor vetoed the Ordinance with concern over its impact with small businesses. The Mayor charged staff with working on a revision that would alleviate his concern. Staff met with the Consultant, Randy Young and Jeff Tarraday. After discussion, staff are satisfied that the amendments presented in the Council packet address the concerns of the Mayor, and are a good resolution to go forward. Staff and Mayor recommend the Council adopt the attached ordinance and corresponding ECC chapter 3.36. Edmonds City Code Chapter 3.36 Ordinance adopting Park Impact Fees Park Impact Fee Study Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Carrie Hite Final Approval Date: 07/18/2013 Attachments Form Review Date 07/17/2013 02:18 PM 07/17/2013 02:40 PM 07/18/2013 08:48 AM Started On: 07/17/2013 12:53 PM Packet Page 475 of 554 Edmonds, WA Municipal Code Chapter 3.36 PARK IMPACT FEES Sections: 3.36.010 Findings and authority. 3.36.020 Definitions. 3.36.030 Assessment and payment of impact fees. 3.36.040 Exemptions. 3.36.050 Credits. 3.36.060 Tax adjustments. 3.36.070 Appeals. 3.36.080 Establishment of impact fee accounts. 3.36.090 Refunds. 3.36.100 Use of funds. 3.36.110 Review. 3.36.120 Park impact fee rates. 3.36.130 Independent fee calculations. 3.36.140 Existing authority unimpaired. 3.36.150 Procedures guide. 3.36.010 Findings and authority. The city council of the city of Edmonds (the "council") hereby finds and determines that new growth and development in the city of Edmonds will create additional demand and need for public facilities in the city of Edmonds, and the council finds that new growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve the new growth and development. The city of Edmonds has conducted extensive studies documenting the procedures for measuring the impact of new developments on public facilities, has prepared the rate study and procedures guide for park impact fees, and hereby incorporates these studies into this title by reference. Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW, the council adopts the ordinance codified in this chapter to assess impact fees for parks. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed in order to carry out the purposes of the council in establishing the impact fee program. These fees can and will only be applied to projects resulting from city-wide development growth. These fees cannot be used to mitigate existing shortfalls of the park system. 3.36.020 Definitions. The following words and terms shall have the following meanings for the purposes of this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined herein shall be defined pursuant to RCW 82.02.090 and ECDC Title 21 or given their usual and customary meaning. 1. "Accessory dwelling unit" is defined in ECDC 21.05.015. 2. "Building permit" means an official document or certification which is issued by the building official and which authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection, 1 Packet Page 476 of 554 demolition, moving or repair of a building or structure. 3. "Capital facilities plan" means the capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive plan adopted by the city of Edmonds pursuant to Chapter 36.70A RCW, and such plan as amended. There are many references in state statutes to the "capital facilities plan" (CFP) as the basis for projects that are eligible for funding by impact fees. The parks element of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan fulfills the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 et seq., pertaining to a "capital facilities plan," and is considered to be the "capital facilities plan" (CFP) for the purpose of Edmonds' impact fees for parks. All references to a CFP in the impact fee chapter, rate study, and procedures guide are interpreted as referring to the parks element of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan. 4. "City" means the city of Edmonds. 5. "Council" means the city council of the city of Edmonds. 6. "Department" means the development services department. 7. "Development activity" means any construction, expansion, or change in the use of a building or structure that creates additional demand and need for public facilities. 8. "Development approval" means any written authorization from the city of Edmonds which authorizes the commencement of a development activity. 9. "Director" means the director designed by the mayor to administer the park impact fee program or that director's designee. 10. "Dwelling unit" is defined in ECDC 21.20.050. 11. "Encumbered" means to reserve, set aside, or otherwise earmark the impact fees in order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations, or other liabilities incurred for public facilities. 12. "Feepayer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated association, or any other similar entity, or department or bureau of any governmental entity or municipal corporation commencing a land development activity which creates the demand for additional capital facilities, and which requires the issuance of a building permit. "Feepayer" includes an applicant for an impact fee credit. 13. [reserved] 14. "Hearing examiner" is defined in ECDC 21.40.010. 15. "Impact fee" means a payment of money imposed by the city of Edmonds on development activity pursuant to this chapter as a condition of granting development approval in order to pay for the public facilities needed to serve new growth and development. "Impact fee" does not include a reasonable permit fee, an application fee, the administrative fee for collecting and handling school impact fees, the cost of reviewing independent fee calculations or any other charge or fee based upon the administrative costs of processing a development application. 16. "Impact fee account" or "account" means the account(s) established for each type of public facility for which impact fees are collected. The accounts shall be established pursuant to ECC 3.36.080 and 3.36.090 and comply with the requirements of RCW 82.02.070. 17. "Independent fee calculation" means the park impact calculation and/or 2 Packet Page 477 of 554 economic documentation prepared by a feepayer to support the assessment of an impact fee other than by the use of the rates listed in ECC 3.36.120, or the calculations prepared by the director where none of the fee categories or fee amounts in ECC 3.36.120 accurately describe or capture the impacts of the new development on public facilities. 18. "Interest" means the average interest rate earned in the last fiscal year by the city of Edmonds. 19. [reserved] 20. "Occupancy permit" means the permit issued by the city of Edmonds authorizing the building to be occupied where a development activity results in a change in use of the preexisting structure, or the creation of a new use where none previously existed. 21. "Owner" means the owner of record of real property, or a person with an unrestricted written option to purchase property; provided, that if the real property is being purchased under a recorded real estate contract, the purchaser shall be considered the owner of the real property. 22. "Procedures guide" means the administrative guidance document prepared by the director pursuant to ECC 3.36.150. 23. "Project improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a particular development or users of the project and are not system improvements. No improvement or facility included in a capital facilities plan adopted by the council shall be considered a project improvement. 24. "Public facilities" means the public parks, open space and recreation facilities owned by the city of Edmonds or other governmental entities. 25. "Rate study" means the "Rate Study for Impact Fees for Parks, Open Space and Recreation Facilities," city of Edmonds, dated July 12, 2013. 26. "Residential" or "residential development" means all types of construction intended for human habitation. This shall include, but is not limited to, single- family, duplex, triplex, and other multifamily development. This also includes the residential portion of mixed -use developments. 27. [reserved] 28. "Service area" means the entire corporate limits of the city of Edmonds. 29. "Significant past tax payment" means taxes exceeding five percent of the amount of the impact fee, and which were paid prior to the date the impact fee is assessed and were earmarked or proratable to the same system improvements for which the impact fee is assessed. 30. [reserved] 31. "State" means the state of Washington. 32. [reserved] 33. "System improvements" means public facilities that are included in the city of Edmonds capital facilities plan and are designed to provide service to service areas within the community at large, in contrast to project improvements. 3.36.030 Assessment and payment of impact fees. A. Required. The city shall collect impact fees, based on the rates in ECC 3 Packet Page 478 of 554 3.36.120, from any applicant seeking development approval from the city for any development activity within the city as provided herein, including the expansion of existing structures or uses or change of existing uses that creates additional demand for public facilities. 