The URL can be used to link to this page

2013-08-13 City Council - Public Agenda-1509'4- o 90� AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds City Council Committee Meetings August 13, 2013 6:00 p.m. The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff. Members of the public are welcome to observe the meeting, but public participation is limited to making comments at the end of the meeting with a 3 minute limit per person. j, Finance Committee Meeting Location: Council Chambers A. (15 Minutes) Salary increase to remain eligible for State Court Improvement Account Funds B. (15 Minutes) Discussion regarding authorization to recruit for Development Services Director. C. (10 Minutes) Discussion and recommendation on proposed utility rate adjustments. D. (10 Minutes) June 2013 Budgetary Financial Report E. (10 Minutes) 2013 August Budget Amendment F. (10 Minutes) Sharing 2014 Budget Approaches and Recommending Fund Balance Policy G. (5 Minutes) Bond Sale Report H. (10 Minutes) Public Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 2. Parks. Planning & Public Works Committee Meeting Location: Jury Meeting Room A. (5 Minutes) Approval to forward Five Corners Roundabout public art selection to full Council. B. (5 Minutes) Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Inter jurisdictional Coordination Relating to Affordable Housing Within Snohomish County. C. (5 Minutes) Authorization of additional construction funding for construction of the 76th Avenue W Water Main Replacement Project. D. (5 Minutes) Report on bids opened July 30, 2013 for the 224th St. Waterline Replacement Project and award of contract to Earthwork Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $79,114.13. E. (5 Minutes) Report on bids opened August 1, 2013 for the 2013 Sewerline Rehabilitation Project and award of contract to Insituform in the amount of $135,344.74. F. (5 Minutes) Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Grant Acceptance Intent Notice and Grant Agreement with the State of Washington Department of Ecology for a Municipal Stormwater Capacity Grant for $50,000 and a Project Specific Planning and Design of Retrofit/LID Project Grant up to $120,000. G. (10 Minutes) Discussion and recommendation on proposed utility rate adjustments. H. (30 Minutes) Discussion of Street Tree Management Policy I. (30 Minutes) Developing a decision tree for deliberating key issues for Harbor Square. J. (10 Minutes) Public Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) ADJOURN Note: The Public Safety and Personnel Committee will not meet on August 13. A special meeting of this committee has been set for Monday, August 19, 2013 at 9: 00 a.m. A separate Agenda will be prepared. AM-6009 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 08/13/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted By: Doug Fair Department: Municipal Court Committee: Finance Tyne: Information Subject Title Salary increase to remain eligible for State Court Improvement Account Funds Recommendation Place on consent agenda for August 20 Council meeting. Action 1. A. Previous Council Action The Council has approved similar requests in the past. The last time was in 2008 when the district court salary was last raised to the current level. Narrative 2013 salary memorandum Since 2006 the City of Edmonds has received Judicial Improvement Account Funds from the State. To date, the City has received $86,476 since the inception of this program. In order to continue to receive these funds, the judicial salary must be based on a pro rata share of 95% of the salary for district courts. This past year the Washington Citizens' Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials raised the pay for district court. The pay raise was from$141,710 to $144,544 (a two percent increase). This increase is effective September 1, 2013. If the City wants to continue to receive court improvement funds then my salary must be increased by September 1, 2013. I am currently reimbursed at 55% of a judicial FTE. Therefore my salary calculation will be $144,544 x .95 x .55 = $75,524.24. My current salary is $74,043. The difference is $1,481.24. In 2014 there is another scheduled increase of the district court salary to $148, 881 (three percent increase). Using the above calculation the local judicial salary will need to be increased on September 1, 2014 to $77,790.32. I respectfully request that the committee unanimously approve the scheduled increases for 2013 and 2014 and place this item on the consent agenda for August 20, 2013. Fiscal Year: 2013 Fiscal Impact Revenue: Fiscal Impact: This reflects the pro rated increase from September through December, 2013 Fiscal Year: 2014 Revenue: Expenditure: $493.75 Expenditure: $1742.85 Fiscal Impact• This reflects the initial increase from Jan -August and second required increase from Sep -Dec. Fiscal Year: 2015 Revenue: Expenditure: 2666.08 Fiscal Impact• This will be the continuing required increase until the salary commission makes any further adjustments (if any). Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Doug Fair Final Approval Date: 08/08/2013 Form Review Date 08/06/2013 02:38 PM 08/07/2013 01:39 PM 08/08/2013 09:10 AM Started On: 08/06/2013 01:01 PM AM-6018 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 08/13/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted For: Councilmember Bloom Department: City Council Committee: Finance Submitted By: Jana Spellman Tyne: Information Subject Title Discussion regarding authorization to recruit for Development Services Director. Recommendation Previous Council Action Information 1. B. July 9.2013 Finance Committee: The Finance Committee discussed considering a budget amendment to fund the Development Services Director position in 2013 rather than delay funding of this position until the 2014 budget (minutes attached.) August 8.2013 Council Meeting_ This topic was discussed and referred back to the Finance and Public Safety/Personnel Committees for discussion. During the meeting, Council member Bloom requested that Council discuss recruitment for the Development Services Director to begin as soon as possible. Given the previous difficulty in recruiting a suitable candidate to fill the position, it is likely that the recruitment process will take several months. Narrative The Development Services Director position has remained vacant since March 31, 2009, the former director's last day of employment. Since that time, two to three searches for a replacement have been launched, but none have resulted in filling the position. The third posting file may likely have been a combined posting file from 2010 (from the #10-15 pool) given the length of the posting: #09-15 — 45 applicants. Posted March 9, 2009. Closed April 2, 2009. #10-15 — 54 applicants (many of whom were from the 09-15 pool). Posted March 2, 2010. Closed April 30, 2009. There were also several rounds of interview — 7 interviewed from the#09-15 pool and 6 interviewed from the #10-15 pool (with a second round of interviews of 3 from the #10-15 pool). Planning Manager, Rob Chave, was appointed as Acting Development Services Director on March 6, 2012. The Development Services Director oversees the Development Services Department which includes 13 other positions. This key director position also oversees five chapters of our city code, and we are currently in the process of a long overdue code re -write. Only the additional pay for the acting position was included in the 2013 budget. The Development Services Director position was not funded in 2013. Mr. Chave continues to serve as the Acting Development Services Director and as Planning Manager of the Development Services Department. The Council referred this topic back to the Finance and Personnel/Public Safety Committee for further comment. Attachments Attachl: April 7. 2009 Approved Council Minutes Attach 2: June 16, 2009 Approved Council Minutes Attach 3: Aug 31, 2010 Approved Council Minutes Attach 4: 2011 Approved Council Retreat Minutes Attach 5: April 26, 2011 Approved Council Minutes Attach 6: Nov. 6.2011 Approved Council Minutes Attach 7: July 9. 2013 Finance Committee Minutes Attach 8: Roger Neumaier, Finance Director, Memo Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 08/08/2013 Form Review Date 08/08/2013 11:31 AM 08/08/2013 11:34 AM 08/08/2013 11:40 AM Started On: 08/08/2013 09:04 AM BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the Secretary of the Senate to Peggy Pritchard Olson and to Gary Haakenson, the Mayor of Edmonds. Senator Shin presented the Senate Resolution to Councilmember Olson. 8. UPDATE ON BUDGET BY MAYOR HAAKENSON. Mayor Haakenson recalled when he last updated the Council on the ending cash balance, he explained continued declines in revenue required him to make the budget cuts that he announced in mid -March that totaled over $300,000. The yearend cash balance was projected to fall as low as $250,000 at that time, $1 million less than the Council approved in the budget. He reported through a series of actions it has now been possible to increase the 2009 projected yearend cash balance to approximately $1.75 million. First, the budget cuts of $300,000 that he announced previously. Second, he planned to leave three additional positions vacant for the balance of 2009 including the Development Services Director position, creating a savings of an additional $300,000. Third, a decision was made not to make the annual contribution from the General Fund to the vehicle replacement fund, saving $300,000. Fourth, through a combination of furloughs and contract adjustments, the City's labor force has agreed to cuts totaling over $600,000. He summarized these actions would carry the City through 2009, even though the ending cash balance would be $1 million below the target. He explained that was the good news; the bad news was the City returns to a deficit position in 2010 and by 2014 would be $9 million in the red. While 2009 appears to be stable; immediate action in the form of some combination of new revenues or budget cuts would be required before the end of 2009. He advised revenue estimates had not been revised since the last update; although the trend was still downward, it was not reason enough to think the current projections were off base. He advised Finance Director Kathleen Junglov would provide a monthly update to the Finance Committee next Tuesday. He provided the Council a handout with the current forecasts. Council President Wilson asked Mayor Haakenson to describe the labor cuts that totaled $600,000. Mayor Haakenson explained each of the labor groups agreed to 3-5% pay decreases. The non -represented employees volunteered nine furlough days for the reminder of 2009. The SEIU agreed to nine furlough days. The Teamsters agreed to nine furlough days but are still working out the details. Because it is extremely difficult for the Police and Fire Unions to take furlough days and would require someone taking a furlough day to be backfilled with overtime, they agreed to give up the holiday buyback program which totals approximately $200,000 for each union. Council President Wilson recalled there had been demands by Councilmembers and citizens for the City's employees to give back. He expressed his appreciation to the City's employees for the votes they took to help the City during these difficult times. He recognized the employees did not agree to those pay cuts to support the flower program or to put new carpet in Council Chambers but to keep the lights on and the doors open. He commented on the difficult time Snohomish County was having with their labor unions, noting in Edmonds, Mayor Haakenson asked and the unions and non -represented employees gave back. He requested Mayor Haakenson invite each union and a member of the non -represented employees to speak to the Council on April 21 when the Citizens Levy Review Committee will make their presentation to the Council. Mayor Haakenson referred to Council President Wilson's comment that the employees agreed to pay cuts to keep the lights on and the doors open, clarifying the employees agreed to pay cuts and furloughs to avoid losing jobs. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 7, 2009 Page 8 of items to be included in the levy and a list of starting point cuts should the levy fail. If there were items in the levy request that the Council was uncomfortable with, he anticipated they would simply be removed by the Council or other items added. With regard to a title or a name for the levy, staff deferred to the Council's wisdom. Any levy proposal taken to the voters should accurately and completely detail what voters are getting with a yes vote and that voters should have a good understanding of what is at stake if the levy fails. He pointed out it could easily be assumed that if voters were asked to reinstate certain budgeted items, a levy failure would most likely mean the continued loss of those services. The likelihood of suggested budget cuts today being the same budget cuts six months from now, should the levy fail, was very high but not a certainty. The Council will make the final decision following the levy vote. Should the levy fail, he assumed City Departments will remain at 2009 levels, underfunded and understaffed. He explained significant adjustments had been made to the 2009-2010 budget allowing the City to survive this year's budget deficit. Many of those adjustments will not be available in 2010 should the levy fail. Programmatic cuts made in March to the parks department and police department would not be reinstated to the 2010 budget should the levy fail. Therefore the return of Yost Pool, Parks Maintenance, Crime Prevention, DARE and other similar programs would be highly unlikely. Furloughs and other labor givebacks that saved the city from layoffs will not be possible in 2010. He expected many positions would be eliminated from every department in the City. He explained it may be easier to consider the deficit the City would face if the levy were to fail. The current forecast shows a surplus in 2010 due to the measures put in place this year and three other changes. He pointed out any budget cuts had a residual effect on future years. The City would quickly drop off to a $750,000 balance in 2011 and then over a million dollar deficit in 2012 with the following years spiraling downward. The 2010 forecast does not include any furloughs, wage concessions, or layoffs and does include all the budgeted items that were cut for 2009. It includes the Development Services Director position open until the results of the levy vote are known or building activity increases. Staff believes the City can go another year without funding the vehicle replacement fund from the general fund and the projection includes revenue from red light camera fines, an item on tonight's agenda. A loss of that projected revenue would equate to a similar reduction in the ending cash balance for year end 2010. He noted all the Parks and Police programs that were cut in 2009 were back in the 2010 budget and would remain if the levy passed. Conversely, should the levy fail, they would once again be eliminated from the budget. If the levy fails, an orderly budget process will begin to make many of the same cuts that were made in 2009 plus additional layoffs, the only alternative to survive 2011. Budget year 2012 will see a much bigger reduction in work force; fewer employees will result in a loss of services and programs. The Citizen Levy Review Committee did their work predicated on a levy amount of $4.3 million. The dollar amount the Council selected in their resolution, $3.75 million, will allow the City's financial picture to stabilize until budget cycle 2015-2016 at which time the same pattern of deficit occurs. The Mayor recalled Council chose to include in the levy dollars a cash infusion to the ending balance fund. He suggested Council consider placing a high and low lid on that fund and if those amounts were reached, certain predetermined actions will take place. He estimated a cash infusion from the levy of $2.2 million into the ending cash balance fund. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 11 Council President Wilson commented the course of moving toward a levy has been a lengthy one, beginning in October with the creation of a revenue work group, the Council's unanimous decision in November to include a budget note that a levy would be placed on the ballot in fall 2009 knowing that it was a terrible economic climate, the Council's affirmation in February of a timeline that culminated with a levy this fall, the formation of the Citizens Levy Review Committee, and presentations from the CLRC that unanimously supported a fall levy. He agreed the Council needed to discuss consolidation/contracting with Fire District One, anticipating the Council would not complete discussions regarding fire consolidation before the July 28 deadline to place the levy on the November ballot. He summarized there was not a great deal of time to preempt the levy decision and suggested they be considered in parallel tracks. Councilmember Orvis agreed with Councilmembers Plunkett and Wambolt that the Council needed more information regarding fire consolidation before moving forward with the levy. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the adjustments Mayor Haakenson made to the budget recently gave him more confidence that the City could get through 2010. Mayor Haakenson responded as a result of severe actions such as budget cuts and City employees taking furloughs, dollars saved in 2009 had an accumulative effect in 2010 which improved the ending cash balance for 2010. Councilmember Peterson agreed with the suggestion to discuss the levy and fire consolidation on parallel tracks. With the new information regarding fire consolidation, he was open to considering a levy this year or next year. Whether the levy was this year or next, the City still had very serious revenue issues. If the Council chose not to place a levy on the ballot this year, it must be for the right reasons. Council President Wilson commented he had hoped the Council would reach a preferred levy option at the next Council meeting with a final decision on July 21. He suggested a presentation and discussion on the Fire District One contracting at the July 7 meeting. Mayor Haakenson advised staff was meeting with Fire District One on June 25 and could have information to present to the Council by the July 7 meeting. Councilmember Plunkett expressed his preference to wait until after the fire consolidation presentation/discussion to make a decision regarding the levy. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Councilmember Plunkett, commenting fire consolidation was not necessary to delay the levy until 2010. Council President Wilson pointed out although there was an adequate ending cash balance into 2010, delaying the levy means there was no Development Services Director, a short-staffed City Clerk's Office, and no clear plan to fund Yost Pool. Mayor Haakenson pointed out a levy was needed; whether it was in November 2009 or in 2010 was up to the Council. A levy was needed even if the city contracted for fire services with Fire District One; those were two separate issues. He did not anticipate a substantial increase in building activity that would require hiring a Development Services Director in the near future. With regard to Yost Pool, staff intends to issues a RFP this summer to identify parties interested in operating Yost Pool via a public/private partnership. He expressed concern the Council would shortchange themselves if they waited until July 21 to discuss the levy proposal and make a final decision July 28. He suggested discussing the levy proposal at next week's meeting including what items would be included in the levy, the levy title, etc. Alternatively he suggested the Council discuss at next week's meeting whether to proceed with a levy this year or delay it until next year. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Mayor Haakenson's suggestion to discuss at next week's meeting whether to proceed with a levy this year. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 15 Mr. Yarberry reviewed a comparison of building permit revenues 2005-2010 (YTD and estimate) and a comparison of single family permits 2006-2010 YTD. He reviewed proposed changes in the 2011 Development Services budget: • Reductions o Administration — reduced supplies: ($4,700) o Building — reduced professional services, repairs/maintenance: ($67,800) o Planning — reduced professional Services: ($20,000) • One time addition o Planning — Professional Services UW Study: $31,550 Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the savings in the Administration line of the Development Services 2010 budget. Mr. Chave advised the majority of the savings was the Development Services Director salary and benefits; there were also savings in professional services. He advised the 2011 budget includes the Development Services Director position. Mayor Cooper explained his plan was to discuss advertising for that position with staff within the next month. The last recruitment effort did not result in a candidate that was acceptable to the former Mayor. Councilmember Plunkett suggested Mayor Cooper first confer with the Council regarding whether they wanted to fund that position. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about contracting out permitting. Mr. Chave answered Planning experimented with contracting with professional consultants during the period of high permit activity and found it was more expensive. Hiring temporary planning assistance during the peak period cost less than half the cost of contracting. Mr. Yarberry responded contracting out permitting was a model that some cities utilized and many of the standard building code inspections could be done in that manner. The difficulty in contracting for those services was obtaining the same level of service for review of items specific to Edmonds such as setbacks, height, etc. If the Council chose to use that model, the fees likely would need to be adjusted. Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged the graph illustrated the number of employees has tracked with the population, relaying a question that is often asked, why the City has not laid off staff in the Development Services Department during this recession. Mr. Chave answered staffing was never increased during recent peaks in development activity. Staff worked very hard to keep up during that time and it was very stressful. He concluded the department was now staffed appropriately. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Department was charging as much as it could. Mr. Chave answered it was time to do a thorough analysis of the City's fees. The City has done a good job recovering building fees but there is a great deal of room left. Planning fees legislatively have been kept somewhat lower. Councilmember Plunkett commented Seattle's expenses are covered by fees. Mr. Chave explained some services are not covered by fees such as public information, compliance with GMA, etc. Councilmember Plunkett suggested the cost of a building permit should cover the cost. Mr. Chave agreed, noting the policy has been to achieve close to 100% recovery. To maintain that recovery over time, the fees may need to be increased especially for building permits, planning permits, etc. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether an analysis of the fees could be completed in time for the upcoming budget. Mr. Chave did not think so. Councilmember Buckshnis advised the Citizens Levy Committee was reviewing the City's overall use of consultants. She inquired about the $350,000 for professional services for Development Services in the budget book. Mr. Chave answered Planning's professional services include Hearing Examiner and a professional minute taker for several Boards and Commissions. The Administration professional services budget is quite small. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 31, 2010 Page 13 committee or they could proceed to the end of the process and then decide they do not want to participate. The planning committee plans to meet in March. He explained Kent had an intensive 2-year planning process prior to placing the RFA on the ballot as well as a 6-month outreach/public education process before the vote occurred. Because it is a 2-3 year process, the RFA discussions are not competing with the current discussions regarding a levy. He acknowledged a RFA would result in a tax increase but the City would no longer be spending General Fund money for fire protection and it would save the City's budget approximately $3.2 million/year. He advised Councilmembers Wilson, Petso and he are participating on the RFA planning committee. Discussion continued regarding definition of a region (at least two jurisdictions with contiguous boundaries), State law regarding formation of a RFA, guarantees that individual cities could request, equivalent tax rate of jurisdictions, cities and districts interested in participating in the planning committee, ability to have an advisory vote prior to the ballot measure, and FD1's consideration of a contractual consolidation with FD7. DIRECTORS' REPORTS (Con't) City Clerk As City Clerk Sandy Chase is on vacation, Mayor Cooper suggested Councilmembers review the information in the PowerPoint slides, and direct any questions to Ms. Chase. Human Resources Human Resources Director Debi Humann explained the Human Resources Department consists of Human Resources Assistant Mary Ann Hardie and herself. She briefly reviewed their backgrounds, education, and certifications. She described the Human Resources Department's responsibilities, summarizing she and Ms. Hardie are involved in all aspects of Human Resources from hiring to resignation/retirement/termination. Ms. Humann reviewed statistics since 2004 for L&I (workman's compensation), Family Medical Leave, and costs associated with the Disability Board (LEOFF 1). She emphasized the minimal staffing in Edmonds makes it difficult for staff to get their work done; this is particularly challenging in Human Resources with only two staff members. She provided a comparison of FTE to Human Resources staff in Edmonds and other cities. Ms. Humann reviewed 2011 Work Priorities/Opportunities: • Complete Hearing Examiner process • Assist Council with City Attorney process • Public Defender contract • Update City job descriptions (WCIA mandate) • Update City policies (WCIA mandate) • Recruitment for Development Services Director • Transition to new medical plans • Compensation Consultant process • Partner with PD on Corporal Assessment Center • LEOFF 1 records issues • Completion of union negotiations • Create job descriptions for new positions and negotiate with unions Ms. Humann reviewed 2011 projects that may not be completed: • Citywide accident prevention plan (OSHA requirement) • Website update • Emergency Operations Committee (EOC) Edmonds City Council Retreat Approved Minutes February 4-5, 2011 Page 8 Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented since Mayor Cooper arrived, there had not been any reductions in staff. He cited an example in the Planning and Building Department where two inspectors compete in the field because there are too many personnel and not enough work. He relayed comments from a developer who found it very confusing to have two inspectors on a project. He suggested Mayor Cooper reduce labor as a way to trim the budget as much as possible to avoid a levy. He suggested the TBD Board pursue funding for roads. He inquired about the status of the City's finances, commenting he was uncomfortable with increasing taxes until he knew more about the City's financial situation. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested bringing in special events to generate revenue, citing the opening of Lynnwood Recreation Center. He suggested the City purchase Al Dyke's property and construct an entertainment center that would attract visitors and generate revenue. He suggested the answer may be a new pool in Edmonds. Councilmember Bernheim asked Mayor Cooper to comment on allegations that Development Services is over staffed and how he justified the $1.5 million paid in salaries and benefits to the 16 employees. Mayor Cooper explained the FTE in that department had been stable even during the boom years; staff was not added in that department during the boom years and the City received a lot of complaints about long lines and delays. Previous Councils and the Mayor did not reduce staffing because staff had not been added during the boom years. For at least the last 11/2 years the Council and Mayor made a conscious decision not to fill the Development Services Director position, resulting in salary savings for a job that pays in excess of $120,000/year. Councilmember Bernheim asked Mayor Cooper to comment on the current workload of employees in the Development Services Department; how the City was benefiting from their work if they are not processing applications for new development. Mayor Cooper offered to confer with Mr. Clifton regarding the number of FTEs in the department during the boom years and now and the workloads of each individual. During preparation of the 2011 budget, a decision was made to present a budget that left the Development Services Director position vacant for part of 2011 rather than reduce staffing elsewhere in the department. A code rewrite is needed and perhaps some reorganization is warranted to get that work done. He was uncertain the result would be fewer FTEs; it may result in employees doing different work. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the timeline for hiring a new Finance Director and possibly changing from an Administrative Assistant to a second Finance Director to assist with providing accurate and timely financials. Mayor Cooper responded the application period for a Finance Director closes Friday, April 29. On Monday, May 2, he will begin reviewing applications with the Human Resources Director and other staff members. They will narrow down the applicants and begin the interview process. If there is a pool of qualified applicants, his goal is to have the Council interview three finalists in time to make a decision in late May/early June. With regard to an Administrative Assistant, once a new Finance Director is hired, a holistic look will be given to reorganization. He has discussed reorganization citywide with other Directors. Councilmember Wilson advised the former Development Services Director Duane Bowman left April 1, 2008; the position has been vacant for over 3 years. In response to Mr. Wambolt, Councilmember Wilson explained Councilmember Buckshnis and he via the Public Safety & Human Resources Committee have been reviewing employee benefits at the direction of the City Council. It is not the Council's responsibility to renegotiate contracts with labor organizations and soliciting furloughs is the Mayor's responsibility. The Council's responsibility is the policy. Both Councilmember Buckshnis and he are up for re-election this year and he noted there was no political benefit to reviewing employee benefits. He pointed out many people, including possibly Mr. Wambolt, supported a $3.75 million levy a few years ago. The Mayor's proposal and the Council's discussions are clearly sensitive to the current economy. He agreed the financials were frustrating to everyone, but regardless of whether they were off by 5% or 10%, the City has a revenue problem not an expense problem. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 26, 2011 Page 10 2. Reduced capabilities for code revisions 3. Status quo permit system, service and fee structure Councilmember Buckshnis observed the Development Services 2009, 2010 and 2011 budgets included approximately $173,000 for this position. Mr. Yarberry advised the funds had been budgeted and not used. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Council could authorize not filling the position. Mayor Cooper advised the Council could decline to budget for the FTE in the 2012 budget. He pointed out although the position had not been filled, some of the monies have been spent. Mr. Clifton explained some of the salary savings were spent on the Five Corners and Westgate plans and the Strategic Plan. Ms. Humann advised three postings have been done to fill the Development Services Director position but the responses have not resulted in an acceptable applicant. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned whether the position needed to be filled. She expressed her preference for budgeting in the appropriate category rather than transferring from a "salary slush fund." Mayor Cooper advised the Council approved funding for the Five Corners and Westgate Plans and the Strategic Plan during the budget process using the salary savings. His preliminary budget will have a recommendation regarding funding for this position. Councilmember Petso inquired about the other unfilled positions. Mayor Cooper listed the vacancies covered by his hiring freeze, advising the positions are included in the 2012 projection: Development Services Director — 1 Police Officer — 1 Permit Coordinator — 1 Custodian —1 Clerk's Office — 1 Seasonal Parks — 2 Councilmember Wilson asked whether it would be appropriate to combine Economic Development and Community Services into Development Services. With regard to code revisions, he suggested utilizing the City Attorney's office. Public Works Public Works Director Phil Williams provided the following information: • Projected 2012 Expenditure Budget: $3,040,367 • 2% Reduction $ 60,807 Account 2012 Projected 2012 Projected Proposed (Reductions)/ Expenses Revenue Revenue Increases Salaries & Benefits (leave one $1,762,107 ($61,100) one custodial position vacant) Professional Services — $5,000 ($ 5,000) Engineering Minor Equipment — $3,100 ($ 2,150) Engineering Miscellaneous - Engineering $9,600 ($ 4,320) Overtime $5,000 ($ 1,673) Total Budget Reduction/Increase Revenue $74,243 (2.44%) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 6, 2011 Page 12 07-09-13 Finance Committee Minutes, F. Authorization to Contract with James G. Murphy to Sell Surplus City Vehicles Mr. Williams reported this is a police seizure vehicle, a 1994 Ford Explorer. Funds from the sale of the will be placed in the 511 fund. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda. G. May 2013 Monthly Financial Report Mr. Neumaier reviewed the May 2013 Monthly Financial Report, explaining the City is on track to achieve the budget and slightly exceed revenues. A more thorough presentation will be made at the time of the quarterly financial report. In response to a question regarding the negative YTD trend in gas utility tax, he offered to review prior years' trends and email Finance Committee members. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda. E. Discussion Regarding Budget Amendment to Fund the Development Services Director Position. Mr. Neumaier relayed Councilmember Bloom's request to fund the Development Services Director position. He reviewed the history of the Development Services Director position and options for funding the position. Anticipating there may be other items Councilmembers want funded in the 2014 budget, Mr. Neumaier encouraged the Council to make priority decisions as part of the 2014 budget. Mayor Earling explained he met with Councilmember Bloom to discuss her interest in funding the Development Services Director position. Funding that position now would cost $140,000-150,000, he preferred not to obligate those funds this late in the year but would consider it along with other potential staff additions in the 2014 budget. He anticipated a preliminary budget with revenue and expense projections would be available in 2-3 months. Councilmember Yamamoto recommended this be discussed by the Public Safety & Personnel Committee. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recommended discussion with the full Council. Action: Schedule for Public Safety & Personnel Committee. I. Park Impact Fee Ms. Hite provided an update regarding park impact fees. Mayor Earling vetoed the park impact fee ordinance; the primary concern was change of use, assessing commercial park impact fees at a different rate for retail versus office. The City Attorney has determined from an RCW that exempting change of use is not legal. Staff has worked with the City Attorney and consultant to draft an ordinance that will apply park impact fee to both resident and commercial; commercial will be defined in two categories, manufacturing and office/retail. Under the new ordinance, a park impact fee would only be assessed on new construction; a change of use would not be assessed a park impact fee. Action: Scheduled for full Council on July 23. H. Public Comments Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, referred to a miscellaneous salary expense in the amount of $33,000 and over $58,000 in attorney fees, costs and pre -imposed judgment interest payable to the law firm of Frank Freed Subit & Thomas that were approved on the June 25 Consent Agenda. No information was provided in the agenda memo. He expressed concern with the lack of transparency and said the Council owes the public a televised explanation regarding the expenditures and why attorney fees exceed the miscellaneous salary expense. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised the City Attorney will respond. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, echoed Mr. Witenberg's concerns. He pointed out the May 2013 Financial Report does not have projections. Councilmember Yamamoto indicated he would reach out to the city attorney to find out how much information can be released. Adjournment — The meeting adjourned at 6:51 p.m. M E M O RA N D U M Date: July 3, 2013 To: Edmonds City Council Finance Committee From: Roger Neumaier, Finance Director Subject: Development Services Director Position Information A Councilmember has proposed that the Development Services Director be funded within the General Fund. The position is currently filled with an acting appointment. I have been asked two questions to which this memo responds. Question #1: If Council decides to fund the Development Services Director position, what alternatives for Funding Exist? Available alternatives for funding the position in the General fund include: 1) Using fund balance. 2) Reducing expenditures elsewhere to achieve funding. 3) Updating revenue projections to create new revenue that can be used to fund the position. In this instance, each of these alternatives could be utilized. Question #2: What is the history of the Development Services Director Position since vacancy in 2009? The Development Services Director position was included in the 2009, 2010 and 2011 budgets. The Salary Budget for 2010 was $292,327. The Salary Budget for 2011 was $283,421. Actual Dollars expended for 2011 were $138,622. The 2010 and 2011 budgets were under -expended for salaries in this area. On page 114 of the 2011 budget, under the Development Services Administration narrative, it states: "Development Services Administration consists of the Director, two part-time Administrative Assistants and the Code Enforcement Officer." The 2012 Budget narrative (page 112) states: "Development Services Administration consists of the Director, two part time Administrative Assistants and the Code Enforcement Officer". I believe that this statement was an oversight error because the Salary Budget for 2012 was $152,794. The Salary Budget for 2013 was $148,131. In the narrative (page 112), it states "Development Services Administration consists of the Director (vacant and not budgeted other than for acting pay), two part time Administrative Assistants and the Code Enforcement Officer". This states the situation that is the case in 2013 and was the case in 2012. So, the change in budgeting staffing occurred during budget development in 2012. I would be pleased to respond to any follow up questions at the Finance Committee Meeting on July 91" City of Edmonds Finance Department AM-6026 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 08/13/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Rob English Department: Engineering Committee: Finance Submitted By: Robert English Tyne: Action Information Subject Title Discussion and recommendation on proposed utility rate adjustments. Recommendation Schedule the item for City Council approval. Previous Council Action On July 23, 2013, staff made a presentation on options to increase utility rates to the City Council. 1. C. 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 Staff will provide information and a recommendation on the proposed utility rate adjustments at the committee meeting. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 08/08/2013 03:30 PM Public Works Phil Williams 08/09/2013 07:21 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/09/2013 08:14 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/09/2013 09:28 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/09/2013 10:02 AM Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 08/08/2013 12:13 PM Final Approval Date: 08/09/2013 AM-6004 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 08/13/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Committee: Finance Subject Title June 2013 Budgetary Financial Report Recommendation N.A. For informational purposes only. Previous Council Action N.A. Narrative June 2013 Budgetary Financial Report Inbox Finance City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sarah Mager Final Approval Date: 08/06/2013 Reviewed By Roger Neumaier Sandy Chase Dave Earling Sandy Chase Submitted By: Sarah Mager Tyne: Information Attachments Form Review Information Date 08/05/2013 09:30 AM 08/05/2013 03:21 PM 08/06/2013 08:48 AM 08/06/2013 02:38 PM Started On: 08/05/2013 09:20 AM 1. D. O EDA � O� CITY OF EDMONDS BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT JUNE 2013 City of Edmonds Quarterly Financial Review: June 2013 Beginning with this report, the format for the monthly Budgetary Financial Report has changed. In addition to shifting the order of the reports within the monthly report, comparable period prior year-to- date information has been added and interim fund balance information (which fluctuates due to annual revenue and expenditure cycles) has been removed. On a quarterly basis, the Budgetary Financial Report will also include a brief review of key financial information included within the report or affecting the City's finances. General Fund Revenues and Expenditures Year to date, General Fund revenues are equal to 56% of budgeted revenues for the year. Revenues year to date are 7% greater than 2012's year to date revenues. However, revenue has been strengthened by greater than anticipated property tax for the first half of the year. How much of the positive variance relates to earlier than usual payment of property tax due to home sales remains to be seen. However, it does appear that overall general fund 2013 revenue will exceed budget. General Fund department expenditures are on track with budget. Non -General Fund Revenues and Expenditures 2013 budgeted Water, Storm and Sewer Utility Fund revenues include bond proceeds which will be received in the third quarter of this year. As a result, the percentage revenue receipts in this report for these programs for the first six months are less than would be anticipated if the amounts shown were regular fee receipts. In the third quarter report, we will include a more detailed projection of utility fees. Non -General Fund expenditures also are on track. REET Revenues Real Estate Excise tax revenues have increased reflecting the improvement in the economy and the recovery of home values and sales. Year to date, these revenues are 47% stronger than anticipated and there is reason to believe that this strength will continue throughout 2013 and continue into 2014. Within that context, it is still important to recognize that projected year end revenues will still be less than two- thirds of levels receipted in years 2006, 2007 and 2008. Economic Outlook The regional economy continues to show strength. The Puget Sound unemployment rate which includes Edmonds is 4.7%. The State rate is 6.8%. However, the unemployment rate for the United States as a whole is 7.6%. Economists forecast that growth as measured by the increase in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) slowed in the April -June quarter to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of just 1 percent. That's below the sluggish pace of 1.8 percent in the January -March quarter. The Federal Reserve Board's future interest rate actions will have a direct impact on the growth of the economy. Federal Reserve officials have forecast better growth in the second half of the year. And Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has said that the central bank could begin to scale back its bond purchases later this year if the economy strengthens. But Fed officials typically put greater weight on employment and inflation data than the GDP figures. CTIY OFEDMONDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund No. Title 001 GENERAL FUND 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 111 STREET FUND 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 127 GIFTSCATALOGFUND 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 131 FIRE DONATIONS 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 2013 Amended Budget 6/30/2012 Revenues 6/30/2013 Revenues Amount Remaining %Received $ 32,882,089 $ 17,064,191 $ 18,269,525 $ 14,612,564 56% 350,350 300,113 175,135 175,215 50% 418,200 - 417,022 1,178 100% 123,223 - 63,827 59,396 52% 15,000 - 709 14,291 5% 56,900 28,425 28,394 28,506 50% 20,175 43,556 17,254 2,921 86% 1,406,800 652,165 721,818 684,982 51% 6,363,755 798,510 956,246 5,407,509 15% - - - 0% 59,891 16,290 11,176 48,715 19% 27 10 8 19 29% 52,870 31,457 24,306 28,564 46% 18,120 6,162 6,125 11,995 34% 2,025 566 18 2,007 1% 19,000 62 15,157 3,843 80% 662,600 378,826 444,887 217,713 67% 650,600 318,595 444,579 206,021 68% 20,483 18,939 27,651 (7,168) 135% 222,800 - 172,298 50,502 77% 119,950 69,707 53,129 66,821 44% - - - 0% 2,010,350 418,282 289,910 1,720,440 14% 228 88 241 (13) 106% 14,600 8,207 6,170 8,430 42% 3,517 1,707 404 3,113 11% 645,000 317,216 325,477 319,523 50% - - 27,324 (27,324) 0% 22,130 1,175 5,916 16,214 27% 22,230 106,082 11 22,219 0% 1,009,902 - 92,264 917,638 9% - N/A 118,392 (118,392) 0% 10,625,680 N/A 2,682,514 7,943,166 25% 3,486,716 N/A 1,626,143 1,860,573 47% 11,020,123 N/A 3,899,709 7,120,414 35% 1,361,972 541,151 716,325 645,647 53% 45,400 68,793 49,579 (4,179) 109% $ 73,732,706 $ 21,190,275 $ 31,689,644 $ 42,043,062 43% "Due to the change in enterprise fund structure from 2012 to 2013, these revenues are shown as N/A 2 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2013 Amended 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 Amount No. Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent 001 GENERAL FUND $ 33,007,003 $ 16,874,568 $ 15,541,665 $ 17,465,338 47% 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 619,400 298,263 164,560 454,840 27% 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 661,000 - 555,277 105,723 84% 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 15,000 - 800 14,200 5% 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 205,000 1,000 12,283 192,717 6% 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 80,033 12,081 19,183 60,850 24% 111 STREET FUND 1,557,715 810,886 676,186 881,529 43% 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 6,464,984 682,645 522,325 5,942,659 8% 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 139,800 7,913 16,681 123,119 12% 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - - 0% 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 68,500 19,762 26,070 42,430 38% 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,726 12,543 13,972 12,754 52% 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 4,000 2,884 2,131 1,869 53% 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 3,863 2,249 16,751 12% 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,286,500 92,493 63,276 1,223,224 5% 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 668,534 80,277 32,108 636,426 5% 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 32,317 1,202 19,905 12,412 62% 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 222,800 1,833 138,987 83,813 62% 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 152,761 74,463 61,254 91,507 40% 132 PARKS CONST RUCT ION FUND 2,093,200 319,073 7,014 2,086,186 0% 136 PARKS TRUST FUND - 6,930 - - 0% 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 4,600 1,592 278 4,322 6% 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 645,000 322,216 325,477 319,523 50% 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 22,130 106,000 - 22,130 0% 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND - - - - 0% 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,009,902 - 92,264 917,638 9% 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 9,201,851 N/A 2,745,283 6,456,568 30% 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 4,565,772 N/A 1,488,307 3,077,465 33% 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 18,168,019 N/A 5,723,283 12,444,736 32% 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,095,372 509,705 383,414 711,958 35% 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 108,790 52,884 52,793 55,997 49% $ 82,145,709 $ 20,295,076 $ 28,687,027 $ 53,458,682 35% "Due to the change in enterprise fund structure from 2012 to 2013, these expenditures are shown as N/A 3 Page 1 of 3 Title CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2013 Amended 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 Amount Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received TAXES: REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX $ 9,781,109 $ 5,028,173 $ 5,583,749 $ 4,197,360 57% EMSPROPERTYTAX 2,775,282 1,560,989 1,730,176 1,045,106 62% VOTED PROPERTY TAX 916,103 494,349 550,510 365,593 60% LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 4,913,150 2,436,804 2,570,795 2,342,355 52% NATURAL GAS USE TAX 8,706 4,837 5,394 3,312 62% 1 /10 SALES TAX LOCAL CR1M JUST 520,417 257,632 277,483 242,934 53% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,475,638 892,229 897,904 577,734 61% GASUTILITYTAX 811,174 552,855 473,725 337,449 58% SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 287,710 140,288 150,043 137,667 52% WAT ER UT ILIT Y T AX 904,613 382,218 412,836 491,777 46% SEWER UTILITY TAX 470,000 232,420 194,614 275,386 41% STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 274,600 132,518 182,308 92,292 66% T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 730,910 310,333 394,640 336,270 54% TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,529,498 792,936 712,861 816,637 47% PULLTABSTAX 61,385 30,491 30,224 31,161 49% AMUSEMENT GAMES 731 - 100 631 14% LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 212,350 105,124 110,074 102,276 52% PENALTIES ONGAMBLINGTAXES - - - - 0% 25,673,376 13,354,196 14,277,437 11,395,939 56% LICENSES AND PERMTIS: FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE 5,555 5,313 4,910 645 88% PROF AND OCC LICENSE -TAXI 1,030 510 630 400 61% AMUSEMENTS 6,060 5,475 4,350 1,710 72% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -COMCAST 627,816 312,287 331,451 296,365 53% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -VERIZON/FRONT IER 95,806 44,459 43,825 51,981 46% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -BLACKROCK 8,287 4,102 5,710 2,577 69% FRANCHISE AGREMENT-ZAYO - - 5,000 (5,000) 0% OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 214,415 126,093 121,813 92,602 57% GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 106,297 92,886 96,488 9,809 91% DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 18,422 8,910 11,955 6,467 65% NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 39,274 19,950 31,500 7,774 80% RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 9,500 9,308 9,773 (273) 103% BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 345,436 159,177 198,938 146,498 58% ANIMAL LICENSES 13,205 6,477 4,997 8,208 38% STREET AND CURB PERMIT 50,000 10,558 14,789 35,211 30% OTR NON -BUS LIC/PERMITS 7,070 5,059 5,574 1,496 79% 1,548,173 810,563 891,703 656,470 58% INTERGOVERNMENTAL: DOI 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 1,191 - - 1,191 0% ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE GRANT 23,500 - 23,500 - 100% TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 10,000 2,084 3,656 6,344 37% HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 6,000 406 776 5,224 13% SMART COMMUTER PROJECT GRANT - - 600 (600) 0% PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 185,181 - - 185,181 0% MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 8,828 4,371 4,562 4,266 52% JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION -STATE 12,572 6,224 6,268 6,304 50% CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS 33,290 16,498 17,090 16,200 51% DUI - CITIES 7,704 3,815 3,597 4,107 47% LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 20,000 98,387 - 20,000 0% LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 301,761 216,740 178,874 122,887 59% SHARED COURT COSTS 3,030 1,500 - 3,030 0% MUNICIPAL COURT AGREEMENT W/LYNNWOOD 1,500 750 - 1,500 0% 614,557 350,775 238,923 374,134 39% 4 Page 2 of 3 Title C ITY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2013 Amended 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 Amount Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,065 388 818 248 77% D/M COURT REC SER 172 67 34 138 20% MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 188 92 88 100 47% SALE MAPS & BOOKS 72 23 110 (38) 152% PHOTOCOPIES 4,572 1,889 1,294 3,278 28% POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 4,500 2,178 2,249 2,251 50% ASSESSMENT SEARCH 5 5 - 5 0% ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 100,000 48,388 78,114 21,886 78% ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES 1,011 - - 1,011 0% SNO-ISLE 57,236 27,257 36,542 20,694 64% PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 9,571 5,850 6,375 3,196 67% POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 6,906 7,826 18,174 30% OCDETF OVERTIME - 246 2,144 (2,144) 0% CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. 11,615 4,041 2,146 9,469 18% WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 36,000 7,277 11,770 24,230 33% MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 2,750 - - 2,750 0% DRE REIMBURSEABLE - - 570 (570) 0% DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES 532 263 424 108 80% FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 27,808 31,864 29,993 (2,185) 108% ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 60,000 28,193 34,218 25,782 57% ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 165 82 - 165 0% BOOKING FEES 5,711 2,197 3,372 2,339 59% FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 5,577 2,535 2,910 2,667 52% EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 23,976 8,942 9,051 14,925 38% DUI EMERGENCY AID 67 33 - 67 0% EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 814,318 325,987 412,963 401,355 51% POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 496 271 75 421 15% CRIM CNV FEE DUI 698 345 322 376 46% CRIM CONV FEE CT 4,360 2,159 2,604 1,756 60% CRIM CONV FEE CN 1,624 804 909 715 56% FIBER SERVICES 36,438 18,039 16,440 19,998 45% INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES 7,272 3,600 3,600 3,672 50% FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 213 106 528 (315) 248% ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 6,616 3,275 2,885 3,731 44% ZONINC/SUBDIVISION FEE 38,000 17,402 39,435 (1,435) 104% PLAN CHECKING FEES 216,457 104,848 135,481 80,976 63% FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 2,911 718 750 2,161 26% PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 1,200 326 966 234 81% S.E.P.A. REVIEW 5,000 970 3,395 1,605 68% CRITICAL AREA STUDY 12,000 6,355 8,835 3,165 74% DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 10,921 5,380 5,536 5,385 51% SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 56,000 19,048 21,514 34,486 38% GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 5,500 2,704 3,030 2,470 55% LOCKER FEES 300 - - 300 0% SWIM CLASS FEES 32,000 7,796 9,095 22,905 28% INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE-SSCCFH 69,300 34,650 - 69,300 0% PROGRAM FEES 780,000 421,315 449,824 330,176 58% TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 115,500 89,687 78,092 37,408 68% SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM 31,600 30,002 29,974 1,626 95% BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 660 (360) - 660 0% INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS 1,520,248 787,605 849,557 670,691 56% 4,148,225 2,061,748 2,305,857 1,842,368 56% 5 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND Title 2013 Amended Budget 6/30/2012 Revenues 6/30/2013 Revenues Amount Remaining %Received FINES AND FO RFEITURES : PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 10,214 5,058 6,517 3,697 64% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 24,000 15,000 17,786 6,214 74% NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 213,000 132,428 157,074 55,926 74% CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA) 20,086 9,667 13,105 6,981 65% SPEEDINGDOUBLE 77 38 297 (220) 386% NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 2,034 900 - 2,034 0% OTHERINFRACTIONS'04 1,002 323 1,129 (127) 113% PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 31,592 15,737 26,643 4,949 84% PR -HANDICAPPED 794 - - 794 0% PARKING INFRACTION LOC 404 40 - 404 0% PARK/INDDISZONE 3,000 1,786 1,495 1,505 50% DWI PENALTIES 9,200 2,985 1,584 7,616 17% DUI - DP ACCT 415 630 1,294 (879) 312% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 8 186 - 8 0% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 33,000 16,483 19,596 13,404 59% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT - - 297 (297) 0% OTHERNON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 539 241 61 478 11% OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 14,000 7,965 (449) 14,449 -3% COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 1,491 506 951 540 64% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN - - 154 (154) 0% CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 113,265 53,211 59,746 53,519 53% PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 40,000 15,131 15,346 24,654 38% COURT INTERPRETER COSTS 292 114 49 243 17% BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 7,444 3,735 3,555 3,889 48% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 485 960 1,510 (1,025) 311% 526,342 283,124 327,739 198,603 62% MISCELLANEOUS: INVESTMENT INTEREST 8,000 2,789 1,051 6,949 13% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 1,250 1,209 985 265 79% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 5,491 2,682 1,991 3,500 36% PARKING 8,790 5,755 5,416 3,374 62% SPACE/FACILITIESRENTALS 140,000 67,351 75,850 64,150 54% BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 3,040 2,545 3,020 20 99% LEASESLONG-TERM 143,000 80,740 82,769 60,231 58% VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 4,500 1,598 1,686 2,814 37% OTHER RENTS &USE CHARGES 6,200 3,030 4,835 1,365 78% PARKSDONATIONS 4,300 7,642 9,200 (4,900) 214% BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 1,400 1,400 1,200 200 86% PARKS GRANTS- PRIVATE SOURCES - - 1,235 (1,235) 0% SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 1,486 1,080 - 1,486 0% SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 1,750 870 2,384 (634) 136% CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY - - 358 (358) 0% OT HER JUDGEMENT SETTLEMENT - - 6,367 (6,367) 0% POLICE JUDGMENT S✓RESTITUTION 465 150 55 410 12% CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES 44 13 (6) 50 -15% OTHER MISC REVENUES 3,000 5,102 2,572 428 86% SMALL OVERPAYMENT 66 55 20 46 30% NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 182 60 90 92 49% NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 978 326 490 488 50% NSF FEES - POLICE 91 - - 91 0% NSF FEES -DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT - - 90 (90) 0% FLEX -PLAN SERVICES FORFEITURES - - 1,368 (1,368) 0% 334,033 184,397 203,024 131,009 61% TRANSFERS -IN: INSURANCE RECOVERIES - - - - 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER -IN - - - - 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER- In (From 121) 25,086 19,473 12,543 12,543 50% INTERFUND TRANSFER (From 127) 12,297 - 12,297 - 100% 37,383 19,473 24,840 12,543 66% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $ 32,882,089 $ 17,064,276 $18,269,525 $ 14,611,064 56% 2 Page 1 of 6 C ITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Title SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME HOLIDAY BUY BACK BENEFIT S 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 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE(009) BENEFIT S IN HOME LTC CLAIMS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011) MISCELLANEOUS HIS TO RIC PRESERVATIO N GIFT FUND (014) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVERTISING MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REPAIRS & MAINTENANENCE 11410N RIai8140ato) ►■aITONitem IGI DRUG INFO RC EMIENT FUND (104) SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED SMALL EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATIONS REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVTLSVC 2013 Amended 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 Amount Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent $ 12,029,872 $ 5,829,290 $ 5,897,277 $ 6,132,595 49% 419,100 198,118 183,590 235,510 44% 193,388 2,526 2,727 190,661 1% 4,094,462 2,053,209 2,018,660 2,075,802 49% 61,110 27,032 22,052 39,058 36% 374,244 151,733 145,529 228,715 39% 117,050 95,693 54,568 62,482 47% 2,032,984 685,413 689,045 1,343,939 34% 204,660 89,260 88,943 115,717 43% 36,742 10,485 11,048 25,694 30% 40,865 15,602 7,641 33,224 19% 834,943 67,770 415,451 419,492 50% 396,193 420,109 397,566 (1,373) 100% 414,600 211,653 194,335 220,265 47% 320,547 138,470 143,985 176,562 45% 279,880 147,348 131,600 148,280 47% 8,099,655 5,797,534 4,168,389 3,931,266 51% 190,000 80,635 - 190,000 0% 5,500 2,585 2,200 3,300 40% 1,325,185 419,926 762,056 563,129 58% 85,000 - 22,735 62,265 27% 946,595 - - 946,595 0% 64,014 63,380 64,014 0 100% - - 478 (478) 0% 185,614 149,706 93,776 91,838 51% 5,000 1,125 - 5,000 0% 201,800 835 - 201,800 0% 48,000 215,130 24,000 24,000 50% 33,007,003 16,874,567 S 15,541,665 17,465,338 47°0 $ 435,000 $ 220,155 $ 105,775 $ 329,225 24% 176,400 70,672 52,455 123,945 30% 8,000 7,186 6,081 1,919 76% - 250 250 (250) 0% 619,400 298,263 S 164,560 454,840 27% $ 661,000 $ $ 555,277 $ 105,723 84% 661,000 555,277 105,723 84% $ 2,000 $ $ $ 2,000 0% 2,000 - 2,000 0% 1,000 - 1,000 0% 10,000 800 9,200 8% 15,000 800 14,200 5% $ 10,000 $ - $ 919 $ 9,081 9% 20,000 1,0()0 8,716 11,284 44% 5,000 783 4,217 16% - 1,865 (1,865) 0% 170,000 - - 170,000 0% 205,000 1,000 12,283 24,582 6% $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% 2,000 1,139 2,366 (366) 118% 5,000 - 5,048 (48) 101% 2,233 1,014 1,699 534 76% 800 - 10 790 1% 20,000 - - 20,000 0% 50,000 9,928 10,061 39,939 20% 80,033 12,081 19,183 60,850 24% 7 Page 2 of 6 C ITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Title 2013 Amended Budget 6/30/2012 Expenditures 6/30/2013 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent STREETFUND (111) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 447,655 $ 253,765 $ 209,704 $ 237,951 47% OVERTIME 18,400 18,782 8,592 9,808 47% BENEFITS 197,283 114,305 91,355 105,928 46% UNIFORMS 6,000 4,414 3,647 2,353 61% SUPPLIES 240,000 80,372 73,502 166,498 31% SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 11,550 - 26,000 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12,700 16,408 4,177 8,523 33% COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 1,908 1,280 2,220 37% TRAVEL 1,000 - 210 790 21% ADVERTISING 350 - - 350 0% RENTAL/LEASE 159,134 1,393 78,703 80,431 49% INSURANCE 87,204 93,305 87,201 3 100% UTILITIES 267,750 105,268 104,312 163,438 39% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 45,000 4,479 11,331 33,669 25% MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 5,855 490 7,510 6% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 4,000 511 89 3,911 2% INTERFUND TRANSFER 28,650 - 558 28,092 2% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 3,015 - - 3,015 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 2,074 3,100 1,037 1,037 50% INTEREFUND RENTAL - 95,472 - - 0% 1,557,715 810,887 676,186 881,529 43% COMBINED STREETCONST/IMPROVE(112) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 1,272,100 $ 494,142 $ 250,540 $ 1,021,560 20% MISCELLANEOUS - - 26,427 (26,427) 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER OUT (to 112,117) 378,500 41,694 41,498 337,003 11% LAND 909,400 - - 909,400 0% CONST SURFACE CONST PROJECTS 3,502,300 1,700 75,590 3,426,710 2% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,203 72,201 72,201 2 100% INTEREST ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 4,481 4,840 4,479 2 100% INTERFUND SERVICES 326,000 68,067 51,589 274,411 16% 6,464,984 682,644 522,325 5,942,659 8% MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117) SUPPLIES $ 4,200 $ 143 $ 78 $ 4,122 2% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 523 - 1,000 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 116,700 5,157 6,192 110,508 5% TRAVEL 50 10 54 (4) 108% ADVERTISING 4,000 - 5,550 (1,550) 139% RENTAL/LEASE 550 - 550 0% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300 - - 300 0% MISCELLANEOUS 10,000 2,081 4,807 5,193 48% INTERFUND TRANSFER 3,000 - - 3,000 0% 139,800 7,914 16,681 123,119 12% HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 14,500 $ 4,209 $ 4,027 $ 10,473 28% ADVERTISING 37,500 13,554 9,943 27,557 27% MISCELLANEOUS 2,500 - 100 2,400 4% INTERFUND TRANSFERS (to 117, 132) 14,000 2,000 12,000 2,000 86% 68,500 19,763 26,070 42,430 38% EMPLO YEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121) SUPPLIES $ 1,640 $ - $ 874 $ 766 53% SMALL EQUIPMENT - - 555 (555) 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 001) 25,086 12,543 12,543 12,543 50% 26,726 12,543 13,972 12,754 52% YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) MISCELLANEOUS $ 4,000 $ 2,884 $ 2,131 $ 1,869 53% 4,000 2,884 2,131 1,869 53% TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS (123) PROFESSIONAL SVC $ 10,500 $ 33 $ 1,697 $ 8,803 16% ADVERTISING 4,500 3,830 553 3,948 12% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 - - 4,000 0% $ 19,000 $ 3,863 2,249 $ 16,751 12% R1 Page 3 of 6 C ITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Title REAL ESTATE EXC IS E TAX 2 (12 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) S PEC IAL PRO JEC TS FUND (129) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS INTERFUND SERVICES CEMETERY MAINTENANCFJIMPROVEMENT(130) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENTAL/LEASE UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT INTERFUND RENTAL 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 DISTRICT (139) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INSURANCE INTERFUND TRANSFER INTERGOVTL SERVICES 2013 Amended 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 Amount Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent $ 29,000 $ 23,136 $ 29,821 $ (821) 103% 337,000 67,813 13,685 323,315 4% - - 148 (148) 0% - - - - 0% 185,000 1,544 19,622 165,378 11 % 635,500 - - 635,500 0% 100,000 100,000 0% - - - - 0% 1,286,500 92,493 63,276 1,223,224 5% $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% 438,910 16,540 26,071 412,839 6% 200,000 - - 200,000 0% 17,550 - - 17,550 0% 12,074 63,737 6,037 6,037 50% 668,534 80,277 32,108 636,426 5% $ 14,020 $ 1,202 $ 1,458 $ 12,562 10% 6,000 - 6,150 (150) 103% 12,297 - 12,297 - 100% 32,317 1,202 19,905 12,412 62% $ 31,700 $ 1,833 $ 3,794 $ 27,906 12% 171,600 - 114,251 57,349 67% 19,500 20,942 (1,442) 107% 222,800 1,833 138,987 83,813 62% $ 68,605 $ 33,815 $ 34,492 $ 34,113 50% 3,500 1,690 1,303 2,197 37% 33,188 16,122 15,900 17,288 48% 1,000 - - 1,000 0% 7,000 2,516 464 6,536 7% 20,000 11,692 3,767 16,233 19% 1,000 200 200 800 20% 1,412 582 702 710 50% 500 - - 500 0% 3,000 869 395 2,606 13% 5,256 - 2,628 2,628 50% 3,800 1,431 - 3,800 0% 500 - - 500 0% 4,000 1,915 1,404 2,596 35% - - - - 0% - 3,630 - - 0% 152,761 74,462 61,254 91,507 40% $ - $ 72,039 $ - $ - 0% 1,907,500 39,218 5,900 1,901,600 0% - - - - 0% 182,700 188,540 - 182,700 0% 3,000 19,276 1,114 1,886 37% 2,093,200 319,073 7,014 2,086,186 0% $ - $ 6,930 $ - $ 0% 6,930 - 0% $ 500 $ $ 144 $ 356 29% 2,600 - 2,600 0% 1,500 1,592 135 1,366 9% 4,600 1,592 278 4,322 6% $ - $ 1,756 $ (1,756) 0% 5,000 5,000 5,000 - 100% 640,000 267,280 318,721 321,279 50% - 49,936 - - 0% 645,000 322,216 325,477 319,523 50% 0 Page 4 of 6 Title LID FUND C O NTRO L (211) INTERFUND TRANSFER LIMITED TAX G.O . BOND FUND 2002 BOND INTEREST 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND INTEREST DEBT ISSUE COSTS WATER FUND (421) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFIT S 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 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 Amount Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining 'Vo Spent $ 22,130 $ 106,000 $ - $ 22,130 0% 22,130 106,000 - 22,130 0% 136,786 $ - $ 0% .� - lb 1Jv,/Ov .p - df - v70 $ 825,372 $ $ - $ 825,372 0% 184,530 92,264 92,266 50% - - - 0% 1,009,902 92,264 $ 917,638 0% $ 756,455 N/A $ 359,198 $ 397,257 47% 24,180 N/A 9,096 15,084 38% 285,866 N/A 147,861 138,005 52% 6,840 N/A 2,836 4,004 41% 143,505 N/A 39,520 103,985 28% - N/A - - 0% 1,725,000 N/A 518,387 1,206,613 30% 140,000 N/A 47,121 92,879 34% 10,400 N/A 4,743 5,657 46% 173,136 N/A 128,623 44,513 74% 30,280 N/A 16,896 13,384 56% 3,400 N/A - 3,400 0% 560 N/A - 560 0% 91,205 N/A 45,961 45,244 50% 67,699 N/A 67,607 92 100% 28,000 N/A 19,441 9,559 66% 24,160 N/A 1,523 22,637 6% 307,630 N/A 159,268 148,362 52% 30,000 N/A 14,970 15,030 50% 904,893 N/A 412,836 492,057 46% 927,500 N/A - 927,500 0% 85,000 N/A - 85,000 0% 2,532,580 N/A 338,418 2,194,162 13% 2,025 N/A - 2,025 0% 209,471 N/A - 209,471 0% 45,839 N/A 45,839 0 100% 280,306 N/A 140,928 139,378 50% 16,553 N/A - 16,553 0% - N/A 175 (175) 0% 349,368 N/A 224,990 124,378 64% - N/A 48 (48) 0% 9,201,851 2,745,283 6,456,616 30% *Due to the change in enterprise fund structure from 2012 to 2013, these expenditures are shown as N/A 10 Page 5 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Title STORM FUND (422) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UT ILIT ES REPAIR & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TAXESAND OPERATING ASSESSMENT INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 112, 117) CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST OTHER INT EREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SEWER FUND (423) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIR & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT INTERFUND TRANSFERS (to 414, 423) MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST DEBT ISSUE COSTS OTHER INT EREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2013 Amended 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 Amount Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %, Spent $ 568,591 N/A $ 274,175 $ 294,416 48% 6,000 N/A 6,036 (36) 101% 232,141 N/A 111,812 120,329 48% 6,540 N/A 4,540 2,000 69% 50,000 N/A 21,902 28,098 44% 4,400 N/A 164 4,236 4% 599,190 N/A 334,570 264,620 56% 3,480 N/A 790 2,690 23% 4,300 N/A 864 3,436 20% 500 N/A - 500 0% 217,412 N/A 108,799 108,613 50% 8,418 N/A 8,407 11 100% 10,000 N/A 4,190 5,810 42% 11,860 N/A 5,962 5,898 50% 106,100 N/A 47,663 58,437 45% 45,000 N/A 21,111 23,889 47% 291,600 N/A 143,230 148,370 49% 237,766 N/A - 237,766 0% 1,458,400 N/A - 1,458,400 0% 101,469 N/A - 101,469 0% 82,906 N/A - 82,906 0% 32,063 N/A 32,063 1 100% 187,245 N/A 94,584 92,661 51% - N/A 83 (83) 0% 300,391 N/A 267,362 33,029 89% 4,565,772 1,488,307 3,077,465 33% $ 1,653,859 N/A $ 768,497 $ 885,362 46% 73,000 N/A 50,565 22,435 69% 677,979 N/A 316,994 360,985 47% 11,190 N/A 6,906 4,284 62% 482,505 N/A 107,156 375,349 22% 90,000 N/A 82,332 7,668 91% 3,000 N/A - 3,000 0% 16,400 N/A 9,348 7,052 57% 1,124,996 N/A 640,635 484,361 57% 40,280 N/A 17,547 22,733 44% 7,400 N/A - 7,400 0% 2,500 N/A - 2,500 0% 133,736 N/A 66,185 67,551 49% 157,117 N/A 156,092 1,025 99% 931,200 N/A 506,751 424,449 54% 90,000 N/A 63,156 26,844 70% 211,100 N/A 100,856 110,244 48% 290,000 N/A 48,339 241,661 17% 470,000 N/A 233,692 236,308 50% 1,125,280 N/A - 1,125,280 0% 141,000 N/A - 141,000 0% 9,137,750 N/A 2,049,106 7,088,644 22% 189,978 N/A - 189,978 0% 222,625 N/A - 222,625 0% 138,939 N/A 143,620 (4,681) 103% 131,045 N/A 69,705 61,340 53% 16,551 N/A - 16,551 0% - N/A 41 (41) 0% 598,589 N/A 285,762 312,827 48% 18,168,019 5,723,283 12,444,736 32% *Due to the change in enterprise fund structure from 2012 to 2013, these expenditures are shown as N/A 11 Page 6 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DEIAAIL Title 2013 Amended Budget 6/30/2012 Expenditures 6/30/2013 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 228,064 $ 106,818 $ 80,235 $ 147,829 35% OVERTIME 1,000 91 886 114 89% BENEFITS 100,397 51,378 37,045 63,352 37% UNIFORMS 1,000 441 407 593 41% SUPPLIES 76,000 36,392 39,516 36,484 52% FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 674 - 1,000 0% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 321,800 157,216 100,222 221,578 31% SMALL EQUIPMENT 8,000 4,778 2,993 5,007 37% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 322 1,155 (155) 115% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 700 564 2,436 19% RENTAL/LEASE 9,996 644 4,645 5,351 46% INSURANCE 34,083 32,530 34,153 (70) 100% UTILITIES 14,000 6,576 5,914 8,086 42% REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 60,000 15,290 24,670 35,330 41% MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 3,926 3,965 2,035 66% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 682 119 2,381 5% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 217,532 86,069 46,927 170,605 22% INTERFUND SERVICES 10,000 5,178 - 10,000 0% 1,095,372 509,705 S 383,414 711,958 35% FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617) BENEFITS $ 63,000 $ 29,215 $ 15,378 $ 47,622 24% PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 43,790 22,604 36,245 7,545 83% PROF SERVICES 2,000 1,065 1,169 831 58% $ 108,790 52,884 S 52,793 55,997 49% TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS 82,145,709 20,431,862 28,687,027 53,276,395 35% 12 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY Title 2013 Amended Budget 6/30/2012 Expenditures 6/30/2013 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL $ 273,623 $ 128,336 $ 129,323 $ 144,300 47% OFFICE OF MAYOR 238,374 113,618 117,240 121,134 49% HUMAN RESOURCES 287,190 114,330 125,617 161,573 44% MUNICIPAL COURT 729,506 365,837 349,491 380,015 48% CITY CLERK 586,831 246,012 255,790 331,041 44% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,492,018 685,600 722,290 769,728 48% CITYATTORNEY 499,200 234,108 245,534 253,666 49% NON -DEPARTMENTAL 11,467,569 5,348,836 5,464,269 6,003,300 48% POLICE SERVICES 8,931,185 4,149,872 4,227,018 4,704,167 47% COMMUNITY SERVICES 373,314 212,325 168,121 205,193 45% DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1,642,542 774,015 775,062 867,480 47% PARKS& RECREATION 3,422,517 1,503,266 1,473,023 1,949,494 43% PUBLIC WORKS 1,718,975 795,755 849,800 869,175 49% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,344,159 646,963 639,087 705,072 48% $ 33,007,003 $ 15,318,873 $ 15,541,665 $ 17,465,338 47% CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY Title 2013 Amended Budget 6/30/2012 Expenditures 6/30/2013 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent WATER UTILITYFUND $ 9,201,851 N/A $ 2,745,283 $ 6,456,568 30% STORM UTILITY FUND 4,565,772 N/A 1,488,307 3,077,465 33% SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 18,168,019 N/A 5,723,283 12,444,736 32% $ 31,935,642 $ 9,956,874 $ 21,978,768 31% *Due to the change in enterprise fund structure from 2012 to 2013, these expenditures are shown as N/A 13 Page 1 of 4 CITY OF FDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title 2013 Amended Budget 6/30/2012 Expenditures 6/30/2013 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent C ITY C O UNC IL SALARIES $ 114,618 $ 53,379 $ 58,864 $ 55,754 51% OVERTIME 2,000 3,140 289 1,711 14% BENEFITS 68,165 36,174 34,676 33,489 51% SUPPLIES 1,000 349 88 912 9% PROFESSIONAL SVC 53,082 26,541 27,718 25,364 52% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 1,318 1,301 1,699 43% TRAVEL 2,500 879 436 2,064 17% RENTAL/LEASE 490 245 217 273 44% REPAIRS/MAINT 1,500 - 55 1,445 4% MISCELLANEOUS 27,268 6,310 5,681 21,587 21% $ 273,623 $ 128,335 $ 129,323 $ 144,300 47% OFFICEOFMAYOR SALARIES $ 183,722 $ 88,855 $ 92,993 $ 90,729 51% OVERTIME - - - - 0% BENEFITS 41,852 20,675 20,916 20,936 50% SUPPLIES 2,000 388 927 1,073 46% PROFESSIONAL SVC 1,500 - 29 1,471 2% COMMUNICATION 1,400 567 425 975 30% TRAVEL 2,000 295 469 1,531 23% RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 1,327 1,017 1,383 42% REPAIR/MAINT 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 1,510 465 2,536 15% $ 238,374 $ 113,617 $ 117,240 $ 121,134 49% HUMAN RESOURCES SALARIES $ 169,000 $ 43,664 $ 80,500 $ 88,500 48% OVERTIME - - - - 0% BENEFITS 61,680 16,400 24,110 37,570 39% SUPPLIES 2,000 1,366 1,610 390 81% SMALL EQUIPMENT 100 - - 100 0% PROFESSIONAL SVC 32,000 43,607 9,459 22,541 30% COMMUNICATIONS 500 183 226 274 45% TRAVEL 500 - 572 (72) 114% ADVERTISING 5,000 683 1,567 3,433 31% RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 1,252 1,017 983 51% REPAIR/MAINT 6,000 4,820 5,349 651 89% MISCELLANEOUS 8,410 2,355 1,207 7,203 14% $ 287,190 $ 114,330 $ 125,617 $ 161,573 44% MUNIC IPAL C O URT SALARIES $ 464,471 $ 233,187 $ 226,713 $ 237,758 49% OVERTIME 100 439 - 100 0% BENEFITS 168,526 86,686 74,586 93,940 44% SUPPLIES 9,159 5,151 4,419 4,740 48% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,000 - 1,003 997 50% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 60,500 26,575 34,005 26,495 56% COMMUNICATIONS 2,600 1,056 945 1,655 36% TRAVEL 1,250 970 1,652 (402) 132% RENTAL/LEASE 650 308 432 218 67% REPAIR/MAINT 1,000 795 409 591 41% MISCELLANEOUS 19,250 10,578 5,327 13,923 28% INTERGOVTL SVC - 92 - - 0% $ 729,506 $ 365,837 $ 349,491 $ 380,015 48% 14 Page 2 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title 2013 Amended Budget 6/30/2012 Expenditures 6/30/2013 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent CITY CLERK SALARIES AND WAGES $ 305,572 $ 142,876 $ 151,469 $ 154,103 50% BENEFITS 92,771 44,953 46,072 46,699 50% SUPPLIES 13,760 5,188 3,201 10,559 23% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 84,751 7,239 10,137 74,614 12% COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 19,809 27,108 22,892 54% TRAVEL 250 - 36 214 15% ADVERTISING 3,690 11,080 2,029 1,661 55% RENTAL/LEASE 25,000 8,218 8,017 16,983 32% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 8,037 4,862 5,294 2,743 66% MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 1,788 2,426 574 81% $ 586,831 $ 246,013 $ 255,790 $ 331,041 44% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SALARIES $ 618,370 $ 354,550 $ 326,643 $ 291,727 53% OVERTIME 8,000 4,900 5,582 2,418 70% BENEFITS 220,100 110,050 101,304 118,796 46% SUPPLIES 35,700 22,141 9,878 25,822 28% SMALL EQUIPMENT 87,500 54,618 46,800 40,700 53% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 186,350 21,088 93,608 92,742 50% COMMUNICATIONS 58,960 30,577 25,605 33,355 43% TRAVEL 3,300 1,052 279 3,021 8% RENTAL/LEASE 8,988 2,853 4,354 4,634 48% REPAIR/MA1NT 171,750 74,639 75,142 96,608 44% MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 9,132 10,362 (2,362) 130% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 85,000 - 22,735 62,265 27% $ 1,492,018 $ 685,600 $ 722,290 $ 769,728 48% CITY ATTORNEY PROFESSIONAL SVC $ 499,200 $ 233,908 $ 245,534 $ 253,666 49% MISC PROSECUTOR - 200 - - 0% $ 499,200 $ 234,108 $ 245,534 $ 253,666 49% NON -DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES $ 136,000 $ - $ - $ 136,000 0% BENEFITS -UNEMPLOYMENT 40,000 23,142 12,434 27,566 31% PROFESSIONAL SVC 380,000 110,769 103,486 276,514 27% COMMUNICATIONS - 3 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 3,600 3,600 100% INSURANCE 396,193 420,109 397,566 (1,373) 100% MISCELLANEOUS 55,156 40,023 40,165 14,991 73% INTERGOVT SVC 7,532,912 4,033,832 3,984,494 3,548,418 53% ECA LOAN PAYMENT 190,000 80,635 - 190,000 0% EXCISE TAXES 5,500 2,585 2,200 3,300 40% INTERFUND TRANSFERS 1,325,185 419,926 762,056 563,129 58% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 946,595 - - 946,595 0% INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 64,014 63,380 64,014 0 100% OTHER DEBT - - - - 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 185,614 149,706 93,776 91,838 51% DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS 5,000 1,125 - 5,000 0% FISCAL AGENT FEES - - 478 (478) 0% INTERFUND SERVICES 201,800 - - 201,800 0% $ 11,467,569 $ 5,348,835 $ 5,464,269 $ 6,003,300 48% 15 Page 3 of 4 C TTY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title PO LIC E S ERVIC ES SALARIES OVERTIME HOLIDAY BUYBACK BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENTAL/LEASE REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVTL SVC INTERFUND RENTAL INTERFUND REPAIRS COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMIN SALARIES BENEFITS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS DEVELO PMENT SERVIC 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 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 Amount Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Scent $ 5,169,010 $ 2,561,535 $ 2,559,628 $ 2,609,382 50% 400,000 181,429 173,238 226,762 43% 193,388 2,526 2,727 190,661 1% 1,728,703 891,075 894,210 834,493 52% 52,410 24,230 18,999 33,411 36% 94,100 26,429 33,974 60,126 36% 14,300 3,621 2,639 11,661 18% 95,200 47,201 35,371 59,829 37% 33,592 12,414 10,368 23,224 31% 16,300 6,526 6,640 9,660 41% 375 66 36 339 10% 538,344 7,747 267,833 270,511 50% 16,115 3,182 4,216 11,899 26% 35,300 17,761 14,243 21,057 40% 496,048 202,916 178,896 317,152 36% 48,000 160,380 24,000 24,000 50% - 835 - - 0% $ 8,931,185 $ 4,149,873 $ 4,227,018 $ 4,704,167 47% $ 213,304 $ 104,616 $ 106,834 $ 106,470 50% 62,052 31,073 31,249 30,803 50% 1,500 1,347 338 1,162 23% 800 - - 800 0% 60,804 70,766 25,465 35,339 42% 1,490 414 766 724 51% 2,000 - 17 1,983 1% 24,500 727 120 24,380 0% 2,364 1,571 1,197 1,167 51% 500 - - 500 0% 4,000 1,810 2,135 1,866 53% $ 373,314 $ 212,324 $ 168,121 $ 205,193 45% $ 1,032,549 $ 517,847 $ 538,115 $ 494,434 52% 1,300 2,128 25 1,275 2% 358,465 185,003 177,676 180,789 50% - - - - 0% 13,000 5,681 5,139 7,861 40% 1,100 231 - 1,100 0% 169,100 32,860 22,880 146,220 14% 4,000 2,745 2,254 1,746 56% 1,600 93 45 1,555 3% 3,000 1,173 1,996 1,004 67% 32,828 14,416 16,337 16,491 50% 500 606 - 500 0% 25,100 11,231 10,595 14,505 42% $ 1,642,542 $ 774,014 $ 775,062 $ 867,480 47% $ 1,007,140 $ 469,858 $ 492,623 $ 514,517 49% 5,000 454 996 4,004 20% 342,150 165,721 177,372 164,778 52% 360 - - 360 0% - - - - 0% 2,000 2,398 1,093 907 55% 5,000 2,596 840 4,160 17% 6,700 2,669 2,617 4,083 39% 600 210 10 590 2% - - 264 (264) 0% 13,408 3,372 6,702 6,706 50% 1,800 895 38 1,762 2% 10,300 4,492 5,073 5,227 49% $ 1,394,458 $ 652,665 $ 687,628 $ 706,830 49% 16 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title PARKS & REC REATIO N SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES MINOR EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVTLSVC PUBLIC WORKS SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFIT S SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL RENT AL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED MINOR EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATIONS RENT AL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 2013 Amended 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 Amount Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Scent $ 1,769,631 $ 850,516 $ 828,835 $ 940,796 47% - 4,694 3,356 (3,356) 0% 584,326 287,059 278,434 305,892 48% 5,340 1,692 2,233 3,107 42% 131,925 49,527 52,683 79,242 40% 3,250 33,568 1,820 1,430 56% 405,297 62,238 80,489 324,808 20% 28,218 10,366 10,424 17,794 37% 5,942 424 891 5,051 15% 4,300 1,873 1,628 2,672 38% 149,152 63,807 79,982 69,170 54% 135,000 72,107 68,221 66,779 51% 51,845 22,675 26,546 25,299 51% 77,596 37,721 32,482 45,114 42% 70,695 5,000 5,000 65,695 7% $ 3,422,517 $ 1,503,267 $ 1,473,023 $ 1,949,494 43% $ 225,381 $ 104,641 $ 122,334 $ 103,047 54% 200 - - 200 0% 76,157 32,084 32,953 43,204 43% 5,100 2,592 2,553 2,547 50% 200 23 25 175 12% 1,200 585 791 409 66% 500 - - 500 0% 10,779 1,473 2,185 8,594 20% 2,600 1,169 1,103 1,497 42% 1,000 - - 1,000 0% 1,400 522 229 1,171 16% $ 324,517 $ 143,089 $ 162,172 $ 162,345 50% $ 621,104 $ 303,768 $ 311,727 $ 309,377 50% 2,500 936 105 2,395 4% 249,515 123,113 112,670 136,845 45% 3,000 1,110 820 2,180 27% 65,000 31,574 30,719 34,281 47% - - - - 0% 6,000 1,257 1,213 4,787 20% 13,000 6,587 6,112 6,888 47% 44,940 12,330 22,560 22,380 50% 277,000 138,378 125,011 151,989 45% 60,000 25,996 26,937 33,063 45% 2,100 1,915 1,214 886 58% $ 1,344,159 $ 646,964 $ 639,087 $ 705,072 48% $ 