Loading...
2013-09-10 City Council - Public Agenda-1514'4- o 90� AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE 1. (5 Minutes) Roll Call 2. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda 3. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items A. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 3, 2013. B. Approval of claim checks #204119 through #204214 dated September 5, 2013 for $1,864,367.81. Approval of replacement payroll check #60428 $601.98, payroll direct deposit and checks #60429 through #60452 for $460,730.55, benefit checks #60453 through #60464 and wire payments of $200,314.80 for the period August 16, 2013 through August 31, 2013. C. Resolution approving Findings of Fact regarding the August 27, 2013 Public Hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3931. D. Resolution approving Findings of Fact regarding the September 3, 2013 Public Hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3935. Bi . Resolution approving Findings of Fact regarding the September 3, 2013 Public Hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3938. 4. (5 Minutes) Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 5. (15 Minutes) Authorization to approve additional funding for the 190th Place SW Retaining Wall. 6. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments 7. (15 Minutes) Council Comments Packet Page 1 of 488 ADJOURN TO CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS The City Council Committee Meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff. Members of the public are welcome to observe the meeting, but public participation is limited to making comments at the end of the meeting with a 3 minute limit per person. g, Finance Committee Meeting Location: Council Chambers A. (5 Minutes) Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles. B. (10 Minutes) Recommendation for Department Presentations for Budget Workshops C. (10 Minutes) July 2013 Budgetary Financial Report D. (10 Minutes) City Investments and the County Investment Pool E. (10 Minutes) Bond Counsel Contract for Edmonds Center for the Arts Contract F . (10 Minutes) Public Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 9. Parks. Planning & Public Works Committee Meeting Location: Jury Meeting Room A. (15 Minutes) Discussion regarding citizen request to increase number of domestic chickens/hens allowed by Code. B. (15 Minutes) Introduction to the Capital Facilities Plan (2014-2019) and the Capital Improvement Program (2014-2019). C. (5 Minutes) Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #4 with David Evans & Associates for the 76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements project. D. (15 Minutes) Continued discussion on developing a decision tree for Harbor Square deliberations. Ei . (5 Minutes) Public Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 10. Public Safety and Personnel Committee Meeting Location: Police Training Room A. (30 Minutes) Proposed Code of Conduct for Elected Officials and Board Members B. (30 Minutes) Consideration of Council Comments regarding Code of Ethics C. (15 Minutes) Discussion regarding Council attendance via speaker phone. D. (10 Minutes) Public Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) ADJOURN Packet Page 2 of 488 AM-6091 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 09/10/2013 Time: Submitted By: Department: Committee: Sandy Chase City Clerk's Office Type: Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 3, 2013. Recommendation Review and approval. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. 09-03-13 Draft City Council Minutes Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 09/05/2013 Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 09/05/2013 11:33 AM Sandy Chase 09/05/2013 11:51 AM Started On: 09/05/2013 10:21 AM 3. A. Packet Page 3 of 488 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES September 3, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Petso in the Council Chambers, 250 5 h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Lora Petso, Mayor Pro Tem Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council Pres Strom Peterson, Councilmember Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Dave Earling, Mayor ALSO PRESENT Thea Ocfemia, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Pro Tem Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Roger Neumaier, Finance Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Executive Council Assistant. Jeannie Dines, Recorder Mayor Pro Tem Petso introduced Student Representative Thea Ocfemia, a student in the IB program at Edmonds-Woodway High School. 1. ROLL CALL City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Mayor Earling. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FRALEY-MONMLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA, DELETING AGENDA ITEMS 13 AND 14. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 2013. B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #204020 THROUGH #204118 DATED AUGUST 29, 2013 FOR $521,419.08 (REISSUED CHECK #204104 $3,898.20). Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 1 Packet Page 4 of 488 C. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH ARTIST FOR FIVE CORNERS ROUNDABOUT PUBLIC ART. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the interim ordinance regarding critical areas that Mayor Earling vetoed and the Council will reconsider tonight. He recalled his comments to the Council last week regarding the definition of impervious and how the code included graveled areas and packed dirt. His interpretation of impervious was something that water or moisture could not pass through. He understood the planner was changing something to provide a better understanding of impervious and may eliminate the use of graveled areas as impervious. He questioned whether the City was interpreting impervious correctly and whether that changed the Council's outlook on the interim ordinance. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, referred to the Code of Ethics on the August 20, 2013 agenda that included an excerpt from the City's personnel policies titled Chapter 10, Employee Responsibilities and Code of Ethics. He read from the General Code of Conduct section, "The City's primary function is to provide service to the citizens of Edmonds. To achieve that goal, all employees are expected to treat the public as their most valued customer. All employees are expected to serve the public in a professional manner, which is courteous, efficient and helpful. Among the City's expectations are tact and courteous toward the public and fellow employees and adherence to City policies. All persons representing the City of Edmonds shall conduct business in a professional manner, respecting all citizens' rights and showing courtesy to all. Their actions shall be conducted within compliance of the laws and regulations governing the City's actions, including but not limited to RCW Title 42. City representatives are expected to conduct business in an open manner. They shall not engage in any conduct which would reflect unfavorably upon City government or any of the services it provides. They must avoid any action which might result in or create the impression of using their position for private gain, giving preferential treatment or privileged information to any person, or losing impartiality in conducting the City's business." Mr. Reidy requested a City representative explain the City's procedures related to enforcement of this General Code of Conduct including who can request a code of conduct investigation, what steps must be followed, who conducts the investigation, and whether there is an independent code of conduct officer or board. Alex Witenberg, Edmonds, recalled a citizen request that the Council work to create a train horn quiet zone in Edmonds. Although he understood the man's desire not to have train horns sounding near his home, Mr. Witenberg recommended the Council and City focus on a more important issue related to trains, emergency access to the waterfront when trains pass through Edmonds. As a seasonal employee for the Edmonds Park Department, he has witnessed trains blocking traffic traveling to and from the waterfront. Trains traveling through Edmonds that separate downtown from the waterfront also block emergency vehicles from accessing the ferry terminal, Port and beaches. A fellow Parks employee relayed the he was once stranded on the waterfront side of the railroad tracks for over 11/2 hours after a mud slide caused trains to be diverted and resulted in a continuous stream of trains blocking both access points to the waterfront. He recommended the Council focus on developing an alternative access point to the waterfront, at least for emergency vehicles. He recalled during budget discussions, fire and police are stressed by Council and citizens as the most important services the City provides; establishing emergency access to the waterfront should be at or near the top of the Council's priorities and offers an excellent opportunity to develop consensus among Councilmembers. Citizens will hold the City Council accountable if residents suffer as a result of emergency personnel's inability to reach the waterfront in a catastrophe. 5. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: EDMONDS SCARECROW FESTIVAL Bill Lambert, Board President, South Snohomish County Historical Society and Museum, announced the Society is sponsoring the first ever Scarecrow Festival and Contest. He displayed a scarecrow created by the Museum Guild members that will be donated to the Edmonds Center for the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 5 of 488 Arts fundraiser. He recognized Dave Buelow, Board Member and Project Manager, and Ted Heaton who discovered a similar event in Cambria, California and brought the idea to Edmonds. He invited everyone in the community to participate including Councilmembers, the Mayor and City employees. A flyer with instructions was included in the packet and is available at their website, historicedmonds.or . Applications, available at the Museum website, can be submitted beginning September 15 and citizens can vote for their favorite at the website beginning October 1. Family -friendly scarecrows will be on display at businesses, City areas and residences. The winner will be announced at the Museum's annual fundraiser on November 8. Sponsorship of this event recognizes the Historical Society's 40'' anniversary. The Museum's mission is to publicize and celebrate the community heritage. This has been done for nearly 20 years by developing and sponsoring the Edmonds Farmers Market, haunting the museum at Halloween and quarterly exhibits includes this year's Farming in Snohomish County and 40 x 40, a display of artifacts in their collection. In addition to the Scarecrow Festival, the Society is trying to generate interest in a fire museum to house the City's two antique fire engines. The community is invited to their fundraiser, Heritage Days, on November 8. The first stage of the museum renovation, the downstairs, has been completed under the direction of Museum Director Tarin Erickson; more exciting improvements and exhibits are coming. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether scarecrows had to be scary. Mr. Lambert responded it was the person's choice; the only requirement is that scarecrows be family friendly. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE NO. 3935 — AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040, AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA. Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the origin of this change was to bring the City's critical area regulations into consistency with the City's Best Available Science (BAS) report that was prepared as part of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) update in 2004. Allowed activities are activities that can occur within a critical area or critical area buffer. Allowed activities can be conditioned, must use "Best Management Practices" and must not degrade the associated critical area. Examples include utility maintenance, activities within the improved right-of-way, and alterations to structures that do not increase the "footprint of development." This developed footprint concept was discussed in the BAS report. The BAS report noted that the vast majority of the City (96%) is already developed and that future growth will be concentrated in the redevelopment of existing parcels. The BAS report noted the challenge for the CAO is providing opportunities to improve conditions around critical areas in the long term while allowing reasonable redevelopment. The BAS report concluded the main route to improving critical areas and their buffers was to require enhancement in exchange for allowing development and redevelopment within the existing footprint of development. Another aspect of development within the developed footprint is physically separated and functionally isolated. He provided the definition of buffer in the City's critical area regulations ECDC 23.40.320: "...a designated area immediately next to and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem." A property or development may be separated from the critical area by a "footprint of development" such as a road or structure. Mr. Lien highlighted the proposed changes to the CAO in the interim ordinance to bring the current CAO into compliance with BAS: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 6 of 488 • Development proposal within the footprint of development ECDC 23.40.220.C.3, ECDC 23.50.020.E • Definitions ECDC 23.40.320 impervious surface and footprint of development • Physically separated and functionally isolated ECDC 23.50.040.H, ECDC 23.90.040.D.4.c • Wetland enhancement ECDC 23.50.040.J Councilmember Buckshnis referred to her emails regarding what has occurred; this issue came to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee in July who referred it to the Planning Board and it was returned to the Council. The Council got caught up in the examples rather than the actual verbiage. She pointed out an expert must determine when it is physically separated and functionally isolated. She asked whether a representative of the Department of Ecology (DOE) was present. Mr. Lien answered no; however, Paul Anderson, Wetland Specialist, Washington State Department of Ecology, provided an email regarding the interim ordinance. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Council could change the ordinance to clarify impervious surface. City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised the interim ordinance will expire in 180 days from adoption regardless of whether the Council takes any further action. If/when the Council replaces it with a permanent ordinance, the Council will have the opportunity to make any changes. Councilmember Johnson suggested it would be helpful for the public to understand the background of the BAS report and CAO and how they relate to GMA. She understood it was adopted in 2004 and was supposed to be updated every 7 years which would be 2011. Mr. Lien explained the BAS report itself is not adopted by the City. In development of critical area regulations, the City is to consider BAS, peer reviewed articles on buffers, etc. The City's last CAO update in 2004 was effective in 2005; the next update will be 2015. The CAO is to generally be consistent with BAS. There are instances where it can deviate from BAS. In the BAS report, many of the studies are done in rural areas where 100-200 foot buffers actually exist and the goal is to protect the critical area. In Edmonds, it does not make sense to require a 100-200 foot buffer because the buffers do not exist. The BAS report and discussions with Ecology and the interim ordinance address allowing development to occur within developed areas in exchange for enhancement of the critical area or critical area buffer, improving critical areas in the long run over current conditions. Councilmember Johnson asked Mr. Lien to summarize activity in the last eight years since the CAO was adopted and asked if this was the first challenge to the ordinance. Mr. Lien responded there has not been a challenge to the ordinance; this issue has arisen occasionally in the past including two recent examples. The issues of physically separated and functionally isolated and development within the developed footprint were recently discussed with DOE in regard to the Shoreline Management Program update. The proposed changes would apply across the City; there are a number of examples of physically separated and functionally isolated and development within the developed footprint. Historically the City focused on not expanding the impervious surface area; closer inspection of that language including the word "structure" which changed how the code was applied. Councilmember Bloom recalled when this was originally presented it was described as the change had to be made so the CAO was consistent with BAS. She referred to an email from Mr. Taraday, noting she did not understand what he meant. There was also an email from Mayor Pro Tern Petso with an example where the CAO does not have to be consistent with BAS. She asked Mr. Taraday to explain whether it was necessary for this change to be made; if the CAO and BAS had to be consistent. Mr. Taraday responded her question did not have a simple yes/no answer. He can review the relevant statutory law and case law but it is complicated. He explained Councilmember Bloom emailed him a question today and he emailed her a response; his response may not have been a good paraphrasing of the law. In 1999 Washington State Supreme Court had occasion to consider the BAS requirement in the GMA. He read the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 7 of 488 excerpt he sent Councilmember Bloom today from a case, Honesty in Environmental Analysis and Legislation (HEAL) v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board: The GMA requires balancing of more than a dozen goals and several specific directives in implementing those goals. The Legislature passed RCW 36.70A.172(1) five years after the GMA was adopted. It knew of the other factors, but neither made best available science the sole factor, the factor above all other factors nor made it purely procedural. Instead, the Legislature left the cities and counties with the authority and obligation to take scientific evidence and to balance that evidence among the many goals and factors to fashion locally appropriate regulations based on the evidence not on speculation and surmise. The trial court's formulation that best available science be included in a substantive way is not inconsistent with this court's reading of the Board's interpretation of the statute. The trial court also said the evidence would "guide" decision -making. If by this the trial court meant the science must be considered and balanced, then the trial court and the Board are in agreement. If "guide, " means the proposed regulations or policies of the City must result in a particular outcome based on that evidence standing alone, the court went too far. The trial court, by reversing the Board, believed the Board had not applied the scientific evidence in a substantive way. We cannot agree with the trial court's reversal of the result. Whether scientific evidence is respectable and authoritative, challenged or unchallenged, controlling or of no consequence when balanced against other factors, goals and evidence to be considered, is first in the province of the city or county to decide. Then, if challenged, it is for the Growth Management Hearings Board to review. The Legislature has given great deference to the substantive outcome of that balancing process. We hold that evidence of the best available science must be included in the record and must be considered substantively in the development of critical areas policies and regulations. Mr. Taraday summarized what he heard the court saying was the Council did not have to take a conclusion reached in the BAS report and apply it verbatim in the City code; that is not necessarily required. However, the City, Planning Staff, Council, etc., need to include BAS in the record and must have substantively considered it. It is not enough just to have a folder/file with the BAS report and draft regulations; what the BAS report says must be taken into consideration. If the City is departing from its BAS report, it must justify that departure by identifying another competing goal in the GMA in explaining because of that goal and because of local circumstances, the City Council decided to do it differently than stated in the BAS report. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding of Mr. Taraday's explanation that the BAS report is used as a guide but nothing needed to be changed at this point because it is only a guide. Mr. Taraday responded "guide" can be interpreted in different ways. He explained BAS must be included in the record and must be considered substantively in the development of critical area policies and regulations. His interpretation of "considered substantively" meant if the City was not relying on the BAS report to make the code say essentially the same thing, at the very least there needed to be a substantive explanation for why the code did not match the report. Councilmember Bloom explained she reviewed the BAS report; she did not find any direction regarding allowing increased impervious surface in areas that are physically separated and functionally isolated. She asked Mr. Lien to explain where in the BAS report it says this change should be made. Mr. Lien responded there is no specific reference in the BAS report to physically separated and functionally isolated. It is an expansion of the developed footprint concept and allowing redevelopment within those areas. The definition of buffer is the area immediately next to and an integral part of the critical area. The definition of buffer incorporates this concept. Physically separated and functionally isolated, which is determined by a qualified professional, that part of the buffer is separated from the critical area by a developed footprint. That is the connection to the BAS report and development within the previously Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 8 of 488 developed footprint. In some areas of the City, properties are separated by a road such as the park example and buffers often extend across multiple parcels. It is separated by a footprint of development, therefore not providing any function to the critical area. Mr. Lien referred to a letter from Steve Quarterman, Senior Ecologist, Landau Associates, regarding application of BAS, specifically in recognizing fragmentation provided by public roads, legally established structures and similar circumstances isolate habitats, and the inherent understanding that these features do not constitute vegetated areas adjacent to aquatic resources. Mr. Quarterman's letter also states this language appears consistent with the current definition of buffers in the City's CAO. Mr. Lien explained the BAS recognized Edmonds was a developed city and allowing development and redevelopment in the developed footprint or separated from the critical area in order to enhance critical areas. The proposal in the interim ordinance is consistent with BAS. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding of Mr. Lien's explanation was there is no reference in the BAS to physically separated and functionally isolated. Mr. Lien agreed there was no specific reference. Mr. Taraday agreed the phrase, physically separated and functionally isolated, does not appear in the BAS report, but the concept is represented by the following paragraph on page 31 of the BAS report: Instituting large buffers that would extend into residential yards that were previously developed would offer no additional protection for the resource. To ensure improvement in wetland buffer function over time the new CAO requires buffer enhancement for redevelopment that expands an existing structure footprint into a buffer. Mr. Lien referenced another mention of expansion on page 57 of the BAS report: New development or expansion of existing development into fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas would require a native vegetation enhancement plan. The gist of the BAS report was allowing limited development or redevelopment in exchange for enhancement of a critical area because large buffers do not exist throughout the City. In response to the inquiry made during Audience Comments, Councilmember Bloom asked Mr. Lien to read the definition of impervious surfaces in the interim ordinance. Mr. Lien advised the definition of impervious surface was taken from the State and the Phase II stormwater requirements, "impervious surface means a hard surface area that either prevents or retards entry of water into the soil mantle as it occurs under natural conditions prior to development, resulting in stormwater runoff from the surface in greater quantities or an increased rate of flow compared to stormwater runoff characteristics under natural conditions prior to development. Common impervious surfaces include but are not limited to rooftops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, outdoor swimming pools, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, or oiled macadam or other surfaces that similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater." Councilmember Bloom observed it includes compacted dirt as well as gravel. Mr. Lien agreed. Mayor Pro Tem Petso observed this is a required hearing but not an action item. Mr. Lien agreed. Mayor Pro Tem Petso referred to the BAS report that states preliminary from August 2004 and asked whether that was the BAS report or was there a final version. Mr. Lien answered that is the BAS report. Mayor Pro Tem Petso commented best available science is not the BAS report; it is actually the scientific reports that were relied on to create the BAS report. Mr. Lien answered the BAS report summarizes best available science. Mayor Pro Tem Petso asked how this was allowed without a SEPA review. Mr. Lien answered SEPA was done. The EIS addendum from 2004 when the City did the CAO update was adopted; the interim ordinance has been sent to Commerce and reviewed by State departments which generated the comment from DOE's Wetland Specialist. Mayor Pro Tem Petso asked whether there was a public component to the SEPA process. Mr. Lien answered it was noticed. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 9 of 488 Councilmember Buckshnis asked Ms. Hite to describe the spray pad project and how it enhances the impervious surfaces and recycles water, the amount of time the City has spent on the project, portions of the project that are in critical areas and how it is physically separated and functionally isolated from the wetland marsh by a parking lot. She recalled Mr. Taraday's comments that this is a fine balancing act that needs to take into consideration all issues. She emphasized the code did not correctly translate the BAS report. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite commented this project seems to have been caught up in the discussion about the CAO. The City Park play area and spray pad plan was adopted in a master plan in 1992 prior to adoption of the CAO in 2004. She displayed a wetland reconnaissance prepared by Landau Associates overlaid with the current 30% design prepared by the landscape architect. The design has been put on hold due to this issue so it is now a couple months behind. She identified the edge of the Class 2 wetland, Wetland A, on the east side of SR 104, a freshwater wetland with some habitat but not as ecologically demanding as a Class 1 wetland. According to the CAO a 100-foot buffer should be considered. She identified the 100-foot buffer on the wetland reconnaissance, noting the wetland was not surveyed so is not an exact measurement. A survey can be done if necessary. Ms. Hite explained the wetland buffer contains condominiums and a great deal of impervious surface including the roadway, the exit drive from City Park, a parking lot and a driveway. She summarized nearly the entire buffer is impervious. She identified the City Park play area and spray pad, including the current footprint of the play area; the expansion includes the spray pad which was adopted in the 1992 master plan. Financing for the project includes funds in the 2013 CIP to replace the deteriorating playground which was used as a match for a $500,000 RCO grant the City received. The Hazel Miller Foundation funded $270,000 of the project and Snohomish County provided $80,000. The project is completely funded because the play area replacement was done at the same time as the installation of the new spray pad. A portion of the current footprint lies within the buffer; the footprint was expanded to add required ADA walkways. If the ADA walkways were removed, the footprint would be reduced; the State RCO demands higher accessibility in all projects. Ms. Hite explained moving the project south outside the buffer area would require removal of several trees. The project already impacts two trees; efforts will be made to save them. Some diseased trees will be removed. She identified a grasscrete area designed for truck access to service the underground tank. She explained three types of water systems that can be used in a spray park: 1. Recirculating system — an expensive system that Snohomish County would not permit because it is more than 100 feet from the current restroom 2. Percolating system that drains into the ground — not an option because of the proximity to the marsh. 3. Pump directly into the sewer system Ms. Hite explained the system being designed for City Park is a water reuse system that reuses water from the spray area. The water from the impervious area drains into a tank. The tank is treated by UV and routed out to 14 irrigation zones in City Park, to the restroom to flush toilets, and pumped out for use in the flower program downtown. She acknowledged not all the water can be reused and some will be pumped to the sewer. The proposed system will have less impact on the wetland than the current footprint. Councilmember Buckshnis concluded the spray park water system will enhance the critical area. Ms. Hite responded the water system captures all the water, treats and reuses it and pumps it off site. Mayor Pro Tem Petso opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Letters had been received from Paul Anderson, Washington State Department of Ecology, and from Steven Quarterman, Landau Associates. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 10 of 488 Neil Fallon, Tacoma, American Brewing Company, commented sales are so good they need to expand. He explained prior to opening American Brewing three years ago, he met with the landowners and the City and was assured he could expand and relied on that information when he signed the lease. Now when he needs to expand, he was informed the interpretation of the code had been reconsidered and his use now falls under this complicated set of ideas. He would like to locate two pieces of equipment on asphalt that is currently located within a buffer. His lease is expiring and he needs to renegotiate it; if he is not allowed to locate the equipment, it will affect his ability to operate his business. In addition, they are applying to become a publicly traded company. They are in the process of expanding nationally and need this additional equipment. He expressed his support for Ordinance No. 3935 and recommended the Council not overturn the Mayor's veto of Ordinance No. 3940. Val Stewart, Edmonds, commented the interim ordinance is a temporary measure that will be considered by the Planning Board and a recommendation forwarded to the Council. The interim ordinance will allow two well -intended projects to move forward. She referred to Ms. Hite's explanation regarding the benefits of the spray park, quoting her statements that this is one of the greenest options for operating a spray park and has been introduced throughout California. This project is one of the first in the State and the first in Snohomish County to incorporate this green design. With regard to sustainability, Ms. Stewart pointed out without this interim ordinance the park project will be delayed and the financial impacts could undermine some of the green benefits. With regard to the American Brewing Company project, from an economic and environmental sustainability standpoint, having a silo to store ingredients reduces the amount of gas and transportation costs and makes the business financially sustainable. Both projects are well -intended and have wonderful benefits. She doubted a project that would encounter this glitch in the code would be proposed in the five months until the interim ordinance expires. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, recalled Paul Anderson and the State Department of Ecology exerted very strong jurisdiction over a large wetland in his neighborhood in 2006. He offered to send the Council Mr. Anderson's October 6, 2006 letter, addressed to Scott Snyder and others, that states the State had jurisdiction over the wetland in his neighborhood. He summarized the State was blocked from the process, the wetland was filled without their knowledge; Mr. Anderson came to his neighborhood and was blocked from the property. Mr. Anderson later told him that he highly doubted the State's water quality certifications were met. In subsequent conversations, Mr. Anderson said resources were an issue with the State's involvement in protecting critical areas in cities. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the definition in the packet of best practices, no degradation of associated critical areas, and asked if paving degraded the ability to absorb. He did not understand Mr. Fallon's problem when the area where he wanted to locate equipment was already covered with asphalt. He questioned the definition of impervious, pointing out gravel has spaces for water to flow through. He referred to the definition, no degradation of associated critical area, noting cutting trees or paving over porous ground was degrading the associated critical area. He concluded the proposed changes were not appropriate and he preferred to allow the Planning Board to conduct their review. He acknowledged the City Park project was caught up in this situation but the Council should not change the code to address one project. Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, expressed support for the interim critical areas ordinance and opposed overriding the Mayor's veto of the Council repeal of the interim critical area ordinance. While it may not be perfect, the interim ordinance was a vast improvement over the current ordinance. It creates compatibility between the City's CAO and the BAS, an important element lacking in the current CAO. The interim ordinance allows the City Park project and the American Brewing Company silo projects to continue, noting the adverse economic impacts on American Brewing of the Council not adopting the interim ordinance. The City Park project is on a tight timeline due to government grant deadlines. Failure to meet the deadlines would disappoint the children anxiously awaiting the completion of the project and may have unintended consequences of jeopardizing future park grant funds. There is the risk that the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 11 of 488 grant timeline will not be extended and the project not completed at all. In addition the Council may be jeopardizing its credibility with the Hazel Miller Foundation who has provided substantial funding for this project. There is also the risk the Foundation may rescind its funding if the project is delayed. He questioned where funds would come from if public and private funding lapse. He respected the fact that some Councilmembers want to hear the opinion of the Planning Board, however, that would cause at least a six week delay. Councilmembers who support delaying implementation of the interim critical area ordinance are in effect saying they do not have confidence in the Planning Board's recommendation of the interim ordinance, no confidence in the City Attorney who drafted the interim ordinance and no confidence in the Department of Ecology with whom staff has discussed the interim ordinance and are supportive of this approach. Those Councilmembers are substituting their judgment and personal beliefs for the expertise of professionals. He urged the Council to vote in favor of the interim ordinance. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Pro Tern Petso closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. In response to Mr. Reidy's comment about Ecology's role in regulating wetlands, Mr. Lien explained Paul Anderson's email suggested the interim ordinance language be changed to state other permits may be required for enhancements within a wetland or stream. His suggestion will be presented to the Planning Board. Ms. Hite confirmed Mr. Witenberg's comments that the project is under a State deadline that requires the project be completed by July 2014. The project is on track for mid -July 2014; construction was originally expected to be completed by May and the park open for the summer. An extension can be requested and the State often grants an extension but that is not guaranteed. In addition there has been some communication from the Hazel Miller Foundation, not necessarily to rescind their funds, but to look carefully at the changes in the project. The same is true for the funds provided via an Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County. She summarized there is a great deal of time, funding, budget and scope riding on the ability to develop City Park as proposed. Councilmember Peterson observed Agenda Item 9 is related to this discussion. He suggested moving Item 9 prior to Items 7 and 8. Mayor Pro Tern Petso agreed they were related; however Item 8 is a public hearing and Item 7 was scheduled prior to the public hearing because it is related to the public hearing topic. Mr. Taraday clarified no action is required. This public hearing is required by State law; adoption of an interim ordinance also requires the legislative body adopt Findings of Fact justifying its action. He will prepare a resolution for approval at the next Council meeting affectively adopting the whereas clauses in Ordinance 3935 as the City Council's Findings of Fact that justify adoption of the interim ordinance. He invited Councilmembers to offer additional Finding of Fact. Mayor Pro Tern Petso advised Councilmembers will be absent from the September 17 and 24 meetings. She asked if the Council should hold a regular Council meeting on September 10 to consider the resolution. Mr. Taraday answered he would leave that up to Mayor Pro Tern Petso; adoption of the resolution can pass on a 3-2 vote. Council President Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas suggested a short Council meeting on September 10 prior to committee meetings, observing there were 3 Councilmembers absent on September 17 and 2 absent on September 24. Mayor Pro Tem Petso agreed the resolution would be scheduled for a regular Council meeting on September 10 prior to committee meetings. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 12 of 488 7. DISCUSSION REGARDING I-502 AND CITY OPTIONS REGARDING MARIJUANA. City Attorney Jeff Taraday referred to the memo in the Council packet prepared by Susan Drummond, Lighthouse Law Group, regarding the four options the City has for addressing marijuana facilities. Mr. Taraday explained the Council recently adopted a moratorium on which a public hearing will be held next. During the six months the moratorium is in effect, the City can consider what it wants its policy to be with regard to medical marijuana, collective gardens and recreational marijuana facilities that were approved via I-502. He reviewed the four options outlined in the memo: 1. Take no action 2. No immediate action; further assess likely impacts and legal concerns. Kent has litigation pending with regard to a ban on marijuana facilities. Mr. Taraday expected Kent's ban will be upheld by State courts but a published opinion has not yet been issued. 3. Adopt a permanent ban on marijuana facilities 4. Adopt zoning regulations that allow marijuana facilities in certain zones subject to conditions Mr. Taraday explained this is a timely discussion because there will be a great deal of activity with regard to I-502 in the next 6 months. Tomorrow the Liquor Control Board plans to inform cities and counties the number of retail marijuana facilities they will license for each area. The Liquor Control Board's allocation does not mean a city cannot ban retail marijuana facilities. The Liquor Control Board will allocate retail marijuana facilities based on population. Even if Edmonds is allocated a certain number of facilities, the City does not have to allow them. The City's code is essentially silent, other than the moratorium, with regard to collective gardens and retail marijuana stores. He noted no one could apply for a retail license until they have a State license. Mr. Taraday referred to the timeline in the packet, noting a date he learned about today is the Liquor Control Board estimates they will begin issuing licenses in March/April 2014. The City's moratorium will expire in February 2014; hopefully, the Council has provided clear direction before then regarding zoning, a ban, etc. If the decision is to ban, a ban should be in place by February 2014. If the decision is to zone facilities, the zoning should be in place by February 2014. Because the code is currently silent, he recommended the Council provide a clear policy directive. He did not recommend the Council take no action on a permanent basis. With regard to federal law, as the memo mentions, on August 29 the Justice Department decided they will allow I-502 to go into effect. He highlighted statements in a 4-page memo (not in the packet), Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement intended for all United States attorneys: The Justice Department is committed to using its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources to address the most significant threats. The Justice Department identified eight particular threats that it will continue to focus on: • Preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors; • Preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels; • Preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some from to other states; • Preventing state -authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity; • Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana; • Preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use; • Preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands; and • Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 13 of 488 Mr. Taraday continued his summary of the memo: Outside of these enforcement priorities, the federal government has traditionally relied on states and local law enforcement agencies to address marijuana activity through enforcement of their own narcotics laws. The Department's guidance in this memorandum rests on its expectation that states and local governments that have enacted laws authorizing marijuana related conduct will implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose. If state enforcement efforts are not sufficiently robust to protect against the harms set forth above, the federal government may seek to challenge the regulatory structure itself. Mr. Taraday summarized all marijuana is illegal under federal law; the federal government is not changing the classification of marijuana under federal law. The memo states that federal law enforcement has their enforcement priorities and as long as the states are operating a tight ship with respect to their regulations and making sure State laws that make marijuana legal and the regulatory scheme do not interfere with the federal government's eight enforcement priorities, it appears the federal government will let the states continue without waiving their right to step in later if they perceive things are getting out of hand or the State's enforcement is too loose. Council President Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas recalled after the federal government's statements, the governor's office made a statement agreeing with the federal government. Mr. Taraday said it appears certain there will be State licensed retail marijuana facilities in Washington; the question is whether the Council wants them in Edmonds and if so, where. Council President Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas preferred to observe the challenges over the next few months. Mr. Taraday responded if a majority of the Council is thinking a ban may be the right way, there is no harm in leaving the moratorium in place and letting 2-4 months pass to see what happens with the Kent case, to confirm that the court will uphold cities' ability to ban retail marijuana facilities. However, if the Council is leaning toward permitting and zoning, he recommended Council not simply wait because it will take time for the Planning Board to work through appropriate zoning. Zoning would ideally take place before licenses are issued in March/April 2014. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was swaying between 2 (no immediate action) and 4 (adopt zoning regulations) and having the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee discuss zoning regulations. She inquired about taxes the City would receive. Mr. Taraday answered unlike collective gardens which are not taxed, State licensed facilities will be taxed and if they are allowed in Edmonds, the City will receive the local share of sales tax. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the City would determine that tax. Mr. Taraday answered it is sales tax; there is no special marijuana tax collected by the city. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled liquor tax is collected by the State and distributed to the cities. Mr. Taraday summarized the City does not have specific taxing authority unique to only marijuana facilities. If there is a State licensed retail marijuana facility in Edmonds, it would be like any other retail operation in Edmonds whereby the City would receive a portion of the sales tax. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested this also be reviewed by the Public Safety and Finance Committees. Mayor Pro Tem Petso observed a city may be permitted to prevent a facility from locating with 1,000 feet of a school. She asked if a city could require a greater distance or add other public facilities such as libraries or parks. Mr. Taraday explained I-502 will address that; the 1,000 foot buffer is listed in I-502 and covers parks, schools, libraries and other areas where minors may be present. The State will address much of that via its own licensing efforts. If the City has the ability to ban, it would have the authority to further restrict them. Councilmember Peterson summarized the issues moving forward include, 1) retail locations, 2) collective gardens, and 3) businesses that use marijuana as a food additive. Mr. Taraday advised under I-502, there are three different licenses, 1) producer, 2) processor, and 3) retailer. In addition there is the non-1-502 collective garden related to medical marijuana; there is currently nothing in the code to address this. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 14 of 488 Collective gardens are not licensed or taxed by the State. Unless there is City zoning to regulate collective gardens, the City cannot rely on the Liquor Control Board to regulate them. Councilmember Peterson asked if the City was more vulnerable to a collective gardening license without regulations in the code. Mr. Taraday requested the Council provide clear policy direction with regard to collective gardens. Before the moratorium was adopted there were inquiries about collective gardens. He did not envision that interest would go away with the establishment of State licensed marijuana outlets because collective gardens do not pay tax. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave commented silence is not generally prohibition. If someone applies, staff attempts to determine where it fits in the code. Many of the land use classifications are very broad; for example a collective garden could be considered gardening. He did not recommend the Council do nothing. He agreed with referring it to multiple committees because land use will have a relatively minor role and there are other issues such as licensing, enforcement, etc. He suggested not referring to the Planning Board until the Council has had more discussion regarding what path they want to follow. Councilmember Peterson asked if restaurants would be allowed to use cannabis as an ingredient. Mr. Taraday answered he did not think so because no public consumption of marijuana was allowed even under I-502. Councilmember Peterson recalled I-502 did not allow public smoking but was unsure if there was no public consumption. Mr. Taraday recalled there no distinction between smoking and consumption; he offered to research. Councilmember Peterson asked whether there was a 1,000 foot restriction from schools, churches, etc. for breweries, distilleries, liquor stores and other licensed operations or were they only allowed in commercial areas. Mr. Chave answered there are similar distance separation requirements for adult entertainment; by the time they are applied throughout the City there are a very limited number of sites available. The City's GIS person is attempting to map potential sites under the limitations of I-502. He anticipated the potential locations would be fairly limited. Councilmember Peterson suggested that information be given to the committees for review. He asked if the State was utilizing GIS in allocating the number of facilities per jurisdiction. Mr. Taraday answered he believed the State was allocating facilities based on population not GIS. Councilmember Peterson observed the State could allocate Edmonds 15 facilities and there could only be 3 available sites. Mr. Taraday agreed that was possible. Councilmember Yamamoto asked whether Council action was necessary to extend the moratorium. Mr. Taraday answered the moratorium will remain in effect for 6 months from the date of adoption, February 2014. The Council has time to give this careful consideration. Depending on how the Council wants to proceed, it would be helpful to know sooner rather than later so staff can plan accordingly. Mayor Pro Tern Petso advised this was on tonight's agenda as a discussion item prior to the public hearing to inform the public. However, it appeared Mr. Taraday was asking for Council direction. Councilmember Peterson favored following the rules and regulations in 1-502 with regard to zoning and siting. He also suggested obtaining information from other cities who have allowed collective gardens such as Mukilteo. Washington is on the leading edge of an important change in attitudes toward marijuana, both medical and recreational and it is important to have as much information as possible. Council President Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Peterson. Mayor Pro Tern Petso suggested scheduling this for October committee meetings. She asked Mr. Taraday whether he had sufficient direction from Council. Mr. Taraday answered there was time for discussion by Council committees. The Liquor Control Board plans to adopt the rules on October 16. The rules will be in fairly final form by the October committee meetings. A public hearing on the draft rules is scheduled on October 9. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 15 of 488 Councilmember Johnson agreed that would be a prudent course. She also suggested committees be provided the GIS information that identifies potential locations. Councilmember Peterson suggested further discussion could occur at the Council's October 22 work session. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE NO. 3938 - RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS AND THE RECREATIONAL USES OF MARIJUANA, ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SITING, ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF ANY STRUCTURES OR USES RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS, MARIJUANA PRODUCTION, MARIJUANA PROCESSING, OR MARIJUANA RETAILING, TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS ZONING REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SUCH MARIJUANA USES, AND ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SUBMISSION OF ANY BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR SUCH USES, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM, TO ALLOW THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE ITS RULE MAKING FOR THE LICENSING OF SUCH USES AND TO ALLOW THE CITY TO STUDY THE SECONDARY LAND USE IMPACTS OF SUCH USES, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MORATORIUM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised this is a statutorily required public hearing; anytime the Council adopts a moratorium a public hearing is required within 60 days of adoption. Mayor Pro Tern Petso opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the audience present who wished to provide testimony. Mayor Pro Tem Petso closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Taraday advised he would prepare a resolution using the whereas statements from the ordinance as the Findings of Fact for Council consideration at the September 10 meeting. Councilmember Peterson recalled he voted against the moratorium. Although he likely still would have voted against it, he would have felt more comfortable if the previous item had been scheduled on the agenda along with the moratorium. 9. RECONSIDERATION OF THE MAYOR'S VETO OF ORDINANCE NO. 3940 - REPEALING INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3935, WHICH AMENDED THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040, AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA. Mayor Pro Tern Petso explained this reconsideration is required by State law. Councilmember Bloom asked if this was was being done because the Mayor has the option to either veto an ordinance or sign and pass it. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered yes; or a Mayor could do nothing in which case it becomes law. Councilmember Bloom referred to the last sentence of the RCW that states if the Mayor fails for 10 days to either approve or veto an ordinance, it shall become valid without his or her approval. Ordinances shall be signed by the mayor and attested by the clerk. She asked what happened if the Mayor did not veto or sign an ordinance. Mr. Taraday explained if the Mayor does not veto or sign an ordinance it becomes valid without his/her approval. Councilmember Bloom asked whether it became effective within 10 days. Mr. Taraday answered the effective date depends on what is stated in the ordinance. Councilmember Bloom observed the effective date could be as stated in the ordinance; Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 16 of 488 otherwise it would be effective 10 days after approval by Council. Mr. Taraday explained there is a difference between a valid law and the effective date of the law. This statute addresses what it takes to become a valid law; in order to become a valid law, an ordinance must either be signed by the Mayor or the Mayor does nothing for a period of 10 days. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether this required a super majority. Mr. Taraday answered if a Councilmember moved to override the veto, the motion would only pass with five votes of the Council. If the motion failed, Ordinance No. 3935 remains in effect. Councilmember Yamamoto observed the ordinance would remain in effect if the Council voted to uphold the Mayor's veto. Mr. Taraday advised no motion is necessary to uphold the Mayor's veto. The veto has already taken place and Ordinance No. 3940 is void unless the Council overrides the veto. Recognizing this has been a confusing issue, Councilmember Johnson explained on July 9 the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee had presentations on the City Park project and American Brewery project that identified problems with the CAO. The committee was asked to forward it to the Planning Board and that is what the committee recommended. Before the Planning Board began their discussion, staff requested an interim ordinance. She voted no on the interim ordinance because it had not been presented at the committee and had the appearance of changing the rules to accommodate a City project. It also appeared it was a shortcut to resolve either a project management or project design problem. Councilmember Johnson explained since that time she has attended two Planning Board discussions and read more on the subject. It appears the City is moving in the right direction. She did not like how this was handled or that the City Council was placed in this position. She assured no Councilmember wanted to disappoint the children or was opposed to the City Park spray pad project. It was staff's responsibility to uphold the Comprehensive Plan and the orderly review of items before the City Council. She did not want the Council to put the City Park project in jeopardy via further delays and for that reason and although she had opposed the interim ordinance, she would not vote to overturn the Mayor's veto. Mayor Pro Tern Petso advised she would support a motion to overturn the Mayor's veto. She did not believe this was about two particular projects but had impacts citywide. She was certain there were errors in the ordinance, one of them in an emailed public comment and another that pointed out the current ordinance considers gravel and hardpan dirt as part of the previously developed footprint. She was concerned that the ordinance allows paving of critical area buffers. In the case of the City Park project, very little paving of the critical area buffer would occur. In other projects a great deal of paving in the critical area buffer may occur and it is possible that paving will drain to a related stream or wetland causing the type of problems the City witnessed last Thursday. Mayor Pro Tem Petso said the City is not bound by the conclusions of a 9-year old preliminary BAS report. BAS refers to scientific studies and the BAS recommendation regarding paving in critical areas does not follow BAS but is in contradiction to BAS. She referred to the November 16, 2004 minutes where the City Council was told BAS requires using large buffers around critical areas. That night the Council made an exception to BAS and reduced buffer sizes for a variety of reasons. The Council is not bound; it is doing it by choice. The Council is also not bound by a previous Council and can make its own decision. The best available science she has been given is that Edmonds is so developed that too much sediment is being dumped into the marsh, creeks and streams and Puget Sound too quickly which damages the environment. The idea of making this worse to benefit two projects was unfortunate and she anticipated if it were a private applicant rather than the City, the Council would support redesigning the project. She was disappointed but pleased that the amount of information about what constitutes BAS as well as the minutes from prior discussions will allow the Planning Board to develop an ordinance to replace the interim ordinance even if the Council does not vote to override the veto tonight. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 17 of 488 Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out flooding occurs because of 100 year old pipes that cannot accommodate stormwater and the marsh pipe that is plugged with cattails because funding has not been obtained for restoration. She objected to global statements about the reasons for flooding problems without citing other issues. She agreed with Councilmember Johnson and supported retaining the interim ordinance while the Planning Board reviewed the matter. She recalled when the pier at the dog park was removed, it could not be paved because it would be impervious, which indicates the City is following its rules. Council President Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas pointed out there were not enough votes to overturn the Mayor's veto. She was concerned the administration has used veto power three times in less than two years which she felt put democracy in jeopardy. Anytime the Council takes a vote in opposition to the Mayor, the Mayor has the ability to veto. In this form of government the Mayor is allowed to overturn the Council's action; the Council is the body elected by the citizenry. She was concerned the Mayor may be overusing his veto power. Councilmember Peterson said while he respected Mayor Pro Tern Petso's opinion and understood why she disagreed with some of the findings, the idea that the City was allowing carte blanche paving of critical areas was incorrect. In fact, environmental experts make the determination to ensure no harm is done. The Council has taken the CAO very seriously and he doubted any Councilmember had done more work than Councilmember Buckshnis. He did not agree with Mayor Pro Tern Petso's conclusions; the Council was not giving a green light to paving of critical areas. This is a way to move forward in a built environment and create better projects than may currently exist in a critical area. Mr. Lien explained even though development may be allowed in a physically separated and functionally isolated buffer, the critical area and buffer enhancement provides greater protection than what currently exists. The goal is to improve critical areas in the long run via mitigation and enhancement. As currently written, adverse impact to a critical area would not be allowed. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Mayor Pro Tern Petso. She understood the Council did not have the votes to override the veto. She found it too simplistic to say the City's hydrology problems are related to the infrastructure. After reading the BAS report today, one part stood out to her particularly due to last week's flash flood: Wetland buffers maintain wetland hydrology by preventing large, sudden fluctuations associated with flash surface run-off in developed areas with impervious surfacing. In terms of maintaining wetland hydrology, there is a direct correlation between the amount of undisturbed, pervious vegetated lands adjacent to a wetland and the degree to which severe hydrological fluctuation is minimized. While larger buffer widths better limit hydroperiod extremes, it is generally thought that buffer widths of 100 feet or more function to effectively maintain wetland hydrology. She noted the change would allow increased impervious surfaces; the enhancements are not clearly defined and it is unknown how many projects may slip in during the interim ordinance. It is not good policy to change the CAO for the sake of one project, a City project. She suggested all Councilmembers read the BAS report; the passage referenced by Mr. Lien was only a small part, everything else talks about the importance of wetlands and wetland buffers. As a result of personal experience in her neighborhood, she did not believe the City has done a good job of protecting its wetlands and she did not think the situation in her neighborhood was not isolated. Council President Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas suggested the Council agree to disagree and move forward. There are not enough votes to overturn the veto and the discussion only serves to create animosity among Councilmembers. Mayor Pro Tern Petso asked whether the statute required the Council to take a vote or had the Council satisfied the statutory requirements by scheduling and discussing reconsideration. Mr. Taraday said he did not read RCW 35A.12.130 to require a motion to override. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 18 of 488 10. ACTION ITEM: ADOPTION OF LONGEVITY PAY FOR NON -REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES Interim Reporting Human Resources Director Carrie Hite recalled the Council discussed this item last week and chose not to take action because it was a fourth Tuesday work session. She advised the numbers provided last week were from April; there have been a couple of retirements since then. The Finance Department recalculation of longevity pay for nonrepresented employees including those retirements reduced the cost from $35,000 to $28,311. She provided answers to questions that were raised last week: • Fiscal impact if longevity pay started July 1, 2013: half of $28,311 or $14,000 • Flat rate rather than a percentage ($500 for every 5 years of service): $29,000 for 2013 • Applying the rate to the average salary: $26,842 • Average salary of management who would receive longevity pay: $92,000 • Number of employees at their top step that would receive longevity pay: 9 • Fiscal impact for outlying years: Unable to determine as it depends on retirements Ms. Hite advised when the packet materials were provided, the edited version of the Nonrepresented Compensation Policy was not included; the edited version was in last week's packet. She read the additional language: In addition, non -represented employees will receive longevity pay, based on total length of service with the City, in addition to their monthly rate of pay, and in accordance with the following rates: 5 years 0.5% of employee's monthly rate of pay 10years 1.0% of employee's monthly rate of pay 14 years 1.5% of employee's monthly rate of pay 18 years 2.0% of employee's monthly rate of pay If the Council preferred a flat rate or a rate based on the average, staff can return with the language. She requested the Council provide direction to assist with the budget process. Councilmember Bloom recalled reference in the materials that nonrepresented employees' earning potential was reduced by 35%. Ms. Hite explained when nonrepresented employees were hired, the City had a 50% salary range. For example, she was hired under the old compensation policy and was told the range was $101,000 and $155,000. In doing salary comparisons of comparable cities of all nonrepresented jobs, the compensation consultant found the low end of the salary range was very low and the high end was really high, a 50% span. Most comparable cities' ranges spanned 35%. The compensation consultant shrunk those ranges, raising the low and reducing the high. At the high end, employees hired under the old policy lost 35% of their earning potential. Councilmember Bloom recalled last year all nonrepresented employees were brought up to a step and 5 steps were created for each job and each step is a 5% increase. To the question regarding why the steps were created and why employees are progressing through the steps, Ms. Hite answered there has been a very subjective compensation system for nonrepresented employees. It is subjective based on merit; merit as determined by an employee's supervisor, not based on moving through steps. All other comparable cities had a way to move through ranges; a few had flat rates at the director level. In the past most nonrepresented employees were stuck in one place or subjectively given a 1-5% merit increase. Because of the added risk of the City compensation system if someone were discriminated against, the compensation consultant recommended an objective pay schedule whereby employees could move through ranges within 5-7 years of employment with 5% increments. The Council requested the compensation consultant conduct a total compensation survey that included deferred compensation, longevity, medical benefits, life insurance, long and short term disability, car allowances, educational incentives, etc. Councilmember Bloom asked how much it cost to place all nonrepresented employees on a step last year. Ms. Hite recalled the budget contained $85,000 to get employees to a step and the remainder was divided Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 16 Packet Page 19 of 488 to provide employees a lump payment. Councilmember Bloom recalled the high end of the range for a number of positions was $15,000 - $20,000 more than comparable cities' highest pay level. Ms. Hite answered only 2-3 positions were above the range that was adopted and their salaries were frozen. Councilmember Johnson observed of the 24 employees, 9 were at the top of their range. Theoretically 15 employees could have three sources of increased income: achieve a step, longevity pay, and COLA. She asked the maximum amount an employee could receive in 2014 from those three sources. Ms. Hite answered most of the 9 employees at their top step have been employed for 19+ years. Longevity of lh% - 1% could be added to a 5% step increase and a 1.4% COLA. Councilmember Bloom observed a significant number of employees were above the maximum of the comparables. Ms. Hite answered the comparables were used to adopt new salary ranges; salary ranges are an average of all comparable cities. There were 2-3 employees above the top of the range in the new ranges; those employees were frozen. Most fell within the new ranges and a few were below the low. A portion of the $85,000 was used to bring them up to a step. Councilmember Bloom summarized Edmonds' maximum for many of the comparables before adjustment were made were $15,000 - $20,000 above comparable cities. Ms. Hite agreed, recalling the compensation consultant determined the ranges were really high and really low; he lowered them to the average. Councilmember Buckshnis commented of the 24 employees who would receive longevity, their average salary is $93,000. Of those 24, 9 are at the top of their range. Ms. Hite noted all 3 of her managers have been with the City 20+ years and are at the top of their range; they represent 30% of the 9 employees. Councilmember Buckshnis explained when the consultant decreased the range it showed 22 of the 32 nonrepresented employees are above 50% of their range and 4-5 are over their range. She asked if some employees would receive a step as well as a COLA regardless of the decision regarding longevity pay. Ms. Hite stated employees will progress through their steps at the 5% increase until they top out and then they will no longer receive a step. In addition, the Mayor will consider the bargaining units' COLAs and the budget and make a decision whether to provide a COLA for nonrepresented employees. The Council will be informed in the budget of the nonrepresented COLA and can take action as they wish. She summarized steps are in the policy and COLAs are subject to the Mayor including them in the budget. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Ms. Hite advised the Council also approved 24 hours of management leave for nonrepresented employees that do not accrue comp time. Councilmember Buckshnis observed directors automatically receive 4 weeks; managers accrue based on their service. If this does not pass tonight, Mayor Pro Tern Petso asked whether it could be brought up again. Ms. Hite advised the Council could request it at any time. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if consideration had been given to days off instead of longevity pay. Ms. Hite was uncertain that would be a good incentive because employees who have been employed a long time have a great deal of leave balance. Longevity pay was recommended due to the shrinking of the ranges and was intended to compensate valuable employees with tenure whose intellectual and historical capacity help lead the City. She referred to a Seattle Times article about employers' efforts to recruit and retain employees due to lower unemployment rates. Now that the recession is over, she anticipated there will be some turnover. Council President Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas asked whether the longevity pay increased retirement benefits. Ms. Hite offered to research it. As she was in the same retirement plan, Council President Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas said it did because it increased the average final compensation. Councilmember Peterson asked what $28,000/year would add to retirement; he anticipated it would not be a significant amount. Ms. Hite used one of her managers who had been employed by the City for 40 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 17 Packet Page 20 of 488 years and earned $90,000; adding 2% to this salary for longevity would add $1800 to his salary. The City's percentage of the retirement is 6.2%. She noted that was the PERS rate a few years ago and it may be different now. Councilmember Peterson commented the Council has discussed this for a long time. He supported moving forward with longevity pay, noting the Council originally separated this from the rest of the nonrepresented compensation plan due to budget constraints. There will be a tighter job market in the futures with opportunities for valued employees to take jobs in the private sector. Longevity pay is not a huge increase but shows the Council's consideration of employees willing to stay during difficult times and put in extra hours without a lot of extra pay. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO ADOPT THE EXTERNALANTERNAL EQUITY PORTION OF THE COMPENSATION PACKAGE LONGEVITY PAY, FOR FIVE YEARS lh% OF AN EMPLOYEES' MONTHLY SALARY, FOR 10 YEARS 1% AND 1.5% FOR 14 YEARS, AND 2% FOR 18 YEARS. Councilmember Peterson said he was not opposed to a flat rate or an average rate. The percentage rate gives a needed bonus to employees who have worked for the City a long time and have excelled. Longevity pay will provide incentive for nonrepresented employees to not only work another year but a little harder to work their way through the system. Councilmember Buckshnis was apprehensive because the Council has not seen new numbers from Finance Director Roger Neumaier based on his new ideas about reserves. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO PROVIDE th% AT FIVE YEARS, 1% FOR 10 YEARS, 1.5% FOR 15 YEARS, AND 2% FOR 20 YEARS. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. For Council President Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas, Ms. Hite advised SEIU is on the same schedule. SEIU are the office staff who work alongside nonrepresented employees. The Teamsters' schedule is slightly different and the Police Department's schedule is entirely different. Councilmember Yamamoto explained he is the Chief Operating Officer for a small company in Edmonds. The article Ms. Hite referenced is very pertinent to them; they try to retain and pay their employees accordingly. He noted $28,000 is a very negligible amount to retain the best people. Councilmember Bloom said she will not support the motion for a number of reasons. Last year nonrepresented were provided management leave and 5% step increases. A compensation study had not been done for several years and many adjustments were made to make it more fair and equitable. Of the comparable cities that responded, 50% do not provide longevity pay. The City does not seem to have difficulty retaining employees; several employees have been with the City for a long time. She did not feel longevity pay would make employees stay longer; employees stay for their own reasons. The most important reason she opposed the motion was last year the City paid people to leave; she found it confusing that people were paid to leave last year and now longevity pay would be offered to encourage people to stay. She noted longevity pay was not just for this year, it would be ongoing. She was uncomfortable with including longevity pay in nonrepresented compensation when the Council will likely need to ask citizens for a levy in the future. Council President Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas said she would also vote against the motion. She objected to this ethically, believing it was anti -labor. In her conversations with represented employees in the City, they see it the same way. Providing nonrepresented employees a compensation package similar to represented employees sets a poor example for employees represented by labor unions. Those employees Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 18 Packet Page 21 of 488 question why they should pay union dues when they could receive similar benefits without paying union dues. Councilmember Johnson said she has given this a lot of thought and would be in favor of longevity pay for employees who are at the top of their salary range who no longer receive step increases. However she felt this was the wrong time to consider longevity pay as these are still uncertain times and the City Council must be prudent with tax dollars and be fiscally responsible. She did not see providing longevity pay to nonrepresented employees to be in the citizens' interest at this time. Mayor Pro Tern Petso said a lot of good issues were raised. This matter can be brought up again in the future. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO AND PETERSON VOTING YES. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tern Petso had no report. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Johnson thanked Ted Heaton for bringing the Scarecrow Festival to Edmonds after seeing it in California. She volunteered to be on the Council's scarecrow committee. Councilmember Peterson provided a reminder of the Chamber of Commerce Classic Car Show on Sunday, September 8 that will feature approximately 300 cars. There will be new family events including an opportunity for children to race Hot Wheels. He thanked the Chamber of Commerce for sponsoring the event. Councilmember Buckshnis wished Sally and Jim Wassell a happy 50'h anniversary. Councilmember Yamamoto advised he will be having open heart surgery next week and will be absent from Council meetings for a few weeks. 13. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). This item was deleted via action taken under Agenda Item 2. 14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. This item was deleted via action taken under Agenda Item 2. 15. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:02 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 19 Packet Page 22 of 488 AM-6088 3. B. City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 09/10/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Submitted By: Nori Jacobson Department: Finance Committee: Tyne: Action Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #204119 through #204214 dated September 5, 2013 for $1,864,367.81. Approval of replacement payroll check #60428 $601.98, payroll direct deposit and checks #60429 through #60452 for $460,730.55, benefit checks #60453 through #60464 and wire payments of $200,314.80 for the period August 16, 2013 through August 31, 2013. Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2013 Revenue: Expenditure: 2,525,413.16 Fiscal Impact: Claims $1,864,367.81 Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $460,730.55 Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $200,314.80 Payroll replacement check $601.98 Total Payroll $661,045.35 Attachments Claim checks 09-05-13 Project Numbers 09-05-13 Payroll Benefit 09-05-13 Payroll Summary 09-05-13a Payroll Summary 09-05-13b Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Roger Neumaier 09/05/2013 11:26 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/05/2013 11:50 AM Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2013 01:45 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/05/2013 01:46 PM Packet Page 23 of 488 Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Final Approval Date: 09/05/2013 Started On: 09/05/2013 09:16 AM Packet Page 24 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204119 9/5/2013 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 13-0448 WWTP - MONTHLY JANITORIAL SEI WWTP - MONTHLY JANITORIAL SEI 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 334.00 Total: 334.00 204120 9/5/2013 074143 AFFORDABLE WA BACKFLOW TESTING 5384 BACKFLOW TEST BACKFLOW TEST 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 30.00 Total: 30.00 204121 9/5/2013 001030 ALLIED SYSTEMS PRODUCTS INC IN118849 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 13.27 Total: 13.27 204122 9/5/2013 065568 ALLWATER INC 082213028 WWTP- WATER COOLER RENTAL WWTP- WATER COOLER RENTAL 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 4.78 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 0.67 Total: 5.45 204123 9/5/2013 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC XA90 WWTP - NPDES SAMPLING WWTP - NPDES SAMPLING 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 165.00 Total: 165.00 204124 9/5/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6987189 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 40.54 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 3.85 Total: 44.39 204125 9/5/2013 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0473316-IN WWTP - DIESEL WWTP - DIESEL Page: 1 Packet Page 25 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204125 9/5/2013 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 5,509.88 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 523.45 Total: 6,033.33 204126 9/5/2013 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 70774 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 90.78 UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 90.78 UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 93.52 UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 313.08 UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 313.07 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 8.62 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 8.62 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 8.89 70809 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #800 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 115.18 UB Outsourcing area #800 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 115.18 UB Outsourcing area #800 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 118.66 UB Outsourcing area #800 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 397.46 UB Outsourcing area #800 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 397.45 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 2 Packet Page 26 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204126 9/5/2013 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued) 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 10.94 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 10.94 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 11.28 70865 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 123.57 UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 123.57 UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 127.32 UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 427.38 UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 427.37 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 11.74 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 11.74 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 12.09 Total: 3,369.23 204127 9/5/2013 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 0712740- IN Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 500 G Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 500 G 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 636.00 0713902-IN Fleet Auto Propane - 570 Gal Fleet Auto Propane - 570 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 723.85 0714924-IN Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 430 G Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 430 G 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 632.86 0716225-IN Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 450 G Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 450 G Page: 3 Packet Page 27 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204127 9/5/2013 074307 BLUE STAR GAS (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 661.90 Total: 2,654.61 204128 9/5/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 13812 INV#13812 - EDMONDS PD - VAN D, 2ND CHANCE BALLISTIC VEST 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 725.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 68.88 13935 INV#13935 - EDMONDS PD - TRYKP L/S BLACK TDU SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 49.99 SEW NAME TAG ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 1.00 CLOTH NAME TAG "TRYKAR" 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 4.95 SEW BADGE ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 1.00 HEAT STAMP DETECTIVE ON SHIR- 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 6.00 BLACK PANTS 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 69.99 Freight 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 12.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 13.77 13935-80 INV#13935-80 REFUND SHIPPING-1 Freight 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 -12.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 -1.14 13998 INV#13998 - EDMONDS PD - MEHL L/S BLACK TDU SHIRT (DETECT) 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 49.99 SEW NAME TAG ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 1.00 Page: 4 Packet Page 28 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 204128 9/5/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP (Continued) 14917 15102 15102-01 17286 PO # Description/Account Amount CLOTH NAME TAG "MEHL" 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 4.95 SEW BADGE ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 1.00 HEAT STAMP DETECTIVE ON SHIP 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 6.00 BLACK PANTS 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 69.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 12.63 INV#14917 - EDMONDS PD - DREYE S/S UNIFORM SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 67.95 SEW NAME TAG ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 1.00 CLOTH NAME TAG "DREYER" 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 4.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 7.02 INV#15102 - CREDIT DEFECTIVE S) CREDIT FOR DEFECTIVE SWITCH 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 -18.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 -1.80 INV#15102-01 -EDMONDS PD - SW LED SWITCH 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 18.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 1.80 INV#17286 - EDMONDS PD - SMITH L/S BLACK TDU SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 49.99 SEW NAME TAG ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 1.00 Page: 5 Packet Page 29 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 204128 9/5/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP (Continued) 17290-01 17292 PO # Description/Account Amount CLOTH NAME TAG "SMITH" 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 4.95 SEW BADGE ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 1.00 HEAT STAMP DETECTIVE ON SHIP 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 6.00 SEW CHEVRONS ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 2.50 CORPORALCHEVRONS 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 2.95 BLACK PANTS 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 69.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 13.15 INV#17290-01 - EDMONDS PD - MO L/S BLACK TDU SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 49.99 SEW NAME TAG ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 1.00 CLOTH NAME TAG "MORRISON" 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 4.95 SEW BADGE ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 1.00 HEAT STAMP DETECTIVE ON SHIR' 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 6.00 SEW ZIPPER IN SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 12.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 7.17 INV#17292 - EDMONDS PD - MC IN- L/S BLACK TDU SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 49.99 SEW NAME TAG ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 1.00 Page: 6 Packet Page 30 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204128 9/5/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP (Continued) CLOTH NAME TAG "MCINTYRE" 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 4.95 SEW BADGE ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 1.00 HEAT STAMP DETECTIVE ON SHIP 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 6.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 5.98 19802 INV#19802 - EDMONDS PD - BARKE HEAT STAMP DETECTIVE ON SHIR- 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 6.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 0.57 Total: 1,475.55 204129 9/5/2013 002800 BRAKE & CLUTCH SUPPLY 517692 Unit 138 - Parts Unit 138 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 33.92 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.22 Total: 37.14 204130 9/5/2013 069295 BROWN, CANDY BROWN 08/2013 BIRD NATURALIST CLASSROOM VI BIRD NATURALIST CLASSROOM VI 001.000.64.574.35.41.00 92.40 Total: 92.40 204131 9/5/2013 072699 BUCHANAN SERVICES INC 9685 Fleet - Adaptor Western Arm Pads Fleet -Adaptor Western Arm Pads 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 178.48 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 22.79 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 19.12 Page: 7 Packet Page 31 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204131 9/5/2013 072699 072699 BUCHANAN SERVICES INC (Continued) Total: 220.39 204132 9/5/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 13023486 CANON CONTRACT CHARGES Canon contract charges C5051 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 83.35 Canon contract charges C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 83.35 Canon contract charges C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 83.29 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 7.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 7.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 7.91 Total: 273.74 204133 9/5/2013 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 450901-1307 E9GA.SER VICES THRU JULY 2013 E9GA.Services thru July 2013 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 22,429.56 Total: 22,429.56 204134 9/5/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2583104 Fac Maint - Cleaner, TT, Towels, Han Fac Maint - Cleaner, TT, Towels, Han 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 490.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 46.61 Total: 537.26 204135 9/5/2013 070323 COMCAST 8498 31 030 0721433 CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICE CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICE 130.000.64.536.20.42.00 119.34 Total: 119.34 204136 9/5/2013 072189 DATASITE 36744 INV#36744 ACCT#61515 - EDMOND SHRED 1 TOTE 8/8/2013 Page: 8 Packet Page 32 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204136 9/5/2013 072189 DATASITE (Continued) 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 40.00 Total: 40.00 204137 9/5/2013 072189 DATASITE 36617 SHREDDING SERVICES/CABINETS Doc Shred Services City Clerk 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 90.00 Doc Shred Services Finance 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 25.00 Total: 115.00 204138 9/5/2013 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS August 2013 DRS AUGUST 2013 DRS CONTRUBUTIO August 2013 DRS contribtutions 811.000.231.540 178,766.62 Total: 178,766.62 204139 9/5/2013 070121 DESTINATION MARKETING 16431 VIDEO PROJECT TOURISM/ECONC Video project for tourism and econom 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 1,165.00 Total: 1,165.00 204140 9/5/2013 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 13-3388 MINUTE TAKING 8/27 Council Minutes 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 255.00 Total: 255.00 204141 9/5/2013 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 08312013 STATE LOBBYIST AUGUST 2013 State lobbyist charges for August 201 001.000.61.519.70.41.00 2,391.25 Total: 2,391.25 204142 9/5/2013 007253 DUNN LUMBER 2042283 MCH - Gorilla Glue, Utlity Pulls MCH - Gorilla Glue, Utlity Pulls 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.86 Page: 9 Packet Page 33 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204142 9/5/2013 007253 007253 DUNN LUMBER (Continued) Total: 21.36 204143 9/5/2013 074492 EARTHCORPS 4104 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJE WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJE 125.000.64.575.50.41.00 2,167.92 Total : 2,167.92 204144 9/5/2013 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 14444 CHAMBER LUNCHEON 8/22/13 Chamber luncheon 8/22/13 for Clifton 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 204145 9/5/2013 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP KENNEMUR 17633 KENNEMUR RHYTMIC GYMNASTIC KENNEMUR RHYTMIC GYMNASTIC 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 75.00 Total : 75.00 204146 9/5/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 0909301 A7027 MONTHLY MAINENANCE A7027 MONTHLY MAINENANCE 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 152.46 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 14.48 Total : 166.94 204147 9/5/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 090472 MAINT FOR COPIER MAINT FOR COPIER 001.000.23.512.50.45.00 2.77 Total : 2.77 204148 9/5/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 090932 COPIER CHARGES FOR C5051 Copier charges C5051 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 35.24 Copier charges C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 35.24 Copier charges C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 35.23 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 10 Packet Page 34 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 204148 9/5/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) 204149 9/5/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 090958 204150 9/5/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 090569 090571 PO # Description/Account 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 METER READING Meter Reading 8/30 to 9/30 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 Total : Total WATER SEWER COPY USE Water Sewer Copy Use 7/19-8/19/13 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Water Sewer Copy Use 7/19-8/19/13 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 PW COPY USE PW Copy Use 7/19-8/19/13 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 PW Copy Use 7/19-8/19/13 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 PW Copy Use 7/19-8/19/13 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 PW Copy Use 7/19-8/19/13 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 PW Copy Use 7/19-8/19/13 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 PW Copy Use 7/19-8/19/13 Amount 3.35 3.35 3.34 115.75 178.66 16.97 195.63 14.32 14.31 1.36 1.36 20.63 11.69 11.69 8.25 8.25 Page: 11 Packet Page 35 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204150 9/5/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.26 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 1.96 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 1.11 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 1.11 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0.78 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.78 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.79 090580 FLEET COPY USE Fleet Copy Use 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.53 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.24 Total: 109.42 204151 9/5/2013 074345 EUROFINS EATON ANALYTICAL L0134201 Water Quality Systems Testings Water Quality Systems Testings 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 700.00 L0134202 Water Quality Systems Testings Water Quality Systems Testings 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 160.00 Total: 860.00 204152 9/5/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU29560 PARTS PARTS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 29.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.82 Tota I : 32.53 Page: 12 Packet Page 36 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204153 9/5/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU29466 Unit 447 - Parts Unit 447 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.90 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.04 WAMOU29478 FAC - Supplies FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.06 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.29 Total: 15.29 204154 9/5/2013 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 83113 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 6,000.00 Total: 6,000.00 204155 9/5/2013 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0382747 Water Inventory - W-MTRBOXARM-0 Water Inventory - W-MTRBOXARM-0 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 900.00 Parts - Polymer Cover w/ H7 Hole 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 534.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 85.50 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 50.73 Total: 1,570.23 204156 9/5/2013 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 223293 August Sec 125 Processing fee August Sec 125 Processing fee 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 75.00 Total: 75.00 204157 9/5/2013 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM IRRIGATION SYSTEM 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 42.62 Page: 13 Packet Page 37 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204157 9/5/2013 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) 425-745-5055 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL 001.000.64.575.56.42.00 70.58 Total: 113.20 204158 9/5/2013 074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES 28570 E9GA.SERVICES THRU JULY 2013 E9GA.Services thru July 2013 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 235.00 Total: 235.00 204159 9/5/2013 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 113194 Unit 902 - 2 Tires Unit 902 - 2 Tires 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 122.38 State Tire Fee 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.63 113286 Unit 791 - 4 Tires Unit 791 - 4 Tires 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 313.16 State Tire Fees 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 29.75 Total: 482.92 204160 9/5/2013 012199 GRAINGER 9222478977 PS - Batteries PS - Batteries 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 639.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 60.71 9226694322 Fac Maint - Two Way Radios Fac Maint - Two Way Radios 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 104.36 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 14 Packet Page 38 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204160 9/5/2013 012199 GRAINGER (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 9.91 Total: 813.98 204161 9/5/2013 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 1402081 Water Inventory - W-SETTERBYP-O' Water Inventory - W-SETTERBYP-O' 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 1,134.70 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 107.80 Total: 1,242.50 204162 9/5/2013 012560 HACH COMPANY 8441618 Water Quality - Water Testing Supplie Water Quality - Water Testing Supplie 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 787.80 Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 52.27 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 79.81 Total: 919.88 204163 9/5/2013 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 138089 Unit 133 - Trans Oil Seal, Filter Kit, Unit 133 - Trans Oil Seal, Filter Kit, 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 111.60 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.60 138247 Unit 537 - Latch Unit 537 - Latch 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 172.96 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 16.43 138715 Unit 51 - Fuel Cap Unit 51 - Fuel Cap 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 20.48 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.95 138971 Unit 776 - Window Switch Page: 15 Packet Page 39 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204163 9/5/2013 012900 HARRIS FORD INC (Continued) Unit 776 - Window Switch 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 56.38 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.36 CM138089 Unit 133 - Return Trans Oil Seal Unit 133 - Return Trans Oil Seal 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -51.14 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -4.86 CM138247 Unit 537 - Return Latch — Unit 537 - Return Latch- 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -147.02 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -16.43 Total: 176.31 204164 9/5/2013 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 3070576 PRESCHOOL INTERNET PRESCHOOL INTERNET 001.000.64.575.56.42.00 15.00 Total: 15.00 204165 9/5/2013 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 592762 WWTP - HYPYCHLORITE W WTP - HYPYCHLORITE 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 2,608.08 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 246.05 Total: 2,854.13 204166 9/5/2013 074168 JOHNSON, MELISSA JOHNSON JULY2013 CEMETERY ADVERTISING REIM CEMETERY ADVERTISING REIM 130.000.64.536.20.44.00 50.00 Total: 50.00 204167 9/5/2013 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3712102 INV#3712102 ACCT#100828 - EDMC 10 CASES MULTI USE COPY PAPEF Page: 16 Packet Page 40 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204167 9/5/2013 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE (Continued) 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 230.80 HANDLING FEE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 51.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 21.93 Total: 304.13 204168 9/5/2013 073924 KEARNS, JESSIKA CHRISTINE KEARNS 16887 TAEKWON-DO 16887 TAEKWON-DO 16887 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 161.00 TAEKWON-DO 16891 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 98.00 Total: 259.00 204169 9/5/2013 074326 KIMBALL MIDWEST 3125785 Fleet Shop - Supplies Fleet Shop - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 243.62 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 23.14 Total: 266.76 204170 9/5/2013 070285 KPLU-FM IN-1130831808 RADIO AD FOR 7/29-8/03/13 Radio promotional ad 7/29 - 8/03/13 001.000.61.558.70.44.00 930.00 Total: 930.00 204171 9/5/2013 072059 LEE, NICOLE 1276 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 144.75 Total: 144.75 204172 9/5/2013 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 679444 Fleet - Shop Supplies Fleet - Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 189.65 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 17 Packet Page 41 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204172 9/5/2013 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 18.02 Total: 207.67 204173 9/5/2013 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1235 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 1242 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 88.32 Total: 176.64 204174 9/5/2013 074565 MATTHEWS, TY MARIE MATTHEWS 082613 EPR AND ONE HOUR MONITOR FE EPR AND ONE HOUR MONITOR FE 001.000.239.200 115.00 Total: 115.00 204175 9/5/2013 073602 MEDICAL IMAGING NORTHWEST LLP 8/27/13 Pre -employment testing - police dept Pre -employment testing - police dept 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 138.00 Total: 138.00 204176 9/5/2013 074556 MOORE, IACOFANO & GOLTSMAN INC 0035139 PROS PLAN JULY PRO SERVICES PROS PLAN JULY PRO SERVICES 001.000.64.571.21.41.00 4,458.41 Total: 4,458.41 204177 9/5/2013 024001 NC POWER SYSTEMS CO MVCS0226636 Unit 57 - Parts Unit 57 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 78.00 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.90 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.45 Total: 98.35 204178 9/5/2013 063034 NCL 326257 WWTP - BOD SEED CAPSULES; BC Page: 18 Packet Page 42 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204178 9/5/2013 063034 NCL (Continued) WWTP - BOD SEED CAPSULES; BC 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 589.80 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 23.04 Total: 612.84 204179 9/5/2013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-729626 HAINES WHARF RENTALS HAINES WHARF RENTALS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 220.77 1-734991 RENTALS YOST PARK RENTALS YOST PARK 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 310.99 1-736468 DAMAGE WAIVER DAMAGE WAIVER 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 -86.68 Total: 445.08 204180 9/5/2013 064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO 2439023-00 Fleet Shop - Compressor Service Fleet Shop - Compressor Service 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 366.13 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 34.78 Total: 400.91 204181 9/5/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 090848 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 301.58 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 28.64 Tota I : 330.22 204182 9/5/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 036536 INV#036536 ACCT#520437 250POL EXPAND FILE CABINET POCKETS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 30.44 RETRACTIBLE BLACK PENS Page: 19 Packet Page 43 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204182 9/5/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC (Continued) 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 94.56 SMALL BINDER CLIPS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 1.15 WHITE ADDRESS LABELS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 22.26 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 14.11 Total: 162.52 204183 9/5/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 957139 Sewer - HP Ink Sewer - HP Ink 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 122.44 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 11.63 Total: 134.07 204184 9/5/2013 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 5261 YOST POOL SUPPLIES YOST POOL SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 223.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 21.22 Total: 244.67 204185 9/5/2013 064951 OTIS ELEVATOR CO SS20084001 PW - Elevator Maint PW - Elevator Maint 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 371.24 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 35.27 Total: 406.51 204186 9/5/2013 026830 PACIFIC PLUMBING SUPPLY 07388417 FS 16 - Combustion Blower and Pres FS 16 - Combustion Blower and Pres 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1,525.83 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 48.91 Page: 20 Packet Page 44 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204186 9/5/2013 026830 026830 PACIFIC PLUMBING SUPPLY (Continued) Total: 1,574.74 204187 9/5/2013 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. 954023039333 Plaza Rm - Paint Plaza Rm - Paint 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 20.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.99 Total: 22.98 204188 9/5/2013 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 5567011 WWTP - REPLACEMENT BULBS WWTP - REPLACEMENT BULBS 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 182.46 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 17.33 Total: 199.79 204189 9/5/2013 072384 PLAY-WELLTEKNOLOGIES PLAY -WELL 16865 LEGO CAMP 16865 LEGO CAMP 16865 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 2,600.00 LEGO CAMP 16867 001.000.64.575.56.42.00 1,950.00 Total: 4,550.00 204190 9/5/2013 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ 17046 FELDENKRAIS 17046 FELDENKRAIS 17046 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 404.00 Total: 404.00 204191 9/5/2013 074566 PUFFPAFF, MONICA PUFFPAFF 090313 CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND 001.000.239.200 172.40 Total: 172.40 204192 9/5/2013 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 85060 INV#85060 - EDMONDS PD TOW 1992 FORD TAURUS #828ZVL 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 21 Packet Page 45 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204192 9/5/2013 070955 R&R STAR TOWING (Continued) 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01 86046 INV#86046 - EDMONDS PD TOW 1998 DODGE RAM #B02194S 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01 Total: 346.02 204193 9/5/2013 074256 RYDIN DECAL 288119 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMITS Employee Parking Permits 121.000.25.517.90.31.00 678.30 Freight 121.000.25.517.90.31.00 22.67 Total: 700.97 204194 9/5/2013 074083 SCHREIBER STARLING & LANE 8 FAC - ADA Improvements and Replac FAC - ADA Improvements and Replac 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 1,809.00 Total: 1,809.00 204195 9/5/2013 065194 SEWER EQUIPMENT CO OF AMERICA 0000128329 Unit 98 - Smart Dist Truck Counter, Unit 98 - Smart Dist Truck Counter, 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3,034.45 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 16.10 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 288.27 Total: 3,338.82 204196 9/5/2013 070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC 88955 E2FC.SERVICES THRU 8/17/13 ($21 E2FC.Services thru 8/17/13 ($21,995 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 826.00 88956 E2FC.SERVICES THRU 8/17/13 ($2: E2FC.Services thru 8/17/13 ($25,239 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 225.00 Page: 22 Packet Page 46 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204196 9/5/2013 070115 070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC (Continued) Total: 1,051.00 204197 9/5/2013 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 Q4-2013 Q4-2013 FIRE SERVICES CONTRA( Q4-2013 Fire Services Contract Payn 001.000.39.522.20.51.00 1,555,694.75 Total: 1,555,694.75 204198 9/5/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2006-6395-3 131 SUNSETAVE 131 SUNSETAVE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 178.11 2009-4334-8 23202 EDMONDS WAY 23202 EDMONDS WAY 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 112.78 2010-5432-7 50 RAILROAD AVE 50 RAILROAD AVE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 69.92 2021-3965-5 100 RAILROAD AVE 100 RAILROAD AVE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 40.34 Total: 401.15 204199 9/5/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2019-2991-6 WWTP FLOW METER 23219 74TH / WWTP FLOW METER 23219 74TH i 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 32.33 Total : 32.33 204200 9/5/2013 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103587 DUMP FEES AUGUST DUMP FEES AUGUST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 730.57 Total : 730.57 204201 9/5/2013 072562 STUD103MUSIC LLC STUD103MUSIC 16899 KINDERMUSIK 16899 KINDERMUSIK 16899 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 176.00 KINDERMUSIK 16907 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 178.75 KINDERMUSIK 16903 Page: 23 Packet Page 47 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204201 9/5/2013 072562 STUD1O3MUSIC LLC (Continued) 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 201.44 Total: 556.19 204202 9/5/2013 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT LLC SUNSET 16770 BEACH CAMP 16770 BEACH CAMP 16770 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 7,428.00 BEACH CAMP 16774 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,260.00 Total: 8,688.00 204203 9/5/2013 073621 TANIMURA, NAOAKI TANIMURA 17077 KENDO 17077 KENDO 17077 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 98.00 KENDO 17079 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 290.94 Total: 388.94 204204 9/5/2013 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50708947 E3FC.SERVICES THRU JULY 2013 E3FC.Services thru July 2013 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 29,109.07 Total: 29,109.07 204205 9/5/2013 069576 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 111-1567214 ACCT#EDMWATSEW13 Water & Sewer Improvement Bonds 424.000.71.592.38.89.00 384.66 Total: 384.66 204206 9/5/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1830761 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3939 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 24.08 1830762 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3938 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 53.32 1830764 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3937 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 24.08 Page: 24 Packet Page 48 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204206 9/5/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY (Continued) 1830767 NEWSPAPER ADS Public Hrng on Ord 3938 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 37.84 Tota I : 139.32 204207 9/5/2013 074563 VERDAVANTI LLC Bus Lic Refund LI Refund Cst #00222881 LI Refund Cst #00222881 001.000.257.310 125.00 Total: 125.00 204208 9/5/2013 047200 WA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC 13-044 BUSINESS INSTITUTE BUSINESS INSTITUTE 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 170.00 Total: 170.00 204209 9/5/2013 073832 WA ST DEPT OF ENTERPRISE SVCS 73-1-10484 INV#73-1-10484 ACCT#23104-000 E 3,000 SILHOUETTE TARGETS 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 824.34 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 78.31 Total: 902.65 204210 9/5/2013 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-9140 DOGWOOD IVY REMOVAL DOGWOOD IVY REMOVAL 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 680.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 64.60 Total: 744.60 204211 9/5/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6007 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 498.23 Total : 498.23 204212 9/5/2013 073739 WH PACIFIC INC 37348-09 E6MA.SERVICES THRU 8/18/13 E6MA.Services thru 8/18/13 Page: 25 Packet Page 49 of 488 vchlist 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 26 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204212 9/5/2013 073739 WH PACIFIC INC (Continued) 129.000.24.595.70.41.00 904.81 Total: 904.81 204213 9/5/2013 064213 WSSUATREASURER 109 LEAGUE OFFICIALS FOR AUGUST LEAGUE OFFICIALS FOR AUGUST 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 1,254.00 Total: 1,254.00 204214 9/5/2013 070717 WSU URBAN & PESTICIDE SAFETY CURRAN WSU PEST PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 120.00 DILL PEST RECERT PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 120.00 EDHOUSE PEST RECERT PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 120.00 HARRIS PEST RECERT PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 120.00 MCGOWAN PEST RECER" PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 120.00 ROCKNE PEST RECERT PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 120.00 Total: 720.00 96 Vouchers for bank code : usbank Bank total : 1,864,367.81 96 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 1,864,367.81 Page: 26 Packet Page 50 of 488 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 09/04/2013 3:13:OOPM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount Page: 27 Packet Page 51 of 488 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 EOLA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 EOLB General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 ElEA PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 EBMB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM NPDES m013 E7FG STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1 FD STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1 FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) c349 E1 FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 EOFC STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1 FA STM Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements c307 E9FB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 EOAA STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA Revised 9/4/2013 Packet Page 52 of 488 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 EBGC SWR City -Wide Sewer Improvements c301 EBGD SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) c298 EBGA SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 EOJA WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 5th Avenue Overlay Project c399 E2CC WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 EOIA WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD Revised 9/4/2013 Packet Page 53 of 488 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title WWTP N/A c385 WWTP Switchgear Upgrade EOAA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM EOFC c326 Stormwater GIS Support KWTR EOIA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements WTR EOJA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program OLAr c32 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project FAC EOLB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs S ers Roundabout (212th Street Sa@ 84th Avenue W) STIR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neiahborhood Traffic Calmina 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E1DA c354 Sunset Wal SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1 FA c336 SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades STM E1 FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects tormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives E1 FN rrinville Creek Culvert Replacement SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Upda nowSewer, WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with nwood WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study 1111�PRV Station 11 a Bandon WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program E1JK In Street Watermain STIR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update 9th Avenue Improvement Project STIR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program Pioneer Way Road Repa STIR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlav Proiect STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Draina SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study Revised 9/4/2013 Packet Page 54 of 488 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Funding Number STM E2FE SWR E2GB EYA STM E3FB Project Accounting Number Project Title c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c369J&12 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update Am c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c406 1%013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects E3FC c408 ��reek Stor�v Reduction etrofit S udy STM EYD c409 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) orthstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements dh WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Projec STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project General JW6MA R99 Enhancement Progr STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements 228th St. SW Corrido provements STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road E7FG PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza ift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from Us 13 - 09/01 /08) SWR E8GC c300 BNSF Double Track Project SWR E8GD City -Wide Sewer Improvements PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program 26th Street Walkway Project STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design PM E91MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 9/4/2013 Packet Page 55 of 488 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number Project Title WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program STIR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STIR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project STIR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STIR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza PM c282 EBMA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM c290 EBMB Marina Beach Additional Parking STIR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR c298 EBGA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR c300 EBGC BNSF Double Track Project SWR c301 EBGD City -Wide Sewer Improvements SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design STM c307 E9FB Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation STIR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements WTR c324 EOIA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements STM c326 EOFC Stormwater GIS Support FAC c327 EOLA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project STIR c329 EOAA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade FAC c332 EOLB Senior Center Roof Repairs WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program STM c336 E1 FA SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM c339 E1 FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program STM c341 E1 FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STIR c343 E1AB 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming WTR c344 E1JB 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study Revised 9/4/2013 Packet Page 56 of 488 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number Project Title WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment SWR c347 E1GA 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement STM c349 E1 FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STIR c354 E1 DA Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR c363 EOJA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program STIR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update WTR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update General c372 ElEA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM c374 E1 FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain STM c376 E1 FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM c378 E21FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM c382 E21FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements WWTP c385 N/A WWTP Switchgear Upgrade WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation STIR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update STIR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STIR c399 E2CC 5th Ave Overlay Project STIR c404 E2AC Citywide Safety Improvements STIR c405 E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM c406 EYA 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM c407 E3FB 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM c408 E3FC Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM c409 E3FD Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM c410 E31FE Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive WTR c418 E3JB 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) Revised 9/4/2013 Packet Page 57 of 488 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number STIR i005 E7AC STM m013 E7FG Project Title 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements NPDES Revised 9/4/2013 Packet Page 58 of 488 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 EOAA STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 EOJA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 EYA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3JB STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 ElCA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 EOIA SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 EBGC STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC SWR City -Wide Sewer Improvements c301 EBGD STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c409 E3FD WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 EOLA Revised 9/4/2013 Packet Page 59 of 488 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) c298 EBGA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 EBMB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E21FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive c410 EYE STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E31FC WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1 FD PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 EOLB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 ElEA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1 FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) c349 E1 FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 EOFC STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1 FA WWTP WWTP Switchgear Upgrade c385 N/A STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB Revised 9/4/2013 Packet Page 60 of 488 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Proiect Title STIR Transportation Plan Update Project Engineering Accounting Project Number Number c391 E2AA Revised 9/4/2013 Packet Page 61 of 488 PROJECT NUMBERS (Phase and Task Numbers) Phases and Tasks (Enaineerina Division Phase Title ct Construction ds Design pl Preliminary sa Site Acquisition & Prep st Study ro Right -of -Way Task Title 196 Traffic Engineering & Studies 197 MAIT 198 CTR 199 Engineering Plans & Services 950 Engineering Staff Time 970 Construction Management 981 Contract 990 Miscellaneous 991 Retainage stm Engineering Staff Time -Storm str Engineering Staff Time -Street swr Engineering Staff Time -Sewer wtr Engineering Staff Time -Water prk Engineering Staff Time -Park Packet Page 62 of 488 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 621 - 08/16/2013 to 08/31/2013 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 60453 09/05/2013 mebt AST TTEE 77,802.35 0.00 60454 09/05/2013 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 1,150.00 0.00 60455 09/05/2013 epoa4 EPOA-4 POLICE SUPPORT 123.50 0.00 60456 09/05/2013 flex FLEX -PLAN SERVICES, INC 399.83 0.00 60457 09/05/2013 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 1,495.64 0.00 60458 09/05/2013 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 3,011.05 0.00 60459 09/05/2013 cope SEIU COPE 62.00 0.00 60460 09/05/2013 seiu SEIU LOCAL 925 3,052.74 0.00 60461 09/05/2013 sdu STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 250.00 0.00 60462 09/05/2013 uw UNITED WAY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 344.00 0.00 60463 09/05/2013 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,015.57 0.00 60464 09/05/2013 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 16,021.00 0.00 105,727.68 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 2024 09/05/2013 aflac AFLAC 4,788.86 0.00 2026 09/05/2013 front FRONTIER BANK 89,798.26 0.00 94,587.12 0.00 Grand Totals: 200,314.80 0.00 9/4/2013 Page 1 of 1 Packet Page 63 of 488 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 648 (08/01/2013 to 08/31/2013) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours 170 174 191 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL BASE PAY COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAY FIRE PENSION PAYMENTS 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 Total Net Pay: Amount 7,000.00 200.00 2,608.94 $9,808.94 $6,823.38 09/04/2013 Packet Page 64 of 488 Page 1 of 1 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 621 (08/16/2013 to 08/31/2013) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 111 ABSENT NO PAY LEAVE 34.14 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 400.00 11,755.03 122 VACATION VACATION 2,123.75 70,927.09 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 46.00 1,531.50 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 105.00 2,990.43 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 161.75 5,600.13 129 SICK Police Sick Leave L & 1 64.00 2,070.65 130 COMP HOURS Holiday Compensation Used 60.00 1,839.26 141 BEREAVEMENT BEREAVEMENT 62.00 2,695.89 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Day Used 123.00 4,363.58 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 17.50 781.95 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 35.00 2,184.39 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 15,621.25 498,612.16 196 REGULAR HOURS LIGHT DUTY 6.00 250.58 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 48.00 2,156.69 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLAW 8.00 698.46 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 236.75 13,994.17 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 30.75 1,963.52 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 161.92 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 877.92 600 RETROACTIVE PAY RETROACTIVE PAY 0.00 1,054.43 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 40.75 0.00 603 COMP HOURS Holiday Comp 1.0 1.00 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 64.00 0.00 acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 23.56 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 160.89 boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC II Certification 0.00 80.05 Cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 137.44 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 589.30 det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 95.89 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 923.69 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 727.08 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 834.14 09/04/2013 Packet Page 65 of 488 Page 1 of 2 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 621 (08/16/2013 to 08/31/2013) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 4,523.43 furls SICK FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 191.33 5,147.72 fmlV VACATION Family Medical Leave Vacation 129.03 4,770.91 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 108.23 Iq1 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 1,858.34 Iq2 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 4% 0.00 1,400.01 Iq3 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY 6% 0.00 4,640.58 Iq4 LONGEVITY Longevity 1 % 0.00 358.98 Iq5 LONGEVITY Longevity 3% 0.00 66.98 Iq6 LONGEVITY Longevity .5% 0.00 300.45 Iq7 LONGEVITY Longevity 1.5% 0.00 640.00 Iqh LONGEVITY Longevity Hourly 0.00 0.00 mtc MISCELLANEOUS MOTORCYCLE PAY 0.00 191.78 ooc MISCELLANEOUS 5% OUT OF CLASS 0.00 239.28 pds MISCELLANEOUS Public Disclosure Specialist 0.00 44.66 phy MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 1,569.49 prof MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 0.00 147.00 sdp MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5% 0.00 290.85 sqt MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 147.00 slw SICK SICK LEAVE ADD BACK 80.00 0.00 traf MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC 0.00 302.03 19,689.00 $656,829.51 Total Net Pay: $453,907.17 09/04/2013 Packet Page 66 of 488 Page 2 of 2 AM-6096 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 09/10/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Department: City Clerk's Office Committee: Submitted By: Sandy Chase Tyne: Action Information 3. C. Subject Title Resolution approving Findings of Fact regarding the August 27, 2013 Public Hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3 93 1. Recommendation Adoption of the Resolution. Previous Council Action Interim Ordinance No. 3931 was adopted by the City Council on July 2, 2013. A Public Hearing was held on the Interim Ordinance on August 27, 2013. Narrative The City Attorney prepared the attached Resolution approving Findings of Fact for the City Council's consideration. A Resolution approving findings is required by RCW 36.70A.390. Attachments Exhibit 1 - Ordinance No. 3931 Exhibit 2 - 07-02-13 City Council Minutes (,Excer2t) Exhibit 3 - 08-27-13 City Council Minutes (ExceMtt) Exhibit 4 - Resolution Adopting Findings (Ordinance No. 3931J Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Fonn Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 09/06/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 09/06/2013 10:08 AM Sandy Chase 09/06/2013 10:12 AM Started On: 09/06/2013 08:55 AM Packet Page 67 of 488 ORDINANCE NO.3931 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40,210 AND 23.40.320, TO REPEAL THE DEFINITION OF REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE AND REFERENCES THERETO. WHEREAS, the definition for "reasonable economic use" in the Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions Section of the Edmonds Community Development Code contains language that is atypical when compared to the critical areas ordinances of many other jurisdictions in the vicinity of Edmonds; and WHEREAS, many jurisdictions do not define "reasonable economic use" at all, preferring to rely upon guidance provided by state and federal law; and WHEREAS, urgent action should be taken to correct the unnecessary confusion and difficulty caused by the definition of "reasonable economic use" in the processing of reasonable use variances; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds may adopt an interim zoning ordinance for a period of up to six months pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, provided that the City Council holds a public hearing on the interim ordinance within sixty days of adoption; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 23.40.210 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Variances," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfike thfoug ): 23.40.210 Variances. 1 Packet Page 68 of 488 A. Variances from the standards of this title may be authorized through the process of hearing examiner review in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC only if an applicant demonstrates that one or more of the following two conditions exist: 1. The application of this title would prohibit a development proposal by a public agency or public utility. A public agency and utility exception may be granted as a variance if: a. There is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less impact on the critical areas; b. The application of this title would unreasonably restrict the ability to provide utility services to the public; c. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; d. The proposal attempts to protect and mitigate impacts to the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and e. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. 2. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use (see the definition of "reasonable eeenemie " in of the subject property. A reasonable use exception may be authorized as a variance only if an applicant demonstrates that: a. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel; b. No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive plan has less impact on the critical area; c. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property; d. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor; e. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 2 Packet Page 69 of 488 f. The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and g. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. B. Specific Variance Criteria. A variance may be granted if the applicant demonstrates that the requested action conforms to all of the following specific criteria: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent in the land, and that are not applicable to other lands in the same district; 2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; 3. A literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of all reasonable economic uses and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone of the subject property under the terms of this title, and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with such rights; 4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances; 5. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title, and will not further degrade the functions or values of the associated critical areas or otherwise be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the subject property; and 6. The decision to grant the variance is based upon the best available science and gives special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat. C. Hearing Examiner Review. The city hearing examiner shall, as a Type III -A decision (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC), review variance applications and conduct a public hearing. The hearing examiner shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny variance applications based on a proposal's ability to comply with general and specific variance criteria provided in subsections (A) and (B) of this section. 3 Packet Page 70 of 488 D. Conditions May Be Required. The director retains the right to prescribe such conditions and safeguards as are necessary to secure adequate protection of critical areas from adverse impacts, and to ensure conformity with this title for variances granted through hearing examiner review. E. Time Limit. The director shall prescribe a time limit within which the action for which the variance is required shall be begun, completed, or both. Failure to begin or complete such action within the established time limit shall void the variance, unless the applicant files an application for an extension of time before the expiration. An application for an extension of time shall be reviewed by the director as a Type II decision (see Chapter 20.01ECDC). F. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to bring forth evidence in support of a variance application and upon which any decision has to be made on the application. Section 2. Section 23.40.320 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Definitions pertaining to critical areas," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike t,,..ettg,,): 23.40.320 Definitions pertaining to critical areas. For the purposes of this chapter and the chapters on the five specific critical area types (Chapters 23.50, 23.60,23.70, 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC) the following definitions shall apply: "Adjacent" means those areas located within 200 feet of a development proposal or subject parcel and those areas located within 800 feet of a documented bald eagle nest. "Alteration" means any human -induced action which changes the existing condition of a critical area or its buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading; filling; dredging; draining; channelizing; cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; discharging pollutants; paving, construction, application of gravel; modifying for surface water management purposes; or any other human activity that changes the existing landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat value of critical areas. "Best management practices" means a system of practices and management measures that: 2 Packet Page 71 of 488 1. Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal waste, and toxics; 2. Control the movement of sediment and erosion caused by land alteration activities; 3. Minimize adverse impacts to surface and ground water quality, flow, and circulation patterns; and 4. Minimize adverse impacts to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of critical areas. "Buffer" means the designated area immediately next to and a part of a steep slope or landslide hazard area and which protects slope stability, attenuation of surface water flows and landslide hazards reasonably necessary to minimize risks to persons or property; or a designated area immediately next to and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem. "Chapter" means those sections of this title sharing the same third and fourth digits. "City" means the city of Edmonds. "Class" or "wetland class" means descriptive categories of wetland vegetation communities within the wetlands taxonomic classification system of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin, et al., 1979). "Clearing" means the act of cutting and/or removing vegetation. This definition shall include grubbing vegetation and the use or application of herbicide. "Compensation project" means an action(s) specifically designed to replace project - induced critical area or buffer losses. Compensation project design elements may include, but are not limited to: land acquisition procedures and detailed plans including functional value assessments, detailed landscaping designs, construction drawings, and monitoring and contingency plans. "Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project -induced losses or impacts to a critical area, and includes, but is not limited to, the following: 5 Packet Page 72 of 488 1. "Restoration" means actions performed to reestablish wetland functional characteristics and processes that have been lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area that no longer meets the definition of a wetland. 2. "Creation" means actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland at a site where it did not formerly exist. 3. "Enhancement' means actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded wetlands so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality. 4. "Preservation" means actions taken to ensure the permanent protection of existing high -quality wetlands. "Creation" means a compensation project performed to intentionally establish a wetland or stream at a site where one did not formerly exist. "Critical areas" for the city of Edmonds means wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as defined in Chapters 23.50, 23.60, 23.70, 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC, respectively. "Development proposal" means any activity relating to the use and/or development of land requiring a permit or approval from the city, including, but not limited to: commercial or residential building permit; binding site plan; conditional use permit; franchise; right-of-way permit; grading and clearing permit; mixed use approval; planned residential development; shoreline conditional use permit; shoreline substantial development permit; shoreline variance; short subdivision; special use permit; subdivision; flood hazard permit; unclassified use permit; utility and other use permit; variance; rezone; or any required permit or approval not expressly exempted by this title. "Director" means the city of Edmonds development services director or his/her designee. "Division" means the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services department. "Enhancement" means an action taken to improve the condition and function of a critical area. In the case of wetland or stream, the term includes a compensation project performed to improve the conditions of an existing degraded wetland or stream to increase its functional value. :1 Packet Page 73 of 488 "Erosion" means the process in which soil particles are mobilized and transported by natural agents such as wind, rain, frost action, or stream flow. Erosion Hazard Areas. See ECDC 23.80.020(A). Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. See Chapter 23.90 ECDC. "Floodplain" means the total area subject to inundation by a "100-year flood." "One - hundred -year flood" means a flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Frequently Flooded Areas. See Chapter 23.70 ECDC. "Functions" means the roles served by critical areas including, but not limited to: water quality protection and enhancement; fish and wildlife habitat; food chain support; flood storage, conveyance and attenuation; ground water recharge and discharge; erosion control; wave attenuation. aesthetic value protection; and recreation. These roles are not listed in order of priority. Geologically Hazardous Areas. See Chapter 23.80 ECDC. "Geologist" means a person licensed as a geologist, engineering geologist, or hydrologist in the state of Washington who has earned a degree in geology from an accredited college or university and has at least five years of experience as a practicing geologist or four years of experience and at least two years of postgraduate study, research or teaching. The practical experience shall include at least three years of work in applied geology and landslide evaluation in close association with qualified, practicing geologists and geotechnical/civil engineers. "Geotechnical engineer" means a practicing geotechnical/civil engineer licensed as a professional civil engineer in the state of Washington who has at least four years of professional employment as a geotechnical engineer in responsible charge including experience with landslide evaluation. "Grading" means any one or a combination of excavating, filling, or disturbance of that portion of the soil profile which contains decaying organic matter. "Habitats of local importance" include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the 7 Packet Page 74 of 488 species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. These might include areas of high relative density or species richness, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors. These might also include habitats that are of limited availability or high vulnerability to alteration, such as cliffs, shorelines, coastal beaches, mudflats, eel -grass beds, and wetlands. [See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(4).] Landslide Hazard Areas. [See ECDC 23.80.020(B).] "Mitigation" means the use of any or all of the following actions, which are listed in descending order of preference: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps such as project redesign, relocation, or timing to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; 4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineered or other methods; 5. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and 7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. "Native vegetation" means vegetation comprised of plant species which are indigenous to the Puget Sound region and which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the 8 Packet Page 75 of 488 site. "Native vegetation" does not include noxious weeds as defined by the state of Washington or federal agencies. "Noxious weeds" means any plant which, when established, is highly destructive, competitive or difficult to control by cultural or chemical practices, as further listed in Chapter 16-750 WAC. "Planning staff' means those employed in the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services department. "Qualified critical areas consultant" or "qualified professional" means a person who has the qualifications specified below to conduct critical areas studies pursuant to this title, and to make recommendations for critical areas mitigation. For areas of potential geologic instability, the qualified critical areas consultant shall be a geologist or geotechnical engineer. For wetlands and streams, the qualified critical areas consultant shall be a specialist in botany, fisheries, wetland biology, and/or hydrology with a minimum of two years' field experience with wetlands and/or streams in the Pacific Northwest. Requirements defining a qualified critical areas consultant or qualified professional are contained within the chapter on each critical area type. "Reasonable eeenemie use(. `"means! e, minimum use -tee ,h;,.h a Yrepe: �y own federal i i . 3rder to avoid a taking eRtitled tmder applicable state and eenstittAienal ccReasonable pr- » shall be fiber -ally eeenemie 'he the eNample, the wed —to- etee eonstitutienal property rights eff apphea or- "Redeveloped land(s)" means those lands on which existing structures are demolished in their entirety to allow for new development. The director shall maintain discretion to determine if the demolition of a majority of existing structures or portions thereof constitute the re- development of a property or subject parcel. 0 Packet Page 76 of 488 "Restoration" means the actions necessary to return a stream, wetland or other critical area to a state in which its stability, functions and values approach its unaltered state as closely as possible. Seismic Hazard Areas. [See ECDC 23.80.020(C).] "Species of local importance" means those species that are of local concern due to their population status, their sensitivity to habitat manipulation, or that are game (hunted) species. [See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(4).] "Storm Water Management Manual" means the Storm Water Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin by the Washington State Department of Ecology (as included in Chapter 18.30 ECDC). "Streams" means any area where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed which demonstrates clear evidence, such as the sorting of sediments, of the passage of water. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. This, definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices (drainage ditches) or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or used to convey streams naturally occurring prior to construction of such watercourse. Streams are further classified into Categories S, F, Np and Ns and fshbearing or nonfishbearing 1, 2 and 3. [See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(1).] "Title" means all chapters of the City of Edmonds Development Code beginning with the digits 23. "Undeveloped land(s)" means land(s) on which manmade structures or land modifications (clearing, grading, etc.) do not exist. The director retains discretion to identify undeveloped land(s) in those instances where historical modifications and structures may have existed on a property or subject parcel in the past. "Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention IN Packet Page 77 of 488 facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. However, wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands if permitted by the city (WAC 365-190-030(22)). Wetlands are further classified into Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4. [See ECDC 23.50.010(B).] "Wetland functions" means those natural processes performed by wetlands, such as facilitating food chain production; providing habitat for nesting, rearing and resting sites for aquatic, terrestrial or avian species; maintaining the availability and quality of water; acting as recharge and/or discharge areas for ground water aquifers; and moderating surface water and storm water flows. Section 3. Sunset. This ordinance shall remain in effect for 180 days from the effective date, after which point it shall have no further effect. Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. VED: 0. t /f 1 t 1! I MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING 11 Packet Page 78 of 488 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Lamar CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 06-28-2013 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 07-02-2013 PUBLISHED: 07-07-2013 EFFECTIVE DATE: 07-12-2013 ORDINANCE NO. 3931 12 Packet Page 79 of 488 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3931 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 2nd day of July, 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3931. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND ECDC 23.40.210 AND 23.40.320 TO REPEAL THE DEFINITION OF REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 3`d day of July, 2013. 4840-7251-8158,v. 1 13 Z&A,&.z z L:2� CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 80 of 488 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH } S.S. S mtRY F ORDI"N- NO. 1 �` TM1" end ";y of July. 20M afe � loll at tha City of The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of Eff , ppeassetl Ordln4nm No. 393L A summary of the mntenl of Bala tudinaulcn, l «1s3a,,� of ure Iil a providas as laliowa: THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of AN ORDINANCEO� THE �f71 OF EDA40 WASHINGTON. ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZOND5 NING Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general ORDINANCE TD AMEND..ECDC 2 4a—o7o �D 23A0,320 circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal TO REPEAL THE 664NSTION CF gl:A.gpNplgl;� ECONOMIC USE, The fwl text of Shia Ordlnanraa will be maeled upaat ragvoctL newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice DATED this 3rd day C1 Jtdy Yot3. Glrf'Y CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Published: July 7, 2013. Summary of Ordinance No, 3931 Account Name: City of Edmonds a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: July 07, 2013 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during a]] of said period. princial Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day July, 2013 p H�Nl� c° NOTAAA Notary Public in and for the State of Washington re idine t E'rep@FLI�homis f County. YY6 2 17 201E �A6 OF WA5 Account Number: 101416 Order Number: 0001826092 Packet Page 81 of 488 contact with proponents or opponents of the project to ensure they could participate in the event the matter returned to the Council on a subsequent appeal. 8. ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.210 AND 23.40.320, TO REPEAL THE DEFINITION OF REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE AND REFERENCES THERETO. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained he was asked to prepare this ordinance. There are two versions of the ordinance, one in the packet and a version that was emailed to Councilmembers late this afternoon. The difference between the two is the version that was emailed is an emergency ordinance and takes effect immediately; the version in the packet is not an emergency ordinance although both are interim zoning ordinances. If the Council adopts the emergency version of the ordinance, it goes into effect tonight and prevents an application from being submitted tomorrow and thereafter that can utilize the current reasonable use exception, in particular the definition that has been determined to be outside the norm. If the Council wanted to allow for a small window of opportunity to allow property owners and applicants to submit applications under the current reasonable use exception, the Council would adopt the version of the ordinance in the packet. Council President Petso stated once discussion is finished, she is ready to move to adopt the emergency ordinance. At Councilmember Buckshnis' request, Mr. Taraday described how the emergency ordinance differs from the ordinance in the packet: • The title adds the language, "and declaring an emergency necessitating immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance." • In the third whereas clause, the word "urgent" is changed to "immediate." • A fourth whereas clause was added that reads, "WHEREAS, the city council has determined that the "reasonable economic use" regulations should be addressed and considered while the interim critical areas regulations below are in place, to prevent any property owners from submitting applications for development or re -development under the existing codes, which may not provide adequate protection to critical areas; and" • Section 4, Emergency Declaration was added. • Section 6, Effective Date, has been revised to state the ordinance takes effect immediately and to state approval requires a vote of a majority plus one. Councilmember Peterson expressed support for the interim zoning ordinance but was very uncomfortable with the emergency zoning ordinance, primarily because there was no mention of an emergency ordinance on the agenda. In fact, the Council did not receive the ordinance until late this afternoon. In the past the Council has been interested in properly notifying the public before taking certain votes. He recognized there were some emergency ordinances where notification would not be possible but did not think this ordinance was one of those. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what the emergency was. Mr. Taraday assured he was not placing a judgment on the Council's decision to adopt the ordinance in one form or the other. The reason he did not include the emergency ordinance in the packet was that would have defeated the purpose. The purpose of an emergency ordinance is to ensure applications do not vest prior to adoption of the new regulations. If the public is informed the Council is planning to adopt an emergency ordinance, it does not work. While he was not prejudging or placing a value judgment on the Council whether they should or should not adopt the emergency ordinance, it was done that way purposefully to give the Council the option of adopting the regulation without public notice. This is an exception to the general rule of having public notice; interim zoning ordinances and moratoriums are the two exceptions to the GMA where the Council can take immediate action. The reason that immediate action would be taken was to prevent Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 2, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 82 of 488 applications from vesting. He reiterated the emergency ordinance was presented in this manner by design, to preserve the ability of the Council to choose. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the reason for the urgency. Mr. Taraday answered if the Council wanted to make it impossible for property owners to submit applications after tonight that utilize the critical areas variance language that the Council found problematic, that was a reason to adopt the emergency ordinance. If the Council wants to make it difficult but "leave the window open a crack" the Council would not adopt the emergency ordinance. If the Council wanted to give property owners six months to use the current regulations, the Council did not need to adopt an interim zoning ordinance and could just refer it to the Planning Board for consideration. Councilmember Bloom expressed support for the emergency ordinance because she felt strongly the confusion generated by the phrase in the code has been damaging and problematic for many people. This needs to be addressed immediately and a public hearing held afterward. She did not want there to be any more situations where a property owner believed they could apply for something they should not be offered. Councilmember Peterson commented Mr. Taraday's explanation furthered his resolve. He commented it sounds shifty, doing it at the last minute so nobody knows. He was supportive of the interim zoning ordinance but not with adopting it in a sketchy way that was not transparent. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the Council could hold a public hearing. Mr. Taraday answered regardless of whether the ordinance was adopted as an emergency or not, interim zoning ordinances require a public hearing be held within 60 days of adoption. In the meantime, he expected the Council or staff would ask the Planning Board to consider a permanent ordinance. The interim zoning ordinance only lasts six months. Councilmember Johnson asked if there have been any circumstances that precipitated the emergency ordinance. Mr. Taraday responded he was asked to prepare an emergency version of the ordinance by certain Councilmembers. He provided both an emergency and non -emergency version to give the Council the option to choose between them. Completely independent and not precipitating his drafting of the ordinance, the City has received an application for a critical areas variance since the Council voted on the Hillman variance. As far as he knew, that was completely coincidental. Councilmember Johnson asked if that application would be vested. Mr. Taraday answered assuming the application is a complete application it likely would have vested to the current regulations. He noted that was the reason for an emergency ordinance, to prevent vesting. Councilmember Johnson asked if a determination had been made that the application was complete. Mr. Taraday answered a determination has not been made. Council President Petso assured this is not an attempt to be sneaky but the language in the current ordinance is a problem. Mr. Taraday responded it is certainly an outlier and creates additional potential loss and degradation of critical areas in that it appears to grant the ability for property owners to seek something to which they are not constitutionally entitled. It arguably goes further than the constitution requires and to avoid that, he recommended the City's code conform to a more normal critical areas ordinance that leaves determinations about reasonable economic use to be made on a case by case basis without presuming that a single family lot is entitled to have a single family home on it regardless of the critical areas that may be present. Council President Petso concluded adoption of the ordinance better protects critical areas. Mr. Taraday answered that was his opinion. Council President Petso commented adoption of the emergency ordinance Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 2, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 83 of 488 starts that protection tonight instead of when? Mr. Taraday answered instead of five days after publication. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Mr. Taraday's statements that the "for example" language in the reasonable economic definition in 23.40.320 changed the reasonable use definition. She referred to an email she received from Mr. Schroeder in which he suggests removing the "for example" language and retain the remainder of the definition. She noted the ordinance proposes completely removing that language. She asked what would happen to the current definition. Mr. Taraday answered this is what the Planning Board could consider, whether on a permanent basis there should be a definition. Many jurisdictions do not have a definition of reasonable economic use because reasonable economic use is a concept defined by state and federal constitutional law. In his opinion, those definitions were problematic. In many of the jurisdictions that have a definition of reasonable economic use, it simply states something like reasonable economic use is a use that is entitled by the Constitution of the United States. He concluded a reasonable economic use variance is necessarily a case by case legal analysis that is not subject to definition. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE. Councilmember Peterson stated he is 100% in favor of the change proposed in the ordinance. However, he is not in favor of behavior unbecoming of this Council. The Council must balance critical areas with open government. If the emergency ordinance had been included in the packet that is available on Friday, he doubted there would have been a flood of applications to get vested. By adopting the emergency ordinance the Council was sacrificing the importance of open governance and the importance of transparency. He noted at least a couple Councilmembers knew an emergency ordinance would be proposed but he and the public received the emergency ordinance at the last hour. It pained him to vote against the ordinance because he felt the interim zoning ordinance was appropriate. If the Council adopted the emergency ordinance, he felt the Council could forget about transparency. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked for clarification whether a public hearing was required if the Council adopted the emergency ordinance tonight. Mr. Taraday answered either way, whether the Council adopted the emergency version or the version in the packet, the GMA requires a public hearing be held within 60 days of adoption of an interim zoning ordinance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the difference between adopting the ordinance as an emergency ordinance and adopting it as an interim ordinance. Mr. Taraday explained the difference in the effective date is a 10 day period. City Clerk Sandy Chase explained she publishes ordinances on the Sunday following the Tuesday meeting and the ordinance is effective the following Friday (5 days after publication); a total of ten days. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not support pursuing the ordinance as an emergency rather than an interim and will vote against the motion. Councilmember Bloom indicated she would support the motion. She disagreed with Councilmember Peterson's argument about transparency. Although she would have liked to have had both ordinances presented at once, this discussion is about the transparency. There were no plans to have a public hearing in advance anyway. The difference is ten days, during that period of time, applications could vest which would create confusion and a very difficult situation such as occurred in the prior hearing. The clause in the code does not exist in other cities and the safeguard of 10 days is worth it. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to an email from Mr. Taraday dated June 27, 2013 in which he discusses the ordinance and offers to prepare an emergency version of the ordinance. She recognized the need for an emergency ordinance and would support the motion. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 2, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 84 of 488 Councilmember Yamamoto did not support the motion. He cited the importance of transparency and not doing things in a hurry. He feared this would set precedence for doing things spur of the moment. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A MAJORITY PLUS ONE; COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, BLOOM AND JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND PETERSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3931, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.210 AND 23.40.320, TO REPEAL THE DEFINITION OF REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE AND REFERENCES THERETO. Councilmember Peterson suggested the Planning Board review this in an expedited manner. Mr. Taraday answered the ordinance would be in effect for 180 days. During that period of time he recommended the Planning Board return to the Council with a recommendation regarding a permanent ordinance. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported approximately 240-250 people attended the Arts Summit. The event was very successful and included a speaker about the interconnection and importance of arts and business. Following several breakout sessions, the group provided direction that will be included in the Cultural Plan. He thanked staff for organizing and putting on the event. Mayor Earling encouraged the public to attend the Walk Back in Time at the Edmonds Cemetery at 1:00 p.m. on July 18. Mayor Earling wished everyone a happy 4`h of July. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Bloom reported she attended the Arts Summit and found it very enjoyable and productive. She thanked Mayor Earling for organizing the event, staff for their assistance and the donors for providing food and refreshments. Councilmember Yamamoto provided a reminder of the 4th of July 5K Fun Run/Walk. It starts at 10:00 a.m. at City Park and goes through Woodway and along the parade route. Councilmember Buckshnis reported she also attended the Arts Summit. She commended Mayor Earling and staff for their efforts. She wished everyone a happy 41h of July and encouraged everyone to keep their pets indoors on the 4th of July. Council President Petso referred to the alleged conspiracy regarding the ordinance. She did not have any contact with anyone on the Council or staff regarding the ordinance that was not an email that included everyone. She recalled Mr. Taraday asked the Council to get back to him because he recommended the change. A number of Councilmembers responded to her and she communicated that information to Mr. Taraday. Mr. Taraday then sent an email stating it could be done via an emergency ordinance and apparently that was not done until late afternoon today. That was when she first learned the emergency ordinance would be on the agenda. She supported the emergency ordinance as she felt it was a good idea Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 2, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 85 of 488 variety of directions as well as four pedestrian crosswalks. It is confusing and a great deal of negotiating occurs with cars starting, stopping and hesitating. That is avoided with a roundabout; a driver only has one place to look, just to their left to see if there is any traffic. There is also only one crosswalk for the driver to consider. What is happening on the other side of the roundabout is irrelevant and screening that view reduces confusion for the driver. Councilmember Johnson thanked Chris Rench for his design, Drawn to the Water — Connected to Community. She was impressed with his experience with design, fabrication and installation. This will be a very good installation of public art for Five Corners. Councilmember Peterson also thanked the artist and the members of the selection committee including Councilmember Johnson. Although members of the public have questioned the process, the selection committee's meeting was noticed. The committee is comprised of members of the community who are interested, knowledgeable and passionate about arts in the community. That is the process that can be expected in a representative democracy; not all 40,000 residents can make a decision on this or any issue other than during elections. He expressed his appreciation for the dedication of the Arts Commission, staff, the artist who was selected and the artists who were not selected. He was excited about bringing public art to other neighborhoods and felt this would be an iconic statement for the Five Corners neighborhood. Councilmember Bloom expressed support for the sculpture. She asked Ms. Chapin to explain the 1% for Arts program. Ms. Chapin explained in 1975 by ordinance the City Council established the 1% for Arts with the goal of accumulating funds that could be used to create artwork in the public realm. Artwork is not inexpensive; this is a modest budget for a large scale sculpture. Since 1975, 1% of capital construction projects funded by the City have been set aside in a special fund. Allocations from the fund are recommended by the Edmonds Arts Commission. To accumulate enough for a significant project takes many years because the 1% is not provided by projects funded primarily through grants. She noted the entirely grant funded International District project on Highway 99 included artist -made lanterns. Some years no funds are placed into the 1% for Arts Fund. Councilmember Bloom observed the 1% for Arts funds can only be used for public art. Ms. Chapin agreed, noting any expenditures must follow the well- defined process. Councilmember Bloom relayed suggestions she had heard that it would have been less expensive to plant trees or construct a rain garden in the roundabout. Mr. Williams answered trees could have been planted in the roundabout. There was a desire to put something more iconic and related to Five Corners. With regard to a rain garden, he explained it would have been very difficult to direct much of the stormwater runoff within the project limits to the center of the intersection due to the limited grade. In addition, there is a great deal of infrastructure under the intersection and a rain garden requires excavation of a depression. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Ms. Chapin for bringing this lovely sculpture to the City and thanked the artist for proposing such a beautiful piece of art. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. PUBLIC HEARING AS REQUIRED BY RCW 36.70A.390 ON INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 3931 WHICH AMENDED THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.210 AND 23.40.320, TO REPEAL THE DEFINITION OF REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE AND REFERENCES THERETO. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave explained this is a required public hearing following adoption of the interim zoning ordinance. The interim ordinance was adopted by the Council in early July Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 86 of 488 to correct what the City Attorney and staff felt were problems with the critical areas ordinance with regard to reasonable use exceptions. The ordinance removes a definition that partially removed some of the discretion that the City would otherwise have in reviewing and approving reasonable use exceptions. The Planning Board will be reviewing the issue; they had intended to discuss it tomorrow but due to the City Attorney's absence, it will be delayed until September. A recommendation will be provided to the Council before the interim ordinance expires. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Jordan Shank commented that basing the definition of reasonable economic use on state and federal case law, variances now require input from the City Attorney. He asked whether applicants are now required to have legal representation or legal resources to investigate case law prior to a submittal. Citing the success in Seattle, Redmond, Kirkland and King County, he asked how this implementation affected City resources or the general timeframe for approval of a variance. Steve Schroeder, Edmonds, said he appeared before the Council in opposition to a variance granted by the Hearing Examiner that would have allowed construction of a house on a wetland and its buffers. During that proceeding, it became apparent to the City Council's attorney and the City Attorney that the ordinance was flawed. The ordinance includes an example regarding what constituted a reasonable economic use. Taken literally by staff and the Hearing Examiner, it resulted in a drastic change in takings law in Edmonds, taking it out of step with surrounding communities, state and federal law. He urged the enactment of the amendment which will put citizens of Edmonds back on par with other state residents with regard to reasonable use of property and not tie the hands of staff and the Hearing Examiner. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented he attended the meeting that Mr. Schroeder referred to. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented Edmonds has more critical areas than most cities due to the topography. He was not aware that the City could prevent a property owner from building on their land; it was his understanding that an access must be provided and some reasonable use must be allowed. He suggested creating criteria and definitions in order to prevent a taking. He questioned whether a property owner could be prevented from building anything on their property. Lynn Hillman, Edmonds, commented she and her husband were disturbed by the City Council's hasty adoption of an ordinance that suddenly changed a portion of the critical areas code without any environmental emergency. The existing critical areas code has been in place many years; a code that was written and adopted via a carefully considered process, not in a sudden and reactionary manner. The goals of critical areas regulations under the State GMA include balancing environmental preservation with urban growth encouragement and protection of individual property rights. A variance process in the code provides for this in cases where strict interpretation denies reasonable economic use which would otherwise leave the City open to an unlawful taking of private property without compensation in violation of state and federal constitutions. Removing definitions such as reasonable use make the code less clear. More definitive code language helps citizens and staff determine whether a proposal meets City code. Other local jurisdictions have reasonable use provisions that are more definitive and specific than Edmonds'; she provided written materials containing excerpts from King County, Kirkland, Mukilteo and Lake Forest Park's critical area regulations. She requested the City Council and Planning Board consider adding similar, more precise provisions to the Edmonds code during its next regular code update cycle such as a limit on allowed site disturbance, a square foot limit on a house in a critical area, or other similarly restrictive by clear language. She recommended the interim ordinance be either rescinded or repealed until a fully thought out, more carefully drafted critical area code was presented for review Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 87 of 488 Mr. Chave thanked Ms. Hillman for the material she provided and assured he would forward it to the City Attorney. In response to Mr. Shank's comment, Mr. Chave explained the interim ordinance removes the definition that the City Attorney felt conflicted with case law. He noted decisions on variances and exceptions must be made carefully because they are considered on a case -by -case basis. Broadening rules to the extent they conflict with case law unnecessarily handcuffs the City in doing its due diligence review. The interim ordinance did not impose new requirements on applicants; it does not require an applicant to have an attorney. The comments regarding standards will be considered by the Planning Board during its review. Council President Petso explained no action was required; this was a required public hearing. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the definition of reasonable economic use was determined to be incorrect due to the example. Mr. Chave agreed, explaining it could not always be assumed a single family house on a lot was a reasonable use. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled attorney Carol Morris' example of a property that was underwater. Mr. Chave pointed out a property's assessment may also be part of determining reasonable use; for example a lot that seems to be buildable but if it is assessed at $1000, clearly the assessor does not feel it is buildable. 9. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR INTER -JURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION RELATING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHIN SNOHOMISH COUNTY. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave advised this was forwarded to full Council by the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee with a recommendation for approval. Edmonds entered into a memorandum of understanding with several other cities in 2011 to pursue an agreement. The Interlocal Cooperation Agreement establishes a multi jurisdiction workgroup in Snohomish County. The workgroup obtained a $50,000 Gates Foundation grant for the first year, reducing the cost for the City's participation in the first year to $2,385. The intent of pooling resources is to provide assistance to each city. More importantly the agreement provides for a coalition that can leverage grants to move affordable housing forward. If the Council agrees, the recommended action is to, 1) authorize the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement and 2) authorize the related expenditure of $2,385 from the Council Contingency Fund. Council President Petso clarified taking this action did not necessarily obligate the City to participate in anything the organization develops. Mr. Chave responded the organization, comprised of participant cities, Snohomish County and the Housing Authority of Snohomish County, is not a regulatory body. The intent is to leverage funds and technical expertise. He referred to ARCH (A Regional Housing Coalition) in King County as a successful example. This is a voluntary participatory agency; any jurisdiction can withdraw with 90 days' notice. Councilmember Buckshnis read from ARCH's website, ARCH assists member governments in developing housing policies, strategies, programs and development regulations and coordinates with the city's financial support for groups in creating affordable housing for low to moderate income housing. Mr. Chave advised the amount of $2,385 is money well spent to obtain expertise regarding affordable housing. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE RELATED EXPENDITURE OF $2,385 FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 88 of 488 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NUMBER 3931 TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.210 AND 23.40.320, TO REPEAL THE DEFINITION OF REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE AND REFERENCES THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds may adopt an interim zoning ordinance for a period of up to six months pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, provided that the City Council holds a public hearing on the interim ordinance within sixty days of adoption; and WHEREAS, the City Council must adopt findings of fact justifying its action either before or immediately following the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3931 on July 2, 2013; and WHEREAS, a public hearing regarding Ordinance 3931 was held at the City Council meeting on August 27, 2013; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The recitals contained in the Whereas clauses of Ordinance 3931 are hereby adopted by this reference as the findings of fact required by RCW 36.70A.390. RESOLVED this day of September, 2013. APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING Packet Page 89 of 488 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Page 90 of 488 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2012, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ECC 8.48 TO REVISE THE "MOVING VEHICLE TO AVOID LIMIT" AND "PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES" PROVISIONS OF THAT CODE SECTION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 52012. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 91 of 488 AM-6093 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 09/10/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Department: City Clerk's Office Committee: Submitted By: Sandy Chase Tyne: Action Information 3. D. Subject Title Resolution approving Findings of Fact regarding the September 3, 2013 Public Hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3935. Recommendation Adoption of the Resolution. Previous Council Action Interim Ordinance No. 3935 was adopted by the City Council on August 6, 2013. A Public Hearing was held on the Interim Ordinance on September 3, 2013. In addition, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3940 on August 20, 2013 that repealed Ordinance No. 3935; however, Ordinance 3940 was vetoed by Mayor Earling. The veto was reconsidered on September 3, 2013, and no action taken. Narrative The City Attorney prepared the attached Resolution approving Findings of Fact for the City Council's consideration. A Resolution approving findings is required by RCW 36.70A.390. Attachments Exhibit 1 - Ordinance No. 3935 Exhibit 2 - 08-06-13 City Council Minutes (,Excerpt) Exhibit 3 - 08-20-13 City Council Minutes (Excerptl Exhibit 4 - 09-03-13 Draft City Council Minutes (,Excerpt) Exhibit 5 - Resolution Adoptin Fe indin sg_(Ordinance No. 3935) Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 09/06/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 09/05/2013 08:01 PM Sandy Chase 09/06/2013 09:40 AM Started On: 09/05/2013 02:17 PM Packet Page 92 of 488 ORDINANCE NO.3935 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040, AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA. WHEREAS, the City's critical areas ordinance (CAO) was developed based on `best available science' (BAS); and WHEREAS, the BAS assessment concluded that because the city was mostly developed, the main route to improving critical areas and their buffers was to require buffer enhancement in exchange for allowing development and redevelopment to occur within the footprint of already -developed areas; and and WHEREAS, it was intended that this approach would be reflected in the City's adopted CAO; WHEREAS, the relationship of an allowed activity to the "footprint of development" was directly related to the BAS discussion noted above, but the language also includes the phrase "existing structures" which conflicts with the general concept of connecting allowable development activity to the "footprint of development;" and and WHEREAS, this has had unfortunate consequences which are counter to the intent of the BAS; WHEREAS, two recent development proposals have raised awareness of the unintended limitations of the current code; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds may adopt an interim zoning ordinance for a period of up to six months pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, provided that the City Council holds a public hearing on the interim ordinance within sixty days of adoption; NOW, THEREFORE, Packet Page 93 of 488 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 23.40.220 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Allowed activites," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfike through). Section 2. Section 23.40.320 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Definitions pertaining to critical areas," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strive *t,,.o Section 3. Section 23.50.020 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Allowed activities — Wetlands," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfike through). Section 4. Section 23.50.040 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Development standards — Wetlands," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in st-Fike tbr^ti�'') Section 5. Section 23.90.040 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Development standards — specific habitats," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfike +h,.o .i.) Section 6. Sunset. This ordinance shall remain in effect for 180 days from the effective date, after which point it shall have no further effect. Packet Page 94 of 488 Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 8. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. rr MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED : CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADA FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 08-02-2013 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 08-06-2013 PUBLISHED: 08-11-2013 EFFECTIVE DATE: 08-16-2013 ORDINANCE NO. 3935 Packet Page 95 of 488 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3935 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 6th day of August, 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3935. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040, AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 7th day of August, 2013. 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 4 CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 96 of 488 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 23.40.220 Allowed activities. A. Critical Area Report. Activities allowed under this title shall have been reviewed and permitted or approved by the city of Edmonds or other agency with jurisdiction, but do not require submittal of a critical area report, unless such submittal was required previously for the underlying permit. The director may apply conditions to the underlying permit or approval to ensure that the allowed activity is consistent with the provisions of this title to protect critical areas. B. Required Use of Best Management Practices. All allowed activities shall be conducted using the best management practices that result in the least amount of impact to the critical areas. Best management practices shall be used for tree and vegetation protection, construction management, erosion and sedimentation control, water quality protection, and regulation of chemical applications. The city may observe or require independent inspection of the use of best management practices to ensure that the activity does not result in degradation to the critical area. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party's expense. C. Allowed Activities. The following activities are allowed: 1. Permit Requests Subsequent to Previous Critical Areas Review. Development permits and approvals that involve both discretionary land use approvals (such as subdivisions, rezones, or conditional use permits) and construction approvals (such as building permits) if all of the following conditions have been met: a. The provisions of this title have been previously addressed as part of another approval; b. There have been no material changes in the potential impact to the critical area or buffer since the prior review; c. The permit or approval has not expired or, if no expiration date, no more than five years have elapsed since the issuance of that permit or approval; and d. Compliance with any standards or conditions placed upon the prior permit or approval has been achieved or secured; 2. Modification to Structures Existing Outside of Critical Areas and/or Buffers. Structural modification of, addition to, or replacement of a legally constructed structure existing outside of a critical area or its buffer that does not further alter or increase the impact to the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed modification or replacement; 3 Permitted n lterGtien to ctFucture Development proposals within footprint of development Existing Within Critical Areas and/or Buffers. PeF itted alteration Development proposals to a legally constructedstructure existing within a critical area er- buffer- in the footprint of dey"nnent within critical areas and /or buffers may be allowed as long as the proposed development; a. does not increase the footprint of development beyond the legally established footprint; a-r b. does not increase the impact to the critical area and or buffer; and there is Hoor c. does not increase the total impervious surface are F the site d, does not increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed modific tion er- replacement development proposal: and f Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 97 of 488 I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 e. itzcludes measures to enhance the critical area and/or buffer in a way that improves its function and value. (ads Additions or expansions to legally constructed structures existing within a critical area and or buffer that do increase the existin-g-legally established footprint of development shall be subject to and permitted in accordance with the development standards of the associated critical area type (see, era.. ECDC 23.50.040 and 23.90.040)). This provi subsection C.3 shall be interpreted to supplement the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code relating to nonconforming structures in order to permit the full reconstruction and or redevelopment of a legal nonconforming building structure within its footprint; 4. Activities Within the Improved Right -of -Way. Replacement, modification, installation, or construction of utility facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment, or appurtenances, when such facilities are located within the improved portion of the public right-of-way or a city -authorized private roadway; S. Minor Utility Projects. Utility projects that have minor or short -duration impacts to critical areas, as determined by the director in accordance with the criteria below, and which do not significantly impact the function or values of a critical area(s); provided, that such projects are constructed with best management practices and additional restoration measures are provided. Minor activities shall not result in the transport of sediment or increased storm water. Such allowed minor utility projects shall meet the following criteria: a. There is no practical alternative to the proposed activity with less impact on critical areas; b. The activity involves the placement of utility pole(s), street sign(s), anchor(s), or vault(s) or other small component(s) of a utility facility; and c. The activity involves disturbance of an area less than 75 square feet; 6. Public and Private Pedestrian Trails. New public and private pedestrian trails subject to the following: a. The trail surface shall meet all other requirements, including water quality standards set forth in the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19; b. Critical area and/or buffer widths shall be increased, where possible, equal to the width of the trail corridor, including disturbed areas; and c. Trails proposed to be located in landslide or erosion hazard areas shall be constructed in a manner that does not increase the risk of landslide or erosion and in accordance with an approved geotechnical report; 7. Select Vegetation Removal Activities. The following vegetation removal activities: a. The removal of the following vegetation with hand labor and light equipment: i. Invasive and noxious weeds; ii. English ivy (Hedera helix); iii. Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, R. procerus); iv. Evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus); v. Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius); and vi. Hedge and field bindweed (Convolvulus sepium and C. arvensis); Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 98 of 488 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 b. The removal of trees from critical areas and buffers that are hazardous, posing a threat to public safety, or posing an imminent risk of damage to private property; provided, that: i. The applicant submits a report from an ISA- or ASCA-certified arborist or registered landscape architect that documents the hazard and provides a replanting schedule for the replacement trees; ii. Tree cutting shall be limited to pruning and crown thinning, unless otherwise justified by a qualified professional. Where pruning or crown thinning is not sufficient to address the hazard, trees should be removed or converted to wildlife snags; iii. All vegetation cut (tree stems, branches, etc.) shall be left within the critical area or buffer unless removal is warranted due to the potential for disease or pest transmittal to other healthy vegetation or unless removal is warranted to improve slope stability; iv. The land owner shall replace any trees that are removed with new trees at a ratio of two replacement trees for each tree removed (two to one) within one year in accordance with an approved restoration plan. Replacement trees may be planted at a different, nearby location if it can be determined that planting in the same location would create a new hazard or potentially damage the critical area. Replacement trees shall be species that are native and indigenous to the site and a minimum of one inch in diameter at breast height (dbh) for deciduous trees and a minimum of six feet in height for evergreen trees as measured from the top of the root ball; v. If a tree to be removed provides critical habitat, such as an eagle perch, a qualified wildlife biologist shall be consulted to determine timing and methods of removal that will minimize impacts; and vi. Hazard trees determined to pose an imminent threat or danger to public health or safety, to public or private property, or of serious environmental degradation may be removed or pruned by the land owner prior to receiving written approval from the city; provided, that within 14 days following such action, the land owner shall submit a restoration plan that demonstrates compliance with the provisions of this title; c. Measures to control a fire or halt the spread of disease or damaging insects consistent with the State Forest Practices Act, Chapter 76.09 RCW; provided, that the removed vegetation shall be replaced in kind or with similar native species within one year in accordance with an approved restoration plan; and d. Unless otherwise provided, or as a necessary part of an approved alteration, removal of any vegetation or woody debris from a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or wetland shall be prohibited; 8. Minor Site Investigative Work. Work necessary for land use submittals, such as surveys, soil logs, percolation tests, and other related activities, where such activities do not require construction of new roads or significant amounts of excavation. In every case, impacts to the critical area shall be minimized and disturbed areas shall be immediately restored; and 9. Navigational Aids and Boundary Markers. Construction or modification of navigational aids and boundary markers. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 20 1 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 99 of 488 I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 23.40.320 Definitions pertaining to critical areas. For the purposes of this chapter and the chapters on the five specific critical area types (Chapters 23.50. 23.60, 23.70.23.80 and 23.90 ECDC) the following definitions shall apply: "Adjacent" means those areas located within 200 feet of a development proposal or subject parcel and those areas located within 800 feet of a documented bald eagle nest. "Alteration" means any human -induced action which changes the existing condition of a critical area or its buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading; filling; dredging; draining; channelizing; cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; discharging pollutants; paving, construction, application of gravel; modifying for surface water management purposes; or any other human activity that changes the existing landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat value of critical areas. "Best management practices" means a system of practices and management measures that: 1. Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal waste, and toxics; 2. Control the movement of sediment and erosion caused by land alteration activities; 3. Minimize adverse impacts to surface and ground water quality, flow, and circulation patterns; and 4. Minimize adverse impacts to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of critical areas. "Buffer" means the designated area immediately next to and a part of a steep slope or landslide hazard area and which protects slope stability, attenuation of surface water flows and landslide hazards reasonably necessary to minimize risks to persons or property; or a designated area immediately next to and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem. "Chapter" means those sections of this title sharing the same third and fourth digits. "City" means the city of Edmonds. "Class" or "wetland class" means descriptive categories of wetland vegetation communities within the wetlands taxonomic classification system of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin, et al., 1979). "Clearing" means the act of cutting and/or removing vegetation. This definition shall include grubbing vegetation and the use or application of herbicide. "Compensation project" means an action(s) specifically designed to replace project - induced critical area or buffer losses. Compensation project design elements may include, but are not limited to: land acquisition procedures and detailed plans including functional value assessments, detailed landscaping designs, construction drawings, and monitoring and contingency plans. "Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project -induced losses or impacts to a critical area, and includes, but is not limited to, the following: Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 100 of 488 I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 1. "Restoration" means actions performed to reestablish wetland functional characteristics and processes that have been lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area that no longer meets the definition of a wetland. 2. "Creation" means actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland at a site where it did not formerly exist. 3. "Enhancement" means actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded wetlands so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality. 4. "Preservation" means actions taken to ensure the permanent protection of existing high -quality wetlands. "Creation" means a compensation project performed to intentionally establish a wetland or stream at a site where one did not formerly exist. "Critical areas" for the city of Edmonds means wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as defined in Chapters 23.50. 23.60. 23.70. 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC, respectively. "Development proposal" means any activity relating to the use and/or development of land requiring a permit or approval from the city, including, but not limited to: commercial or residential building permit; binding site plan; conditional use permit; franchise; right-of-way permit; grading and clearing permit; mixed use approval; planned residential development; shoreline conditional use permit; shoreline substantial development permit; shoreline variance; short subdivision; special use permit; subdivision; flood hazard permit; unclassified use permit; utility and other use permit; variance; rezone; or any required permit or approval not expressly exempted by this title. "Director" means the city of Edmonds development services director or his/her designee. "Division" means the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services department. "Enhancement" means an action taken to improve the condition and function of a critical area. In the case of wetland or stream, the term includes a compensation project performed to improve the conditions of an existing degraded wetland or stream to increase its functional value. "Erosion" means the process in which soil particles are mobilized and transported by natural agents such as wind, rain, frost action, or stream flow. Erosion Hazard Areas. See ECDC 23.80.020(A). Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. See Chapter 23.90 ECDC. "Floodplain" means the total area subject to inundation by a "100-year flood." "One - hundred -year flood" means a flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Frequently Flooded Areas. See Chapter 23.70 ECDC. "Footprint of development" means thQ area of a site that contains legally establishd impervious surfaces. "Functions" means the roles served by critical areas including, but not limited to: water quality protection and enhancement; fish and wildlife habitat; food chain support; flood storage, conveyance and attenuation; ground water recharge and 1 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 101 of 488 I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 discharge; erosion control; wave attenuation; aesthetic value protection; and recreation. These roles are not listed in order of priority. Geologically Hazardous Areas. See Chapter 23.80 ECDC. "Geologist" means a person licensed as a geologist, engineering geologist, or hydrologist in the state of Washington who has earned a degree in geology from an accredited college or university and has at least five years of experience as a practicing geologist or four years of experience and at least two years of postgraduate study, research or teaching. The practical experience shall include at least three years of work in applied geology and landslide evaluation in close association with qualified, practicing geologists and geotechnical/civil engineers. "Geotechnical engineer" means a practicing geotechnical/civil engineer licensed as a professional civil engineer in the state of Washington who has at least four years of professional employment as a geotechnical engineer in responsible charge including experience with landslide evaluation. "Grading" means any one or a combination of excavating, filling, or disturbance of that portion of the soil profile which contains decaying organic matter. "Habitats of local importance" include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. These might include areas of high relative density or species richness, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors. These might also include habitats that are of limited availability or high vulnerability to alteration, such as cliffs, shorelines, coastal beaches, mudflats, eel -grass beds, and wetlands. [See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(4).] "Impervious surface" means a hard surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of -ter in o the it mantle as it occurs nd natural conditions prigr to developmentlting in storm water runoff from thg surf ce in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow compared to storm water runoff characteristics under natural conditions prior to development. Common impervious surfaces include (but are not limited o) roofto ps.walkwa atios driveways, arkin g to ts or sto rage areas. ❑utdoor swimming pools, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads packed earthen materials, and oiled macadam or other surfaces that similarly impedes natural infiltration of storm water. Landslide Hazard Areas. [See ECDC 23.80.020(B).] "Mitigation" means the use of any or all of the following actions, which are listed in descending order of preference: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps such as project redesign, relocation, or timing to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; 4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineered or other methods; Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 102 of 488 Attachment A to Ord. 5. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and 7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. "Native vegetation" means vegetation comprised of plant species which are indigenous to the Puget Sound region and which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. "Native vegetation" does not include noxious weeds as defined by the state of Washington or federal agencies. "Noxious weeds" means any plant which, when established, is highly destructive, competitive or difficult to control by cultural or chemical practices, as further listed in Chapter 16-750 WAC. "Planning staff' means those employed in the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services department. "Qualified critical areas consultant" or "qualified professional" means a person who has the qualifications specified below to conduct critical areas studies pursuant to this title, and to make recommendations for critical areas mitigation. For areas of potential geologic instability, the qualified critical areas consultant shall be a geologist or geotechnical engineer. For wetlands and streams, the qualified critical areas consultant shall be a specialist in botany, fisheries, wetland biology, and/or hydrology with a minimum of two years' field experience with wetlands and/or streams in the Pacific Northwest. Requirements defining a qualified critical areas consultant or qualified professional are contained within the chapter on each critical area type. "Redeveloped land(s)" means those lands on which existing structures are demolished in their entirety to allow for new development. The director shall maintain discretion to determine if the demolition of a majority of existing structures or portions thereof constitute the re -development of a property or subject parcel. "Restoration" means the actions necessary to return a stream, wetland or other critical area to a state in which its stability, functions and values approach its unaltered state as closely as possible. Seismic Hazard Areas. [See ECDC 23.80.020(C).] "Species of local importance" means those species that are of local concern due to their population status, their sensitivity to habitat manipulation, or that are game (hunted) species. [See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(4).] "Storm Water Management Manual" means the Storm Water Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin by the Washington State Department of Ecology (as included in Chapter 18.30 ECDC). "Streams" means any area where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed which demonstrates clear evidence, such as the sorting of sediments, of the passage of water. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices (drainage ditches) or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 103 of 488 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 salmonids or used to convey streams naturally occurring prior to construction of such watercourse. Streams are further classified into Categories S, F, Np and Ns and fishbearing or nonfishbearing 1, 2 and 3. [See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(1).] "Title" means all chapters of the City of Edmonds Development Code beginning with the digits 23. "Undeveloped land(s)" means land(s) on which manmade structures or land modifications (clearing, grading, etc.) do not exist. The director retains discretion to identify undeveloped land(s) in those instances where historical modifications and structures may have existed on a property or subject parcel in the past. "Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. However, wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands if permitted by the city (WAC 365-190-030(22)). Wetlands are further classified into Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4. [See ECDC 23.50.010(B).] "Wetland functions" means those natural processes performed by wetlands, such as facilitating food chain production; providing habitat for nesting, rearing and resting sites for aquatic, terrestrial or avian species; maintaining the availability and quality of water; acting as recharge and/or discharge areas for ground water aquifers; and moderating surface water and storm water flows. Ord. 35227 § 20 23.50.020 Allowed activities - Wetlands. The activities listed below are allowed in wetlands in addition to those activities listed in, and consistent with, the provisions established in ECDC 23.40.220, and do not require submission of a critical areas report, except where such activities result in a loss to the functions and values of a wetland or wetland buffer. These activities include: A. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and other wildlife that does not entail changing the structure or functions of the existing wetland. B. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water sources. C. Drilling for utilities under a wetland; provided, that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column could be disturbed. chment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 104 of 488 I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 D. Enhancement of a wetland through the removal of nonnative invasive species. Weeding shall be restricted to hand removal and weed material shall be removed from the site. Bare areas that remain after weed removal shall be revegetated with native shrubs and trees at natural densities. Some hand seeding may also be done over the bare areas with native herbs. E. Per-mitted alteration to n legally eenstr-ueted structure exi tiRg Development proposals in the footprint of development within a wetland and or wetland buffer may be allowed as long as the proposed alteration: a. that -does not increase the footprint of development beyond the legally established footprint: b. does increase the impact to a wetland and or wetland buffer1 c. does not increase the total impervious surface area of the site: d. does not increase the risk to life or pi=opei:ty as a result of the proposed i❑ replacement or redevelopment: and e. includes measures to enhance the wetland and or we land buffer in a way that improves its function and value. 23.50.040 Development standards - Wetlands. A. Activities may only be permitted in a wetland buffer if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not degrade the functions and functional performance of the wetland and other critical areas. B. Activities and uses shall be prohibited in wetlands and wetland buffers, except as provided for in this title. C. Category 1 Wetlands. Activities and uses shall be prohibited from Category 1 wetlands, except as provided for in the public agency and utility exception, reasonable use exception, and variance sections of this title. D. Category 2 Wetlands. With respect to activities proposed in Category 2 wetlands, the following standards shall apply: 1. Water -dependent activities may be allowed where there are no practicable alternatives that would have a less adverse impact on the wetland, its buffers and other critical areas. 2. Where non -water -dependent activities are proposed, it shall be presumed that alternative locations are available, and activities and uses shall be prohibited, unless the applicant demonstrates that: a. The basic project purpose cannot be accomplished as proposed and successfully avoid, or result in less adverse impact on, a wetland on another site or sites in the general region; and b. All alternative designs of the project as proposed, such as a reduction in the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project, would not avoid or result in less of an adverse impact on a wetland or its buffer. 1 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 105 of 488 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 E. Category 3 and 4 Wetlands. Activities and uses that result in unavoidable and necessary impacts may be permitted in Category 3 and 4 wetlands and associated buffers in accordance with an approved critical areas report and mitigation plan. F. Wetland Buffers. 1. Standard Buffer Widths. The standard buffer widths presume the existence of a relatively intact native vegetation community in the buffer zone adequate to protect the wetland functions and values at the time of the proposed activity. If the vegetation is inadequate, then, at the discretion of the director, the buffer width may be increased or an applicant may be required to develop and implement a wetland buffer enhancement plan to maintain the standard width (see subsection (F) (3) of this section). Required standard wetland buffers, based on wetland category, are as follows: a. Category 1: 200 feet; b. Category 2: 100 feet; c. Category 3: 50 feet; d. Category 4: 35 feet. 2. Increased Wetland Buffer Widths. The director shall require increased buffer widths in accordance with the recommendations of an experienced, qualified professional wetland scientist and the best available science on a case -by -case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site -specific characteristics. This determination shall be based on one or more of the following criteria: a. A larger buffer is needed to protect other critical areas; b. The buffer or adjacent uplands has a slope greater than 15 percent or is susceptible to erosion and standard erosion control measures will not prevent adverse impacts to the wetland; or c. The buffer area has minimal vegetative cover. In lieu of increasing the buffer width where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the wetland functions and values, development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan in accordance with subsection (F) (3) of this section may substitute. 3. Buffer Width Reductions Through Buffer Enhancement. At the discretion of the Edmonds development services director, wetland buffer width reductions (or approval of standard buffer widths for wetlands where existing buffer conditions require increased buffer widths) may be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan for Category 3 and 4 wetlands only. Approval of a wetland buffer enhancement plan shall, at the discretion of the director, allow for wetland buffer width reductions to no less than 50 percent of the standard width; provided, that: a. The plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will be increased or retained through plan implementation to at least the level provided by a standard buffer or through additional mitigation; b. The plan documents existing native plant densities and provides for increases in buffer native plant densities to no less than three feet on center for shrubs and eight feet on center for trees; i Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 106 of 488 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 c. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success in accordance with ECDC 23.40.130(D); and d. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance standards for assessing increases in wetland buffer functioning as related to: i. Water quality protection; ii. Provision of wildlife habitat; iii. Maintenance of wetland hydrology; and iv. Restricting wetland intrusion and disturbance. 4. Wetland Buffer Width Averaging. The director may allow modification of a standard or reduced wetland buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the best available science on a case -by -case basis by averaging buffer widths. Only those portions of a wetland buffer existing within the project area or subject parcel shall be considered the total standard or reduced buffer for buffer averaging. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional wetland scientist demonstrates that: a. It will not reduce the function and value of wetlands or associated buffers; b. The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics or the character of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation, and the wetland would benefit from a wider buffer in places and would not be adversely impacted by a narrower buffer in other places; c. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for wetlands extending off -site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within a standard or reduced buffer; and d. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced to less than 50 percent of the standard or reduced buffer width. 5. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. The buffer for a wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland. 6. Buffer Consistency. All mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this chapter. 7. Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this title, wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. Removal of invasive nonnative weeds is required for the duration of the mitigation bond. 8. Buffer Uses. The following uses may be permitted within a wetland buffer in accordance with the review procedures of this title; provided, they are not prohibited by any other applicable law and they are conducted in a manner so as to minimize impacts to the buffer and adjacent wetland: a. Conservation and Restoration Activities. Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife. b. Passive Recreation. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved critical area report, including: i. Walkways and trails; provided, that those pathways are generally constructed with a surface that does not interfere with substrate permeability. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable; Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 107 of 488 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 ii. Wildlife viewing structures; and iii. Fishing access areas down to the water's edge that shall be no larger than six feet. c. Storm Water Management Facilities. Storm water management facilities, limited to outfalls, pipes and conveyance systems, storm water dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within the outer 25 percent of a standard or modified buffer for Category 3 or 4 wetlands only; provided, that: i. No other location is feasible; and ii. The location and function of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the wetland. Storm water management facilities are not allowed in buffers of Category 1 or 2 wetlands. G. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands. 1. Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the wetland or buffer and the limits of those areas to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur and is subject to inspection by the director prior to the commencement of permitted activities. The director may require the use of fencing to protect wetlands from disturbance and intrusion. Temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place. 2. Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter, the director may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer. a. Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel -coated metal face and attached to a metal post or another nontreated material of equal durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 50 feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the director: Protected Wetland Area Do Not Disturb Contact the City of Edmonds Regarding Uses and Restrictions b. The provisions of subsection (G) (2) (a) of this section maybe modified as necessary to assure protection of sensitive features or wildlife. H. Additions to Structures Existing Within Wetlands and/or Wetland Buffers. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing shall be permitted consistent with the development standards of this section. Provisions for standard wetland buffers, buffer reductions through enhancement, and wetland buffer averaging require applicants to locate such additions in accordance with the following sequencing: 1. Outside of the standard wetland buffer; 2. Outside of a wetland buffer reduced through enhancement per subsection (17)(3) of this section; 3.Outside of a wetland buffer reduced through buffer averaging per subsection (F) (4) of this section; or Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 108 of 488 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 4. Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard wetland buffer width through the use of both buffer reduction and buffer averagingL 5. Within buffer areas that: a. are physically separated from the associated wetland due to public roads,legally established structures, or similar circumstances; b. are functionally isolated from the associated wetland: and c. as a result of a and b, above, do not serve to protect the wetland from adverse impacts of development. A critical area report prepared by a qualified professional is required to determine whether subsections a and b are satisfied. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that cannot be accommodated in accordance with the above sequencing (i.e., additions proposed within a wetland or the inner 25 percent of a standard buffer width) may be permitted at the director's discretion as a variance subject to review by the city hearing examiner and the provisions of ECDC 23.40.210. I. Exemptions. The director may allow isolated Category 3 or 4 wetlands under 500 square feet in area to be exempt from the provisions of this title. A wetland exemption shall only be granted if a submitted critical areas report, in the form of a critical areas reconnaissance or delineation, provides evidence that all of the following conditions are met: 1. The wetland is under 500 square feet in area; 2. The wetland is a low -quality Category 3 or 4 wetland; 3. The wetland does not provide significant habitat value for wildlife; and 4. Filling of the wetland can maintain equivalent or greater habitat functions and values over existing site conditions. j. Enhancement of Wetlands and Wetland Buffers. Where this chapter allows development within a w tland ❑r wetland buffer. the director sIiall eon ditinn proposals for development by requiring enhancement measures consistent with ECDC 23.40.050 and the purposes and objectives of this title. Conditions of develo p ment approval shall be req ui red to enhance wetland and or w tland buffers in accordance with best available science and the recommendations of_an_approved critical areas report and may include without limitation: a. Planting of native vegetation: b. Removal and control of nonnative, invasive weed species; c. Requiring additional building setbacks or modified buffers: and d. Limiting or reducing the types or densities of r icular uses. In all instances where an applicant cannot demonstrate that standard wetland buffer widths of this section can accommodated b thepro-posed development. the a li ant hall be req uired to submit a wetland buffer enhancement V Ian or a wetland mitigation and buffer enhancement plan as part of a critical areas report. The 1)] an must demonstrate that p os t- p m iec site conditions will provide eq ulyg lent or greater protection of wetland Functions and wildlife habitat when compared to standard wetland buffer and existing site conditionsrd. -3527 § 2, 20 23.90.040 Development standards - Specific habitats. A. Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species. I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 109 of 488 ' Attachment A to Ord. 3935 1. No development shall be allowed within a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, except that which is provided for by a management plan established by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife or applicable state or federal agency. 2. Whenever activities are proposed adjacent to a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, such area shall be protected through the application of protection measures in accordance with a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the director. Approval for alteration of land adjacent to the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or its buffer shall not occur prior to consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for animal species, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources for plant species, and other appropriate federal or state agencies. 3. Bald eagle habitat shall be protected pursuant to the Washington State bald eagle protection rules (WAC 232-12-292). Whenever activities are proposed within 800 feet of a verified nest territory or communal roost, a habitat management plan shall be developed by a qualified professional. The director shall verify the location of eagle management areas for each proposed activity. Approval of the activity shall not occur prior to approval of the habitat management plan by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. B. Anadromous Fish. 1. All activities, uses, and alterations proposed to be located in water bodies used by anadromous fish or in areas that affect such water bodies shall give special consideration to the preservation and enhancement of anadromous fish habitat, including, but not limited to, adhering to the following standards: a. Activities shall be timed to occur only during the allowable work window as designated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for the applicable species; b. An alternative alignment or location for the activity is not feasible; c. The activity is designed so that it will not degrade the functions or values of the fish habitat or other critical areas; d. Shoreline erosion control measures shall be designed to use bioengineering methods or soft armoring techniques, according to an approved critical areas report; and e. Any impacts to the functions or values of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area are mitigated in accordance with an approved critical areas report. 2. Structures that prevent the migration of salmonids shall not be allowed in the portion of water bodies currently or historically used by anadromous fish. Fish bypass facilities shall be provided that allow the upstream migration of adult fish and shall prevent fry and juveniles migrating downstream from being trapped or harmed. 3. Fills, when authorized, shall not adversely impact anadromous fish or their habitat or shall mitigate any unavoidable impacts and shall only be allowed for a water -dependent use. I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 110 of 488 I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 C. Retention of Vegetation on Subdividable, Undeveloped Parcels. As a provision of this title, the director shall require retention of a minimum of 30 percent of native vegetation on undeveloped (or redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned as RS-12 or RS-20 per Chapter 16.10 ECDC. This standard for development shall apply to all undeveloped (or redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned RS-12 or RS-20 regardless of the potential for designation as a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or other critical area. The goal of 30 percent native vegetation can be met through maintaining existing native vegetation, establishing native vegetation, or a combination of both. A vegetation management plan, subject to the approval of the director, is required for approval of the proposed development. This provision for native vegetation retention will provide increased protection of fish and wildlife habitat throughout the Edmonds jurisdiction. D. Streams. No alteration to a stream or stream buffer shall be permitted unless consistent with the provisions of this title and the specific standards for development outlined below. 1. Standard Stream Buffer Widths. Buffers for streams shall be measured on each side of the stream, from the ordinary high water mark. The following shall be the standard buffer widths for streams based upon the Washington State Department of Natural Resources water typing system and further classification based upon fish presence (fishbearing vs. nonfishbearing) for the Type F streams existing in the city of Edmonds: a. Type S: 150 feet; b. Type F anadromous fishbearing stream adjacent to reaches with anadromous fish access: 100 feet; c. Type F anadromous fishbearing stream adjacent to reaches without anadromous fish access: 75 feet; d. Type F nonanadromous fishbearing stream: 75 feet; e. Type Np: 50 feet; f. Type Ns: 25 feet. General areas and stream reaches with access for anadromous fish are indicated on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. The potential for anadromous fish access shall be confirmed in the field by a qualified biologist as part of critical areas review and determination of standard stream buffer widths. 2. Reduced Stream Buffer Widths. Standard stream buffer widths may be reduced by no more than 50 percent of the standard stream buffer width concomitant to development and implementation of a stream buffer enhancement plan approved by the director. Reduced stream buffer widths shall only be approved by the director if a stream buffer enhancement plan conclusively demonstrates that enhancement of the reduced buffer area will not degrade the quantitative and qualitative functions and values of the buffer area in terms of fish and stream protection and the provision of wildlife habitat. Stream buffer enhancement plans must meet the specific requirements of ECDC 23.40.110. 23.40.120 and 23.40.130 and: a. Provide evidence that the reduced buffer, through enhancement, will provide functions and values in terms of stream and wildlife protections equivalent to or greater than a standard buffer without enhancement; Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 111 of 488 I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 b. The plan documents existing native plant densities and provides for increases in buffer native plant densities to no less than three feet on center for shrubs and eight feet on center for trees; c. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success for a minimum of three years in accordance with ECDC 23.40.130(D) and (E); and d. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance standards for assessing increases in stream buffer functioning as related to: i. Water quality protection; ii. Provision of wildlife habitat; iii. Protection of anadromous fisheries; iv. Enhancement of fish habitat; and v. Restricting intrusion and disturbance. 3. Stream Buffer Width Averaging. The director may allow modification of a standard or reduced stream buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the best available science on a case -by -case basis by averaging buffer widths. Only those portions of a stream buffer existing within the project area or subject parcel shall be considered in the total buffer area for buffer averaging. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional demonstrates that: a. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for a stream extending off -site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within the standard buffer; b. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced to less than 50 percent of the reduced or standard width; and c. The functions and values of the stream and associated buffer will not be diminished through the use of buffer averaging. 4. Additions to Structures Existing within Stream Buffers. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within stream buffers that increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing shall be permitted consistent with the development standards of this chapter (ECDC 23.90.030 and this section). Provisions for standard stream buffers, buffer reductions through enhancement, and stream buffer averaging require applicants to locate such additions in accordance with the following sequencing: a. Outside of the standard stream buffer; b. Outside of a stream buffer reduced through enhancement per subsection (D)(2) of this section; c. Outside of a stream buffer reduced through buffer averaging per subsection (D)(3) of this section; or d. Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard stream buffer width through the use of both buffer reduction and buffer averaging. e. Within buffer areas that: i. are physically separated from the associated_ stream due to public roads, legally established structures, or similar circumstances: ii. are functionally isolated from the associated stream: and f Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 112 of 488 f Attachment A to Ord. 3935 iii. as a result of i and ii. above, do not serve to protect the stream from adverse impacts of development.A critical area report prepared by a qualified -professional is required to determine whether subsections i and ii are satisfied. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within stream buffers that cannot be accommodated in accordance with the above sequencing (i.e., additions proposed within the inner 25 percent of a standard buffer width) may be permitted at the director's discretion as a variance subject to review by the city hearing examiner and the provisions of ECDC 23.40.210. S. Stream Crossings. Stream crossings may be allowed only if all reasonable construction techniques and best management practices are used to avoid disturbance to the stream bed or bank. Upon completion of construction, the area affected shall be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted with native species and/or otherwise protected according to a stream mitigation and buffer enhancement plan approved by the director, and maintained and monitored per the requirements of ECDC 23.40.110. 