1. For the purposes of this chapter, development activity shall not include miscellaneous improvements that do not add any demand for public facilities, including, but not limited to, fences, walls, swimming pools accessory to a residential use, and signs. 2. For the purposes of this chapter, development activity shall not include replacement of a residential structure with a new residential structure of the same type at the same site or lot when such replacement occurs within 12 months of the demolition or destruction of the prior residential structure. Replacement of a residential structure with a new residential structure of the same type shall be interpreted to include any residential structure for which there is no increase in the number of residential units. 3. For the purposes of this chapter, development activity shall not include alterations, expansions, enlargement, remodeling, rehabilitation or conversion of an existing dwelling unit where no additional dwelling units are created and the use is not changed. Note: accessory dwelling units (ADU) are not considered to create additional dwelling units because ECDC 20.21.020 does not consider ADUs as increasing the overall density of a single-family residential neighborhood. B. Timing and Calculation of Fees. Impact fees shall be assessed based upon the park impact fee rates in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit, including but not limited to change of use permit or remodel permit. 1. For a change in use of an existing building or dwelling unit, including any alteration, expansion, replacement or new accessory building, the impact fee shall be the applicable impact fee for the new use, less an amount equal to the applicable impact fee for the prior use. 2. For mixed use developments, impact fees shall be imposed for the proportionate share of each land use based on the applicable measurement in the impact fee rates set forth in ECC 3.36.120. 3. [reserved] 4. Applicants that have been awarded credits prior to the submittal of the complete building permit application pursuant to ECC 3.36.050 shall submit, along with the complete building permit application, a copy of the letter or certificate prepared by the director pursuant to ECC 3.36.050 setting forth the dollar amount of the credit awarded. C. Payment. Impact fees shall be paid at the time the building permit or business license is issued by the city. The department shall not issue the required building permit or business license or other approval unless and until the impact fees set forth in ECC 3.36.120 have been paid in the amount that they exceed exemptions or credits provided pursuant to ECC 3.36.040 or 3.36.050. 3.36.040 Exemptions. A. Except as provided for below, the following shall be exempted from the 4 Packet Page 479 of 554 payment of all impact fees under this chapter: 1. Low-income housing provided by non-profit organizations such as, but not limited to, Habitat for Humanity. Owners of low-income single family dwelling units, condominiums and other low-income housing shall execute and record a lien against the property, in favor of the City, for a period of ten (10) years guaranteeing that the dwelling unit will continue to be used for low-income housing or that impact fees from which the Low-income housing is exempted, plus interest shall be paid. The lien against the property shall be subordinate only to the lien for general taxes. In the event that the development is no longer used for low-income rental housing, the owner shall pay the City the impact fee from which the owner or any prior owner was exempt, plus interest at the statutory rate. Any claim for an exemption for low-income owner occupied housing must be made no later than the time of application for a building permit. Any claim not so made shall be deemed waived. B. The director shall be authorized to determine whether a particular development activity falls within an exemption identified in this section, in any other section, or under other applicable law. Determinations of the director shall be in writing and shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ECC 3.36.070. 3.36.050 Credits. A. Pursuant to the requirement of RCW 82.02.060(4), a feepayer shall be entitled to a credit for the value of any dedication of land for, improvement to, or new construction of any park system improvements provided by the feepayer, to facilities that are identified in the capital facilities plan and that are required by the city as a condition of approving the development activity. B. The director shall determine if requests for credits meet the criteria in subsection A of this section. C. For each request for a credit or credits, the director shall select an appraiser or the feepayer may select an independent appraiser acceptable to the director. D. The appraiser must be prequalified by the City and shall not have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised. A description of the appraiser's certification shall be included with the appraisal, and the appraiser shall certify that he/she does not have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised. E. The appraiser shall be directed to determine the total value of the dedicated land, improvements, and/or construction provided by the feepayer on a case -by - case basis. F. The feepayer shall pay for the cost of the appraisal or request that the cost of the appraisal be deducted from the credit which the director may be providing to the feepayer, in the event that a credit is awarded. G. After receiving the appraisal, the director shall provide the applicant with a letter or certificate setting forth the dollar amount of the credit, the reason for the credit, the legal description of the site donated where applicable, and the legal description or other adequate description of the project or development to which the credit may be applied. The applicant must sign and date a duplicate copy of 5 Packet Page 480 of 554 such letter or certificate indicating his/her agreement to the terms of the letter or certificate, and return such signed document to the director before the impact fee credit will be awarded. The failure of the applicant to sign, date, and return such document within 60 calendar days shall nullify the credit. H. No credit shall be given for project improvements required of the development by city code and/or SEPA; only dedications in excess of those required by law are eligible for credit. In no event shall this provision be interpreted to authorize cash payment. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to limit the discretion of the city council to decline to accept any proposed dedication. I. A feepayer can request that a credit or credits for impact fees be awarded to him/her for significant past tax payments. For each request for a credit or credits for significant past tax payments for park impact fees, the feepayer shall submit receipts and a calculation of past tax payments earmarked for or proratable to the particular system improvement. The director shall determine the amount of credits, if any, for significant past tax payments for public park facilities. J. Any claim for credit must be made no later than 20 calendar days after the submission of an application for a building permit. The failure to timely file such a claim shall constitute a final bar to later request any such credit. K. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ECC 3.36.070. L. A feepayer may, in the alternative, appeal an assessment or mitigation requirement which he believes exceeds the total which may lawfully be imposed. See ECDC 18.50.020(C). 3.36.060 Tax adjustments. Pursuant to and consistent with the requirements of RCW 82.02.060, the rate study has provided adjustments for future taxes to be paid by the new development which are earmarked or proratable to the same new public facilities which will serve the new development. The impact fee rates in ECC 3.36.120 have been reasonably adjusted for taxes and other revenue sources which are anticipated to be available to fund public improvements. 