33,007,003 $ 15,318,871 $ 15,541,665 $ 17,465,338 47% 17 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund 2013 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 1,216,880 $ 1,216,880 $ 1,818,957 49.48% February 3,003,955 1,787,075 3,696,503 23.05% 30000000 March 5,073,436 2,069,480 5,680,288 11.96% 24000000 April 7,694,483 2,621,047 9,354,134 21.57% May 15,067,191 7,372,709 16,512,344 9.59% 18000000 June 16,717,578 1,650,387 18,269,525 9.28% July 18,644,184 1,926,606 12000000 August 20,255,129 1,610,945 6000000 September 21,832,160 1,577,031 General Fund October 24,512,598 2,680,438 0 November 31,225,742 6,713,144 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 32,882,089 1,656,347 --*--Current Year Budget—iw—PriorYeaz 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 61,697 444,366 46.63% 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 Real Estate Excise Tax 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 , JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget —dr-- Prior Year 18 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax 2013 Sales and Use Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Sales and Use Tax Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 6000000 January $ 390,013 $ 390,013 $ 406,956 4.34% 5000000 February 884,364 494,351 894,736 1.17% 4000000 March 1,235,989 351,625 1,265,893 2.42% April 1,600,252 364,263 1,641,662 2.59% 3000000 May 2,031,316 431,064 2,155,612 6.12% June 2,414,769 383,453 2,570,795 6.46% 2000000 July 2,801,571 386,802 ' 1000000 August 3,255,906 454,335 September 3,657,629 401,723 0 October 4,069,329 411,700 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC November 4,525,665 456,336 December 4,913,150 387,485 Current Year Budget-0--PriorYear City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Gas Utility Tax 2013 Gas Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Gas Utility Tax Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 900000 January $ 112,509 $ 112,509 $ 94,836 -15.71% 800000 February 230,573 118,064 220,665 -4.30% 700000 -� March 338,041 107,468 303,170 -10.32% 600000 April 428,064 90,023 369,694 -13.64% 500000 000 May 504,039 75,974 437,820 -13.14% 400000 June 561,033 56,994 473,725 -15.56% July 602,742 41,709 300000 August 632,326 29,584 200000 September 659,759 27,432 100000 October 688,968 29,210 0 November 738,628 49,660 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 811,174 72,546 ---*--Current Year Budget-dr--PriorYear 19 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Telephone Utility Tax 2013 Telephone Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 95,577 $ 95,577 $ 134,596 40.82% February 229,350 133,773 252,444 10.07% March 376,493 147,142 366,495 -2.66% April 479,057 102,564 484,087 1.05% May 608,761 129,705 598,247 -1.73% June 713,226 104,465 712,861 -0.05% July 853,959 140,733 August 989,418 135,459 September 1,092,061 102,643 October 1,256,775 164,714 November 1,349,920 93,146 December 1,529,498 179,578 Telephone Utility Tax 1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget -*-- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax 2013 F7ectric Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 151,925 $ 320,049 474,600 631,769 769,731 882,641 989,535 1,081,971 1,180,465 1,265,812 1,372,881 1,475,638 151,925 $ 153,240 168,124 326,077 154,551 487,478 157,169 641,845 137,963 787,005 112,909 897,904 106,895 92,436 98,494 85,346 107,070 102,757 1600000 0.87% 1400000 1.88% 2.71% 1200000 1.59% 1000000 2.24% 800000 1.73% 600000 400000 Electric Utility Tax 200000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget t Prior Year 20 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Summary As of June 30, 2013 Agency/Issuer Investment Ty Washington State Local Investment Pool Government Investment Pool Opus Bank Certificate of Deposit FHLMC Bonds FHLMC Bonds FFCB Bonds TOTAL Investment Mix State Investment Pool Certificate of Deposit Bonds (a) To maturityor call date, whichever occurs first. (a) Term Purchase Purchase Maturity/Call ** Yield to Weighted months) Date Price Date Maturity Average Various $16,579,586 Various 0.12% 0.102% 24 9/17/2012 500,000 9/17/2014 0.60% 0.015% 60 12/28/2012 1,000,000 9/28/2013 ** 0.90% 0.045% 54 12/27/2012 1,000,000 9/27/2013 ** 0.75% 0.037% 45 12/19/2012 1,000,000 7/16/2013 ** 0.54% 0.027% % of Total Summary 82.6% Current 6-month treasury rate 2.5% Current State Pool rate 14.9% Blended Edmonds rate 100.0% 0.23% 0.226% 0.09% 0.12% 0.23% 21 AM-6019 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 08/13/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Committee: Finance Subject Title 2013 August Budget Amendment Recommendation Forward to full Council for approval Previous Council Action None Narrative Submitted By: Debra Sharp Tyne: Action Information 1. E. The first part of the budget amendment carries forward the ending 2012 fund balances per the City's financial statements and will adjust the 2013 beginning fund balance. The financial statements are still being audited but the Finance Departments feels it would be beneficial to the budget process to get these numbers updated. One of the budget amendments includes the Risk Management Fund (011) because the current 2013 revenue and expenditure appropriations would cause a negative fund balance with this adjustment. There are ten amendments related to the General Fund. Three of the amendments have offsetting revenues. There are two requests that are grant funded and the third is the proposed wellness plan by Human Resources. The City received a check for forfeited flex plan accounts and would like to use this money to promote a wellness program. One amendment moves unbudgeted separation payouts from non -departmental to the police department where the salaries were paid. The above amendments have no effect on fund balance. Three of the amendment requests have been before Council previously, the mayor's salary adjustment, the real estate appraisal for property located at Admiralty Acres Lot #12, and the Parks irrigation budget. This action is to establish budget appropriation. The remaining amendments reduce the General Fund by $289,000. The largest of these is a transfer from the General Fund to the Risk Management Reserve Fund in the amount of $250,000 to cover the negative fund balance due to the change in beginning fund balance and establish a reserve of $121,200. While these General Fund expenditures reduce projected fund balance from budgeted levels, projected revenues exceed budgeted levels and the overall impact will be positive. There are thirteen budget amendments related to non -general fund activity. Please see the attached documents for more detail. Attachments 2013 August Budget Amendment Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Roger Neumaier 08/08/2013 12:30 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/08/2013 02:24 PM Mayor Dave Earling 08/08/2013 03:10 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/08/2013 03:12 PM Form Started By: Debra Sharp Started On: 08/08/2013 09:32 AM Final Approval Date: 08/08/2013 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3920 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund Transfers and increases in appropriations; and WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is transferred from one fund to another; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the amended budget appropriations and information which was made available; and approves the appropriation of local, state, and federal funds and the increase or decrease from previously approved programs within the 2013 Budget; and THEREFORE, WHEREAS, the applications of funds have been identified; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 3920 adopting the final budget for the fiscal year 2013 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E adopted herein by reference. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take 1 effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: 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. APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVE EARLING 2 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 ORDINANCE NO. 3920 AS A RESULT EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of ,2013. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE 3 EXHIBIT "A": Budget Amendments by Revenue (August 2013) FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION ORD. NO. 3904 12/11/2012 ORD. NO. 3913 2/2013 ORD. NO. 3920 5/2013 ORD. NO. 8/2013 2013 Amended Budget 001 General Fund $ 32,846,292 $ 12,297 $ 23,500 $ 11,868 $ 32,893,957 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 600,350 (250,000) - - 350,350 011 Risk Management Reserve Fund 418,200 250,000 668,200 012 Contingency Reserve Fund 123,223 - - 123,223 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund - 15,000 15,000 016 Building Maintenance 56,900 - 56,900 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 20,175 20,175 111 Street Fund 1,406,800 - 1,406,800 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 6,223,755 140,000 118,274 6,482,029 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 59,891 - 9,994 69,885 118 Memorial Street Tree 27 - 27 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 52,870 52,870 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 18,120 18,120 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 2,025 2,025 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 19,000 - 19,000 125 ParkAcq/Improvement 650,600 12,000 115,232 777,832 126 Special Capital Fund 650,600 - - 650,600 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 20,483 - 16,000 36,483 129 Special Projects Fund 14,700 208,100 - 222,800 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 119,950 - 119,950 132 Parks Construction 1,869,500 140,850 2,010,350 136 Parks Trust Fund 228 - 228 137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust I'd 14,600 14,600 138 Sister City Commission 3,517 4,500 8,017 139 Transportation Benefit District 645,000 - 645,000 140 Business Improvement District - 66,000 66,000 211 Lid Fund Control 22,130 - 22,130 213 Lid Guaranty Fund 22,230 - 22,230 231 2012 LTGO Debt Service fund - 1,009,902 1,009,902 234 Ltgo Bond Debt Service Fund 414,500 (414,500) - 421 Water 10,625,680 10,625,680 422 Storm 3,486,716 3,486,716 423 Sewer/Treatment Plant 11,020,123 11,020,123 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,361,972 1,361,972 617 1 Firemen's Pension Fund 45,400 45,400 Totals $ 72,835,557 1 $ 733,649 1 $ 163,500 1 $ 591,868 1 $ 74,324,574 EXHIBIT "B": Budget Amendments by Expenditure (August 2013) FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION ORD. NO. 3904 12/11/2012 ORD. NO. 3913 2/2013 ORD. NO. 3920 5/2013 ORD. NO. 8/2013 2013 Amended Budget 001 General Fund $ 32,836,495 $ 123,008 $ 47,500 $ 322,810 $ 33,329,813 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 619,400 - - - 619,400 011 Risk Management Reserve Fund 661,000 - 661,000 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund - 15,000 15,000 016 Building Maintenance 35,000 170,000 205,000 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 80,033 - 80,033 111 Street Fund 1,557,715 - 1,557,715 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 6,304,984 20,000 140,000 194,260 6,659,244 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 130,600 9,200 - 9,994 149,794 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 68,500 - - 68,500 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 26,726 26,726 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 4,000 4,000 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 19,000 - - 19,000 125 ParkAcq/Improvement 964,000 322,500 115,232 1,401,732 126 Special Capital Fund 662,105 6,429 - 668,534 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 20,020 12,297 11,000 43,317 129 Special Projects Fund 14,700 208,100 - 222,800 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 152,761 - 152,761 132 Parks Construction 1,887,500 205,700 2,093,200 138 Sister City Commission 4,600 - 9,137 13,737 139 Transportation Benefit District 645,000 - 645,000 140 Business Improvement District - 40,000 40,000 211 Lid Fund Control 22,130 - - 22,130 231 2012LTGO Debt Service Fund - 1,009,902 1,009,902 234 Ltgo Bond Debt Service Fund 388,671 (388,671) - 421 Water 9,195,130 6,720 112,140 9,313,990 422 Storm 4,471,135 94,637 20,000 4,585,772 423 Sewer/Treatment Plant 16,854,966 (24,857) 1,337,910 (6,553) 18,161,466 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,042,840 52,532 - 1,095,372 617 1 Firemen's Pension Fund 108,790 - 108,790 Totals $ 78,777,801 1 $ 1,842,497 1 $ 1,525,410 1 $ 828,020 1 $ 82,973,728 EXHIBIT "C": Budget Amendment (August 2013) Department BARS Category Debit Credit Description Adjustments 2013 Be i ning Fund Balances General Fund 001 1 000 308 00 000 00 Be inning Fund Balance 2,805,793 Beginning Fund Balanceadjusted to equal 2012 Actual Ending Balances General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 2,805,793 Leoff-Medical Ins. Resei 009 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 67,643 Leoff-Medical Ins. Resei 009 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 67,643 Risk Management Reser 011 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 130,600 Risk Management Reser 011 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 130,600 Contingency Reserve Fu 012 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 3,934 Contingency Reserve Fu 012 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 3,934 Multimodal Trans orta 013 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 0 Multimodal Trans orta 013 000 61 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 0 Historic Preservation G 014 0001 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 1,063 Historic Preservation G 014 000 62 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 1,063 Bui I di ng Maintenance 0161 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 12,900 Bui I di ng Maintenance 0161 000 66 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 12,900 Drug Enforcement Fund 1041 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 16,870 Drug Enforcement Fund 104 000 41 508 00 00 00 lEnding Fund Balance 16,870 Drug Enforcement Fund 104 100 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 9,996 Drug Enforcement Fund 104 100 41 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 9,996 Street Fund 111 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 34,309 Street Fund 111 000 68 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 34,309 Combined StreetConst/ 112 200 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 32,343 Combined StreetConst/ 112 200 68 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 32,343 Combined StreetConst/ 112 502 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 369 Combined StreetConst/ 112 502 68 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 369 Combined StreetConst/ 112 503 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 0 Combined StreetConst/ 112 503 68 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 0 Combined StreetConst/ 112 506 308 00 000 00 1 lBeginning Fund Balance 0 Combined Street Const/ 112 506 68 508 00 00 1 00 jEnding Fund Balance 0 Municipal Arts Ac uis. 117 100 308 00 000 00 Be i ning Fund Balance 11,718 Municipal Arts Ac uis. 117 100 64 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 11,718 Municipal Arts Ac uis. 117 200 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 21,724 Municipal Arts Ac uis. 117 200 64 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 21,724 Municipal Arts Ac uis. 117 300 308 00 1 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 5 Municipal Arts Ac uis. 117 300 64 5081 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 5 Memorial Street Tree 118 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 2 Memorial Street Tree 118 000 64 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 2 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenu 120 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 3,730 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenu 120 000 31 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 3,730 Employee ParkinPerm 121 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 3,451 Employee ParkinPer 121 000 25 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 3,451 Youth Scholarship Fun 122 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 929 Youth Scholarship Fun 122 000 64 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 929 Tourism Promotional F 123 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 216 Tourism Promotional Ft 123 000 64 508 00 00 00 jEnding Fund Balance 216 REET2 Parks 125 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 239,769 REET2 Parks 125 000 64 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 239,769 REET2 Transportation 125 100 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 19,301 REET2 Transportation 1 125 100 62 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 1 19,301 EXHIBIT "C": Budget Amendment (August 2013) Department BARS Category Debit Credit Description Adjustments 2013 Be i ning Fund Balances REET1 Parks Acq 126 1 000 308 00 000 00 Be inning Fund Balance 98,785 Adjustment to REET 1 Parks Acq 1261 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 98,785 beginning balances continued Gifts Catalog Fund 127 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 304 Gifts Catalog Fund 127 000 64 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 304 Gifts Catalog Fund 127 100 308 00 0001 00 Beginning Fund Balance 9 Gifts Catalog Fund 127 100 64 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 9 Gifts Catalog Fund 127 200 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 6,692 Gifts Catalog Fund 127 200 64 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 6,692 Special Projects Fund 129 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 108 Special Projects Fund 129 000 00 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 108 Cemetery Maintenance 130 000 308 00 000 00 Be inning Fund Balance 6,150 Cemetery Maintenance 130 000 64 508 00 00 00 EndingFund Balance 6,150 CemeteryMaintenance 130 100 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 612 Cemetery Maintenance 130 100 64 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 612 Parks Construction 132 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 49,604 Parks Construction 132 000 64 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 49,604 Parks Trust Fund 136 100 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 8 Parks Trust Fund 136 100 64 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 8 Parks Trust Fund 136 200 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 8 Parks Trust Fund 136 200 64 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 8 Parks Trust Fund 136 300 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 2 Parks Trust Fund 136 300 64 508 00 00 00 Endi ng Fund Balance 2 Cemetery Maintenance 137 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 5,966 Cemetery Maintenance 137 000 64 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 5,966 Sister City Commission 138 100 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 1,248 Sister City Commission 138 100 21 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 1,248 Sister City Commission 138 200 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 1,047 Sister City Commission 138 200 21 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 1,047 Business Im r District 140 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 0 Business Im r District 140 000 61 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 0 Lid Fund Control 211 0001 308 00 000 00 Be i ni ng Fund Balance 0 Lid Fund Control 211 000 31 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 0 Lid Guaranty Fund 213 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 4,947 Lid Guaranty Fund 213 000 31 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 4,947 2012 Lt o Debt Service 1 231 000 308 00 000 00 JBeginning Fund Balance 496 2013 Lt o Debt Service 1 231 000 31 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 496 Lt o Bond Debt Service 1 234 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 0 Lt o Bond Debt Service 1 234 000 31 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 0 Equipment Rental Fund 511 000 308 00 000 00 Be i nni ng Fund Balance 33,613 Equipment Rental Fund 511 000 77 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 33,613 Equipment Rental Fund 511 100 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 29,071 Equipment Rental Fund 511 100 77 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 29,071 Firemen'S Pension Func 617 000 308 00 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 6,656 Firemen's Pension Func 617 000 F51 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 6,656 EXHIBIT "C": Budget Amendment (August 2013) Department BARS Category Debit Credit Description Budget Amendments General Fund 001 000 21 513 10 11 00 Salaries 2,265 Mayor's Salary Adjustment General Fund 001 000 21 513 10 23 00 Benefits 227 General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 2,492 General Fund 001 000 22 521 10 41 00 Professional Services 7,500 Assessment Center Funding General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 7,500 General Fund 001 1 0001 22 518 10 49 1 00 Miscellaneous 1,368 Wellness program Funds General Fund 001 000 369 90 220 00 Miscellaneous Revenue 1,368 General Fund 001 000 31 514 20 11 00 Salaries 43,000 Finance Director Salary General Fund 001 000 31 514 20 23 00 Benefits 6,000 General Fund 001 000 31 514 20 41 00 Professional Services 10,500 General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 26,500 General Fund 001 1 000 1 41 521 1 22 11 1 00 Salaries 23,217 Police Separation Payouts General Fund 001 000 41 521 22 23 00 Benefits 2,993 General Fund 001 000 41 521 21 11 00 Salaries 14,181 General Fund 001 000 41 521 21 23 00 Benefits 11824 General Fund 001 000 39 518 10 11 10 Salaries 42,215 General Fund 001 000 61 519 70 41 00 Professional Services 4,450 Council Authorized Appraisal General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 4,450 General Fund 001 000 62 524 20 41 00 Professional Services 10,500 Grant Adjustment General Fund 001 000 333 11 100 00 Grant 10,500 General Fund 001 000 64 576 80 12 00 Overtime 5,000 Parks Overtime General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 5,000 General Fund 001 000 64 576 80 47 00 Public Utility 15,000 Parks Irrigation Budget General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 15,000 General Fund 001 000 39 597 19 55 11 Interfund Transfer 250,000 Risk Management General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 250,000 Risk Management Reser 011 000 397 19 001 00 Interfund Transfer 250,000 Subfund Risk Management Reser 011 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 250,000 Municipal Arts Ac uis. 117 100 64 573 20 41 00 Professional Services 2,833 Arts Summit Donations / Expenditures Municipal Arts Ac uis. 117 100 64 573 20 49 00 Miscellaneous 110 Municipal Arts Acquis. 117 100 64 573 20 31 00 Supplies 2,770 Municipal Arts Ac uis. 117 100 64 573 20 45 00 Rental 4,281 Municipal Arts Ac uis. 117 100 367 00 000 00 Donations 9,994 Gifts Catalog Fund 127 000 64 575 50 31 00 Supplies 8,000 Gifts Catalog Benches & Corner Parks Gifts Catalog Fund 127 000 367 00 000 00 Donations 16,000 Gifts Catalog Fund 127 000 1 64 508 1 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 8,000 Gifts Catalog Fund 127 200 64 573 20 41 00 Professional Services 3,000 Gift Catalog - Public Art Gifts Catalog Fund 127 200 64 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 3,000 Sister City Commission 138 100 21 557 21 49 00 Miscellaneous 31737 Sister City 138.100 Sister City Commission 138 100 21 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 3,737 Sister City Commission 138 200 21 557 21 43 00 Student Trip 2,600 Sister City 138.200 Sister City Commission 138 200 21 557 21 49 00 Miscellaneous 8,000 Sister City Commission 138 200 367 00 300 00 Student Trip 3,000 Sister City Commission 138 200 367 00 100 00 Anniversary Donations 7,500 Sister City Commission 138 200 21 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 900 EXHIBIT "C": Budget Amendment (August 2013) Department BARS Category Debit Credit Description Budget Amendments Continued Business Im r District 140 000 61 558 70 41 00 Professional Services 30,000 Edmonds Downtown BID 2013 Budget Business Im r District 140 000 61 558 70 49 00 Miscellaneous 10,000 Business Im r District 140 000 321 99 000 00 00 BID Assessment Fee 66,000 Business Impr District 140 000 61 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 26,000 Street Construction Fun 112 200 68 595 33 65 00 Construction Projects 15,100 7th Avenue Sidewalk Street Construction Fun 112 200 367 00 000 00 1 lContributions 3,042 Street Construction Fun 112 200 68 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 12,058 Street Construction Fun 112 200 68 595 33 65 00 Construction Projects 37,500 School Zone Flashing Beacon Street Construction Fun 112 200 334 03 050 00 Grant 37,500 Street Construction Fun 112 502 68 595 64 49 00 Miscellaneous 26,428 Pt Edwards Traffic Fee Refund Street Construction Fun 112 502 68 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 26,428 Water Utility Fund 421 000 74 594 34 65 10 Construction Projects 100,000 76thAve Waterline Extension Water Utility Fund 421 000 74 594 34 65 10 Construction Projects 100,000 Sewer Uti I ity Fund 423 000 75 594 35 41 30 Professional Services 27,087 Sa n i ta ry Sewer Comp Plan Sewer Utility Fund 423 000 75 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 27,087 Street Construction Fun 112 200 68 595 33 65 00 Construction Projects 213,732 5th Avenue Street Construction Fun 112 200 68 595 95 65 1 91 Reimbursement from other funds 98,500 Street Construction Fun 112 200 397 42 125 00 Interfund Transfer 115,232 REET 2 125 100 318 35 000 00 REET 2 Revenue 115,232 REET2 125 100 62 597 42 55 12 Interfund Transfer 115,232 Water Utility Fund 421 0001 74 594 34 65 90 Reimbursement to other 78,500 Overlay Water Utility Fund 421 000 74 508 00 00 00 Endi ng Fund Balance 78,500 Storm Utility Fund 422 000 72 594 31 65 90 Reimbursement to other 20,000 Storm Uti I ity Fund 422 000 72 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 20,000 Water Utility Fund 421 000 74 594 34 65 90 Reimbursement to other 33,640 Lift Station Project Water Utility Fund 421 000 74 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 33,640 Sewer UtiIit Fund 423 1 0001 75 594 35 65 91 Reimbursementfromotherfunds 33,640 Sewer Utility Fund 423 1 0001 75 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 33,640 EXHIBIT "W: Budget Amendment Summary (August 2013) Fund Number Change in Beginning Fund Balance Revenue Expense Change in Ending Fund Balance 001 2,805,793 11,868 322,810 2,494,851 009 67,643 - - 67,643 011 (130,600) 250,000 - 119,400 012 (3,934) - - (3,934) 014 1,063 - - 1,063 016 12,900 - - 12,900 104 26,866 - - 26,866 111 (34,309) - - (34,309) 112 32,712 118,274 194,260 (43,274) 117 33,437 9,994 9,994 33,437 118 (2) - - (2) 120 (3,730) - - (3,730) 121 3,451 - - 3,451 122 929 - - 929 123 216 - - 216 125 259,070 115,232 115,232 259,070 126 98,785 - - 98,785 127 6,987 16,000 11,000 11,987 129 (108) - - (108) 130 5,538 - - 5,538 132 49,604 - - 49,604 136 (18) - - (18) 137 5,966 - - 5,966 138 (2,295) 4,500 9,137 (6,932) 140 - 66,000 40,000 26,000 213 4,947 - - 4,947 231 496 - - 496 421 - - 112,140 (112,140) 422 - - 20,000 (20,000) 423 - - (6,553) 6,553 511 4,541 - - 4,541 617 6,656 - - 6,656 Total Change 3,252,604 591,868 828,020 3,016,452 Above is a summary of changes to various funds. Budget amendments pertaining to the fund are as follows. Fund Name and Title Budget Amendment Summary All Funds except the Utility Funds Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to 2012 Actuals General Fund 001 Mayor's Salary Civil Service Assessment Center Wellness Program Finance Director Salary Police Separation Payouts Council Authorized Appraisal Grant Adjustment Parks Overtime Parks Irrigation Budget 10 EXHIBIT "D": Budget Amendment Summary (August 2013) Fund Name and Title Budget Amendment Summary (Continued) General Fund 001 (Continued) Risk Management Subfund Risk Management Reserve 011 Risk Management Subfund Street Construction Fund 112 7" Avenue Sidewalk School Zone Flashing Beacon Pt Edwards Traffic Fee Refund 5" Avenue Overlay Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 117 Arts Summit REET 2 125 5`h Avenue Overlay Gifts Catalog Fund 127 Benches and Corner Park Public Art Sister City Commission 138 Student Trip Anniversary Donations Business Improvement District 140 2013 Budget Appropriation Water Utility 421 76 h Ave Waterline Extension 5`h Avenue Overlay Lift Station Project Stormwater Utility 422 51h Avenue Overlay Sewer Utility 423 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Lift Station Project 11 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Roger Neumaier, Finance Director Department: Finance Department Description on Budget Amendment Summary: Mayor's Salary Adjustment Budget Amendment Detailed Description: The 2013 budget inadvertantly excluded COLAs forthe During budget development summer 2012, Mayor informed staff not interested in salary increase so not included in budget. During budget implementation, question arose whether recommendations of Citizens Commission were mandatory for Councilmembers, Mayor and Judge. MRSC indicated elected officials may decline recommended salary increases. In February of this year, the Council deferred action on a pay increase for the mayor pending research by the City Attorney and Human Resources. The prior Finance Director had directed Finance staff to make the adjustment in the Mayor's pay prior to leaving the City. The Mayor, who had not requested the increase, then contributed an amount equal to the increased compensation to a non-profit. It recently came to the Finance Department's attention that the Council had not approved the salary adjustment. This amendment authorizes that adjustmentthat was initiated in the Finance Department without direction from the Mayor's Office. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 001 Mayor's Office Salaries 001.000.21.513.10.11.00 2,265 001 Mayor's Office Benefits 001.000.21.513.10.23.00 227 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 2,492 Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas $ - Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund Fund Balance 001.000.39.508.00.00.00 (2,492) Total Endin Fund Balance Increase(Decrease) I I $ 12 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Mary Ann Hardie Department: Human Resources Description on Budget Amendment Summary: Additional funds for Assessment Center Budget Amendment Detailed Description: There will be a Sergeant Assessment Center at the City on 10/2/13 coordinated through Public Safety Testing. During the budget reduction process in 2013, there was a reduction from the Civil Service budget of $4,500 as there was not a forecasted need for an assessment center at that time. The Assessment Centerfees have increased due to the new testing parameters. The cost of the upcoming Assessment Center is $8500. Additionally, there was an unexpected retirement in June 2013 in the department as well as a loss of an officer to another agency in July 2013. As par tof the recruitment process to fill for those position, there have been additional medical and psychological testingfees which have also increased the normal expenditures from the Civil Service budget. Having the additional $7,500will cover the costs of both the Sergeant Assessment Center and the required medical examination fees as part of the recruitment process. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 521 General Fund Professional Service 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 $ 7,500 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 7,500 Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas $ - Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount Ending Fund Balance 001.000.39.508.00.00.00 $ (7,500) Total Endin Fund Balance lncrease(Decrease) i $ (7,500) 13 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Mary Ann Hardie Department: Human Resources Description on Budget Amendment Summary: Wellness program funds Budget Amendment Detailed Description: There was a forfeiture of funds from the Flexible Spending Account in the amount of $1368. These funds will be used toward the development of the wellness program to include an incentive program for employees to encourage them create and maintain healthier habits through nutrition education and fitness activities . The wellness program may include guest spea kercosts as well assmall incentives for completing fitness goals (such as t-shirts, water bottles, etc.). The net impact of a wellness program would be to have healthier, productive employees with less stress and health issues, lower lost work days and potentially lower L & I injury costs and medical insurance utilization costs (which affect our bottom line premium costs). Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund Misc 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 $ 1,368 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 1,368 Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund Flex Plan Services 001.000.369.90.220.00 $ (1,368) Forfeitures Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas $ (1,368 Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount Total Endin Fund Balance lncrease(Decrease) $ - 14 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Department Description on Budget Amendment Summary: Finance Director Salary Budget Amendment Detailed Description: In February of this year, the previous Finance Director resigned. In addition to final compensation, he was paid accrued vacation. A contracted Finance Director filled that position until early June. A transferwas made from salaries to professional services. InearlyJune a Finance Directorwas hired bythe City. This decision package requestsfunding for thefull amount that will be incurred. Based uponJune 3Oth information, the Finance Department administration area has been underfunded by about $26,500. This package requests that funding. There are no alternative sources off unding within the Finance Department. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund Salaries 001.000.31.514.20.11.00 43,000 001 General Fund Benefits 001.000.31.514.20.23.00 (6,000) 001 General Fund Professional Service 001.000.31.514.20.41.00 (10,500) Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 26,500 Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas $ - Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund Fund Balance 001.000.39.508.00.00.00 (26,500) Total Endin Fund Balance lncrease(Decrease) 1 $ (26,500) 15 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Deb Sharp Department: Non -Departmental Description on Budget Amendment Summary: Police Separation Payouts Budget Amendment Detailed Description: Sgt. Cameron retired effective June 30, 2013. There is money in the non -departmental budgetto cover payouts at separation. The police department requestthatthe $26,210.21 of salary and benefit costs associated with Sgt. Cameron's retirement payout, and the $16,004.58 of salary and benefit costs associated with Officer Frausto's separation payout be reimbursed to the department budgetfromthe non -departmental account. The department has already absorbed the separation costs for Daniel Lavelyand Bill Nelsonout of its current budget. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 001 General Patrol Salaries 001.000.41.521.22.11.00 23,217 001 General Patrol Benefits 001.000.41.521.22.23.00 2,993 001 General Investigation SaIarie 001.000.41.521.21.11.00 14,181 001 General Investigation Benefit 001.000.41.521.21.23.00 1,824 001 lGeneral INondepartmental 001.000.39.518.10.11.10 (42,215) Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ - Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas $ - Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount Total Endin Fund Balance lncrease(Dec rease) $ - 16 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Stephen Clifton Department: Community Services Description on Budget Amendment Summary: Council authorized appraisal Budget Amendment Detailed Description: This amendment is due to the motion passed by Edmonds City Council on April 16, 2013 to authorize a real estate appraisal for property located at City owned Admiralty Acres Lot #12 (Snohomish County Tax Parcel ID No. 00370800101200), with fundingfor appraisal from ending cash balance 2012. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 001 General Professional Sery 001.000.61.519.70.41.00 4,450 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 4,450 Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas $ - Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount 001 Genera 1 001.000.39.508.00.00.00 (4,450) Total En i ng Fund BaIanceIncrease(Decrease) I I $ 17 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Rob Chave Department: Development Services Description on Budget Amendment Summary: Grant Adjustment Budget Amendment Detailed Description: This amendment will adjust the Development Services budget to reflect a reimbursement grant for $10,500 recently received by the department. This is the 2nd installment of this grant, which is from the State Department of Energy. The grant match of 20% was accomplished by charging staff time taken to update online permit access and solar permitting procedures, projects which fit into the department's regular work priorities. The money received will be allocated to offset and restore some of the budget cuts required to be taken in the 2013 budget cycle, specifically to provide needed permit processing assistance in the Building Division to respond to high permit loads. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 001 Building Prof Services 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 10,500 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 10,500 Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund Grant (10,500) Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas $ (10,500 Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount Total Endin Fund Balance lncrease(Decrease) $ - IM. EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Rich Lindsay Department: Parks & Receation Description on Budget Amendment Summary: 2013 Parks overtime account line Budget Amendment Detailed Description: The Parks Departmentannual request for $5,OOO in overtime fundingwas left out of the 2013 budget process. The Parks Department requests $5,000 be added to their 2013 overtime budget. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund Overtime 001.000.64.576.80.12.00 5,000 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 5,000 Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas $ - Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund 001.000.39.508.00.00.00 (5,000) Total Endin Fund Balance Increase(Decrease) I I $ 19 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Sarah Cocker Department: Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Description on Budget Amendment Summary: Restoring Parks Irragation Budget Budget Amendment Detailed Description: City Council approved the restoration of the Parks Irrigation Budgetto allow for waterand mowingto be restored to basic maintenance levels, previously not budgeted in the 2013 budget. The estimated amount needed forthe remainerofthe year is $15,000. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund Public Utlitly 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15,000 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 15,000 Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas $ - Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund 001.000.39.508.000.000.00 (15,000) Total Endin Fund Balance Increase(Decrease) I I $ (15,000) 20 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Description on Budget Amendment Summary: Risk Management SubFund Budget Amendment Detailed Description: Within the General Fund, the Risk Management SubFund is utilized to reserve forand pay off costs related to litigation. The SubFund has a negative fund balance of $128,800. This appropriation requestwould fund thatshortfall and create an additional risk management reserve of $121,200 which will be available for future council authorized settlements. The appropriation will reduce fund balance in the General Operations Fund Balance but it will not impact overall fund balance in the General Fund. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund Interfund Transfer 001.000.39.597.19.55.11 250,000 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 250,000 Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 011 Risk Mgmt Reserve Interfund Transfer 011.000.397.19.001.00 (250,000) Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas 1 1 $ (250,000 Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund 001.000.39.508.00.00.00 (250,000) 011 Risk Mgmt Reserve 011.000.39.508.00.00.00 250,000 Total Endin Fund Balance lncrease(Dec rease) $ - 21 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Department: Description on Budget Amendment Summary: Budget Amendment Detailed Description: Frances Chapin Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Arts Summit Donations/Expenditures In March 2013 the Mayorannounced thatthe City would be holding an Arts Summit at the end of June. This was an unbudgeted intitiative. All fundingforthe Summit (outside of staff time) came from donations. Donations were deposited in the 117 100 Municipal Arts Fund and all expenditures were made out of that fund. Atotal of$9,995 was received by the City from seven different community organizations, businesses, and foundations. The funding was for preparations, presentation, and followup forthe full day Arts Summit event held at the Edmonds Centerforthe Arts on June 29, 2013. Expenditures for professional services and supplies forthe Arts Summit eve nttotaled $9,995. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 117 Municipal Arts prof services 117 100 64 573 20 4100 2,833 117 Municipal Arts miscellaneous 117 100 64 573 20 49 00 110 117 Municipal Arts supplies 117 100 64 573 20 3100 2,770 117 Municipal Arts rental 117 100 64 573 20 45 00 4,281 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 9,994 Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 117 Municipal Arts donations 117 100 367 00 000 00 (9,994) Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas I $ (9,994 Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount Total Endin Fund Balance lncrease(Dec rease) $ - 22 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Renee McRae Department: Description on Budget Amendment Summary: Budget Amendment Detailed Description: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Gifts Catalog Benches & Corner Parks At the time the 2013 budget was completed, we did not anticipate that we would be adding additional benches. After the completion of the Main Street project, between 5th and 6th Avenue, it was decided that we would add three benches. We also are adding a bench to Pine Street Park. All four benches have been paid for as part of the Gifts Catalog program and the revenue covers the expense of the benches. Anew program,Adopt-A-Corner Park, was started in 2013. This program brought in $8,000 in revenue which wasn't part of the adopted 2013 budget. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 127 Gifts Catalog Supplies 127.00.0.64.575.50.31.00 8,000 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 8,000 Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 127 Gifts Catalog Contributions/Donat 127.000.367.00.000.00 (16,000) Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas $ 16,000 Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount 127 Gifts Catalog Ending Cash 127.000.64.508.00.00.00 8,000 Total Endin Fund Balance lncrease(Decrease) 1 $ 8,000 23 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Department: Description on Budget Amendment Summary: Budget Amendment Detailed Description: Frances Chapin Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Gift Catalog Fund 127 200- Public Art The 127 200 program is for public art projects funded through donations. The current program is for art enhanced flower basket poles that can be commemorated through a donation. Donations and expenditures are not always made in the same year. The professional services line for purchase of the pole and artwork is being increased by $3,000 to accommodate the potential acquisition of more poles towards the end of 2013. The revenue isfromendingcash,all of which is previously donated funds. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 127 200 Gift Catalog -Public Art prof services 127 200 64 573 20 4100 3,000 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 3,000 Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas $ - Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount 127 200 Gift Catalog - Public Art ending cash 127 200 64 508 00 00 00 (3,000) Total Endin Fund Balance Increase(Decrease) I I $ 24 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Department: Description on Budget Amendment Summary: Budget Amendment Detailed Description: Carolyn LaFave Mayor's Office Sister Citv Commission - Fund 138.100 2013 marks the25th anniversary celebration of the sister city relationship between Edmonds and Hekinan Japan. For this anniversary celebration, this Fall we will be hosting a 37 member delegation from Hekinan. The added expenditures reqeusted will cover:1) transportation of the delegation to and from the airport 2)hotel accomodationsfor day use by home stay delegates upon theirarrival in Edmonds 3) venue rental costs forthe Commission's October30th Cultural Fair. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 138 Sister City Commission Miscellaneous 138.100.21.557.21.49.00 3,737 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 3,737 Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas $ - Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount 138 Sister City Commission 138.100.21.508.00.00.00 (3,737) Total Endin Fund Balance Increase(Decrease) I I $ 25 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Department: Description on Budget Amendment Summary: Budget Amendment Detailed Description: Carolyn LaFave Mayor's Office Sister Citv Commission - Fund 138.200 2013 marks the25th anniversary celebration of the sister city relationship between Edmonds and Hekinan Japan. For this anniversary celebration, this Fall we will be hosting a 37 member delegation from Hekinan. Forthis reason we applied forand secured a $7,500 grantfromthe Hazel Miller Foundation. These funds will cover the delegation Friendship dinnerand activities and events scheduled for our delegates. Also included in this amendment, thisyearthe Edmonds 5isterCityCommission and the Hekinan Sister City Association made the decision to not do a student exchange forcalendaryear 2013. Due to that, we will not receive or expend any student trip funds. The student exchange program will commence again in 2014. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 138 Sister City Commission Student Tri p 138.200.21.557.21.43.00 (2,600 138 Sister City Commission Miscellaneous 138.200.21.557.21.49.00 8,000 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 5,400 Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 138 Sister City Commission Student Trip 138.200.367.00.300.00 3,000 138 Sister City Commission Anniversary Contr 138.200.367.00.100.00 (7,500) Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas 1 1 $ (4,500 Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount 138 Sister City Commission 138.200.21.508.00.00.00 (900) Total Endin Fund Balance lncrease(Dec rease) $ (900) 26 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Stephen Clifton Department: Community Services/Economic Development Description on Budget Amendment Summary: Edmonds Downtown BID 2013 Budget Budget Amendment Detailed Description: To add budget details for the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID)for their 2013 budget. See attached work plan approved on June 25, 2013 by Edmonds City Council. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 140 Business Im r District Professional Service 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 30,000 140 Business Im r District Miscellaneous 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 10,000 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 40,000 Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 140 Business lmprDistrict BID Assessment Fee 140.000.321.99.000.00 (66,000) Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas $ 66,000 Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount 140 Business Impr District 140.000.61.508.00.00.00 26,000 Total Endin Fund Balance lncrease(Decrease) 1 $ 26,000 27 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Rob English Department: Public Works Department Description on Budget Amendment Summary: 7th Ave Sidewalk Budget Amendment Detailed Description: The property owner of 220th 7th Ave offered to pay for 104 feet of new sidewalk along their property frontage across from Civic Playfields. The Public Works Department reviewed the request and found the existing curb and gutter adjacent to the proposed sidewalk in poor condition. The curb and gutter must be replaced to allow the sidewalk to be constructed. The improvements will be completed with a small works contract and the Citywill pay for the curb and gutter replacement and one curb ramp and the property owner will reimburse the Cityfor the new sidewalk. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 112 Street Const Fund Const Surf Const Pro' 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 15,100 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 15,100 Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 112 Street Const Fund Contribution 112.000.367.00.000.00 (3,042) Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas 1 $ 3,042 Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount 112 Street Const Fund Ending Cash & Invest 112.200.68.508.00.00.00 (12,058) Total Endin Fund Balance lncrease(Decrease) i 1 $ (12,058) EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Rob English Department: Public Works Department Description on Budget Amendment Summary: School Zone Flashing Beacons Budget Amendment Detailed Description: In 2013, the City secured a grant from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission to install flashing beacons in five school zones. This amenment will program the expense and grant revenue for the project. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 112 Street Const Fund Const Surf Const Pro' 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 37,500 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 37,500 Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 112 Street Const Fund Grant 112.200.334.03.500.00 (37,500) Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas $ (37,500 Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount Total Endin Fund Balance lncrease(Decrease) $ - 29 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Rob English Department: Public Works Description on Budget Amendment Summary: Pt Edwards Traffic Fee Reimbursement Budget Amendment Detailed Description: In June 2013, the City refunded $26,427.15 to Point Edwards LLC for traffic mitigation fees collected in 2004. The mitigation fee was collected in 2004 as a contribution for signalization improvements to be built with the Edmonds Multi -Modal project. The fee, plus interest, was returned to Point Edwards in accordance with RCW 82.02.020 since the signalization improvements were not built. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 112 Street Const. Fund Miscellaneous 112.502.68.595.64.49.00 26,428 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 26,428 Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas $ - Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount 112 Street Const. Fund Ending Cash & Invest 112.502.68.508.00.00.00 (26,428) I Total En ing Fund Balance lncrease(Decrease) i 1 $ 26,428 30 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Department: Description on Budget Amendment Summary: Budget Amendment Detailed Description: Rob English Public Works Department 76th Ave Waterline Extension The 2013 Budget forthe 76th Ave Waterline Replacement Project is currently $665,000. Based on unforseen soils contamination and the possibility of other unforeseen site specific circumstances forthe projectand management costs, the project budget needs to be increased by an additional $100,000, bringing the projecttotal to $765,000. The additional $100,000 will be transferred from the 2013 project budget forthe 2013 Waterline Replacement Program. The 2013 Budgetforthe 2013 Waterline Replacement Program will be reduced to $1,577,719. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 421 Water Uti I ity Fund Construction 421.000.74.594.34.65.10 (100,000) 421 Water Uti I ity Fund Construction 421.000.74.594.34.65.10 100,000 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ - Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas $ - Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount Total Endin Fund Balance lncrease(Dec rease) $ - 31 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Department: Description on Budget Amendment Summary: Budget Amendment Detailed Description: Rob English Public Works Department Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan This amendment will provide additional sewer utility funds for the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan. The project is currently in progress. This amendment will program unspent funds from 2012 to 2013 to match the approved current budget of $218,100. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 423 Sewer Utility Fund Professional Svcs 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 27,087 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 27,087 Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas $ - Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount 423 Sewer Fund Ending Fund Balance 423.000.75.508.00.00.00 (27,087) Total Endin Fund Balance lncrease(Decrease) i 1 $ (27,087) 32 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Rob English Department: Public Works Description on Budget Amendment Summary: 5th Ave Overlay Budget Amendment Detailed Description: This amendment provides $213,732 funding authorization in 2013 for the 5th Ave Overlay project. The additional funding is required to pay for a higher than expected bid to construct the project. With the improving economy, repaving costs have grown. The additional cost is allocated to the Water Utilty Fund which had a waterline replacement project that created the need for overlay, the Storm water Utility Fund which benefits from the project as a result of stormline improvements and their impact on the pavement, and REET II. The REET II contribution is funded by greaterthan anticipated 2013 revenues. The project overall costs will be just over $1 million and the majority of the costs ($551 thousand) are being funded by a federal grant. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 112 Street Const Fund Const Surf Const Pro' 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 213,732 112 Street Const Fund Reimbursement from 112.200.68.595.95.65.91 (98,500) 125 REET Interfund Transfer 12 5.10 0.6 2.5 9 7.4 2.5 5.12 115,232 421 Water Uti I ity Fund Reimbursement toot 421.000.74.594.34.65.90 78,500 422 IStormwater Utility Fund Reimbursementto of 422.000.72.594.31.65.90 20,000 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 328,964 Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 125 REET REET Revenue 125.100.318.35.000.00 (115,232) 112 Street Const Fund Interfund Transfer In 112.200.397.42.125.00 (115,232) Total Revenue (Increase) Decreas 1 1 $ (230,464 Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount 421 Water Utility Fund Ending Fund Balance 421.000.74.508.00.00.10 (78,500) 422 Stormwater Utility Fund Ending Fund Balance 422.000.72.508.00.00.00 (20,000) Total Endin Fund Balance lncrease(Decrease) i 1 $ (98,500) 33 EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Detail (August 2013) Prepared By: Department: Description on Budget Amendment Summary: Budget Amendment Detailed Description: Rob English Public Works Department Lift Station Project The Sewer Lift Station project included water line improvements. This amendment will program a transfer of $33,640 from the Water Utility Fund to the Sewer Utility Fund to pay for the waterline work. Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 421 Water Uti I ity Fund Reimbursementtoot 421.000.74.594.34.65.90 33,640 423 Sewer Utility Fund Reimbursement from 423.000.75.594.35.65.91 (33,640) Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ - Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount Total Revenue (Increase)DecreaS $ - Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title BARS Number Amount 421 Water Uti I ity Fund 421.000.74.508.00.00.00 (33,640 423 Sewer Utility Fund 42 3.000.7 5.508.00.00.00 33,640 Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) $ - 34 AM-6012 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 08/13/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Committee: Finance Submitted By: Roger Neumaier Tyne: Information Subject Title Sharing 2014 Budget Approaches and Recommending Fund Balance Policy Information 1. F. Recommendation Recommendation to Finance Committee is that they refer to Council consideration of approach laid out in attachment which recommends targeted General Fund Fund Balance at 32% of annual revenues and anticipation of 2% of annual budgeted expenditures as unexpended resources available for one-time projects. Previous Council Action New Fund Balance Target policy proposal for updated structure for General Fund. Narrative Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2014 Revenue: Expenditure: Fiscal Impact• Will impact budgetary approach in 2014 budget. 2014 Target Fund Balance Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Roger Neumaier Final Approval Date: 08/08/2013 Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 08/07/2013 02:35 PM Dave Earling 08/08/2013 11:36 AM Sandy Chase 08/08/2013 11:40 AM Started On: 08/07/2013 01:27 PM In the past year, the City has changed its General Fund reserve structure. In addition, the City has made tough decisions on expenditures in order to increase the amount of fund balance. It is an appropriate time to adopt a policy for General Fund General Operations Fund Balance level. Targets for fund balance are measured as a percent of annual fund revenue. Below is a draft policy. Draft Fund Balance Policy Statement: In developing each year's budget, the budget plan for the upcoming year will target a fund balance equal to 32% of budgeted year revenues. Draft Under -Expenditure Policy Statement: In developing its annual budget, the City will anticipate under -expenditure of 2% of the proposed year's expenditure budget. If not needed to maintain the 32% fund balance, that 2% under -expenditure will be utilized in the budget for funding and augmenting funding of one-time expenditures including equipment, technology, infrastructure and projects. 2014 Ramifications of this policy: Based upon preliminary revenue and expenditure assumptions and assuming, 2% a under -expenditure for 2013 ($659,190) increasing available fund balance for 2014, the sustainable amount available above current level of resources for 2014 will be $1.25 million. The 2% under -expenditure available for one-time projects in 2014 would be $687 thousand. There are two conceptually difficult things related to this policy. First of all, the conservative projections we utilize predict that expenditures grow more quickly than revenues. Secondly, fund balance is measured as a percent of revenues. Thus, as the annual revenue grows, so does the required fund balance at 32%. What this means is that over time, unless these conservative projections are proven wrong (which they very likely will be), the fund balance percent will decline. In order to adjust for this in my projection, future year one-time costs decline in each year of this projection by $100 thousand from the prior year. In addition, no new ongoing expenditures are initiated unless there is new revenue. Here is my fund balance projection based on these draft policies for fund balance target and under -expenditures as well as the 2014 plan referenced above. 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 General Operations Fund Balance Actual Actual Projected Outlook Outlook Outlook Outlook Outlook Outlook General Operations (001) 5,705,631 4,635,300 5,987,997 5,998,149 5,983,018 6,008,709 5,932,831 5,731,921 5,367,708 General Operations Contingency (012) 1,927,600 5,278,152 5,278,152 5,278,152 5,278,152 5,278,152 5,278,152 5,278,152 5,278,152 Subtotal - General Operations Fund Balance 7,633,231 9,913,452 11,266,149 11,276,301 11,261,170 11,286,861 11,210,983 11,010,073 10,645,860 Fund Balance as a % of Current Year Revenue 23.26% 29.82% 32.83% 32.80% 32.10% 31.46% 31.46% 30.24% 28.61% Aa-rated cities nationally Financial Data : Financial Statistics & Ratios Financial Data : Tax Base Financial Data : Debt Financial Data: Demographic Statistics and Ratios Statistics & Ratios Statistics Unreserved Debt Total General Available Median General Top Ten Direct Net Burden Per Capita Family General Fund Op Fund Total Full Full Population ° /o Income Fund TaxPayers Debt as (Overall Years Fund Balance Balance Value Value Per 2000 Income Balance as as % of of Full Net Debt (2000 Revenues as % of as % of ($000) Capita ($) Census (2000 % of Total Value as %Full Census) ($000) Revenues Revenue Revenues Value)Census) Median Most Aal Recent 39,311 32.1 25 28.6 4,565,588 140,590 6.8 0.8 2.4 30,730 32,012 77,875 Cities Available (259) Median Most Aa2 Recent 23,968 32.2 24.3 28.6 2,632,176 112,291 8.1 0.8 2.4 20,345 25,962 65,197 Cities Available (848) Median Most Aa3 Recent 14,027 31.4 24.9 29.2 1,363,148 91,387 8.6 0.9 2.6 13,182 22,351 57,423 Cities Available (570) Aa-rated Cities nationally with 2010 Census Population less than 50,000 Median Aal Cities Most Recent 23,770 38.7 32.1 35.1 3,387,295 180,770 7.7 0.7 2.1 17,558 38,234 88,903 Available (156) Median Most Aa2 Recent 18,464 33.3 25.5 29.2 2,168,727 125,729 8.3 0.8 2.1 16,246 27,251 68,528 Cities Available (658) Median Most Aa3 Recent 12,879 32.8 26.7 30.4 1,267,791 93,996 9 1 2.6 11,850 22,550 58,973 Cities Available (495) AM-6014 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 08/13/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Committee: Finance Subject Title Bond Sale Report Recommendation Previous Council Action Submitted By: Roger Neumaier Tyne: Information Information 1. G. Narrative The City Council delegated to the Finance Director the authority to approve final terms of $15,010,000 in Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds. Attached to this agenda item is the letter from the Financial Advisor summarizing the bond sale which took place on November 6th, 2013. The bonds were sold at a true interest cost of 4.51 % and an interest cost of 4.56% including all fees. In our final analysis, the City had used 4.75% as an estimate for interest costs for the 25 year amortized bonds (comparable to the 4.56% we sold them at). 2013 Financial Advisor Letter Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Roger Neumaier Final Approval Date: 08/08/2013 Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 08/08/2013 09:10 AM Dave Earling 08/08/2013 11:35 AM Sandy Chase 08/08/2013 11:40 AM Started On: 08/07/2013 03:37 PM Soo Bellevue Way NE, Ste 400 ! Bellevue, WA 98004 AA. D&A tel 425.452-4550 1 fax 425.452-9552 August 6, 2013 City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Re: $15,010,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2013 Honorable Mayor and City Council: Overview This morning, the City sold $15,010,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds (the "Bonds") through a competitive bond sale. A. Dashen & Associates was retained to serve as financial advisor to the City for the transaction, and this letter summarizes the Bond sale and our recommendations. Net proceeds of the sale will be used to finance water, sewer, and stormwater capital projects. The following table shows the sources and uses of funds: Sources of Funds Par Amount $ 15,010,000 Net Premium 129,328 Total Sources $ 15,139,328 Uses of Funds Project Fund $ 14,150,000 Reserve Fund 842,514 Issuance Expenses 146,814 Total Uses $ 15,139,328 In accordance with Ordinance No. 3933 (the "Bond Ordinance") adopted on July 16, 2013, the City Council delegated to the Finance Director the authority to approve the final terms of the Bonds, subject to certain parameters. With our recommendation, the sale of the Bonds was approved. Bond Structure The Bonds were structured as 25 year bonds with a final maturity in 2038. The Bond debt service was "wrapped" around the City's outstanding Water & Sewer debt service, resulting in approximately level overall debt service payments. Bond Ratings The City applied to Moody's Investors Service and the outstanding rating on the City's Water and Sewer Bonds of "Aa3" was affirmed. The rating reflects very positively on the City, City management and staff and the sound financial position of the Water & Sewer Utility. Bond Market Interest rates have increased the last few months but continue to be at historically low levels. The following graph shows interest rate trends for highly rated tax-exempt bonds maturing in 20 years. The trends shown are from 1990 to present. Bond Buyer 20-Bond GO Index 1990 to Present 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 v 4.00 } 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 O c-I N M -;T Ln lD r� W m O r-I N M -:t In O n w m O r-i N M Ol Ol Ql Ql Ql 61 Ol Ql Ql M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O rl ri r-I ci ri ri rl ci ri ri N N N N N N N N N N (V N N N Bond Sale Results The Bonds were sold through a competitive bid process and were advertised for sale nationally. The City received eight bids for the Bonds as follows: Firm True Interest Cost William Blair & Company, LLC 4.527044% J.P. Morgan Securities LLC 4.605300 Piper Jaffray 4.668991 Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC 4.712245 Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. 4.753212 UBS Financial Services Inc. 4.822423 Hutchinson, Shockey, Erley & Co. 4.893762 Mesirow Financial, Inc. 5.047614 The winning firm was William Blair & Company, LLC of Chicago, Illinois. The true interest cost shown takes into account interest rates, yields and the fees of the bidding firm. Summary This was an excellent competitive bond sale for the City. Receiving multiple bids provides assurance to the City that the bonds were priced aggressively. In summary, we recommended acceptance of the winning bid and congratulate the City on a successful sale. We would also like to thank the City for the opportunity to continue serving as your financial advisor. j6l�?!! . Scott Bauer 2 AM-6008 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 08/13/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted By: Frances Chapin Department: Parks and Recreation Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Tyne: Information Subject Title Approval to forward Five Corners Roundabout public art selection to full Council. Recommendation Forward recommended Art Selection to City Council with a public hearing. Action 2. A. Previous Council Action March 19, 2013 City Council approved the Request for Qualifications for Artists for the Five Corners Roundabout project, with a project budget of $25,000. Narrative In March the City Council approved the Request for Qualifications for Artists for the Five Corners Roundabout project recommended by the Edmonds Arts Commission. In accord with the City Public Art process, a selection jury consisting of one City Council representative, on Arts Commission representative, a member of Engineering staff, a citizen from the general neighborhood, a representative of the Five Corners business district, and an arts professional, reviewed the 22 entries received and selected three artists to develop site specific designs. On July 25 the three design proposals were presented at a selection jury meeting advertised in the local press as open to the public. The three artists presented their proposals and public comment was taken at the end. Twelve members of the public attended. Following this the selection jury discussed the proposals further and recommended selection of the proposal by CJ Rench. The recommendation was presented to the Edmonds Arts Commission on August 5 and a motion was approved to recommend the proposal by CJ Rench to the City Council for approval following a public hearing. Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Frances Chapin Final Approval Date: 08/08/2013 Form Review Date 08/06/2013 02:38 PM 08/07/2013 01:38 PM 08/08/2013 09:10 AM Started On: 08/06/2013 11:37 AM AM-6020 2. B. City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 08/13/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted By: Rob Chave Department: Planning Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Tyne: Action Information Subject Title Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Inter jurisdictional Coordination Relating to Affordable Housing Within Snohomish County. Recommendation Forward to the City Council for approval. Previous Council Action On July 5, 2011, the City Council voted to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with other Snohomish County jurisdictions to explore an interjurisdictional partnership to support housing policies and address affordable housing needs in the county. Narrative In June, 2009, Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) approved a feasibility study designed to explore options for creating a new program that would allow multiple jurisdictions to work together to expand affordable housing opportunities in the county. Following that effort, a multi jurisdictional work group began working to develop a mechanism to implement the study's recommendations, with the intent of establishing an interjurisdictional partnership designed to address the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA) to provide for existing and future housing needs for all economic segments of the community. The recognition was that no single jurisdiction can address housing challenges, since housing needs and issues are not unique or necessarily isolatable to specific jurisdictions; a multi jurisdictional approach will have more chance of success. In July, 2011, the Edmonds City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (see Exhibit _) expressing support for the process. A working group of Snohomish County jurisdictions has completed its work and has developed an "Interlocal Cooperation Agreement For Inter -Jurisdictional Coordination Relating To Affordable Housing Within Snohomish County" (contained in Exhibit 1). The agreement supports countywide work on affordable housing, with the administrative support of the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO). Jurisdictions are contributing to the effort, which was funded in part by a grant from the Gates Foundation ($50,000). To participate, Edmonds' financial contribution would be $2,385 for the 2013-2014 fiscal year, as detailed in the budget (Attachment B, on the next -to -last page of the ILA). The last page of the ILA outlines the work program for the first year. One of the key principles behind the proposed interlocal agreement is that housing is an issue that can best be addressed on an interjurisdictional basis. Some of the potential benefits to the city are that the countywide work will provide additional information to the city for housing needs and planning, developing countywide strategies and tools to address housing needs, and providing for a way to pursue and leverage funding that go beyond the capabilities of any single jurisdiction. Council approval is required for the interlocal agreement, as well as authorization for the expenditure ($2,385). Fiscal Year: 2013 Fiscal Impact: $2,385 Fiscal Impact Revenue: Expenditure: 2,385 Exhibit 1: Proposed Interlocal Agreement Exhibit 2: City Council Minutes from 2011 Exhibit 3: Memorandum of Understanding (201 U Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Fonn Started By: Rob Chave Final Approval Date: 08/08/2013 Attachments Form Review Date 08/08/2013 11:31 AM 08/08/2013 11:33 AM 08/08/2013 11:40 AM Started On: 08/08/2013 09:52 AM INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR INTER -JURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION RELATING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHIN SNOHOMISH COUNTY This Interlocal Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into by and among the cities of Edmonds, Everett, Granite Falls, Lake Stevens, Lynnwood, Marysville, Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo, and Snohomish, and the town of Woodway, all of which are municipal corporations organized under the laws of the State of Washington; the Housing Authority of Snohomish County, a public housing authority organized under Ch. 35.82 RCW; and Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (herein each referred to individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties"). This Agreement is made pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW, and has been authorized by the governing body of each Party. The Parties agree as follows: RECITALS WHEREAS, the Parties have a common goal to facilitate the availability of housing within Snohomish county and their respective jurisdictions that meets the needs of all income levels; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to provide a common foundation for housing policies and programs in Snohomish County and to complement —without duplication of or conflict with —the efforts of existing governmental and non -governmental organizations to address housing needs in Snohomish county; and WHEREAS, the Parties further desire to act cooperatively (1) to educate and provide technical expertise in support of the affordable housing goals and policies of the Parties, as communities in Snohomish county; (2) to foster efforts to provide affordable housing by encouraging funding of housing projects from any combination of public, non-profit, and private -sector resources; (3) to seek opportunities to leverage resources to support implementation of the housing goals and policies of the state Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies relating to affordable housing; and (4) to accomplish the foregoing purposes efficiently and expeditiously; and WHEREAS, the Parties have determined that one efficient and expeditious method for addressing affordable housing needs in Snohomish county is through the cooperative action by the Parties contemplated by this Agreement; and WHEREAS, this cooperative undertaking is not intended to duplicate or to be in conflict with efforts of public, private, and non-profit corporations and other entities, including the Parties, already providing affordable housing -related services; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to create a venue for the Parties to 1 undertake planning, cooperation and education in support of the goal of enhancing the supply of affordable housing in Snohomish county. 2. Term. This Agreement shall be effective when it has been both (a) executed by the Parties and (b) filed in the offices of the Snohomish County Auditor. The term of this Agreement will expire on June 30, 2015, unless: (a) the Agreement is terminated earlier by action of the Parties in accordance with Section 7(a) hereof; or (b) a simple majority of the Joint Board membership vote to extend the Agreement prior to March 31, 2015. The Parties may continue to vote in this manner to extend the Agreement in two (2) year increments prior to March 31st of of the final year of each term. 3. Governance. To accomplish the purpose of this Agreement, a Board of representatives from the Parties is hereby created (the "Joint Board"). The Joint Board shall have policy -making and oversight authority over the activities undertaken in this Agreement. The cooperative undertaking of the signatories to this Agreement shall be known as the Alliance for Housing Affordability ("Joint Board" or "AHA"). (a) Representatives. The Joint Board shall consist of authorized representatives of the Parties. Each Party shall appoint one individual to act as its Representative. No later than 30 days following the effective date of this Agreement and thereafter no later than January 31 of each calendar year, each Party shall provide notice in writing to the other Parties of the identity and contact information for its Representative. (b) Alternates. Each Party may designate one individual to serve in the place of its Representative on the Board during the Representative's absence or inability to serve. If an Alternate is designated by a Party, the Party shall notify the Joint Board in the manner described in subparagraph (2)(a) above. (c) Meetings. A quorum of the Board shall consist of a simple majority of the Representatives (or Alternates serving in their stead) being present at the meeting. (i) All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public and held in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 42.30 RCW (the "OPMA"). (ii) Subject to the provisions of this Agreement and the OPMA, the Joint Board shall establish procedures for operations, meetings, and the frequency of meetings, provided that the Board shall meet not less often than quarterly. I (iii) Meetings of the Board shall be conducted according to Robert's Rules of Order, except when the Board agrees to waive or suspend those Rules. The Board shall provide for written minutes of all meetings of the Board. (d) Voting. Action taken by the Board shall be by majority vote of those Representatives present (including Alternates serving in the absence of the appointed Representatives) except that a change in the Administrative Agency appointed shall require an affirmative vote of at least the majority of the Joint Board membership. (e) Officers of Joint Board. The Representatives shall each year elect from their number a Chair and Vice Chair. The Chair shall set the agenda, preside over all meetings of the Board, and shall, with the assistance of the Administrative Agency, process issues, organize meetings, and provide for administrative support as required by the Joint Board. The Vice Chair shall fulfill the duties of the Chair in the absence, incapacity or resignation of the Chair. 4. Authorized Actions of the Joint Board. The Parties agree that the Joint Board shall have the authority to: (a) Develop housing information to assist local elected officials; (b) Provide technical assistance to Parties for their use in developing and implementing local housing policies, programs and regulations; (c) Educate on housing issues, and resources available to assist in the development and retention of affordable housing; (d) Propose to the Parties methods for attracting additional public, private, and not - for -profit investment into affordable housing, including by coordinating, leveraging or contributing local resources; (e) Identify opportunities for retention of existing sustainable housing; (f) Support, on a planning and technical assistance level, the activities of Parties in aid of the construction of affordable housing; (g) Discuss and bring forward proposals for cooperation among the Parties in promoting affordable housing, which shall be referred to the governing bodies of the Parties for consideration; (h) Monitor legislative and regulatory activities related to affordable housing at the state and federal levels; (i) Research model programs, develop draft legislation, prepare briefing materials, and make presentations to planning commissions and councils upon request by a 3 Party; Q) Develop technical information about standard regulatory agreements acceptable to private and public financial institutions to facilitate the availability of funding for private and public projects containing affordable housing; (k) Recommend an annual budget for approval by the governing body of each Party, which shall detail the authorized expenditures for the coming fiscal year; (1) Establish an annual work -plan, specifying the activities planned for the coming fiscal year, to accompany the recommended annual budget; (m) Submit an annual report to the governing body of each Party, apprising that Party of the tasks undertaken and accomplishments of the Joint Board in the previous fiscal year; (n) Take other appropriate and necessary action to carry out the purposes of this Agreement, provided that any commitment of resources outside the scope of the annual budget or policies not within the annual work plan shall be subject to the ultimate approval of the governing bodies. (5) BUDGET; APPROPRIATIONS; OTHER FISCAL MATTERS. (a) Fiscal Year. The Joint Board shall operate for budgeting and expenditure purposes on the basis of a fiscal year beginning July 1 and ending the following June 30. (b) Initial Year of the Agreement. The Parties have appropriated funds for the first year's budget of the Joint Board. The appropriated funds are shown on Attachment A to this Agreement. Upon execution of this Agreement, the Administering Agency may bill each Party for the committed funds and deposit them in the Operating Fund (see Paragraph 5(d) below). Funds granted for the purposes of this Agreement from the Gates Foundation (also shown on Attachment A) will also be deposited in the Operating Fund. The budget and work plan for the fiscal year July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014 is shown on Attachment B. (c) Proposed Annual Budget. For the fiscal year July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015, the Joint Board shall recommend a Joint Board annual operating budget, proposed work plan, and annual report for submission to the governing body of each Party by September 1, 2013. For each fiscal year thereafter, the Joint Board shall recommend a Joint Board annual operating budget, proposed work plan, and annual report for submission to the governing body of each Party by June 1 of the preceding calendar year. (i) The recommended operating budget shall include, but not be limited to, reimbursements to the Administrative Agency for staff support, consultant, vendor and contractor costs and other costs for the work plan, and shall contain itemizations of all categories of budgeted expenses. (ii) Each Party's proposed contribution shall be calculated as a percentage of the entire proposed budget, with that percentage determined on a per capita basis after factoring for available funds from grants and carryover of unspent funds from a previous budget. (d) Authorization by Parties; Revisions. Upon receipt of the Joint Board - proposed budget, each Party shall consider approval and appropriation of its share of the proposed budget for the upcoming Fiscal Year in order to determine the amount of its payment to the Operating Fund. A Party's contribution may consist , in whole or in part, of in -kind services, if approved in the Final Budget. If any Party does not approve and appropriate its share of the Joint Board - proposed budget, it shall notify the Board, through the Party's Representative, of the amount it would be willing to approve and appropriate. The Joint Board shall then reconsider the budget and work plan and make adjustments accordingly. The revised budget will then be resubmitted to the Parties for consideration. The Parties acknowledge and agree that no commitment to pay any Party's share of a Joint Board -budgeted amount shall be effective absent an appropriation of funds by the legislative body of that Party in accordance with state and local law. (e) Adoption of Final Budget. Upon approval of a budget and appropriation of their respective shares by the legislative bodies of all Parties, the Joint Board shall adopt the final budget and begin implementation of the work plan. The budget shall be adopted by the Joint Board no later than the March 31 preceding the commencement of the next -ensuing Fiscal Year. (f) Billings; Payments. The Fiscal Agent shall mail billings based on the approved budget to each Party by no later than the April 30 preceding each Fiscal Year. Payments shall be due from the Parties by no later than June 15 and shall be deposited by the Administrative Agency upon receipt into the Operating Fund. (g) Budget Amendments. No approved Joint Board budget shall be modified unless and until approved by the legislative bodies of the Parties and the Board in accordance with the procedures set forth in subsections (b)-(d) above, except that the Board may make modifications to the budget that carry out the work program so long as the total amount of the budget is not increased. (h) No Other Charges. Except for the annual payments based upon an approved budget as set forth above, no separate dues, charges, or assessments shall be recommended to the Parties except upon affirmative vote of at least a majority of the membership of the Board. 