23.40.120 and 23.40.130 and providing for buffer enhancement in accordance with the requirements of subsection (D) (2) of this section. In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that best management practices will be used during construction to provide the following: a. Fisheries protection, including no interference with fish migration or spawning; b. All crossings shall be constructed during summer low flow periods and shall be timed to avoid stream disturbance during periods when stream use is critical to salmonids; c. Crossings shall not occur over salmonid spawning areas unless no other possible crossing site exists; d. Crossings and culverted portions of the stream shall be minimized to the extent feasible and serve multiple purposes and multiple lots whenever possible; e. Roads may cross streams only on previously approved rights -of -way, provided no practical alternative exists and adequate provision is made to protect and/or enhance the stream through appropriate mitigation. Roads shall be designed and located to conform to topography, and maintained to prevent erosion and restriction of the natural movement of ground water as it affects the stream; f. Roads and utilities shall be designed in conjunction to minimize the area of disturbance to the stream; and g. Roads shall be constructed so as to minimize adverse impacts on the hydrologic quality of the stream or associated habitat to a degree acceptable to the city. 6. Trails. After reviewing the proposed development and technical reports, the director may determine that a pedestrian -only trail may be allowed in a stream buffer; provided, nonimpervious surface materials are used, all appropriate provision is made to protect water quality, and all applicable permit requirements have been met. No motorized vehicles shall be allowed within a stream or its buffer except as required for necessary maintenance or security. Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect streams by limiting vehicular access to designated public use or interpretive areas. I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 113 of 488 I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 7. Storm Water Management Facilities. Storm water management facilities, limited to outfalls, pipes and conveyance systems, storm water dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within stream buffers; provided, that: a. No other location is feasible; and b. The location and function of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the stream or stream buffer. 8. City Discretion in Protection, Enhancement and Preservation of Streams. The city of Edmonds is unique within the state of Washington as a built -out community with streams that have been incorporated within, and often located immediately adjacent to, residential development. This title allows the director full discretion to condition proposals for development on parcels containing, adjacent to, or potentially impacting streams to enhance conditions consistent with ECDC 23.40.050 and the purposes and objectives of this title. Conditions on development shall be required to enhance streams and stream buffers as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas to provide increased protection of anadromous fisheries and potential fish habitat in accordance with best available science and the recommendations of an approved critical areas report and may include: a. Removal of stream bank armoring; b. In -stream habitat modification; c. Native planting; d. Relocation of stream channel portions to create contiguous riparian corridors or wildlife habitat; e. Planting of stream bank native vegetation to increase stream shading; f. Removal and control of nonnative, invasive weed species; g. Requiring additional building setbacks or modified buffers; and h. Limiting or reducing the types or densities of particular uses. The right of discretion in provisioning development in regard to streams is maintained in order to provide for the creation of enhanced conditions over those currently existing around streams in the city of Edmonds. In all instances where an applicant cannot demonstrate that standard stream buffer widths as provided in subsection (D)(1) of this section can be accommodated by project development, the applicant shall be required to submit a stream buffer enhancement plan or a stream mitigation and buffer enhancement plan as part of a critical areas report indicating that postproject site conditions will provide equivalent or greater protection of stream functions and fish habitat over a standard stream buffer and existing site conditions. rn�92+ § 2, 20 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 114 of 488 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH S kUAg F DRDI ANCE O. 3M of the City at nda Wash"ton On the 6th day of August, 2R13. 111e City Council of the city of. Edmonds, passed 0rd1D1C4e No. 3935. A summary of d-m content of "ordinance. conalstlng oI the like. prrvkk¢ l 0 follOW AN ORDINANCE G THE CITY OF: EDMONDS, wASHmr.TON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM lo"8 i ORDINANCE . TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECII GAILY SECT{ONS ECDC 23.AO-220, 23,40.120, 23.50.020. 23,50.040. AND 23.90A40. TO ALLOW DEvELOPi�AENT wrrm LEGALLY ES RED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN SUFFER AREAS THAT ARE ISOLATEDCALLY SEPARATED AND FROM AN ASSM TEA CAMCAI AREA, A LATED F The lull teal of thts 0nlinanos vnll he rnaNed upon requesL DATED this 71h day of Au9LC 20CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Published: August 11.2013. 7 Account Name: City of Edmonds Affidavit of Publication S.S. The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice Summary of Ordinance No. 3935 a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: August 11, 2013 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. Subscribed and sworn to before me this dAugust, 2013 7 Notary Public in and for the State of County. Account Number: 101416 12th N PUBLIC 2-17-2016 0001829414 Packet Page 115 of 488 divisions did not previously meet on a regular basis to discuss projects; they do now. A group of staff members have held 12 meetings over the last 7-8 months to develop a series of recommendations. Mayor Earling distributed information that includes a memorandum from him with his recommendations, a memo from Mr. Williams regarding the process and a matrix with tasks, purpose/general information, and status. A series of improvements have been made by Planning, Building and Engineering in the past several months to improve the flow of work. There is a sense of camaraderie, working together and understanding of their common mission. At the forefront of that has been Rob Chave. Mr. Chave has done a fabulous job in his role as Acting Development Services Director. With the quality of Mr. Chave's work and interdisciplinary cooperation, Mayor Earling recommended a direct appointment of Mr. Chave as permanent Development Services Director. Mr. Chave is comfortable taking on the director position as well as a fair amount of the Planning Manager role. Mayor Earling relayed his recommendation also includes establishing a new position for Kernen Lien to assume a portion of the Planning Manager's work. Mr. Lien is comfortable and enthusiastic about the opportunity to explore a new responsibility. He provided the following cost comparison: Mayor's Recommendation • Salary increase costs: $23,000 - $27,000 (includes benefits) • Total cost: $23,000 - $27,000 Newly Created Director Position • Salary & benefits costs: $184,000 • Search costs: $20,000 • Total cost: $204,000 Mayor Earling explained initial projections indicate there may be an additional $600,000 for allocation; the $204,000 cost of a newly created director position would substantially reduce that amount. He explained his preliminary 2014 budget will include some one-time costs such as security issues in the IT department at a cost of $50,000 - $70,000. Mayor Earling reiterated Mr. Chave and Mr. Lien have done and will continue to do fabulous work. He looked forward to their direct appointments. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked when Mayor Earling wanted the Council to approve/disapprove his proposal. Mayor Earling preferred to move it along as expeditiously as possible such as September or October. Because of the lower dollar amount, it would have considerably less impact on the budget. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the senior planner's workload would be addressed. She noted Leif Bjorback had done a great job in the Building Official position. Mayor Earling responded Mr. Chave is comfortable with assuming the director position and a portion of the planning manager. Mr. Lien is comfortable with assuming a small amount of the planning manager's duties. In addition, a planner who was on maternity leave returned two weeks ago. Due to increased workloads, he likely will propose utilizing contract staff on an as -needed basis in the amount of $20,000 - $30,000. That will be included as part of the 2014 budget. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO REFER THIS TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE AND THE FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDERATION IN LIGHT OF THE NEW INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY MAYOR EARLING THIS EVENING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED INTERIM ORDINANCE / CRITICAL AREAS 'ALLOWED ACTIVITIES' PROVISIONS Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the critical area regulations are not completely consistent with the Best Available Science (BAS) report that was prepared as part of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) update in 2004, particularly in regard to allowed activities. Allowed activities are activities that can occur within a critical area or critical area buffer. Allowed activities can be conditioned, but must use best management practices and must not degrade associated critical area. Examples include utility Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 116 of 488 maintenance, activities within the improved right-of-way, and alterations to structures that do not increase the "footprint of development." The footprint of development is the inconsistency between the CAO and BAS report. The idea of development or redevelopment within the developed footprint was discussed in the BAS report. The BAS report noted the vast majority of the city (96%) is already developed and that future growth will be concentrated in the redevelopment of existing parcels. The BAS report noted the challenge for the CAO is providing opportunities to improve conditions around critical areas in the long term while allowing reasonable redevelopment. The BAS concluded the main route to improving critical areas and their buffers was to require buffer enhancement in exchange for allowing development and redevelopment within the existing footprint of development. When the critical areas regulations were written, the inclusion of "existing structures" in the allowed activities section has consequences counter to the BAS report which referred to development within the developed footprint. Mr. Lien recalled two projects that are impacted by this inconsistency were highlighted last week including the American Brewery Silo and the City Park project. He provided information in an email from Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite describing how the critical areas regulations impacted the City Park project: • Holding off on 60% design • Budget could be impacted by further delay • Shifting the project to the south would result in the removal of three large trees • Waiting for an expedited review pushes the project back further and would not open next summer • Grant requires the project be completed by August 2014 Mr. Lien highlighted the proposed changes to the CAO in the interim ordinance to bring the current CAO into compliance with BAS: • Development proposal within the footprint of development ECDC 23.40.220.C.3, ECDC 23.50.020.E • Definitions ECDC 23.40.320 impervious surface and footprint of development • Physically separated and functionally isolated ECDC 23.50.040.H, ECDC 23.90.040.D.4.c • Wetland enhancement ECDC 23.50.040.J He advised this is scheduled for a public hearing at the Planning Board next Wednesday. Council President Petso referred to Mr. Lien's comments regarding the inconsistency with BAS with regard to structures. The interim ordinance also changes physically separated and functionally isolated; she asked whether there was any inconsistency with regard to that or was it simply an add -on. Mr. Lien answered it is not just an add -on; it is a continuation of the previously developed footprint. If a developed area is separated from the critical area and critical area buffer by development, allowing development on the opposite site is similar to allowing development in the previously developed footprint. Council President Petso observed it would allow development outside the previously developed footprint. Mr. Lien answered as proposed it would allow development in an area that is physically and functionally isolated; that would be determined by a critical areas expert. In the park example, there is a parking lot and a road between what is proposed in the critical area. That area does not provide any benefit to the critical area or enhancement to the buffer area as it is separated by previous development. Council President Petso pointed out that area is not currently 100% impervious surface; there is a lot of grass and trees. Mr. Lien explained it is physically and functionally separated by imperious surface. Council President Petso agreed but said it is not impervious surface, yet the proposed change would allow it to become 100% impervious surface. Mr. Lien answered yes, if a critical areas expert determines it is physically and functionally isolated and would not have any impact on the critical area. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 117 of 488 Council President Petso referred to things that constitute physically and functionally isolated such as the railroad tracks between homes and Puget Sound or a road such as in City Park. She asked if something as small as a trail or a small rock retaining wall could constitute physically and functionally isolated. Mr. Lien reiterated that would be determined by a qualified professional. Something as small as a trail would not; trails are an allowed activity within a critical area buffer and generally are smaller and not impervious surfaces. Things that physically separate and functionally isolate are typically larger such as roads. Another example would be a house constructed in a stream buffer; if the homeowner wanted to add onto the house on the opposite site of the stream, the house would physically separate development from the critical area. Unlike the other examples that would be within the existing developed footprint, Council President Petso observed the City Park project could expand the existing impervious surface. Mr. Lien agreed it could if it was physically and functionally isolated. With regard to the developed footprint, Council President Petso recalled there was some discussion about attempting to cure the sins of the past. If the existing developed footprint was a parking lot, a parking lot could be reconstructed with pervious pavement to enhance the wetland; with the proposed change to allow structures, she asked if there would be any opportunity to reduce the effect of past development. Mr. Lien answered as the code is written, enhancement is still an important part. The BAS report and code language allow development within the previously developed area in exchange for enhancement. The code allows activity if it, a) does not increase the footprint of the development beyond the legally established footprint, b) does not increase the impact to the critical area and/or buffer, c) does not increase the total impervious surface area of the site, and d) does not increase the risk to life or property as a result of the development proposal, and e) includes measures to enhance the critical areas. The code allows development in this area in exchange for enhancement. Council President Petso asked who decides if the enhancement is proportionate to the expansion of impervious surface or structure. Mr. Lien answered within critical areas, a qualified professional makes that determination; a wetland expert for a wetland and a stream biologist for a stream. If the changes are not made, Council President Petso asked whether a variance process with a decision by the Hearing Examiner would be required. Mr. Lien answered people are not encouraged to pursue a variance because the variance criteria are very strict. The proposed changes are to bring the code into consistency with BAS. The variance process is a last resort when there is nothing that can be done to fit the code but the development should go forward. Council President Petso recalled a statement in last week's packet that it would be illegal to mitigate for the City Park project. Mr. Lien referred to the issue outline memo that contained an excerpt from an email from Ms. Hite, "Mitigate the development within the buffer, which has been determined by Planning isn't legal" which he felt was a "lost in translation comment." Staff informed Ms. Hite that it does not fall within allowed activities, in planning -speak, that becomes it is not legal. Council President Petso asked whether the spray pad could be constructed and the impacts mitigated. Mr. Lien answered as far as allowed activities, no. He did not anticipate the spray park would meet all the variance criteria; one of the criteria is "can it can be constructed someplace else." The project can be moved to the south and three large, healthy trees removed. Ms. Hite has also indicated there are time constraints; the standard time for a variance process is 3-4 months. He reiterated the proposed changes are to bring the code into consistency with the BAS report. Councilmember Peterson asked if the City was vulnerable to legal action if the CAO was in conflict with the BAS report. Mr. Taraday stated legally they are required to be consistent under the GMA. The time to challenge that would be at the time of adoption of the CAO; therefore, it may be too late for a challenge. Councilmember Peterson pointed out BAS is science and that does not change regardless of the CAO. Councilmember Buckshnis stated the proposed change is to bring the CAO into compliance with the BAS report. She noted Council President Petso is throwing in the issue of no net loss which has nothing to do Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 118 of 488 with this. Without the proposed change, the City Park project will be moved south and three healthy trees removed. She objected to the Council micromanaging staff's work, reiterating the City Park project is physically separated and functionally isolated. Council President Petso asked what part of the physically separated and functionally isolated criteria conflicts with BAS with regard to redevelopment in the existing footprint. Mr. Lien answered no net loss is one of the criteria in BAS as well. The idea behind allowing development in a previously developed area is it results in no net loss because it is already an area that has been developed and it allows an opportunity for enhancement. With regard to physically separated and functionally isolated, the tie to BAS is this area is separated from the critical area by an area that has been previously developed. That determination is made by a qualified professional. Council President Petso asked how this was not consistent with the current BAS. Mr. Lien answered it is not in the code at all; the concept is contained in BAS. Council President Petso recalled BAS allows development within the existing footprint. Mr. Lien explained the conflict between the CAO and BAS report is related to how BAS characterizes this issue with the city being developed and development within previously developed areas as an opportunity for enhancement. Councilmember Bloom asked whether adoption of an interim ordinance was necessary tonight when the Planning Board is holding a public hearing next week. Mr. Lien referred to the comments from Ms. Hite, pointing out even an expedited review process by the Planning Board pushes the City Park project out to the point it will not be completed by next summer and there are issues associated with the August 2014 grant deadline. Councilmember Bloom asked if that would be the case if the Planning Board returned it to the Council at the August 21 meeting. Mayor Earling pointed out although a public hearing is scheduled, the Planning Board may not reach a conclusion at next week's meeting. Mr. Lien pointed out a public hearing must also be held by the Council which requires notice. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3935, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040, AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA. Council President Petso pointed out the agenda memo states footprint of already developed areas; physically separated and functionally isolated allows a great deal more impervious surfaces to be added. If that happened for example upstream from Perrinville Creek where efforts are underway to control flows to protect habitat, it would be a problem. She did not support the motion as she did not find enough incentive to rush and she viewed the proposed change as an enormous expansion beyond the footprint of already developed areas. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the motion. She was uncertain what part of Perrinville Council President Petso was referring to. She pointed out there are other avenues to protect critical areas. Councilmember Peterson referred to Mr. Lien's statement that if development occurs, there would need to be approval by a certified professional. The idea that the other side would be 100% impervious surface was a bit of a stretch. Councilmember Johnson did not support the motion. There was no mention of an interim ordinance when this issue was presented to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee in July. The committee recommended it be referred to the Planning Board; the last Planning Board meeting was canceled. She Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 119 of 488 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 55 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 55 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 Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 120 of 488 Councilmember Peterson agreed with postponing this item. He was glad it had been scheduled on the agenda and materials included for Council review. He advised Councilmember Bloom, Ms. Hite and he found several excellent examples of Codes of Ethic and Codes of Conduct. Kirkland and Bellevue's code are nearly identical and likely will be used as a starting point. He suggested Councilmembers familiarize themselves with Kirkland and Bellevue's codes. Postponing this item was also acceptable to Councilmember Bloom. She requested Councilmembers review Kirkland and Bellevue's policies, noting there are a few significant differences. She pointed out the intent to have an Ethic's Officer. Councilmember Johnson asked about the fiscal impact of an Ethics Officer. Councilmember Peterson responded Kirkland has an Ethics Officer and they contact with a law firm. To date they have not had to utilize their services; the law firm is on standby in the event an issue arises. Councilmember Bloom noted Kirkland and Bellevue have a City Manager form of government. The references in their Code of Ethics to elected officials do not include the Mayor. Councilmember Buckshnis was concerned with the issue of subjectivity. She recalled former Councilmember Plunkett's concern about the subjectivity of some policies. She noted there are state laws related to ethics for Councilmembers. She commented on new behaviors she has seen this year, recognizing that people see things differently based on their backgrounds. It was agreed to postpone this to a future meeting. 13. PROPOSAL TO RESCIND ORDINANCE NO. 3935 - AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040 AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA Councilmember Bloom explained when she reviewed the issue more carefully, she apologized to the Planning Board for sending the matter to them prematurely. Her concerns are related to the structure language versus development footprint as well as physically separated and functionally isolated. The language defines legally established structures or similar circumstances and suggested if something was functionally isolated and physically separated it did not serve to protect the wetland from adverse impacts of development. The question then arises if it does not protect the wetland from adverse impacts of development, can enhancement be enforced. She pointed out physically separated and functionally isolated are not clearly defined and impervious surfaces are too broadly defined and include gravel roads as well as compacted surfaces. In addition the enhancements are not clearly defined. Mr. Chave indicated to her that he preferred to wait until 2015 to clarify the enhancements. Councilmember Bloom was concerned that rushing to pass the ordinance due to two projects could possibly result in unintended consequences. In particular functionally isolated and physically separated could affect numerous properties in the City, not just the spray park. For those reasons, she reconsidered her vote and asked for this to be scheduled on the agenda. She suggested the Council rescind the ordinance and bring back the amendments at a future meeting as soon as possible. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO RESCIND ORDINANCE NO.3935. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the lack of transparency on this item. When she left Friday, the packet did not include this item. The discussion occurred between two Councilmembers and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 121 of 488 the City Attorney. This was an issue for the Planning Board to consider. She emphasized the intent of the original ordinance was for the code to reflect Best Available Science as it relates to structures. Repealing the ordinance will potentially cost the City time and money and will affect the timing of the spray park. Councilmember Peterson did not support the motion. There were open and frank discussions previously and a great deal of information presented on two separate occasions. Sometimes Councilmembers may not be happy with the end result of the process but the Council followed the proper process. Unless there were extenuating circumstances that the Council had not been made aware of, he did not see a reason to rescind the ordinance. He suggested Councilmembers respect the process and even if they disagreed or wanted a redo, it was not always the best course of action. Council President Petso commented on the process, pointed out this was the Council's first opportunity under Roberts Rules to rescind a motion. She explained when Councilmember Bloom indicated her interest in changing her vote, she consulted Roberts Rules and followed the procedure. That procedure includes notice of the intent to rescind in the meeting notice which was done on Friday. There was still time to amend the agenda on Friday and City Clerk Sandy Chase created the amended agenda Friday afternoon. She has been working with Mr. Lien and Ms. Hite on the topic and Councilmember Bloom has been meeting with staff. She mentioned the topic to at least two other Councilmembers in conversation. Everyone is working hard to do this right without messing up the spray park project. It may be that the projects costs more money or needs to be redesigned or that the Council cannot wait for the Planning Board's expedited review and staff returns with a different proposal. The motion to rescind the interim ordinance does not stop the Council or staff from working on the issue or the Planning Board from working on a permanent ordinance. Rescinding the ordinance will stop applications and give the Council and Planning Board more time to work with staff. She noted paving within critical area buffers is a big deal and the City must proceed carefully. She was happy with the effort to follow the process under Robert Rules. She will support the motion to rescind the interim ordinance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether a motion to reconsider or rescind was appropriate. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered there is a Roberts Rules process to place the matter on the agenda. To the question of how to repeal an ordinance, Mr. Taraday explained an ordinance is repealed via the adoption of another ordinance. To the extent a majority of the Council desires to repeal the ordinance, there is an ordinance on the City's Z drive that would accomplish that. The proper motion to undo the interim ordinance is a motion to approve the ordinance to repeal. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out Councilmember Bloom's motion was to rescind the motion. Mr. Taraday explained rescind is the Roberts Rules term and repeal is the RCW term. He preferred the Council use the term repeal. He interpreted the motion to be to repeal the motion. If the motion is interpreted as a motion to adopt an ordinance that repeals the interim ordinance, that ordinance should be presented to the Council. Councilmember Bloom explained her intent was to repeal the ordinance that was passed two weeks ago and ask staff to return with an amended ordinance. Mr. Taraday summarized the options: 1. Do nothing 2. Repeal the interim ordinance adopted on August 6 3. Amend the interim ordinance adopted on August 6 (two versions available) Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the interim ordinance addressed making the critical areas ordinance consistent with BAS. The discussion now is adding more teeth to the new ordinance. Mr. Taraday clarified the motion on the floor is to repeal the August 6 interim ordinance. Council President Petso asked whether the preferred action would be a motion to adopt the ordinance in the packet that effectively repeals the interim ordinance. If the Council's intent is to repeal the August 6 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 122 of 488 interim ordinance, Mr. Taraday recommended a Councilmember move the ordinance displayed on the screen. He summarized repealing an ordinance requires adoption of an ordinance that repeals the original ordinance. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3940, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3935, WHICH AMENDED THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS EDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.040 AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA. Recognizing this may be the proper process in Roberts Rules, Councilmember Peterson pointed out the Council is voting on an ordinance that neither they nor the citizens of Edmonds have seen before now and that did not satisfy his desire for transparency and public process. Councilmember Bloom took issue with Councilmember Peterson's reference to transparency, relaying that this was a transparent process. Under Roberts Rules, a Councilmember has the option to change their mind which is what she did. She spent a great deal of time talking to staff as well as spoke to the Planning Board. She relayed Mr. Lien's indication that the interim ordinance could potentially allow an increase in impervious surface in wetland buffers in other parts of the City. She did not understand why Councilmember Peterson did not feel this was a transparent process when everything had been done to make it transparent. The interim ordinance came to the Council without approval of the Parks, Planning and Public Works (PPP) Committee; the committee recommended it go directly to the Planning Board. When it was presented to the Council, an interim ordinance was proposed. Her primary concern was making changes of this degree to the critical areas ordinance without fully considering the unintended consequences that may result. She found Councilmember Peterson's comments that it was not transparent very offensive, pointing out this is as transparent as it gets. Councilmember Peterson appreciated that it was transparent to Councilmember Bloom because she had been working on it for the last several days. He has not; this is the first time he has seen it. The interim ordinance was considered over two meetings so that staff could provide additional information. If this had not been done at the last minute, he still would not support it because he believed in the action the Council took previously. One of the reasons he did not support the motion was while Councilmember Bloom, Council President Petso and Mr. Taraday have done a lot of work and talked with staff, he was not briefed on it and there was nothing in the packet. The last minute nature of this item raised his concern with transparency. If this had been scheduled on the agenda and he had time to have his questions answered, that would be transparent. He summarized it has been transparent for a few but not all. Councilmember Bloom pointed out it had been on the agenda since Friday. Councilmember Peterson responded there was no supporting documentation in the packet. What the Council is voting on was not included in the packet. Councilmember Buckshnis explained after the PPP Committee meeting forwarded the issue to the Planning Board, President Petso decided to bring it to full Council. This is an interim ordinance; it is on a fast track for review by the Planning Board. She objected to repealing ordinances on the fly, preferring to wait for the Planning Board's review. She preferred to allow the spray park project to proceed, commenting this will impact the timing, budget and scope of that project. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2013 Page 16 Packet Page 123 of 488 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Council President Petso said the PPP Committee forwarded this matter to the Planning Board without coming to full Council. The first the Council heard of it was during reports on committee meetings. Some people were uncomfortable with the two committee members making the decision to send it to the Planning Board so she made a decision to include it as a discussion item on a Council agenda. When it was scheduled, it was no longer a discussion item but included an interim ordinance. She asked the City Clerk to remove the interim ordinance from the agenda. During the discussion item, staff indicated they would present an interim ordinance the following week. At that meeting, the Council voted 4-3 to approve the interim ordinance. One member of the four person majority changed her mind and followed the correct procedure to bring it back to the Council. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BLOOM AND JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO, BUCKSHNIS, AND PETERSON VOTING NO. 12. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 13 AND 19, 2013 Finance Committee Councilmember Yamamoto reported on the following items considered by the committee: • Salary Increase to Remain Eligible for State Court Improvement Account Funds — addressed on tonight's agenda • Discussion regarding Authorization to Recruit for Development Services Director — will be scheduled for full Council discussion on a future agenda • Discussion and Recommendation on Proposed Utility Rate Adjustments — will be scheduled for presentation to full Council • June 2013 Budgetary Financial Report — approved on Consent Agenda • 2013 Budget Amendment — discussed on tonight's agenda • Sharing 2-14 Budget Approaches and Recommending Fund Balance — discussed on tonight's agenda • Bond Sale Report • Public comment from two citizens Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee Councilmember Johnson reported on the following items considered by the committee: Forwarded for approval on the Consent Agenda: • Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Inter jurisdictional Coordination Relating to Affordable Housing within Snohomish County • Additional Construction Funding for 76`" Avenue West Water Main Replacement Project • Report on bids opened July 30, 2013 for the 224th St. Waterline Replacement Project • Report on bids opened August 1, 2013 for the 2013 Sewerline Rehabilitation Project • Acceptance of a Grant for Stormwater Planning and Design Referred following to future Council meeting • Utility Rate Adjustments • Five Corners Roundabout Art Selection Carried over for further discussion: • Harbor Square • Street Tree Management Policy Public comment Jamie Jensen regarding the Angler's Crossing PRD Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2013 Page 17 Packet Page 124 of 488 Arts fundraiser. He recognized Dave Buelow, Board Member and Project Manager, and Ted Heaton who discovered a similar event in Cambria, California and brought the idea to Edmonds. He invited everyone in the community to participate including Councilmembers, the Mayor and City employees. A flyer with instructions was included in the packet and is available at their website, historicedmonds.or . Applications, available at the Museum website, can be submitted beginning September 15 and citizens can vote for their favorite at the website beginning October 1. Family -friendly scarecrows will be on display at businesses, City areas and residences. The winner will be announced at the Museum's annual fundraiser on November 8. Sponsorship of this event recognizes the Historical Society's 40'' anniversary. The Museum's mission is to publicize and celebrate the community heritage. This has been done for nearly 20 years by developing and sponsoring the Edmonds Farmers Market, haunting the museum at Halloween and quarterly exhibits includes this year's Farming in Snohomish County and 40 x 40, a display of artifacts in their collection. In addition to the Scarecrow Festival, the Society is trying to generate interest in a fire museum to house the City's two antique fire engines. The community is invited to their fundraiser, Heritage Days, on November 8. The first stage of the museum renovation, the downstairs, has been completed under the direction of Museum Director Tarin Erickson; more exciting improvements and exhibits are coming. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether scarecrows had to be scary. Mr. Lambert responded it was the person's choice; the only requirement is that scarecrows be family friendly. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE NO. 3935 — AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040, AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA. Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the origin of this change was to bring the City's critical area regulations into consistency with the City's Best Available Science (BAS) report that was prepared as part of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) update in 2004. Allowed activities are activities that can occur within a critical area or critical area buffer. Allowed activities can be conditioned, must use "Best Management Practices" and must not degrade the associated critical area. Examples include utility maintenance, activities within the improved right-of-way, and alterations to structures that do not increase the "footprint of development." This developed footprint concept was discussed in the BAS report. The BAS report noted that the vast majority of the City (96%) is already developed and that future growth will be concentrated in the redevelopment of existing parcels. The BAS report noted the challenge for the CAO is providing opportunities to improve conditions around critical areas in the long term while allowing reasonable redevelopment. The BAS report concluded the main route to improving critical areas and their buffers was to require enhancement in exchange for allowing development and redevelopment within the existing footprint of development. Another aspect of development within the developed footprint is physically separated and functionally isolated. He provided the definition of buffer in the City's critical area regulations ECDC 23.40.320: "...a designated area immediately next to and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem." A property or development may be separated from the critical area by a "footprint of development" such as a road or structure. Mr. Lien highlighted the proposed changes to the CAO in the interim ordinance to bring the current CAO into compliance with BAS: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 125 of 488 • Development proposal within the footprint of development ECDC 23.40.220.C.3, ECDC 23.50.020.E • Definitions ECDC 23.40.320 impervious surface and footprint of development • Physically separated and functionally isolated ECDC 23.50.040.H, ECDC 23.90.040.D.4.c • Wetland enhancement ECDC 23.50.040.J Councilmember Buckshnis referred to her emails regarding what has occurred; this issue came to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee in July who referred it to the Planning Board and it was returned to the Council. The Council got caught up in the examples rather than the actual verbiage. She pointed out an expert must determine when it is physically separated and functionally isolated. She asked whether a representative of the Department of Ecology (DOE) was present. Mr. Lien answered no; however, Paul Anderson, Wetland Specialist, Washington State Department of Ecology, provided an email regarding the interim ordinance. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Council could change the ordinance to clarify impervious surface. City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised the interim ordinance will expire in 180 days from adoption regardless of whether the Council takes any further action. If/when the Council replaces it with a permanent ordinance, the Council will have the opportunity to make any changes. Councilmember Johnson suggested it would be helpful for the public to understand the background of the BAS report and CAO and how they relate to GMA. She understood it was adopted in 2004 and was supposed to be updated every 7 years which would be 2011. Mr. Lien explained the BAS report itself is not adopted by the City. In development of critical area regulations, the City is to consider BAS, peer reviewed articles on buffers, etc. The City's last CAO update in 2004 was effective in 2005; the next update will be 2015. The CAO is to generally be consistent with BAS. There are instances where it can deviate from BAS. In the BAS report, many of the studies are done in rural areas where 100-200 foot buffers actually exist and the goal is to protect the critical area. In Edmonds, it does not make sense to require a 100-200 foot buffer because the buffers do not exist. The BAS report and discussions with Ecology and the interim ordinance address allowing development to occur within developed areas in exchange for enhancement of the critical area or critical area buffer, improving critical areas in the long run over current conditions. Councilmember Johnson asked Mr. Lien to summarize activity in the last eight years since the CAO was adopted and asked if this was the first challenge to the ordinance. Mr. Lien responded there has not been a challenge to the ordinance; this issue has arisen occasionally in the past including two recent examples. The issues of physically separated and functionally isolated and development within the developed footprint were recently discussed with DOE in regard to the Shoreline Management Program update. The proposed changes would apply across the City; there are a number of examples of physically separated and functionally isolated and development within the developed footprint. Historically the City focused on not expanding the impervious surface area; closer inspection of that language including the word "structure" which changed how the code was applied. Councilmember Bloom recalled when this was originally presented it was described as the change had to be made so the CAO was consistent with BAS. She referred to an email from Mr. Taraday, noting she did not understand what he meant. There was also an email from Mayor Pro Tern Petso with an example where the CAO does not have to be consistent with BAS. She asked Mr. Taraday to explain whether it was necessary for this change to be made; if the CAO and BAS had to be consistent. Mr. Taraday responded her question did not have a simple yes/no answer. He can review the relevant statutory law and case law but it is complicated. He explained Councilmember Bloom emailed him a question today and he emailed her a response; his response may not have been a good paraphrasing of the law. In 1999 Washington State Supreme Court had occasion to consider the BAS requirement in the GMA. He read the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 126 of 488 excerpt he sent Councilmember Bloom today from a case, Honesty in Environmental Analysis and Legislation (HEAL) v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board: The GMA requires balancing of more than a dozen goals and several specific directives in implementing those goals. The Legislature passed RCW 36.70A.172(1) five years after the GMA was adopted. It knew of the other factors, but neither made best available science the sole factor, the factor above all other factors nor made it purely procedural. Instead, the Legislature left the cities and counties with the authority and obligation to take scientific evidence and to balance that evidence among the many goals and factors to fashion locally appropriate regulations based on the evidence not on speculation and surmise. The trial court's formulation that best available science be included in a substantive way is not inconsistent with this court's reading of the Board's interpretation of the statute. The trial court also said the evidence would "guide" decision -making. If by this the trial court meant the science must be considered and balanced, then the trial court and the Board are in agreement. If "guide, " means the proposed regulations or policies of the City must result in a particular outcome based on that evidence standing alone, the court went too far. The trial court, by reversing the Board, believed the Board had not applied the scientific evidence in a substantive way. We cannot agree with the trial court's reversal of the result. Whether scientific evidence is respectable and authoritative, challenged or unchallenged, controlling or of no consequence when balanced against other factors, goals and evidence to be considered, is first in the province of the city or county to decide. Then, if challenged, it is for the Growth Management Hearings Board to review. The Legislature has given great deference to the substantive outcome of that balancing process. We hold that evidence of the best available science must be included in the record and must be considered substantively in the development of critical areas policies and regulations. Mr. Taraday summarized what he heard the court saying was the Council did not have to take a conclusion reached in the BAS report and apply it verbatim in the City code; that is not necessarily required. However, the City, Planning Staff, Council, etc., need to include BAS in the record and must have substantively considered it. It is not enough just to have a folder/file with the BAS report and draft regulations; what the BAS report says must be taken into consideration. If the City is departing from its BAS report, it must justify that departure by identifying another competing goal in the GMA in explaining because of that goal and because of local circumstances, the City Council decided to do it differently than stated in the BAS report. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding of Mr. Taraday's explanation that the BAS report is used as a guide but nothing needed to be changed at this point because it is only a guide. Mr. Taraday responded "guide" can be interpreted in different ways. He explained BAS must be included in the record and must be considered substantively in the development of critical area policies and regulations. His interpretation of "considered substantively" meant if the City was not relying on the BAS report to make the code say essentially the same thing, at the very least there needed to be a substantive explanation for why the code did not match the report. Councilmember Bloom explained she reviewed the BAS report; she did not find any direction regarding allowing increased impervious surface in areas that are physically separated and functionally isolated. She asked Mr. Lien to explain where in the BAS report it says this change should be made. Mr. Lien responded there is no specific reference in the BAS report to physically separated and functionally isolated. It is an expansion of the developed footprint concept and allowing redevelopment within those areas. The definition of buffer is the area immediately next to and an integral part of the critical area. The definition of buffer incorporates this concept. Physically separated and functionally isolated, which is determined by a qualified professional, that part of the buffer is separated from the critical area by a developed footprint. That is the connection to the BAS report and development within the previously Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 127 of 488 developed footprint. In some areas of the City, properties are separated by a road such as the park example and buffers often extend across multiple parcels. It is separated by a footprint of development, therefore not providing any function to the critical area. Mr. Lien referred to a letter from Steve Quarterman, Senior Ecologist, Landau Associates, regarding application of BAS, specifically in recognizing fragmentation provided by public roads, legally established structures and similar circumstances isolate habitats, and the inherent understanding that these features do not constitute vegetated areas adjacent to aquatic resources. Mr. Quarterman's letter also states this language appears consistent with the current definition of buffers in the City's CAO. Mr. Lien explained the BAS recognized Edmonds was a developed city and allowing development and redevelopment in the developed footprint or separated from the critical area in order to enhance critical areas. The proposal in the interim ordinance is consistent with BAS. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding of Mr. Lien's explanation was there is no reference in the BAS to physically separated and functionally isolated. Mr. Lien agreed there was no specific reference. Mr. Taraday agreed the phrase, physically separated and functionally isolated, does not appear in the BAS report, but the concept is represented by the following paragraph on page 31 of the BAS report: Instituting large buffers that would extend into residential yards that were previously developed would offer no additional protection for the resource. To ensure improvement in wetland buffer function over time the new CAO requires buffer enhancement for redevelopment that expands an existing structure footprint into a buffer. Mr. Lien referenced another mention of expansion on page 57 of the BAS report: New development or expansion of existing development into fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas would require a native vegetation enhancement plan. The gist of the BAS report was allowing limited development or redevelopment in exchange for enhancement of a critical area because large buffers do not exist throughout the City. In response to the inquiry made during Audience Comments, Councilmember Bloom asked Mr. Lien to read the definition of impervious surfaces in the interim ordinance. Mr. Lien advised the definition of impervious surface was taken from the State and the Phase II stormwater requirements, "impervious surface means a hard surface area that either prevents or retards entry of water into the soil mantle as it occurs under natural conditions prior to development, resulting in stormwater runoff from the surface in greater quantities or an increased rate of flow compared to stormwater runoff characteristics under natural conditions prior to development. Common impervious surfaces include but are not limited to rooftops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, outdoor swimming pools, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, or oiled macadam or other surfaces that similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater." Councilmember Bloom observed it includes compacted dirt as well as gravel. Mr. Lien agreed. Mayor Pro Tem Petso observed this is a required hearing but not an action item. Mr. Lien agreed. Mayor Pro Tem Petso referred to the BAS report that states preliminary from August 2004 and asked whether that was the BAS report or was there a final version. Mr. Lien answered that is the BAS report. Mayor Pro Tem Petso commented best available science is not the BAS report; it is actually the scientific reports that were relied on to create the BAS report. Mr. Lien answered the BAS report summarizes best available science. Mayor Pro Tem Petso asked how this was allowed without a SEPA review. Mr. Lien answered SEPA was done. The EIS addendum from 2004 when the City did the CAO update was adopted; the interim ordinance has been sent to Commerce and reviewed by State departments which generated the comment from DOE's Wetland Specialist. Mayor Pro Tem Petso asked whether there was a public component to the SEPA process. Mr. Lien answered it was noticed. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 128 of 488 Councilmember Buckshnis asked Ms. Hite to describe the spray pad project and how it enhances the impervious surfaces and recycles water, the amount of time the City has spent on the project, portions of the project that are in critical areas and how it is physically separated and functionally isolated from the wetland marsh by a parking lot. She recalled Mr. Taraday's comments that this is a fine balancing act that needs to take into consideration all issues. She emphasized the code did not correctly translate the BAS report. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite commented this project seems to have been caught up in the discussion about the CAO. The City Park play area and spray pad plan was adopted in a master plan in 1992 prior to adoption of the CAO in 2004. She displayed a wetland reconnaissance prepared by Landau Associates overlaid with the current 30% design prepared by the landscape architect. The design has been put on hold due to this issue so it is now a couple months behind. She identified the edge of the Class 2 wetland, Wetland A, on the east side of SR 104, a freshwater wetland with some habitat but not as ecologically demanding as a Class 1 wetland. According to the CAO a 100-foot buffer should be considered. She identified the 100-foot buffer on the wetland reconnaissance, noting the wetland was not surveyed so is not an exact measurement. A survey can be done if necessary. Ms. Hite explained the wetland buffer contains condominiums and a great deal of impervious surface including the roadway, the exit drive from City Park, a parking lot and a driveway. She summarized nearly the entire buffer is impervious. She identified the City Park play area and spray pad, including the current footprint of the play area; the expansion includes the spray pad which was adopted in the 1992 master plan. Financing for the project includes funds in the 2013 CIP to replace the deteriorating playground which was used as a match for a $500,000 RCO grant the City received. The Hazel Miller Foundation funded $270,000 of the project and Snohomish County provided $80,000. The project is completely funded because the play area replacement was done at the same time as the installation of the new spray pad. A portion of the current footprint lies within the buffer; the footprint was expanded to add required ADA walkways. If the ADA walkways were removed, the footprint would be reduced; the State RCO demands higher accessibility in all projects. Ms. Hite explained moving the project south outside the buffer area would require removal of several trees. The project already impacts two trees; efforts will be made to save them. Some diseased trees will be removed. She identified a grasscrete area designed for truck access to service the underground tank. She explained three types of water systems that can be used in a spray park: 1. Recirculating system — an expensive system that Snohomish County would not permit because it is more than 100 feet from the current restroom 2. Percolating system that drains into the ground — not an option because of the proximity to the marsh. 3. Pump directly into the sewer system Ms. Hite explained the system being designed for City Park is a water reuse system that reuses water from the spray area. The water from the impervious area drains into a tank. The tank is treated by UV and routed out to 14 irrigation zones in City Park, to the restroom to flush toilets, and pumped out for use in the flower program downtown. She acknowledged not all the water can be reused and some will be pumped to the sewer. The proposed system will have less impact on the wetland than the current footprint. Councilmember Buckshnis concluded the spray park water system will enhance the critical area. Ms. Hite responded the water system captures all the water, treats and reuses it and pumps it off site. Mayor Pro Tem Petso opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Letters had been received from Paul Anderson, Washington State Department of Ecology, and from Steven Quarterman, Landau Associates. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 129 of 488 Neil Fallon, Tacoma, American Brewing Company, commented sales are so good they need to expand. He explained prior to opening American Brewing three years ago, he met with the landowners and the City and was assured he could expand and relied on that information when he signed the lease. Now when he needs to expand, he was informed the interpretation of the code had been reconsidered and his use now falls under this complicated set of ideas. He would like to locate two pieces of equipment on asphalt that is currently located within a buffer. His lease is expiring and he needs to renegotiate it; if he is not allowed to locate the equipment, it will affect his ability to operate his business. In addition, they are applying to become a publicly traded company. They are in the process of expanding nationally and need this additional equipment. He expressed his support for Ordinance No. 3935 and recommended the Council not overturn the Mayor's veto of Ordinance No. 3940. Val Stewart, Edmonds, commented the interim ordinance is a temporary measure that will be considered by the Planning Board and a recommendation forwarded to the Council. The interim ordinance will allow two well -intended projects to move forward. She referred to Ms. Hite's explanation regarding the benefits of the spray park, quoting her statements that this is one of the greenest options for operating a spray park and has been introduced throughout California. This project is one of the first in the State and the first in Snohomish County to incorporate this green design. With regard to sustainability, Ms. Stewart pointed out without this interim ordinance the park project will be delayed and the financial impacts could undermine some of the green benefits. With regard to the American Brewing Company project, from an economic and environmental sustainability standpoint, having a silo to store ingredients reduces the amount of gas and transportation costs and makes the business financially sustainable. Both projects are well -intended and have wonderful benefits. She doubted a project that would encounter this glitch in the code would be proposed in the five months until the interim ordinance expires. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, recalled Paul Anderson and the State Department of Ecology exerted very strong jurisdiction over a large wetland in his neighborhood in 2006. He offered to send the Council Mr. Anderson's October 6, 2006 letter, addressed to Scott Snyder and others, that states the State had jurisdiction over the wetland in his neighborhood. He summarized the State was blocked from the process, the wetland was filled without their knowledge; Mr. Anderson came to his neighborhood and was blocked from the property. Mr. Anderson later told him that he highly doubted the State's water quality certifications were met. In subsequent conversations, Mr. Anderson said resources were an issue with the State's involvement in protecting critical areas in cities. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the definition in the packet of best practices, no degradation of associated critical areas, and asked if paving degraded the ability to absorb. He did not understand Mr. Fallon's problem when the area where he wanted to locate equipment was already covered with asphalt. He questioned the definition of impervious, pointing out gravel has spaces for water to flow through. He referred to the definition, no degradation of associated critical area, noting cutting trees or paving over porous ground was degrading the associated critical area. He concluded the proposed changes were not appropriate and he preferred to allow the Planning Board to conduct their review. He acknowledged the City Park project was caught up in this situation but the Council should not change the code to address one project. Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, expressed support for the interim critical areas ordinance and opposed overriding the Mayor's veto of the Council repeal of the interim critical area ordinance. While it may not be perfect, the interim ordinance was a vast improvement over the current ordinance. It creates compatibility between the City's CAO and the BAS, an important element lacking in the current CAO. The interim ordinance allows the City Park project and the American Brewing Company silo projects to continue, noting the adverse economic impacts on American Brewing of the Council not adopting the interim ordinance. The City Park project is on a tight timeline due to government grant deadlines. Failure to meet the deadlines would disappoint the children anxiously awaiting the completion of the project and may have unintended consequences of jeopardizing future park grant funds. There is the risk that the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 130 of 488 grant timeline will not be extended and the project not completed at all. In addition the Council may be jeopardizing its credibility with the Hazel Miller Foundation who has provided substantial funding for this project. There is also the risk the Foundation may rescind its funding if the project is delayed. He questioned where funds would come from if public and private funding lapse. He respected the fact that some Councilmembers want to hear the opinion of the Planning Board, however, that would cause at least a six week delay. Councilmembers who support delaying implementation of the interim critical area ordinance are in effect saying they do not have confidence in the Planning Board's recommendation of the interim ordinance, no confidence in the City Attorney who drafted the interim ordinance and no confidence in the Department of Ecology with whom staff has discussed the interim ordinance and are supportive of this approach. Those Councilmembers are substituting their judgment and personal beliefs for the expertise of professionals. He urged the Council to vote in favor of the interim ordinance. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Pro Tern Petso closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. In response to Mr. Reidy's comment about Ecology's role in regulating wetlands, Mr. Lien explained Paul Anderson's email suggested the interim ordinance language be changed to state other permits may be required for enhancements within a wetland or stream. His suggestion will be presented to the Planning Board. Ms. Hite confirmed Mr. Witenberg's comments that the project is under a State deadline that requires the project be completed by July 2014. The project is on track for mid -July 2014; construction was originally expected to be completed by May and the park open for the summer. An extension can be requested and the State often grants an extension but that is not guaranteed. In addition there has been some communication from the Hazel Miller Foundation, not necessarily to rescind their funds, but to look carefully at the changes in the project. The same is true for the funds provided via an Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County. She summarized there is a great deal of time, funding, budget and scope riding on the ability to develop City Park as proposed. Councilmember Peterson observed Agenda Item 9 is related to this discussion. He suggested moving Item 9 prior to Items 7 and 8. Mayor Pro Tern Petso agreed they were related; however Item 8 is a public hearing and Item 7 was scheduled prior to the public hearing because it is related to the public hearing topic. Mr. Taraday clarified no action is required. This public hearing is required by State law; adoption of an interim ordinance also requires the legislative body adopt Findings of Fact justifying its action. He will prepare a resolution for approval at the next Council meeting affectively adopting the whereas clauses in Ordinance 3935 as the City Council's Findings of Fact that justify adoption of the interim ordinance. He invited Councilmembers to offer additional Finding of Fact. Mayor Pro Tern Petso advised Councilmembers will be absent from the September 17 and 24 meetings. She asked if the Council should hold a regular Council meeting on September 10 to consider the resolution. Mr. Taraday answered he would leave that up to Mayor Pro Tern Petso; adoption of the resolution can pass on a 3-2 vote. Council President Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas suggested a short Council meeting on September 10 prior to committee meetings, observing there were 3 Councilmembers absent on September 17 and 2 absent on September 24. Mayor Pro Tem Petso agreed the resolution would be scheduled for a regular Council meeting on September 10 prior to committee meetings. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 131 of 488 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NUMBER 3935 TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040, AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds may adopt an interim zoning ordinance for a period of up to six months pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, provided that the City Council holds a public hearing on the interim ordinance within sixty days of adoption; and WHEREAS, the City Council must adopt findings of fact justifying its action either before or immediately following the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3935 on August 6, 2013; and WHEREAS, a public hearing regarding Ordinance 3935 was held at the Edmonds City Council meeting on September 3, 2013; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The recitals contained in the Whereas clauses of Ordinance 3935 are hereby adopted by this reference as the findings of fact required by RCW 36.70A.390. RESOLVED this day of September, 2013. APPROVED: Packet Page 132 of 488 MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Page 133 of 488 AM-6094 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 09/10/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Department: City Clerk's Office Committee: Submitted By: Sandy Chase Tyne: Action Information 3. E. Subject Title Resolution approving Findings of Fact regarding the September 3, 2013 Public Hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3938. Recommendation Adoption of the Resolution. Previous Council Action Interim Ordinance No. 3938 was adopted by the City Council on August 20, 2013. A Public Hearing was held on the Interim Ordinance on September 3, 2013. Narrative The City Attorney prepared the attached Resolution approving Findings of Fact for the City Council's consideration. A Resolution approving findings is required by RCW 36.70A.390. Attachments Exhibit 1 - Ordinance No. 3938 Exhibit 2 - 08-20-13 City Council Minutes (,Excerpt) Exhibit 3 - 09-03-13 Draft City Council Minutes (ExceMt) Exhibit 4 - Resolution Adopting Findings (Ordinance No. 3938l Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 09/06/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 09/05/2013 08:02 PM Sandy Chase 09/06/2013 09:40 AM Started On: 09/05/2013 02:40 PM Packet Page 134 of 488 ORDINANCE NO. 3938 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS AND THE RECREATIONAL USE OF MARIJUANA, ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SITING, ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF ANY STRUCTURES OR USES RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS, MARIJUANA PRODUCTION, MARIJUANA PROCESSING, OR MARIJUANA RETAILING, TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS ZONING REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SUCH MARIJUANA USES, AND ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SUBMISSION OF ANY BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR SUCH USES, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM, TO ALLOW THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE ITS RULEMAKING FOR THE LICENSING OF SUCH USES AND TO ALLOW THE CITY TO STUDY THE SECONDARY LAND USE IMPACTS OF SUCH USES, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MORATORIUM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the Washington State legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill (ESSSB) 5073, Medical Cannibas, to become effective on July 22, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Governor vetoed 36 of the 58 sections of this bill; and WHEREAS, Initiative Measure No. 692, approved by the voters of the State of Washington on November 3, 1998, and now codified as Chapter 69.51A RCW, created a limited affirmative defense to criminal marijuana charges under state (not federal) law if the person demonstrates that he or she is a qualifying patient or a designated provider as defined in Chapter 69.51A RCW; and WHEREAS, the state legislature has amended the law three times, with the most recent amendment occurring during the 2011 legislative session as set forth in ESSSB 5073; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Attorneys for Washington wrote a letter dated April 14, 2011 to Governor Gregoire that reiterated that marijuana possession, production and distribution is a federal criminal offense and that State workers would not be immune from prosecution under federal law even if state law decriminalized the use, possession and production for medical purposes; and 1 Packet Page 135 of 488 WHEREAS, Section 1102 of ESSSB 5073 provides that a city may adopt zoning requirements, business licensing requirements, health and safety requirements and business taxes as those requirements relate to the production, processing, or dispensing of medical marijuana; and WHEREAS, the Washington voters approved Initiative 502 in 2012, which "authorizes the state liquor control board to regulate and tax marijuana for persons twenty-one years of age and older, and adds a new threshold for driving under the influence of marijuana"; and WHEREAS, 1-502 allows the Washington State Liquor Control Board to license marijuana producers "to produce marijuana for sale at wholesale to marijuana processors and other marijuana producers" (1-502, Sec. 4(1)); and WHEREAS, 1-502 allows the Washington State Liquor Control Board to license marijuana processors to "process, package and label usable marijuana and marijuana - infused products for sale at wholesale to marijuana retailers" (1-502, Sec. 4(2)); and WHEREAS, 1-502 allows the Washington State Liquor Control Board to license a marijuana retailer to "sell usable marijuana and marijuana -infused products at retail in retail outlets" (1-502, Sec. 4(3)); and WHEREAS, Under 1-502, before the Washington State Liquor Control Board issues a new or renewed license to an applicant, it must give notice of the application to the chief executive officer of the incorporated city, and the city has the right to file its written objections to such license within 20 days after transmittal of the notice of application, but the Board makes the final decision whether to issue a license (1-502, Sec. 7(a)); and WHEREAS, 1-502 establishes certain siting limitations on the Washington State Liquor Control Board's issuance of such licenses for any premises that are within 1,000 feet of the perimeter of the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, playground, recreation center or facility, child care center, public park, public transit center or library, or any game arcade, admission to which is not restricted to persons aged twenty-one years or older (1-502, Section 8); and WHEREAS, 1-502 contemplates that the Washington State Liquor Control Board will adopt rules to carry the provisions of 1-502 into effect, which includes the equipment and management of retail outlets and premises where marijuana is produced and processed, and the inspection of same; methods of producing, processing, and packaging the marijuana and marijuana products; security requirements at such establishments; retail outlet locations and hours of operation; labeling requirements and restrictions on advertising of such products; licensing and licensing renewal rules; the manner and method to be used by which licensees may transport and deliver marijuana and marijuana products (among other things), (1-502, Sec. 9); and 2 Packet Page 136 of 488 WHEREAS, 1-502 contemplates that the Washington State Liquor Control Board will adopt more rules on or before December 1, 2013 to determine the number of retail outlets that may be licensed in each county (among other things), (1-502, Sec. 10); and WHEREAS, 1-502 limits the number of retail outlets to be licensed in each county, for the purpose of making useable marijuana and marijuana -infused products available for sale to adults 21 years of age or over (1-502, Sec. 13); and WHEREAS, 1-502 decriminalizes, for purposes of state law, the production, manufacture, processing, packaging, delivery, distribution, sale or possession of marijuana, as long as such activities are in compliance with 1-502; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Liquor Control Board is required to establish rules necessary to implement 1-502 by December 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Liquor Control Board will begin accepting applications for the production, processing and retail sale of marijuana after the rules are implemented; and WHEREAS, at this time, no Washington legislative act reconciles Initiative Measure No. 502 and RCW 69.51A; and WHEREAS, federal law, as set forth in 21 U.S.C. S.841(a), makes it illegal to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute any controlled substance and pursuant to 21 U.S.C. S.812, marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance; and WHEREAS, at this time, no Washington legislative act or court decision reconciles Washington law with applicable Federal law; and WHEREAS, at this point in time, the City of Edmonds does not have any regulations addressing the facilities or uses identified in 1-502, other than the requirement for a general business license; and WHEREAS, based on the licensing scheme in 1-502, which prohibits anyone from engaging in the activities identified in 1-502 without first obtaining a license from the Washington State Liquor Control Board, the City will not be issuing any business license for the purposes described in 1-502 unless the applicant demonstrates that he/she has first received the appropriate license from the State; and WHEREAS, the uses described in 1-502 have never been allowed in any state or city in the United States, and City needs time to study the secondary land use impacts of these marijuana uses and the various development standards that should be addressed to mitigate these impacts before adoption of any regulatory ordinance or issuance of any business licenses; and 3 Packet Page 137 of 488 WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council therefore believes a moratorium to preserve the status quo is necessary, until the State Liquor Control Board definitively acts to establish a complete set of rules for the licensing of all of the new marijuana facilities and uses identified in 1-502, and until the Edmonds City Council can study, draft, hold public hearings and adopt the appropriate regulations to address these new uses; and WHEREAS, at this time, the Edmonds City Council does not have sufficient information to consider the potential secondary impacts from collective gardens or recreational marijuana facilities, the regulations that should be enacted or the legal implications of taking pre -mature action; and WHEREAS, Section 36.70A.390 of the Revised Code of Washington authorizes the City Council to adopt an immediate moratorium for a period of up to six months without holding a public hearing on the proposal provided that a public hearing is held within at least sixty days of its adoption, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to impose an immediate six month moratorium on the acceptance of any development permit application or business license application for the siting, location or operation of any collective garden, marijuana processor, marijuana producer, or marijuana retailer; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Marijuana Definitions. A. "Cannabis or Marijuana" means all parts of the plant Cannabis, whether growing or not, with a THC concentration greater than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. For the purposes of this Ordinance, "cannabis" or "marijuana" does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin extracted therefrom, fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. 4 Packet Page 138 of 488 B. "Collective Garden" means a facility, building, use, access -point or other property, where qualifying patients share responsibility for acquiring and supplying the resources required to produce and process cannabis for medical use as set forth in RCW 69.51A.085 and subject to the limitations therein. C. "Marijuana processer" means a person licensed by the State Liquor Control Board to process marijuana into useable marijuana and marijuana -infused products, package and label usable marijuana and marijuana -infused products for sale in retail outlets, and sell usable marijuana and marijuana -infused products as wholesale to marijuana retailers. D."Marijuana producer" means a person licensed by the State Liquor Control Board to produce and sell marijuana at wholesale to marijuana processors and other marijuana producers. E. "Marijuana -infused products" means products that contain marijuana or marijuana extracts and are intended for human use. The term "marijuana -infused products" does not include useable marijuana. F. "Marijuana retailer" means a person licensed by the State Liquor Control Board to sell usable marijuana and marijuana -infused products in a retail outlet. G. "Retail outlet" means a location licensed by the State Liquor Control Board for the retail sale of useable marijuana and marijuana -infused products. H. "Usable marijuana" means dried marijuana flowers. The term "usable marijuana" does not include marijuana -infused products. Section 2: General Definitions. 