3.36.070 Appeals. A. Any feepayer may pay the impact fees imposed by this chapter under protest in order to obtain a building permit. B. Appeals regarding the amount of the impact fee imposed on any development activity may only be filed by the feepayer of the property where such development activity will occur. This provision shall control over any other provisions of city ordinance. C. The feepayer must first file a request for review regarding impact fees with the director, as provided herein: 1. The request shall be in writing on the form provided by the city; 2. The request for review by the director shall be filed within 14 calendar days of the feepayer's payment of the impact fees at issue. The failure to timely file such a request shall constitute a final bar to later seek such review; 3. An administrative fee will be imposed for the request for review by the director; Packet Page 481 of 554 this shall be the same as that imposed for a request for reconsideration of a staff decision; 4. The director shall issue his/her determination in writing within 14 days from the receipt of a request for review. D. Determinations of the director with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or value of a credit, or the director's decision concerning the independent fee calculation which is authorized in ECC 3.36.130, or the fees imposed by the director pursuant to ECC 3.36.120, or any other determination which the director is authorized to make pursuant to this chapter, can be appealed to the hearing examiner. E. The decision of the director may be appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II decision in accordance with Chapter 20.06 ECDC. 3.36.080 Establishment of impact fee accounts. A. Impact fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and deposited in special interest -bearing accounts. B. There is hereby established a separate impact fee account for the fees collected pursuant to this chapter, the park impact account. Funds withdrawn from this account must be used in accordance with the provisions of ECC 3.36.100 and applicable state law. Interest earned on the fees shall be retained in the account and expended for the purposes for which the impact fees were collected. C. On an annual basis, the finance director shall provide a report to the council on the impact fee account showing the source and amount of all monies collected, earned, or received, and the public improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees. D. Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered within ten years of receipt, unless the council identifies in written findings extraordinary and compelling reason or reasons for the city to hold the fees beyond the ten-year period. Under such circumstances, and prior to the expiration of the ten-year period, the council shall establish the period of time within which the impact fees shall be expended or encumbered. 3.36.090 Refunds. A. If the city fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within ten years of when the fees were paid or, where extraordinary or compelling reasons exist, such other time periods as established pursuant to ECC 3.36.080, the current owner of the property on which impact fees have been paid may receive a refund of such fees. In determining whether impact fees have been expended or encumbered, impact fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on a first -in, first -out basis. B. The city shall notify potential claimants by first class mail that they are eligible for a park impact fee refund. This notification shall be done by first class mail deposited with the United States Postal Service at the last known address of such claimants. A potential claimant must be the owner of the property. C. Owners seeking a refund of impact fees must submit a written request for a 7 Packet Page 482 of 554 refund of the fees to the director within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever is later. D. Any impact fees for which no application for a refund has been made within this one-year period shall be retained by the city and expended on the appropriate public facilities. E. Refunds of impact fees under this section shall include any interest earned on the impact fees by the city. F. When the city seeks to terminate any or all components of the impact fee program, all unexpended or unencumbered funds from any terminated component or components, including interest earned, shall be refunded pursuant to this section. Upon the finding that any or all fee requirements are to be terminated, the city shall place notice of such termination and the availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two times and shall notify all potential claimants by first class mail at the last known address of the claimants. All funds available for refund shall be retained for a period of one year. At the end of one year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the city, but must be expended for the appropriate public facilities. This notice requirement shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered balances within the account or accounts being terminated. G. The city shall also refund to the current owner of property for which impact fees have been paid, including interest earned on the impact fees, if the development activity for which the impact fees were imposed did not occur; provided, that if the city has expended or encumbered the impact fees in good faith prior to the application for a refund, the director can decline to provide the refund. If within a period of three years, the same or subsequent owner of the property proceeds with the same or substantially similar development activity, the owner can petition the director for an offset. The petitioner must provide receipts of impact fees previously paid for a development of the same or substantially similar nature on the same property or some portion thereof. Determinations of the director shall be in writing and shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ECC 3.36.070. 3.36.100 Use of funds. A. Pursuant to this chapter, impact fees: 1. Shall be used for public improvements that will reasonably benefit new development; and 2. Shall not be imposed to make up for deficiencies in public facilities serving existing developments; and 3. Shall not be used for maintenance or operations. B. Park impact fees may be spent for public improvements, including, but not limited to, planning, engineering, surveying, land acquisition, right-of-way acquisition, site improvements, necessary off -site improvements, construction, architectural, permitting, financing, and administrative expenses, applicable impact fees or mitigation costs, and any other expenses which can be capitalized. C. Impact fees may also be used to recoup public improvement costs previously 1-1 Packet Page 483 of 554 incurred by the city to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed improvements or incurred costs. D. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are or have been issued for the advanced provision of public improvements for which impact fees may be expended, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities or improvements provided are consistent with the requirements of this section and are used to serve the new development. 3.36.110 Review. The fee rates set forth in ECC 3.36.120 may be reviewed and adjusted by the council as it deems necessary and appropriate in conjunction with the annual update of the capital facilities plan element of the city's comprehensive plan. The fee rates may be adjusted 12 months after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, or 12 months after the most recent review by the council. The council may determine the amount of any adjustment up or down and revise the fee rates set forth in ECC 3.36.120. 3.36.120 Park impact fee rates. The park impact fee rates in this section are generated from the formula for calculating impact fees set forth in the rate study, which is incorporated herein by reference. Except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations in ECC 3.36.130, exemptions in ECC 3.36.040 and credits in ECC 3.36.050, all new developments in the city will be charged the park impact fee applicable to the type of development as follows: A. Effective October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014: 1. Single-family house: $1,367.03 per dwelling unit. 2. Multi -family residential housing: $1,170.06 per dwelling unit. 3. Non-residential development: $0.67 per square foot. B. Effective October 1, 2014: 1. Single-family house: $2,734.05 per dwelling unit. 2. Multi -family residential housing: $2,340.16 per dwelling unit. 3. Non-residential development: $1.34 per square foot. 3.36.130 Independent fee calculations. A. If in the judgment of the director, none of the fee categories or fee amounts set forth in ECC 3.36.120 accurately describe or capture the impacts of a new development on parks, the department may ask the applicant to conduct independent fee calculations and the director may impose alternative fees on a specific development based on those calculations. The alternative fees and the calculations shall be set forth in writing and shall be agreed to by the director and the feepayer. The documentation submitted shall show the basis upon which the independent fee calculation was made. B. Any feepayer submitting an independent fee calculation will be required to pay the city of Edmonds a fee to cover the cost of reviewing the independent fee calculation. The fee required by the city for conducting the review of the 7 Packet Page 484 of 554 independent fee calculation shall be $200.00 plus the actual cost of outside consultant review if required by the city, unless otherwise established by the director, and shall be paid by the feepayer prior to initiation of review. C. While there is a presumption that the calculations set forth in the rate study are valid, the director shall consider the documentation submitted by the feepayer, but is not required to accept such documentation or analysis which the director reasonably deems to be inaccurate or not reliable, and may, in the alternative, require the feepayer to submit additional or different documentation for consideration. The director is authorized to adjust the impact fees on a case - by -case basis based on the independent fee calculation, the specific characteristics of the development, and/or principles of fairness. The fees or alternative fees and the calculations shall be set forth in writing and shall be mailed to the feepayer. D. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section may be appealed to the office of the hearing examiner as set forth in ECC 3.36.070. 3.36.140 Existing authority unimpaired. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the city from requiring the feepayer or the proponent of a development activity to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of a specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21 C RCW, based on the environmental documents accompanying the underlying development approval process, and/or Chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions; provided, that the exercise of this authority is consistent with the provisions of Chapters 43.21 C and 82.02 RCW. 3.36.150 Procedures guide. The director is authorized to develop a procedures guide to facilitate the city's administration and enforcement of this chapter. The procedures guide shall be consistent with the provisions of this chapter, shall be for the sole convenience of the city, and shall not vest any rights in or for any other person. 10 Packet Page 485 of 554 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 3.36 TO THE EDMONDS CITY CODE ENTITLED "PARK IMPACT FEES", PROVIDING FOR THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF SUCH FEES UPON NEW DEVELOPMENT, AND PROVIDING FOR THE CALCULATION, USAGE AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH A FEE SYSTEM. WHEREAS, RCW 82.02.050 et seq. authorizes cities to impose impact fees upon new development; and WHEREAS the 2008 adopted Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan calls for exploration into several revenue options to fund parks, including park impact fees; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2011, Randy Young from Henderson Young and Company made a presentation to the city council on park impact fees; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2012, the city council held a public hearing on park impact fees; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2013, the city council held another public hearing on this proposed park impact fee ordinance; and WHEREAS, an earlier version of chapter 3.36 ECC was adopted by the city council and subsequently vetoed by the mayor; and WHEREAS, the ordinance has been revised to address the concerns that caused the mayor to veto the earlier ordinance; and WHEREAS, the collection of park impact fees will add an important source of revenue that will help the city implement its plans to add and/or enhance capital facilities within its park system; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Packet Page 486 of 554 Section 1. A new chapter 3.36 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Park Impact Fees," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto an incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. I.\» me]�/ 0 MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Im JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 487 of 554 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, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 3.36 TO THE EDMONDS CITY CODE ENTITLED "PARK IMPACT FEES", PROVIDING FOR THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF SUCH FEES UPON NEW DEVELOPMENT, AND PROVIDING FOR THE CALCULATION, USAGE AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH A FEE SYSTEM. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2013. 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 3 CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 488 of 554 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 July 12, 2013 Packet Page 489 of 554 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 490 of 554 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 Non -Residential sq, ft. 1.34 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 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 ' 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 & July 12, 2013 Page 1 Company Packet Page 491 of 554 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds 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 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 & July 12, 2013 Company Page 2 Packet Page 492 of 554 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 & July 12, 2013 Company Page 3 Packet Page 493 of 554 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 & July 12, 2013 Company Page 4 Packet Page 494 of 554 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 & July 12, 2013 Page 5 Company Packet Page 495 of 554 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 & July 12, 2013 Page 6 Company Packet Page 496 of 554 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 the number of employees and visitors for 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 & July 12, 2013 Company Page 7 Packet Page 497 of 554 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 & July 12, 2013 Company Page 8 Packet Page 498 of 554 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 & July 12, 2013 Company Page 9 Packet Page 499 of 554 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 & July 12, 2013 Company Page 10 Packet Page 500 of 554 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 business to pay its proportionate share of parks for growth based on the "equivalent population" that non-residential development 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 & July 12, 2013 Company Page 11 Packet Page 501 of 554 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 & July 12, 2013 Company Page 12 Packet Page 502 of 554 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 & July 12, 2013 Page 13 Company Packet Page 503 of 554 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 & July 12, 2013 Company Page 14 Packet Page 504 of 554 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 & July 12, 2013 Page 15 Company Packet Page 505 of 554 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 & July 12, 2013 Page 16 Company Packet Page 506 of 554 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 & July 12, 2013 Page 17 Company Packet Page 507 of 554 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 $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 July 12, 2013 Page 18 Packet Page 508 of 554 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 combined for all non-residential categories in order to provide an equitable treatment of all businesses, and avoid requiring additional impact fees when changes in use occur in existing buildings. Also, the combined population coefficient is calculated for standard increments of 1,000 square feet, but the impact fee is charged per square foot, therefore the equivalent population coefficient for non-residential development is 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 Non-residential development 1,235.73 0.0001081 square foot 1.34 Henderson, Young & Company July 12, 2013 Page 19 Packet Page 509 of 554 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 rates for 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 include its share of 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 population" in Edmonds. This provides a total population of residents, Henderson, Young & July 12, 2013 Page 20 Company Packet Page 510 of 554 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds 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 combined equivalent population coefficient for all businesses to calculate the impact fee rate for all non-residential development. Combining all non-residential categories into a single impact fee rate provides equitable treatment of all businesses, and avoids the need for additional impact fees to be paid when changes in use occur in existing non- residential buildings 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 z 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) 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 & July 12, 2013 Page 21 Company Packet Page 511 of 554 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds 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 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 (on the next page) presents the last step in calculating the equivalent population coefficient for different types of businesses, Employee hours are added to visitor hours per employee for each type of business. The total is divided 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. 