5 6. Administration. The Joint Board shall appoint an Administrative Agency who is willing and capable of providing fiscal, technical and administrative support to the Joint Board. (a) Duties of Administrative Agency. The Administrative Agency shall provide services, including but not limited to: (i) administrative support for Board meeting (including preparing meeting notices, agendas and minutes); (ii) responding to requests for public records; (iii) conducting audits; (iv) procuring and entering into contracts with consultants, vendors or other contractors on behalf of the Parties; (v) developing a proposed annual work plan and budget for Board consideration; (vi) serving as fiscal agent to the Joint Board, provided that the Joint Board may appoint a separate Party to be the "Fiscal Agent" or "Fiscal Agency" in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection (6)(i), and the duties set out in subsection (c), (d), (e), and (g) of this section will apply to the separate Fiscal Agency; (vii) applying for grants; and (viii) providing such other services as the Board directs and are within the authority of this Agreement and the Board -adopted work plan and budget. (b) Administrative Agency Actions in Conformity with Its Internal Policies and Procedures. At all times, the Administrative Agency shall comply with applicable legal authorities. This shall include following the Administrative Agency's own internal processes applicable to comparable actions taken on its own behalf, including its contracting and procurement policies. At each regular meeting of the Board, the Administrative Agency shall report on the status of its activities including contracting, grant applications and any proposed changes to the Board - adopted work plan and budget. (c) Fiscal Agent. The Fiscal Agent, or Administrative Agency acting as the fiscal agent, shall receive and deposit into, and expend funds from, the Operating Fund created by Section 6(d) hereof for Joint Board purposes only. At all times, the Fiscal Agent and Administrative Agency shall comply with applicable legal authorities and its own internal processes regarding its action. At each regular meeting of the Board, the Fiscal Agent and Administrative Agency shall report on the status of its activities including Operating Fund receipts and expenditures. (d) Operating Fund. The Fiscal Agent or Administrative Agency acting as the Fiscal Agent shall establish a fund which shall constitute the "operating fund of the Joint Board" for purposes of RCW 39.34.030(4)(b) and is herein referred to as the Operating Fund. All funds received on behalf of the Joint Board shall be deposited in the Operating Fund and all costs and reimbursements paid on behalf of the Joint Board shall be paid from the Operating Fund. At the Fiscal 0 Agent's sole discretion, the Operating Fund may be established as an administrative fund or sub -fund within an existing fund. The Parties agree that interest will not accrue on the Operating Fund. (e) Accounting. Budgeting procedures and records shall conform to generally accepted accounting principles and to the State Auditor's budget, accounting and reporting ("BARS") manual, and shall be subject to disclosure and audit as provided by applicable law. (f) Services and Reimbursement. The Administrative Agency shall be reimbursed for its costs in providing the services required as Administrative Agency. (i) The Administrative Agency will provide qualified staffing for technical and administrative services to the Joint Board. After considering the advice and recommendations of the Joint Board, the Administrative Agency will designate a level of qualified staffing necessary to carry out the Board's annual work plan consistent with the approved budget in order to provide technical and administrative services as set out by the Joint Board work plan.. Designated staff rendering services hereunder shall be considered employee(s) of the Administrative Agency for all purposes. The Administrative Agency shall be responsible for all aspects of the staff's employment including but not limited to wages, benefits, performance, discipline and termination. The Administrative Agency shall address staffing issues within sixty (60) days of a receipt of a written request from the Joint Board outlining the reasons for said request. Any written request related to staffing shall be delivered to the Administrative Agency personally or by certified or registered mail. (ii) The Administrative Agency shall be reimbursed for the wages of designated staff providing services that are related to and required to carry out the duties of the Administrative Agency as set out in the annual budget and work plan. (iii) Any contract expenditures or other costs incurred by the Administrative Agency at the direction of the Joint Board or required under this Agreement shall also be reimbursed, and such costs shall be reflected in the annual budget and work plan. (g) Liabilities of Fiscal Agent, Administrative Agency; Late Payments; Failures to Pay. The Fiscal Agent or Administrative Agency may not incur costs that exceed the approved budget and shall not be obliged to incur costs or advance its own funds if the Operating Fund balance is not sufficient to cover costs payable from the Operating Fund. In the event that one or more Parties do not remit payment within the timeframes prescribed by this Agreement, the Fiscal Agent or Administrative Agency may, but is not obliged to, make a payment to avoid 7 breach of an obligation with an outside party such as a consultant, vendor or contractor. Each Party shall be responsible and liable to the other Parties for interest and other costs, claims or liabilities of any kind that result from late payment by the Party, and the late -paying Party shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other Parties from such costs, claims or liabilities resulting from the late payment. For clarification and without limiting the foregoing, the late -paying Party will be responsible for any late payment charges. In the event that a Party fails to pay its individual share of the Board's adopted final budget, the other Parties may also seek a judgment against said Party. Any costs incurred to seek the judgment and recover costs will be charged in full against the responsible Party. (h) Initial Appointment. The initial Administrative Agency shall be the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. (i) Change in Administrative Agency. The Administrative Agency may be changed by a majority vote of the majority of the membership in the Joint Board. The Administrative Agency may resign from its appointment on ninety (90) days written notice. 7. Termination of Agreement. (a) By Affirmative Vote. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by affirmative vote of a majority of the Joint Board Representatives. (b) Withdrawal. Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement and thereby terminate its participation in the Agreement by providing 90 days' prior written notice to every other Party and to the Joint Board. Upon withdrawal, any contributions previously authorized by the governing body of the Party for that fiscal year shall remain in the Operating Fund, to meet any obligations incurred in reliance upon the approved Budget. In the event any Party fails to approve and appropriate funds to pay for the next fiscal year's budget by March 1 of any year, such Party shall be deemed to have provided notice of withdrawal effective upon June 30 of the then current fiscal year. Additionally, should the Housing Authority of Snohomish County cease to be the Administrative Agency, by vote or resignation, the Housing Authority of Snohomish County will be deemed to have submitted a notice of withdrawal pursuant to the provisions of this subsection. (c) Expiration. This Agreement shall expire automatically if the Joint Board fails to vote to extend prior to the expiration date as set forth in section 2(b) of this Agreement, or if there is less than three remaining Parties. (d) Acts Upon Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement, the Joint Board shall be dissolved and the Board shall establish a plan of dissolution for payment of outstanding bills and obligations, payment of ongoing obligations incurred prior to dissolution and other terms to wind up the affairs of the Joint Board. All assets and liabilities of the Joint Board shall be dispensed with [and property acquired or set aside during the life of the Agreement shall be disposed of in the following manner: (i) all assets contributed without charge by any Party shall revert to the contributing Party; (ii) all assets acquired by the administering agency for the purpose of carrying out the work of the Joint Board and purchased by the Parties contributions during the term of the Agreement shall be distributed to the Parties based on each Party's pro rata contribution to the overall budget during the fiscal year the asset was acquired; (iii) any liability remaining after the application of unencumbered funds shall be dispensed consistent with the approved budget as determined by the Board; and (iv) except as provided by this Agreement, all unexpended and unencumbered funds held in the Operating Fund shall be distributed by the Fiscal Agency to the Parties based on each Party's pro rata contribution to the overall budget in effect at the time the Agreement is terminated. 8. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. (a) Each Party shall, indemnify and hold other Parties (including without limitation the Party serving as, and acting in its capacity as the Administering Agency), their officers, officials, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees, arising out of that Party's wrongful acts or omissions in connection with the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, except to the extent the injuries or damages are caused by another Party. In the event of recovery due to the aforementioned circumstances, the Party responsible for any such wrongful acts or omissions shall pay any judgment or lien arising therefrom, including any and all costs and reasonable attorneys fees as part thereof. In the event more than one Party is held to be at fault, the obligation to indemnify and to pay costs and attorneys fees, shall be only to the extent of the percentage of fault allocated to each respective Party by a final judgment of the court. (b) Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of a Party hereto (including without limitation the Party serving as, and acting in its capacity as, the Administering Agency), its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Party's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Party's negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the Party's waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance Title 51 RCW, solely for the purpose of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the Parties. 0 The provisions of this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. (c) Each Party (including without limitation the Party serving as, and acting in its capacity as the Administering Agency) shall give the other Parties proper notice of any claim or suit coming within the purview of these indemnities. (d) Notwithstanding any provision in this Agreement to the contrary, the provisions of this section shall remain operative and in full force and effect, regardless of the withdrawal or termination of any Party or the termination of this Agreement for the duration of any applicable statute of limitations 9. Insurance. The Joint Board, the Fiscal Agency, and the Administering Agency shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to minimize the liability of the Parties associated with their participation in this Agreement, including but not limited to the utilization of sound business practices. The Board shall determine which, if any, insurance policies may be reasonably practicably acquired to cover the operations of Joint Board and the activities of the Parties pursuant to this Agreement (which may include general liability, errors and omissions, fiduciary, crime and fidelity insurance), and shall direct the acquisition of same. 10. Dispute Resolution. Whenever any dispute arises between the Parties or between a Party or Parties, the Board, or the Administering Agency (referred to collectively in this Section as the "parties" ) under this Agreement which is not resolved by routine meetings or communications, the parties agree to seek resolution of such dispute in good faith by meeting, as soon as feasible. The meeting shall include the Chair of the Board, the Vice -Chair, and the representative(s) of the Parties involved in the dispute. If the parties do not come to an agreement on the dispute through this process, any party may pursue mediation through a process to be mutually agreed to in good faith between the parties within 30 days, which may include binding or nonbinding decisions or recommendations. The mediator(s) shall be individuals skilled in the legal and business aspects of the subject matter of this Agreement. The parties to the dispute shall share equally the costs of mediation and assume their own costs. If the Parties are not able to resolve the dispute through the above process, or conduct or resolve the dispute through mediation, then any Party may pursue whatever legal remedies may be available. 11. Public Records; Confidential Information. (a) Application of PRA. All records related to this Agreement or the Joint Board will be available for inspection and copying under the provisions of the Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW (the "PRA"), subject to any exemptions or limitations on disclosure. (b) Confidential Information. If a Party considers any portion of a record it provides another Party under this Agreement, whether in electronic or hard copy 10 form, to be protected from disclosure under law, the Party shall clearly identify any specific information that it claims to be "Confidential." A Party receiving a request for a record marked as Confidential shall notify the other Parties of the request and the date that such record will be released to the requester unless another Party obtains a court order to enjoin that disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56.540. If another Party fails to timely obtain a court order enjoining disclosure, the receiving Party will release the requested information on the date specified. No Party shall be liable for any records that the Party releases in compliance with this section or in compliance with an order of a court of competent jurisdiction. 12. Limitations. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed or applied in a manner that: (a) Is inconsistent with or intrudes upon other contractual agreements of the Parties including, but not limited to, the interlocal cooperation agreements between Snohomish County and various cities for urban county consortium qualification under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Department Community Development Block Grant Program and HOME Investment Partnership Program; or (b) Authorizes or permits the Joint Board to lobby or to attempt to gain preferential treatment in processes conducted by any of the Parties to award federal, state or local funds for affordable housing. 13. Notices. (a) To the Joint Board. Any notice to the Joint Board shall be in writing and shall be addressed to the Chair of the Board and to the Administrative Agency. (b) To a Party. Any notice to a Party shall be to the Representative and Alternate, if any, of that Party. (c) Methods of Notice. Any notice may be given by certified mail, overnight delivery, facsimile, telegram, or personal delivery. Notice is deemed given when delivered. Email may be used for notice that does not allege a breach or dispute under this Agreement. (d) Notice Addresses of Parties. The following contact information for each Party shall apply until amended in writing by a Party providing new contact information to each other Party, the Chair of the Board, and the Administrative Agency, if any: 11 Citv of Edmonds Robert Chave, Development Services 121 5th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 Phone (425) 771-0220 Facsimile (425) 771-0221 Planning@Edmondswa.gov City of Everett Dave Koenig, Planning 2930 Wetmore Ave., Suite 8A Everett, WA 98201 Phone (425) 257-8736 Facsimile (425) 257-8742 City of Granite Falls Sheikh Haroon Saleem, Mayor and Ray Sturtz, City Planner 206 S. Granite Ave, PO Box 1440 Granite Falls, WA 98252 Phone (360) 691-6441 Facsimile (360) 691-6734 City of Lake Stevens Rebecca Ableman, Planning and Community Development Director 1812 Main Street, PO Box 257 Lake Steven, WA 98258 Phone (425) 377-3229 Facsimile (425) 212-3327 bableman@lakestevenswa.gov City of Lynnwood Don Gough, Mayor and Paul Krauss, CD Director PO Box 5008 Lynnwood, WA 98046-5008 Phone (425) 670-5401 Facsimile (425) 771-6585 pkrauss@ci.lynnwood.wa.us 12 City of Marysville Gloria Hiroshima [1049 State Avenue Marysville, WA 98270 Phone (360) 363-8000 Facsimile (360) 651-5033 ghirashima@marysvillewa.gov City of Mill Creek Tom Rogers, Director of Community Development 15728 Main Street Mill Creek, WA 98012 Phone (425) 745-1891 Facsimile (425) 745-9650 tom@cityofmillcreek.com City of Mountlake Terrace Shane Hope 6100 219th St. SW, Suite 200 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Phone (425) 744-6281 Facsimile (425) 775-0420 shope@ci.mlt.wa.us Citv of Mukilteo Mayor and Planning Director 11930 Cyrus Way Mukilteo, WA 98275 Phone (425) 263-8017 Facsimile (425) 212-2068 mayor@ci.mukilteo.wa.us City of Snohomish Larry Bauman, City Manager City of Snohomish 116 Union Snohomish, WA 98290 Phone (360) 568-3115 Facsimile (360) 568-1375 bauman@ci.snohomish.wa.us 13 Town of Woodwa Mayor Carla Nichols 23920 113th PI. W Woodway, WA 98020 Phone (206) 542-4443 Facsimile (206) 546-9453 Mayor@townofwoodway.com Housing Authority of Snohomish County Executive Director 12625 4th Avenue W. Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 Phone (425) 290-8499 Facsimile (425) 290-5618 rdavis@hasco.org Snohomish County Mary Jane Brell Vujovic, Division Manager Housing and Community Services 3000 Rockefeller Ave., M/S 305 Everett, WA 98201 Phone (425) 388-7116 Facsimile (425) 259-1444 maryjane.brell@snoco.org 14. General Provisions. (a) Rights and Obligations Reserved; MOU Superseded. This Agreement reserves to each Party and shall not be construed to be in derogation of any rights, powers, privileges, authority, liability, obligations and duties set forth in or provided by any previous agreement executed by a Party relating in any way to affordable housing, except that the Memorandum of Understanding dated September 21, 2011, by and among the Housing Authority of Snohomish County, the cities of Edmonds, Everett, Granite Falls, Lake Stevens, Lynnwood, Marysville, Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo, Snohomish, Sultan and the town of Woodway (the "MOU"), shall be deemed terminated pursuant to section 2.6.13 of the MOU and shall be of no force and effect upon the effective date of this Agreement. (b) Access to Records. To the extent permitted by law, all records, accounts and documents relating to matters covered by this Agreement shall be subject to inspection, copying, review or audit by the Washington State Auditor or any Party. Upon reasonable notice, during normal working hours, each Party shall provide auditors from the Washington State Auditor or the other Parties with access to its facilities for copying said records at their expense. 14 (c) No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is for the benefit of the Parties only, and no third party shall have any rights hereunder. (d) Venue. The venue for any action related to this Agreement shall be in Superior Court in and for Snohomish County, Washington at Everett. (e) Severability. If any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. If the invalidated provision is essential to the benefit of the Parties' bargain, the Parties will in good faith negotiate a replacement provision to make the Parties whole to the greatest extent possible. 15. Execution. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts and, if so signed, shall be deemed one integrated Agreement. The undersigned signatories represent that they are authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the respective Party for which they have signed below. SNOHOMISH COUNTY Approved as to form By: By: Signature Date Signature Date Its: Its: CITY OF EDMONDS Approved as to form By: By: Signature Date Signature Date Its: Its: CITY OF EVERETT Approved as to form By: By: Signature Date Signature Date Its: Its: CITY OF GRANITE FALLS Approved as to form By: By: Signature Date Signature Date Its: Its: 15 CITY OF LAKE STEVENS By: Signature Date Its: CITY OF LYNNWOOD By: Signature Date Its: CITY OF MARYSVILLE By: Signature Date Its: CITY OF MILL CREEK By: Signature Date Its: CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE By: Signature Date Its: CITY OF MUKILTEO By: Signature Date Its: Approved as to form By: Signature Date Its: Approved as to form By: Signature Date Its: Approved as to form By: Signature Date Its: Approved as to form By: Signature Date Its: Approved as to form By: Signature Date Its: Approved as to form By: Signature Date Its: 16 CITY OF SNOHOMISH By: Signature Date Its: TOWN OF WOODWAY By: Signature Date Its: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY By: Signature Date Its: Approved as to form By: Signature Date Its: Approved as to form By: Signature Date Its: Approved as to form: By: Signature Date Its: 17 ATTACHMENT A HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 12625 - 4th Avenue W.. Suite 200 • Everett, Washington 98204 (425) 290-8499 or (425) 743-4505 TDD (425) 290-5785 • FAX (425) 290-5618 June 22, 2012 Mr. David Bley Director, Pacific Northwest Initiative Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation PO Box 23350 Seattle, WA 98102 RE: GATES FOUNDATION SUPPORT FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY INTER -JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING COMMITTEE Dear David: I am sorry it has taken so long to put this together. As we discussed a few months ago, Snohomish County continues to evolve in the creation of its vehicles to address affordable housing issues, and homelessness in particular. The Sound Families Initiative and the current Investing in Families Initiative have brought private philanthropy, government, non -profits and private citizens together to combat homelessness and create systems change. These two initiatives have been instrumental in providing the necessary resources and developing the capacity of stakeholders in the community. The initiatives addressed the need for supportive services and housing and have made clear the need for both to effectively serve homeless families. On a parallel track, the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County was formed by interested non-profit developers with the support of local government, the County's two housing authorities, and private supporters. The membership is made up of housing organizations dealing with every aspect of the housing continuum from homelessness to homeownership. Housing Continuum Homeless Housing Rent Subsidized Affordable Rental Homeownership Short/long-term Housing Housing 00 and supportive services HUD and USDA Bond and Tax Credit Market Rental Through all of the work in the community to address housing and homelessness, it became clear that the community needed a vehicle for local governments to cooperatively address housing policy issues. A group of cities in Snohomish County began to explore the creation of such a vehicle over two years ago as an outgrowth of Snohomish County Tomorrow, the local inter - jurisdictional forum created to oversee Countywide Planning Policies. Equal Housing Opportunity ATTACHMENT A The cities in Snohomish County and the Snohomish County government have now taken the step to create the Inter -Jurisdictional Housing Committee (IHC). This new group comprised of local governments in Snohomish County is a systems change that will create a centralized forum for local governments to efficiently disseminate housing information, work together to gain more expertise in housing policy issues, and cooperatively advocate at the federal and state level to ensure that there is adequate support for efforts to end homelessness and promote affordable housing in their communities. The group will inform local land use efforts to promote housing that is both economically and environmentally sustainable. The target model for the IHC is A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) on King County's Eastside. The IHC Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and draft Interlocal Agreement are attached. The following jurisdictions have signed onto the MOU: Mukilteo, Mountlake Terrace, Lake Stevens, Everett, Mill Creek, Snohomish, Sultan, Marysville, Edmonds, Lynnwood, Woodway, Granite Falls, and Snohomish County. Every one of the jurisdictions signing on to this undertaking has at least one elected official and a planning executive who have decided that housing is a high priority for their community. Bringing these elected officials and planning executives together on the IHC will substantially enhance the work that is currently going on in the County to promote affordable housing and ensure that there are affordable housing options for families exiting homeless housing. During this period of intensive interest in housing and transportation, it is especially important that this entity is created and sustained to ensure that affordable housing is appropriately integrated into planning efforts. Embarking on this effort right now is difficult when these cities and the County are experiencing economic distress. The goals of the IHC can advance significantly faster if the committee members can spend the first year establishing the priorities and substantive functions of the IHC rather than spending that time working to build financial support. It will be much easier to secure permanent and ongoing financial support from the cities and County if the IHC can get up and running with professional staff and products to show. That is why I would like to explore with you the potential of Gates Foundation support for the first full year of operation of the IHC. Please see the attached IHC 2013 budget. HASCO committed to provide modest staffing and an administrative base to support the IHC. - We have hired a graduate student intern from the University of Washington Master of Urban Planning program to supplement our staff work for the committee. This intern, with support from HASCO staff, will work to build the IHC and produce initial reports for the committee. HASCO will bear this expense through the end of 2012. Although HASCO is providing staff support for the committee, the IHC is not a HASCO project. Starting in 2013, the IHC would like to have a full-time professional to staff the committee. Ideally the current intern would continue on in this full-time position. The Gates Foundation would cover the cost of the full-time staff person plus any additional outside consulting work that is needed. HASCO would still provide office space, all administrative support, and supplemental staffing support without reimbursement. Starting in 2014, the cities and the County would provide the financial support to fully cover the budget. HASCO would continue to provide the office space, administrative support, and supplemental staffing as an ongoing responsibility. 2 ATTACHMENT A I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this proposal further. I can be reached at 425-293- 0532 or rednhasco.or. Sincerely Robert E. Davis Executive Director cc: David Wertheimer, Deputy Director, Pacific NW Initiative, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Kollin Min, Program Officer, Pacific NW Initiative, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Enclosures Memorandum of Understanding Draft Interlocal Agreement 2013 Budget BILL&MELINDA GATES foundation 233 PAY Fifty Thousand Dollars And 00 Cents to the Housing Authority of Snohomish County order Of 12625 4th Ave West Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 ATTACHMENT A Wells Fargo Bank,,N.A. Bellevue, WA 98004 11-24/1210 DATE Oct 11, 2012 Author ze agnature VOID AFTER 180 DAYS ll' L L$06 211' 1: L 2 L000 2481: t, 2 24 ?SO E?911' BILL & M E L I N D A GATES FOUNDATION PO Box 23350 Seattle, Washington 98102 206,709.3100 118062 AMOUNT 50,000.00 Attachment B Alliance for Housing Affordability Fiscal Year August 2013 to June 2014 Budget and Contribution Schedule July 2013 Population for MOU Signees by Calculation 2013 Population Population** Purpose Contribution Everett 103,019 103,019 $6,213 Marysville 60,020 60,020 $3,613 Lynnwood 35,836 35,836 $2,151 Edmonds 39,709 39,709 $2,385 Lake Stevens 28,069 28,069 $1,682 Mukilteo 20,254 20,254 $1,209 Mountlake Terrace 19,909 19,909 $1,188 Mill Creek 18,244 18,244 $1,088 Snohomish' 9,098 9,098 $1,000 Granite Falls' 3,364 $1,000 Woodway' 1,307 $1,000 HASCO Total city 338,829 343,480 $22,530 County 286,727 286,727 $17,320 Total 625,556 630,207 $39,850 Gates Grant4 $50,000 $50,000 Proposed Budget $89,850 Contributions $89,850 Back Office Support In kind Notes: 1.Minimum annual commitment $1,000 for any participant 2.HASCO funding staff intern for 12+ months 2012 began interim work in July **2011 Population Budget 1 FTE $ 60,000.00 Benefits (@39%) $ 23,400.00 Local Travel/mi. $ 1,250.00 Supplies/Teleph $ 1,200.00 � 85,235u.uu Misc./Consult. $ 4,000.00 8y,85u.uu A rr A Attachment B 2013-2014 Work Plan* 1. Synthesize/analyze Data IDENTIFY DATA GAPS, And if there are, develop/implement a strategy to fill those gaps. b. DEVELOP A SURVEY TEMPLATE THAT CITIES CAN USE FOR GATHERING HOUSING DATA THEY'RE MOST INTERESTED IN. IDENTIFY WHERE EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ARE LOCATED AND WHETHER THEY ARE UNDER THREAT OF CONVERSION, WHAT THEIR CONDITION IS AND WHAT THE CONDITION OF THE SURROUNDING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS. 2. Provide Technical Expertise CREATE A TEMPLATE JURISDICTIONS CAN USE IN DRAFTING THEIR HOUSING CONTINUUM AND CITY PROFILES. With the template each jurisdiction can create effective literature conveying their individual housing needs. The continuum would also be useful in developing Housing Elements for Comprehensive Plans. 3. Create Education/Outreach/Information-sharing Opportunities DEVELOP A STRATEGY AND TOOLS TO EDUCATE ELECTED OFFICIALS The task is to educate elected officials about affordable housing issues and the roles they can play in obtaining funding for housing programs. i. Identify elected officials who could serve as primary contact points for federal and state agencies which provide housing funding (this would assist in attract housing money to Snohomish County). ii. Design workshop for elected officials to better inform them of housing issues and funding opportunities/challenges/processes a. PACKAGE THE IJH COMMITTEE'S IDEA/MESSAGE. i. Use HASCO human resources staff (who has special training in leading facilitation) to work with elected officials on the committee to create a succinct message of what the Alliance for Housing Affordability is all about. The message would be a key tool to use in presentations to city councils when the IJH ILA is being considered. ii. Use the message to promote media exposure of the IJH committee's existence and goals 4. Grants and Financial a. DEVELOP A STRATEGY FOR LEVERAGING CDBG AND OTHER FUNDS. b. DEVELOP A COMMON STRATEGY TO PURSUE FUNDING TO BE USED BY CITIES INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY. c. DESIGN ANEW REVENUE GENERATION TOOL THAT CAN BE ADOPTED BY LEGISLATIVE BODIES AND THEN USED BY INDIVIDUAL CITIES. * For consideration by the Joint Board agenda. The resolution states the Council's support for continuing to develop information for a complete policy deliberation regarding medical benefits to include discussion of self-insurance. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed a Lynnwood Councilmember stated to her at a Snohomish County Tomorrow meeting that Lynnwood is also interested in discussing self-insurance. She noted increases in medical benefit costs will continue to outpace inflation and 25-30% of the cost is overhead. Councilmember Bernheim said he would rather not devote staff and/or financial resources to continue to explore this. Although not an expert on self-insurance or medical benefits, as an employer, he conducts a health benefit analysis every year. He questioned if the City had the staff to conduct the research and he preferred to rely on the search for competitive healthcare programs in an atmosphere of healthcare reform and price control. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1253, A RESOLUTION REGARDING COUNCIL REVIEW OF MEDICAL BENEFITS. Council President Peterson commented he was still wary of the idea of self-insurance but felt the City was in the broader option phase. He was willing to continue researching options and would trust staff and the Public Safety & Human Resources Committee to ensure an inordinate amount of time was not spent on it. Further research may reveal other options that have not yet been considered such as partnering with another city. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Council President Peterson, noting she too was very skeptical about self-insurance but has learned a lot. City staff is also very skeptical about self-insurance. She referred to Councilmember Wilson's memorandum explaining self-insurance. There is opportunity for the City to save a great deal of money. Staff does not necessarily administer the program, an independent party handles claims. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she did not yet have an opinion regarding self-insurance; she was still gathering information. She agreed with Council President Peterson it was appropriate to continue research/discussion. Anything that can save the City money is a good thing. She did not want to abandon the idea of self-insurance without complete information. Councilmember Wilson explained he suggested to Council President Peterson that this not be scheduled on a future agenda. He noted Councilmembers Petso, Fraley and Bemheim have voiced concerns and although they may be willing to allow more research, he understood there may not be four votes at the end. Many staff members are not interested in self-insurance because self-insurance was tried 12 years ago but it was set up poorly and failed. If Councilmembers did not think they could get there, he implored them to vote against the resolution. If they voted for it, he was not asking for a commitment but if they did not think that there would ultimately be four votes to approve, he asked that they not vote in favor of the resolution to avoid wasting staff and the committee's time. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM VOTING NO. 11. APPROVAL OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR INTERJURISDICTIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was authorization for the Mayor to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with other jurisdictions in Snohomish County to explore further the possibility of forming an Inter urisdictional Affordable Housing Program. The program is similar to ARCH in King County that is comprised of several jurisdictions who pool their resources. Affordable housing is not a subject that individual jurisdictions can effectively address because it is cost prohibitive for a single Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 5, 2011 Page 11 jurisdiction to establish a program. The program is a coordinated way to leverage resources, act as a conduit for obtaining grants/donations, maintain a trust fund to address housing issues, provide technical assistance, etc. Mr. Chave explained affordable housing is not the same as low income housing. Affordable housing is defined as households making less than median income and devoting more than 30% of their income to housing costs. When that occurs, paying for other needs such as education, food, etc. is more difficult. There are a large number of households in Snohomish County that meet the affordable housing need and it is not something the Housing Authority can address. Authorizing the Mayor to sign a MOU does not commit the City to signing on at the end of the process but rather is an indicator that the City is interested in discussing the program with other jurisdictions. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised this was reviewed by the Community Services/Development Services Committee. She supported authorizing the Mayor to sign the MOU. She referred to language in the MOU that states while signing the MOU expresses the City's support, it does not constitute a final commitment to sign an Interlocal Agreement establishing the program nor does it commit the City to participating financially in the program. She asked what other cities were participating. Mr. Chave advised the MOU lists the 11 jurisdictions that have been active in reaching this point. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled Shane Hope made a presentation to the Council last year regarding the program. Five local jurisdictions have agreed to participate including Mountlake Terrace, Snohomish County, Mukilteo and Lynnwood. The program utilizes the ARCH framework which has been very effective. There is no cost to the City at this point. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR INTERJURISDICTIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM. Councilmember Plunkett expected all the members of the Council would support the MOU except him. He pointed out first the government enacts the GMA in 1993 restricting developable land. In Snohomish County only approximately 5% of the land can be developed. Restricting developable land increases the cost of homes. He disagreed with taking developable, cheaper land out of development and creating grants, programs to solve the problem created by GMA. He suggested a faster way would be for Snohomish County Tomorrow to have the Legislature define and expand the urban growth boundaries to open more affordable land to development; more affordable land results in more affordable housing. He anticipated the program would ultimately cost the City money and through various means will require subsidizing housing that does not need to be subsidized if developable, cheaper land were not removed from production. Councilmember Wilson recalled when Ms. Hope made a presentation to the Council regarding this program, he did not support it due to the cost. He inquired about the proposed cost at that time. Mr. Chave did not recall the cost. There have been discussions regarding the cost being proportional to the participating jurisdictions' population. He anticipated the cost will be in the range of $10,000. Councilmember Buckshnis anticipated cost will be approximately $8,000. Mr. Chave relayed there have been discussions regarding the cost initially being quite low given the realities of jurisdictions' budgets. The cost will also depend on the benefits provided to jurisdictions via the program. Councilmember Wilson asked what the City could do with $10,000. Mr. Chave answered the City previously had a line item in the budget for interns; $10,000 would buy a fair amount of interns. Interns were used to do tasks like land use inventories that have not been done in the recent past. He noted $10,000 was a small enough amount that its use was limited. For example it was not enough to leverage grants. However $10,000 as part of a larger multi jurisdictional effort could do more than a city could do Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 5, 2011 Page 12 on its own particularly in regard to housing. As part of an interjurisdictional program, $10,000 may make an incentivized affordable housing program possible. The City does not currently have any way to administer an incentive program for developers who provide a certain percentage of affordable units. Councilmember Wilson summarized he would like to support this but whatever the allocation is, it should go through the budget process. The question is not whether $10,000 is well spent, he agreed it will be; the question is the Council's priorities. The MOU commits the City in principle; it states the purpose of the MOU is to acknowledge the commitment on the part of each respective party ... to develop and submit an Interlocal Agreement in 2012 and 2013 that funds staffing and administrative expenses. By passing the MOU, the Council is stating they will approve an Interlocal Agreement in the future to commit the City to funding in 2012 and 2013. He preferred to see other cities organize first and the City possibly commit in 2012 for 2013. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her support for the MOU and felt it was short sighted not to support it due to a potential $10,000 cost. The Snohomish County Tomorrow dues are approximately $6,000 and she envisioned funding one administrator would cost less than that. The MOU would allow the City to be progressive in dealing with affordable housing and provides the synergy of other jurisdictions. She recognized Councilmember Plunkett's philosophical disagreement with the GMA, commenting natural resources are just as important as economic resources. She recalled while doorbelling seniors mentioning they had to move out of the bowl because of the cost of housing. She found the MOU very progressive and it is her understanding there will be no fee next year. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the City could get out of the MOU in the future. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered yes, the first stage is a very low commitment. The MOU does not bind the City to subsequent adoption of an Interlocal Agreement and the MOU can be terminated upon 60 days notice. He summarized it was not a significant commitment. He pointed out the MOU is also not necessarily a unique opportunity that the City could not avail itself of later. Section 2.2 of the MOU contains a provision for new members. If the Council is interested in approving the MOU in the future, that appears to be an option. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out there is no request for funds nor is there a commitment to future funding. Mr. Chave agreed. The MOU only requests representatives participate in the process which would be Councilmember Buckshnis and/or him. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether staff would return to the Council if there was a financial impact in the future. Mr. Chave advised they would, anticipating funding would be part of a budget discussion. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the benefit of participating in the MOU at no cost is having a seat at the table. Mr. Chave agreed it would enable the City to participate in the discussion regarding the focus of the program, timing, etc. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND WILSON VOTING NO. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Cooper announced today the Division 1 Washington State Court of Appeals affirmed the authority of cities to offer broadband telecommunications services to individuals and private businesses. He clarified the courts have said Edmonds can sell its excess broadband capacity. He offered to forward the email regarding the decision to the Council. Mayor Cooper reminded of the dedication of the Sounder Station on July 8. The "Standing Wave" public art has been moved to that location. He encouraged the Council and the public to attend and celebrate this addition to the transportation infrastructure. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 5, 2011 Page 13 Snohomish County Inter -jurisdictional Housing Committee Memorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is being executed by the undersigned this /o"day of AccaccsT, 2011 by and between the City of Edmonds, organized under the laws of the State of Washington and the other signatories of this MOU for the purposes of articulating a shared intention to continue and expand an inter - jurisdictional partnership to educate staff and electeds, to share staffing resources, to seek strategies to implement housing policies, and to help address affordable housing needs in Snohomish County. 1. RECITALS Section 1.1. Whereas, the Snohomish County Council and several communities within the county support the formation of an inter -jurisdictional group to consider the housing needs within the county as a whole and within the urban growth areas. Section 1.2. Whereas, after over a year of exploring options for jurisdictions to participate in a partnership, it was determined that a model similar to ARCH on the eastside of King County would be the most appropriate partnership model. Section 1.3. Whereas, the elected officials of the respective jurisdictions believe it would be beneficial to join together, on a voluntary basis, to address the issue of affordability and housing supply, as cities are not responsible for creating housing, but can work cooperatively to help the private, non-profit and public sectors that have traditionally been responsible for production of housing throughout Snohomish County. Section 1.4. Whereas, the signers of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) plan for local housing in their jurisdictions within Snohomish County and they find it in their mutual interest to address affordable housing issues on a countywide and regional basis and to cooperatively work, where possible, to increase the supply of affordable housing, without committing financial resources at this time, but with an expectation of some staff or in -kind resources being provided. Section 1.5. Whereas, in order to further the goals of the program, other non-profit housing groups/entities may become a part of this MOU to assist with the program development. Section 1.6 Whereas, the communities and entities that have expressed an initial interest in developing this new concept of cooperation in addressing affordable housing issues are: • Edmonds • Everett • Lake Stevens • Lynnwood • Marysville • Mill Creek • Mountlake Terrace Page 1 • Mukilteo • Snohomish • Woodway • Snohomish County Section 1.7. Whereas, the jurisdictions have an interest in working together to increase the amount of affordable housing units, thus the signers of this MOU desire to develop an interlocal agreement for consideration. Now, therefore, the undersigned agree to the following: 2. AGREEMENT The parties agree to the following terms of this Memorandum of Understanding. 2.1. Purpose. The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to acknowledge the commitment on the part of each of the respective parties to cooperate during 2011 and possibly a subsequent period to: 2.1.1 Identify and create a governance structure for the long-term cooperative effort related to affordable housing. 2.1.2. Develop a work plan and yearly program efforts that considers short-term, mid-term and long-term needs related to affordable housing. 2.1.3. Develop and submit for consideration an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) for 2012 and 2013 budget years that funds staffing and administrative expenses to carryout this cooperative effort related to affordable housing. However, nothing in this agreement commits any jurisdiction or entity to enter into an ILA or funding obligations at any time in the future. The parties also understand that there may be interim measures necessary to implement all or portions of the program and that no future obligations to sign an interlocal agreement are implied as part of this MOU. 2.2. Membership under this MOU. 2.2.1 Initial Members. Those entities and others that sign this MOU by November 30, 2011 are the initial members. 2.2.2 New Members. The process for other entities to participate is open. An additional entity may join upon signature of this MOU while the MOU and specified actions are active. 2.3. Governance. The governance will be provided by elected Co -Chairs that are chosen at the first official meeting after the MOU takes affect. All jurisdictions may participate in meetings without having signed the MOU. Once the majority of the jurisdictions have signed the MOU, then those that have not signed will not have a vote on decision action items on the agenda. All other items will be accepted by consensus of those attending, where possible. 2.4. Future Agreement(s). The parties, by executing this Memorandum of Understanding, are committing to develop an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) for the purposes of continuing to cooperatively participate in an inter -jurisdictional affordable housing effort for future consideration. The ILA will identify the respective rights, obligations and duties of any party that is a signatory to the ILA. No obligations to enter into an ILA are implied as established in 2.1.3 of this MOU. 2.5. Amendment(s). This Memorandum of Understanding may be amended at any time in writing, by mutual agreement of the parties. 2.6. Termination. This Memorandum of Understanding for any respective signatory may be terminated by any party by withdrawing from the MOU before an ILA is signed, by notifying in writing to the Co -Chairs at least sixty (60) days in advance of such termination, based upon their respective governing bodies' approval of termination. This MOU will be considered terminated in full, if either one of the following two actions occur: A. All signatories to the MOU terminate their cooperation. B. An Interlocal agreement is signed by enough jurisdictions and thereby replaces this MOU on a permanent basis. 2.7. Severability. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion thereof shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this MOU. 2.8. Counterparts. This MOU maybe signed in counterparts, and if so signed, shall be deemed to be one integrated MOU. 2.9. Effective Date. The effective date shall be the date following the signatures of the first five jurisdictions. DATED this _day of , 2011 (when the fifth jurisdiction signed the agreement). WHEREFORE, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the dates set forth below. Signatories: nil ��— DATED this l a day of August, 2011. City of Edmonds Jurisdiction/Entity By: Mike Coo Name Its: Mayor, City of Edmonds Title AM-6016 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 08/13/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Mike De Lilla Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Tyne: Action Information 2. C. Subject Title Authorization of additional construction funding for construction of the 76th Avenue W Water Main Replacement Project. Recommendation Forward this item to the consent agenda for approval at the August 20, 2013 Council meeting. Previous Council Action On August 15, 2011, Council authorized Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood. On February 14, 2012, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee recommended Council authorize staff to advertise and forward this item to the consent agenda at the February 21, 2012 Council meeting. On February 21, 2012, Council authorized staff to advertise the 76th Ave W Watermain Installation Project that is part of the City of Lynnwood's Sewer Main Replacement project. On December 18, 2012, Council authorized staff to award the construction of the 76th Ave W Watermain Installation project to Santana Trucking & Excavating, Inc. Narrative On December 18, 2012, Council authorized staff to award the construction of the 76th Ave W Watermain Installation project to Santana Trucking & Excavating, Inc. The overall construction budget for the project at that time was $665,786.15 and included a construction contingency of $53,000. Soil sampling at the project site has shown that contaminated soils conditions are more extensive than originally estimated. Prior to the contractor beginning this work, a change order is being drafted to address the additional costs. It is estimated that an additional $48,000 will be required to address the contamination. This would mean that most of the current $53,000 contingency will be used to address this issue. Staff requests that additional funding, as shown in the table below, be added to the overall budget for construction of the 76th Ave W Water Main Replacement Project. Watermain Portion of Work Current Budget for Waterline $665,786.15 Additional Funding (Construction Management Reserve) $80,000.00 Additional Funding (Project management and construction administration) $20,000.00 New Total Budget Amount $765,786.15 The additional funding for this project comes from the Water Utility Fund as part of the 2013 Waterline Replacement Program. The 76th Avenue W Water Main Installation Project will upgrade/replace portions of the City's potable water network by replacing approximately 2,000 linear feet of existing waterlines and associated appurtenances along 76th Avenue W from approximately 180th Street to 175th Street. The construction started spring 2013 to be complete by fall of 2013 and consistent with the Interlocal Agreement, will be led by City of Lynnwood staff. Attachments 76th Waterline Project Map Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 08/08/2013 11:07 AM Public Works Kody McConnell 08/08/2013 02:11 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/08/2013 02:24 PM Mayor Dave Earling 08/08/2013 03:06 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/08/2013 03:12 PM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 08/07/2013 04:31 PM Final Approval Date: 08/08/2013 1►JI A 1 AM-6021 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 08/13/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Mike De Lilla Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Tyne: Action Information 2. D. Subject Title Report on bids opened July 30, 2013 for the 224th St. Waterline Replacement Project and award of contract to Earthwork Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $79,114.13. Recommendation Forward the item to consent agenda for approval at the August 20, 2013 Council meeting. Previous Council Action On July 16, 2013 Council authorized Staff to call for bids for the 224th St. Waterline Replacement Project. Narrative On July 30, 2013, the City received seven (7) bids for the 224th St. Waterline Replacement Project. The bids ranged from a low of $79,114.13 to a high of $152,097.31 including sales tax. The bid tabulation summary is attached as Exhibit 1. Earthwork Enterprises, Inc. submitted the low responsive bid in the amount of $79,114.13, including sales tax. The engineer's estimate was $127,241.74. A review of the low bidder's record is in progress; so far all responses are positive. The project will replace, at 224th St SW, approximately 300 linear feet of waterline piping with associated meter, fire hydrant. The project costs are being funded by the 421 Water Fund and the General Funds available for fire protection costs that are part of the 2013 Waterline Replacement Program. The total 2013 budget required to fund this project is Engineering/Design Cost (Year to Date) $140,814.13 and is broken down as follows: $10,000.0 rc ngineering & Construction Management $23,700.0 Contract Award $79,114.13 anagement Reserve $28.000.0 Funds Available in 421 Water Fund for 2013 Waterline Replacement Projects 2013 Funds Available Fire Protection (General Funds Transfer) $101,166 421 funds available for water Projects in 2013 $2,092,980 421 funds already earmarked to water projects (YTD) 76th Ave Waterline Replacement (Includes additional $53,000) ($208,000) 2013 Waterline Replacement Project ($1.637.749) Total funds available $348,397 Attachments Exhibit 1 - Bid Tab Exhibit 2 - 224th Waterline Project Map Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Engineering Robert English Public Works Kody McConnell City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Final Approval Date: 08/08/2013 Date 08/08/2013 11:26 AM 08/08/2013 02:11 PM 08/08/2013 02:24 PM 08/08/2013 03:08 PM 08/08/2013 03:12 PM Started On: 08/08/2013 10:04 AM City of Edmonds 224th Water Main Replacement Bid Tab 30-Jul-13 En ineers Estimate Earthwork Enterprises Bonner Bros Laser Underground Interwest B& B Utilities Kamins Const Nor Tec Const Item/Descri tion Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost 1 IMobilization LS 1 $ 10,427.50 $ 10,427.50 $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 11,500.00 $ 11,500.00 $ 22,788.00 $ 22,788.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 2 12" Ductile Iron Water Main LF 296 $ 110.00 $ 32,560.00 $100.00 $ 29,600.00 $ 170.00 $ 50,320.00 $ 150.00 $ 44,400.00 $ 162.00 $ 47,952.00 $ 145.00 $ 42,920.00 $ 91.54 $ 27,095.84 $ 174.00 $ 51,504.00 3 12" 90* Bend MJ EA 1 $ $400.00 $ 400.00 $ 400.00 $ 400.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 800.00 $ 800.00 $ 375.00 $ 375.00 $ 586.80 $ 586.80 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 4 Cap/Plug, 12-inch, MJ EA 8 $ $150.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 120.00 $ 960.00 $ 200.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 500.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 250.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 238.80 $ 1,910.40 $ 250.00 $ 2,000.00 5 12" x 6" Tee FLxFL EA 1 $ $500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 700.00 $ 700.00 $ 900.00 $ 900.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 706.80 $ 706.80 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 6 12" Coupling Adapter FLxMJ EA 1 $ $310.00 $ 310.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 675.00 $ 675.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 460.80 $ 460.80 $ 400.00 $ 400.00 7 12" 45* Bend MJ EA 1 $ $250.00 $ 250.00 $ 400.00 $ 400.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 650.00 $ 650.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 544.80 $ 544.80 $ 360.00 $ 360.00 8 12" 22.5* Bend PExMJ EA 1 $ $200.00 $ 200.00 $ 400.00 $ 400.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 650.00 $ 650.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $ 340.80 $ 340.80 $ 330.00 $ 330.00 9 12" x 6" Tee MJxFL EA 1 $ $450.00 $ 450.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 800.00 $ 800.00 $ 850.00 $ 850.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 646.80 $ 646.80 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 10 12" Gate Valve FLxMJ EA 1 $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 $1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 1,850.00 $ 1,850.00 $ 2,080.80 $ 2,080.80 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 11 1-Inch Service Line Replacement EA 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 2,238.00 $ 2,238.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 12 6" Ductile Iron Water Main LF 37 $ 100.00 $ 3,700.00 $100.00 $ 3,700.00 $ 50.00 $ 1,850.00 $ 120.00 $ 4,440.00 $ 65.00 $ 2,405.00 $ 50.00 $ 1,850.00 $ 64.18 $ 2,374.66 $ 100.00 $ 3,700.00 13 6" RSGV FLxMJ EA 1 $ $1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 700.00 $ 700.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,350.00 $ 1,350.00 $ 700.00 $ 700.00 $ 820.80 $ 820.80 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 14 Fire Hydrants EA 1 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 $5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 4,602.00 $ 4,602.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 15 Connection to Existing System EA 3 $ 2,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $2,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 7,494.00 $ 22,482.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 8,400.00 16 Trench Excavation Safety LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 17 Traffic Control LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 11,580.00 $ 11,580.00 $ 7,800.00 $ 7,800.00 18 Crushed Rock TN 345 $ 30.00 $ 10,350.00 $0.01 $ 3.45 $ 2.00 $ 690.00 $ 10.00 $ 3,450.00 $ 5.00 $ 1,725.00 $ 2.00 $ 690.00 $ 7.23 $ 2,494.35 $ 7.20 $ 2,484.00 19 Imported Backfill Gravel TN 345 $ 20.00 $ 6,900.00 $0.01 $ 3.45 $ 8.00 $ 2,760.00 $ 1.00 $ 345.00 $ 0.01 $ 3.45 $ 0.10 $ 34.50 $ 26.40 $ 9,108.00 $ 7.20 $ 2,484.00 20 Temporary Trench Patch LF 345 $ 10.00 $ 3,450.00 $0.01 $ 3.45 $ 2.00 $ 690.00 $ 10.00 $ 3,450.00 $ 4.50 $ 1,552.50 $ 5.00 $ 1,725.00 $ 6.00 $ 2,070.00 $ 5.10 $ 1,759.50 21 HMA Cl 1/2" PG 58-22, trench patch 4" Depth LF 345 $ 75.00 $ 25,875.00 $14.00 $ 4,830.00 $ 18.00 $ 6,210.00 $ 30.00 $ 10,350.00 $ 12.00 $ 4,140.00 $ 35.00 $ 12,075.00 $ 66.00 $ 22,770.00 $ 57.75 $ 19,923.75 22 Asbuilts LS 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 750.00 $ 750.00 $ 400.00 $ 400.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 Contract Totals Subtotal $ 125,762.50 Subtotal $ 72,250.35 Subtotal $ 97,680.00 Subtotal $ 108,735.00 Subtotal $ 114,402.95 Subtotal $ 119,469.50 Subtotal $ 138,901.65 Subtotal $ 125,845.25 $ 115,335.00 see note 1 see note 2 *WSST(%lil, $ 11,947.44 *WSST(%,*I $ 6,863.78 *WSST(9.5%) $ 9,279.60 *WSST(9.5%) $ 10,329.83 *WSST(%-/. $ 10,868.28 *WSST(9.5%) $ 11,349.60 *WSST(9.5%) $ 13,195.66 *WSST(9.5%) $ 11,955.30 Total 3 137,709.94 Total $ 79,114.13 Total $ 106,959.60 Total $ 119,064.83 Total E 125,271.23 Total $ 130,819.10 Total $ 152,097.31 Total E 137,800.55 Contingency Total $ 137,709.94 1 1 $ 79,114.13 $ 106,959.60 $ 119,064.83 $ 125,271.23 $ 130,819.10 $ 152,097.31 $ 137,800.55 Notes: 1. Math error in extension. Extension written at $5,390 1. Math error in extension. Extension written at $7,494 7/30/2013 S:\ENGR\CAPITAL PROJECTS\E3JB 224th St Waterline Relocation\600 Ad thru Award\224th Water Main Replacement Bid Tab AM-6022 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 08/13/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Mike De Lilla Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Tyne: Action Information 2. E. Subject Title Report on bids opened August 1, 2013 for the 2013 Sewerline Rehabilitation Project and award of contract to Insituform in the amount of $135,344.74. Recommendation Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the August 20, 2013 Council Meeting. Previous Council Action None. Narrative On August 1, 2013, the City received One (1) bid for the 2013 Sewerline Rehabilitation Project. The bid tabulation summary is attached as Exhibit 1. Insituform submitted the low responsive bid in the amount of $135,344.74 including sales tax. The engineer's estimate was $247,826.97. A review of the low bidder's record is in progress; so far all responses are positive. This project will repair, in place, via Cured in Place Pipe (CIPP), approximately 1,530 linear feet of Sanitary Sewer pipe at various locations in the city. The project costs are being funded by the 423 Sewer Fund available as part of the CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation Program for 2013. The total 2013 budget required to fund this project is approximately $218,777.59 and is broken down as follows: Engineering/Design Costs (Year to Date) $10,432.85 Engineering & Construction Management $25,000.00 Contract Award $135,344.74 Management Reserve $48,000.00 otal 1$218,777.59 2013 Funds Available 423 Sewer Utility funds available for CIPP Projects in 2013: $302,600 Attachments Exhibit 1 - Bid Tab Exhibit 2 - Project Map Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 08/08/2013 12:09 PM Public Works Kody McConnell 08/08/2013 02:11 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/08/2013 02:24 PM Mayor Dave Earling 08/08/2013 03:09 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/08/2013 03:12 PM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 08/08/2013 11:00 AM Final Approval Date: 08/08/2013 City of Edmonds 2013 Sewer Pipe CIPP Rebab E2GB / c390 Bid Tab 8/5/2013 Engineer's Estimate INSITUFORM Iltem/Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost 1 Mobilization/Demob LS 1 8,000 $8,000.00 $15,500.00 $15,500.00 2 Traffic Control LS 1 20,000 $20,000.00 $7,445.00 $7,445.00 3 TESC LS 1 4,000 $4,000.00 $450.00 $450.00 4 Remove and Dispose of Existing 9" Caliper Tree EA 1 2,000 $2,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 5 Sewer Bypass & Pumping LS 1 25,000 $25,000.00 $2,248.20 $2,248.20 6 8" Sewer Rehab using CIPP Lining LF 230 75 $17,250.00 $40.20 $9,246.00 7 10" Sewer Rehab using CIPP Lining LF 951 95 $90,345.00 $41.10 $39,086.10 8 15" Sewer Rehab using CIPP Lining LF 352 110 $38,720.00 $91.60 $32,243.20 9 10"x6" CIPP Tee Repair EA 1 5,000 $5,000.00 $2,604.80 $2,604.80 10 10"x4" CIPP Tee Repair EA 1 5,000 $5,000.00 $2,279.20 $2,279.20 11 As-Bullts LS 1 $ 1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 12 Miscellaneous Work FA 1 $ 10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 SUBTOTALS $226,315.00 $123,602.50 Subtotal $226,315.00 Subtotal $123,602.50 *WSST (9.5%) $21,499.93 *WSST (9.5%) $11,742.24 Total $247,814.93 Total $135,344.74 *does not incl ROW work 8/5/2013 S:\ENGR\CAPITAL PROJECTS\E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer CIPP\Construction\600 Bids & Contracts\601 Bid Documents\Bid Tabulation 1%4) O cl) o m > `m ❑ooD o o � B �e e 3Ro • � ease � 4l' m Dam n 106th AV ❑ � � �® 104th Ave � 7TFi AV 19 MET � h: LID Q AV I Ak Z m �� 0 Zu a oo 0 o W a� a r Boa o 001 88TH AVE J 88TH AVE EL a �p IV � ❑ 84 Av 84TF1 Av _ El❑� a ❑ O 4 c^ O EIE a � 76TF1 F.IAV 76TH AV 76TH AVE ❑a� Ell rn z Ell a� EIF Ave _ l F9 m r m o D z 0 D D F- O O KO;Ucn�:u mz z D c/') �Cnz= -Tl C7 O F71 O -u m D O F- ;:um z o�=o O�:uD _ U0 OC D � < K: D mD--I CFO F71 O (n 00 � � rTl _ C/) F- o o D cnl)2 y 013 SANITARY SEWER PIPE REHAB .� CITY OF EDMONDS APPROVED BY BY DATE N0. DATE BY REVISION DESIGN ,/AZ 6/2012 z M m z � z� � E ®N D S 9 WA ENGINEERING DIVISION 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 ROBERTS. ENGLISH, P.E. CITY ENGINEER DRAWN ✓AZ 6/2012 CHECKED MFD 6/2013 N Est 18g0 (425) 771-0220 DATE APPROVED RSE 712013 AM-6013 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 08/13/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Jerry Shuster Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Subject Title Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Tyne: Action Information 2. F. Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Grant Acceptance Intent Notice and Grant Agreement with the State of Washington Department of Ecology for a Municipal Stormwater Capacity Grant for $50,000 and a Project Specific Planning and Design of Retrofit/LID Project Grant up to $120,000. Recommendation Forward this item to the consent agenda for approval at the August 20, 2013 Council meeting. Previous Council Action None. Narrative The 2013 Washington State Legislature appropriated $5.85 million to the Department of Ecology (Ecology) over the 2013-2015 for local governments to use in complying with applicable Municipal Stormwater Permits. The funding targets stormwater management and control by building capacity, improving local stormwater programs, research, data management, and monitoring. Each jurisdiction subject to the Ecology's Municipal Stormwater Permits receives a base amount of $50,000. In addition, the Legislature appropriated $15 million statewide for project specific planning and design of stormwater retrofit/LID projects. Each jurisdiction subject to the Municipal Stormwater Permits is eligible to receive up to $120,000 for planning and design of one or more of these projects. These projects must provide an ecological or water quality benefit and address stormwater pollution from existing development. The Engineering Division is working to integrate this grant to existing stormwater/transportation projects to maximize the benefit to the community. The City has received notice of these grants and Ecology is awaiting the return of the Grant Acceptance Intent Notice form signed by the Mayor in order to formally accept the offers. Once accepted by the City, Ecology will send a grant agreement that also needs the Mayor's signature. Fiscal Impact: This grant will add up to $170,000 to the 422 Stormwater Utility Fund. Attachments E-mail from Ecology Announcing the Grants Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 08/08/2013 01:18 PM Public Works Kody McConnell 08/08/2013 02:11 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/08/2013 02:23 PM Mayor Dave Earling 08/08/2013 03:04 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/08/2013 03:12 PM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 08/07/2013 03:17 PM Final Approval Date: 08/08/2013 Shuster, Jerry Subject: FW: 2013-15 Capacity Grant Funding Program and Stormwater Pre -construction funding opportunity Attachments: FY2013CapacityGrant GAIN.doc From: Brommer, Patricia (ECY) fmailto:patb461CdECY.WA.GOV] Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:16 PM To) Subject: 2013-15 Capacity Grant Funding Program and Stormwater Pre -construction funding opportunity Hello Everyone: Ecology's Water Quality Program is pleased to announce two funding opportunities for stormwater management and improvement projects: 1. $50,000 - 2013-15 Biennial Municipal Stormwater Capacity Grant Program 2. Up to $120,000 — Project -specific Planning and Design funding for retrofit/LID projects (please read on for further information regarding parameters of this funding). Eligible recipients of both funding opportunities are cities and counties covered by one of the following municipal stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits: • Phase I Municipal Stormwater Permit • Phase II Eastern Washington Municipal Stormwater Permit • Phase II Western Washington Municipal Stormwater Permit In order to receive either or both of these funding opportunities each recipient must fill out the attached Grant Acceptance Intent Notice (GAIN) and return the completed, signed copy to Ecology as soon as possible, but no later than August 30, 2013. 2013-15 Biennial Municipal Stormwater Capacity Each city and county covered by one of the abovementioned general municipal stormwater permits is eligible to receive a grant award of $50,000. The grant is for NPDES municipal stormwater permit implementation activities. The list of acceptable activities is listed in the attached GAIN and will be included as Task 2 of the funding agreement. The GAIN process is required in order to develop your funding agreement. After Ecology has received the GAIN, three copies of the funding agreement will be mailed to you for signature. Instructions will follow with the funding agreement. Project Specific Planning and Design Activities Funding Cities and counties covered by a Phase I and II municipal stormwater permit listed above are eligible to accept a funding offer up to $120,000 for project -specific planning and design activities for stormwater retrofit projects. In order to help us expedite the funding offer, please check the appropriate box on the GAIN form indicating whether your community is accepting or declining the Pre -construction funding offer. If the eligible recipient chooses to accept the project specific planning and design funding offer, Ecology will add the amount to the 2013-15 Biennial Municipal Stormwater Capacity Grant Program funding agreement as a separate Task 3 with specific deliverables and milestone dates. Conditions for pre -construction activity funding include: • Conduct project -specific planning and design for retrofit projects which provide ecological or water quality benefits, and address stormwater pollution runoff from existing development. • Recipients may plan one or more retrofit projects; at least one of the projects planned with the pre - construction funds must implement low impact development techniques • Pre -construction activities are to prepare projects for application to the competitive grant program scheduled for September 2014. More detailed guidance on the funding opportunities will be available on our web page by Wednesday, August htt www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/funding/FundingPrograms/OtherFundingPrograms/StWa12a/FY12aSt Wa.html You may contact me with questions about Capacity Grant and Pre -construction funding. We are excited about these funding opportunities and look forward to working with you on stormwater and water quality improvements! Pat Patricia Brornmer I Policy and Adrnin Unit Supervisor I WA Department of Ecology -Water Quality Program P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600 1 Patricia. brommer(cD-ecy.wa.gov I o: 360.407-6566 R ' Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail AM-6029 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 08/13/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Rob English Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Submitted By: Robert English Tyne: Action Information Subject Title Discussion and recommendation on proposed utility rate adjustments. Recommendation Schedule the item for City Council approval. Previous Council Action On July, 23, 2013, staff made a presentation on options to increase utility rates to the City Council. 2. G. 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 Staff will provide information and a recommendation on the proposed utility rate adjustments at the committee meeting. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 08/08/2013 03:49 PM Public Works Phil Williams 08/09/2013 07:22 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/09/2013 08:14 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/09/2013 09:28 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/09/2013 10:02 AM Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 08/08/2013 03:31 PM Final Approval Date: 08/09/2013 AM-5977 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 08/13/2013 Time: 30 Minutes Submitted For: Phil Williams Department: Public Works Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Subject Title Discussion of Street Tree Management Policy Submitted By: Kody McConnell Tyne: Information Information 2. H. Recommendation Staff will suggest changes in Council Resolution 418 dated November 28th, 1978 to address impacts from trees located in City ROW, that are not "street trees" as defined in City code. Previous Council Action Council Resolution 418 passed on November 28th, 1978 Narrative Council Resolution 418 (11/28/1978) lists only three reasons why a tree located on "public rights -of -way" or "other public property" can be removed or trimmed as follows: 1. The tree or trees present a safety or sight distance hazard, or 2. The tree root system causes blockage of underground utility systems or damages other public improvements such as roadways, sidewalks, etc; or 3. The tree is damaged or diseased requiring its removal or trimming in the interests of the public health safety and general welfare. This policy (item 2 above) does not authorize the removal or trimming of any tree unless it is damaging or interferring with the function of a publicly owned utility or infrastructure element. It is silent regarding damage or interferrence to private property. Staff would recommend modifying or replacing Resolution 418 with language that would allow the Public Works Director to authorize removal, trimming, or replacement of trees when they are clearly affecting either public or private property or systems. Resolution 418 Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Kody McConnell Final Approval Date: 08/06/2013 Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 08/05/2013 03:21 PM Dave Earling 08/06/2013 08:48 AM Sandy Chase 08/06/2013 02:38 PM Started On: 07/23/2013 12:37 PM RESOLUTION NO. 418 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AND FORMALIZING A POLICY FOR TREE TRIMMING OR REMOVAL ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. WHEREAS, there have been numerous requests to have trees that are located upon public rights -of -way or other public property removed or topped in order to enhance views of the vicinal property owners, and WHEREAS, heretofore the policy of removal or trimming of trees in the public right-of-way and on other public property has not been formalized by the City Council and there is a need to adopt such a formal policy to provide guidance and direction for the administration and staff, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The policy of the City of Edmonds with respect to the removal or trimming of trees located on City property or on public rights -of -way shall permit the same to occur only in the following listed instances: 1. The tree or trees present a safety or sight distance hazard; or 2. The tree root system causes blockage of underground utility systems or damages other public improve- -1- 0 ments such as roadways, sidewalks, etc; or 3. The tree is damaged or diseased requiring its removal or trimming in the interests of the public health safety and general welfare. RESOLVED this 28th day of November, 1978. APPROVED: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: jt6�. j�z�� CITY CLERK, IRENEOVARNEY MORAN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: November 27, 1978 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: November 28, 1978 —2— AM-6023 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 08/13/2013 Time: 30 Minutes Submitted By: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Information Subject Title Developing a decision tree for deliberating key issues for Harbor Square. Recommendation Provide guidance to staff regarding the decision tree for Harbor Square key issues. Information Previous Council Action The City Council has been discussing the Harbor Square Master Plan over a number of meetings dating back to November 20, 2012. At the August 6, 2013 Council Meeting the Council voted to develop a decision tree for deliberating key issues related to a Harbor Square Master Plan. Narrative During review of the Harbor Square Master Plan staff developed an issue matrix (now included as Exhibit 1) based on comments provided by City Council, the citizenry during the public hearings, and Planning Board recommendations. This issue table was reviewed during the March 19, March 26 and August 6, 2013 Council meetings (Exhibits 2 - 4). To further discussions, the City Council voted to develop a decision tree for the key issues related to a Harbor Square Master Plan and referred the item to the Planning, Parks and Public Works Committee to work with staff on developing the decision tree. Note: The current "Exhibit 1" is what Councilmembers have been accustomed to referring to as "Exhibit 3" in previous packets. The content is the same. Attachments Exhibit 1 - Harbor Sauare Master Plan Issue Table (Exhibit 3 from the March 19 - August 6 Council Meetings Aeendas Exhibit 2 - March 19, 2013 Council Minutes ExggXt Exhibit 3 - March 26, 2013 Council Minutes Excemt Exhibit 4 - August 6. 2013 Council Minutes Excemt Inbox Planning Department City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Kemen Lien Final Approval Date: 08/08/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date PBHEX Admin 08/08/2013 12:23 PM Sandy Chase 08/08/2013 12:29 PM Dave Earling 08/08/2013 01:32 PM Sandy Chase 08/08/2013 02:24 PM Started On: 08/08/2013 11:21 AM Harbor S uare Master Plan Council Comments/Suggestions Communicated to Staff How addressed in revised HSMP Residential Uses Comments regarding residential uses from the Council and citizens 1. No residential uses during the Public Hearing process were varied. In the revised HSMP, 2. Limit the extent of residential uses residential uses may be allowed to complement or enhance the overall a. Limit number of units development concept of Harbor Square, but should not be the principal b. Limit location along marsh use of the site. (Page 2) c. Provide for affordable housing d. Encourage live/work units 3. Allow residential development Height and Bulk Height: Heights are addressed on Page 6 of the revised HSMP. Base 1. Keep maximum height at 35 feet zoning heights are limited to 35 feet (as is currently allowed on the site) 2. Base height at 35 feet with possible increase in heights with with potential bonus heights if public benefits and/or amenities are incentives provide or a development rights transfer program is established. An 3. No mention of heights in Comprehensive Plan option is provided to cap any potential increase in height at 45 feet. 4. Establish a transfer of development rights program 5. Development should be pedestrian scale Bulk/Pedestrian Scale: Bulk and pedestrian scale design is addressed in 6. Limit building bulk a number of places in the HSMP including the following sections; Use and Site Planning (Page 3), Public Amenities (Page 4), Height and Bulk (Page 6), Pedestrian Scale Buildings (Pages 6 — 7), Street Orientation (Page 7), and Site Design and Landscaping (Pagel). Page 1 of 5 Harbor S uare Master Plan Council Comments/Suggestions Communicated to Staff How addressed in revised HSMP Buffers, Setbacks, and other Environmental Issues Setbacks and buffers from the Edmonds Marsh will be proscribed 1. Redevelopment not allowed in current "developed footprint". within the updated Shoreline Master Program, which is currently under New development must meet SMP and CAO buffers. review by the City Council. Any future development or redevelopment 2. Provide adequate buffers and setbacks to protect marsh at Harbor Square must comply with the SMP as noted on Page 6 of the 3. Geological Hazard (liquefaction) HSMP. 4. Flooding The HSMP also emphasizes green building and green infrastructure (LID techniques) as noted in the Sustainability section on Pages 4 — 5. Contributing to the day -lighting of Willow Creek and improving the buffers surrounding the Edmonds Marsh are also highlighted as potential incentives under the Height and Bulk section on Page 6. Geological hazard and flooding issues are items that will be dealt with during project level SEPA review. Incorporation into City's Comprehensive Plan The Planning Board recommended that the HSMP be incorporated in 1. Subarea Plan the City's Comprehensive Plan rather just be incorporated by reference 2. Incorporate full text of HSMP (PB Recommendation #12). Whether the HSMP is incorporated 3. Incorporate by reference completely into the Comprehensive Plan or adopted by reference, the effect is the same in that the HSMP would then be part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This can be implemented through the adopting ordinance. Treating the HSMP as a subarea plan specifically emphasizes that the master plan only applies to the Harbor Square property. Additionally, considering the HSMP as a subarea plan addresses a recommendation from the Planning Board (PB Recommendation #10) that language from the City Attorney's memorandum be incorporated into the adoption of the HSMP. Page 2 of 5 Harbor S uare Master Plan Council Comments/Suggestions Communicated to Staff How addressed in revised HSMP Special Districts or Incentive Zoning: All these ideas are supported in the Redevelopment Objectives and 1. Brewery/distillery/brew pub zone Concepts narrative on Pages 2 — 3 of the HSMP. 2. Create district energy area using waste heat from sewer treatment plant 3. Campus for tech firm or other business 4. Tourists destination (small hotels with first floor restaurants, nightclubs, cafes, art galleries, studios, small shops that sell a variety of item these shops that may sell locally made arts, crafts, and jewelry). 5. Year-round farmers market 6. Roger Brooks' Concepts Parking Parking provided at a redeveloped Harbor Square will have to be 1. Limit parking requirements for residences in order to encourage consistent with the City's off street parking regulations as contained in a single car ECDC 17.50, unless modified in a future zoning change approved by 2. Parking must be adequate for any development Council. Connectivity Improving the connections between the waterfront and downtown is 1. Provide connectivity between waterfront and downtown emphasized in the Redevelopment Objectives and Concepts on Pages 2 2. Provide connectivity to trains, ferries, and buses. — 3. The Public Amenities section on Page 4 also recognizes the need for connections between the waterfront and downtown. Also the Sustainability section on Page 4 notes that the proximity to bus, rail and ferry respond to the need to integrate land use and transportation. Page 3 of 5 Planning Board Recommendations: 1. Building heights shall be limited to 45 feet and consideration may be given for heights up to 55 feet if the development proposal includes significant public amenities and/or sustainable design certification such as LEED Platinum. 2. Development proposals should place the tallest buildings towards the south and west boundaries of the property. 3. Buildings along Dayton Street should be limited to 35 feet in height. 4. Development plans shall ensure that the Public View Corridor down Dayton Street is preserved and enhanced. 5. On page 5 of the Harbor Square Master Plan under "Circulation, Traffic and Parking", an additional sentence should be added to read: "The absence of available off -site parking requires that adequate parking allowance be made to accommodate all customer, employee and resident vehicles during peak use times." 6. At the bottom of page 9 of the Harbor Square Master Plan, the exception to the 55 foot height limit for special architectural features such as a tower, sculpture, etc. should be deleted. 7. In the graphic "Schematic Section through Harbor Square Looking West" on page 10, the annotation as to "setback" above 35 feet along Dayton Street should be revised to "building step back". 