5 Packet Page 139 of 488 A. "Exempt development permits" shall include any permit application for a structure or use/operation of property for collective gardens, marijuana production, marijuana processing or marijuana retailing, as defined in this Ordinance, that is subject to the vested rights doctrine, and that was submitted to the City and determined by the City staff to be complete on or before the effective date of this Ordinance. B. "Non -Exempt development permits or Non-exempt business license" shall include any permit or business license application for a structure or use/operation of property for collective gardens, marijuana production, marijuana processing or marijuana retailing, as defined in this Ordinance, that is: 1. a permit application that is not subject to the vested rights doctrine and/or that was submitted to the City after the effective date of this Ordinance; and/or 2. a business license application for use/operation of property for a collective garden, marijuana production, marijuana processing or marijuana retailing, as defined in this Ordinance that was submitted to the City either before or after the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 3. Purpose. The purpose of this moratorium is to allow the City adequate time to study the secondary land use impacts associated with the location and siting of structures and uses in which collective gardens, marijuana production, marijuana processing or marijuana retailing may take place. In addition, the moratorium will allow the City adequate time to study 1-502, and to await the administrative rules that the Liquor Control Board will develop by December of 2013. The City's goal is to ultimately draft zoning and business licensing regulations to address such 6 Packet Page 140 of 488 developments and uses, to hold public hearings on such draft regulations and to adopt such regulations. Section 4. Moratorium Imposed. The City Council imposes an immediate six- month moratorium on the acceptance of all non-exempt development permit and business license applications, as defined in this Ordinance. All such non-exempt development permit and business license applications shall be rejected and returned to the applicant. With regard to the City's acceptance of any exempt development permit applications, such acceptance shall only allow processing to proceed, but shall not constitute an assurance that the application will be approved. Section 5. Duration of Moratorium. The moratorium imposed by this Ordinance shall commence on the date of the adoption of this Ordinance. As long as the City holds a public hearing on the moratorium and adopts findings and conclusions in support of the moratorium (as contemplated by Section 6 herein), the moratorium shall not terminate until six (6) months after the date of adoption, or at the time all of the events described in Section 3 have been accomplished, whichever is sooner. The Council shall make the decision to terminate the moratorium by ordinance, and termination shall not otherwise be presumed to have occurred. Section 6. Public Hearinq on Moratorium. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on this moratorium within sixty (60) days of its adoption. During the next Council meeting immediately following the hearing, the City Council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this moratorium and either justify its continued imposition or cancel the moratorium. Packet Page 141 of 488 7 Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 8. Declaration of Emergency. The City Council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this Ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the Council, and that the same is not subject to a referendum (RCW 35A.12.130). Without an immediate moratorium on the City's acceptance of non-exempt development applications, such applications could become vested, leading to development or a use of property that is incompatible with 1-502, the rules that will be adopted by the Liquor Control Board or the laws adopted by the City of Edmonds. Therefore, the moratorium must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and to prevent the submission of a flood of applications to the City in an attempt to vest rights for an indefinite period of time. This Ordinance does not affect any existing vested rights. Any use currently in operation as a collective garden, marijuana producer, marijuana processor or marijuana retailer without a valid City business license on the date of the passage of this Ordinance is not a legal non -conforming use. Section 9. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it is approved by a 8 Packet Page 142 of 488 majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. PASSED by the City Council of Edmonds this 20t" day of August, 2013. L�a (��e"-' I - !�t� Dave Earling, Mayor AUTHENTICATED: 2"� &�� Sandy ClAse, City Clerk. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney City Attorney FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 08-20-2013 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 08-20-2013 PUBLISHED: 08-25-2013 EFFECTIVE DATE: 08-20-2013 ORDINANCE NO. 3938 0 Packet Page 143 of 488 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3938 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 20th day of August, 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3938. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS AND THE RECREATIONAL USE OF MARIJUANA, ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SITING, ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF ANY STRUCTURES OR USES RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS, MARIJUANA PRODUCTION, MARIJUANA PROCESSING, OR MARIJUANA RETAILING, TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS ZONING REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SUCH MARIJUANA USES, AND ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SUBMISSION OF ANY BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR SUCH USES, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM, TO ALLOW THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE ITS RULEMAKING FOR THE LICENSING OF SUCH USES AND TO ALLOW THE CITY TO STUDY THE SECONDARY LAND USE IMPACTS OF SUCH USES, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MORATORIUM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 21 st day of August, 2013. `CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE 10 Packet Page 144 of 488 court salary has not changed since 2008. In 2013 the State Salary Commission approved a 2% increase in 2013 and a 3% increase in 2014 for district court judges. In order for the City to be eligible to continue to receive the funds, approximately $12,000 - $13,000/year, his salary must be raised by the same amount. The annual cost is described in the agenda memo. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the Citizens Salary Commission sets the compensation for all elected officials including the judge. While the Commission established the salary for the Council and Mayor, they did defer the judge's salary to the Council. The Commission meets in the spring of every even numbered year; they can address the 2014 increase at that time. He suggested when the Commission meets, they are asked to tie the judge's salary to this formula. Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite explained she was the staff liaison to the Citizens Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials in 2012. She referred to the May 1, 2012 Council minutes in which the Commission deferred the judge's salary to the 95% of the district court judge and that any changes in the state salary rate be reflected in the judge's compensation for 2013 and 2014. Mr. Taraday explained that means the Council does not need to take any action; it will happen automatically. He cited RCW 35.21.015 which states any change in salary shall be filed by the Commission with the City Clerk and shall become effective and incorporated into the city or town budget without further action of the city council or salary commission. He summarized in accordance with the RCW, it would be improper for the Council to take action on the judge's salary. 7A. PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES Mayor Earling read the title of the ordinance: An ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington, relating to collective gardens and the recreational use of marijuana, establishing an immediate emergency moratorium on the siting, establishment and operation of any structures or uses relating to collective gardens, marijuana production, marijuana processing, or marijuana retailing, to be in effect until the City of Edmonds adopts zoning regulations addressing such marijuana uses, and establishing an immediate emergency moratorium on the submission of any business license applications for such uses, setting six months as the effective period of the moratorium, to allow the Washington State Liquor Control Board an opportunity to complete its rulemaking for the licensing of such uses and to allow the City to study the secondary land use impacts of such uses, establishing the date of the public hearing on the moratorium and declaring an emergency. Mayor Earling explained he asked the City Attorney to prepare the ordinance. With the passage of I-502, there is a series of new regulations. With the recent news that the Liquor Control Board extended 90 days for additional rulemaking consideration, it was appropriate for the City to take this action immediately. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed this was appropriate, noting the State of Washington needs time and the City needs time. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3938, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS AND THE RECREATIONAL USE OF MARIJUANA, ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SITING, ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF ANY STRUCTURES OR USES RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS, MARIJUANA PRODUCTION, MARIJUANA PROCESSING, OR MARIJUANA RETAILING, TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS ZONING REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SUCH MARIJUANA USES, AND ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SUBMISSION OF ANY BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR SUCH USES, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM, TO ALLOW THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE ITS RULEMAKING FOR THE LICENSING OF SUCH USES AND TO ALLOW THE CITY TO STUDY THE SECONDARY Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 145 of 488 LAND USE IMPACTS OF SUCH USES, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MORATORIUM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Councilmember Buckshnis commented everyone will be looking at how Washington State handles this law. She personally preferred to "tax the heck out of it" to generate additional revenue. The State and the City need time to do things thoughtful because it has the potential to change the face of Edmonds. Councilmember Peterson did not support an emergency moratorium without notice to the public even though he understood the reasoning. If the ordinance passes, he hoped a public hearing would be scheduled as soon as possible. He viewed this as an opportunity to recruit businesses and move forward in a very progressive way as the State has. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the ordinance include an automatic repeal of the moratorium after six months. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the ordinance has a provision that requires the Council to take action to terminate the moratorium. He read Section 5 of the ordinance, "Duration of Moratorium. The moratorium imposed by this Ordinance shall commence on the date of the adoption of this Ordinance. As long as the City holds a public hearing on the moratorium and adopts findings and conclusions in support of the moratorium (as contemplated by Section 6 herein), the moratorium shall not terminate until six (6) months after the date of adoption, or at the time all of the events described in Section 3 have been accomplished, whichever is sooner. The Council shall make the decision to terminate the moratorium by ordinance, and termination shall not otherwise be presumed to have occurred." Mr. Taraday clarified as the ordinance is currently drafted, the Council would need to take subsequent action to terminate the moratorium but that sentence could be revised if the Council wished. If the Council wanted a permanent ban on marijuana facilities as some cities have done, he recommended that not be done by simply leaving the moratorium in place, but rather by adopting a permanent ban. Councilmember Bloom asked whether a public hearing was required. Mr. Taraday answered if the moratorium is adopted, a public hearing is required within 60 days of adoption. Council President Petso advised the date of the public hearing was unknown at this point, possibly September 3, 2013. Council President Petso asked whether the moratorium could be repealed following the public hearing if the Council chose. Mr. Taraday answered this is not an interim ordinance but a moratorium; the City is not required to leave the moratorium in place for six months. Like any ordinance, it can be repealed. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. 8. 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 Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster reviewed grants the City has received in the past (agenda items shown in italics): Period Type Amount 2007-2009 Municipal Stormwater Capacity Grant $75,000 2010-2012 Municipal Stormwater Capacity Grant and Stormwater Retrofit or LID Planning & Design $178,115 2012-2015 Statewide Stormwater Grant Program — Vactor Waste Facility Retrofit $259,745 2013-2014 Watershed Protection and Restoration Grant — Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Study and Pre -Design Report $188,772 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 146 of 488 7. DISCUSSION REGARDING I-502 AND CITY OPTIONS REGARDING MARIJUANA. City Attorney Jeff Taraday referred to the memo in the Council packet prepared by Susan Drummond, Lighthouse Law Group, regarding the four options the City has for addressing marijuana facilities. Mr. Taraday explained the Council recently adopted a moratorium on which a public hearing will be held next. During the six months the moratorium is in effect, the City can consider what it wants its policy to be with regard to medical marijuana, collective gardens and recreational marijuana facilities that were approved via I-502. He reviewed the four options outlined in the memo: 1. Take no action 2. No immediate action; further assess likely impacts and legal concerns. Kent has litigation pending with regard to a ban on marijuana facilities. Mr. Taraday expected Kent's ban will be upheld by State courts but a published opinion has not yet been issued. 3. Adopt a permanent ban on marijuana facilities 4. Adopt zoning regulations that allow marijuana facilities in certain zones subject to conditions Mr. Taraday explained this is a timely discussion because there will be a great deal of activity with regard to I-502 in the next 6 months. Tomorrow the Liquor Control Board plans to inform cities and counties the number of retail marijuana facilities they will license for each area. The Liquor Control Board's allocation does not mean a city cannot ban retail marijuana facilities. The Liquor Control Board will allocate retail marijuana facilities based on population. Even if Edmonds is allocated a certain number of facilities, the City does not have to allow them. The City's code is essentially silent, other than the moratorium, with regard to collective gardens and retail marijuana stores. He noted no one could apply for a retail license until they have a State license. Mr. Taraday referred to the timeline in the packet, noting a date he learned about today is the Liquor Control Board estimates they will begin issuing licenses in March/April 2014. The City's moratorium will expire in February 2014; hopefully, the Council has provided clear direction before then regarding zoning, a ban, etc. If the decision is to ban, a ban should be in place by February 2014. If the decision is to zone facilities, the zoning should be in place by February 2014. Because the code is currently silent, he recommended the Council provide a clear policy directive. He did not recommend the Council take no action on a permanent basis. With regard to federal law, as the memo mentions, on August 29 the Justice Department decided they will allow I-502 to go into effect. He highlighted statements in a 4-page memo (not in the packet), Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement intended for all United States attorneys: The Justice Department is committed to using its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources to address the most significant threats. The Justice Department identified eight particular threats that it will continue to focus on: • Preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors; • Preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels; • Preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some from to other states; • Preventing state -authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity; • Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana; • Preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use; • Preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands; and • Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 147 of 488 Mr. Taraday continued his summary of the memo: Outside of these enforcement priorities, the federal government has traditionally relied on states and local law enforcement agencies to address marijuana activity through enforcement of their own narcotics laws. The Department's guidance in this memorandum rests on its expectation that states and local governments that have enacted laws authorizing marijuana related conduct will implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose. If state enforcement efforts are not sufficiently robust to protect against the harms set forth above, the federal government may seek to challenge the regulatory structure itself. Mr. Taraday summarized all marijuana is illegal under federal law; the federal government is not changing the classification of marijuana under federal law. The memo states that federal law enforcement has their enforcement priorities and as long as the states are operating a tight ship with respect to their regulations and making sure State laws that make marijuana legal and the regulatory scheme do not interfere with the federal government's eight enforcement priorities, it appears the federal government will let the states continue without waiving their right to step in later if they perceive things are getting out of hand or the State's enforcement is too loose. Council President Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas recalled after the federal government's statements, the governor's office made a statement agreeing with the federal government. Mr. Taraday said it appears certain there will be State licensed retail marijuana facilities in Washington; the question is whether the Council wants them in Edmonds and if so, where. Council President Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas preferred to observe the challenges over the next few months. Mr. Taraday responded if a majority of the Council is thinking a ban may be the right way, there is no harm in leaving the moratorium in place and letting 2-4 months pass to see what happens with the Kent case, to confirm that the court will uphold cities' ability to ban retail marijuana facilities. However, if the Council is leaning toward permitting and zoning, he recommended Council not simply wait because it will take time for the Planning Board to work through appropriate zoning. Zoning would ideally take place before licenses are issued in March/April 2014. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was swaying between 2 (no immediate action) and 4 (adopt zoning regulations) and having the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee discuss zoning regulations. She inquired about taxes the City would receive. Mr. Taraday answered unlike collective gardens which are not taxed, State licensed facilities will be taxed and if they are allowed in Edmonds, the City will receive the local share of sales tax. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the City would determine that tax. Mr. Taraday answered it is sales tax; there is no special marijuana tax collected by the city. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled liquor tax is collected by the State and distributed to the cities. Mr. Taraday summarized the City does not have specific taxing authority unique to only marijuana facilities. If there is a State licensed retail marijuana facility in Edmonds, it would be like any other retail operation in Edmonds whereby the City would receive a portion of the sales tax. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested this also be reviewed by the Public Safety and Finance Committees. Mayor Pro Tem Petso observed a city may be permitted to prevent a facility from locating with 1,000 feet of a school. She asked if a city could require a greater distance or add other public facilities such as libraries or parks. Mr. Taraday explained I-502 will address that; the 1,000 foot buffer is listed in I-502 and covers parks, schools, libraries and other areas where minors may be present. The State will address much of that via its own licensing efforts. If the City has the ability to ban, it would have the authority to further restrict them. Councilmember Peterson summarized the issues moving forward include, 1) retail locations, 2) collective gardens, and 3) businesses that use marijuana as a food additive. Mr. Taraday advised under I-502, there are three different licenses, 1) producer, 2) processor, and 3) retailer. In addition there is the non-1-502 collective garden related to medical marijuana; there is currently nothing in the code to address this. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 148 of 488 Collective gardens are not licensed or taxed by the State. Unless there is City zoning to regulate collective gardens, the City cannot rely on the Liquor Control Board to regulate them. Councilmember Peterson asked if the City was more vulnerable to a collective gardening license without regulations in the code. Mr. Taraday requested the Council provide clear policy direction with regard to collective gardens. Before the moratorium was adopted there were inquiries about collective gardens. He did not envision that interest would go away with the establishment of State licensed marijuana outlets because collective gardens do not pay tax. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave commented silence is not generally prohibition. If someone applies, staff attempts to determine where it fits in the code. Many of the land use classifications are very broad; for example a collective garden could be considered gardening. He did not recommend the Council do nothing. He agreed with referring it to multiple committees because land use will have a relatively minor role and there are other issues such as licensing, enforcement, etc. He suggested not referring to the Planning Board until the Council has had more discussion regarding what path they want to follow. Councilmember Peterson asked if restaurants would be allowed to use cannabis as an ingredient. Mr. Taraday answered he did not think so because no public consumption of marijuana was allowed even under I-502. Councilmember Peterson recalled I-502 did not allow public smoking but was unsure if there was no public consumption. Mr. Taraday recalled there no distinction between smoking and consumption; he offered to research. Councilmember Peterson asked whether there was a 1,000 foot restriction from schools, churches, etc. for breweries, distilleries, liquor stores and other licensed operations or were they only allowed in commercial areas. Mr. Chave answered there are similar distance separation requirements for adult entertainment; by the time they are applied throughout the City there are a very limited number of sites available. The City's GIS person is attempting to map potential sites under the limitations of I-502. He anticipated the potential locations would be fairly limited. Councilmember Peterson suggested that information be given to the committees for review. He asked if the State was utilizing GIS in allocating the number of facilities per jurisdiction. Mr. Taraday answered he believed the State was allocating facilities based on population not GIS. Councilmember Peterson observed the State could allocate Edmonds 15 facilities and there could only be 3 available sites. Mr. Taraday agreed that was possible. Councilmember Yamamoto asked whether Council action was necessary to extend the moratorium. Mr. Taraday answered the moratorium will remain in effect for 6 months from the date of adoption, February 2014. The Council has time to give this careful consideration. Depending on how the Council wants to proceed, it would be helpful to know sooner rather than later so staff can plan accordingly. Mayor Pro Tern Petso advised this was on tonight's agenda as a discussion item prior to the public hearing to inform the public. However, it appeared Mr. Taraday was asking for Council direction. Councilmember Peterson favored following the rules and regulations in 1-502 with regard to zoning and siting. He also suggested obtaining information from other cities who have allowed collective gardens such as Mukilteo. Washington is on the leading edge of an important change in attitudes toward marijuana, both medical and recreational and it is important to have as much information as possible. Council President Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Peterson. Mayor Pro Tern Petso suggested scheduling this for October committee meetings. She asked Mr. Taraday whether he had sufficient direction from Council. Mr. Taraday answered there was time for discussion by Council committees. The Liquor Control Board plans to adopt the rules on October 16. The rules will be in fairly final form by the October committee meetings. A public hearing on the draft rules is scheduled on October 9. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 149 of 488 Councilmember Johnson agreed that would be a prudent course. She also suggested committees be provided the GIS information that identifies potential locations. Councilmember Peterson suggested further discussion could occur at the Council's October 22 work session. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE NO. 3938 - RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS AND THE RECREATIONAL USES OF MARIJUANA, ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SITING, ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF ANY STRUCTURES OR USES RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS, MARIJUANA PRODUCTION, MARIJUANA PROCESSING, OR MARIJUANA RETAILING, TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS ZONING REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SUCH MARIJUANA USES, AND ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SUBMISSION OF ANY BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR SUCH USES, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM, TO ALLOW THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE ITS RULE MAKING FOR THE LICENSING OF SUCH USES AND TO ALLOW THE CITY TO STUDY THE SECONDARY LAND USE IMPACTS OF SUCH USES, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MORATORIUM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised this is a statutorily required public hearing; anytime the Council adopts a moratorium a public hearing is required within 60 days of adoption. Mayor Pro Tern Petso opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the audience present who wished to provide testimony. Mayor Pro Tem Petso closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Taraday advised he would prepare a resolution using the whereas statements from the ordinance as the Findings of Fact for Council consideration at the September 10 meeting. Councilmember Peterson recalled he voted against the moratorium. Although he likely still would have voted against it, he would have felt more comfortable if the previous item had been scheduled on the agenda along with the moratorium. 9. RECONSIDERATION OF THE MAYOR'S VETO OF ORDINANCE NO. 3940 - REPEALING INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3935, WHICH AMENDED THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040, AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA. Mayor Pro Tern Petso explained this reconsideration is required by State law. Councilmember Bloom asked if this was was being done because the Mayor has the option to either veto an ordinance or sign and pass it. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered yes; or a Mayor could do nothing in which case it becomes law. Councilmember Bloom referred to the last sentence of the RCW that states if the Mayor fails for 10 days to either approve or veto an ordinance, it shall become valid without his or her approval. Ordinances shall be signed by the mayor and attested by the clerk. She asked what happened if the Mayor did not veto or sign an ordinance. Mr. Taraday explained if the Mayor does not veto or sign an ordinance it becomes valid without his/her approval. Councilmember Bloom asked whether it became effective within 10 days. Mr. Taraday answered the effective date depends on what is stated in the ordinance. Councilmember Bloom observed the effective date could be as stated in the ordinance; Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes September 3, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 150 of 488 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 3938 RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS AND THE RECREATIONAL USES OF MARIJUANA, ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SITING, ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF ANY STRUCTURES OR USES RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS, MARIJUANA PRODUCTION, MARIJUANA PROCESSING, OR MARIJUANA RETAILING, TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS ZONING REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SUCH MARIJUANA USES, AND ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SUBMISSION OF ANY BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR SUCH USES, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM, TO ALLOW THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE ITS RULE MAKING FOR THE LICENSING OF SUCH USES AND TO ALLOW THE CITY TO STUDY THE SECONDARY LAND USE IMPACTS OF SUCH USES, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MORATORIUM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds may adopt a moratorium for a period of up to six months pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, provided that the City Council holds a public hearing on the moratorium within sixty days of adoption; and WHEREAS, the City Council must adopt findings of fact justifying its action either before or immediately following the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3938 on August 20, 2013; and WHEREAS, a public hearing regarding Ordinance 3938 was held at the Edmonds City Council meeting on September 3, 2013; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Packet Page 151 of 488 Section 1. The recitals contained in the Whereas clauses of Ordinance 3938 are hereby adopted by this reference as the findings of fact required by RCW 36.70A.390. RESOLVED this day of , APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Page 152 of 488 AM-6095 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 09/10/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted For: Rob English Submitted By: Robert English Department: Engineering Committee: Tyne: Action Information Subject Title Authorization to approve additional funding for the 190th Place SW Retaining Wall. Recommendation Approve additional funding to extend the 190th Place SW Retaining Wall. 5. Previous Council Action On August 6, 2013, the City Council approved a Settlement Agreement and Release with the Meiers to provide payment to construct a new retaining wall on 190th Place SW. Narrative The City has been working with the Meiers' Contractor to coordinate the placement of the new retaining wall approved as part of the Settlement Agreement last month. After a recent field inspection and locating the placement of the proposed wall, staff and the City's geotechnical engineer determined that the City should extend the wall approximately 24 feet to the southwest. The need to extend the wall became more evident after vegetation was removed from the slope in the area below where the Meiers' wall is to end. The extension of the wall would protect the City's infrastructure on 190th PI SW and a section of steep slope that lies partially within the City's right of way adjacent to the property owner southwest of the Meiers' property. The preliminary cost estimate from the Meiers' Contractor is approximately $30,000. The added cost will be the City's responsibility and will be funded by the City's stormwater utility fund. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 09/05/2013 04:21 PM Public Works Kody McConnell 09/05/2013 04:23 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/05/2013 04:35 PM Engineering Robert English 09/05/2013 04:43 PM Public Works Phil Williams 09/05/2013 04:49 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/05/2013 04:53 PM Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2013 08:02 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/06/2013 09:40 AM Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 09/05/2013 03:19 PM Final Approval Date: 09/06/2013 Packet Page 153 of 488 AM-6030 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 09/10/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Phil Williams Submitted By: Kody McConnell Department: Public Works Committee: Finance Tyne: Action Information Subject Title Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles. 8. A. Recommendation It is recommended that authorization be given to Public Works to contract with James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell a surplus vehicle obtained through a seizure by the Edmonds Police Department. Previous Council Action Narrative Previously, the city has utilized the services of James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus city vehicles and equipment. This has proven to be a cost effective method to manage surplus items. The following vehicle was obtained through seizure by the Edmonds Police Department and can be divested as surplus. 2002 BMW X5 VIN# 5UXFA53522LP55520 WA License B78606G Fiscal Year: 2013 Fiscal Impact• Monies will be deposited into the General Fund. Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Kody McConnell Final Approval Date: 09/05/2013 Reviewed By Sandy Chase Dave Earling Sandy Chase Fiscal Impact Revenue: 6000 Form Review Date 09/03/2013 12:07 PM 09/04/2013 06:15 PM 09/05/2013 08:33 AM Started On: 08/13/2013 08:45 AM Expenditure: Packet Page 154 of 488 AM-6097 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 09/10/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Committee: Finance Submitted By: Roger Neumaier Tyne: Action Information Subject Title Recommendation for Department Presentations for Budget Workshops Recommendation This request asks the Council Finance Committee to review a recommended format for Council Budget Workshop Presentations by City Departments. After reviewing and suggesting amendments to the recommendation, the format would be sent to the entire Council at their September 17th hearing for review, possible revisions and adoption as a format for the budget process. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The proposed schedule for budget review and adoption by the Council of the Mayor's recommended budget is summarized below: 10/1 Mayor's presentation of proposed 2014 City Budget. 10/15 Department presentations 10/22 Department presentations 10/29 (5th Tuesday work session if needed) 11/4 Council Budget Public Hearing 11/19 Council Budget Adoption Public testimony will be taken on the budget workshops and at the Council Public Hearing on the 4th. The first workshop would begin with a summary review of the 2014 budget compared to the 2013 budget. Particular attention would be focused upon the economic projection, a multi -year strategic forecast for the City's General Fund and its fund balances, and review and explanation of the major changes in revenues and expenditures in the 2014 budget. Each department will make a brief presentation on their budget. Departments will be encouraged to to use PowerPoint presentations as appropriate. The Public Works Department will make three presentations: One for Streets, one for the three Utilities, and one for Facilities Maintenance, ER&R, and Engineering. Finance's proposal for the format for these budget presentations by each department is shown below. a. Up to three minute presentation on department's 2013 accomplishments. b. A brief review of the business challenges and uncertainties for the department in the coming year. c. A brief review comparing department's year end projected actual expenditures and revenues to budgeted levels with an explanation of how and why there are material differences between the projected actuals and the budgeted appropriations. d. A brief review of what is different about the 2014 budget proposal than the current budget. This review should emphasize decision packages, why those changes and decision packages are being recommended and what will be the impact on outcomes to the City and its citizens. e. Responses to Council questions regarding their department's budget. Packet Page 155 of 488 A proposed schedule of presentations is listed below: October 15: Municipal Court City Clerk Mayor's Office Council Human Resources Economic Development Finance & Information Services Nondepartmental (Presented by Finance) Development Services Police October 22nd Parks Public Works Utilities; Public Works Roads; Public Works Facilities Maintenance, ER&R & Engineering. To the extent that these work session over run available times, October 29th would be available. Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Roger Neumaier Final Approval Date: 09/06/2013 Reviewed By Sandy Chase Dave Earling Sandy Chase Form Review Date 09/06/2013 10:07 AM 09/06/2013 10:10 AM 09/06/2013 10:12 AM Started On: 09/06/2013 09:20 AM Packet Page 156 of 488 AM-6045 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 09/10/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Committee: Finance Subject Title July 2013 Budgetary Financial Report Recommendation N.A. For informational purposes only. Previous Council Action N.A. Narrative July 2013 Budgetary Financial Report Inbox Finance City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sarah Mager Final Approval Date: 09/05/2013 Reviewed By Roger Neumaier Sandy Chase Dave Earling Sandy Chase Submitted By: Sarah Mager Tyne: Information Attachments Form Review Information Date 08/20/2013 03:25 PM 09/03/2013 12:07 PM 09/04/2013 06:21 PM 09/05/2013 08:33 AM Started On: 08/19/2013 04:51 PM 8. C. Packet Page 157 of 488 O-V E DPI � o� CITY OF EDMONDS BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT JULY 2013 Packet Page 158 of 488 CTIY OF EDMONDS 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 7/31/2012 Revenues 7/31/2013 Revenues Amount Remaining %Received $ 32,882,089 $ 18,775,883 $20,092,766 $ 12,789,323 61% 350,350 300,207 175,164 175,186 50% 418,200 244,000 417,029 1,171 100% 123,223 - 64,224 58,999 52% 15,000 - 714 14,286 5% 56,900 28,496 28,411 28,489 50% 20,175 44,430 17,259 2,916 86% 1,406,800 773,516 848,416 558,384 60% 6,363,755 812,462 1,134,242 5,229,513 18% - - - - 0% 59,891 16,991 11,946 47,945 20% 27 16 9 18 34% 52,870 37,737 29,414 23,456 56% 18,120 6,708 6,505 11,615 36% 2,025 1,336 354 1,671 17% 19,000 93 16,904 2,096 89% 662,600 444,927 535,694 126,906 81% 650,600 384,628 535,338 115,262 82% 20,483 21,002 30,118 (9,635) 147% 222,800 - 291,992 (69,192) 131% 119,950 77,273 60,041 59,909 50% - - - - 0% 2,010,350 418,282 297,361 1,712,989 15% 228 132 252 (24) 111% 14,600 9,284 6,961 7,639 48% 3,517 1,710 7,905 (4,388) 225% 645,000 385,169 391,807 253,193 61% - - 41,177 (41,177) 0% 22,130 1,175 5,916 16,214 27% 22,230 106,154 13 22,217 0% 1,009,902 - 92,264 917,638 9% - N/A 142,051 (142,051) 0% 10,625,680 N/A 3,320,210 7,305,470 31% 3,486,716 N/A 1,938,383 1,548,333 56% 11,020,123 N/A 4,551,016 6,469,107 41% 1,361,972 629,866 830,694 531,278 61% 45,400 68,862 49,595 (4,195) 109% $ 73,732,706 $ 23,5909339 $ 35,972,146 $ 37,760,560 49% 'Due to the change in enterprise fund structure from 2012 to 2013, these revenues are shown as N/A 1 Packet Page 159 of 488 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2013 Amended 7/31/2012 7/31/2013 Amount No. Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent 001 GENERAL FUND $ 33,007,003 $ 18,712,395 $ 19,021,011 $ 13,985,992 58% 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 619,400 349,044 186,289 433,111 30% 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 661,000 - 555,907 105,093 84% 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 15,000 - 800 14,200 5% 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 205,000 8,261 18,581 186,419 9% 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 80,033 17,468 24,915 55,118 31% 111 STREET FUND 1,557,715 943,078 789,644 768,071 51% 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 6,464,984 705,577 616,371 5,848,613 10% 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 139,800 16,146 33,243 106,557 24% 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - - 0% 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 68,500 31,396 31,295 37,205 46% 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,726 12,543 13,972 12,754 52% 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 4,000 2,943 2,206 1,794 55% 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 3,863 5,188 13,812 27% 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,286,500 209,864 86,655 1,199,845 7% 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 668,534 80,277 32,108 636,426 5% 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 32,317 1,443 20,594 11,723 64% 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 222,800 2,675 142,187 80,613 64% 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 152,761 87,723 73,504 79,257 48% 132 PARKS CONST RUCT ION FUND 2,093,200 331,075 24,946 2,068,254 1% 136 PARKS TRUST FUND - 6,930 - - 0% 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 4,600 2,834 278 4,322 6% 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 645,000 385,169 391,807 253,193 61% 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 22,130 106,000 - 22,130 0% 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND - 244,000 - - 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 3,531,979 5,669,872 38% 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 4,565,772 N/A 1,677,139 2,888,633 37% 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 18,168,019 N/A 6,614,628 11,553,391 36% 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,095,372 820,078 433,842 661,530 40% 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 108,790 55,372 56,550 52,240 52% $ 82,145,709 $ 23,136,154 $ 34,477,904 $ 47,667,805 42% "Due to the change in enterprise fund structure from 2012 to 2013, these expenditures are shown as N/A 2 Packet Page 160 of 488 Page 1 of 3 Title CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2013 Amended 7/31/2012 7/31/2013 Amount Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received TAXES: REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX $ 9,781,109 $ 5,054,121 $ 5,618,173 $ 4,162,936 57% EMSPROPERTYTAX 2,775,282 1,569,029 1,740,842 1,034,440 63% VOTED PROPERTY TAX 916,103 496,907 553,904 362,199 60% LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 4,913,150 2,837,791 2,994,986 1,918,164 61% NATURAL GAS USE TAX 8,706 5,250 6,167 2,539 71% 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 520,417 301,301 324,210 196,207 62% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,475,638 1,002,829 997,566 478,072 68% GASUTILITYTAX 811,174 595,099 505,954 305,220 62% SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 287,710 164,375 175,158 112,552 61% WAT ER UT ILIT Y T AX 904,613 467,026 510,809 393,804 56% SEWER UTILITY TAX 470,000 276,020 215,418 254,582 46% STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 274,600 151,809 226,822 47,778 83% T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 730,910 374,730 462,036 268,874 63% TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,529,498 918,807 823,494 706,004 54% PULLTABSTAX 61,385 39,915 37,689 23,696 61% AMUSEMENT GAMES 731 - 100 631 14% LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 212,350 105,124 110,074 102,276 52% PENALTIES ONGAMBLINGTAXES - - - - 0% 25,673,376 14,360,133 15,303,403 10,369,973 60% LICENSES AND PERMTIS: FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE 5,555 5,313 4,990 565 90% PROF AND OCC LICENSE -TAXI 1,030 510 630 400 61% AMUSEMENTS 6,060 5,475 4,350 1,710 72% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -COMCAST 627,816 470,088 497,805 130,011 79% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -VERIZON/FRONT IER 95,806 44,459 64,900 30,906 68% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -BLACKROCK 8,287 7,332 8,556 (269) 103% FRANCHISE AGREMENT-ZAYO - - 5,000 (5,000) 0% OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 214,415 175,322 176,782 37,633 82% GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 106,297 95,945 99,933 6,364 94% DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 18,422 10,995 14,655 3,767 80% NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 39,274 22,550 34,250 5,024 87% RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 9,500 9,308 9,773 (273) 103% BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 345,436 192,927 241,757 103,679 70% ANIMAL LICENSES 13,205 6,843 5,644 7,561 43% STREET AND CURB PERMIT 50,000 16,282 23,299 26,701 47% OTR NON -BUS LIC/PERMITS 7,070 5,897 6,569 502 93% 1,548,173 1,069,246 1,198,892 349,281 77% INTERGOVERNMENTAL: DOI 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 1,191 - 3,969 (2,778) 333% ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE GRANT 23,500 - 34,000 (10,500) 145% TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 10,000 2,084 4,828 5,172 48% 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 6,672 7,067 1,761 80% JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION -STATE 12,572 6,224 6,268 6,304 50% CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS 33,290 25,116 26,360 6,930 79% DUI - CITIES 7,704 5,628 5,364 2,340 70% LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 20,000 146,591 - 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% 614,557 411,711 268,107 344,950 44% 3 Packet Page 161 of 488 Page 2 of 3 Title C ITY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2013 Amended 7/31/2012 7/31/2013 Amount Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,065 607 818 248 77% D/M COURT REC SER 172 82 47 125 28% MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 188 92 112 76 59% SALE MAPS & BOOKS 72 41 123 (51) 171% PHOTOCOPIES 4,572 1,994 1,324 3,248 29% POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 4,500 2,570 2,896 1,604 64% ASSESSMENT SEARCH 5 5 - 5 0% ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 100,000 59,660 122,684 (22,684) 123% ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES 1,011 - - 1,011 0% SNO-ISLE 57,236 41,718 58,636 (1,400) 102% PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 9,571 6,925 7,375 2,196 77% POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 11,974 12,190 13,810 47% OCDETF OVERTIME - 1,226 2,350 (2,350) 0% CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. 11,615 4,041 2,146 9,469 18% WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 36,000 11,723 21,295 14,705 59% MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 2,750 - - 2,750 0% DRE REIMBURSEABLE - - 709 (709) 0% DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES 532 318 447 85 84% FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 27,808 43,622 40,768 (12,960) 147% ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 60,000 33,171 41,241 18,759 69% ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 165 82 590 (425) 358% BOOKING FEES 5,711 2,652 3,892 1,819 68% FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 5,577 2,910 3,355 2,222 60% EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 23,976 10,534 10,474 13,502 44% DUI EMERGENCY AID 67 33 - 67 0% EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 814,318 325,997 412,963 401,355 51% POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 496 281 125 371 25% CRIM CNV FEE DUI 698 382 402 296 58% CRIM CONV FEE CT 4,360 2,588 2,891 1,469 66% CRIM CONV FEE CN 1,624 930 1,105 519 68% FIBER SERVICES 36,438 20,309 19,180 17,258 53% INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES 7,272 4,200 4,200 3,072 58% FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 213 182 528 (315) 248% ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 6,616 3,885 3,890 2,726 59% ZONINC/SUBDIVISION FEE 38,000 22,972 47,320 (9,320) 125% PLAN CHECKING FEES 216,457 137,557 155,438 61,019 72% FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 2,911 793 1,000 1,911 34% PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 1,200 326 966 234 81% S.E.P.A. REVIEW 5,000 1,940 4,365 635 87% CRITICAL AREA STUDY 12,000 8,060 11,315 685 94% DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 10,921 6,277 6,459 4,462 59% SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 56,000 38,852 44,673 11,327 80% GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 5,500 3,194 3,637 1,863 66% LOCKERFEES 300 125 213 87 71% SWIM CLASS FEES 32,000 20,924 24,735 7,265 77% INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE-SSCCFH 69,300 34,650 - 69,300 0% PROGRAM FEES 780,000 477,200 511,071 268,929 66% TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 115,500 90,765 78,921 36,579 68% SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM 31,600 30,019 30,365 1,235 96% BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 660 140 - 660 0% INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS 1,520,248 905,102 983,519 536,729 65% 4,148,225 2,373,630 2,682,748 1,465,477 65% 4 Packet Page 162 of 488 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND Title 2013 Amended Budget 7/31/2012 Revenues 7/31/2013 Revenues Amount Remaining %Received FINES AND FO RFEITURES : PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 10,214 5,792 7,783 2,431 76% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 24,000 17,150 20,501 3,499 85% NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 213,000 149,354 180,439 32,561 85% CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA) 20,086 10,985 15,259 4,827 76% SPEEDINGDOUBLE 77 38 297 (220) 386% NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 2,034 900 - 2,034 0% OTHERINFRACTIONS'04 1,002 323 1,201 (199) 120% PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 31,592 19,985 29,686 1,906 94% PR -HANDICAPPED 794 - - 794 0% PARKING INFRACTION LOC 404 40 - 404 0% PARK/INDDISZONE 3,000 1,828 1,620 1,380 54% DWI PENALTIES 9,200 3,405 2,042 7,158 22% DUI - DP ACCT 415 770 1,539 (1,124) 371% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 8 189 - 8 0% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 33,000 19,216 22,311 10,689 68% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT - - 363 (363) 0% OTHERNON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 539 241 61 478 11% OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 14,000 9,786 126 13,874 1% COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 1,491 585 1,061 430 71% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN - - 189 (189) 0% CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 113,265 61,352 67,122 46,143 59% PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 40,000 17,940 17,534 22,466 44% COURT INTERPRETER COSTS 292 136 55 238 19% BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 7,444 3,885 3,855 3,589 52% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 485 960 1,510 (1,025) 311% 526,342 324,860 374,553 151,789 71% MISCELLANEOUS: INVESTMENT INTEREST 8,000 4,492 1,324 6,676 17% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 1,250 1,154 1,060 190 85% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 5,491 3,091 2,187 3,304 40% PARKING 8,790 6,770 6,319 2,471 72% SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS 140,000 81,879 92,301 47,699 66% BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 3,040 2,545 3,740 (700) 123% LEASESLONG-TERM 143,000 94,153 98,191 44,809 69% VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 4,500 2,560 3,011 1,489 67% OTHER RENTS &USE CHARGES 6,200 3,745 6,481 (281) 105% PARKSDONATIONS 4,300 7,742 9,100 (4,800) 212% BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 1,400 900 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 1,750 920 2,542 (792) 145% 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 (3) (8) 52 -18% OTHER MISC REVENUES 3,000 5,103 2,572 428 86% SMALL OVERPAYMENT 66 55 30 36 45% NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 182 120 120 62 66% NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 978 383 550 428 56% NSF FEES - POLICE 91 - - 91 0% NSF FEES -DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT - - 120 (120) 0% FLEX -PLAN SERVICES FORFEITURES - - 1,368 (1,368) 0% 334,033 216,839 240,222 93,811 72% 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 $ 18,775,892 $ 20,092,766 $ 12,787,823 61% 5 Packet Page 163 of 488 Page 1 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Title SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME HOLIDAY BUY BACK BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENTAL/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) BENEFITS IN HOME LTC CLAIMS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS RIS K MANAGEMENT RES ERVE FUND (011) MISCELLANEOUS HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVERTISING MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REPAIRS& MAINTENANENCE [K�7►[.ti�:i�l�Jl�[�]���7:Z�alxiJll�.y DRUG INFO RCEMENTFUND (104) SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED SMALL EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATIONS REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVTLSVC 2013 Amended 7/31/2012 7/31/2013 Amount Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent $ 12,029,872 $ 6,843,572 $ 6,928,306 $ 5,101,566 58% 419,100 233,824 227,901 191,199 54% 193,388 2,526 3,481 189,907 2% 4,094,462 2,405,103 2,385,545 1,708,917 58% 61,110 33,800 29,753 31,357 49% 374,244 203,447 171,922 202,322 46% 117,050 96,881 58,633 58,417 50% 2,032,984 870,423 857,534 1,175,450 42% 204,660 100,456 100,259 104,401 49% 36,742 12,589 11,352 25,390 31% 40,865 21,213 17,249 23,616 42% 834,943 77,704 485,543 349,400 58% 396,193 420,109 397,566 (1,373) 100% 414,600 252,069 253,210 161,390 61% 320,547 154,285 158,557 161,990 49% 279,880 168,140 179,805 100,075 64% 8,099,655 5,846,073 5,780,158 2,319,497 71% 190,000 80,635 - 190,000 0% 5,500 3,588 3,178 2,322 58% 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% 48,000 250,985 28,000 20,000 58% 33,007,003 18,712,394 19,021,011 13,985,992 58076 $ 435,000 $ 256,756 $ 119,532 $ 315,468 27% 176,400 84,853 60,427 115,973 34% 8,000 7,186 6,081 1,919 76% - 250 250 (250) 0% 619,400 349,045 186,289 S 433,111 30% $ 661,000 $ $ 555,907 $ 105,093 84% 661,000 555,907 S 105,093 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 4,825 11,116 8,884 56% 5,000 3,436 4,681 319 94% - - 1,865 (1,865) 0% 170,000 - - 170,000 0% 205,000 8,261 18,581 18,284 9% $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% 2,000 1,286 2,818 (818) 141% 5,000 - 5,048 (48) 101% 2,233 1,254 1,979 254 89% 800 - 10 790 1% 20,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 25% 50,000 9,928 10,061 39,939 20% 80,033 17,468 24,915 55,118 31% Packet Page 164 of 488 0 Page 2 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Title 2013 Amended Budget 7/31/2012 Expenditures 7/31/2013 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent STREETFUND (111) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 447,655 $ 308,009 $ 257,872 $ 189,783 58% OVERTIME 18,400 20,685 11,452 6,948 62% BENEFITS 197,283 137,176 112,994 84,289 57% UNIFORMS 6,000 4,450 3,674 2,326 61% SUPPLIES 240,000 91,660 77,125 162,875 32% SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 11,919 - 26,000 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12,700 19,379 4,199 8,501 33% COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 2,139 1,595 1,905 46% TRAVEL 1,000 60 210 790 21% ADVERTISING 350 - 350 0% RENTAL/LEASE 159,134 1,435 93,615 65,519 59% INSURANCE 87,204 93,305 87,201 3 100% UTILITIES 267,750 126,102 126,058 141,692 47% REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 45,000 4,479 11,331 33,669 25% MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 6,793 490 7,510 6% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 4,000 1,003 232 3,768 6% 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 - 111,384 - - 0% 1,557,715 943,078 789,644 768,071 51% COMBINED STREETCONST/IMPROVE(112) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 1,272,100 $ 506,843 $ 336,473 $ 935,627 26% 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 CONSI' 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 78,298 59,703 266,297 18% 6,464,984 705,576 616,371 5,848,613 10% MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117) SUPPLIES $ 4,200 $ 165 $ 2,635 $ 1,565 63% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 523 - 1,000 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 116,700 13,232 15,404 101,296 13% TRAVEL 50 10 54 (4) 108% ADVERTISING 4,000 - 5,550 (1,550) 139% RENTAL/LEASE 550 - 4,281 (3,731) 778% REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 300 - - 300 0% MISCELLANEOUS 10,000 - 5,318 4,682 53% INTERFUND TRANSFER 3,000 2,216 - 3,000 0% 139,800 16,146 33,243 106,557 24% HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 14,500 $ 5,459 $ 8,182 $ 6,318 56% ADVERTISING 37,500 23,554 11,013 26,487 29% MISCELLANEOUS 2,500 384 100 2,400 4% INTERFUND TRANSFERS (to 117, 132) 14,000 2,000 12,000 2,000 86% 68,500 31,397 31,295 37,205 46% EMPLOYEE PARING 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 S 13,972 12,754 52% YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) MISCELLANEOUS $ 4,000 $ 2,943 $ 2,206 $ 1,794 55% 4,000 2,943 2,206 1,794 55% TO URIS M PRO MO TIO NAL FUND/ARTS (123) PROFESSIONAL SVC $ 10,500 $ 33 $ 1,697 $ 8,803 16% ADVERTISING 4,500 3,830 605 3,895 13% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 - 2,887 1,113 72% 19,000 $ 3,863 $ 5,188 $ 13,812 27% 7 Packet Page 165 of 488 Page 3 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Title REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX (125) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVERTISING RENTAL/LEASE UTILITIES REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 132) CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS INTERFUND SERVICES REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ (126) MISCELLANEOUS TRANSFER TO FUND 231 LAND GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS INTEREST GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 001) SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (129) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS INTERFUND SERVICES CEMETERY ETERY MAINTENANC UEMPRO VEM ENT (130) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS 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 TRUSTFUND (136) INTERFUND TRANSFER SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138) SUPPLIES STUDENT TRIP MISCELLANEOUS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT (139) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INSURANCE INTERFUND TRANSFER INTERGOVTL SERVICES 2013 Amended 7/31/2012 7/31/2013 Amount Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent $ 29,000 $ 39,495 $ 45,693 $ (16,693) 158% 337,000 68,621 18,948 318,052 6% - - 148 (148) 0% - - 2,243 (2,243) 0% - - - - 0% 185,000 1,544 19,622 165,378 11% 635,500 - - 635,500 0% 100,000 100,203 - 100,000 0% - - - - 0% 1,286,500 209,863 86,655 1,199,845 7% $ - $ - $ - $ - 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 $ 1,443 $ 1,743 $ 12,277 12% 6,000 - 6,553 (553) 109% 12,297 - 12,297 - 100% 32,317 1,443 20,594 11,723 64% $ 31,700 $ 1,833 $ 5,386 $ 26,314 17% 171,600 - 114,251 57,349 67% 19,500 841 22,549 (3,049) 116% 222,800 2,674 142,187 80,613 64% $ 68,605 $ 39,420 $ 40,209 $ 28,396 59% 3,500 1,690 1,600 1,900 46% 33,188 18,690 18,648 14,540 56% 1,000 - - 1,000 0% 7,000 2,558 464 6,536 7% 20,000 15,214 6,205 13,795 31% 1,000 200 200 800 20% 1,412 698 822 590 58% 500 - - 500 0% 3,000 1,456 839 2,161 28% 5,256 3,066 2,190 58% 3,800 1,512 - 3,800 0% 500 - 500 0% 4,000 2,049 1,451 2,549 36% - - - 0% - 4,235 - - 0% 152,761 87,722 $ 73,504 79,257 48% $ - $ 72,779 $ - $ - 0% 1,907,500 50,480 23,832 1,883,668 1% - - - 0% 182,700 188,540 - 182,700 0% 3,000 19,276 1,114 1,886 37% 2,093,200 331,075 24,946 2,068,254 1% $ - $ 6,930 $ - $ - 0% - 6,930 - 0% $ 500 $ 1,242 $ 144 $ 356 29% 2,600 - - 2,600 0% 1,500 1,592 135 1,366 9% 4,600 2,834 278 4,322 6% $ - $ - $ 1,756 $ (1,756) 0% 5,000 5,000 5,000 - 100% 640,000 330,233 385,051 254,949 60% - 49,936 - - 0% 645,000 385,169 391,807 253,193 61% Packet Page 166 of 488 Page 4 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Title LID FUND CONTROL (211) INTERFUND TRANSFER LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND (234) 2002 BOND INTEREST 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND INTEREST DEBT ISSUE COSTS WATER FUND (421) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENTAL/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 2013 Amended 7/31/2012 7/31/2013 Amount Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent $ 22,130 $ 106,000 $ - $ 22,130 0% 22,130 106,000 - 22,130 0% 136,786 $ - $ - 0% S - a lJv,/Ov ID - a - 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 $ 420,370 $ 336,085 56% 24,180 N/A 11,631 12,549 48% 285,866 N/A 174,336 111,530 61% 6,840 N/A 3,735 3,105 55% 143,505 N/A 55,249 88,256 38% - N/A - - 0% 1,725,000 N/A 664,921 1,060,079 39% 140,000 N/A 54,814 85,186 39% 10,400 N/A 5,432 4,968 52% 173,136 N/A 165,375 7,761 96% 30,280 N/A 19,363 10,917 64% 3,400 N/A - 3,400 0% 560 N/A - 560 0% 91,205 N/A 53,544 37,661 59% 67,699 N/A 67,607 92 100% 28,000 N/A 20,507 7,493 73% 24,160 N/A 1,675 22,485 7% 307,630 N/A 180,793 126,837 59% 30,000 N/A 15,448 14,552 51% 904,893 N/A 510,809 394,084 56% 927,500 N/A - 927,500 0% 85,000 N/A - 85,000 0% 2,532,580 N/A 661,018 1,871,562 26% 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 258,362 91,006 74% - N/A 48 (48) 0% 9,201,851 S 3,531,979 5,669,920 38% *Due to the change in enterprise fund structure from 2012 to 2013, these expenditures are shown as N/A M Packet Page 167 of 488 Page 5 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Title STORM FUND (422) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENTAL/LEASE INSURANCE UT ILIT ES REPAIR & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 112, 117) CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SEWER FUND (423) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENTAL/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 INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2013 Amended 7/31/2012 7/31/2013 Amount Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %, Spent $ 568,591 N/A $ 304,470 $ 264,121 54% 6,000 N/A 6,584 (584) 110% 232,141 N/A 125,969 106,172 54% 6,540 N/A 4,568 1,972 70% 50,000 N/A 22,398 27,602 45% 4,400 N/A 164 4,236 4% 599,190 N/A 388,525 210,665 65% 3,480 N/A 945 2,535 27% 4,300 N/A 864 3,436 20% 500 N/A - 500 0% 217,412 N/A 126,418 90,994 58% 8,418 N/A 8,407 11 100% 10,000 N/A 5,358 4,642 54% 11,860 N/A 5,962 5,898 50% 106,100 N/A 57,353 48,747 54% 45,000 N/A 21,255 23,745 47% 291,600 N/A 164,034 127,566 56% 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 307,136 (6,745) 102% 4,565,772 1,677,139 2,888,633 37% $ 1,653,859 N/A $ 894,211 $ 759,648 54% 73,000 N/A 57,118 15,882 78% 677,979 N/A 371,627 306,352 55% 11,190 N/A 7,511 3,679 67% 482,505 N/A 136,050 346,455 28% 90,000 N/A 91,846 (1,846) 102% 3,000 N/A - 3,000 0% 16,400 N/A 9,663 6,737 59% 1,124,996 N/A 699,034 425,962 62% 40,280 N/A 21,134 19,146 52% 7,400 N/A - 7,400 0% 2,500 N/A - 2,500 0% 133,736 N/A 77,046 56,690 58% 157,117 N/A 156,092 1,025 99% 931,200 N/A 566,564 364,636 61% 90,000 N/A 76,120 13,880 85% 211,100 N/A 118,636 92,464 56% 290,000 N/A 82,726 207,274 29% 470,000 N/A 278,206 191,794 59% 1,125,280 N/A - 1,125,280 0% 141,000 N/A - 141,000 0% 9,137,750 N/A 2,420,546 6,717,204 26% 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 337,132 261,457 56% 18,168,019 6,614,628 11,553,391 36% *Due to the change in enterprise fund structure from 2012 to 2013, these expenditures are shown as N/A 10 Packet Page 168 of 488 Page 6 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL Title 2013 Amended Budget 7/31/2012 Expenditures 7/31/2013 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 228,064 $ 124,508 $ 96,425 $ 131,639 42% OVERTIME 1,000 91 886 114 89% BENEFITS 100,397 59,801 44,265 56,132 44% UNIFORMS 1,000 470 502 498 50% SUPPLIES 76,000 53,973 58,028 17,972 76% FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 674 - 1,000 0% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 321,800 190,583 102,387 219,413 32% SMALL EQUIPMENT 8,000 4,815 3,064 4,936 38% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 372 1,343 (343) 134% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 814 745 2,255 25% RENTAL/LEASE 9,996 6,751 5,419 4,577 54% INSURANCE 34,083 32,530 34,153 (70) 100% UTILITIES 14,000 7,436 7,244 6,756 52% REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 60,000 19,033 28,180 31,820 47% MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 3,926 3,965 2,035 66% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 1,338 310 2,190 12% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 217,532 312,962 46,927 170,605 22% INTERFUND SERVICES 10,000 - - 10,000 0% 1,095,372 820,077 433,842 661,530 40% FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617) BENEFITS $ 63,000 $ 33,227 $ 16,527 $ 46,473 26% PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 43,790 21,081 38,854 4,936 89% PROF SERVICES 2,000 1,065 1,169 831 58% 108,790 55,373 S 56,550 S 52,240 52% TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS 82,145,709 23,028,937 34,477,904 47,485,517 42% 11 Packet Page 169 of 488 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY Title 2013 Amended Budget 7/31/2012 Expenditures 7/31/2013 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL $ 273,623 $ 149,229 $ 152,370 $ 121,253 56% OFFICE OF MAYOR 238,374 132,538 136,909 101,465 57% HUMAN RESOURCES 287,190 136,806 148,360 138,830 52% MUNICIPAL COURT 729,506 426,425 408,529 320,977 56% CITY CLERK 586,831 289,704 299,585 287,246 51% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,492,018 777,501 814,507 677,511 55% CITY ATTORNEY 499,200 286,492 284,215 214,985 57% NON -DEPARTMENTAL 11,467,569 6,952,172 7,050,688 4,416,881 61% POLICE SERVICES 8,931,185 4,842,275 4,972,804 3,958,381 56% COMMUNITY SERVICES 373,314 249,575 204,034 169,280 55% DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1,642,542 906,200 904,561 737,981 55% PARKS& RECREATION 3,422,517 1,877,276 1,896,279 1,526,238 55% PUBLIC WORKS 1,718,975 926,412 985,709 733,266 57% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,344,159 759,794 762,458 581,701 57% $ 33,007,003 $ 18,712,399 $ 19,021,011 $ 13,985,992 58% CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY Title 2013 Amended Budget 7/31/2012 Expenditures 7/31/2013 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent WATER UTILITYFUND $ 9,201,851 N/A $ 3,531,979 $ 5,669,872 38% STORM UTILITY FUND 4,565,772 N/A 1,677,139 2,888,633 37% SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 18,168,019 N/A 6,614,628 11,553,391 36% $ 31,935,642 $ 11,823,746 $ 20,111,896 37% *Due to the change in enterprise fund structure from 2012 to 2013, these expenditures are shown as N/A 12 Packet Page 170 of 488 Page 1 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title 2013 Amended Budget 7/31/2012 Expenditures 7/31/2013 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL SALARIES $ 114,618 $ 62,119 $ 68,787 $ 45,831 60% OVERTIME 2,000 3,537 344 1,656 17% BENEFITS 68,165 41,794 40,663 27,502 60% SUPPLIES 1,000 553 151 849 15% PROFESSIONAL SVC 53,082 32,158 34,427 18,655 65% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 1,558 1,561 1,439 52% TRAVEL 2,500 879 436 2,064 17% RENTAL/LEASE 490 281 266 224 54% REPAIRS/MAINT 1,500 - 55 1,445 4% MISCELLANEOUS 27,268 6,350 5,681 21,587 21% $ 273,623 $ 149,229 $ 152,370 $ 121,253 56% OFFICEOFMAYOR SALARIES $ 183,722 $ 103,745 $ 108,492 $ 75,230 59% OVERTIME - - - - 0% BENEFITS 41,852 23,979 24,517 17,335 59% SUPPLIES 2,000 421 927 1,073 46% PROFESSIONAL SVC 1,500 - 59 1,441 4% COMMUNICATION 1,400 652 510 890 36% TRAVEL 2,000 711 481 1,519 24% RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 1,429 1,319 1,081 55 % REPAIR/MAINT 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 1,601 605 2,395 20% $ 238,374 $ 132,538 $ 136,909 $ 101,465 57% HUMAN RESOURCES SALARIES $ 169,000 $ 51,287 $ 94,419 $ 74,581 56% OVERTIME - - - - 0% BENEFITS 61,680 19,218 28,333 33,347 46% SUPPLIES 2,000 1,477 2,294 (294) 115% SMALL EQUIPMENT 100 - - 100 0% PROFESSIONAL SVC 32,000 55,219 11,351 20,649 35% COMMUNICATIONS 500 214 266 234 53% TRAVEL 500 - 572 (72) 114% ADVERTISING 5,000 683 1,642 3,358 33% RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 1,353 1,300 700 65% REPAIR/MAINT 6,000 4,820 5,349 651 89% MISCELLANEOUS 8,410 2,535 2,836 5,574 34% $ 287,190 $ 136,806 $ 148,360 $ 138,830 52% MUNIC IPAL C O URT SALARIES $ 464,471 $ 272,333 $ 265,607 $ 198,864 57% OVERTIME 100 572 - 100 0% BENEFITS 168,526 99,935 88,240 80,286 52% SUPPLIES 9,159 6,491 4,852 4,307 53% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,000 - 1,003 997 50% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 60,500 31,085 38,761 21,739 64% COMMUNICATIONS 2,600 1,264 1,183 1,417 45 % TRAVEL 1,250 1,517 1,652 (402) 132% RENTAL/LEASE 650 385 556 94 86% REPAIR/MAINT 1,000 961 409 591 41% MISCELLANEOUS 19,250 11,790 6,267 12,983 33% INTERGOVTL SVC - 92 - - 0% $ 729,506 $ 426,425 $ 408,529 $ 320,977 56% 13 Packet Page 171 of 488 Page 2 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title 2013 Amended Budget 7/31/2012 Expenditures 7/31/2013 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent C ITY CLERK SALARIES AND WAGES $ 305,572 $ 167,815 $ 179,313 $ 126,259 59% BENEFITS 92,771 52,636 54,705 38,066 59% SUPPLIES 13,760 5,509 3,721 10,039 27% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 84,751 10,949 11,595 73,156 14% COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 20,208 27,866 22,134 56% TRAVEL 250 7 36 214 15% ADVERTISING 3,690 12,998 2,287 1,403 62% RENTAL/LEASE 25,000 9,548 9,351 15,649 37% REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 8,037 7,778 8,210 (173) 102% MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 2,256 2,500 500 83% $ 586,831 $ 289,704 $ 299,585 $ 287,246 51% ADMINIS TRATIVE S ERVIC ES SALARIES $ 618,370 $ 414,764 $ 385,701 $ 232,669 62% OVERTIME 8,000 5,250 5,837 2,163 73% BENEFITS 220,100 129,741 120,719 99,381 55% SUPPLIES 35,700 23,138 10,707 24,993 30% SMALL EQUIPMENT 87,500 55,478 51,299 36,201 59% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 186,350 22,823 94,187 92,163 51% COMMUNICATIONS 58,960 35,802 29,930 29,030 51% TRAVEL 3,300 1,108 279 3,021 8% RENTAL/LEASE 8,988 3,193 5,027 3,961 56% REPAIR/MAINT 171,750 75,226 76,406 95,344 44% MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 10,978 11,683 (3,683) 146% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 85,000 - 22,735 62,265 27% $ 1,492,018 $ 777,501 $ 814,507 $ 677,511 55% CITY ATTO RNEY PROFESSIONAL SVC $ 499,200 $ 286,292 $ 284,215 $ 214,985 57% MISC PROSECUTOR - 200 - - 0% $ 499,200 $ 286,492 $ 284,215 $ 214,985 57% NON -DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES $ 136,000 $ - $ - $ 136,000 0% BENEFITS -UNEMPLOYMENT 40,000 33,756 16,680 23,320 42% PROFESSIONAL SVC 380,000 136,957 118,624 261,376 31% COMMUNICATIONS - 4 - - 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 40,065 15,091 73% INTERGOVT SVC 7,532,912 5,599,363 5,550,650 1,982,262 74% ECA LOAN PAYMENT 190,000 80,635 - 190,000 0% EXCISE TAXES 5,500 3,588 3,178 2,322 58% 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 $ 6,952,172 $ 7,050,688 $ 4,416,881 61% 14 Packet Page 172 of 488 Page 3 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title PO LIC E S ERVIC ES SALARIES OVERTIME HOLIDAY BUYBACK BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENTAL/LEASE REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVTL SVC INT ERFUND RENTAL INTERFUND REPAIRS COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMIN SALARIES BENEFITS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENTAL/LEASE REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS DEVELOPMENT S ERVIC ES/PLANNING SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES MINOR EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENTAL/LEASE REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES MINOR EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENTAL/LEASE REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS 2013 Amended 7/31/2012 7/31/2013 Amount Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %S $ 5,169,010 $ 2,966,012 $ 2,982,988 $ 2,186,022 58% 400,000 215,060 216,547 183,453 54% 193,388 2,526 3,481 189,907 2% 1,728,703 1,031,839 1,044,850 683,853 60% 52,410 30,592 26,416 25,994 50% 94,100 51,089 35,761 58,339 38% 14,300 3,804 2,639 11,661 18% 95,200 52,827 55,470 39,730 58% 33,592 14,621 12,395 21,197 37% 16,300 6,526 6,640 9,660 41% 375 66 36 339 10% 538,344 9,076 312,531 225,813 58% 16,115 4,076 5,139 10,976 32% 35,300 24,598 15,402 19,898 44% 496,048 241,673 224,508 271,540 45% 48,000 187,110 28,000 20,000 58% - 780 - - 0% $ 8,931,185 $ 4,842,275 $ 4,972,804 $ 3,958,381 56% $ 213,304 $ 122,737 $ 124,646 $ 88,659 58% 62,052 36,346 36,795 25,257 59% 1,500 1,531 338 1,162 23% 800 - - 800 0% 60,804 81,637 35,704 25,100 59% 1,490 490 907 583 61% 2,000 18 17 1,983 1% 24,500 3,210 1,950 22,550 8% 2,364 1,725 1,510 854 64% 500 - 500 0% 4,000 1,881 2,169 1,832 54% $ 373,314 $ 249,575 $ 204,034 $ 169,280 55% $ 1,032,549 $ 606,419 $ 618,898 $ 413,651 60% 1,300 2,215 25 1,275 2% 358,465 216,874 212,900 145,565 59% - - - - 0% 13,000 6,417 6,172 6,828 47% 1,100 231 - 1,100 0% 169,100 37,759 30,697 138,403 18% 4,000 3,124 2,627 1,373 66% 1,600 426 45 1,555 3% 3,000 1,397 2,370 630 79% 32,828 16,865 19,152 13,676 58% 500 606 - 500 0% 25,100 13,867 11,675 13,425 47% $ 1,642,542 $ 906,200 $ 904,561 $ 737,981 55% $ 1,007,140 $ 547,226 $ 568,927 $ 438,213 56% 5,000 551 1,199 3,801 24% 342,150 192,985 207,267 134,883 61% 360 - - 360 0% - - - - 0% 2,000 2,398 403 1,597 20% 5,000 2,596 840 4,160 17% 6,700 3,157 3,147 3,553 47% 600 463 10 590 2% - - 264 (264) 0% 13,408 3,934 7,819 5,589 58% 1,800 895 38 1,762 2% 10,300 5,516 5,655 4,645 55% $ 1,394,458 $ 759,721 $ 795,569 $ 598,889 57% Packet Page 173 of 488 15 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DEIAAIL Title PARKS & REC REATIO N SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES MINOR EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENTAL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVTL SVC PUBLIC WORKS SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL RENTAL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES TRAVEL MINOR EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATIONS RENTAL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 2013 Amended 7/31/2012 7/31/2013 Amount Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining % Spent $ 1,769,631 $ 1,053,853 $ 1,024,886 $ 744,745 58% - 5,325 3,844 (3,844) 0% 584,326 345,960 338,271 246,055 58% 5,340 1,934 2,415 2,925 45% 131,925 62,824 66,732 65,193 51% 3,250 33,568 1,820 1,430 56% 405,297 120,093 141,574 263,723 35% 28,218 11,035 11,104 17,114 39% 5,942 899 1,183 4,759 20% 4,300 2,859 8,698 (4,398) 202% 149,152 74,100 94,081 55,071 63% 135,000 90,133 92,154 42,846 68% 51,845 25,973 30,887 20,958 60% 77,596 43,720 73,631 3,965 95% 70,695 5,000 5,000 65,695 7% $ 3,422,517 $ 1,877,276 $ 1,896,279 $ 1,526,238 55% $ 225,381 $ 122,149 $ 142,769 $ 82,612 63% 200 - - 200 0% 76,157 37,451 38,869 37,288 51% 5,100 2,776 3,139 1,961 62% 200 29 30 170 15% 1,200 680 956 244 80% 500 - - 500 0% 10,779 1,706 2,542 8,237 24% 2,600 1,378 1,410 1,190 54% 1,000 - - 1,000 0% 1,400 522 424 976 30% $ 324,517 $ 166,691 $ 190,140 $ 134,377 59% $ 621,104 $ 353,114 $ 362,875 $ 258,229 58% 2,500 1,314 105 2,395 4% 249,515 142,592 132,735 116,780 53% 3,000 1,274 921 2,079 31% 65,000 41,221 37,131 27,869 57% - 35 - - 0% 6,000 1,401 1,469 4,531 24% 13,000 7,647 7,808 5,192 60% 44,940 14,385 26,490 18,450 59% 277,000 160,558 159,646 117,354 58% 60,000 33,950 32,065 27,935 53% 