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 & July 12, 2013 Page 22 Company Packet Page 512 of 554 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds 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 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 are multiplied times the number of employees in each type of business and the residential population to calculate the total equivalent population in Edmonds. For the last step in the impact fee calculation, the equivalent population coefficients for non-residential development are combined as a single weighted average coefficient that is multiplied times the growth cost per equivalent population to calculate the impact fee rate for non-residential development. As noted earlier, the single rate provides equity among all types of business and avoids the need for impact fees for changes of use of existing buildings. Table A-4 (on the next page) presents the calculation of the weighted coefficient for equivalent population for all non-residential development. The growth of equivalent employment in each land use category (from Table 4) is divided by the total of all growth equivalent employment (1,117) to determine the percent that each land use category is of the total. The percent for each land use is then multiplied by the land use coefficient for that land use (from Table A-3) to calculate the weighted coefficient for each land use. Lastly, the Henderson, Young & July 12, 2013 Company Page 23 Packet Page 513 of 554 Rate Study for Park Impact Fees • City of Edmonds sum of the weighted coefficients is calculated as the combined non-residential coefficient that is used in Table 11 to calculate the impact fee for all non- residential development. Table A-4: Weighted Average Equivalent Population Coefficient for Non - Residential Development Weighted Growth Percent Equivalent of Total Land Use Weighted Land -Use Category Employees Employees Coefficient Coefficient Construction 13 1.20% 0.1986 0.0024 FIRE 28 2.51% 0.5056 0.0127 Manufacturing 11 1.00% 0.5814 0.0058 Retail Trade 424 37.91 % 2.0038 0.7597 Services 515 46.08% 0.0506 0.2330 WTU 20 1.80% 0.6004 0.0108 Government 37 3.35% 0.7060 0.0237 Education 69 L 6.15% 0.5357 0.03330 Combined Non- Residential 1,117 100.00% not applicable 1.0810 Henderson, Young & July 12, 2013 Company Page 24 Packet Page 514 of 554 AM-5971 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/23/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted By: Carrie Hite Department: Parks and Recreation Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Finance Type: Action Information Subject Title Park Impact Fee Ordinance 3928 Reconsideration it. Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Recommendation As a follow up to the Mayor's veto, Council to reconsider Ordinance 3928. 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. On June 1 lth, the Parks and Finance Committees of the Council discussed various options for Park Impact Fees, and directed staff to come to full Council with options. On June 25th Council adopted Ordinance 3928. On July 5, 2013 the Mayor vetoed the Council adoption. 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? Packet Page 515 of 554 Based on the input to these questions, staff was charged to come back to the Council committees if there were varying opinions. On June 25th, the Council received a brief presentation by Mr. Young, including an overview of the Park Impact Fee code language, and an option for amended language. In addition, the Council held the public hearing, and discussed the merits and options of assessing a Park Impact Fee. Council voted 5-1 to adopt the Park Impact Fee ordinance and code language that was presented in the Council packet. On July 5th, the Mayor vetoed the Ordinance with concern over its impact with small businesses. The Mayor charged staff with working on a revision that would alleviate his concern. This agenda item is for Council to reconsider the original Ordinance that was vetoed by the Mayor. Park Impact Fee Rate Study Park Impact Fee Ordinance Edmonds City Code: Park Impact Fees Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Carrie Hite Final Approval Date: 07/18/2013 Attachments Form Review Date 07/17/2013 02:18 PM 07/17/2013 02:45 PM 07/18/2013 08:48 AM Started On: 07/17/2013 01:44 PM Packet Page 516 of 554 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 517 of 554 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 518 of 554 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 519 of 554 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 520 of 554 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 521 of 554 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 522 of 554 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 523 of 554 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 524 of 554 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 525 of 554 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 526 of 554 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 527 of 554 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 528 of 554 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 529 of 554 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 530 of 554 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 531 of 554 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 532 of 554 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 533 of 554 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 534 of 554 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 535 of 554 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 536 of 554 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 537 of 554 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 538 of 554 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 539 of 554 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 540 of 554 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 541 of 554 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 3.36 TO THE EDMONDS CITY CODE ENTITLED "PARK IMPACT FEES", PROVIDING FOR THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF SUCH FEES UPON NEW DEVELOPMENT, AND PROVIDING FOR THE CALCULATION, USAGE AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH A FEE SYSTEM. WHEREAS, RCW 82.02.050 et seq. authorizes cities to impose impact fees upon new development; and WHEREAS the 2008 adopted Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan calls for exploration into several revenue options to fund parks, including park impact fees; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2011, Randy Young from Henderson Young and Company made a presentation to the city council on park impact fees; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2012, the city council held a public hearing on park impact fees; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2013, the city council held another public hearing on this proposed park impact fee ordinance; and WHEREAS, the collection of park impact fees will add an important source of revenue that will help the city implement its plans to add and/or enhance capital facilities within its park system; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A new chapter 3.36 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Park Impact Fees," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto an incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. Packet Page 542 of 554 Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: M. JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 543 of 554 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, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 3.36 TO THE EDMONDS CITY CODE ENTITLED "PARK IMPACT FEES", PROVIDING FOR THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF SUCH FEES UPON NEW DEVELOPMENT, AND PROVIDING FOR THE CALCULATION, USAGE AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH A FEE SYSTEM. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2013. 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 3 CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 544 of 554 Edmonds, WA Municipal Code Chapter 3.36 PARK IMPACT FEES Sections: 3.36.010 Findings and authority. 3.36.020 Definitions. 3.36.030 Assessment and payment of impact fees. 3.36.040 Exemptions. 3.36.050 Credits. 3.36.060 Tax adjustments. 3.36.070 Appeals. 3.36.080 Establishment of impact fee accounts. 3.36.090 Refunds. 3.36.100 Use of funds. 3.36.110 Review. 3.36.120 Park impact fee rates. 3.36.130 Independent fee calculations. 3.36.140 Existing authority unimpaired. 3.36.150 Procedures guide. 3.36.010 Findings and authority. The city council of the city of Edmonds (the "council") hereby finds and determines that new growth and development in the city of Edmonds will create additional demand and need for public facilities in the city of Edmonds, and the council finds that new growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve the new growth and development. The city of Edmonds has conducted extensive studies documenting the procedures for measuring the impact of new developments on public facilities, has prepared the rate study and procedures guide for park impact fees, and hereby incorporates these studies into this title by reference. Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW, the council adopts the ordinance codified in this chapter to assess impact fees for parks. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed in order to carry out the purposes of the council in establishing the impact fee program. These fees can and will only be applied to projects resulting from city-wide development growth. These fees cannot be used to mitigate existing shortfalls of the park system. 3.36.020 Definitions. The following words and terms shall have the following meanings for the purposes of this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined herein shall be defined pursuant to RCW 82.02.090 and ECDC Title 21 or given their usual and customary meaning. 1. "Accessory dwelling unit" is defined in ECDC 21.05.015. 2. "Building permit" means an official document or certification which is issued by the building official and which authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection, 1 Packet Page 545 of 554 demolition, moving or repair of a building or structure. 3. "Capital facilities plan" means the capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive plan adopted by the city of Edmonds pursuant to Chapter 36.70A RCW, and such plan as amended. There are many references in state statutes to the "capital facilities plan" (CFP) as the basis for projects that are eligible for funding by impact fees. The parks element of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan fulfills the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 et seq., pertaining to a "capital facilities plan," and is considered to be the "capital facilities plan" (CFP) for the purpose of Edmonds' impact fees for parks. All references to a CFP in the impact fee chapter, rate study, and procedures guide are interpreted as referring to the parks element of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan. 4. "City" means the city of Edmonds. 5. "Council" means the city council of the city of Edmonds. 6. "Department" means the development services department. 7. "Development activity" means any construction, expansion, or change in the use of a building or structure that creates additional demand and need for public facilities. 8. "Development approval" means any written authorization from the city of Edmonds which authorizes the commencement of a development activity. 9. "Director" means the director designed by the mayor to administer the park impact fee program or that director's designee. 10. "Dwelling unit" is defined in ECDC 21.20.050. 11. "Encumbered" means to reserve, set aside, or otherwise earmark the impact fees in order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations, or other liabilities incurred for public facilities. 12. "Feepayer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated association, or any other similar entity, or department or bureau of any governmental entity or municipal corporation commencing a land development activity which creates the demand for additional capital facilities, and which requires the issuance of a building permit. "Feepayer" includes an applicant for an impact fee credit. 13. [reserved] 14. "Hearing examiner" is defined in ECDC 21.40.010. 15. "Impact fee" means a payment of money imposed by the city of Edmonds on development activity pursuant to this chapter as a condition of granting development approval in order to pay for the public facilities needed to serve new growth and development. "Impact fee" does not include a reasonable permit fee, an application fee, the administrative fee for collecting and handling school impact fees, the cost of reviewing independent fee calculations or any other charge or fee based upon the administrative costs of processing a development application. 16. "Impact fee account" or "account" means the account(s) established for each type of public facility for which impact fees are collected. The accounts shall be established pursuant to ECC 3.36.080 and 3.36.090 and comply with the requirements of RCW 82.02.070. 17. "Independent fee calculation" means the park impact calculation and/or 2 Packet Page 546 of 554 economic documentation prepared by a feepayer to support the assessment of an impact fee other than by the use of the rates listed in ECC 3.36.120, or the calculations prepared by the director where none of the fee categories or fee amounts in ECC 3.36.120 accurately describe or capture the impacts of the new development on public facilities. 18. "Interest" means the average interest rate earned in the last fiscal year by the city of Edmonds. 19. [reserved] 20. "Occupancy permit" means the permit issued by the city of Edmonds authorizing the building to be occupied where a development activity results in a change in use of the preexisting structure, or the creation of a new use where none previously existed. 21. "Owner" means the owner of record of real property, or a person with an unrestricted written option to purchase property; provided, that if the real property is being purchased under a recorded real estate contract, the purchaser shall be considered the owner of the real property. 22. "Procedures guide" means the administrative guidance document prepared by the director pursuant to ECC 3.36.150. 23. "Project improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a particular development or users of the project and are not system improvements. No improvement or facility included in a capital facilities plan adopted by the council shall be considered a project improvement. 24. "Public facilities" means the public parks, open space and recreation facilities owned by the city of Edmonds or other governmental entities. 25. "Rate study" means the "Rate Study for Impact Fees for Parks, Open Space and Recreation Facilities," city of Edmonds, dated April 5, 2013. 26. "Residential" or "residential development" means all types of construction intended for human habitation. This shall include, but is not limited to, single- family, duplex, triplex, and other multifamily development. This also includes the residential portion of mixed -use developments. 27. [reserved] 28. "Service area" means the entire corporate limits of the city of Edmonds. 29. "Significant past tax payment" means taxes exceeding five percent of the amount of the impact fee, and which were paid prior to the date the impact fee is assessed and were earmarked or proratable to the same system improvements for which the impact fee is assessed. 30. [reserved] 31. "State" means the state of Washington. 32. [reserved] 33. "System improvements" means public facilities that are included in the city of Edmonds capital facilities plan and are designed to provide service to service areas within the community at large, in contrast to project improvements. 3.36.030 Assessment and payment of impact fees. A. Required. The city shall collect impact fees, based on the rates in ECC 3 Packet Page 547 of 554 3.36.120, from any applicant seeking development approval from the city for any development activity within the city as provided herein, including the expansion of existing structures or uses or change of existing uses that creates additional demand for public facilities. 1. For the purposes of this chapter, development activity shall not include miscellaneous improvements that do not add any demand for public facilities, including, but not limited to, fences, walls, swimming pools accessory to a residential use, and signs. 2. For the purposes of this chapter, development activity shall not include replacement of a residential structure with a new residential structure of the same type at the same site or lot when such replacement occurs within 12 months of the demolition or destruction of the prior residential structure. Replacement of a residential structure with a new residential structure of the same type shall be interpreted to include any residential structure for which there is no increase in the number of residential units. 3. For the purposes of this chapter, development activity shall not include alterations, expansions, enlargement, remodeling, rehabilitation or conversion of an existing dwelling unit where no additional dwelling units are created and the use is not changed. Note: accessory dwelling units (ADU) are not considered to create additional dwelling units because ECDC 20.21.020 does not consider ADUs as increasing the overall density of a single-family residential neighborhood. B. Timing and Calculation of Fees. Impact fees shall be assessed based upon the park impact fee rates in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit, including but not limited to change of use permit or remodel permit. 1. For a change in use of an existing building or dwelling unit, including any alteration, expansion, replacement or new accessory building, the impact fee shall be the applicable impact fee for the new use, less an amount equal to the applicable impact fee for the prior use. 2. For mixed use developments, impact fees shall be imposed for the proportionate share of each land use based on the applicable measurement in the impact fee rates set forth in ECC 3.36.120. 