8. An additional sentence should be added to the "Dayton Street Frontage" section on page 11 of the Harbor Square Master Plan to read: "Consideration should be given to enhance street -side parking to support separating human activity from the traffic along Dayton Street." 9. On page 11 of the Harbor Square Master Plan under "SR 104 Frontage", "If WSDOT is amendable" should be stricken from the beginning of the third sentence. 10. The Edmonds City Attorney shall develop language consistent with the memorandum dated September 6, 2012 to be incorporated into the City's adoption of the Comprehensive Questions of have been raised about how the Planning Board's recommendations will be incorporated in the HSMP. Some of the recommendations from the Planning Board are no longer applicable with regard to the revised master plan while other recommendations have been incorporated. Below is a summary of how the Planning Board's recommendations have been addressed in the current draft of the HSMP. 1. The specific building heights in the recommendation are no longer applicable. The possibility of allowing some additional height through incentive zoning if certain public amenities are provided has been incorporated in the HSMP in the Height and Bulk section on Page 6. 2. With a base height of 35 feet spelled out in the current draft of the HSMP, this condition is less relevant. If during a subsequent rezone public amenities are provided and a height bonus granted, design and location of the taller building will be addressed at that time. 3. Base height has been limited to 35 feet for the entire site. 4. Language from this condition has been added under the Uses and Site Planning section on Page 3. 5. As noted above, parking provided at a redeveloped Harbor Square will have to be consistent with the City's off street parking regulations as contained in ECDC 17.50. The standards contained in ECDC 17.50 are intended to ensure that adequate off street parking is provided for all uses on a redeveloped Harbor Square. Only a zoning change approved by Council could alter parking requirements. 6. The base height of 35 feet may only be exceeded if public benefits and/or amenities are provided (Page 6). 7. The referenced graphic has been removed from the HSMP. 8. Language has been added under the Dayton Street Frontage Section on Page 7. 9. Wording has been removed under the SR 104 Frontage section on Page 7. Page 4 of 5 Plan addressing height limits, precedent, and views. 10. The City Attorney memorandum addressed three issues. 11. Clarifying language should be added to the Harbor Square a. The height issue is addressed by limiting base height to 35 Master Plan that residential uses must be multifamily and not feet. Any increase in height above 35 feet could only be single-family residential. accomplished through incentive zoning approved by 12. If and when the Harbor Square Master Plan is adopted by the Council. City Council, it should be physically incorporated into the b. Concern with regard to precedent is addressed by treating Comprehensive Plan rather than incorporated by reference. the HSMP as a subarea plan. 13. Any future development proposal shall clearly demark and c. The third question addressed by the City Attorney's provide protection for the Edmonds Marsh by establishing an memorandum had to do with the protection of private area of open space not less than 25 feet landward from the edge views. No specific language with regard to this item has of the Edmonds Marsh and ensure any development preserves been addressed. The memo noted the City has discretion or improves the Edmonds Marsh Park/Walkway. in how it addresses private views. Private view protection 14. The approved Master Plan shall be modified as necessary to is not mentioned in any of the City's Planning Documents maintain consistency with the Shoreline Master Program update or codes. However, as noted in the City Attorney's to be determined following submittal by the City and approved memorandum (Attachment 22 from the November 20, by the State in accordance with process deadlines existent 2012 agenda item on the HSMP), the City has designated between the State and the City. specific public view corridors (See page 58 of the Comprehensive Plan). Protection of the Dayton Street view corridor is called out under the Use and Site Planning section on Page 3. Additionally, language with regard to the Attorney memorandum could be incorporated in the adopting ordinance. 11. No specific language with regard to multifamily development has been added. As noted above, residential development in Harbor Square should not be the principle use, but provide to enhance and support the mixed use nature of Harbor Square. Any more specific provisions regarding residential uses would be the subject of a future rezone approved by Council. 12. See above with regard to incorporating the HSMP. 13. As noted above, setback from the marsh will be determined by the updated Shoreline Master Program currently under review by the City Council. 14. The Setbacks and Ecological Enhancements along Edmonds Marsh section on Page 6 recognizing the HSMP must comply with the HSMP. Page 5 of 5 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO, FRALEY- MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, PETERSON AND JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. 6. PARKS STAFFING AND BUDGET AMENDMENT REOUEST Parks & Recreation Commission Carrie Hite explained the Parks Department made significant cuts over the past two years, including 1.5 FTE and all seasonal in 2013. After two months, the pressure is being felt by office staff and following a job analysis, it was determined another 0.5 FTE is needed. She requested reinstatement of the 0.5 FTE that was cut from Parks office staff. The one-time April 1 — December 31, 2013 cost is $24,000. She will identify how to fund it in the 2014 budget. Due to under - spending and generating more revenue than anticipated, the Parks Department left approximately $200,000 in the budget in 2012. She requested authorization for a budget amendment for $24,000 funded from the carryover from 2012. Mayor Earling explained an already reduced staff was reduced by 9 this year. In a comparison of staff to population in other cities in the Puget Sound region, Edmonds has one of the lowest staff per capita ratios. Although there were good intentions to spread the workload, this is becoming a problem in other departments. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed her support for reinstating the 0.5 FTE, relaying Ms. Hite presented this to the Finance Committee. Although there were good intentions, the cuts are have made too much impact and work is not being done. She expressed her appreciation for the cuts Ms. Hite made, recalling she made more cuts than required. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO APPROVE A BUDGETARY REQUEST TO REINSTATE .5 FTE PARKS SR. OFFICE SPECIALIST. Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding a part time staff would be restored to full-time. Ms. Hite answered a full-time office staff was given a 0.5 layoff notice due to budget cuts. According to SEIU and union labor rules, that person must be recalled first. Councilmember Peterson expressed his support, recalling the agenda packet mentioned the possibility of decreased revenues without the restoration, impacts on staff morale and potential future staff departures. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 7. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE PORT OF EDMONDS REQUEST TO INCORPORATE THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. To the question why the Port's Master Plan was an attachment to the packet, Mayor Earling explained staff attached it as a point of reference, not as the plan the Council was currently, necessarily working on. He relayed he had been contacted by Councilmembers Buckshnis and Councilmember Johnson who wanted to make motions prior to tonight's discussion. As he heard from Councilmember Buckshnis first, she will speak first. Councilmember Buckshnis offered to clarify the intent of the Council's deliberation tonight. Many emails and telephone calls she has received indicate there is confusion with the upcoming deliberation process. She explained it is clear the citizens of Edmonds assign great value to downtown building height Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2013 Page 8 limitations. In her opinion, it was with great arrogance the Port put forward a development plan requiring a Comprehensive Plan amendment that would significant change the height limits with no guarantee to citizens regarding what they would receive in return for this non -monetary capital. The downtown height limits provide inherent value to many citizens and they deserve to know the return they will receive for the lost value. Promises draped around fluffy language regarding environmental sensitivity and open space is not enough, the only specifics in the Port's plan were heights and setbacks. Councilmember Buckshnis stated tonight is an opportunity to discuss parameters for the Harbor Square Development Plan based on a staff prepared draft utilizing information obtained from each Councilmember. She hoped to move the discussion within the community away from the emotion, speculation and fear of opposing sides and begin to address the non -monetary capital. The community deserves to understand what has and can be achieved with private -public partnerships that work through the use of incentives. Incentive zoning may be a valuable approach to building consensus and ensuring the development that occurs is desirable and moves the community forward and non -monetary items are exchanged and discussed. For example, she would be willing to listen to 5-10 foot height increase in exchange for a significant amount of money for restoring the marsh. Even though she was a strict height person, she was also a strict environmentalist. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO WORK WITH THE STAFF -PROVIDED DRAFT OF THE SUBAREA PLAN KNOWN AS HARBOR SQUARE AS A BASIS TO DEVELOP A NEW PLAN. Council President Petso commented she was not prepared to move any draft ahead without discussion. The agenda item was noticed without an action, but rather a discussion with the intent of working toward a final draft. The draft in the packet is labeled discussion draft. She will oppose the motion in hopes of hearing the staff presentation and having an open discussion. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented although she has been reviewed this, she was not ready to take a vote on it. She noted four Councilmembers have provided input into the Harbor Square plan, input that was only provided to Council in the last day or two. The Councilmembers' input is incorporated into the issue table but neither she nor the citizens have had an opportunity to review the Councilmembers input. She preferred to continue the discussion. Councilmember Buckshnis explained her intent was to clarify that the Council was no longer working off the Port's Master Plan. The motion simply states the Council is no longer looking at the Port plan. Mayor Earling clarified the motion is to focus on the staff -provided draft. Councilmember Yamamoto explained the staff -provided draft was developed using Council and citizen comments. He liked many of the options but was unsure the Port would. He expressed his support for the motion. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised neither the Council nor citizens have had an opportunity to review the proposal from four Councilmembers as they were just provided yesterday and today and many of the comments were new. She was not comfortable with proceeding as much of the material had not yet been discussed. Councilmember Peterson clarified the motion is not to approve the document; it is simply to use the staff - provided plan as a starting point and the basis for further discussion. This seems a very reasonable way to show the process was working, that compromises have been identified, language has been changed, etc. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2013 Page 9 To Councilmember Fraley-Monillas's comment that only four Councilmembers have had input, Mayor Earling explained staff has tried to incorporate any/all suggestions into Exhibit 3. That document was provided in the Council packet Friday. He suggested starting the discussion with Exhibit 3. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified the issue she was trying to address was that many citizens still think the Council is working off the Port's Harbor Square Master Plan. Via her motion, she wanted to make it clear that the Council was no longer considering the Port's original plan. Council President Petso agreed a good place to start would be Exhibit 3. She preferred to see staff's presentation and begin discussion. Councilmember Bloom did not see the point of making a motion prior to discussion. The only thing that seems to have been excluded is Exhibit 4, Council President Petso's revised downtown master plan. Other than a clarification that the Council was not working off the Port's Master Plan in Exhibit 1, she was uncertain a motion was needed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to hear the staff presentation before taking a vote. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, PETERSON, YAMAMOTO, AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. Councilmember Johnson commented staff has done an outstanding job of summarizing the issues. As she was interested in listening to Councilmembers' discussion of the issues, to facilitate an efficient discussion she suggested after the staff presentation, the Council work through each issue in a round-robin format and only after discussions have been completed, begin making motions on individual parts. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO POSTPONE ANY MOTIONS ABOUT HARBOR SQUARE PLAN ADOPTION UNTIL THE CITY COUNCIL COMPLETES DISCUSSION OF ALL THE ISSUES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Senior Planner Kernen Lien reviewed the process thus far: • Port of Edmonds' process • Planning Board review City Council review o Public Hearings o Continued deliberations At the last Council meeting regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan, Council directed staff to revise the Harbor Square Master Plan to reflect public comments and Council discussion during the public hearings and deliberation and Councilmembers have also submitted ideas to staff for consideration in a revised Master Plan. He commented on tonight's meeting materials: • Staff has provided a modified draft plan, responding to Council's request for a version that reflects public comments and Council discussion • Modified plan is contained in Exhibit 2 o Rob Chave is the principal author of the revised plan • Harbor Square Master Plan Issue Table in Exhibit 3 o Summarizes the ideas and comments heard by staff and where these are addressed in the revised Master Plan Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2013 Page 10 o Addresses the 14 specific recommendations forwarded by the Planning Board and how they have been addressed in the revised Master Plan • The Port's original proposal is provided for reference and comparison in Exhibit 1 • Two Councilmembers specifically requested their comments be included in the agenda item for tonight which are Exhibits 4 and 5 Mr. Lien commented on the revised Subarea Plan: "Subarea" plan reflects unique status and location, consistent with Planning Board recommendation A more conceptual plan, emphasizing a variety of concepts available for future development. These concepts are highlighted on page 2 of the subarea included ideas such as: o Multi -use public space that offers opportunities for community gatherings and events o Focus on planning for and attracting employers and businesses who could provide a stimulus to the local economy and that take advantage of the site location. o Emphasize a mix of uses that contribute to an active subarea, which should focus on its location and potential for connections between the marsh, waterfront and downtown. Does not lock in a single development scheme, but rather leaves the door open for a number of possible development opportunities Reflects as many comments as possible o Many of the comments and ideas submitted by Councilmembers and heard during the public hearing process are conflicting. Exhibit 3 from tonight's agenda memo summarizes the issues raised during the public process and how they are addressed in the revised subarea plan The revised Master Plan/Subarea plan is a first effort by staff to incorporate as many comments as possible. He recognized the Council just received this at the end of last week and has not had much time to digest this draft. The intent tonight is that Council begin discussions on the revised subarea plan and provide feedback to staff to move forward with potential revisions to the plan for Harbor Square. Mayor Earling requested Councilmember Johnson clarify her suggestion. Councilmember Johnson explained her intent was to encourage an open and frank discussion without the need to make motions. She suggested thoroughly discussing each of the issues in Exhibit 3 before proceeding to the next issue. The Council was agreeable to this process. Residential Uses Councilmember Buckshnis was impressed and pleased with what staff prepared. She did not see where residential would fit with Dayton and the new marsh setbacks. However, she was very supportive of affordable housing which includes dense, small units. She recognized it is a balance and compromise. She was open minded about residential uses particularly affordable housing, pointing out access to the train, ferry, etc. would be very advantageous to young families. Councilmember Peterson also recognized staff for developing this plan and the Port for starting the process. He was in favor of limited residential uses. Early in the process he thought this could be a residential -driven area but via discussions, he recognized the other side and that there is a compromise to be made. He supports affordable housing, noting Edmonds is prime for that type of development, smaller units for people who are downsizing from single family homes and its proximity to transportation provides a great opportunity for young professionals. He noted much of the residential in the Port's original plan had a view of the marsh which provides a built-in support network. The marsh is a financial investment for those who have purchased homes that have a view of the marsh as well as an emotion connection. That is one of the reasons Edmonds is a leader in environmental issues because residents' see Puget Sound every day. He encouraged residential uses that take advantage of the view of the marsh, anticipating many new residents would be interested in joining Friends of the Edmonds Marsh. He agreed Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2013 Page 11 there was a balance between environmental issues and residential uses. He also supported allowing some of the existing businesses to shift to other parts of the development while still flourishing. He summarized there is space for residential uses and he was hopeful a developer would be interested in that concept. Council President Petso commented one of the difficulties she had was the desire to create a destination on this site as stated in the Comprehensive Plan; however, residential was not a destination for anyone other than the residents. She questioned how affordable housing other than subsidized housing could be constructed on this site. If residential uses are allowed, she suggested it be on the northern end due to the geologic hazards on the site. She also suggested limiting the square footage that would be devoted to housing. She suggested 20% but recognized it could be anything. Councilmember Bloom relayed her strong belief that residential was incompatible with a destination. The goals in the City's 2005 Downtown Waterfront Plan for the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center include promoting downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment, and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community and as a destination for visitors throughout the region. The 2012 Comprehensive Plan contains the same wording. She referred to page 55 of the Comprehensive Plan that states this area is appropriate for design driven master plan development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and downtown. Situated in the bottom of the bowl can enable a design that provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors. She stressed there was nothing in the Comprehensive Plan about residential. Councilmember Bloom advised the proposed plan includes residential which creates an urban village. There is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan about an urban village. The zoning of Harbor Square is General Commercial, does not include residential and the code states no residential, no places of employment and no places of public assembly can be constructed without appropriate geotechnical studies. She did not feel there was consistency between an urban village in any form and a destination, pointing out no one goes to an urban village as a destination. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Council President Petso's concern about the ability to provide any affordable housing on the property. The Port's original feasibility study did not take into account the cost to make the building earthquake safe. She summarized the idea that any housing on the site could be affordable was unrealistic. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the intent was to identify parameters; they may or may not work. She referred to units above Trader Joes and Target stores that work and those are destinations. There is also the potential for live -work units. She summarized many things can be done creatively but that comes after a decision regarding mixed use that may include residential. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed interest in a destination such as a hotel zone where there would be a variety of boutique hotels. She had concerns with this process, fearing the result would simply be argument back and forth. Councilmember Johnson commented when she first saw the plan proposed by the Port, the majority, approximately 60%, was residential with the assumption of vacant land. However, the existing and future development needs to be considered. With regard to residential uses, she noted there is not a big difference between people who stay in a hotel or in their own residence. She relayed some people are ready to move to a condominium on this site; the views of the water and marsh make it ideal for residential at a higher level. She agreed with Councilmember Peterson's comment that ownership would provide eyes for the marsh. A business park with 9-5 residents does not provide a complete community; the intent is to enhance the community. With regard to parking, residential can complement and use less Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2013 Page 12 parking than other land uses. She questioned how the Council could control the percentage of residential that would be allowed in a proposed development. Council President Petso commented if the Council could not control the percentage of housing, she would be satisfied with no housing. She disagreed a hotel use was similar to a residential use; people staying in a hotel are much more likely to spend money in the community, particularly at restaurants, than people living in residential units. A hotel use may provide advantages for area merchants. She asked how affordable housing could be provided and if it could not, she would support no housing. Councilmember Peterson commented there are a number of ways the City can create affordable housing such as limiting the square footage of a unit as a smaller unit is less expensive. The City can, via a development agreement or incentive zoning, require a percentage of the housing to be available for under market value. City Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed there are ways to do that. Councilmember Peterson commented it is done to provide diversity in many communities including very expensive neighborhoods in Seattle. He recalled Councilmembers who stated they were interested in creating more diversity. Councilmember Peterson reiterated the Council has the ability to create affordable house and can do it in any multi -family zone. One of the keys to being an environmentally sustainable community is giving people options for transit. The train station, bus routes, and the ferry, provide multiple transportation options and he supported residential uses that could take advantage of those options. He looked forward to a creative compromise that did not hamstring development. For example, flexibility that would allow a developer to build a hotel if that was feasible. He noted one of the new waves in hotels is a combination of hotels and residences. He agreed a boutique hotel would be fantastic addition but residential does not preclude a hotel. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested Snohomish County Tomorrow provide a presentation to the Council on affordable housing. Affordable housing can be smaller units geared toward youth. Councilmember Yamamoto spoke in favor of residential uses including affordable housing. The Downtown Master Plan calls for mixed use and the Shoreline Master Plan allows for residential. Residential uses will provide revenue and mixed use will bring people to the area. Until a developer creates a plan, this is all speculation. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the downtown near waterfront area is not the only area for affordable housing. She suggested Highway 99 would be a more suitable place for affordable, transit oriented housing. Councilmember Bloom commented an urban village, which is what housing would create, is not consistent with a destination. Since at least 2005 Edmonds citizens have envisioned a destination for that area. There is already a mix of uses including restaurants and commercial. Adding residential uses goes in a different direction from destination, requiring uses to cater to the needs of the residents. She questioned someone wanting to live in a residence with a rooftop restaurant above or a retail store below. Residential will also require parking, limiting the amount of parking for visitors who will spend money in the City. The Port is asking to change the Comprehensive Plan as well as the zoning and to allow residents even though the code says nothing greater than 2500 square feet can be approved without a geotechnical study. If the Council insists on pursuing residences, she will insist the Planning Department present all the information to the Planning Board so they can determine what that means and what the real cost of building will be in terms of infrastructure, seismic hazards, the floodplain, shading of the marsh, etc. Councilmember Bloom pointed out there is a link between housing and height. The Port has said they need a certain number of residences and height; the retail, paths and bikeways are only an afterthought. If Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2013 Page 13 the Council agrees to residential uses, the Council is agreeing to increased heights and making this an urban village rather than a destination. A destination could be created under the current code. Councilmember Johnson referred to places that she considers destinations such as Granville Island in Vancouver, a place that has hotels, jobs, and live -work artist spaces so that visitors can see the artists at work. Another example is a workspace project in Everett, adaptive reuse of an old industrial building for artists to live and work. She agreed this could be a destination with many public amenities that draw on the environmental resources of the marsh, the arts and culture and historical aspects of Edmonds. She supported continued discussion regarding residential uses. Council President Petso commented one of the criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment is it maintain the appropriate balance of land uses in the City. Duplicating existing residential stock probably does not meet that criteria; live -work options may, smaller units may not. Mayor Earling relayed in conferring with Council President Petso, it was determined a 1'/2 hour discussion regarding the Harbor Square plan can be scheduled on next week's agenda. Height and Bulk Council President Petso relayed her first concern is bulk provisions because neither the Port's plan nor this plan include any bulk limitations. Bulk limitations would be valuable for preserving the small town character and quality that people think of in downtown Edmonds. Although there is some effort to make large bulk buildings look smaller by modulating the fagade but there does not seem to be anything to prevent a building stretching the entire length of Dayton Avenue. She suggested limiting the bulk of specific buildings. With regard to heights, Council President Petso observed citizens were not interested in 55-foot heights but anticipated citizens would find 35 feet acceptable as that is the current height limit. She commented the current 35 foot height limit was bought via a contract rezone. She suggested using incentive zoning between 25 and 35 feet rather which she expected would cause less public outrage than the Port's initial proposal. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned why Councilmembers continue to refer to the Port's proposal. The staff -provided plan is what is currently being discussed. She referred to non -monetary assets, pointing out the marsh would not clean or restore itself. The only way to restore the marsh is via a private -public partnership which requires incentives such as height, affordable housing or residential. She spoke in favor of a collection of incentives options so citizens can see why things are being given away. She noted if a developer provided $1 million to restore the marsh, she might consider an additional 10 feet in building height. The current Harbor Square fagade is 40 feet. She did not want to close the door and be stuck at 35 feet forever and she did not want to be the Councilmember that turned away from the marsh. Councilmember Bloom supported Council President Petso's suggestion that the maximum height be 35 and possibly allow incentive zoning from 25 to 35 feet. Citizens have been clear regarding where they stand on height and she did not feel the Council should ignore years of comments, input and elections. When the plans were presented to the Citizen Group of 33, nearly every resident who commented said do not change the code, meaning do not add residences or increase the height. She felt the Council needed to honor what citizens have wanted for many, many years. With creativity, a destination can be developed without residences at the current height. Councilmember Peterson commented he also served on the Group of 33 but the difference in recall made it seem like he and Councilmember Bloom were at different meetings. He did not recall the Group of 33 was adamant about not making changes. Councilmember Bloom clarified it was the citizens who Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2013 Page 14 responded to the consultants' proposals, not the Group of 33 themselves. Councilmember Peterson pointed out the Group of 33 were 33 citizens. Councilmember Peterson agreed it was time to get creative and some of that creativity comes at a price. The marsh is an incredible resource; it will take a lot of money and a lot of creativity to determine how to restore it. That can be achieved by encouraging responsible development where the Council and community dictate how things are done. That may be accomplished with a limited number of buildings at 45 feet in locations where views will not be affected. The current Harbor Square fagade is 40 feet and citizens are not protesting. There are many reasonable voices that understand giving a little is required to get something. Edmonds is on the forefront of many environmental issues, from coal trains to plastic bags and protecting the marsh. Edmonds is willing to take a stands but it comes at a cost. Utilizing the marsh's environmental beauty and educational opportunity for a destination via some concessions would be a great opportunity. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she was fortunate to get some education from a citizen well versed in incentive zoning and she learned it can bring great things to the City. She was willing to consider incentive zoning for bulk. During her extensive travels over the past 11/2 year to four foreign counties and all over the United States she has looked at what makes cities prosperous and look good. She found it was not the tall buildings that create a warm environment, it was the street fagade. She anticipated great incentive zoning for bulk could be developed for Harbor Square. Councilmember Yamamoto commented a lot can be done to get green buildings and open space and to restore the marsh and streams. It may be necessary to give up a few feet of height to achieve those. Incentive zoning requires a tradeoff. Whether building heights are 40 or 45 feet, a developer's plans will show what it looks like. Council President Petso reiterated her desire for incentive zoning between the former height limit of 25 feet and 35 feet, the height limit under the contract rezone. She requested the Council exhibit some restraint with regard to incentive zoning as the City does not have a strong record of success with incentive zoning. She referred to a building on SR 104, constructed under incentive zoning, that called for an LID feature if feasible which does not appear to have been provided. It also called for parking enclosed within the building but cars stick out of the building a couple feet. As Mr. Taraday pointed out, there needs to be an appropriately valuable incentive in order to compensate the public for what they give up. If done in a careless, laundry list type fashion, she feared it will come back to bite the Council. She preferred not to do incentive zoning but if incentive zoning was adopted, she suggested using the distance between the prior base height and the contract rezone height as an incentive. Councilmember Johnson asked whether the City could change the parameters of the contract rezone to allow for incentive zoning between 25 and 35 feet. Mr. Taraday answered yes; the Council could zone the property however it wanted. He referred to Council President Petso's comment that the 35 foot height was "bought" via a contract rezone. In a typical contract rezones, it is not incentive zoning such as the City allows 35 feet in exchange for an amenity. The property owner is allowed zoning in exchange for a promise not to develop certain uses that are otherwise allowed in the zone. For example, if the zoning is CG and there are 20 permitted uses in the zone, the contract rezone may limit the property owner to only 10 of the uses. In this instance, the City is starting from scratch at the Comprehensive Plan level and the current zoning on the property is irrelevant. The future zoning must be consistent with the ultimately adopted Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Buckshnis asked staff to respond to Council President Petso's comments regarding incentive zoning used in a development on SR 104. She was aware there had been some contract rezones but was not aware there had been any incentive zoning. She asked how a contract rezone differed from Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2013 Page 15 incentive zoning. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave answered a contract rezone typically places limitations which is not incentive zoning. The incentive zoning Council President Petso alluded to was a privately sponsored rezone that occurred on SR 104. Technically they did do an LID feature on the property and they did provide parking under the building at the standard City parking dimensions. Whether the entire vehicle fits under the building is beyond the scope of the dimensions. It technically met the requirements of the zone and the zone was configured like an incentive zone. At Council President Petso's suggestion and with the Council's agreement, the Planning Board is considering the specific provisions in that zone. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that project came to the Council. Mr. Chave answered it did, it was a standard zone with incentive provisions. The incentive zoning that is being considered is part of the form based code for Westgate and Five Corners. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Taraday explained once changes are made to the Comprehensive Plan, the Council can adopt any zoning that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The current zoning or the contract zone does not limit what the Council can do. The only requirement is that future zoning be consistent with whatever changes are made to the Comprehensive Plan. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Taraday said he personally felt incentive zoning worked very well as long as the City had a good lawyer, like him, to assist them. There are instances in the City's code where there is sloppily drafted language that does not function well. Incentive zoning requires more careful drafting than regular zoning and there can be unintended consequences if not carefully drafted. He was confident in his ability to get the Council what they wanted. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented people typically think of height as an incentive but it actually can be many things such as expedited permitting in exchange for LEED development. Mr. Taraday commented the longer the list of "goodies" a developer can provide, the more complex it becomes. Having fewer things on the wish list makes it easier to draft bulletproof language. Buffers, Setbacks and Other Environmental Issues Councilmember Buckshnis commented she had no problems with this. She plans to recommend changes to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) regarding the setback for the marsh buffer related to industry standards. The Comprehensive Plan references the SMP. Council President Petso noted one of the criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment is related to adequate public services. She pointed out the Harbor Square area routinely floods and therefore the public services are not adequate to support the Comprehensive Plan amendment under consideration. She did not have details regarding which buildings and/or parking lots routinely flood but assumed if flooding could not be curtailed, residential was not a good plan for this site. Councilmember Peterson referred to the column entitled "How Addressed in revised HSMP," that states geological hazard and flooding issues are items that will be dealt with during project level SEPA review. He pointed out a project proposal would not move forward if it could not address flooding. Similarly, if a building cannot be constructed safely, the project will not move forward. He relayed he was required to hire a geotech before having a deck constructed in his backyard. Council President Petso reiterated it is in the criteria for review of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Councilmember Johnson commented the fourth criteria is triggered if there is a change to the Comprehensive Plan policy map, if the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development including but not limited to access, provision of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2013 Page 16 utilities, compatibility of adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints. She asked whether there was potential to change the map to designate open space or a change in land use that would trigger this criterion. Mr. Taraday assumed a map amendment would be required if the Harbor Square plan moved forward as a subarea plan and the findings in 20.00.050(d) would need to be made by the Council. He questioned what data the Council needed to make that finding. This is comprehensive planning and he did not anticipate that the code intended there would be extremely detailed studies performed but rather a high level look at physical suitability. Mr. Chave agreed with Mr. Taraday, explaining that language is from the GMA and speaks to general plan levels of service. It is not intended to provide a project -specific review of every location. Those are typically resolved during the development process. During the initial phase, the question is whether the appropriate public facilities are adequate and then during project level approval specific impacts are identified, how they are mitigated, etc. Councilmember Johnson commented the staff report indicated there were no planned Comprehensive Plan map changes and therefore this would not be addressed. However, if the Council pursues a subarea plan, it can and should be addressed. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that the City, as the lead agency, issued a Determination of Non -Significance for everything but traffic. She asked whether Council could prescribe that the geological hazard zone be considered and require a geotechnical study be done to determine whether housing could be developed and that it was affordable to develop housing. The Port did not do that and that was one of her major concerns with regard to the revenues the Port indicated would be generated. Mr. Taraday referred to the criteria, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints, advising the SEPA analysis already done by is probably sufficient to allow the Council to make the findings in 20.00.050(d). Just because staff issued a SEPA determination that satisfies 20.00.050(d) does not preclude the Council from asking that additional information be provided if the Council needs that information to make a decision. Councilmember Bloom said she needed that information to make a decision. She felt the Council would be irresponsible not to be sure that earthquake safe housing can be constructed. When the code says not more than 2500 square feet of residential, place of public assembly or employment in a geologically hazardous area such as a seismic hazardous zone, she did not understand how the Council could approve housing without appropriate study. Councilmember Bloom expressed concern that there was reference to the SMP but not the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) which includes the marsh and setbacks. She requested the remainder of the CAO be honored as well as the SMP. Councilmember Buckshnis advised the SMP impacts the marsh because the marsh is now considered a shoreline. When the SMP is updated, she will request Section 20.40.090 include 150 feet. She reiterated the intent was to identify parameters to include in the Comprehensive Plan; residential could be included as an option. The Comprehensive Plan already allows mixed use in this area. She questioned why the City would spend money on a geotechnical study; if a developer chose to construct residential, a geotechnical study would be required at that time. Councilmember Bloom commented once residential is included in the Comprehensive Plan, it is no longer optional, it has to be allowed. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Comprehensive Plan allows mixed use. Councilmember Bloom commented mixed use is not the same as allowing residential. The current zoning, General Commercial, does not include residential and the contract rezone specifically states no residential. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2013 Page 17 Councilmember Bloom summarized once the Comprehensive Plan is changed to allow a use, that use has to be allowed and the zoning has to be changed to allow that use. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the City has to allow a use that is included in the Comprehensive Plan but cannot be built to code. Mr. Taraday answered no. Councilmember Peterson provided the example, would the City have to allow a developer to build residential if a geotechnical survey found residential could not be constructed. Mr. Taraday responded with an example, if a builder said it would only be affordable to build condominiums out of balsa wood, the City does not have to approve the condominium project. A developer must meet all the City's development codes. He clarified while it is true adoption of a Comprehensive Plan requires adoption of consistent zoning, it is not necessarily true that everything that could possibly be built under the consistent zoning has to be approved if a developer cannot meet the underlying development regulations. He summarized a developer would not get a free pass on development regulations just because the Comprehensive Plan allows residential. Councilmember Peterson asked whether language could be included in the subarea plan that any residential building is subject to feasibility via geotechnical analysis. Mr. Taraday answered it could be done but he did not believe it was legally necessary. The seismic code will apply to any development proposed for a seismic hazardous area. Incorporation into City's Comprehensive Plan Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to incorporate the subarea plan by reference versus incorporating it into the Comprehensive Plan as has been done for plans such as the hospital master plan. Councilmember Peterson recalled the Planning Board recommended that the Harbor Square Master Plan be incorporated in the City's Comprehensive Plan rather just be incorporated by reference. He asked for pros and cons. Mr. Taraday answered one of the disadvantages is elements adopted by reference could be overlooked. For example, in a recent email to the Council, he referred to the six Comprehensive Plan elements reflected in the Comprehensive Plan table of contents but not the elements adopted by reference. Mr. Lien answered the Planning Board felt this was an important enough issue that it should be included in the Comprehensive Plan rather than referenced. He noted the language in the subarea plan has the same effect whether adopted by reference or incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave agreed there are pros and cons and there is no set way jurisdictions adopt subarea plans. He noted if all the plans incorporated by reference were incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan would be very voluminous. Subarea plans are frequently adopted separately so that it can be distributed separately to a developer interested in that area, rather than providing the entire Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board thought it was significant enough that it should be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Council President Petso referred to the height and bulk section and reference to transfer of development rights. She questioned who had suggested that as it seemed contradictory to the direction the Council is headed. She requested staff provide an explanation regarding where the concept of transfer of development rights came from and the impact it would have. Mayor Earling advised discussion of the next three pages of Council comments/suggestions communicated to staff (Exhibit 3) would be continued next week. 8. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF MARCH 12.2013. Finance Committee Councilmember Yamamoto reported on items discussed by the committee: 0 Purchasing policy revision for Public Works projects — approved by the Council tonight. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2013 Page 18 Council President Petso asked about making the nearest area one designation and the area further inland another designation; for example, in Edmonds' case, Conservancy status for the first 25 feet and a different designation beyond. Mr. Pater answered there is already a parallel designation, the marsh setback buffer is designated Urban Mixed Use III. In Redmond, along the Sammamish River there is the established King County Conservation Easement of 100 feet; Redmond called that Conservancy. In downtown there is an urban designation for the upland 100 feet to make it 200 feet. In Edmonds the railroad and the residential areas are an example of a parallel designation. Councilmember Johnson referred to the DOE's evaluation of no net loss of ecological function and asked whether environmental factors such as vibration, noise, glare, light, etc. are used to evaluate the impact of redevelopment on the ecological function of the marsh. Mr. Pater answered the State SMP guidelines do not address those issues. Mr. Lien referred to required mitigation measures to reduce impact to the marsh (page 38 of draft SMP). Mr. Lien asked whether the Council wanted to hold another work session to address other issues prior to the public hearing and if so, what issues he should focus on during that presentation. Councilmember Peterson suggested another work session to address Lake Ballinger and Haines Wharf. Council President Petso advised a work session regarding the SMP would be scheduled on April 23. 9. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Mayor Earling explained staff's intent was for the Council to continue their review and commentary on Exhibit 3. He recalled the Council had reviewed and commented on the first two pages at a previous meeting. Special Districts or Incentive Zoning Council President Petso asked if a special district can be created without incentive zoning. City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised incentive zoning is always optional. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave explained a special district such as a brewery/distillery/pub zone is related to uses. Special districts are about uses; incentive zoning can be about uses but provides a way of encouraging a set of uses. When referring to a general development area such as the CG zone, the general principle is there are a variety of uses in the zone and specific properties are not designated for certain uses. With incentive zoning, incentives can be provided that encourage each property owner to consider certain uses. Incentive zoning provides the best way to do that when the City does not have control of the property. Council President Petso asked what type of things can be offered via incentive zoning other than heights and expedited permitting. Mr. Chave answered forgiving parking, bulk requirements such as setbacks, or other bulk standards. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she raised the issue of incentive zoning and a brewery district, relaying it is a huge industry according to brewpub.com. She referred to a photograph of an old building where height was added to create an upstairs restaurant. She favored incentive zoning to create synergy from wineries, breweries, etc. Councilmember Peterson asked at what point the Council needed to narrow the special districts or incentive zoning, noting a brewery district or a tech campus could be great options. Mr. Chave answered if the Council liked all the concepts and any combination, they did not need to narrow the focus. If the Council identified some of these ideas in the Plan, the zoning needed to follow. At that point the focus Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 26, 2013 Page 17 may be narrowed. Councilmember Peterson commented although it is not a giant property, the Harbor Square site could support a few different things. Mr. Chave agreed it depends on the scale. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the CG zone included all the listed uses. She observed a year- round market is in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave answered staff would need to research that; there may be zoning that prohibits some aspects of these uses, such as uses outside the building. Councilmember Bloom recalled an earlier slide regarding the SMP listed uses prohibited by the contract rezone for Harbor Square. Mr. Chave answered the zoning for Harbor Square includes the contract rezone which limits uses otherwise allowed in the CG zone. It is important that the Comprehensive Plan say what the Council wants and a follow-up step is ensuring the zoning is consistent. Councilmember Bloom referred to "Roger Brooks' Concepts," and asked the Councilmember who suggested that to elaborate. Council President Petso answered her intent was to encourage use of the property, particularly along Dayton Street for a public gathering space; Roger Brooks' presentation provided several examples of public gathering spaces that were boons to the surrounding businesses and surrounding community and would help connect downtown to the waterfront. Councilmember Buckshnis commented tourism is a billion dollar industry; the marsh is a destination and improving the marsh will draw more visitors. With regard to Roger Brooks' Concepts, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether those would be listed. Mr. Chave answered the intent was not to list them but rather capture the intent. He suggested Councilmembers identify if something was missing with regard to Roger Brooks' concepts. Parkin Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented her vision for this area, whether it included housing, hotels, tech companies, etc. was less parking, a parking structure and more walkability. She preferred not to have roads connecting the buildings. Council President Petso did not want a reduction in the amount of parking available but she agreed with the concept of a reduced parking footprint via a parking structure. Councilmember Peterson asked if the parking regulations were based on older models that require X number of spaces per 1000 square feet. Mr. Chave answered yes. Councilmember Peterson relayed new thoughts about residential in urban settings is to reduce parking requirements to encourage people to have one car and take advantage of public transportation. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board and the Highway 99 Task Force have discussed different approaches to parking requirements. The general principal is when more transit is available, less parking is potentially needed because people will use transit. It is also tied to the type of uses that locate around transit. There have also been discussions about developing a flat parking ratio. He relayed one of the problems with establishing parking by specific use is changes in parking requirements when uses change. In addition it is nearly impossible to track over time as well as problematic for attracting/encouraging businesses to turn over. He provided the example of a restaurant which has much higher parking requirements that wanted to replace a service business. This was remedied downtown by establishing a flat rate; Harbor Square may be another opportunity for a flat rate. The challenge is determining the rate. There could be a requirement established that anyone developing in Harbor Square is required to conduct a parking study at the time of development rather than predetermining a parking ratio. Structured parking could be part of incentive zoning; highly incentivize structured parking versus surface parking. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 26, 2013 Page 18 Councilmember Peterson referred to the SMP and pollutants washing into the marsh, noting this is a perfect opportunity to get creative with parking and keep pollutants out of the marsh. Mr. Chave suggested Councilmembers look at an aerial map of the waterfront on Google Maps; it is a sea of asphalt. Councilmember Johnson commented one of the newer concepts related to trip generation is looking at activity centers rather than looking at parking on a use -by -use basis. A balance of job and housing has the potential to reduce parking due to different trip generation rates. Structured parking is usually 3-4 times more expensive than surface parking but a more desirable use of land in a compact development. Councilmember Buckshnis described a block in North Carolina where there is a Trader Joes on the first floor with apartments above, and three stories of parking and a Target store across the street. She envisioned structured parking as an incentive, noting there is also the potential to locate a restaurant or a viewing platform on the roof of a parking structure. She viewed structured parking as a great incentive. Councilmember Bloom inquired about residential parking requirements. Mr. Chave answered it is a sliding scale tied to the number of bedrooms, from 1.2 spaces for a studio up to 2 spaces per unit for 2+ bedrooms. Councilmember Bloom asked about the parking requirement for restaurants. Mr. Lien answered the parking for restaurants is 1 space per 200 square feet. Mr. Chave described a scenario where a building was constructed outside the downtown area and the parking ratio was based on office use with no customer service which is 1 space per 800 square feet. What frequently happens is that office use is replaced by an office that has customer service and there is inadequate parking. A general parking requirement rather than parking requirements by use avoids that issue. Councilmember Bloom asked if that could be done in a specific area without expending it citywide. Mr. Chave answered yes, for example it was done downtown several years ago; a flat 1 space per 500 square feet regardless of the business. The key is determining the number; different areas of the City would have different standards. For example the parking standard on Highway 99 would be much different than Five Corners where parking could spill over into residential areas. Councilmember Bloom asked if structured parking could have free parking for residents and paid -parking for visitors. Mr. Chave answered parking management is generally not addressed in the code. The regulations can address shared parking. Peak hours of different uses can balance each other, reducing overall parking requirements. Council President Petso asked about the requirements for a destination type facility such as the ECA. Mr. Chave stated it is typically based on the capacity of the facility, either square footage or number of seats. Council President Petso asked whether structured parking could be required. Mr. Chave answered it could be; the expense should be kept in mind. Connectivity Council President Petso envisioned the presence of a Roger Brooks' feature, a gathering space on Dayton, as an asset to connectivity. Conversely, she did not consider buildings on Dayton casting permanent shade on the sidewalk to be an enhancement to connectivity. Councilmember Bloom recalled the Transportation Comprehensive Plan talks about a shuttle from the neighborhoods with downtown. She asked if that could be included in Harbor Square to reduce the necessity for parking. Mr. Chave answered that is a program rather than a use and would be unusual to include in a Master Plan. The plan could refer to a shuttle as an example of a way to connect the development to other areas. Councilmember Bloom asked about including bike and walking paths in the Plan. Mr. Chave answered there is already a fair amount of discussion in the Plan regarding bike and walking paths including connections offsite to existing and future pathways. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 26, 2013 Page 19 Planning Board Recommendations Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Planning Board's recommendations were made regarding the Port's Master Plan but issues such as the 55 foot height limit are no longer applicable. Mayor Earling advised some recommendations are potentially relevant and they have been included in staff's proposal. Council President Petso expressed willingness to forego discussion of the Planning Board's recommendations if she could be assured whatever the Council developed would be reviewed by the Planning Board. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out staff has addressed the Planning Board's recommendations in the column on the right. Councilmember Peterson agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis that staff has incorporated many of the Planning Board's recommendations in the Plan. He did not view the changes to be significant enough to warrant another review by the Planning Board. Mayor Earling suggested discussing staff's responses to the Planning Board's recommendations at a future meeting. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Mayor Earling's suggestion. Councilmember Johnson also agreed with Mayor Earling's suggestion. She observed members of the Planning Board have been present during the Council's discussion. She thanked the Planning Board for the work they have done. Councilmember Peterson suggested Councilmembers email Council President Petso and staff with their concerns about the 14 Planning Board recommendations. Mayor Earling requested Councilmembers provide their comments to staff by Tuesday, April 2. Council President Petso advised further discussion would be tentatively scheduled on the April 16 meeting. 10. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Buckshnis reported she was unable to attend the WRIA 8 meeting. She reported the Snohomish County Tomorrow meeting will include review of the 2035 growth targets, the Interjurisdictional Housing Agreement, and the Dispute Resolution Mediation pilot program. Councilmember Bloom reported the Economic Development Commission discussed land use incentives, possibly providing quarterly updates to Council, a form for communicating with the community, whether the EDC could be involved in the coal train issues, and tourism activities. Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board discussed fees for tree cutting, the City's Urban Forestry Management Plan and a suggestion to meet with the Mayor's Climate Change Committee. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported an audio of EDC meetings is now available online on the City's website. She reported the South County City's dinner included discussion regarding changing the way issues are raised with the legislature such as approaching them before the session begins and holding legislators accountable for cities' requests. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported on a meeting Councilmember Bloom, Planning Commissioner Val Stewart and she attended regarding rain gardens. Rain gardens can be beneficial in private yards as well as City -owned land. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 26, 2013 Page 20 was confident in the Planning Board's ability to review the matter and preferred an expedited review at the Planning Board. She suggested there would be time to consider an interim ordinance after learning more about the City Park project. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, YAMAMOTO, BUCKSHNIS, AND PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING NO. (Councilmember Yamamoto discontinued his participation in the Council meeting via telephone.) 9. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Council President Petso recalled a majority of the Council approved a motion last week to continue discussion of Exhibit 3. Mr. Lien provided history regarding Exhibit 3: • February 5, 2013 Council asked staff to prepare a staff version of the Harbor Square Master Plan. • Staff drafted Exhibits 2 and Exhibit 3. o Exhibit 3 is an issue table outlining the issues raised by Council during and following the public hearing process and identifies how they are addressed in Exhibit 2. • March 19 and 26 City Council reviewed the issue table and planned to continue discussion of the Planning Board recommendations at the April 16 meeting. • Prior to April 16 meeting, Port withdrew their application • Council has been contemplating how to proceed • July 30 a motion was made to continue discussion on the issue table and how the Planning Board's recommendations were incorporated into Exhibit 2 Councilmember Johnson requested Mr. Lien provide a summary of the Planning Board's recommendations. Mr. Lien explained the Planning Board made 14 specific recommendations. Some did not carry over to the draft Master Plan (Exhibit 2) because they were no longer relevant. He reviewed the Planning Board's recommendations and how they were incorporated into Exhibit 2: 1. Building heights shall be limited to 45 feet and consideration may be given for heights up to SS feet if the development proposal includes significant public amenities and/or sustainable design certification such as LEED Platinum. Exhibit 2 no longer references specific building heights and 55 feet was removed. There is discussion regarding incentive zoning. 2. Development proposals should place the tallest buildings towards the south and west boundaries of the property. With a base height of 35 feet, the condition is less relevant. If during a subsequent rezone public amenities are provided and a height bonus granted, design and location of the taller building will be addressed at that time. 3. Buildings along Dayton Street should be limited to 35 feet in height. Exhibit 2 establishes a base height of 35 feet for the entire site. 4. Development plans shall ensure that the Public View Corridor down Dayton Street is preserved and enhanced. Language from that condition was added to page 3 of Exhibit 2. 5. On page 5 of the Harbor Square Master Plan under "Circulation, Traffic and Parking", an additional sentence should be added to read: "The absence of available off -site parking requires that adequate parking allowance be made to accommodate all customer, employee and resident vehicles during peak use times. " This issue was not addressed in whole in Exhibit 2; the parking issue is driving by the development code and could be addressed via a development agreement. 6. At the bottom of page 9 of the Harbor Square Master Plan, the exception to the SS foot height limit for special architectural features such as a tower, sculpture, etc. should be deleted. The 55 foot height limit has been removed from Exhibit 2. 7. In the graphic "Schematic Section through Harbor Square Looking West" on page 10, the annotation as to "setback" above 35 feet along Dayton Street should be revised to "building step back". The schematic was removed from Exhibit 2. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 11 8. An additional sentence should be added to the "Dayton Street Frontage" section on page 11 of the Harbor Square Master Plan to read: "Consideration should be given to enhance street -side parking to support separating human activity from the traffic along Dayton Street. " This language was added on page 7 of Exhibit 2. 9. On page 11 of the Harbor Square Master Plan under "SR 104 Frontage", "If WSDOT is amendable" should be stricken from the beginning of the third sentence. Language was added to Exhibit 2. 10. The Edmonds City Attorney shall develop language consistent with the memorandum dated September 6, 2012 to be incorporated into the City's adoption of the Comprehensive Plan addressing height limits, precedent, and views. The City Attorney's memo was in response to three specific questions from the Planning Board: a. The height issue is addressed by limiting base height to 35 feet. Any increase in height above 35 feet could only be accomplished through incentive zoning approved by Council. b. Concern with regard to precedent is addressed by treating the HSMP as a subarea plan. c. No specific language with regard to protection of private views has been provided. The memo noted the City has discretion in how it addresses private views. Private view protection is not mentioned in any of the City's planning documents or codes. The City has designated specific public view corridors. 11. Clarifying language should be added to the Harbor Square Master Plan that residential uses must be multifamily and not single-family residential. No specific language with regard to multifamily development has been added. Residential development in Harbor Square should not be the principle use, but provide to enhance and support the mixed use nature of Harbor Square. Urban Mixed Use III in the SMP allows multi -family development but not single family. 12. If and when the Harbor Square Master Plan is adopted by the City Council, it should be physically incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan rather than incorporated by reference. 13. Any future development proposal shall clearly demark and provide protection for the Edmonds Marsh by establishing an area of open space not less than 25 feet landward from the edge of the Edmonds Marsh and ensure any development preserves or improves the Edmonds Marsh Park/Walkway. Setbacks from the marsh will be determined by the updated Shoreline Master Program currently under review by the City Council. 14. The approved Master Plan shall be modified as necessary to maintain consistency with the Shoreline Master Program update to be determined following submittal by the City and approved by the State in accordance with process deadlines existent between the State and the City. The SMP and Harbor Square Master Plan have been reviewed together to ensure consistency. Exhibit 2 specifically references consistency with the SMP. The Harbor Square Master Plan is a Comprehensive Plan amendment; a development proposal will be required to meet the SMP. Main Motion COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WORK WITH STAFF TO DEVELOP A DECISION TREE TO ASSIST IN DELIBERATING THE KEY ISSUES FOR HARBOR SQUARE. Councilmember Johnson commented the Council's discussions regarding Harbor Square have included a wide range of topics including regulatory processes and zoning. She suggested sorting through the topics and focusing attention on the key issues that need to be decided from a Comprehensive Plan perspective such as the appropriate land uses for redevelopment of Harbor Square and whether redevelopment should include residential and if so, how much. Creation of a decision tree is the next logical step. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Exhibits 1 and 2 are drastically different. For example there is no longer a 55 foot height limit, there is a 35 foot base height; there is no longer a set buffer, the buffer is as indicated by the SMP, etc. If the process moved forward, she asked if a new Planning Board review would be required. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained as he emailed to Council President Petso and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 12 Councilmember Buckshnis earlier today, the Council can commit to sending the Harbor Square Master Plan back to the Planning Board for further public participation regardless of what the final plan looks like. The Council can make that statement even before they know what the final plan will look like. He cannot make a decision whether further Planning Board review and public hearings will be required until a final plan is developed. Councilmember Buckshnis commented people are confused and still referring to the Harbor Square Master Plan as the Port's plan. She noted the Port's plan is no longer being discussed as evidenced by Exhibit 3 and Council direction to staff to develop Exhibit 2 based on Council and citizen input and some of the Port's ideas. Mr. Taraday explained once a final plan is developed, his recommendation whether further Planning Board review is required will be based on how similar the final plan is to what the process began with. Councilmember Buckshnis viewed the staff -developed plan as drastically different from the Port's plan and therefore would require Planning Board review. Mr. Taraday observed the Council is not prepared to adopt Exhibit 2 as the Harbor Square Master Plan; therefore he has not developed a recommendation regarding whether it would need to go back to the Planning Board. If the concern is ensuring the final plan is reviewed by the Planning Board, the Council can commit to that. If a motion were made to approve the Harbor Square Master Plan as originally presented by the Port and four Councilmembers voted in favor, Council President Petso observed it would not need to go back to the Planning Board for additional public hearings. Mr. Taraday agreed. To ensure a future public process at the Planning Board, Council President Petso recalled a suggestion to adopt a resolution stating there would be a future public process. However it was her understanding the Council could not bind itself or a future Council. Mr. Taraday answered resolutions stating intent are not legally binding. However in his opinion it would be highly unlikely and unusual for a Council to state additional public hearings at the Planning Board would be required and then surprise everyone with a hasty adoption of a subarea plan without sending it to the Planning Board for further public hearings. Hypothetically, if the Council voted on August 6 to send the plan to the Planning Board for additional public hearings and then on September 6 adopted the subarea plan without sending it back to the Planning Board for public hearing, there was some risk of a GMA challenge that the Council failed to provide the public participation it committed to providing. His advice in that hypothetical situation was that the plan be sent back to the Planning Board if the Council committed to sending it back. Council President Petso asked for clarification that although the Port's original proposal had a maximum height of 55 feet, Exhibit 2 does not have a maximum height. Mr. Lien answered Exhibit 2 limits the base height to 35 feet, the current height limit in that zone, and provides opportunity for heights above 35 feet via incentive zoning to a maximum of 45 feet. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled the last two times this was discussed, Mayor Earling said he would not have staff spend time on this because of other projects, lack of staff, etc. She asked whether that was still the case and when would staff have time to assist with a new plan. Mayor Earling responded Councilmember Johnson has suggested a way of reaching resolution. If the process is pointed toward potential success or at least moving forward, he would be agreeable to staff assisting with developing a decision tree. His comments about not having staff do anything else were the result of meetings where the Council simply had discussion and then decided to have another meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled Mr. Taraday provided the Council four choices, 1) the Council likes the Port plan and wants to move forward with it, 2) the Council likes elements of the Port plan but want to revise some elements, 3) deny the plan in its entirety, or 4) acknowledge the withdrawal of the Port's application and cease processing the application. She summarized the development of a decision tree will not fix the problem; these are still the four choices before the Council. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 13 Councilmember Peterson recalled when the discussion first began, one of the big issues was shoreline buffers; that will be addressed by the SNIP and the plan must comply with the SMP. The biggest issue is whether residential should be allowed; if the Council can reach agreement on that, the Council can then discuss how much residential development should be allowed. If residential is not allowed, that would be a death knell for any further development. Height and bulk are also issues; removing the numbers as staff did in Exhibit 2 will make that discussion easier and many of those discussions will happen when development is proposed. He did not want to start with the small things that Council agrees on and leave the larger issues for later. Councilmember Johnson concurred that she wanted the Council to face the big, tough decisions first which as Councilmember Peterson identified, are height, residential uses and possibly setbacks. The Council needs to provide direction and discuss the process later. Councilmember Bloom asked if Councilmember Johnson's motion was for staff to look at the Planning Board's recommendations or the Council Comments/Suggestions. Councilmember Johnson repeated her motion, that the City Council and staff work together to develop a decision tree to assist in deliberating key issues for Harbor Square. Councilmember Bloom observed the key issues have been identified, noting the most critical was residential uses. If the Council cannot agree on residential uses, the plan cannot be agreed on. She recalled the public hearings revealed a lot of concern about residential uses, heights and uses on the property given the conflicting issues on the site. She did not support the motion as the key issues have already been identified. Council President Petso pointed out height was a key issue and not an issue to be deferred. There was an enormous amount of public comment regarding height. She noted Exhibit 2 does not include a 45-foot maximum height but rather a 45-foot average. She anticipated that would not be specific enough for people concerned about their views or those who were concerned whether heights were being raised. If the Council wanted to take heights out of the discussion, she suggested a 25 foot base and a 35 foot maximum. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the motion, noting this was a matter of non -monetary capital items. She relayed Ms. Shippen, who does not advocate height increases, said she would not be opposed to a 4-story parking structure under certain conditions. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested citizens be allowed to creatively explore what they might be willing to give up for an additional 10 feet in height. The City needs a parking structure; it could include a dining or viewing platform on top. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the City develop its own plan from the beginning. Although elements of the Council's desires are included in the revised Harbor Square Master Plan, she anticipated the Council would continue to spin its wheels and continue to have the same conversation. She preferred to start from scratch and consider the waterfront as a whole rather than individual properties. She did not believe a decision tree would resolve the issues. Councilmember Peterson noted the Council cannot start from scratch because the discussion has already begun. The decision tree would allow Council to identify issues they may be able to agree on. If the Council cannot agree on some of the big issues, he anticipated the process could be concluded. With the number of things that have been removed from the original proposal, it is close to starting from scratch. The decision tree will provide direction regarding how to proceed or that it needs to sit for 1-2 years. Council President Petso preferred to start from scratch to guarantee a full public process. She asked whether letting it sit for 1-2 years was an option. Mr. Taraday did not recommend that without making a motion; doing nothing is tantamount to one of the four options he provided. If the Council is truly not going to talk about it for a year that was essentially a decision not to take any action and acknowledging the Port has withdrawn its application. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 14 Councilmember Peterson clarified his comment about not talking about it for a year did not mean this plan would be allowed to sit for a year. His comment was waiting to talk about the entire area for 1-2 years. He agreed if the Council could not reach agreement with regard to moving forward, the plan should be killed. With regard to Council President Petso's comment about guaranteeing a full public process, he emphasized this discussion is a full and public process. He took offense to Council President Petso's intimation that supporting this motion was somehow excluding the public. If anything, there has been an effort to continue the public process that has being going on for three years. The Council has the ability to send a plan back to the Planning Board and he anticipated if a plan was ever developed, it would be sent back to the Planning Board for a continued public process. Council President Petso explained as Mr. Taraday stated, until this process is terminated, the original Port Harbor Square Master Plan can be adopted by a majority vote of Council without further public process. Further, Mr. Taraday has also been clear that whatever the Council develops as its recommendation may or may not require a further public process. The Council has not committed to having an additional public process for whatever plan may be developed. If the Council recognizes the Port has withdrawn its Master Plan and the Council discontinues processing it, there will be the opportunity and assurance of further public process because it will be required by law. She would be more comfortable knowing the Planning Board and the public would have an opportunity to review whatever the Council developed. Council President Petso relayed her concern with the Council's failure to make a decision. She was concerned with again discussing height limits and residential uses. Councilmembers have suggested three approaches, 1) meet offline with representatives of the Port either individually or in a group, 2) sit down and talk with the Port about what can be done, 3) divide the issues between what needs to be done at the Comprehensive Plan level, the zoning level and later. She concluded none of that could happen until this ongoing process was put to rest. Amendment COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT ANY NEW COUNCIL PROPOSAL WILL MOVE THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD PROCESS. Councilmember Bloom observed the Council could agree they did not want to adopt the Port proposed Master Plan; the Port has withdrawn its plan. She asked if the Port could submit the same plan in the future if the Council continues the process and never officially denies the Port Master Plan. Mr. Taraday answered the Port could submit the same plan regardless of the Council's decision. Even if the Council adopted a subarea plan tonight, the Port could submit the same plan in the future. Councilmember Bloom observed if the Council denies the Port's plan, the Council could move forward with working on their own plan. Mr. Taraday answered that could be done with or without denying the Port's plan. Council President Petso agreed there was no maximum height limit in Exhibit 2 other than an option for a maximum height limit of 45 feet. Action on Amendment THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Johnson explained this is an attempt to discuss the key issues and for Councilmembers to weigh in on what the key issues are. Making no decision is a decision and she urged Councilmembers to participate and state their opinions. Action on Main Motion as Amended UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED TIED (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, PETERSON AND JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BLOOM AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING NO. MAYOR EARLING BROKE THE TIE BY VOTING YES AND THE MOTION CARRIED (4-3). Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 15 Council President Petso asked whether the Councilmembers voting in favor wanted this to be discussed by the full Council or the Parks, Planning and Public Works (PPP) Committee. Councilmember Johnson said her motion was for the Council to work together; she was open to whatever Council President Petso felt was appropriate. The Council was agreeable to referring it to the PPP Committee. 10. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED FOR THE 5TH AVE OVERLAY PROJECT AND POSSIBLE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $732,732.25. Mr. Williams explained the project limits on 5tn Avenue extend from Elm Way on the south and Walnut on the north. Funding for the project includes a $551,000 federal grant. This will be the first curb -to -curb 2 inch asphalt paving on an important City street since 2008. He provided several pictures of curb, driveways and pavement defects, pointing out there are a lot of intersections and curb ramps. A large part of the project is bringing curb ramps and many of the driveways up to current ADA compliance. The opportunity to pave this street arose because the Water Department tore up half the street replacing the waterline. The Water Fund now has the responsibility to restore the street, providing matching funds for the federal grant. Mr. Williams reviewed the 5th Avenue Overlay improvements: • Pavement grind and 2-inch hot mix asphalt (HMA) overlay • Pavement fabric to minimize reflective cracking • New pedestrian curb ramps for ADA compliance • Replace 13 existing driveways • Add bike sharrows • New pavement markers/striping Mr. Williams reviewed bid results: • Engineering Estimate: $547,842 • Low bid (2): $732,732 • Difference: $184,890 or 33% • Grant applied for spring 2012. Prices have gone up since • Snohomish County opened bids on a similar paving project one day earlier and were 31% above Engineer's estimate Mr. Williams explained a great deal of federal money was prioritized by PSRC and the ICC in Snohomish County for pavement preservation (overlays) and all those projects went out to bid at the same time. In addition, the economy is improving and contractors have more work. He reviewed the project budget: Item Cost Construction Contract $732,732 Construction Management $115800 10% Management Reserve $73,000 Design $81,000 Total $1,002,532 Mr. Williams reviewed project funding: Funding Source Amount Federal grant $551,000 Water Utility Fund $301,000 Stormwater Utility $20,000 REET (recommended) $130,532 Total $1,002,532 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 16