2,100 2,303 1,214 886 58% $ 1,344,159 $ 759,794 $ 762,458 $ 581,701 57% $ 33,007.003 $ 18,712,399 $ 19,021,011 $ 13,985,992 58% Packet Page 174 of 488 16 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 20,092,766 7.77% 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 $ 55,778 $ 55,778 $ 69,441 24.49% February 90,478 34,700 115,535 27.69% March 125,274 34,796 257,285 105.38% April 181,702 56,428 311,272 71.31% May 237,805 56,103 353,545 48.67% June 293,909 56,104 444,366 51.19% July 353,267 59,358 535,072 51.46% August 420,422 67,155 September 484,359 63,937 October 552,822 68,463 November 607,861 55,039 December 650,000 42,139 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 Packet Page 175 of 488 17 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax 2013 Sales and Use Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance BudeetForecast BudeetForecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 392,903 $ 882,320 1,238,984 1,604,214 2,031,089 2,415,896 2,803,625 3,252,578 3,657,014 4,072,784 4,526,767 4,913,150 392,903 $ 406,956 3.58% �uuuuuu 489,417 894,736 1.41% 4000000 356,664 1,265,893 2.17% 365,230 1,641,662 2.33% 3000000 426,875 2,155,612 6.13% 384,807 2,570,795 6.41% 2000000 387,729 2,994,986 6.83% 1000000 448,952 404,436 0 Sales and Use Tax 415,770 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 453,983 386,383 Current Year Budget -*-- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Gas Utility Tax 2013 Gas Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 112,486 $ 112,486 $ 94,836 -15.69% February 229,224 116,737 220,665 -3.73% March 336,151 106,927 303,170 -9.81% April 429,023 92,872 369,694 -13.83% May 504,596 75,573 437,820 -13.23% June 561,065 56,469 473,725 -15.57% July 603,809 42,744 505,954 -16.21% August 634,288 30,479 September 661,890 27,602 October 691,093 29,203 November 739,711 48,618 December 811,174 71,463 Gas Utility Tax 900000 800000 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget t Prior Year Packet Page 176 of 488 18 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Telephone Utility Tax 2013 Telephone Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 107,059 $ 232,047 373,485 490,181 620,774 737,081 866,748 1,002,235 1,103, 617 1,258,978 1,352,112 1,529,498 Telephone Utility Tax 1600000 107,059 $ 134,596 25.72% 1400000 124,988 252,444 8.79% 1200000 141,439 366,495 -1.87% 116,696 484,087 -1.24% 1000000 130,593 598,247 -3.63% 800000 116,307 712,861 -3.29% 600000 129,667 823,494 -4.99% 135,487 400000 101,382 200000 155,360 0 93,134 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 177,386 ---*--Current Year Budget -vr- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax 2013 Dectric Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 157,586 $ 317,215 474,628 629,668 770,457 880,143 988,232 1,081,536 1,180, 052 1,266,232 1,372,866 1,475,638 Electric Utility Tax 1600000 157,586 $ 153,240 -2.76% 1400000 159,628 326,077 2.79% 157,413 487,478 2.71% 1200000 155,040 641,845 1.93% 1000000 140,789 787,005 2.15% 800000 109,686 897,904 2.02% 600000 108,088 997,566 0.94% 93,304 400000 98,516 200000 86,180 0 106,634 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 102,772 Current Year Budget t Prior Year Packet Page 177 of 488 19 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Meter Water Sales 2013 Meter Water Sales Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 347,623 $ 347,623 $ 437,117 25.74% February 651,849 304,227 730,089 12.00% March 1,067,462 415,613 1,164,370 9.08% April 1,359,550 292,088 1,452,341 6.83% May 1,783,049 423,499 1,878,909 5.38% June 2,093,928 310,879 2,208,023 5.45% July 2,569,516 475,588 2,731,972 6.32% August 2,993,552 424,036 September 3,592,341 598,790 October 4,018,622 426,281 November 4,521,753 503,131 December 4,837,500 315,747 Meter Water Sales 1000000 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 -Storm Water Sales 2013 Storm Water Sales Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 117,844 $ 579,476 793,715 984,066 1,198, 804 1,389,306 1,605,385 2,081,108 2,302,939 2,499,013 2,719,600 2,916,000 117,844 $ 206,626 -2.76% /:)vvvuu 461,633 650,563 2.79% 2000000 214,239 857,252 2.71% 190,351 1,041,396 1.93% 1500000 214,738 1,248,687 2.15% 190,502 1,432,755 2.02% 1000000 216,078 1,640,860 2.21% 500000 475,723 221 831 Storm Water Sales ' 0 196,074 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 220,586 196,400 Current Year Budget -*I'- Prior Year Packet Page 178 of 488 20 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales 2013 Unmeter Sewer Sales Cumulative Monthly YrD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % Unmeter Sewer Sales January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 368,573 $ 739,189 1,192,379 1,561,692 2,020,421 2,393,961 2,860,441 3,236,691 3,711,615 4,088,150 4,558,319 4,935,000 5000000 368,573 $ 430,475 16.80% 370,616 776,988 5.11% 4000000 453,190 1,208,782 1.38% 369,313 1,556,465 -0.33% 3000000 458,729 1,988,901 -1.56% 373,540 2,339,183 -2.29% 2000000 466,480 2,784,857 -2.64% 376,249 1000000 474,925 376,535 0 470,169 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 376,681 Current Year Budget t Prior Year Packet Page 179 of 488 21 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Summary As of July 31, 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 $17,303,679 Various 0.12% 0.100% 24 9/17/2012 500,000 9/17/2014 0.60% 0.014% 60 12/28/2012 1,000,000 9/28/2013 ** 0.90% 0.043% 54 12/27/2012 1,000,000 9/27/2013 ** 0.75% 0.036% 45 12/19/2012 1,000,000 8/18/2013 ** 0.54% 0.026% % of Total Summary 83.2% Current 6-month treasury rate 2.4% Current State Pool rate 14.4% Blended Edmonds rate 100.0% 0.22% 0.219% 0.08% 0.12% 0.22% Packet Page 180 of 488 22 AM-6086 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 09/10/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Committee: Finance Subject Title City Investments and the County Investment Pool Recommendation Submitted By: Roger Neumaier Tyne: Information Information 8. D. Our objective in bringing this to Council is to notify the Council of our plan since to invest these amounts in the pool. While the Finance director has authority to make investments on behalf of the City, this is a significant movement of dollars and accordingly, reviewing the plan with the Finance Committee is appropriate. Previous Council Action Narrative The City Investment Policy emphasizes prudent investments with the primary objectives being (in priority order): 1. Safety; 2. Liquidity; and 3. Return on Investment. Interest rates have been significantly down from historical levels since 2008. In 2013, partly due to low interest rates and partly due to change in key personnel, funds in bank balances (for which we receive credits to be applied to services incurred, but for which no interest will be received) and in the State Treasurer's Local Government Investment Program (for which we are currently receiving interest of 0.12% annually) have grown. We also have $3 million in bonds earning between 0.54% and 0.90%. These bonds all mature in the next month. The options facing the City are to: • Invest in bonds which can include risk and if done on a broader basis requires a higher level of staffing that the City currently has; • Continue to invest in the State Local Government Investment Program earning 0.1%; or • Identify a different model which would meet the City's investment policy guidelines and produce a higher investment yield. We have identified an outstanding approach which meets the criteria in the "different model option". The Snohomish County Investment Pool (SCIP) is a portfolio of a combination of investments with varying maturities designed to control investment risk and maximize earnings. The portfolio has an average maturity of more than 90 days. It has been established to provide Snohomish County and Districts a tool for investment of cash from operations, capital funds and bond proceeds. Total Investments in the County pool are currently at $369 million. Participants may include, but are not limited to districts, (such as the following: school, fire, port, drainage, road improvement, emergency management, fire districts) cities, transportation agencies and other public entities who desire to participate. State Pool SCIP 2 year Treasury Note 2006 4.96% 5.14% 4.77% 2007 4.71 % 4.87% 4.31 % 2008 2.68% 3.82% 2.19% 2009 0.70% 2.81% 0.94% 2010 0.27% 1.88% 0.67% 2011 0.17% 1.30% 0.44% Packet Page 181 of 488 2012 0.17% 1.00% 0.27% The average annualized investment fee is currently 6.5 basis points (.065%). The County's Investment Policy is consistent with the City's policy. The County Finance Director is authorized to initiate the investment, but because it is material amount, it is appropriate to notify the Council of our intent to make the investment. At this point, not including bond proceeds, the City has in excess of $30 million in investable proceeds. Finance's plan is to invest $15 million into the pool. Conservatively, the amount of additional revenue gained by the City in 2014 will easily exceed $100 thousand. Investment Policy Contract Pool Operations Procedures Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Roger Neumaier Final Approval Date: 09/05/2013 Reviewed By Sandy Chase Dave Earling Sandy Chase Attachments Form Review Date 09/04/2013 04:25 PM 09/04/2013 06:17 PM 09/05/2013 08:33 AM Started On: 09/04/2013 03:40 PM Packet Page 182 of 488 SNOHOMISH COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY I. POLICY It is the policy of the Snohomish County Treasurer's Office (hereinafter referred to as the "Treasurer") to invest public funds in a manner which will provide maximum security with the highest investment return while meeting daily cash flow demands and conforming to all state and local statues governing the investment of public funds. II. SCOPE This investment policy applies to all financial assets of Snohomish County and its' junior taxing districts. These funds are accounted for in the Snohomish County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and include General Fund Special Revenue Funds Capital Projects Funds Enterprise Funds Trust and Agency Funds Debt Service Funds (Unless prohibited by Bond indentures) Any new fund created by County ordinance, unless specifically exempted Should bond covenants be more restrictive than this policy, funds shall be invested in full compliance with those restrictions. Pooling of funds Fund Managers can either request the Treasurer to pool their jurisdictions' money in the Snohomish County Investment Pool (SCIP), or request that the Treasurer purchase a security with a specific term and amount that is held outside the Snohomish County Investment Pool (SCIP). Investment income from funds that have been pooled in the SCIP, will be allocated to the various funds based on their respective participation and in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles. III. PRUDENCE Investments shall be made with judgment and care, under circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived. The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials shall be the "Prudent Person" standard and shall be applied in the context of managing an overall portfolio under prevailing economic conditions at the moment of investment commitments. Investment officers acting in accordance with written procedures and the investment policy and exercising due diligence, shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk Packet Page 183 of 488 SNOHOMISH COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments. In determining whether an Investment official has exercised prudence with respect to an investment decision, the determination shall be made taking into consideration the investment of all funds over which the official had responsibility rather than a consideration as to the prudence of a single investment, and, whether the investment decision was consistent with the written investment policy of the entity. IV. OBJECTIVES The primary objectives, in priority order, of Snohomish County investment activities shall be: Safe : Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the Treasurer's investment program. Investments of Snohomish County and the junior taxing districts will be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. To obtain this objective, diversification is required in order that potential losses on individual securities do not exceed the income generated from the remainder of the portfolio. Li uidi : The portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the County to meet all cash requirements that might reasonably be anticipated. This is accomplished by structuring the portfolio so that securities mature concurrent with cash needs to meet anticipated demands (static liquidity). Furthermore, since all possible cash demands cannot be anticipated, the portfolio should consist largely of securities with active secondary or resale markets (dynamic liquidity). Return on Investment: The Investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return through budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the County's investment risk constraints and liquidity needs. Return on investments is of secondary importance compared to the safety and liquidity objectives described above. The core of investments is limited to relatively low risk securities in anticipation of earning a fair rate of return relative to the risk being assumed. Securities shall generally be held until maturity with the following exceptions: ■ A security with declining credit may be sold early to minimize the loss of principal. ■ A security swap would improve the quality, yield, or target duration of the portfolio. ■ Liquidity needs of the portfolio require that the security be sold early. Portfolios: The County Treasurer manages two portfolios; 1) The liquidity portfolio — The main objective of this portfolio are to meet the daily liquidity needs of the county funds as well as the junior taxing districts. Investments 2 Packet Page 184 of 488 SNOHOMISH COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY in this portfolio primarily consist of money that is invested in the State Investment Pool as well as money market accounts that provide immediate liquidity. 2) The Snohomish County Investment Pool (SCIP) — This portfolio is comprised of cash that is not reasonably expected to be necessary to meet the short term liquidity needs of the pool participants. Accordingly, this cash may be invested further out the yield curve where, over a Markey cycle, it is expected to provide a higher return. Return will be paid on an accrual basis. The SCIP portfolio may have a maximum modified duration of no longer than 3 years. V. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY County code 2.110.010 empowers the County Finance Committee to approve investment policy and make rules and regulations. Authority to manage the Snohomish County investment program is derived from RCW 36.29.020. A. The Treasurer will appoint an Investment Officer whose responsibilities will include initiating daily transactions in the investment portfolio based on liquidity and cash flow requirements of the county, junior and special taxing districts and their respective funds. In addition, the Investment Officer shall establish written procedures for the operation of the investment program consistent with the investment policy. B. No person may initiate investment transactions on behalf of the Treasurer without the express written consent of the Treasurer or the Investment Officer after consultation with the Treasurer. VI. ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST A. Investment officials will recognize that the investment portfolio is subject to public review and evaluation. The overall program will be designed and managed with a degree of professionalism that is worthy of the public trust. B. Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that may conflict with the proper execution of the investment program, or may impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. Investment officials shall disclose to the Treasurer any material financial interests in financial institutions that conduct business with the County, and they will further disclose any personal financial or investment positions that could be related to the performance of the County portfolio, particularly with regard to the timing of purchases and sales. VII. AUTHORIZED FINANCIAL DEALERS AND INSTITUTIONS A. Selection of a primary bank for Snohomish County general banking services will be made by the Treasurer. 3 Packet Page 185 of 488 SNOHOMISH COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY B. The Treasurer will maintain a list of financial institutions authorized to provide investment services. In addition, a list will also be maintained of approved security broker/dealers selected by credit worthiness. These may include "primary" dealers or regional dealers that qualify under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 150-1 (uniform net capital rule). As required by state law, (RCW 39.58), certificates of deposit will be purchased only from those institutions approved by the Washington Public Deposit Protection Commission (PDPC) as eligible for deposit of public funds. The Treasurer will annually adopt the eligibility list provided by the PDPC as the approved depositary list. The maximum amount placed with any one depositary will not exceed the net worth of the institution as determined by the PDPC. Qualified broker/dealers and financial institutions will be reviewed and selected by the Treasurer on a routine basis. All brokers/dealers and financial institutions who desire to do business with Snohomish County must supply the Treasurer with the following: 1. Annual audited financial statements. 2. Proof of FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) certification. 3. Proof of registration with the State of Washington. 4. A completed Broker/Dealer questionnaire and a certification of having read the Snohomish County Investment Policy. The Treasurer will conduct an annual review of the financial condition of the firms. A current audited financial statement is required to be on file for each financial institution and broker/dealer with whom the County invests. VIII. AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS Snohomish County is empowered by statute (RCW 36.29, 39.58, 39.59, 39.60, 43.25 and 43.84.080) to invest in the following types of securities: ➢ U.S. Treasury Obligations ➢ U.S. Government Agency obligations and U.S. Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE's) which may include, but are not limited to the following: Federal Farm Credit Bank (FFCB), Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB), Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA), Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Student Loan Marketing Corporation (SLMA), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), ➢ Banker's Acceptances (BA's) purchased through State of Washington Financial rd Packet Page 186 of 488 SNOHOMISH COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY Institutions and authorized broker/dealers. Banker's Acceptances shall not be longer than six months duration. Investments in Banker's Acceptances must be in the top thirty banks in the United States, including all banks in the State of Washington as authorized by the Public Deposit Protection Commission. Further, within these limitations, investments may be made only in those banks whose other negotiable obligations are rated at least A-1, P-1 or F-1 (at the time of purchase) by at least two or more internationally recognized agencies such as Moody's or Standard and Poors. ➢ Commercial Paper, purchased in the secondary market, and complying with the State Investment Board requirements. These requirements include commercial paper rated at least A-1, P-1 or F-1 (at the time of purchase) by at least two or more internationally recognized agencies such as Moody's or Standard and Poors and have a maturity not exceeding 180 days. Maturities in excess of 100 days must also have a long-term rating of Aa or better by at least one recognized rating agency. ➢ Non-negotiable Certificates of Deposit of financial institutions which are qualified public depositories as defined by RCW 39.58.010(2) and in accordance with the restrictions therein. ➢ Repurchase Agreements provided that a signed Master Repurchase Agreement shall be on file in the Snohomish County Treasurer's Office for all financial institutions that enter into a repurchase agreement with Snohomish County. All repurchase agreements will be collateralized at a minimum of 102% of market value of principal and interest. The only eligible collateral for repurchase agreements will be direct obligations of the U.S. Treasury, U.S. Government Agency and/or U.S. Government instrumentality obligations. All securities shall be held in third party safekeeping. Third party safekeeping agreements must be entered into with a signed agreement between the safekeeping financial institution and the Snohomish County Treasurer. All securities in a repurchase agreement shall be priced daily to reflect current market conditions for both principal and accrued interest. Securities shall be purchased from either primary dealers or from institutions that are members of the Washington Public Depository. Credit worthiness of the institution will also be considered. ➢ Bonds of the State of Washington and any local government in the State of Washington, which bonds have at the time of investment one of the three highest credit ratings of a nationally recognized rating agency. ➢ General obligation bonds of a state other than the State of Washington and general obligation bonds of a local government of a state other than the State of Washington, which bonds have at the time of investment one of the three highest credit ratings of a nationally recognized rating agency. ➢ Washington State Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP). The Snohomish County Treasurer will keep on file the most recent LGIP Investment Policy and 5 Packet Page 187 of 488 SNOHOMISH COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY operations manual. This policy will be assessed for safety of funds on deposit with the LGIP and risks associated with investment strategies. In addition, the LGIP will complete a questionnaire for the Snohomish County Treasurer which will include the following: a description of eligible securities; how interest and fees are calculated; how gains and losses are calculated; a description of how the securities are safeguarded, how often the securities are priced, and how often the program is audited; deposit and withdrawal restrictions; and information regarding how bond proceeds are accounted for in the LGIP. ➢ In other investments authorized by law ➢ A signed master repurchase agreement in conformance with the Public Securities Association (PSA) model agreement and supplemented with the Treasurer's policy on repurchase agreements must be executed prior to entering into a repurchase agreement transaction. ➢ Securities Lending. The Treasurer may select one or more firms to provide Securities lending management services. Securities lending services will include, but are not limited to, the following: a) The Treasurer may lend securities only to primary dealers who have a long- term credit rating of "A" or better by two NRSROs. The third -party custodian must also maintain an "A" long-term credit rating. b) The Treasurer must enter into a written agreement with the lending agent, and must enter into the industry standard agreement with any borrower. The Treasurer must receive indemnification from the lending agent for borrower default and any losses resulting from agent's negligence or failure to comply with written instructions from the County. c) All loans of securities must be supported by collateral valued at not less than 102% of market value of the securities, including accrued interest. d) Procedures will detail the restrictions permitted on "mismatch" of the loan and the reinvestment of cash collateral. e) Provide next -day liquidity for all securities on loan as required. f) Provide monthly accounting, performance, compliance, management reports, and other reports as required by the Treasurer. g) Reinvestment of proceeds of securities lending for cash collateral must be done as an investment according to the restrictions of this policy but only count against the limit on reverse repurchase agreements at fiscal year end. on Packet Page 188 of 488 SNOHOMISH COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY h) Collateral accepted by a securities lending agent must conform to the collateral requirements of this policy and must be equal to no less than 102%. i) Collateral must be held by an independent third -party custodian with whom the Treasurer has entered into a custodial agreement. j) All securities transactions are to be conducted on a delivery -versus- payment (DVP) basis only, and trades must have confirmation/safekeeping receipt provided to the Treasurer. IX. COLLATERALIZATION A. Repurchase Agreements: 1. The collateral for repurchase agreements shall be U.S. Treasury or Agency securities with a term of maturity not to exceed ten years. 2. Mortgage -backed securities of any maturity will not be accepted as collateral. 3. In order to anticipate market changes and provide a level of security for all funds, the collateralization level will be at 102% of market value of principal and accrued interest. 4. Collateral is to be delivered to and held by the trust department of the bank with whom the Treasurer is currently using as the County's safekeeping custodian. Collateral held for repurchase agreements will be evidenced by safekeeping receipts provided to the Treasurer. 5. At a minimum, the value of the securities must be marked market on a weekly basis. Prevailing market conditions may dictate more frequent repricing at the discretion of the Treasurer. X. SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY A. Delivery vs. Payment All trades of marketable securities will be executed by delivery vs. payment (DVP) to ensure that securities are deposited with a third party custodian prior to the release of funds. B. Safekeeping Securities will be held by an independent third -party custodian selected by the Treasurer. Safekeeping receipts will evidence all transactions. 7 Packet Page 189 of 488 SNOHOMISH COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY C. Certificates of deposit will be held by the Treasurer. XI. DIVERSIFICATION It is the policy of Snohomish County to diversify its investment portfolios. To eliminate risk of loss resulting from the over -concentration of assets in a specific maturity, issuer or class of securities, all cash and cash equivalent assets in all funds shall be diversified by maturity, issuer and by the class of security. Diversification strategies shall be determined and revised periodically by the investment committee/investment officer for all funds. In establishing specific diversification strategies, the following constraints shall apply: Max. % of Portfolio Washington State Local Government Investment Pool 100% U.S. Treasury Obligations Federal Agency securities 100% 90% Municipal Investment Accounts 40% Certificates of Deposit (CDs) 40% Repurchase Agreements (Repos) 40% Bonds of State of Washington or any local government 20% in the State of Washington Bonds of other states or local governments of a state other than the State of Washington l 5% XII. SALE OF PORTFOLIO Any major changes in Investment Strategy including the liquidation of the portfolio shall require a majority vote by the County Finance Committee. La Packet Page 190 of 488 SNOHOMISH COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY XIII. MATURITIES To the extent possible and to preclude sales of securities that could result in a loss, investments will be made to coincide with anticipated cash flow requirements. Because of inherent difficulties in accurately forecasting cash flow requirements, a portion of the portfolio should be continuously invested in readily available funds such as the Local Government Investment Pool, money market funds to ensure that appropriate liquidity is maintained to meet ongoing obligations. A. To this extent, 20% of the portfolio, at the time of investment, will be comprised of investments maturing within a year. B. Satisfying this requirement, remaining funds may be invested in authorized securities not to exceed five years in maturity, except when compatible with a specific fund's investment needs. Maturities longer than five years must have the prior written approval of the Treasurer. C. To ensure additional liquidity and provide for ongoing market opportunity the weighted average maturity and modified duration of the overall portfolio shall not exceed three years without the prior written approval of the Treasurer. XIV. INTERNAL CONTROL The investment officer is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets are protected from loss, theft or misuse. The Treasurer shall establish an annual process of independent review by an external auditor. This review will provide internal control by assuring compliance with policies and procedures. The internal controls shall address the following points: • Control of collusion • Separation of transaction authority from accounting and recordkeeping • Custodial Safekeeping • Avoidance of physical delivery securities • Clear delegation of authority to subordinate staff members • Written confirmation of transactions for investments and wire transfers • Development of a wire transfer agreement with the lead bank and third -party custodian XV. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/BENCHMARK The investment portfolio will be managed in accordance with the parameters specified within this policy. The investment portfolio will be designed to obtain an average rate of return during budgetary and economic cycles, consistent with the investment objectives and cash flow needs. A series of appropriate benchmarks shall be established against which W Packet Page 191 of 488 SNOHOMISH COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY performance shall be compared on a regular basis. The benchmark will be reflective of the actual securities being purchased and the risks undertaken. The benchmarks will have a similar weighted average maturity as the portfolio. XVI. PROCEDURES Day-to-day procedures concerning investment management and accounting are outside the scope of this policy. As deemed necessary, the Treasurer will establish written procedures for the operation of the investment program consistent with this policy. XVII. REPORTING At least quarterly, a report will be submitted to the Snohomish County Finance Committee for their review, summarizing the current position of the portfolio for Snohomish County. The Treasurer and Investment Officer shall report to the committee current investment strategy being followed and recent economic conditions and market developments which have a bearing on this strategy. This management report will be prepared in a manner which will allow the Finance Committee to ascertain whether investment activities during the reporting period have conformed to the investment policy. The report will include: • A listing of individual securities held at the end of the reporting period by authorized investment category • Asset allocation of types of securities • Performance of portfolio and its appropriate benchmark(s) XVIII. INVESTMENT FEES RCW 36.29.020 allows the charging of an investment fee for providing service of investing funds. Five percent of the interest or earnings, with an annual maximum of fifty dollars, on each transaction authorized by each resolution of the governing body shall be paid as an investment service fee. If the fee amounts to five dollars or less, the County Treasurer may waive such fee. RCW 28A.58.440 allows the charging of an investment fee for school districts. Five percent of the interest or earnings, with an annual minimum of ten dollars or annual maximum of fifty dollars, on any transactions authorized by each resolution of the board. RCW 36.29.024 allows the charging of investment fees which reimburse the Treasurer's Office for the actual expenses incurred in administering the investment function under a local pooling program. This fee is allocated to pool participants in a manner which equitably reflects the differing amounts and differing periods of time the amounts were placed in the county pool. Any investment fees collected in excess of actual expenses will be rebated to the pool participants on an annual basis. XIX. INVESTMENT POLICY ADOPTION 10 Packet Page 192 of 488 SNOHOMISH COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY Snohomish County's investment policy shall be adopted by a majority vote of the County Finance Committee. The policy shall be reviewed on an annual basis by the committee and must approve any modifications. Pursuant to Chapter 2.110 of the Snohomish County Code this investment policy has been adopted by majority vote of the County Finance Committee at its meeting on November 20, 1998. 11 Packet Page 193 of 488 SNOHOMISH COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY DEFINITIONS ACCRUED INTEREST - The interest accumulated on a bond since issue date or the last coupon payment. The buyer of the bond pays the market price and accrued interest, which is payable to the seller. AGENCY - A debt security issued by a federal or federally sponsored agency. Federal agencies are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Federally Sponsored Agencies (FSAs) are backed by each particular agency with a market perception that there is an implicit government guarantee. (Also see FEDERAL AGENCY SECURITIES and GOVERNMENT SECURITY) AMORTIZATION - In portfolio accounting, periodic charges made against interest income on premium bonds in anticipation of receipt of the call price at call or of par value at maturity. ASSET - Available property, as for payment of debts AVERAGE MATURITY - A weighted average of the expiration dates for a portfolio of debt securities. An income fund's volatility can be managed by shortening or lengthening the average maturity of its portfolio. BANK WIRE - A virtually instantaneous electronic transfer of funds between two financial institutions. BANKERS ACCEPTANCES (BAs) - Bankers Acceptances generally are created based on a letter of credit issued in a foreign trade transaction. They are used to finance the shipment of commodities between countries as well as the shipment of some specific goods within the United States. BAs are short-term, non -interest bearing notes sold at a discount and redeemed by the accepting bank at maturity for full face value. These notes trade at a rate equal to or slightly higher than Certificates of Deposit (CDs), depending on market supply and demand. Bankers Acceptances are sold in amounts that vary from $100,000 to $5,000,000, or more, with maturities ranging from 30 - 270 days. They offer liquidity to the investor as it is possible to sell BAs prior to maturity at the current market price. BASIS POINT - A measure of an interest rate, i.e., 1/100 of I percent, or .0001. BID - The indicated price at which a buyer is willing to purchase a security or commodity. When selling a security a bid is obtained. (See Offer) BOND - A long-term debt security, or IOU, issued by a government or corporation that generally pays a stated rate of interest and returns the face value on the maturity date. BOOK ENTRY SECURITIES - U.S. government and federal agency securities that do not exist in definitive (paper) form; they exist only in computerized files maintained by the Federal Reserve Bank. BOOK VALUE - The amount at which an asset is carried on the books of the owner. The book value of an asset does not necessarily have a significant relationship to market value. BROKER - A broker brings buyers and sellers together for a commission paid by the initiator of the transaction or by both sides. CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - Certificates of Deposit, familiarly known as CDs, are certificates issued against funds deposited in a bank for a definite period of time and earning a specified rate of return. Certificates of Deposit bear rates of interest in line with money market rates current at the time of issuance. COLLATERAL: Property (as securities) pledged by a borrower to protect the interest of the lender. COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS - A process by which three or more institutions are contacted via the telephone to obtain interest rates for specific securities. CREDIT QUALITY - The measurement of the financial strength of a bond issuer. This measurement helps an investor to understand an issuer's ability to make timely interest payments and repay the loan principal upon maturity. Generally, the higher the credit quality of a bond issuer, the lower the interest 12 Packet Page 194 of 488 SNOHOMISH COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY rate paid by the issuer because the risk of default is lower. Credit quality ratings are provided by nationally recognized rating agencies. CREDIT RISK - The risk that another party to an investment transaction will not fulfill its obligations. Credit risk can be associated with the issuer of a security, a financial institution holding the entity's deposit, or a third party holding securities or collateral. Credit risk exposure can be affected by a concentration of deposits or investments in any one investment type or with any one party. CUSTODIAN - An independent third party (usually bank or trust company) that holds securities in safekeeping as an agent for the county. DEALER - A dealer, as opposed to a broker, acts as a principal in all transactions, buying and selling for his own account. DEFEASE - To discharge the lien of an ordinance, resolution, or indenture relating to a bond issue, and in the process, render inoperative restrictions under which the issuer has been obliged to operate. Comment: Ordinarily an issuer may defease an indenture requirement by depositing with a trustee an amount sufficient to fully pay all amounts under a bond contract as they become due. DELIVERY - The providing of a security in an acceptable form to the County or to an agent acting on behalf of the County and independent of the seller. Acceptable forms can be physical securities or the transfer of book entry securities. The important distinction is that the transfer accomplishes absolute ownership control by the County DELIVERY VS PAYMENT - There are two methods of delivery of securities: Delivery vs. payment and delivery vs. receipt (also called free). Delivery vs. payment is delivery of securities with an exchange of money for the securities. Delivery vs. receipt is delivery of securities with an exchange of a signed receipt for the securities. DEPOSITARY - A person to whom something is entrusted, a depository. DEPOSITORY BANK - A local bank used as the point of deposit for cash receipts. DEPOSITORY INSURANCE - Insurance on deposits with financial institutions. For purposes of this policy statement, depository insurance includes: a) Federal depository insurance funds, such as those maintained by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) AND Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC); and b) Public Deposit Protection Commission. DISCOUNT - 1. (n.) selling below par; e.g., a $1000 bond selling for $900. 2. (v.) anticipating the effects of news on a security's value; e.g., "The market had already discounted the effect of the labor strike by bidding the company's stock down." DIVERSIFICATION - Dividing available funds among a variety of securities and institutions so as to minimize market risk. EFFECTIVE RATE - The yield you would receive on a debt security over a period of time taking into account any compounding effect. FACE VALUE - The value of a bond stated on the bond certificate; thus, the redemption value at maturity. Most bonds have a face value, or par, of $1,000. FEDERAL AGENCY SECURITIES - Several government -sponsored agencies, in recent years, have issued short and long-term notes. Such notes typically are issued through dealers, mostly investment banking houses. These Federal government -sponsored agencies were established by the U.S. Congress to undertake various types of financing without tapping the public treasury. In order to do so, the agencies have been given the power to borrow money by issuing securities, generally under the authority of an act of Congress. These securities are highly acceptable and marketable for several reasons, mainly because they are exempt from state, municipal and local income taxes. Furthermore, agency securities must offer a higher yield than direct Treasury debt of the same maturity to find investors, partly because these securities are not direct obligations of the Treasury. 13 Packet Page 195 of 488 SNOHOMISH COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY The main agency borrowing institutions are the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), the Federal Home Loan Bank System (FHLB), and the Federal Farm Credit System (FFCS). FNMA - FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION - issues notes tailored to the maturity needs of the investor. Maturities range from 30 days up to 10 years. These notes are made attractive by their denominations from $5,000 to $1 million. FHLB - FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK SYSTEM - consists of twelve Federal Home Loan Banks, issues, in addition to long-term bonds, coupon notes with maturities of up to one year. Their attractiveness stems from their investment denominations of $10,000 to $1 million. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE (FDIC) - A Federal institution that insures bank deposits. The current limit is up to $100,000 per depository account. FEDERAL FUNDS RATE - The rate of interest at which Fed Funds are traded between banks. Fed Funds are excess reserves held by banks that desire to invest or lend them to banks needing reserves. The particular rate is heavily influenced through the open market operations of the Federal Reserve Board. Also referred to as the "Fed Funds rate." FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS (FHLB) - The institutions that regulate and lend to savings and loan associations. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FNMA) - FNMA, like GNMA, was chartered under the Federal National Mortgage Association Act in 1938. FNMA is a Federal corporation working under the auspices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD. It is the largest single provider of residential mortgage funds in the United States. Fannie Mae, as the corporation is called, is a private stockholder -owned corporation. The corporation's purchases include a variety of adjustable mortgages and second loans, in addition to fixed-rate mortgages. FNMA's securities are also highly liquid and are widely accepted. FNMA assumes and guarantees that all security holders will receive timely payment of principal and interest. FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM - The central bank of the United States which has regulated credit in the economy since its inception in 1913. Includes the Federal Reserve Bank, 14 district banks and the member banks of the Federal Reserve, and is governed by the Federal Board. FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN INSURANCE CORPORATION (FSLIC) - A federal institution that insures savings and loan deposits. The current limit is up to $100,000 per depository account. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS - Establishments that include the circulation of money, the granting of credit, the making of investments, and the provision of banking facilities. FISCAL AGENCY - A financial institution that handles certain bond and coupon redemptions on behalf of Whatcom County. FLEXIBLE REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS (Flex Repos) - Similar to a term repurchase agreement, a flex repo is a contractual transfer of U.S. government securities during the investment period, whereby the Seller agrees to repurchase the collateral securities from the Buyer on the Buyer's demand, subject to provisions of the agreement. The Seller is generally a financial institution such as a securities dealer or a bank. As buyers, most issuers require over collateralization, marking -to -market of collateral and delivery - vs. -payment of collateral. GINNIE MAES (GNMAs) - Mortgage securities issued and guarantied, as to timely interest and principal payments, by the Government National Mortgage, an agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). GOVERNMENT SECURITY - Any debt obligation issued by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities. Certain securities, such as Treasury bonds and Ginnie Maes, are backed by the government as to both principal and interest payments. Other securities, such as those issued by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or Freddie Mac, are backed by the issuing agency. 14 Packet Page 196 of 488 SNOHOMISH COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY HAIRCUT - This term describes the way brokers and clients protect themselves from market risk in doing repos. An entity wanting to finance the purchase of $100 million in Treasury bonds may borrow just $98 million of the money. The two percent difference between the amount of securities purchased and the amount of money borrowed is the haircut. Similarly, an entity looking to borrow $100 million may need to provide, as collateral, Treasury securities with a market price equal to $102 million. LIQUIDATION - Conversion into cash. LIQUIDITY - Refers to the ease and speed with which an asset can be converted into cash without a substantial loss in value. LOSS - The excess of the cost or book value of an asset over selling price. LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOL (LGIP) - The aggregate of all funds from political subdivisions that are placed in the custody of the State Treasurer for investment and reinvestment. MARK -TO -MARKET - An adjustment in the valuation of a securities portfolio to reflect the current market values of the respective securities in the portfolio. This process is also used to ensure that margin accounts are in compliance with maintenance. MARKETABILITY - Ability to sell large blocks of money market instruments quickly and at competitive prices. MARKET RISK - The risk associated with declines or rises in interest rates which cause an investment in a fixed -income security to increase or decrease in value. The risk that the market value of an investment, collateral protecting a deposit, or securities underlying a repurchase agreement will decline. MARKET VALUE - The price at which a security is trading and could presumably be sold. MASTER REPURCHASE AGREEMENT - An agreement between the investor and the dealer or financial institute. This agreement defines the nature of the transactions, identifies the relationship between the parties, establishes normal practices regarding ownership and custody of the collateral securities during the term of the investment, provides for remedies in the event of a default by either party and otherwise clarifies issues of ownership. MATURITY - The time when a security becomes due and at which time the principal and interest or final coupon payment is paid to the investor. NET WORTH - A financial institutions available funds after their total liabilities have been deducted from their total assets. OFFER - The indicated price at which a seller is willing to sell a security or commodity. (See BID) When buying a security an offer is obtained. PAR VALUE - The nominal or face value of a debt security; that is, the value at maturity. PORTFOLIO - Collection of securities held by an investor. PREMIUM - The amount by which a bond sells above its par value. PRIMARY DEALERS - A group of government securities dealers that submit daily reports of market activity and positions and monthly financial statements to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and are subject to its informal oversight. Primary dealers include Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), registered securities broker -dealers, banks, and a few unregulated firms. PRIME RATE - The interest rate a bank charges on loans to its most credit worthy customers. Frequently cited as a standard for general interest rate levels in the economy. PRINCIPAL - An invested amount on which interest is charged or earned. PRUDENCE - The ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason. Shrewdness in the management of affairs. Able to use skill and good judgment in the use of resources. QUALIFIED PUBLIC DEPOSITORY - A financial institution which does not claim exemption from the payment of any sales or compensating use or ad valorem taxes under the laws of this state, which has segregated, for the benefit of the commission, eligible collateral having a value of not less than its 15 Packet Page 197 of 488 SNOHOMISH COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY maximum liability and which has been approved by the Public Deposit Protection Commission to hold public deposits. REGISTERED SECURITY - A security that has the name of the owner written on its face. A registered security cannot be negotiated except by the endorsement of the owner. REPURCHASE AGREEMENT (REPO) - The Repo is a contractual transaction between an investor and an issuing financial institution (not a secured loan). The investor exchanges cash for temporary ownership of specific securities, with an agreement between the parties that on a future date, the financial institution will repurchase the securities at a prearranged price. An "Open Repo" does not have a specified repurchase date and the repurchase price is established by a formula computation. REPRICING - The revaluation of the market value of securities. REVERSE REPOs - The opposite of the transaction undertaken through a regular repurchase agreement. In a "reverse" the County initially owns securities and the bank or dealer temporarily exchanges cash for this collateral. This is, in effect, temporarily borrowing cash at a high interest rate and is also known as securities lending. Most typically, a Repo is initiated by the lender of funds. Reverses are used by dealers to borrow securities they have shorted. SAFEKEEPING - A service to customers rendered by banks for a fee whereby all securities and valuables of all types and descriptions are held in the bank's vaults for protection, or in the case of book entry securities, are held and recorded in the customer's name and are inaccessible to anyone else. SALLIE MAES - Pooling of student loans guaranteed by the Student Loan Mortgage Association (SLMA) to increase the availability of education loans. The SLMA purchases the loans after buying them on the secondary market from lenders. SLMA stock is publicly traded. SECURITIES - Bonds, notes, mortgages, or other forms of negotiable or non-negotiable instruments. SETTLEMENT DATES - The day on which payment is due for a securities purchase. For stocks and mutual funds bought through an investment dealer, settlement is normally five business days after the trade date. Bonds and options normally settle one business day after the trade date mutual fund shares purchased directly by mail or wire settle on the day payment is received. SPREAD - (a) Difference between the best buying price and the best selling price for any given security. (b) Difference between yields on or prices of two securities of differing quality or differing maturities. (c) In underwriting, difference between price realized by the issuer and price paid by the investor. STRIPPED TREASURIES - U.S. Treasury debt obligations in which coupons are removed by brokerage houses, creating zero -coupon bonds. TRIPARTITE CUSTODIAN AGREEMENT - An agreement that occurs when a third party or custodian becomes a direct participant in a repurchase transaction. The custodian ensures that the exchange occurs simultaneously and that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the investor's interest in the underlying collateral. THIRD -PARTY SAFEKEEPING - A safekeeping arrangement whereby the investor has full control over the securities being held and the dealer or bank investment department has no access to the securities being held. TIME DEPOSIT - Interest -bearing deposit at a savings institution that has a specific maturity. TREASURY BILLS - Treasury bills are short-term debt obligations of the U.S. Government. They offer maximum safety of principal since they are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government. Treasury bills, commonly called "T-Bills," account for the bulk of government financing, and are the major vehicle used by the Federal Reserve System in the money market to implement national monetary policy. T-Bills are sold in three, six, nine, and twelve-month bills. Because treasury bills are considered "risk -free," these instruments generally yield the lowest returns in the major money market instruments. 16 Packet Page 198 of 488 SNOHOMISH COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY TREASURY NOTES AND BONDS - While T-Bills are sold at a discount rate that establishes the yield to maturity, all other marketable treasury obligations are coupon issued. These include Treasury Notes with maturities from one to ten years and Treasury Bonds with maturities of 10-30 years. The instruments are typically held by banks and savings and loan associations. Since Bills, Notes and Bonds are general obligations of the U.S. Government, and since the Federal Government has the lowest credit risk of all participants in the money market, its obligations generally offer a lower yield to the investor than do other securities of comparable maturities. UNDERLYING SECURITIES - Securities transferred in accordance with a repurchase agreement. VENDOR - A business or individual who provides a service or product at a cost. WHEN -ISSUED TRADES - Typically, there is a lag between the time a new bond is announced and sold and the time it is actually issued. During this interval, the security trades "wi," "when, as, and if issued." Wi - When, as, and if issued. See When -issued trades. YIELD - The rate at which an investment pays out interest or dividend income, expressed in percentage terms and calculated by dividing the amount paid by the price of the security and annualizing the result. YIELD BASIS - Stated in terms of yield as opposed to price. As yield increases for a traded issue, price decreases and vice versa. Charts prepared on a yield basis appear exactly opposite of those prepared on a price basis. YIELD SPREAD - The variation between yields on different types of debt securities; generally a function of supply and demand, credit quality and expected interest rate fluctuations. Treasury bonds, for example, because they are so safe, will normally yield less than corporate bonds. Yields may also differ on similar securities with different maturities. Long-term debt, for example, carries more risk of market changes and issuer defaults than short-term debt and thus usually yields more. ZERO -COUPON BONDS - Securities that do not pay interest but are instead sold at a deep discount from face value. They rise in price as the maturity date nears and are redeemed at face value upon maturity. 17 Packet Page 199 of 488 Snohomish County Investment Memo of Understanding The Snohomish County Treasurer is authorized to offer investment pooling opportunities to Districts located in the County. This is authorized by RCW 36.29.020, 36.29.022, and 36.29.024. The following terms and provisions are agreed between the District and Snohomish County Treasurer (Treasurer) as follows: A. Treasurer 1. Treasurer will be responsible for management of the Snohomish County Investment Pool (SCIP) as well as calculation of interest earnings and fees. The SCIP will hold only securities authorized under state law. The purchase of securities is outlined in the Snohomish County Investment Policy. 2. Interest earnings will be distributed to the District based on the average daily cash balance maintained in the fund. Earnings and fees will be calculated by the 2nd business day of the following month. The actual distribution will be posted in the month earned. 3. The monthly interest rate used for SCIP distributions will be calculated using earnings of the SCIP on an accrual basis as well as gains or loses on investment sales. Earnings and fees will be calculated on 360 day basis. 4. Treasurer will issue monthly SCIP reports to the District and comply with GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) annual reporting requirements. B. District 1. The District will be responsible for notifying Treasurer when depositing funds in the SCIP. For deposits or withdrawals of over 10 million, the district will notify the Investment Officer in advance (See SCIP operations). 2. When requesting funds the District will notify Treasurer in advance for withdrawals over 10 million (See SCIP operations). 3. The District understands that participation in the investment SCIP should be considered a long-term commitment, and that the investment SCIP is not intended to meet the District's daily liquidity needs. 4. District will need to retain SCIP investment reports to comply with IRS record retention requirements. 5. Written notice is required for large withdrawals the SCIP. 10 business days notice is required if a disbursement exceeding 10mm is to be made. 6. The District investing official has reviewed the SCIP operations document and completed the Resolution authorizing participation. Acknowledgement: I have read the memo of understanding will comply with the terms: Authorizing Official Investment Officer Packet Page 200 of 488 OPERATIONS SNOHOMISH COUNTY INVESTMENT POOL (SCIP) Background. The Snohomish County Investment Pool (SCIP) is a portfolio of a combination of investments with varying maturities designed to control investment risk and maximize earnings. The portfolio has an average maturity of more than 90 days. It has been established to provide Snohomish County and Districts a tool for investment of cash from operations, capital funds and bond proceeds. Participants may include, but are not limited to districts, (such as the following: school, fire, port, drainage, road improvement, emergency management, fire districts) cities, transportation agencies and other public entities who desire to participate. Participants will be unlimited provided that the bond proceeds plus other funds associated with that one participant do not exceed 25% of the total assets of the pool. Puroose of Poolin The Snohomish County Treasurer invests funds collectively in order to efficiently meet investment objectives. The purpose of the pool is to allow Participants to pool funds available for investments in order to achieve a potentially higher yield while maintaining adequate diversification and liquidity. The "Prudent Investor" rule as defined by RCW 43.250.040 (and spelled out in the Snohomish County Investment Policy) applies to all investments purchased on behalf of the pool. The pool has been created to promote a more efficient mechanism for investing Public funds in large dollar amounts in order to take advantage of market conditions which generally result in higher yields over time. Participants are provided with a convenient method of pooling their liquid cash, as well as bond proceeds and other capital and reserve resources for temporary investing pending their expenditures. The pool seeks to provide the following benefits: • Preservation of principal — Investments are only made in instruments authorized by the Washington State law, and in accordance with the Snohomish County Investment Policy. To preserve principal, Investments are restricted to those with the highest credit rating at the time of purchase. • Liquidity — Portfolio shall remain sufficiently liquid to enable its participants to have funds available to pay operating and capital expenditures. Packet Page 201 of 488 • Income — The pool seeks to earn a market rate of return throughout budgetary and variable economic cycles consistent with preserving principal and maintaining liquidity. Interest Earnings. Interest is allocated based on the weighted average daily balance a participant's fund maintains in the Pool. Earnings will be calculated on a 360 day basis. Earnings and fees will be calculated by the 2nd business day of the following month. The monthly interest rate used for Pool distributions will be calculated using earnings of the Pool on an accrual basis as well as gains or losses from the sale of investment instruments. Administrative fees. Pool participants will be charged an investment fee based on RCW 36.29.024. The rate is determined based on the actual costs of running the pool. The average periodic investment fee is currently 6.5 basis points (.065%) on an annualized basis, and will be based on the daily principal balance maintained in the pool by the participants. The rate may fluctuate due to the actual average principal balances being maintained in the pool differing from projected balances Rebate. At the end of the Fiscal year, the Snohomish County Investment Pool will prepare a final accounting for pool expenses. The participants will be rebated administrative fees that are in excess of operational requirements. The proportionate share of the rebate is based on the participant's average daily balance for the fiscal year in which the rebate was posted. Renortina reauirements. Snohomish County will provide to the participants a monthly Pool statement that will show the average cash balance maintained by the Fund, the Pool earnings rate, the Fund's earnings, and the fees paid. Instructions to participate in the Pool How to open an account To participate in the Pool, a participant must sign a resolution and a service agreement prior to investing any funds in the Pool. Pool participants are allowed to have multiple accounts and sub accounts. To open an account please contact: Investment Officer Snohomish County Treasurer's Office 3000 Rockefeller Ave M/S 501 Everett, WA 98201 (425) 388-3630 2 Packet Page 202 of 488 Investinq for Snohomish County Investment Pool Participants. 1. Investment Purchases are transacted in the following time frames. 2. Investment requests must be recorded by 9:00 AM of the Investment day. 3. The transaction amount for Pool Participants is a minimum of $10,000 per transaction. The $10,000 minimum applies to each fund that an investment is made in. Withdrawing for Snohomish County Investment Pool Participants. 1. Investment Sales are transacted in the following time frames. 2. Investment sale requests must be recorded by 9:00 AM of the Investment day. 3. The transaction amount for Pool Participants is a minimum of $10,000 per transaction. The $10,000 minimum applies to each fund that an investment sale is made in. Large deposits and withdrawals. To allow the investment officer to manage cash flows, the following are guidelines for investing and selling large sums of money 1. SCIP participants will notify the Treasurer's Office 10 business days in advance if a disbursement exceeding $10 million is to be made. 2. Participation in the investment pool should be considered a long-term commitment. Participants will not withdraw and deposit funds into the pool for speculative purposes as such actions may negatively impact other participants in the pool, hence, withdrawals from the pool are to be made only for planned operating and capital expenditures. 3. In order to operate the pool efficiently, the investing official should disclose to the Treasurer's Office a significant changes of the investment balance maintained in each fund on a quarterly basis. 4. Participants in the pool are required to provide cash flow projections for capital funds and bond proceeds. This allows the Treasurer to enhance returns while maintaining sufficient liquidity for all pool participants. Closing a SCIP account. Participants will not use the Snohomish County Investment Pool for speculative purposes. For this reason, once a fund is removed from the SCIP (other than for operating expenses), it Packet Page 203 of 488 cannot be reinvested in this pool without approval of the County Treasurer. In no case will the removal and reinstatement be approved if such actions negatively impact other participants. SCIP participants must give written notice to withdraw completely from the pool. 1. For accounts of $5,000,000 or less, Participants must notify the County's Investment Officer in writing of intent to close account at least 10 business days in advance. 2. For accounts over $5,000,000, Participants must notify the County's Investment Officer in writing of intent to close the SCIP account at least 14 business days in advance. M Packet Page 204 of 488 Legal Criteria Excerpt from RCW 36.29.020 " ...............Any municipal corporation may by action of its governing body authorize any of its funds which are not required for immediate expenditure, and which are in the custody of the county treasurer or other municipal corporation treasurer, to be invested by such treasurer.........." RCW 36.29.022 - Combining of moneys for investment. Upon the request of one or several units of local government that invest their money with the county under the provisions of RCW 36.29.020, the treasurer of that county may combine those units' moneys for the purposes of investment. Excerpt from RCW 36.29.024 "The county treasurer may deduct the amounts necessary to reimburse the treasurer's office for the actual expenses the office incurs and to repay any county funds appropriated and expended for the initial administrative costs of establishing a county investment pool provided in RCW 36.29.022. These funds shall be used by the county treasurer as a revolving fund to defray the cost of administering the pool without regard to budget limitations ...................... 5 Packet Page 205 of 488 AM-6085 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 09/10/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Committee: Finance Submitted By: Roger Neumaier Tyne: Action Information Subject Title Bond Counsel Contract for Edmonds Center for the Arts Contract Recommendation 8. E. This request asks the Council to authorize the City Attorney to agree to waive any potential conflict of interest pertaining to the Bond Counsel's occasional representation of the Edmonds PFD and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on unrelated matters. Once that authorization has occurred, City staff will move forward with a contract and will return to the Council with a proposed Interlocal modification agreement that addresses the strategies and issues summarized above. I am asking that the Council discuss this issue and vote on the contract with the Special Counsel at the next Council meeting on September 17th. Previous Council Action Narrative Agreement Background: • The Edmonds City Council formed the Edmonds Public Facilities District (PFD) on April 24, 2001. The PFD was created under the authority provided by the legislature during the 1999 State legislative session since codified as RCW 35.57. • The purpose of the PFD was/is to own, construct, remodel, maintain and operate a regional center in the City of Edmonds. • The Edmonds Center for the Arts is a regional center as defined under RCW 35.57.020. • Since the creation of the Edmonds PFD, over a decade ago, the Edmonds Center for the Arts has established itself as a multipurpose regional and community facility with an emphasis on the operation of a center for the performing arts. • The City of Edmonds entered into a credit support agreement with the Edmonds Public Facilities District (PFD) in 2008. • The City agreed to lend money to the PFD to assist the PFD in making payments on its bonds, if needed. A process was agreed upon for the Edmonds PFD to request that support. • The PFD agreed to pay interest on the outstanding loans referenced above. • A copy of the full agreement is attached. • The amount due to the City from the PFD including interest at December 31, 2012 was $555,631. • In addition, the City has appropriated a possible loan to the PFD in the amount of up to $190 thousand for 2013, if needed. • Unless paid earlier, all loans referenced in the Interlocal Agreement shall mature on December 31 of the year of expiration of the District's authority to impose the Sales Tax, but not earlier than 2026. Any portions of these loans not repaid at that time, shall convert to an ownership interest in the Edmonds Center for the Arts by the City. • The City has a critical interest in the ongoing success of the facility. The Edmonds Center for the Arts has a significant economic impact on the Edmonds community, makes Edmonds an attractive place to live, conduct business and visit, and enriches the quality of life within Edmonds. Issue: • While the Edmonds Center for the Arts builds its programs and relationships with the community, current revenue streams have not been large enough to set aside dollars for existing needed and future capital improvements or contingency reserves let alone repaying the principal and interest owed to the City. • The short term debt hurts the financial position of the PFD. Fundraising for the Center is impacted by concerns that contributions might have to be used to pay back the City. Packet Page 206 of 488 • The City needs to protect its investments in the facility while at the same time ensuring that the region and community benefit by the continued long term operation of the facility. • At the time of the Interlocal agreement, it was perceived that an outstanding loan for the amounts transferred was the best way to assure that at some point in the future that the facility was not transferred to a use not beneficial to the public before the City was reimbursed for its investment. Possible Alternative Approach: • As an alternative to operating all programs that provide services and benefits to the public, the federal and state government award grants with certain limitations to entities that provide services or functions that support the mission that the legislative branch endorses. • Utilizing such an approach, the City could continue its relationship with the PFD and continue to provide financial support based upon the City's decisions and the PFD's needs. • The PFD would thusly be able to focus its fundraising efforts on improving its financial position, maintaining and improving its physical plan, and on improving the quality and amount of programs it offers to the community. • Under this scenario, the grant agreement could include language that requires repayment to the City of principal and retroactive interest calculated, if the PFD were to utilize the property for a purpose to which the City did not agree. Such an approach could have other defined expectations over a specified period. Recommended Strategy This proposal would involve the preparation and negotiation of a grant agreement between the City and the PFD. The grant agreement would provide funds to the PFD in 2013 sufficient to repay the City for all amounts that have been previously loaned to the PFD (or requested for the remainder of 2013) under the Contingent Loan Agreement in support of the debt issued by the PFD for the development of the Edmonds Center for the Arts. This amount would be granted to the PFD, on the condition that it be used immediately to repay and discharge those loans. The grant agreement would also require the PFD comply with certain additional grant conditions that would run for 50 years, including (among other covenants) that the facility not be sold and that the PFD continue to operate it as a multi -use regional facility and arts center (or, upon consent of the City, similar public use). The agreement would provide that if the PFD should breach these covenants, the amounts granted would convert to loans that would need to be repaid either in cash or by transfer of a commensurate ownership interest in the facility. The agreement would be structured to provide flexibility for additional future grants to the PFD, as necessary and as provided for by future City Councils in their adopted budgets, on the same conditions as the initial grant amount, unless otherwise approved by the Edmonds City Council. The Finance Department anticipates that the first such supplemental grant request would be considered by the Council in preparation of the City's 2014 budget. Our Bond Counsel served as bond counsel to the Edmonds PFD in connection with the issuance of their 2008 bonds that were guaranteed by the City. In addition, we from time to time answer other legal questions for the Edmonds PFD and for the Edmonds Center for the Arts Board. To avoid a conflict of interest, our bond counsel would request that the PFD seek other counsel to represent it in reviewing and negotiating this agreement and have further requested conflict waivers from both parties. Our Bond Counsel has asked the City to agree to waive any potential conflict of interest pertaining to the Bond Counsel's occasional representation of the Edmonds PFD and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on unrelated matters. Cost of Strategy: • The cost for City Bond Counsel contract drafting services would be less than $7,500. (The Bond Counsel could be utilized in providing additional related services not to exceed an addition $2,500). • Repayment of the loan would not occur. Benefits of Strategy: • The PFD's funding raising effectiveness would be enhanced as community and other contributors or grantors are informed that contributions will not be utilized to repay a City loan. • The agreement extends the horizon for the operations of the Edmonds Center for the Arts for 50 years from the date of the proposed agreement — 37 years beyond the current commitment. • Restaurants and other parts of the City's and Region's economy that benefit from the Center for the Arts would continue to benefit from the ongoing operation of the ECA. • The City's primary objective — the ongoing use of this regional facility for the public and for cultural enhancement of Edmonds — will be served with a long-term commitment from the PFD. • The remedy of reimbursement if the Edmonds Center of the Arts changes its mission or is sold without City authorization is preserved. Packet Page 207 of 488 Fiscal Year: 2013 Fiscal Impact Revenue: Expenditure: S7,500 Fiscal Impact: The cost for City Bond Counsel contract drafting services would be less than $7,500. (The Bond Counsel could be utilized in providing additional related services not to exceed an addition $2,500). Attachments 2008 Contingent Loan Agreement Counsel Engagement Letter Special Counsel Contract Form Review Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Roger Neumaier Final Approval Date: 09/05/2013 Date 09/04/2013 12:14 PM 09/04/2013 06:19 PM 09/05/2013 08:33 AM Started On: 09/04/2013 11:55 AM Packet Page 208 of 488 [Execution Version] CONTINGENT LOAN AGREEMENT by and between THE CITY OF EDMONDS and THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT relating to the EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT $4,000,000 SALES TAX OBLIGATION AND REFUNDING BONDS, 2008 Dated as of July 14, 2008 This document prepared hy: Foster Pepper PLLC 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 447-4400 Packet Page 209 of 488 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE1. Recitals.................................................................................................................................................. I ARTICLE2. Definitions.............................................................................................................................................3 ARTICLE3. Loans to the District; Repayment Terms.......................................................................................3 Section3.1 Loans to the District ..........................................................................................................................3 Section 3_2 Procedures Under Guarantee; Time and Amount of Loans..............................................................3 Section 3;3 Covenants Regarding Debt Limit and Additional Debt....................................................................4 Section3.4 Repayment Terms.-•........................•-.•••............................................................................................5 Section 3.5 Nature of District's Obligation ................ ...........•••.••......................................................................6 Section 3.6 Nature of City's Obligation......-----.••••..............................................................................................6 Section3.7 City Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................... 6 ARTICLE4. Rights of City Upon Malting Loans....................................................................................................7 Section4.1 Rights of the City..............................................................................................................................7 ARTICLE 5. Additional Obligations and Covenants...............................................................................................7 Section 5..1 Agreement to issue Bonds................................................................................................................ 7 Section 5.2 Third Party Beneficiary ....................................................................................................................7 Section 553 Representations and Warranties of the District.................................................................................7 Section 5.4 Additional Covenants and of the District..........................................................................................8 ARTICLE6. Remedies Upon Default.........................................................................»..».......................................9 Section 6_1 Remedies of City on Default---•........................................................................................................ 