3. [reserved] 4. Applicants that have been awarded credits prior to the submittal of the complete building permit application pursuant to ECC 3.36.050 shall submit, along with the complete building permit application, a copy of the letter or certificate prepared by the director pursuant to ECC 3.36.050 setting forth the dollar amount of the credit awarded. C. Payment. Impact fees shall be paid at the time the building permit or business license is issued by the city. The department shall not issue the required building permit or business license or other approval unless and until the impact fees set forth in ECC 3.36.120 have been paid in the amount that they exceed exemptions or credits provided pursuant to ECC 3.36.040 or 3.36.050. 3.36.040 Exemptions. A. Except as provided for below, the following shall be exempted from the 4 Packet Page 548 of 554 payment of all impact fees under this chapter: 1. Low-income housing provided by non-profit organizations such as, but not limited to, Habitat for Humanity. Owners of low-income single family dwelling units, condominiums and other low-income housing shall execute and record a lien against the property, in favor of the City, for a period of ten (10) years guaranteeing that the dwelling unit will continue to be used for low-income housing or that impact fees from which the Low-income housing is exempted, plus interest shall be paid. The lien against the property shall be subordinate only to the lien for general taxes. In the event that the development is no longer used for low-income rental housing, the owner shall pay the City the impact fee from which the owner or any prior owner was exempt, plus interest at the statutory rate. Any claim for an exemption for low-income owner occupied housing must be made no later than the time of application for a building permit. Any claim not so made shall be deemed waived. B. The director shall be authorized to determine whether a particular development activity falls within an exemption identified in this section, in any other section, or under other applicable law. Determinations of the director shall be in writing and shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ECC 3.36.070. 3.36.050 Credits. A. Pursuant to the requirement of RCW 82.02.060(4), a feepayer shall be entitled to a credit for the value of any dedication of land for, improvement to, or new construction of any park system improvements provided by the feepayer, to facilities that are identified in the capital facilities plan and that are required by the city as a condition of approving the development activity. B. The director shall determine if requests for credits meet the criteria in subsection A of this section. C. For each request for a credit or credits, the director shall select an appraiser or the feepayer may select an independent appraiser acceptable to the director. D. The appraiser must be prequalified by the City and shall not have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised. A description of the appraiser's certification shall be included with the appraisal, and the appraiser shall certify that he/she does not have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised. E. The appraiser shall be directed to determine the total value of the dedicated land, improvements, and/or construction provided by the feepayer on a case -by - case basis. F. The feepayer shall pay for the cost of the appraisal or request that the cost of the appraisal be deducted from the credit which the director may be providing to the feepayer, in the event that a credit is awarded. G. After receiving the appraisal, the director shall provide the applicant with a letter or certificate setting forth the dollar amount of the credit, the reason for the credit, the legal description of the site donated where applicable, and the legal description or other adequate description of the project or development to which the credit may be applied. The applicant must sign and date a duplicate copy of 5 Packet Page 549 of 554 such letter or certificate indicating his/her agreement to the terms of the letter or certificate, and return such signed document to the director before the impact fee credit will be awarded. The failure of the applicant to sign, date, and return such document within 60 calendar days shall nullify the credit. H. No credit shall be given for project improvements required of the development by city code and/or SEPA; only dedications in excess of those required by law are eligible for credit. In no event shall this provision be interpreted to authorize cash payment. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to limit the discretion of the city council to decline to accept any proposed dedication. I. A feepayer can request that a credit or credits for impact fees be awarded to him/her for significant past tax payments. For each request for a credit or credits for significant past tax payments for park impact fees, the feepayer shall submit receipts and a calculation of past tax payments earmarked for or proratable to the particular system improvement. The director shall determine the amount of credits, if any, for significant past tax payments for public park facilities. J. Any claim for credit must be made no later than 20 calendar days after the submission of an application for a building permit. The failure to timely file such a claim shall constitute a final bar to later request any such credit. K. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ECC 3.36.070. L. A feepayer may, in the alternative, appeal an assessment or mitigation requirement which he believes exceeds the total which may lawfully be imposed. See ECDC 18.50.020(C). 3.36.060 Tax adjustments. Pursuant to and consistent with the requirements of RCW 82.02.060, the rate study has provided adjustments for future taxes to be paid by the new development which are earmarked or proratable to the same new public facilities which will serve the new development. The impact fee rates in ECC 3.36.120 have been reasonably adjusted for taxes and other revenue sources which are anticipated to be available to fund public improvements. 3.36.070 Appeals. A. Any feepayer may pay the impact fees imposed by this chapter under protest in order to obtain a building permit. B. Appeals regarding the amount of the impact fee imposed on any development activity may only be filed by the feepayer of the property where such development activity will occur. This provision shall control over any other provisions of city ordinance. C. The feepayer must first file a request for review regarding impact fees with the director, as provided herein: 1. The request shall be in writing on the form provided by the city; 2. The request for review by the director shall be filed within 14 calendar days of the feepayer's payment of the impact fees at issue. The failure to timely file such a request shall constitute a final bar to later seek such review; 3. An administrative fee will be imposed for the request for review by the director; Ce Packet Page 550 of 554 this shall be the same as that imposed for a request for reconsideration of a staff decision; 4. The director shall issue his/her determination in writing within 14 days from the receipt of a request for review. D. Determinations of the director with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or value of a credit, or the director's decision concerning the independent fee calculation which is authorized in ECC 3.36.130, or the fees imposed by the director pursuant to ECC 3.36.120, or any other determination which the director is authorized to make pursuant to this chapter, can be appealed to the hearing examiner. E. The decision of the director may be appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II decision in accordance with Chapter 20.06 ECDC. 3.36.080 Establishment of impact fee accounts. A. Impact fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and deposited in special interest -bearing accounts. B. There is hereby established a separate impact fee account for the fees collected pursuant to this chapter, the park impact account. Funds withdrawn from this account must be used in accordance with the provisions of ECC 3.36.100 and applicable state law. Interest earned on the fees shall be retained in the account and expended for the purposes for which the impact fees were collected. C. On an annual basis, the finance director shall provide a report to the council on the impact fee account showing the source and amount of all monies collected, earned, or received, and the public improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees. D. Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered within ten years of receipt, unless the council identifies in written findings extraordinary and compelling reason or reasons for the city to hold the fees beyond the ten-year period. Under such circumstances, and prior to the expiration of the ten-year period, the council shall establish the period of time within which the impact fees shall be expended or encumbered. 3.36.090 Refunds. A. If the city fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within ten years of when the fees were paid or, where extraordinary or compelling reasons exist, such other time periods as established pursuant to ECC 3.36.080, the current owner of the property on which impact fees have been paid may receive a refund of such fees. In determining whether impact fees have been expended or encumbered, impact fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on a first -in, first -out basis. B. The city shall notify potential claimants by first class mail that they are eligible for a park impact fee refund. This notification shall be done by first class mail deposited with the United States Postal Service at the last known address of such claimants. A potential claimant must be the owner of the property. C. Owners seeking a refund of impact fees must submit a written request for a 7 Packet Page 551 of 554 refund of the fees to the director within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever is later. D. Any impact fees for which no application for a refund has been made within this one-year period shall be retained by the city and expended on the appropriate public facilities. E. Refunds of impact fees under this section shall include any interest earned on the impact fees by the city. F. When the city seeks to terminate any or all components of the impact fee program, all unexpended or unencumbered funds from any terminated component or components, including interest earned, shall be refunded pursuant to this section. Upon the finding that any or all fee requirements are to be terminated, the city shall place notice of such termination and the availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two times and shall notify all potential claimants by first class mail at the last known address of the claimants. All funds available for refund shall be retained for a period of one year. At the end of one year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the city, but must be expended for the appropriate public facilities. This notice requirement shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered balances within the account or accounts being terminated. G. The city shall also refund to the current owner of property for which impact fees have been paid, including interest earned on the impact fees, if the development activity for which the impact fees were imposed did not occur; provided, that if the city has expended or encumbered the impact fees in good faith prior to the application for a refund, the director can decline to provide the refund. If within a period of three years, the same or subsequent owner of the property proceeds with the same or substantially similar development activity, the owner can petition the director for an offset. The petitioner must provide receipts of impact fees previously paid for a development of the same or substantially similar nature on the same property or some portion thereof. Determinations of the director shall be in writing and shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ECC 3.36.070. 3.36.100 Use of funds. A. Pursuant to this chapter, impact fees: 1. Shall be used for public improvements that will reasonably benefit new development; and 2. Shall not be imposed to make up for deficiencies in public facilities serving existing developments; and 3. Shall not be used for maintenance or operations. B. Park impact fees may be spent for public improvements, including, but not limited to, planning, engineering, surveying, land acquisition, right-of-way acquisition, site improvements, necessary off -site improvements, construction, architectural, permitting, financing, and administrative expenses, applicable impact fees or mitigation costs, and any other expenses which can be capitalized. C. Impact fees may also be used to recoup public improvement costs previously 1-1 Packet Page 552 of 554 incurred by the city to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed improvements or incurred costs. D. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are or have been issued for the advanced provision of public improvements for which impact fees may be expended, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities or improvements provided are consistent with the requirements of this section and are used to serve the new development. 3.36.110 Review. The fee rates set forth in ECC 3.36.120 may be reviewed and adjusted by the council as it deems necessary and appropriate in conjunction with the annual update of the capital facilities plan element of the city's comprehensive plan. The fee rates may be adjusted 12 months after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, or 12 months after the most recent review by the council. The council may determine the amount of any adjustment up or down and revise the fee rates set forth in ECC 3.36.120. 3.36.120 Park impact fee rates. The park impact fee rates in this section are generated from the formula for calculating impact fees set forth in the rate study, which is incorporated herein by reference. Except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations in ECC 3.36.130, exemptions in ECC 3.36.040 and credits in ECC 3.36.050, all new developments in the city will be charged the park impact fee applicable to the type of development as follows: A. Effective October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014: 1. Single-family house: $1,660.19 per dwelling unit. 2. Multi -family residential housing: $1,421.01 per dwelling unit. 3. Retail: $1.24 per square foot. 4. Office: $0.31 per square foot. 5. Manufacturing: $0.36 per square foot. 6. Construction: $0.12 per square foot. B. Effective October 1, 2014: 1. Single-family house: $3,320.38 per dwelling unit. 2. Multi -family residential housing: $2,842.02 per dwelling unit. 3. Retail: $2.48 per square foot. 4. Office: $0.62 per square foot. 5. Manufacturing: $0.72 per square foot. 6. Construction: $0.25 per square foot. 3.36.130 Independent fee calculations. A. If in the judgment of the director, none of the fee categories or fee amounts set forth in ECC 3.36.120 accurately describe or capture the impacts of a new development on parks, the department may ask the applicant to conduct independent fee calculations and the director may impose alternative fees on a specific development based on those calculations. The alternative fees and the 7 Packet Page 553 of 554 calculations shall be set forth in writing and shall be agreed to by the director and the feepayer. The documentation submitted shall show the basis upon which the independent fee calculation was made. B. Any feepayer submitting an independent fee calculation will be required to pay the city of Edmonds a fee to cover the cost of reviewing the independent fee calculation. The fee required by the city for conducting the review of the independent fee calculation shall be $200.00 plus the actual cost of outside consultant review if required by the city, unless otherwise established by the director, and shall be paid by the feepayer prior to initiation of review. C. While there is a presumption that the calculations set forth in the rate study are valid, the director shall consider the documentation submitted by the feepayer, but is not required to accept such documentation or analysis which the director reasonably deems to be inaccurate or not reliable, and may, in the alternative, require the feepayer to submit additional or different documentation for consideration. The director is authorized to adjust the impact fees on a case - by -case basis based on the independent fee calculation, the specific characteristics of the development, and/or principles of fairness. The fees or alternative fees and the calculations shall be set forth in writing and shall be mailed to the feepayer. D. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section may be appealed to the office of the hearing examiner as set forth in ECC 3.36.070. 3.36.140 Existing authority unimpaired. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the city from requiring the feepayer or the proponent of a development activity to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of a specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21 C RCW, based on the environmental documents accompanying the underlying development approval process, and/or Chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions; provided, that the exercise of this authority is consistent with the provisions of Chapters 43.21 C and 82.02 RCW. 3.36.150 Procedures guide. The director is authorized to develop a procedures guide to facilitate the city's administration and enforcement of this chapter. The procedures guide shall be consistent with the provisions of this chapter, shall be for the sole convenience of the city, and shall not vest any rights in or for any other person. 10 Packet Page 554 of 554