9 Section 6.2 Remedies of District on Default.......................................................................................................9 Section 6_3 No Remedy Exclusive....................................................................................................••................9 Section664 No Implied Waiver........................................................................................................................... 9 Section 65 Agreement to Pay Attorneys' Fees and Expenses............................................................................9 Section6.66 Dispute Resolution ......................... .......... .................. ........................ ............................................ 10 ARTICLE7. Hold Harmless....................................................................................................................................10 ARTICLE8. Miscellaneous......................................................................................................................................10 Section 8,�1 Continuing Disclosure Undertaking of the City .............................................................................10 Section 882 Governing Law; Venue................................................................................................................... I Section8.3 Notices ............................................................................................................................................ 11 Section$_4 Binding Effect.................................................................................................................................12 Section8_5 Severability.....................................................................................................................................12 Section8.6 Amendments...................................................................................................................................12 Section8.7 Additional Debt..............................................................................................................................12 Section8.8 Waiver of Breach............................................................................................................................12 Section $_9 No Rights Created in Third Parties ....... ....... .................... ............ ................................................... 13 Section 8.10 Time of Essence ..............................................................................................................................13 Section 8.11 Effective Date of and Termination of Agreement...........................................................................13 50858663 11 Packet Page 210 of 488 CONTINGENT LOAN AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT'S $4,000,000 SALES TAX OBLIGATION ,AND REFUNDING BONDS, 2008 This CONTINGENT LOAN AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is dated as of July 14, 2008, by and between THE CITY OF EDMONDS (the "City"), a code city organized under the laws of the State of Washington, the EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT (the "District"), a municipal corporation established by the City of Edmonds and duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Washington (together, the "Parties"). The City and the District enter into this Agreement solely for the purpose of providing credit support for the District's Sales Tax Obligation and Refunding Bonds, 2008 (the "Bonds"), issued in the principal amount of $4,000,000 pursuant to Resolution No. 27 of the District adopted on June 25, 2008 (the "Bond Resolution"). The Parties agree as follows: ARTICLE I. Recitals The following facts and circumstances form the background of this Agreement: l . The District is a duly organized and legally existing municipal corporation of the State of Washington. The District and the City are authorized by applicable provisions of state law, including chapters 35.57 and 35.59 RCW, and RCW 82.14.390, to acquire, construct, own, remodel, maintain, equip, repair and operate a regional center (including multipurpose community centers and special events centers) and related parking facilities. 2. The City and the District have the authority to enter into interlocal agreements under chapters 35.57, 35.59 and 67.28 RCW for joint and cooperative action, including provisions to finance joint or cooperative undertakings, multipurpose community centers, regional centers and tourism -related facilities, and to provide for services to be provided by one government to another. 3. The District's Board of Directors (the "Board) has previously found and determined that the residents of the District and the region will benefit from the District's acquisition, construction, operation and maintenance of a performing arts center, known as the Edmonds Center for the Arts (the "Regional Center"), which will provide for meetings, conferences, community events, trade shows, and artistic, musical, theatrical or other cultural exhibitions, presentations or performances. 508H661 It -I- Packet Page 211 of 488 4. As authorized by RCW 35.57.040(1)(d) and RCW 82.14.390, the District has since 2001 imposed and collected a 0.033% sales and use tax to assist in financing the design, development, acquisition, construction, operation and management of the Regional Center, which taxing authority will expire when the bonds issued for the construction of the Regional Center and related parking facilities are retired, but not later than 2026, which is twenty-five years after the tax was first collected. 5, The District has entered into the County PFD Agreement (the "County PFD Agreement") with the City, the Snohomish County Public Facilities District (the "County PFD") and Snohomish County (the "County"), dated November 4, 2002, regarding the joint development and operation of the Regional Center and pursuant to which the City, the County PFD and the County agreed to make payments to the District to support such joint development and operation, and pursuant to which the District has agreed to make certain payments to the City in support of the City's Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2002 (the "City Bonds") issued to pay a portion of the costs of acquisition and development of the Regional Center. 6. In Section C.L(b) of the County PFD Agreement, the parties "reserve[d] the right to make or to agree to make, additional payments or transfers among themselves with respect to the Edmonds Center For the Arts, so long as such agreements and/or payments are consistent with the terms of this Agreement." 7. Pursuant to RCW 35.57.030, the Board desires to issue $4,000,000 of its Sales Tax Obligation and Refunding Bonds, 2008 (the "Bonds"), payable from Sales Tax Revenue and General Revenue (as described herein) for the purpose of (i) prepaying and redeeming all outstanding amounts drawn under the District's not to exceed $7,000,000 General and Revenue Obligation Line of Credit Note, 2005 issued to provide funds needed to complete construction of the Regional Center and other related costs and to provide interim financing upon completion (the "Prior Note"); (ii) making certain improvements to the Regional Center, including roof repair and replacement, renovation or reconstruction of interior spaces, and other related improvements (collectively, the "Improvements"); and (iii) paying certain fees and the costs of issuance and sale of the Bonds. 8. In connection with the Prior Note, the City, the District and Bank of America, N.A. entered into a Guarantee Agreement, dated as of October 26, 2005 (the "Prior Guarantee"), which will be released upon the refunding of the Prior Note. 9. The District has requested that the City provide, for the benefit of the holders of the Bonds, credit support to the District to permit the District to obtain the financing described herein at the lowest interest rates available. 10. The City is willing to provide credit support for the District's Bonds and has authorized the execution of a contingent loan agreement pursuant to its Ordinance No. 3676, adopted on January 15, 2008, as amended by Ordinance No. 3687, adopted on June 3, 2008 (the "City Authorizing Ordinance"). 50"S"= 11 -2- Packet Page 212 of 488 ARTICLE 2. Definitions Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, capitalized ternis used in this Agreement have the meanings given such terms in the Bond Resolution. ARTICLE 3. Loans to the District; Repayment Terms Section 3_1 Loans to the District. The City shall lend money to the District at the times and in the amounts set forth in Section 3.2. The District shall borrow the amounts described above from the City pursuant to this Agreement for the purpose of paying debt service on the Bonds. The City irrevocably agrees to disburse all loans made hereunder directly to the District, and the District irrevocably agrees to immediately apply all such amounts received by it for the purpose of meeting its obligations under the Bonds. The aggregate principal amount of outstanding loans to be made by the City pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed the outstanding principal amount of the Bonds, plus all interest accrued on the Bonds. Section 3.2 Procedures Under Guarantee,• Time and Amount of Loans. (1) Notice of Insufficiency. On the I" day of the month preceding each Debt Service Payment Date (or if the lst is not a Business Day, then on the next Business Day), the District shall review the amount on deposit in the Debt Service Fund to determine whether there will be sufficient money available in the Debt Service Fund to make the required payment due on the upcoming Debt Service Payment Date. If, upon such review, it appears that the money available in the Debt Service Fund will be insufficient to make that payment, the District shall provide the City a notice in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (a "Notice of Insufficiency") within five days after the date on which the review was required. Failure of the District to give a Notice of Insufficiency to the City shall not relieve the City of its obligation to make loans upon demand by the District under subsection (4) of this section. (2) Budgeting for Loans. Upon receipt of a Notice of Insufficiency from the District, the City shall, to the extent necessary, include in its budget the amounts required to make the loans described in subsection (4) of this section. If the need to budget for such loans was not reasonably foreseeable at the time the City prepared its biennial budget, the City shall budget for such loans under Title 35A RCW and the Edmonds Municipal Code in sufficient time to provide for the loans described in subsection (4). (3) Cancellation Notices. If, at any time before 10 a.m. (Pacific time) on the 24th day of the month preceding an upcoming Debt Service Payment Date for which the District has given a Notice of Insufficiency (or, if the 24th is not a Business Day, the Business Day preceding the 24th), the District determines that there will be sufficient money available in the Debt Service Fund to make the required payment due on the upcoming Debt Service Payment Date, the District shall provide, prior to 5 p.m. on the same day, a notice to the City in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit B (a "Cancellation Notice"). Delivery of a Cancellation Notice 50958661 ] I -3-- Packet Page 213 of 488 by the District to the City shall not relieve the City of its obligations to make loans upon demand by the District under subsection (4) of this section. (4) Loans. For as long as any Bonds remain outstanding, the City shall, no later than 10 a.m. on the business day preceding that Debt Service Payment Date, lend to the District an amount that, when added to the money available in the Debt Service Fund, is sufficient to make all make all payments of principal of and interest on the Bonds due on the upcoming Debt Service Payment Date. The City shall, upon demand by the District in accordance with Section 3.1, cause the amount of each loan hereunder to be transferred to the District in United States Dollars and immediately available funds. (5) Method of Notice. Notices of Insufficiency and Cancellation Notices shall be sent by the District to the City Administrative Services Director by hand delivery or facsimile (which facsimile shall be promptly confirmed by telephone communication to the City Administrative Services Director). The original of each such notice also shall be mailed to the City pursuant to Section 8.3. Any failure by the District to send such notices shall not nullify the City's obligation to make loans to the District hereunder, but may result in a delay by the City in transferring loan amounts to the District. (6) Assumed Payment Under_ County PFD Agreement. Solely for the purpose of determining whether sufficient money will be available in the Debt Service Fund on any Debt Service Payment Date, the parties may assume that the City will make payments to the District at the times, and in the amounts, required by the County PFD Agreement, except to the extent expressly modified by this Agreement. Section 3_3 Covenants Regarding Debt Limit and Additional Bonds. (1) The District does not intend to submit this Agreement or any indebtedness created hereunder to qualified electors of the District for approval. Under RCW 35.57.030 and existing laws, the District may incur non -voted indebtedness in an aggregate amount equal to one-half of one percent of the value of the taxable property within the District. In light of the foregoing, and to comply with RCW 67.28.130, the District agrees not to incur additional indebtedness after the Bonds are issued unless prior written approval is obtained in accordance with Section 8.7 of this Agreement and Section 19 of the Bond Resolution. (2) In the event the District lacks sufficient non -voted debt capacity to incur indebtedness resulting from a loan from the City in the amount determined under Section 3.2, the District shall incur indebtedness for an amount equal to the District's remaining non -voted debt capacity, if any, and any loan amount greater than the District's then -remaining non -voted debt capacity shall be deemed an equity payment by the City to the District in exchange for an interest in the Regional Center, which need not be repaid pursuant to Section 3.4. Within 60 days after any such equity payment by the City, the District shall deliver to the City a quitclaim deed conveying to the City a tenancy -in -common interest in the Regional Center. Such interest shall be a percentage ownership interest in the Regional Center, the numerator of which shall be the sum such equity payment and the costs of transferring title and recording such quitclaim deed, and the denominator of which shall be the aggregate original principal amounts of. (a) the Bonds, (b) all bonds issued by the City to finance the Regional Center, and (c) any other bonds M8661 11 --4-- Packet Page 214 of 488 issued by the District to finance the Regional Center (excluding the Prior Note and any bonds, or any portion thereof, issued to refinance bonds issued by the City or the District to finance the Regional Center). (3) The City will reconvey to the District, by means of a quitclaim deed, all of the City's interest in the Regional Center acquired pursuant to subsection (2) of this Section if the District pays to the City an amount equal to the sum of: (a) all payments made by the City to the District in exchange for an interest being reconveyed to the District; plus (b) all costs incurred by the City relating to the transfer of title and recording of deed(s); plus (c) interest on the sum of the amounts described by clauses (a) and (b), calculated from the date(s) of the City's payment thereof, plus (d) the costs of transferring title to the District and recording such quitclaim deed. The rate of interest to be used for purposes of this calculation shall be the rate described in Section 3.4(2). (4) The transfers of interest authorized by this Section are intended to reflect the joint and cooperative nature of the financing of the Regional Center pursuant to chapters 35.57, 35.59 and 67.28 RCW. Section 3_4 Repayment Terms. (1) Repayment Terms. The principal amount of each loan to the District hereunder, together with interest thereon calculated as set forth in subsection (2) of this section, shall be repaid by the District from available Sales Tax Revenue and General Revenue during each calendar year after (a) the Debt Service Fund has been fully funded for such calendar year and (b) reasonable provision has been made for the operating expenses of the Regional Center. Such payments will be applied first to costs owed to the City, second, to interest owed to the City on account of outstanding loans made under this Agreement and third to the principal of all outstanding loans made under this Agreement in the order in which such loans were made. (2) Interest Rate. Each loan made under the terms of this Agreement will bear interest from the date of the loan until the date such loan is repaid. Interest on the loans will be calculated on the basis of a 3651366-day year, for the actual number of days elapsed. The rate of interest borne by each loan hereunder shall be a variable rate equal to the monthly average rate of return on the State of Washington Local Government Investment Pool (or its successor), as determined as of the last day of each month in which a loan is outstanding, and shall change monthly as of the first day of each month in which a loan is outstanding. The City may in its discretion charge a lower rate of interest. Absent manifest error, all calculations of the City Administrative Services Director shall be binding upon the District. 50958661 11 -5- Packet Page 215 of 488 (3) Maturity. Unless paid earlier pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, all loans hereunder shall mature on December 31 of the year of expiration of the District's authority to impose the Sales Tax under RCW 82.14,390, as it may be amended from time to time, but not earlier than 2026, which is the year that is twenty-five years after the tax was first collected. If any loan has not been repaid under this Agreement on the loan maturity date described in this Section 3.4(3), the City shall acquire an ownership interest in the Regional Center equal to the unpaid principal and interest due to the City on that loan maturity date, and the District shall execute and deliver a quitclaim deed and such other documents as may be necessary to convey this interest to the City as described in Section 3.3, and the District's obligation to repay the loan under this Agreement shall be discharged. Section 3_5 Nature of District's Obligation. The District's obligation to make the loan repayments to the City from the sources identified herein and to perform and observe the other obligations on its part contained herein shall be absolute and unconditional, and shall not be subject to diminution by setoff, counterclaim, abatement or otherwise. The full faith, credit and resources of the District are hereby pledged for the payment of all amounts owed to the City under this Agreement. The District's obligations under this Agreement shall continue in effect and shall survive the satisfaction of the District's obligations under the Bonds and the Bond Resolution until such time as principal and interest due to the City pursuant to any loan or loans made hereunder have been repaid, together with any costs owed to the City pursuant to Section 6.5 and Article 7. To further its ability to make such payments to the City, the District hereby irrevocably covenants and agrees to continue imposing the Sales Tax as permitted under RCW 82.14.390 for so long as the Bonds remains outstanding or any District obligation to pay any amount to the City under this Agreement remains outstanding. Section 336 Nature of City's Obligation. The City's obligation to advance funds to the District in the amounts, at the times, under the conditions and in the manner described herein shall be absolute and unconditional, and shall not be subject to diminution by setoff, counterclaim, abatement or otherwise. The full faith, credit and resources of the City are pledged irrevocably to make the loans, in the amounts, at the times, in the manner and subject to the limitations described herein, regardless of whether the Regional Center is operating at any particular time. The obligations of the City hereunder shall terminate upon payment in full of the principal of and interest on the Bonds. For each fiscal year during the term of this Agreement, the City agrees that it will include in its budget and appropriate an amount that the City reasonably expects to be necessary to fulfill its obligation to make loans to the District under the terms of this Agreement. Failure to so budget shall not be a default under this Agreement if the City fulfills its obligation to make loans to the District as required under this Article III. Section 3_7 City Acknowledgments. The City acknowledges and agrees that the District will pledge to the payment of the Bonds: (a) the loan proceeds it receives under this Agreement; (b) the Sales Tax Revenues, junior to the lien granted in connection with the City's Limited Tax General and Revenue Obligation Bonds, 2002; and (c) the District's General Revenue. 50858661 11 Packet Page 216 of 488 ARTICLE 4. Rights of City Upon Making Loans Section 4_1 Rights of the City. If the City has made any loans to the District under this Agreement and such loans have not been repaid in full (whether or not the loan is in default), the City may take any one or more of the following steps: (1) The City may have access to and inspect, examine and make copies of the books and records and any and all accounts and data of the District; and (2) With the consent of the parties to the County PFD Agreement, the City may, but shall not be required to, appoint a manager (which may be the City) or a receiver for the Regional Center. Any manager or receiver appointed pursuant to this subsection (2) shall have, in addition to all the rights and powers customarily given to and exercised by receivers, all rights of the District to manage, operate and maintain the Regional Center and shall have all other rights of the District to exercise its rights and powers in the same manner and to the same extent that the District could do, including without limitation the execution, enforcement and termination of contracts providing for management or maintenance of the Regional Center, all on such terms as are deemed best by the City to protect its interests under this Agreement. The City, or the manager or receiver appointed by the City, shall be entitled to receive a reasonable fee for managing the Regional Center. The City shall not enter into an agreement with a manager unless it receives written confirmation from nationally recognized bond counsel that the agreement will not adversely affect the tax-exempt nature of interest on the Bonds for federal income tax purposes. ARTICLE 5. Additional Obligations and Covenants Section 5.1 Agreement to Issue Bonds. The District shall issue the Bonds in accordance with the Bond Resolution and this Agreement in the principal amount of $4,000,000, which amount does not to exceed the amount necessary to finance or refinance the Regional Center and the Improvements in accordance with the Project Budget. Section 5.2 Third. Party Beneficiary. Each covenant and commitment of the District in the Bond Resolution is incorporated herein for the further benefit of the City, and the City shall be a third party beneficiary of the contract of the District set forth in the Bond Resolution. Section 5.33 Representations and Warranties of the District. (1) Commencement of Construction Prior to January 1, 2004. The District represents that it commenced construction (within the meaning of RCW 82.14.390) of the Regional Center before January 1, 2004. (2) Regarding the Regional Center. The District has, and will have, as long as any Bonds or Additional Bonds remain outstanding, good right and lawful authority to proceed with the development of the Regional Center and to provide for the maintenance, operation, improvement and construction of the Regional Center. The District shall not release or modify the obligations of any user of the Regional Center that would in any way limit any such user's obligation to make payment of such rents, rates, fees or other charges imposed by the District 50859661 It -7- Packet Page 217 of 488 for such use of the Regional Center. The foregoing shall not prohibit the District from establishing reduced rates and charges, or eliminating rates and charges, for the use of the Regional Center for certain classes of users of the Regional Center if and as appropriate, as long as charges are applied on a fair and nondiscriminatory basis. Section 5.4 Additional Covenants and of the District. (1) Operation of Regional Center. The District agrees that it shall cause the Regional Center to be operated and maintained in a business -like fashion (including the maintenance of proper and customary property and liability insurance with respect to the Regional Center) as both a "tourism -related facility" (within the meaning of RCW 67.28.080(7)) and a "regional center" (within the meaning of RCW 35.57.020) and shall cause all books and records to be maintained with respect thereto. (2) Reporting. The District shall provide the City (at the notice address set forth in Section 8_3) with a quarterly report summarizing actual financial activity and financial expectations for the following four quarters. (3) No Liens. Neither the City nor the District shall grant or permit any lien (other than consensual liens such as contractors' liens) against the Regional Center or its interest therein which, if unpaid, might become a lien or charge upon the Sales Tax Revenue, or any part thereof, prior to or superior to the lien of the Bonds and any Additional Bonds, or which might impair the security of the Bonds and any Additional Bonds. (4) Enforcement of Obligations. The District shall take all reasonable measures permitted by law to enforce payment to it of all Sales Tax Revenue, including without limitation any payments due to it under the County PFD Agreement, and shall at all times, to the extent permitted by law, defend, preserve and protect the rights, benefits and privileges of the District and of the Registered Owners under or with respect to the Bond Resolution. (5) Ownership, Sale, Transfer or Disposition of the Regional Center. The District shall be the owner of the Regional Center except to the extent the City acquires any interest therein pursuant to Section 3.3 of this Agreement. Except pursuant to Section 3.3, the District will not sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of any facilities or property (real or personal) comprising a part of the Regional Center, except upon approval by resolution of the Board and only consistent with one or more of the following: (a) The District in its discretion may sell, transfer or dispose (each, as used in this subparagraph, a "transfer") of facilities or property that is not material to the operation of the Regional Center, or which has become unserviceable, inadequate, obsolete or unfit to be used in the operation of the Regional Center or is no longer necessary, material or useful to the operation of the Regional Center; or (b) The District in its discretion may transfer facilities or property if the District receives from the transferee in a bona fide, arm's length transaction an amount equal to the fair market value of the facilities or property so transferred. As used herein, "fair market value" means the most probable price that a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions 50958661 11 -8- Packet Page 218 of 488 requisite to a fair sale, the willing buyer and willing seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably. The proceeds of any transfer under this subparagraph (ii) shall be used (1) to promptly redeem, or irrevocably set aside for the redemption of, the District's outstanding Bonds or Additional Bonds, and/or (2) to provide for all or park of the cost of capital improvements and/or additions to or expansions of the Regional Center. Nothing in the foregoing is intended to restrict the transfer of the facilities or property to the City pursuant to the County PFD Agreement or to permit transfers not permitted under the County PFD Agreement. ARTICLE 5. Remedies Upon Default Section 661 Remedies of City- on_ Default. Upon the occurrence of a default by the District in its obligations hereunder, the City may proceed to protect and enforce its rights in equity or at law, either in mandamus or for the specific performance of any covenant or agreement contained herein, or for the enforcement of any other appropriate legal or equitable remedy, as the City may deem most effectual to protect and enforce any of its rights or interests hereunder; provided that the City may not enforce repayment of the loans until repayment in full of the principal of and interest on the Bonds. Section 6.2 Remedies of District on Default. Upon the occurrence of a default by the City in its obligations to make loans to the District hereunder, the District may proceed to protect and enforce its rights in equity or at law, either in mandamus or for the specific performance of any covenant or agreement contained herein, or for the enforcement of any other appropriate legal or equitable remedy, as the District may deem most effectual to protect and enforce any of its rights or interests hereunder. Section 6_3 No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy conferred upon or reserved to either party by this Agreement is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute, and either party hereto shall be free to pursue, at the same time, each and every remedy, at law or in equity, which it may have under this Agreement, or otherwise. Section 6_4 No hUlied Waiver. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. For the exercise of any remedy, it shall not be necessary to give any notice, other than such notice as may be expressly required herein. Section 6_5 Agreement to Pay Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. If a default arises under any of the provisions of this Agreement and either party hereto should employ attorneys or incur other expenses for the collection of amounts due under this Agreement or the enforcement of performance or observance of any obligation or agreement on the part of the other party contained in this Agreement, on demand therefor, the nonprevailing party shall pay 50858661 11 -9- Packet Page 219 of 488 or reimburse the prevailing party for the reasonable fees of such attorneys and such other expenses so incurred. Section 6.6 Dispute Resolution. The parties may mediate any dispute over the interpretation of any terms or conditions under this Agreement. Mediation will be made available upon request of either party. The costs associated with any such mediation shall be shared equally by the parties. ARTICLE 7. Hold Harmless As between the City and the District, the District shall assume the risk of, be liable for, and pay all damage, loss, cost and expense of any party, including its employees, arising out of the performance of this Agreement, except that caused by negligence and/or willful misconduct solely of the City and its employees acting within the scope of their employment. The District shall hold harmless the City and its officers, elected officials, agents, and employees against all claims, losses, suits, actions, costs, counsel fees, litigation costs, expenses, damages, judgments or decrees by reason of damage to any property or business and/or any death, injury or disability to or of any person or party, including any employee, arising out of or suffered, directly or indirectly, by reason of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement or any act, error or omission of the District or the District's employees, agents, or subcontractors, whether by negligence or otherwise, but only after repayment in full of the principal of and interest on the Bonds. The District's obligation shall include, but not be limited to, investigating, adjusting and defending all claims against the City alleging loss from action, error or omission or breach of any common law, statutory or other delegated duty by the District, the District's employees, agents or subcontractors. ARTICLE 8. Miscellaneous Section 8.1 Continuing Disclosure Undertaking of the City. To meet the conditions of paragraph (d)(2) of United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 15c2 12 (the "Rule"), as applicable to a participating underwriter for the Bonds, the City undertakes for the benefit of holders of the Bonds to provide to each NRMSIR and the SID (as those terms are defined in the Rule), the following annual financial information: (i) annual financial statements for the City prepared (except as noted in the financial statements) in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applicable to Washington governmental units such as the City, as such principles may be changed from time to time, which statements need not be audited, except, however, that if and when audited financial statements are otherwise prepared and available to the City they will be provided; (ii) statements of authorized, issued and outstanding general obligation debt of the City; (iii) statements of assessed valuation of property within the City subject to ad valorem taxation for the fiscal year; and (iv) the ad valorem regular property tax levy rate and regular property tax levy rate limit for the fiscal year. 50958661.11 --10- Packet Page 220 of 488 Such annual financial information shall be provided not later than the last day of the ninth month after the end of each fiscal year of the City (currently, a fiscal year ending December 31), as such fiscal year may be changed as required or permitted by State law, commencing with the City's fiscal year ending December 31, 2007. It may be provided in a single or multiple documents, and may be incorporated by reference to other documents that have been filed with each NRMSIR and the SID, or, if the document incorporated by reference is a "final official statement" with respect to obligations of the City, that has been filed with the MSRB. The City's obligations under this undertaking shall terminate upon the legal defeasance of all of the Bonds. In addition, the City's obligations under this undertaking shall terminate if those provisions of the Rule which require the City to comply with this undertaking become legally inapplicable in respect of the Bonds for any reason, as confirmed by an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel or other counsel familiar with federal securities laws delivered to the City and the District, and the District provides timely notice of such termination to each NRMSIR or the MSRB and the SID. To the extent authorized by the SEC, the City may satisfy this undertaking by transmitting the required filings using http:llwww.diselosureusa.org (or such other centralized dissemination agent as may be approved by the SEC). Section 8_2 Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement is governed by and shall be construed in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Washington and shall be liberally construed so as to carry out the purposes hereof. Except as otherwise required by applicable law, any action under this Agreement shall be brought in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for Snohomish County. Section 8.3 Notices. Except as otherwise provided herein, all notices, consents or other communications required hereunder shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently given if addressed and hand delivered or mailed by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested, as follows: To the City: City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Finance/Administrative Services Director Fax: (425) 771-0265 Telephone: (425) 771-0240 To the District: Edmonds Public Facilities District 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: PFD Treasurer Fax: (425) 771-0265 Telephone: (425) 771-0240 5095866111 -11- Packet Page 221 of 488 The City or the District may designate any further or different addresses to which subsequent notices, certificates, requests or Other communications shall be sent by giving notice of such change to the other party. Notices shall be deemed served upon deposit of such notices in the United States mail in the manner provided above. Section 8.4 Binding Effect. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of the City, the District and the holders of the Bonds and shall be binding upon the City and the District and their successors. This Agreement may not be assigned. Section 85 Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof. Section 8_6 Amendments. This Agreement may be amended, changed, modified or altered by an instrument in writing duly executed by the City and the District (or the successors in title of each) if, in the opinion of bond counsel, such amendment will not adversely affect the security for the Bonds or tax exemption of interest on the Bonds. This Agreement may not be terminated until the Bonds are no longer outstanding, unless the City has assumed all liability for payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds when due and has pledged its full faith and credit to such payment. Section 87 Additional Debt. So long as the Bonds remain outstanding and the Contingent Loan Agreement remains in effect, the Distract shall not incur any additional indebtedness, other than in the ordinary course of business, without the prior written consent of the City. Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld if the following conditions are met at the time: (a) The District is not in default under this Agreement or under the Bond Resolution; (b) The proceeds of the additional debt will be used to fiend capital expenditures relating to the Regional Center, (c) The additional indebtedness will not cause the District to exceed its non -voted debt capacity under RCW 35.57.030(l); and (d) No ownership interest in the Regional Center has been transferred to the City under Section 3.3(2) that has not been transferred back to the District under Section 3.3(3). Unless specified in a separate agreement or an amendment hereto, the City shall be under no obligation to make loans hereunder to pay debt service on any additional debt. Section 8.88 Waiver of Breach. No waiver of any breach of any covenant or agreement contained herein shall operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same covenant or agreement or as a waiver of any breach of any other covenant or agreement, and in case of a breach by either party of any covenant, agreement or undertaking, the nondefaulting party may nevertheless accept from the other any payment or payments or performance 50859661 11 —12-- Packet Page 222 of 488 hereunder without in any way waiving its right to exercise any of its rights and remedies provided for herein or otherwise with respect to any such default or defaults that were in existence at the time such payment or payments or performance were accepted by it. Section 8.99 No Rights Created in Third Parties. The terms of this Agreement are not intended to establish or to create any rights in any persons or entities other than the City, the District, the respective successors and assigns of each. Section 8.10 Time of Essence. Time and all terms and conditions shall be of the essence of this Agreement. Section 8.11 Effective Date of and Termination of Agreement. This Agreement shall take effect and shall supersede the Prior Guarantee Agreement as of the date first written above. Except as provided in Section 3.5, this Agreement shall terminate upon payment in full of all principal of and interest on the Bonds. Section 3.3 and Article 7 shall survive the termination of this Agreement. ORAL AGREEMENTS OR ORAL COMMITMENTS TO LEND MONEY, EXTEND CREDIT, OR FORBEAR FROM ENFORCING REPAYMENT OF A DEBT ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER WASHINGTON LAW. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the District have caused this Agreement to be executed in their respective names by their duly authorized officers, and have caused this Agreement to be dated as of the date set forth on the first page hereof. CITY O EDMONDS, WASHINGTON M or Attest: ity Clerk 50858661 11 EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT _ .Of President, B —13— KWAM Packet Page 223 of 488 STATE OF WASHINGTON Ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH GAtey I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that AAA&& ,Fol,l and -5.a,vbea S CM5c are the persons who appeared before me, and said persons acknowledged that said persons signed this instrument, on oath stated that said persons were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, to be the free and voluntary act of such municipal corporation for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated this // day of July, 2008. (Signature ofNotary) .g. �arIn1ELL Rf; (Legibly Print or stamp Name ofNota ) •s T GD Notary public in and for the 'State of Washington, residing at 4 1 Q�t My appointment expires - Q- ro _ iI H111�1N� STATE OF WASHINGTON SS. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that T and Jb46Mare the persons who appeared before me, and said persons acknowledged that said persons signed this instrument, on oath stated that said persons were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the President and Secretary, respectively, of Board of Directors of the EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, to be the free and voluntary act of such municipal corporation for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated this // day of July, 2008. (Si MA asy] (Legibly Prim or stamp Name ofNotmy) Notary public in and for the state of Washin on, residing at MbS �.L^l My appointment expires 5056 s0 07 Packet Page 224 of 488 Exhibit A Form Notice of Insufficiency City of Edmonds VIA FACSIMILE 121 Fifth Avenue North (with telephone confirmation) Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Finance/Administrative Services Director Re: NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY Edmonds Public Facilities District Genera! and Revenue Obligation Bonds, 2008 The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Edmonds Public Facilities District (the "District"), hereby certifies to the City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City"), with reference to the Contingent Loan Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as of July 14, 2008, by and between the City and the District, and the above -captioned bonds (the "Bonds"), that: 1. Next Debt Service Payment Date: , 20_ 2. Debt service due: Principal $ Interest $ Total $ 3. There will be insufficient money available in the Debt Service Fund on the date described in clause (1) to make the debt service payments described in clause (2): Amount expected to be on deposit in the District's Debt Service Fund: $ Plus the payment the City is required to make on _ , 20, pursuant to the County PFD Agreement: $ Total available for debt service $ 4. Amount of the loan requested is calculated as follows: Debt service total listed in clause (2): S Less the amount available for debt service, as listed in clauses: $ Loan Amount $ Pursuant to Section 3.2 of the Agreement, the City is requested to make a loan to the District no later than , 20v, in the amount listed in clause (4). The City shall cause such amount to be transferred to the District's Debt Service Fund, in United States Dollars and immediately available funds. Any capitalized term used herein and not defined shall have the meaning assigned to such term in the Agreement or, if not therein defined, as defined in the Bond Resolution. The individual signing below hereby represents that he or she is an officer of the undersigned and is duly authorized to execute and deliver this document. Dated: , 20 EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT [Executive Director or designee] 5056095D 07 Packet Page 225 of 488 Exhibit B Form Cancellation Notice City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Finance/Administrative Services Director Re: CANCELLATION NOTICE Edmonds Public Facilities District General and Revenue Obligation Bonds, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE (with telephone confirmation) The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Edmonds Public Facilities District (the "District"), hereby certifies to the City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City"), with reference to the Contingent Loan Agreement (the "Agreement") dated July 14, 2008, by and between the City and the District, and the above -captioned bonds (the "Bonds"), that: 1. Next Debt Service Payment Date: , 20_ 2. Debt service due: Principal Interest $ Total $ 3. There will be sufficient money available in the Debt Service Fund on the date described in clause (1) to make the debt service payments described in clause (2): Amount expected to be on deposit in the District's Debt Service Fund: $ Plus the payment the City is required to make on 220 , pursuant to the County PFD Agreement: $ Total available for debt service $ 4. The District's Notice of Insufficiency and loan request delivered on , 20_ is hereby cancelled. Pursuant to Section 3.2 of the Agreement, the City is requested NOT to make a loan to the District with respect to the debt service payments described in clause (2). Any capitalized term used herein and not defined shall have the meaning assigned to such term in the Agreement or, if not therein defined, as defined in the Bond Resolution. The individual signing below hereby represents that he or she is an officer of the undersigned and is duly authorized to execute and deliver this document. Dated: , 20 . EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT [Executive Director or designee] $0560950 v7 Packet Page 226 of 488 Phone (206) 447-4663 E-Mail ostda@foster.com August 22, 2013 Roger Neumaier Finance Director City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Re: Engagement Letter & Conflict Waiver Dear Roger: Hugh and I very much enjoyed our meeting last week to discuss preparation of a grant agreement between the City and the Edmonds Public Facilities District. This letter is provided in order to document our engagement by the City to prepare this agreement between the City and the PFD and to document the waiver of any conflict of interest that may be present because of our firm's representation from time to time of the PFD. Summary, Scope of Services & Fees Based on our discussion with you and your staff, we understand that the work would involve the preparation and negotiation of a grant agreement between the City and the PFD. This grant agreement would provide funds to the PFD in 2013 sufficient to repay the City for all amounts that have been previously loaned to the PFD (or requested for the remainder of 2013) under the Contingent Loan Agreement in support of the debt issued by the PFD for the development of the Edmonds Center for the Arts. This amount would be granted to the PFD, on the condition that it be used immediately to repay and discharge those loans. The grant agreement would also require the PFD to comply with certain additional grant conditions that would run for 50 years, including (among other covenants) that the facility not be sold and that the PFD continue to operate it as a performing arts center (or, upon consent of the City, similar public use). The agreement would provide that if the PFD should breach these covenants, the amounts granted would convert to loans that would need to be repaid either in cash or by transfer of a commensurate ownership interest in the facility. The agreement would be structured to provide flexibility for additional future grants to the PFD, as necessary and as provided for by future City Councils in their adopted budgets, on the same conditions as the initial grant amount. We understand that the Finance Department anticipates that the first such supplemental grant request would be considered by the Council in preparation of the City's 2014 budget. For this project, we would propose to charge the City on an hourly basis for the time incurred in preparing and negotiating the grant agreement. We anticipate at the outset that it should take approximately 10 hours of work, though this expectation is based on the assumption that this is in the City's and the PFD's interest and the negotiations with the PFD will be relatively straightforward. Our expectations would be adjusted if things were to become more complex. I have enclosed with this letter an Agreement for Special Counsel Services that describes the scope of our services and fees, based on prior agreements between us and the City. The lawyers primarily involved will be Hugh Spitzer and Alice Ostdiek, as set forth in that agreement. Packet Page 227 of 488 City of Edmonds — Conflict Waiver Edmonds PFD August 22, 2013 Page 2 of 2 Conflicts of Interest As you know, the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit an attorney and all members of that attorney's firm from representing a client in a matter that is adverse to the interests of another client of the firm. As the City is also aware, we served as bond counsel to the Edmonds PFD in connection with the issuance of their 2008 bonds that were guaranteed by the City. In addition, we from time to time answer other legal questions for the Edmonds PFD and for the Edmonds Center for the Arts nonprofit organization. Therefore, in order to proceed with this matter, we would request that the PFD seek other counsel to represent it in reviewing and negotiating this agreement and have further requested conflict waivers from both parties. The Rules of Professional Conduct allow clients to waive conflicts of interest when: (a) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation of one client will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client, and (b) all clients consent in writing after full disclosure of all the material facts. We have considered the conflict presented here and believe that it would be appropriate to ask for waivers of the conflict in this instance. The primary risk associated with waivers of conflicts of interest in circumstances like this is the risk of confidential information of one client being disclosed to the other client, to the disadvantage of the first client. We do not believe that in the course of this work we would come into possession of any confidential information relating to our representation of either party that would present this risk. A second risk associated with a waiver of conflict of interest is the risk that lawyers will not zealously represent their clients out of fear of offending their other clients. Again, we would not represent the PFD in connection with this agreement and do not believe that this risk is present, particularly given that the nature of the transaction is to provide assistance to the PFD. By signing this conflict waiver letter, the City agrees to waive any potential conflict of interest pertaining to our occasional representation of the Edmonds PFD and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on unrelated matters. If you have any questions regarding this waiver, please do not hesitate to contact us, or to seek additional legal counsel. If the terms of this engagement and conflict of waiver are acceptable to the City, please execute and return a duplicate original of this letter and the enclosed Agreement for Special Counsel Services, retaining the duplicate original for City files. We are glad to continue to be of service to the City of Edmonds. Sincerely, FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Alice M. Ostdiek Cc: Jeff Taraday, Lighthouse Law Group Encl. APPROVED AND ACCEPTED: CITY OF EDMONDS By: Title: Packet Page 228 of 488 AGREEMENT FOR SPECIAL COUNSEL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on the date last below written between the City of Edmonds (the "City") and the law firm of Foster Pepper PLLC (the "Attorneys"). FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF the terms and conditions set forth below, the parties agree as follows: I. Services to be Provided. Attorneys will serve as special counsel to the City for the purpose of drafting documents in connection with a potential agreement relating to financial assistance to the Edmonds Public Facilities District and for such other special counsel matters as may from time to time arise, as specified by the City Director of Finance and Administrative Services. This contract for services is separate and distinct from services provided by the Attorneys as the City's bond counsel and their role in connection with any current or future bond issuance. 2. Payment for Services. Legal services performed under this Agreement shall be compensated at the rates set forth in the attached Exhibit A for 2013, which shall be subject to adjustment if the term of this contract is extended beyond the initial term. The City will not be charged separately for normal secretarial or clerical work, the expense for which has been incorporated into the Attorney's hourly rate. Reimbursement will be made by the City for expenditures for court costs and fees, copying, postage, and computer aided legal research, when made on behalf of the City, and for travel or long distance telephone calls outside of the metropolitan Seattle area when required on City business. 3. Term/Fees/Termination. 3.1 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be for two years commencing on the date of execution. The Agreement may be renewed for additional terms with the express written consent of the parties. 3.2 Fees Capped. The schedule of fees is provided for by Section 2 and shown on Exhibit A. The services described in paragraph I in connection with the Edmonds PFD shall not in the aggregate exceed $7,500. If additional services are requested within or in support of the work specified, the Director of Finance and Administrative Services may authorize up to an additional $2,500 for a total not to exceed the amount of $10,000. 3.3 Termination of Agreement. The attorney/client relationship is a personal one involving the ability of the parties to communicate and maintain credibility. Therefore, the City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement upon reasonable notice during its term. The Attorneys agree that they will not terminate the Agreement without providing for a reasonable period of transition mutually agreed upon by the parties. 4. Designation and Approval of Principal Service Providers. At the date of execution of this Agreement, it has been the representation of the Attorneys that legal services to the City will be provided principally by or under the supervision of Hugh Spitzer and Alice Packet Page 229 of 488 Ostdiek. The parties recognize that services may be provided by others in the firm based upon their expertise and the need to provide services at appropriate billing rates by junior and senior attorneys, paralegals and legal assistants within the firm in order to achieve the most cost effective provision of legal services. The Director of Finance and Administrative Services of the City reserves the right to review and approve each attorney providing service to the City. 5. Ownership of Work Product. All data, materials, reports, memoranda, and any other documents developed under this Agreement whether finished or not shall become the property of the City, shall be forwarded to the City at its request and may be used by the City as the City sees fit. City agrees that if products prepared by the Attorneys are used for purposes other than those intended in this Agreement, City does so at City's sole risk and agrees to hold the Attorneys harmless for such use. 6. Insurance. The Attorneys shall maintain proof of professional liability insurance in the minimum amount of $10,000,000. 7. Discrimination. Attorneys agree not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment or any other person in the performance of this Agreement because of race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, sex, age, sexual identity, or physical, mental or sensory handicap, except where a bona fide occupational qualification exists. 8. Hold Harmless. Attorneys agree to indemnify the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees and agents from and against any and all claims, judgments or awards of damages, arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors or omissions of Attorneys. The City agrees to indemnify Attorneys from and against any and all claims, judgments or awards of damages, arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors, or omissions of the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees and agents. 9. Independent Contractor. The Attorneys are and shall be at all times during the term of this Agreement independent contractors and shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from all costs associated with the wages and benefits of the Attorney's employees. 10. Rules of Professional Conduct. All services provided by Attorneys under this Agreement will be performed in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys established by the Washington Supreme Court. 11. Work for Other Clients. Attorneys may provide services for clients other than the City during the term of this Agreement, but will not do so where the same may constitute a conflict of interest unless the City, after full disclosure of the potential or actual conflict, consents in writing to the representation. Any potential conflicts shall be handled in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct referred to above. 12. Subcontracting or Assignment. Attorneys may not assign or subcontract any portion of the services to be provided under this Agreement without the express written consent of the City. 51315919.1 - 2 - Packet Page 230 of 488 13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire integrated agreement between the City and the Attorneys, superseding all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, written or oral. This Agreement may be modified, amended, or added to, only by written instrument properly signed by both parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day of , 2013. CITY OF EDMONDS: FOSTER PEPPER PLLC: Dave Earling, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk Alice M. Ostdiek, Member -3- Packet Page 231 of 488 Exhibit A 2013 Hourly Rates Hugh Spitzer $475 Alice Ostdiek $440 51315919.1 Packet Page 232 of 488 AM-6092 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 09/10/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted By: Rob Chave Department: Planning Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Tyne: Information Information Subject Title Discussion regarding citizen request to increase number of domestic chickens/hens allowed by Code. Recommendation N/A 9. A. Previous Council Action The last time the codes pertaining to the keeping of chickens were updated was 2009 (attached), when three chickens were allowed on a single family lot. Previously, none had been allowed. Narrative A citizen is interested in the city considering increasing the number of chickens kept on a single family lot from three to five. This is an opportunity to hear the request. Attachments Exhibit 1: Ordinance 3759 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Rob Chave Final Approval Date: 09/05/2013 Date 09/05/2013 11:18 AM 09/05/2013 11:30 AM 09/05/2013 11:51 AM Started On: 09/05/2013 10:46 AM Packet Page 233 of 488 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 8/ 19/09 R:9/3/09 R:9/29/09gjz country; and ORDINANCE NO.3759 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17,35.030 KEEPING OF DOMESTICATED ANIMALS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, TO ADD A NEW SUBPARAGRAPH D. RELATING TO FEMALE DOMESTIC CHICKENS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the keeping of domesticated fowl has a long history throughout our WHEREAS, the keeping of a reasonably limited number of chickens, like gardening, can allow citizens to supplement their food sources with natural and home-grown alternatives; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the public interest to again permit the keeping of up to three domestic female chickens in conjunction with single family residential dwelling unit; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 The Edmonds Community Development Code Section 17.35.030 Keeping of domesticated animals in residential zones is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection D permitting up to three domestic female fowl and reading as follows: 17.35.030 Keeping of domesticated animals. {WSS740624.DOC;1\00006.900000\ Packet Page 234 of 488 For each residential dwelling unit, regardless of the number of occupants residing within each dwelling unit, the following maximum number of domesticated animals may be kept or owned within the dwelling unit upon the lot or premises associated with such dwelling unit: D. Up to three domestic female chickens on a lot(s) or premises associated with a single family residential dwelling unit, except as otherwise grandfathered under current law. A chicken coop or other pen or enclosure is an accessory structure and shall comply with all bulk requirements of the applicable zone. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered as a separate dwelling unit when determining the number of chickens that may be kept on a single-family lot or lots (when a single-family residence is located on more than one lot.) Section 2. The Edmonds Community Development Code Section 17.35.040 Keeping of poultry and covered animals in residential zones, subsection A, is hereby amended to provide a cross-reference to the new ECDC Section 17.35.030(D), and shall read as follows: 17.35.040 Keeping of poultry and covered animals in residential zones A. The keeping of poultry or covered animals within a residential dwelling unit, or upon the premises connected therewith, shall be prohibited except as provided herein and in ECDC 17.35.030(D). Section 3 Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPRO D: MA .O G H AKENSON {WSS740624.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 - Packet Page 235 of 488 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: "e. �44-f- CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CI Y ATTORNEY: BY ) s4a& W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 10/16/2009 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 10/20/2009 PUBLISHED: 11/10/2009 EFFECTIVE DATE: 11/15/2009* See note below ORDINANCE NO. 3759 *Note: An effective date of November 15, 2009 or after was required in order to comply with 60-day State GMA review requirements. {WSS740624.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 3 - Packet Page 236 of 488 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3759 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 20th day of October, 2009, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3759. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17.35.030 KEEPING OF DOMESTICATED ANIMALS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, TO ADD A NEW SUBPARAGRAPH D. RELATING TO FEMALE DOMESTIC CHICKENS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 21 st day of October, 2009. a CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {WSS740624.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Packet Page 237 of 488 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH F c M SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3759 of the City of Edmon s, Washington On the 20th day of October, W09, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3759. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17.35.030 KEEP- ING OF DOMESTICATED ANIMALS IN RESIDENTIAL Z TO ADD A NEW SUBPARAGRAPH D. RELATING TO FEMALE DOMESTIC CHICKENS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 21st day of October, 2009. Published: November 10, 2009. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE NOV 17 2009 EDMONDS CITY CLERK Account Name: City of Edmonds Affidavit of Publication S.S. The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice Summary of Ordinance No. 3759 Keeping of Domesticated Animals a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: November 10, 2009 and that said newsp42er was regularly distributed to its Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of November Notary Public in a f r County. Account Number during all of said period. loth the State ofi . Everett, Snohomish AT ��,w�g:.t,tttf • •try: 101416 ;;J A&—''Mumber: 0001673945 Packet Page 238 of 488 AM-6087 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 09/10/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted For: Rob English Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Submitted By: Robert English Tyne: Information Information Subject Title Introduction to the Capital Facilities Plan (2014-2019) and the Capital Improvement Program (2014-2019). G Recommendation Review the Drafts of the Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program and provide comments and feedback. Previous Council Action None. Narrative The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is a document updated annually and identifies capital projects for at least the next six years which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. The CFP contains a list of projects that need to be expanded or will be new capital facilities in order to accommodate the City's projected population growth in accordance with the Growth Management Act. Capital projects that preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These preservation projects are identified within the six -year capital improvement program (CIP) along with capital facility plan projects which encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects. CIP vs. CFP The CFP and CIP are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to different needs. While the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying those projects to the various City funds and revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City levels of service standards. The CFP is also required to be consistent with the other elements (transportation, parks, etc) of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP. The draft 2014-2019 CFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has three project sections comprised of General, Transportation and Stormwater. The draft 2014-2019 CIP is attached as Exhibit 2. The CIP has two sections related to general and parks projects and each project list is organized by the City's financial fund numbers. The CFP and CIP will be presented to the full City Council on September 24, 2013. Public hearings are also scheduled for the Planning Board on September 25, 2013 and the City Council on November 4, 2013. Exhibit 1 - CFP 2014-2019 Exhibit 2 - CIP 2014-2019 Inbox Engineering Public Works City Clerk Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Robert English 09/05/2013 10:35 AM Phil Williams 09/05/2013 11:00 AM Sandy Chase 09/05/2013 11:18 AM Packet Page 239 of 488 Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2013 11:39 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/05/2013 11:51 AM Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 09/05/2013 07:53 AM Final Approval Date: 09/05/2013 Packet Page 240 of 488 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT 2014-2019 � O-V EDP O Packet Page 241 of 488 Packet Page 242 of 488 CFP GENERAL Packet Page 243 of 488 0 City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Parks, General, and Regional Projects (2014-2019) Current Grant Project (2014-2019) Project Name Purpose Opportunity Phase Total Cost Revenue Source 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Aquatic Facility Meet citizen needs for an Aquatics $0 Public Vote Center (Feasibility study complete Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds August 2009). $0 $0 Total $5-$23 M Art Center / Art Museum Establish a new center for the Art's $0 Community Community. Unknown Conceptual $0 Partnerships $0 REET $0 Total $5 M Boys & Girls Club Building Replace / Renovate $0 apital Campaign C (Currently subleased on Civic Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds Playliield until 2021). $0 $0 Total $5 M Civic Playrield Acquisition and/or development Edmonds School District $0 Public Vote (City has lease until 2021). Unknown Conceptual $0 REET 1 / Grants $0 $0 Total Unknown Edmonds / Sno-Isle Library Expand building for additional $0 Library / programs (Sno-Isle Capital Facilities Unknown Conceptual $0 City G.O. Bonds Plan). $0 $0 Total Unknown Community Park / Athletic Complex - In cooperation with ESD#15 develop $0 Capital Campaign Old Woodway High School a community park and athletic Unknown Conceptual $2,355,000 REET 2 $655,000 $100,000 $300,000 $350,000 $500,000 $450,000 complex. $1,000,000 School District $500,000 $500,000 $5,800,000 Foundation $2,500,000 $1,750,000 $1,550,000 $2,680,000 Grants $680,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $11,835,000 Total $4,335,000 $100,000 $300,000 $3,600,000 $500,000 $3,000,000 10-12M Parks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations Replace / Renovate deteriorating $0 Public Vote Building building in City Park. Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds $0 $0 Total $3 - $4M Senior Center Building Replace and expand deteriorating $0 Public Vote / Grants building on the waterfront. Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds $0 Private Partnership $0 Total $4 - 10M Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry / Mutimodal Relocate ferry terminal to Marina EIS $0 Federal (Unsecured) Facility Beach. US DOT Completed $0 State Funds I $0 Total Unknown Public Market (Downtown Waterfront) Acquire and develop property for a year round public market. Unknown Conceptual $5,000,000 Grants $5,000,000 $5,000,000 Total $5,000,000 Revised Six -Year CFP (2014-2019)_07.24.13: General CFP Total CFP $16,835,000 1 Annual CFP Totals 1 $4,335,000 1 $100,000 1 $300,000 1 $3,600,000 1 $5,500,000 $3,000,000 T3/2013 PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Facility ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 — $23,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the current pool. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $5m - $23m 'all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 245 of 488 5 PROJECT NAME: Art Center / Art Museum ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A new Art Center/Museum facility will provide and promote Cultural / Arts facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008 update process. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority creates the need to determine feasibility for and potentially construct new visual arts related facilities. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000,000 " all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 246 of 488 6 PROJECT NAME: Boys & Girls Club Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Build new Boys & Girls Club facility to accommodate the growing and changing needs of this important club. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Boys & Girls Club was constructed as a field house by the Edmonds School District decades ago and is in need of major renovation or replacement. It is inadequate in terms of ADA accessibility and does not meet the needs of a modern club. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 247 of 488 PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown and/or Development 61' Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire or work with the School District to develop this 8.1 acre property for continued use as an important community park, sports tourism hub and site of some of Edmonds largest and most popular special events in downtown Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Gain tenure and control in perpetuity over this important park site for the citizens of Edmonds. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL Unknown * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 248 of 488 8 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds/Sno-Isle Library ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand building/parking to accommodate additional library needs and programs. Library improvements identified in Sno-Isle Libraries Capital Facility Plan: 2007-2025 PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements will better serve citizens needs requiring additional space and more sophisticated technology. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL Unknown * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 249 of 488 PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000,000- Complex at the Former Woodway High School $12,000,000 FORMER WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS PR EPAREB FOR THE EDMOH DS SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY D17. HOGAN PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained facility with great potential as community multi -use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020- 2025 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study 300,000 100,000 300,000 200,000 Engineering & 175,000 175,000 175,000 Administration Construction 3,860,000 3,225,000 500,000 2,555,000 1 % for Art 95,000 TOTAL $4,335,000 $100,000 $300,000 $3,600,000 $500,000 $2,825,000 $10m - $12m all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 250 of 488 10 PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million Maintenance & Operations Building Existing Building Outline \ / Existing Fence Line Yard Fu 6 L ading115,600 New On New Building 1, 00 sf sl O B nveway — 15, Yard Functions 11,910 1, I Perimeter zone — 4,200 sf PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 40 year old maintenance building in City Park is reaching the end of its useful life and is in need of major renovation or replacement. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this existing facility and need additional work areas and fixed equipment in order to maintain City parks and Capital facilities for the long term. SCHEDULE: Contingent on finding additional sources of revenue from general and real estate taxes. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $3m - $4m * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 251 of 488 11 PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4 - 10 mil. QA 0 4; 0 61 �C9 o EDMONDS i cfi W ca SHOPPING CTR 3Q5 DAYTOM ddressad off Dayton} �- R MP y 'J EDMOIQDS -LANDIN DAYrON 5T G PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace and enlarge deteriorating Senior Center building complex on the City waterfront. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This facility is at the end of its useful life. The floors are continuing to settle which poses significant renovation costs. In addition, the facility requires structural reinforcement to withstand a major earthquake. SCHEDULE: Contingent on procuring the necessary funding from grants and other sources. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $4m -$10m * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 252 of 488 12 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Crossing ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown WSDOT Ferry / Multimodal Facility 01110141rku"M` Modified Pt. Edwards Alternative pf+ v Poi! W�,any,y ureocu �.r ym ee mnmaol AW4u o�aa I I w� awv t EdmaWs hr rw.wr nat.mm PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Crossing is multimodal transportation center that will provide the capacity to respond to growth while providing improved opportunities for connecting various forms of travel including rail, ferry, bus, walking and ridesharing. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide an efficient point of connection between existing and planned transportation modes. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020- 2025 Engineering & Administration of Way —Right Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL Unknown * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 253 of 488 13 PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 Waterfront) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to establish a public market, year around, on the downtown waterfront area. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The project will help to create a community gathering area, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a valuable asset to Edmonds. SCHEDULE: This project depends on the ability to secure grant funding, and community partners willing to work with the city to establish this. This potentially can be accomplished by 2018. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $5m * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 254 of 488 14 CFP TRANSPORTATION Packet Page 255 of 488 15 City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Transportation Projects (2014-2019) Grant Project (2014-2019) Project Name ose Opportunity Phase Total Cost Funding Sou 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Safety / Capacity Analysis 212th St SW @ 84th Ave W Intersection improvements to $1,839,000 (Federal or State secured) $1,839,000 Intersection Improvements (5 decrease intersection delay and $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Corners) improve level of service. Design / ROW $0 (Unsecured) $1,055,880 (Local Funds) $1,055,880 $2,894,880 Total $2,894,880 SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave W Improve safety at the intersection by $0 (Federal or State secured) Intersection Improvements stop controller intersection for NB $760,500 (Federal or State unsecured) $86,500 $141,000 $533,000 and SB to a signalized intersection. Possible Grant Conceptual $118,500 (Unsecured) $13,500 $22,000 $83,000 $0 (Local Funds) $879,000 Total $100,000 $163,000 $616,000 Main St. @ 9th Ave S (Interim Reduce intersection delay by $0 (Federal or State secured) Solution) converting 9th Ave. to (2) lanes for $10,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $10,000 both the southbound and northbound movements. Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $10,000 Total $10,000 76th Av. W @ 212th St. SW lintersection re -design to improve $719,977 (Federal or State secured) $373,680 $346,297 Intersection Improvements LOS and reduce intersection delay. $1,436,548 (Federal or State unsecured) $218,548 $1,218,000 Possible Grant Design / ROW $0 (Unsecured) $561,475 (Local Funds) $283,320 $88,155 $190,000 $2,718,000 Total $657,000 $653,000 $0 $1,408,000 220th St. SW @ 76th Ave. W Reconfigure EB lane and add $0 (Federal or State secured) Intersection Improvements protected/permissive for the NB and $150,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $150,000 SIB LT to improve the intersection delay. Possible Grant Conceptual $23,000 (Unsecured) $23,000 $0 (Local Funds) $173,000 Total $173,000 228th St. SW Corridor Safety Realign highly skewed intersection $3,659,227 (Federal or State secured) $2,635,227 $11024,000 Improvements to address safety and improve $1,700,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $1,700,000 operations; create new east -west corridor between SR-99 and 1-5. Possible TIB Grant Design / ROW $0 (Unsecured) $181,222 (Local Funds) $74,773 $106,449 $5,540,449 Total $2,710,000 $2,830,449 SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization Install gateway elements and safety $0 (Federal or State secured) improvements along SR-99 Corridor. Possible $10,000,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 State Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) Appropriation $0 (Local Funds) $10,000,000 Total $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W Installation of a traffic signal to $0 (Federal or State secured) Intersection Improvements improve the intersection delay. $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $1,431,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,431,000 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th Install two-way left turn lanes to $0 (Federal or State secured) St. SW) improve capacity and install sidewalk $0 (Federal or State unsecured) along this stretch to increase pedestrian safety (50 / 50 split with Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $10,211,000 Snohomish County; total cost: -20 $0 (Local Funds) Million). $0 Total $10,211,000 S:\ENGR\CIP_CFP B00KS\2014-2019\CFP\Revised Six -Year CFP (2014-2019)_07.24.13 9/3/2013 v City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Transportation Projects (2014-2019) Grant Project (2014-2019) Project Name ose Opportunit Phase Total Cost Funding Sou,A 2 115 2016 20 2019 2020-2025 Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Widen 220th St. SW and Hwy 99 to $0 (Federal or State secured) Improvement add a westbound right turn lane (for $4,079,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $490,000 $926,000 $2,663,000 325, storage length) and a Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) soutbound left turn lane (for 275' storage length). $0 (Local Funds) $4,079,000 Total $490,000 $926,000 $2,663,000 Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection Widen 212th St. SW to add a $0 (Federal or State secured) Improvements westbound left turn lane for 200' $4,079,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $490,000 $926,000 $2,663,000 storage length and an eastbound left turn phase for eastbound and Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) westbound movements. $0 (Local Funds) $4,079,000 Total $490,000 $926,000 $2,663,000 Olympic View Dr. @ 174th Ave. W Install traffic signal to increase the $0 (Federal or State secured) Intersection Improvements LOS and reduce intersection delay. $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $906,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $906,000 Main St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection Convert all -way controlled $0 (Federal or State secured) Improvements intersection into signalized $0 (Federal or State unsecured) lintersection. Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $1,093,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,093,000 Walnut St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection Convert all -way controlled $0 (Federal or State secured) Improvements intersection into signalized $0 (Federal or State unsecured) lintersection. Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $1,093,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,093,000 S:\ENGR\CIP_CFP BOOKS\2014-2019\CFP\Revised Six -Year CFP (2014-2019)_07.24.13 9/3/2013 •• City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Transportation Projects (2014-2019) Grant Project (2014-2019) 1 Project Name Purpose Opportunity Phase Total Cost Funding Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Non -motorized Pedestrian / Bicycle Projects 80th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to Provide safe and desirable route to $0 (Federal or State secured) Olympic View Dr Walkway Seview Elementary and nearby $777,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $30,000 $100,000 $647,000 parks. Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $777,000 Total $30,000 $100,000 $647,000 236th St SW from Edmonds Way (SR- Improve pedestrian safety along $474,000 (Federal or State secured) $474,000 104) to Madrona Elementary 236th St. SW, creating a safe $0 (Federal or State unsecured) pedestrian connection between SR- 104 and Madrona Elementary Design $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $474,000 Total $474,000 2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Provide safe sidewalk along short $0 (Federal or State secured) Walkway missing link. $32,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $32,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $32,000 Total $32,000 Maple St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. Provide safe sidewalk along short $0 (Federal or State secured) S Walkway missing link. $63,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $63,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $63,000 Total $63,000 Dayton St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. Provide safe sidewalk along short $0 (Federal or State secured) S Walkway missing link. $79,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $79,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $79,000 Total $79,000 Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Provide sidewalk on west side of the $83,040 (Federal or State secured) $83,040 Caspers St. street, facing waterfront. $1,025,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $1,025,000 RCO / TIB Grant Design $0 (Unsecured) $137,960 (Local Funds) $137,960 $1,246,000 Total $221,000 $1,025,000 S:\ENGR\CIP_CFP B00KS\2014-2019\CFP\Revised Six -Year CFP (2014-2019)_07.24.13 9/3/2013 CD City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Transportation Projects (2014-2019) Grant Project (2014-2019) Project Name Opportunity Phase Total Cost Funding Source 2014 2015 2016 1 20 2019 2020-2025 Maplewood from Main St. to 200th St. Provide safe sidewalk, connecting to $0 (Federal or State secured) SW Walkway ex. sidewalk along 200th St. SW $339,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $64,000 $275,000 (Maplewood Elementary School). Possible Grant Conceptual $338,000 (Unsecured) $63,000 $275,000 $0 (Local Funds) $677,000 Total $127,000 $550,000 Meadowdale Beach Rd. from 76th Provide safe sidewalk along missing $0 (Federal or State secured) Ave. W to Olympic View Or Walkway link. $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Possible Grant Conceptual $190,000 (Unsecured) $190,000 $760,000 $0 (Local Funds) $190,000 Total $190,000 $760,000 Walnut St from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. Provide short missing link. $0 (Federal or State secured) S Walkway $220,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $220,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $220,000 Total $220,000 Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. Provide short missing link. $0 (Federal or State secured) S Walkway $110,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $110,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $110,000 Total $110,000 4th Ave. Corridor Enhancement Create more attractive and safer $0 (Federal or State secured) corridor along 4th Ave. $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $5,675,000 (Local Funds) $200,000 $1,150,000 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $5,675,000 Total $200,000 $1,150,000 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to Provide safe walking route between $559,000 (Federal or State secured) $559,000 104th Ave W minor arterial and collector. $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Design $0 (Unsecured) $805,600 (Local Funds) $805,600 $1,364,600 Total $1,364,600 Olympic Ave from Main St to SR-524 / Reconstruct sidewalk (ex. $0 (Federal or State secured) 196th St. SW Walkway conditions: rolled curb / unsafe $0 (Federal or State unsecured) conditions) along a stretch with high pedestrian activity and elementary Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $1,249,000 school. $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,249,000 189th PI. SW from 80th Ave. W to Provide short missing link. $0 (Federal or State secured) 78th Ave. W Walkway $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $175,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $175,000 S:\ENGR\CIP_CFP B00KS\2014-2019\CFP\Revised Six -Year CFP (2014-2019)_07.24.13 9/3/2013 N 0 City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Transportation Projects (2014-2019) Grant Project (2014-2019) 1 ect Name pportunit Opportunity Phase Total Cost Funding Source 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 84th Ave. W between 188th St. SW Provide safe walking route between $0 (Federal or State secured) and 186th St. SW Walkway those (2) local streets. $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $175,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $175,000 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Provide safe walking route between $0 (Federal or State secured) Ave. W Walkway principal arterial and minor arterial. $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $1,050,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,050,000 Residential Neighborhood Traffic To assist residents and City staff in $0 (Federal or State secured) Calming responding to neighborhood traffic $0 (Federal or State unsecured) issues related to speeding, cut- through traffic and safety. Conceptual $105,000 (Unsecured) $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $0 (Local Funds) $105,000 Total $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 15th St SW from Edmonds Way to Provide safe walking route between $354,000 (Federal or State secured) $354,000 8th Ave S minor arterial and collector. $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Design $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $354,000 Total $354,000 Totals Source 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 $7,688,244 Total Federal& State (Secured) $6,317,947 $1,370,297 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,860,048 Total Federal& State (Unsecured) $10,000 $2,943,548 $0 $3,208,500 $6,807,000 $11,891,000 $0 $774,500 Unsecured $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $38,500 $133,000 $573,000 $18,143,000 $8,417,137 Local Funds $2,557,533 $1,344,604 $1,425,000 $3,090,000 $0 $0 $0 S:\ENGR\CIP_CFP BOOKS\2014-2019\CFP\Revised Six -Year CFP (2014-2019)_07.24.13 9/3/2013 PROJECT NAME: 212" St. SW @ 84 th Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,543,880 W (5-Corners) Intersection Improvements N ■ SW z12TH ST. MATTHE S LLJ 122 2 � 1 , ao 4 STW J J PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The intersection of 84 th Ave and 212 th is 5 legged, which also includes Main Street and Bowdoin Way approaches. The intersection is stop -controlled for all approaches. A roundabout would be constructed and yield signs placed at each approach. Installation will require the acquisition of right of way adjacent to the intersection. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #6). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The intersection currently functions at LOS F and delays during the PM peak hour will worsen over time. A roundabout will improve the LOS and reduce the need for vehicles to stop during low volume periods, improving the LOS to B. SCHEDULE: A federal grant was secured to fund all project phases. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2014. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW Construction $2,892,000 1 % for Art $2,880 TOTAL $2,894,880 Packet Page 261 of 488 21 PROJECT NAME: SR-524 (196t" St. SW)/ 88" ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $879,000 Ave. W Intersection Improvements ' W a ~ m ■ 40 196TH Sr SW F61 P i r'xldZp EM w a_ I •~a m SEVEN DAY ADVENTST CHURCH 196TH ST SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196t St. SW @ 88t Ave. W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan indicated that restricting northbound and southbound traffic to right -turn -only (prohibiting left -turn and through movements) would also address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This is same alternative as one concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. The ex. LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #8). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase the delay along 196t" St. SW. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2017 — 2018 and construction in 2019 (must meet an MUTCD traffic signal warrant and get WSDOT approval such 196t" St. SW is a State Route / unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & $100,000 $163,000 Administration & ROW Construction $616,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $100,000 $163,000 $616,000 Packet Page 262 of 488 22 PROJECT NAME: Main Stand 9th Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 (interim solution) BELL 5T W a x MAIN ST J _ r WADE JAM ES 7L= TH EATE R IA J WM a x DAYTON Sr PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a mini -roundabout or re -striping of 9t Ave. with the removal of parking on both sides of the street. (not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan project priority chart) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The intersection is stop -controlled for all approaches and the existing intersection LOS is E (below the City's concurrency standards: LOS D). The re - striping of 9t" Ave. would improve the LOS to C or B with the installation of a mini -roundabout. SCHEDULE: 2014 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $500 Construction $9,500 1 % for Art TOTAL $10,000 Packet Page 263 of 488 23 PROJECT NAME: 76" Ave W @ 212 St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,923,000 Intersection Improvements J J LANE _ j J J_ M DICA C INIC J zJ J EDMONDS-WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL _ OFFICE ARTS P . 1 a Arbor m 4 Villa a J 292TH sT Sw 21 St Plaza W Apt. Olin n PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a northbound and southbound left -turn lane to convert the signal operation for those approaches from split phasing to protected -permissive phasing. Add a right - turn lane for the westbound, southbound, and northbound movements. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #3). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the existing level of service from LOS D (LOS F by 2015) to LOS C. SCHEDULE: A federal grant was secured for the design and a portion of the right of way phases. Design started in 2012 and is scheduled for completion in 2015, along with the right-of-way phase. Construction is scheduled for 2017 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & $657,000 $653,000 Administration & ROW Construction $1,408,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $657,000 $653,000 $1,408,000 Packet Page 264 of 488 24 PROJECT NAME: 2201hSt SW @ 76 th Ave W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $173,000 Intersection Improvements I � 2 19rH sr sw WL_J 21919 L I 3 I W I a 2 1 � I 221 sT PL SW I 14 TOP FOODS 220TH 5T 5w _J LYNWOOD HONDA STARBU KS J PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right turn lane. Change eastbound and westbound phases to provide protected -permitted phase for eastbound and westbound left turns. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement during southbound left turn phase. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #11). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The LOS would be improved from LOS E to LOS C. SCHEDULE: Engineering and construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $35,000 Construction $138,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $173,000 'All or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the arts Packet Page 265 of 488 25 PROJECT NAME: 228 th St. SW Corridor ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,996,000 Safety Improvements J SUREGARD OFFICE STORAGE R2a PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1) Extend 228th St across the unopened right-of-way to 76th Avenue West 2) Signalize the intersection of 228th St SW @ SR99 and 228th St. SW @ 76th Ave. West 3) Construct a raised median in the vicinity of 761h Avenue West. 4) Add illumination between 2241h St SW and 2281h St SW on SR 99 5) Overlay of 228th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to — 2,000' east of 761h Ave. W. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #1). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will improve access / safety to the 1-5 / Mountlake Terrace Park & Ride from SR99. This east / west connection will reduce demand and congestion along two east - west corridors (220th Street SW and SR104). Roadway safety will also be improved as SR 99/ 228th Street SW will become a signalized intersection. The accident-prone left turns from SR99 to 76th Ave. W. will be restricted with the addition of a raised center island. SCHEDULE: Engineering and ROW acquisition scheduled for completion by 2014. Construction scheduled to begin in 2014. In 2010, federal grant was secured for the completion of design and ROW acquisition phases. In 2012, a federal grant was secured for the construction phase. A TIB grant application was submitted in August '13, requesting $1.7 million additional funding for the construction phase (pending response). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering, $150,000 Administration, and ROW Construction $2,560,000 $3,486,876 1 % for Art TOTAL $2,710,000 $3,486,876 `All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the arts Packet Page 266 of 488 26 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 Gateway / ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000,000 Revitalization PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Extend raised median and add gateway elements along Hwy. 99 from 240th St. SW to 212th St. SW. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved. SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled for 2017 and 2018. The construction phase is scheduled for 2018 and 2019 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $500,000 $500,000 Construction $4,000,000 $5,000,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $500,000 4,500,000 $5,000,000 Packet Page 267 of 488 27 PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 76 th Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: W Intersection Improvements $1,431,000 3 a SEAVIEW PARR 3 J a r F n PL5W 1116TH ST SW m m 1 POST OFFICE, a SON �,y � �MIfi�t10ET I I I I 1 IMP-' 7519 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for all movements). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #9). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. By 2015, the Level of Service will be F, which is below the City's concurrency standards (LOS D). The improvement would modify the Level of Service to LOS B. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2020 and 2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Stud Engineering & Administration $286,000 Construction $1,145,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,431,000 Packet Page 268 of 488 28 PROJECT NAME: 84" Ave. W (212t St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $20,422,000 to 238t" St. SW) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 84 th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk on each side of the street. (part of this project was ranked #11 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve overall safety of the transportation system along this collector street: 1) the sidewalk and bike lanes would provide pedestrians and cyclists with their own facilities and 2) vehicles making left turn will have their own lane, not causing any back-up to the through lane when insufficient gaps are provided. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2020 and 2025 (unsecured funding). The project cost is split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since half the project is in Esperance. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Engineering & $2,042,000 Administration Construction $8,169,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $10,211,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 269 of 488 29 PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220" St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,079,000 intersection improvements TOP FOODS , 19TH ST SW / 21919 STARBII S / / / - - ,220TH ST SW • I 7514 I 122i STPLSW FUNTASIA LYNWOOD HONDA a I I ua s TRAVELLER'S INN .F 7223 V I 3 ""dY s w —2222 �; A •D, 7301 'H' F a,F H O 4 m M. r IIIIIr��/// ' 224TH ST SW T PER E� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 220th St. SW to add Westbound right turn lane for 325' storage length. Widen SR-99 to add 2nd Southbound left turn lane for 275' storage length. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #10). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection delay from 72 seconds (w/o improvement) to 62 seconds (w/ improvement) in 2015. SCHEDULE: Engineering, ROW, and construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2019 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 COST Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $490,000 $926,000 Construction $2,663,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $490,000 $926,000 $2,663,000 Packet Page 270 of 488 30 PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212 St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,079,000 intersection improvements r i o i 29 5Lj- n -E::ESign Parking Shop / Pu.D / Edmonds / P.M.%V 1. Gas 21 1 21114 211 Pmps 21109 J / / / / / ED / ING / c / m / m / w B / CONS ST / { i 21414 21408 / OCDONALD' / / E / ST/sw PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 212 th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200' storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300' storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements. (ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #13) PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2019. (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $490,000 $926,000 Construction $2,663,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $490,000 $926,000 $2,663,000 Packet Page 271 of 488 31 PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 1741" Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $906,000 W Intersection Improvements TOO T02T Meadowdale Middle Schccl ------ Parking _! so seat St. Thomas Moore Off1CP Catholic School aauriein y Sanctuary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane for 50' storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration lane for eastbound left turns. Install traffic signal to increase the LOS and reduce intersection delay. ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #17 PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers accessing either street. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2020 and 2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 COST Planning/Study Engineering & $180,000 Administration Construction $726,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $906,000 Packet Page 272 of 488 32 PROJECT NAME: Main St. @ 9th Ave ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000 Intersection Improvements J 7-�R� =I �j BELL ST h P MAIN ST WADE JAMES TH EATE R W J a DAYTON ST PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop controlled for all approaches. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #2) PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve the Level of Service, which is currently LOS E (below City's Level of Service standards: LOS D), to LOS B (w/ improvement). SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2020 and 2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $220,000 Construction $873,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,093,000 Packet Page 273 of 488 33 PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. @ 9th Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000 Intersection Improvements In W a z LA W a z ALDER ST M a 00 = CEDAR ST CEDAR ST WALNUT ST PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop controlled for all approaches. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #7). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve the Level of Service, which is currently LOS E (below City's Level of Service standards: LOS D), to LOS A. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2020 and 2025 unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $220,000 Construction $873,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,093,000 Packet Page 274 of 488 34 PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave W from 188 th St ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $777,000 SW to Olympic View Dr. Walkway PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct Walkway on 80th Ave West between 188 th St SW and 180th St SW and on 180th St SW between 80th Ave W and Olympic View Drive (ranked #6 in Long Walkway list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provides safe pedestrian access between Seaview Park, connecting to Olympic View Drive Walkway and Southwest County Park. Would create an additional safe walking route for kids attending Seaview Elementary School (188th St. SW). SCHEDULE: Engineering and construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2019 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 COST Planning/Study Engineering & $30,000 $100,000 Administration Construction $647,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $30,000 $100,000 $647,000 Packet Page 275 of 488 35 PROJECT NAME: 2361" St. SW from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $494,000 Edmonds Way to Madrona Elementary School TRACK ■ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a walkway on the south side of 236 th St. SW from SR 104 to Madrona Elementary as well as the addition of sharrows along that stretch. (This is only part of a stretch of Walkway project, which ranked #1 in the Long Walkway list in the 2009 Transportation Plan) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. The current pedestrian conditions are unsafe near Madrona Elementary School and along 236t" St. SW because of the limited sight distance issues (curvature of the roadway). SCHEDULE: Engineering is scheduled to begin in 2013 and construction completed by 2014. 100% funding was secured for the design and construction phases (through Safe Routes to School program). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 COST Planning/Study Engineering & $111,000 Administration & ROW Construction $363,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $474,000 Packet Page 276 of 488 36 PROJECT NAME: 2nd Ave. S from James St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $32,000 to Main St. Walkway (I NG 4 4� 0 f PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 100') on 2n Ave. S between Main St. and James St. (Ranked #1 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: 2017 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $32,000 1 % for Art TOTALI $32,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 277 of 488 37 PROJECT NAME: Maple St. from 7 th Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $63,000 S to 8t" Ave. S Walkway MAW ST NO -ISLE FRA CES ANDERSON m W 1 � a � � 2 66 7701 Q DAYTON ST MAPLE ST Vl W a z k ALDER ST PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 250') on Maple St. between 7t" Ave. S and 8t" Ave. S (ranked #3 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2017 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Stud Engineering & Administration $10,000 Construction $53,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $63,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 278 of 488 38 PROJECT NAME: Dayton St between 7 Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $79,000 S and 8t" Ave. S Walkway SNO-ISLEF RA 0 Li 660 DAYTON ST Z� II J MAIN Sr CES ANDERSON � 701 Q MAPLE Sr I � F-r-- C C n PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 250') on Dayton St. between 7t" Ave. S and 8t" Ave. S (ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2017 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $10,000 Construction $69,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $79,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 279 of 488 39 PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,364,000 from Bell St to Caspers St. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a sidewalk on the west side of the street, facing waterfront. (recent project, not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Design started in 2013 and is scheduled for completion in 2014. The construction phase is scheduled for 2015 (pending grant funding). A federal grant was secured for the design phase. A Transportation Alternatives grant application was submitted in August'13 to fund the construction phase (pending response). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $221,000 Construction $1,025,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $221,000 $1,025,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 280 of 488 40 PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $677,000 from Main St. to 200t" St. SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct Walkway on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200t St. SW (— 2,700'). A sidewalk currently exists on 200t" St. SW from Main St. to 76t" Ave. W, adjacent to Maplewood Elementary School (rated #2 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood Elementary School on 200t" St. SW and Main St., by encouraging kids to use non -motorized transportation to walk to / from school. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2018 and construction in 2019 (project dependent on obtaining a grant, such as the "Safe Routes to School"). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & $127,000 Administration Construction $550,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $127,000 $550,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 281 of 488 41 PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Beach Rd. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $950,000 Walkway PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a walkway on Meadowdale Beach Dr. between 76th Ave. W and Olympic View Dr. (--3,800'). This is one of the last collectors in the City with no sidewalk on either side of the street (ranked #4 in Long Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route connecting a minor arterial w/ high pedestrian activity (Olympic View Dr.) to a collector with sidewalk on the east side of the street (76th Ave. W). Meadowdale Elementary School is directly north of the project on Olympic View Dr. SCHEDULE: Design scheduled for 2019 (unsecured funding / pending grant funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 - 2025 COST Planning/Study Engineering & $190,000 Administration Construction $760,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $190,000 $760,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 282 of 488 42 PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 3d Ave. S to 4 th ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $220,000 Ave. S Walkway ARTS W CENTER a ASPER z UNDOW NE N ALDER ALDER ST 346 1 414 412 410 1 irking 3 S 'A LU a SOUND VIEW M HOWELL WAY F-7-1 r--I-� DAYTON ST OLD MILLTOWN MAPLE ST EETRIC i, ALDER ST N W 'a BECK'S z BANK r 409 530Pancak 407 540 Hau n 403 405 546 0 401 w a WALNUT ST GREGORY e H 525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 350') on Walnut St. between 3rd Ave. S and 4t" Ave. S (ranked #5 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2017 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Stud Engineering & Administration $20,000 Construction $200,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $220,000 " all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 283 of 488 43 PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 6th Ave. S to 7th ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $110,000 Ave. S Walkway THE MARINER ALDER ST B BANK LU a x O r Pancake 30 Haus 40 46 W D LU a HOWELL WAY T-1 ECK'S COMMODORE ;W a' WALNUT ST PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 700') on Walnut St. between 6th Ave. S and 7th Ave. S (ranked #4 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2019 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $10,000 Construction $100,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $110,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 284 of 488 44 PROJECT NAME: 4 1h Ave Corridor ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,700,000 Enhancement �/ff sra � Y12 - 629 GLEN ST w � cV N � f0 DALEY ST z w a r Boy's & Girls Sk Club Civic Ge, to r PlayFe Id Grandstanc 1:1= BELL ST = I � [ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Corridor improvements along 4 th Avenue to build on concept plan developed in the Streetscape Plan update (2006). (Project not included in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 41h Ave. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Timing for design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2014 - 2015 (pending grant funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & $200,000 $1,150,000 Administration Construction $1,425,000 $2,900,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $200,000 $1,150,000 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 285 of 488 45 PROJECT NAME: 238 1h St. SW from 1 001h ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,399,600 Ave. W to 104t" Ave. W Walkway and Stormwater Improvements O U O Wn 00 cOMM H M u� w LIBRARY mE& a BASEBALL r 23FIE L13 23 TO 42 HICKMAN PARK JJ 0 0 a r J Y 237TH OLD WOODWAYHIGH SCHOOL 236TH PL SW 3 3 J w a } � F i r y � O P •" O � 3 z o� U 2 2 U w z N F a LL Q !7 w n a m r a 0 a EL 23sm sr SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a sidewalk on the north side of 238 th St. SW from 100t" Ave. W to 104t" Ave. W. (ranked #8 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan as well as sharrows along this stretch. Stormwater improvements will also be included. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating safe pedestrian connection between 100t" Ave. W and 1041" Ave. W. SCHEDULE Engineering and construction are scheduled between 2013 and 2014. Funding was secured for the completion of the design and construction phases (through Safe Routes to School program). Stormwater improvements will be funded through Fund 422. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $135,000 Construction $1,224,000 1 % for Art $5,600 TOTAL $1,364,600 Packet Page 286 of 488 46 PROJECT NAME: Olympic Ave. from Main St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: to SR-524 / 196" St. SW Walkway $1,249,000 11■11■111 ■11No ■■■■r■11 illl�■■■ ■11� ■�1�11111 1111■■�1 0=1■■ ■111�1 IN1111111 ■1•O1■ I:11■A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #3 in Long Walkway project list in 2009 Transportation Plan. Install new sidewalk on the east side of the street. The ex. sidewalk is unsafe because of rolled curb. (ranked #3 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan) PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and create safe pedestrian access to Yost Park and Edmonds Elementary. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2020 and 2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Stud Engineering & Administration $200,000 Construction $1,049,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,249,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 287 of 488 47 PROJECT NAME: 1 89PI. W from 801hAve. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000 to 78th Ave. W Walkway 188TH ST SW 190TH ST SW 192ND ST SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked # 7 in Short Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5' sidewalk on either side of the street. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and create connection to ex. sidewalk on 189th PI. W. This missing link will create a pedestrian connection from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2020 and 2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $35,000 Construction $140,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $175,000 all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 288 of 488 48 PROJECT NAME: 84 1h Ave. W between 188 1h St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000 SW and 186th St. SW Walkway '--H 985TH PL SW I88TM ST SW 3 w a a M —LL 187TH 5T SW IFIL� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #9 in Short Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5' sidewalk on the east side of the street to connect to the existing sidewalk to the south. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch, such as school kids walking to Seaview Elementary. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2020 and 2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $35,000 Construction $140,000 1 % for Art TOTALI I 1 1 $175,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 289 of 488 49 PROJECT NAME: 238 th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,050,000 76th Ave. W Walkway Q CONDOS BROOK 23&09 1 R AURORA 23637 23701-32 w S MARKETPLACE Q 8h x U FAN\LY PANCAKE r y V "7-11" 238T}{ ST 54V F-ff n F• O O I MP ""ONDS WAY MP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #9 in Long Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5' sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating safe pedestrian connection between Hwy. 99 and 76th Ave. W. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2020 and 2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $210,000 Construction $840,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,050,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 290 of 488 50 PROJECT NAME: Residential Neighborhood ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Varies Traffic Calming PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The traffic calming program is designed to assist residents and City staff in responding to neighborhood traffic issues related to speeding, cut -through traffic and safety. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Allows traffic concerns to be addressed consistently and traffic calming measures to be efficiently developed and put into operations. SCHEDULE: Annual program COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Stud Engineering & Administration $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Construction $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $23,000 $23,000 $23,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 291 of 488 51 PROJECT NAME: 151St. SW from Edmonds ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $374,000 Way (SR-104) to 8th Ave. S Q� s fi a s 226TH ST SW '^ 9 5TH ST SW 4 �Q W a a 226TH PL SW 9� ROSEWOOD CT SUNRISE tj BALLFIELDS SHERWOOD ELEM. SCHOOL PARKING N EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY QUEST BLOCKBUSTER [[PARKING L' w [KING Q 0 QFC z Y a PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk on 15t St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave. S. (new project, not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route for kids attending Sherwood Elementary. SCHEDULE: Engineering is scheduled to begin in 2013 and construction in 2014. The project is 100% grant funded (through Safe Routes to School program). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $103,000 Construction $251,000 1 % for Art TOTALI $354,000 " all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 292 of 488 52 CFP STORMWATER Packet Page 293 of 488 53 01 City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Stormwater Projects (2014-2019) Grant Opportunity Current Project (2014-2019) Project Name Purpose Grant/Date Phase Total Cost Revenue Source 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Southwest Edmonds Basin Study Project 2 Provide overflow to existing infiltration systems. $0 (Federal or State secured) - Connect Sumps near Robin Hood Lane Conceptual $0 (Federal or State unsecured) $546,000 (Debt/StormwaterFees) $105,000 $441,000 $546,000 Total $105,000 $441,000 Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Add lift station and other new infrastructure to reduce $0 (Federal or State secured) Improvements. intersection flooding. Pre -Design $787,500 (Federal or State unsecured) $425,000 $300,000 $62,500 $2,460,500 (Debt/StormwaterFees) $98,000 $1,275,000 $900,000 $187,500 $3,248,000 Total $98,000 $1,700,000 $1,200,000 $250,000 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects Work with Watershed Forum on reducing flooding and $0 (Federal or State secured) improving water quality. Conceptual $0 (Federal or State unsecured) $375,000 (DebtIStormwaterFees) $55,000 $60,000 $62,000 $64,000 $66:000 $68,000 $375,000 Total $55:000 $60,000 $62:000 $64,000 $66,000 $68,000 Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Daylight channel and remove sediment to allow better $0 (Federal or State secured) Creek/Day lighting/Restoration connnectivlty with the Puget Sound to benefit fish and reduce Possible Grant/TBD Study $3,987,500 (Federal or State unsecured) $200,000 $450,000 $562,500 $825,000 $1,800,000 $150,000 flooding. $1,562,500 (DebUStormwater) $300000 $150,000 $187,500 $275,000 $600,000 $50,000 $5,550,000 Total $500:000 $600,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $200,000 Perrinville Creek High Flow Find solution to high peak stream flows caused by excessive $0 (Federal or State secured) Reduction/Management Project stormwater runoff that erodes the stream, causes flooding and Possible Grant/TBD Study $1,875,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $375,000 $375,000 $375,000 $375,000 $375,000 has negative impacts on aquatic habitat. $725,000 (DebUStormwater Fees) $100,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $2,600,000 Total $100A $50Q000 $500:000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 Total CFP $12,319,000 Annual CFP Totals $753,000 1 $2,860,000 1 $2,617,000 1 $2,355,000 1 $2,966,000 $768,000 Revenue Summary by Year Totals Source 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 $0 Total Federal & State (Secured) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,650,000 Total Federal & State (Unsecured) $200,000 $1,250,000 $1,237,500 $1,262,500 $2,175,000 $525,000 $5,669,000 Debt/ Stormwater Fees $553,000 $1,610,000 $1,379,500 $1,092,500 $791,000 $243,000 PROJECT NAME: Southwest Edmonds Basin ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $546,000 Study Project 2 — Connect Sumps near Robinhood Lane Sumps along Friar Tuck Lane PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 1600 ft of 12 inch diameter pipe (600 ft in the public right of way and 1000 ft on private property), 4 manholes, and 9 new connections to the existing storm drain system. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Several sumps (dry wells) in the vicinity of Robin Hood Drive in Southwest Edmonds overflow during large storm events. Over time they have clogged and may cause flooding. Connecting the sumps to the City of Edmonds storm drain system with an overflow pipe, to function in large storm events, will reduce the potential for flooding. SCHEDULE: 2014-2019 COST BREAKDOWN 2,3 PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study $105,000 $441,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $105,000 $441,000 1. Total costs are in 2012 dollars. 2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%; 2017 4%; 2018-3% Packet Page 295 of 488 55 PROJECT NAME: Dayton St and Hwy 104 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,248,000 Drainage Improvements . o.> ! $G ST ' nn zoo _EOgA0'1 G Ej PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add lift station and other new infrastructure. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To reduce flooding at the intersection of Dayton Stand Hwy 104. SCHEDULE: 2014-2019 COST BREAKDOWN'' PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $98,000 $1,700,000 $1,200,000 $250,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $98,000 $1,700,000 $1,200,000 $250,000 1. iotai costs are in 2o12 dollars. 2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%; 2017 4%; 2018 3% Packet Page 296 of 488 56 PROJECT NAME: Lake Ballinger Associated ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $700,000 Projects — SSWCP' Project 7 Lake Ballinger PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work independently and with other members of the Greater Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum to implement the Strategic Action Plan. Funds will be used for construction of improvements, as needed. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Homes surrounding Lake Ballinger and McAleer Creek have flooded during very large storm events. There are also significant water quality issues in the watershed. Working with other entities will ensure cohesive standards between all jurisdictions that will help reduce flooding and improve the water quality concerns. SCHEDULE: 2014-2019 COST BREAKDOWN 2,3 PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study $55,000 $60,000 $62,000 $64,000 $66,000 $68,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $55,000 $60,000 $62,000 $64,000 $66,000 $68,000 1. sswcN — storm ana surtace water comprenensrve man - Zulu 2. Total costs are in 2012 dollars. 3. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%; 2017 4%; 2018-3% Packet Page 297 of 488 57 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $8,931,000 Cr/Willow Cr — SSWCP' Projects 12 & 13 Edmonds Marsh as seen from the viewing platform. Previously restored section of Willow Creek. Source: www.unocaledmonds.info/clean-up/_ag llery.php PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Build on the feasibility study completed in 2013 that assessed the feasibility of day lighting the Willow Creek channel. The final project may include 23 acres of revegetation, construct new tide gate to allow better connectivity to the Puget Sound, removal of sediment, 1,100 linear ft of new creek channel lined with an impermeable membrane. Funds will be used for study and construction but exact breakdown cannot be assessed at this time. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The daylight of willow creek will help reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped. It will also help eliminate the sedimentation of the marsh and the transition to freshwater species and provide habitat for salmonids, including rearing of juvenile Chinook. SCHEDULE: 2014-2019 COST BREAKDOWNz,3 PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $500,000 $600,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $200,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $500,000 1 $600,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $200,000 1. SSWCP — Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan - 2010 2. Total costs are in 2011 dollars. 3. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%; 2017 4%; 2018 3% Packet Page 298 of 488 58 PROJECT NAME: Perrinville Creek High Flow ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,500,000 Reduction/Management Project— SSWCP' Project 15 Perrinville Creek Channel illustrating the channel incision that will be addressed by restoration. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A flow reduction study began in 2013 that will develop alternatives to implement in the basin. Projects are expected to begin the design and/or construction phases in 2014. It is expected that this project will be implemented with the City of Lynnwood (half the Perrinville basin is in Lynnwood) and Snohomish County (owner of the South County Park). Projects will likely be a combination of detention, infiltration, and stream bank stabilization. A $188,722 grant from the Department of Ecology is contributing funds to the 2013-2014 Study. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Urbanization of the Perrinville Creek Basin has increased flows in the creek, incision of the creek, and sedimentation in the low -gradient downstream reaches of the creek. Before any habitat improvements can be implemented, the flows must be controlled or these improvements will be washed away. SCHEDULE: 2014-2019 COST BREAKDOWN 2,3 PROJECT 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 COST Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $100,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $100,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 1. SSWCP — Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan - 2010 2. Total costs are in 2012 dollars. 3. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%; 2017 4%; 2018 3% Packet Page 299 of 488 59 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM C~� 2014-2019 �S t lim DRAFT Packet Page 300 of 488 Packet Page 301 of 488 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2014-2019) Table of Contents r914, l4:7_1I 112 Transportation Public Works 6 113 Multimodal Transportation Community Services 9 116 Building Maintenance Public Works 10 125 REET-2 Transportation Public Works 12 129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation 13 421 Water Projects Public Works 14 422 Storm Projects Public Works 15 423 Sewer Projects Public Works 17 414 Waste Water Treatment Plant Public Works 19 PARKS REET-2 Parks 125 Improvement Parks & Recreation 22 126 Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation 50 Parks Construction 132 (Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 54 Packet Page 302 of 488 Packet Page 303 of 488 Cip GENERAL Packet Page 304 of 488 0 T v CD N w 0 Cn 0 A co w Capital Improvements Program Fund 112 -Transportation Projects Projects for 2014-2019 PROJECT NAME CFP 2013 I 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Estimate I (2014-2019) Drocer.i�4:..n / M�:n4an�nre Drn:en4c Annual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc.) $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $4,500,000 5th Ave S Overlay from Elm Way to Walnut St $987,732 $14,800 1 $14,800 Citywide - Signal Improvements $10,000 $10,000 $10,0001 $30,000 Cit ide Safe Improvements - Signal Cabinet Pedestrian Countdown Dis la $34,000 $266,000 $650,000 $916,000 Signal Up Upgrades - 100th Ave 238th St. SW $508,000 $508,000 Safety / Canarity Analvsis 212th St. SW / 84th Ave Five Corners Roundabout X $409,130 $2,894,880 $2,894,880 228th St. SW Corridor Safety Improvements X $399,532 $2,710,000 $1,786,876 $4,496,876 76th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements X $84,185 $657,000 $653,000 $1,408,000 $2,718,000 SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave. W - Guardrail $30,000 $30,000 SR 524 196th St. SW / 88th Ave. W - Intersection Improvements X $100,000 $163,000 $616,000 $879,000 Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades $153,000 $153,000 Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades $40,000 $210,000 $250,000 Main St. @ 9th Ave. S (Interim solution) X $10,000 $10,000 220th St. SW @ 76th Ave. W Intersection X $173,000 $173,000 -improvements Arterial Street Signal Coordination Improvements $50,000 $50,000 Hwy 99 @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $490,000 $926,000 $2,663,000 $4,079,000 Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $490,000 $926,000 $2,663,000 $4,079,000 Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion $20,000 $20,000 SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization X $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 Type 2 Raised Pavement Markers $98,0001 $98,000 Oi Non -motorized transDortation Droiects Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St. X $88,000 $221,000 $1,025,000 $1,246,000 Main Street from 5th Ave. to 6th Ave. X $116,847 $2,000 $2,000 238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W X $35,000 $1,364,600 $1,364,600 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S X $20,000 $354,000 $354,000 236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona Elementary X $20,000 $474,000 $474,000 Hwy 99 Enhancement Phase 3 $92,000 $592,000 $592,000 ADA Curb Ramps along 3rd Ave S from Main St to Pine St $17,000 $75,000 $75,000 ADA Curb Ramps Improvements as part of Transition Plan $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $450,000 80th Ave W from 188th St SW to Olympic View Dr. Walkway X $30,000 $100,000 $647,000 $777,000 2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway X $32,000 $32,000 Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW Walkway X $127,000 $550,000 $677,000 Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway X $190,006 $190,000 Walnut St. from 3rd Ave. to 4th Ave. Walkway X $220,000 $220,000 Walnut St. from 6th Ave. to 7th Ave. Walkway X $110,000 $110,000 Audible Pedestrian Signals $25,000 $25,000 Maple St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway X $63,000 $63,000 Dayton St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway X $79,000 $79,000 Citywide Bicycle Connections additional bike lanes and sharrows $116,000 $116,000 $232,000 School Zone Flashing Beacons $37,500 $0 Bicycle Route Signing $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 Traffic Calming Projects Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming Sunset Ave, other stretches X I 1 $10,0001 $10,0001 $10,0001 $25,0001 $25,0001 $25,000 $105,000 Traffic Planning Projects Trans ortation Plan Update I I $901000 $90,0001 1 1 1 $180,000 SR104 Transportation Corridor Study I 1 $10,000 $40,000 Alternatives Study to Resolve Conflicts at Dayton St/Main St RR Crossings $1,000,0001 $1,000,0001 1 1 1$2,000,000 Total Projects $2,350,926 $10,775,280 $4,564,876 $10,000 $6,797,000 $8,936,000 $14,134,000 $45,177,156 0 c� m v CIO w 0 am 0 A 00 w v Transfers Transfer to Fund 117 212th St SW / 84th Ave W 2,880 Transfer to Fund 117 from Fund 422 (238th St SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W) $5,600 Debt Service Debt Service on Loan (1) 220th St Design i $19,05011 $18,959118,869 18,7781 $18,6871 $18,596119,506 Debt Service on Loan (2 220th St Construction 22,447 22,341 22,235 22,129 22,023 21,917 21,811 Debt Service on Loan (3) 100th Ave Road Stabilization $35,18311 $35,018134,854 34,690j $34,b2bl $34,361134,196 Total Debt & Transfers $76,680 $84,798 $75,958 $75,597 $75,235 $74,874 $75,513 Revenues and Cash Balances 2013-2019 2013 EstimateJIL 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Beginning Cash Balance $384,261 $421,109 $55,278 $334,165 $794,568 $743,833 $1,717,959 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax $116,000 $115,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 Transfer in - Fund 125- REET 2 Trans. $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,060 Transfer in - Fund 421 for 5th Ave. S Overlay $301,000 Transfer in - Fund 422 for 5th Ave. S. Overlay $20,000 Transfer in - REET II for 5th Ave. S Overlay $115,732 $14,800 Transfer in - Fund 421 for Five Corners Roundabout $35,000 $665,000 Transfer in - Fund 422 for Five Corners Roundabout $28,500 $100,000 Transfer in - Fund 422 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement $68,500 $57,000 Transfer in - Mountlake Terrace for 228th St. SW Improvements (Overlay) $4,000 Transfer in - Fund 421 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $100,000 Transfer in - Fund 422 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $25,000 Transfer in - Fund 423 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $100,000 Transfer in - Fund 421 for Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St $75,000 Transfer in - Fund 423 for Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Cas ers St $50,000 Transfer in - Fund 422 for 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W $800,000 Transfer in - General Fund for SR-104 Transportation Corridor Study $10,000 $40,000 Transfer in- Fund 422 (STORMWATER) $103,0001 $106,0001 $109,0001 $116,0001 $120,000 Traffic Impact Fees $158,300 $105,000 $70,0001 $70,0001 $70,0001 $70,0001 $70,000 Total Revenues $1,172,793 $2,679,409 $645,278 $870,165 $1,333,568 $1,289,833 $2,267,959 Grants 2013-2019 2013 Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Federal for 5th Ave S Overlay 551,000 Federal - for Citywide - Cabinet Improvements / Ped. Countdown Display 34,000 266,000 Federal for 212th @ 84th Five Corners Roundabout 298,969 1,839,000 Federal for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements 345,595 2,635,227 1,024,000 Federal for 76th Ave W 212th St SW Intersection Improvements 72,820 373,680 346,297 Federal Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Cas ers St. 76,120 $83,040 Federal Main St. from 5th Ave. to 6th Ave. $92,918 State 238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W 35,000 $559,000 State 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S 20,000 354,000 Federal 236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona Elementary 20, 000 474,000 Federal Hwy 99 Enhancement Phase 3 92,000 592,000 Federal ADA Curb Ramps along3rd Ave. S from Main St. to Pine St. 50,000 Federal School Zone FlashingBeacons 37,500 Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $1,675,922 $7,225,947 $1,370,297 $0 $0 $0 $0 N cv m C w CD m M. 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Grants 2013-2019 Estimate Grants/ Loans Souaht / Fundina (not Secured) Annual Street Overlays $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Citywide Safety Improvements - Signal Cabinet $650,000 Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave W @ 238th St SW $256,000 228th St SW Corridor Safety Improvements $705,876 76th @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $218,548 $1,218,000 196th St SW @ 88th Ave W - Guardrail $30,000 196th St SW @ 88th Ave W - Intersection Improvements $86,500 $141,000 $533,000 Main St @ 3rd Ave Signal Upgrades $133,000 Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades $34,000 $189,000 220th St SW @ 76th Ave W Intersection Improvements $150,000 Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $490,000 $926,000 $2,663,000 Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements $490,000 $926,000 $2,663,000 SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization Ferry Terminal Grade Separation $105,000 $700,000 $700,000 Type 2 Raised Pavement Markers $98,000 Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St to Caspers St $1,025,000 ADA Curb Ramps Improvements (as part of Transition Plan) $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 80th Ave / 188th St SW / Olympic View Dr Walkway $30,000 $100,000 $647,000 2nd Ave From Main St to James St $32,000 Maplewood Dr. Walkway $64,000 $275,000 Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway $190,000 Walnut from 3rd to 4th Ave. Walkway $220,000 Walnut St. from 6th to 7th Ave. Walkway $110,000 Audible Pedestrian Signals $25,000 Maple St. from 7th to 8th Ave. Walkway $63,000 Dayton St. from 7th to 8th Ave. Walkway $79,000 Citywide Bicycle Connections (additional bike lanes, sharrows, or signs) $58,000 $58,000 Bicycle Route Signing $10,0001 $10,0001 $10,000 Citywide Traffic Calming Program $10,0001 $10,0001 5,000 $25,0001 $25,000 Alternatives Stud to Resolve Conflicts at Dayton St/Main St RR Crossings $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought / Funding (not secured) Grant / Not Secured Funding Subtotal $0 $1,010,000 $2,959,424 $10,000 $6,282,500 $9,439,000 $14,466,000 $1,675,922 $8,235,947 $4,329,721 $10,000 $6,282,500 $9,439,000 $14,466,000 Total Revenues & Grants $2,848,715 $10,915,356 $4,974,999 $880,165 $7,616,068 $10,728,833 $16,733,959 Total Projects ($2,350,926) ($10,775,280) ($4,564,876) ($10,000) ($6,797,000) ($8,936,000) ($14,134,000) Total Debt $76,680 $84,798 $75,958 $75,597 $75,235 $74,874 $75,513 Ending Cash Balance $421,109 $55,278 $334,165 $794,568 $743,833 $1,717,959 $2,524,446 N cV m m m w 0 00 0 00 w 00 7o] Capital Improvements Program Fund 113 - Multimodal Transportation Projects for 2014-2019 Total PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Es2013 timate (2014-2019) Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry/Multimodal Facility X Unknown Total Project $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenues and Cash Balances 2013-2019 2013 Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 jL 2019 Beginning Cash Balance January 1st $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 State Transportation Appropriations - Current Law -Local Matching $ Federal Funding Unsecured ST2 Interest Earnings Total Revenues $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 Total Revenue 1 $55,85911 $55,8591 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 Total Project 1 $0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ending Cash Balance 1 $55,859 $55,8591 $55,8591 $55,8591 $55,8591 $55,8591 $55,859 v m 0 m v CD m O Capital Improvements Program Fund 116 - Buildina Maintenance Proiects for 2014-2019 PROJECT NAME CFP 2013 E 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 (20Total 9) ADA Improvements- City Wide $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $30,000 Anderson Center Accessibility $158,130 $0 Anderson Center Boiler Repairs $0 Anderson Center Interior Painting $8,000 $8,000 Anderson Center Exterior Painting $30,000 $30,000 Anderson Center Radiator Replacement $25,000 $85,000 $110,000 Anderson Center Exterior Repairs $65,000 $65,000 Anderson Center Blinds $0 Anderson Center Asbestos Abatement $50,000 $50,000 Anderson Center Flooring/Gym $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 $65,000 Anderson Center Countertop Replacement $10,000 $10,000 Anderson Center Oil Tank Decommissioning $30,000 $30,000 Anderson Center Elevator Replacement $150,000 $150,000 Anderson Center Roof Replacement $250,000 $25,000 $275,000 Cemetery Building Gutter Replacement $10,000 $10,000 City Hall Elevator Replacement $150,000 $150,000 City Hall Exterior Cleaning and Repainting $20,000 $25,000 $45,000 City Hall Security Measures $20,000 $20,000 City Park Maint. Bldg. Roof $0 ESCO III Financing $280,200 $280,200 ESCO IV Project $300,000 $300,000 Fire Station #16 Painting $5,000 $5,000 Fire Station #16 Carpet $30,000 $30,000 Fire Station #16 HVAC Replacement $20,000 $20,000 Fire Station #17 Carpet $12,000 $12,000 Fire Station #17 Interior Painting $15,000 $15,000 Fire Station #20 Carpet $15,000 $15,000 Fire Station #20 Interior Painting $10,000 $10,000 Fire Station #20 Stairs and Deck Replacement $35,000 $35,000 Grandstand Exterior and Roof Repairs $50,000 $50,000 Library Plaza Appliance Replacement $4,000 $4,000 Library Plaza Brick Fa ade Addition $21,000 $21,000 Library Wood Trim $0 Meadowdale Clubhouse Roof Replacement $20,000 $20,000 Meadowdale Flooring Replacement $20,000 $20,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Gutter Replacement $10,000 $10,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Ext. Surface Cleaning $0 Meadowdale Clubhouse Fire Alarm Replacement $25,000 $25,000 Misc. Fire Sprinkler System Repairs $0 Public Safety/Fire Station #17 Soffit Installation $2,000 $2,000 Public Safety Exterior Painting $0 Public Safety Council Chamber Carpet $0 Public Safety HVAC Repairs & Maintenance $5,000 $43,000 $43,000 1 Senior Center Misc Repairs & Maint. $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000 Senior Center Siding/ Sealing CDBG) $0 Total Projects $173,130 $688,200 $306,000 $241,000 $308,000 $267,000 $205,000 $2,015,200 N cV C m C w CD m Revenues and Cash Balances 2013-2019 2013 Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Beginning Cash Balance(January 1st $157,425 $40,895 $31,495 $495 $34,495 $1,495 $9,495 Interest Earnings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfer from Gen Fund #001 $56,600 $588,800 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 Commerce Grants Not Secured $0 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sno. Co. CDBG Grant Not Secured $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 EECBG Funding Secured $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Utility Grant Funding Secured $0 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WA State HCPF Grant Funding Secured $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenues $214,025 $719,695 $306,495 $275,495 $309,495 $276,495 $284,495 Total Revenue $214,025 $719,695 $306,495 $275,495 $309,495 $276,495 $284,495 Total Project ($173,130) ($688,200) ($306,000) ($241,000) ($308,000)1 ($267,000 ($205,000) Ending Cash Balance 1 $40,895 $31,495 $4951 $34,4951 $1,4951 $9,4951 $79,495 Capital Improvements Program Fund 125 - REET 2 Transportation Projects for 2014-2019 2013 PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 E (20Total 9) 1 Transfer to Fund 112 for future Transportation Projects $0 Total Projects $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenues and Cash Balances 2013-2019 2013 Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Beginning Balance (January 1st) REET 2 Revenues Investment Interest Total Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Construction Projects $0 $0 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 1 $0 Ending Cash Balance 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N v Capital Improvements Program m m Fund 129 - Special Projects ro m N O Proiects for 2014-2019 2013 PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 E (20Total 9) State Route SR 99 International District Enhancements $196,947 $4,000 $4,000 A 00 w Total Projects $196,947 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Revenues and Cash Balances 2013-2019 Estimate Beginning Balance(January 1st $5,733 $5,733 $5,733 $5,733 $5,733 $5,733 $5,733 Investment Interest Total Revenues $5,733 $5,733 $5,733 $5,733 $5,733 $5,733 $5,733 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Grants 2013-2019 Estimate PSRC Transportation Enhancement Grant (Secured) $196,947 $4,000 $0 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Grants $196,947 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenues & Grants 1 1 $202,680 $9,7331 $5,733 $5,733 $5,733 $5,733 $5,733 Total Construction Projects $196,947 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 W lEnding Cash Balance I 1 $5,733 $5,7331 $5,7331 $5,7331 $5,7331 $5,7331 $5,733 Capital Improvements Program F.-I d91 - W.f., Prni-fc Prni-fc fnr 9n1d-9n1Q 13 PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Estimate (20Total 9) 2011 Replacement Program $2,410 $0 2012 Replacement Program $1,970 $0 2012 Waterline Overlays $805 $0 2013 Replacement Program $1,574,720 $3,000 $3,000 2014 Replacement Program $95,000 $1,709,639 $1,709,639 2014 Waterline Overlays $250,000 $250,000 2015 Replacement Program $95,181 $2,697,511 $2,792,692 2016 Replacement Program $98,988 $2,857,552 $2,956,540 2017 Replacement Program $102,948 $2,971,934 $3,074,882 2018 Re lacement Program $107,065 $3,202,600 $3,309,665 2019 Replacement Program $112,000 $3,330,704 $3,442,704 2020 Replacement Program 1 $116,480 $116,480 224th Waterline Replacement $168,000 $2,000 $2,000 Five Corners 3.0 MG Reservoir Recoating $722,800 1 $722,800 Five Corners 1.5 MG Reservoir Recoating $477,300 $477,300 76th Ave Waterline Replacement includes PRV Im r $752,705 $3,000 $3,000 Telemetry System Improvements $68,600 $11,000 $11,500 $11,900 $12,400 $12,900 $1 ,,400 $73,100 2016 Water System Plan Update $86,100 $89,500 1 $175,600 Total Projects $2,664,210 $2,073,820 $3,616,899 $3,539,200 $3,091,399 $3,327,500 $3,460,584 $19,109.402 Tranefor Transfer to Sewer Utility Fund 423 (Lift Station 3,4,5,9,10,11,12,14&15) $33,638 $0 Transfer to Sewer Utility Fund 423 (2012 SS Replacement) $550,000 $550,000 Transfer to Sewer Utility Fund 423 2013 SS Replacement) $420,000 Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Five Corners) $35,000 $665,000 $665,000 Transfer to Street Fund 112 5th Avenue Overlay) $301,000 $0 Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Sunset Ave) 1 1 $75,000 1 1 1 $75,000 Transfer to Street Fund 112 212th & 76th Improvements) $100,000 $100,000 Transfer to Street Fund 112 (5th Avenue Overlay) $0 Transfer to Fund 117 1%Arts 2013 Watermain $1,067 $0 Transfer to Fund 117 1%Arts (2014 Watermain) $2,000 $2,000 Total Transfers $370,705 $1,812,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,392,000 Total Water Projects $3,034,915 $3,885,820 $3,616,899 $3,539,200 $3,091,399 $3,327,500 $3,460,584 $20,501,402 Revenues & Cash Balances 2013-2019 2013 Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Beginning Balance (January 1st) Connection Fee Proceeds $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Interfund Transfer in from Fund 411 General Fund Fire Hydrant Improvements 2013 Watermain $101,166 Fund 423 Transfer for 2014 WL Overlay $50,000 General Fund Fire Hydrant Improvements 76th Ave Waterline $25,000 General Fund Fire Hydrant Improvements 224th WL $5,000 General Fund Fire Hydrant Improvements $105,900 $110,100 1 $114,600 1 $119,184 1 $123,900, 1 $128,856 2013 Bond $5,300,000 Total Secured Revenue (Utility Funds, Grants Loans, misc) $5,456,166 $180,900 $135,100 $139,600 $144,184 $148,900 $153,856 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Unsecured Revenue 2013-2019 Estimate New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers $6,700,000 $6,400,000 Total Unsecured Revenue $0 $0 $6,700,000 $0 $6,400,000 $0 $0 Total Revenues Total Projects & Transfers Ending Cash Balance Capital Improvements Program m 0 C m C w CD m w +1 o_ a w 00 Cal Fund 422 Storm Proiects for 2014-2019 PROJECT NAME CIF P 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 E tomate (2014-2019) SW Edmonds Basin Studv Implementation Proiects SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 1 - Replace Infiltration Pipe (near 107th PI W) + infiltrations stem for 102nd Ave W. See Note 1 X $303,510 $89,290 $89,290 SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 2 - Connect sumps near Robin Hood I Lane X $105,000 $441,000 $546,000 Edmonds Marsh Related Proiects Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Alternatives Study $80,000 $0 Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements X $98,000 $1,700,000 $1,200,000 $250,000 Creek Pipe Rehabilitation $518,000 518,000 Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger DrlWillow Cr -Feasibility Study /MarshRestoration (See Note 2) X $108,000 $500,000 $600,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $200,0005,550,000 !$3,,248,000Willow Northstream Culvert Abandonment South of Puget Dr - Assessment / Stabilization $11,000 $55,000 $177,160 I $232,160 Rehabilitation of Northstream Culvert under Puget Dr 1 $75,0001 $200,0001 1 1 $275,000 Perrinville Creek Basin Proiects Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvement Project $85,000 $0 Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction and Retrofit Study (See Note 2) $215,000 $172,772 $172,772 Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction Projects (See Note 2) X $100,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,600,000 Cover for Material Piles (See Note 2) X $60000 1 1 1 1$0 Waste handling facility upgrade (See Note 2) $70:450 $154,0001 $154,000 Storm Drainage Improvement Projects Da ton St between 6th and 8th Ave N 1 1$23,000 $365,0001 1 1 1 1 1 $3,65,000 88th Ave W and 194th St SW $165,000 $165,000 Annually Funded Proiects Cit -wide Drainage Replacement Projects 1 $147,000 $154,0001 $161,0001 $166,0001 $500,0001 $1,000,0001 $1,200,0001 $3,181,000 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 1 $70,000 $55,0001 $60,0001 $62,0001 $64,0001 $66,0001 $68,0001 $375.000 5 Year Cycle Projects Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan (including asset management Ian) $125,000 $125,000 1 $250,000 Additional Storm Projects Goodhope Pond Basin Study / Projects $200,0001 $50,0001 $100,0001 $500,0001 $500,000 $1,350,000 Storm System Video Assessment I $250,0001 $250,0001 $250,0001 1$750,000 Total Project $1,172,960 $2,158,062 $4,366,160 $3,408,000 $2,955,000 $4,466,000 $2,468,000 $19,821,222 Projects for 2014-2019 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 E tOmate (2014 2019) iransters To 112 - Street Fund m 0 m a v CD m it SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Drainage portion of 238th SW Sidewalk project (connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System) $28,500 $800,000 $800,000 Five Corners Roundabout $100,000 $100,000 $200,000 228th SW Corridor Improvements $68,500 $68,500 76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $25,000 $25,000 Stormwater Utility - Transportation Projects $20,000 $103,000 $103,000 $106,000 $109,000 $116,000 $120,000 $657,000 Total Transfer to 112 Fund 00 00 To 117 -Arts $48,500 $1,096,500 $103,000 $106,000 $209,000 $116,000 $120,000 $1,750,500 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades - Pile Covers $550 $0 SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 1 - Replace infiltration pipe (near 107th PI W) + infiltrations stem for 102nd Ave W. $2,490 $710 $710 SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Drainage portion of 238th SW Sidewalk project (connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park infiltrations stem) $5,600 $5,600 5 Corners Roundabout $1,000 $1,000 228th SW Corridor improvements $500 $500 76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements 1 $1,5001 1 1 1 1 $1,500 Stormwater Utility - Transportation Projects I 1 $750 1 $773 $773 $795 $818 $870 $901 $4,928 Total Transfer to 117 Fund Total Transfers Total Project & Transfers $3,790 $8,583 $2,273 $795 $818 $870 $900 $14,238 $52,290 $1,105,083 $105,273 $106,795 $209,818 $116,870 $120,900 $1,764,738 $1,225,250 $3,263,145 $4,471,433 $3,514,795 $3,164,818 $4,582,870 $2,588,900 $21,585,960 Revenues and Cash Balances 2013-2019 2013 Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Beginning Balance(January 1st Proceeds of Long-term debt Bonds $850,000 Estimated Connection Fees (capital facilities charge) $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Grants (Secured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr - Feasibility Study/Marsh Restoration 1 1 $59,000 Grants Secured - Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction & Retrofit Study 1 1 $50,000 $138,772 Grants (Secured) - Cover for Material Piles X 1 $60,000 Grants Secured - Waste handling facility upgrade 1 $53,000 1 $130,000 Total Secured Revenues $1,087,000 $283,772 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 201 2019 Unsecured Revenue 2013-2019 Estimate Proceeds of Long-term debt (Bonds) $3,750,000 $3,100,000 Grants (Unsecured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr - Feasibility Study/Marsh Restoration (See Note 3) X $200,000 $450,000 $562,500 $825,000 $1,800,000 $150,000 Grants (Unsecured) - Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction & Retrofit Stud See Note 3 X 375,0001 $375,0001 $375,000 1 $375,000 $375,000 Grants (Unsecured) - Dayton St & Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements (See Note 4) X $425,000 $300,000 $62,500 Total Unsecured Revenues $0 $200,000 $1,250,000 $4,987,500 $1,262,500 $2,175,000 $3,625,000 Total Revenue Total Project & Transfers Ending Cash Balance Notes: 1. 238th St SW drainage project has been merged with sidewalk project and is now under "Transfers to 112- Street Fund." 2. All or part of this project funded by secured grants or grants will be pursued, see Revenue section for details. 3. Assumes grant funding is 75 % of total project costs per year 4. Assumes grant funding is 25 % of total project costs per year beginning 2015 Capital Improvements Program N 0 m m m w rn 0 a w w v Fund 423 - Sewer Proiects Proiects for 2014-2019 PROJECT NAME CFP 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 E (20Total 9) Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitations Lift Stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, & 15 $4,508,828]F $245,0001 1 1 1 1 1 $245,000 Sewer Main Replacement and CIPP 2012 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $68,693 $1,471,023 $1,471,023 2013 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $102,411 $2,349,589 $2,349,589 2015 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $125,000 $1,996,800 $2,121,800 2016 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $125,000 $2,056,704 $2,181,704 2017 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $128,750 $2,118,406 $2,247,156 2018 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $132,612 $2,181,958 $2,314,570 2019 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $136,590 $2,247,415 $2,384,005 2020 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $140,690 $140,690 2013 CIPP Rehabilitation $220,778 $2,000 $2,000 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation 1 $529,600 1 1 1 1 1 529,600 224th Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project $207,7841 $2,000 1 1 1 1 1 $2,000 Infiltration & Inflow Studv & Proiects Meter Installations Basin LS-01 $72,600 $72,600 Meter Installations Basin Edmonds Zone $20,000 $20,000 Smoke Test in Basin LS-01 $75,000 $75,000 Smoke Test in Basin Edmonds Zone $100,000 $100,000 2012 Sewer Comp Plan Update $126,187I I I I I I I$0 Total Projects $5,234,681 $4,891,812 $2,221,800 $2,185,454 $2,251,018 $2,318,548 $2,388,105 $16,256,737 Transfers Transfer to Fund 421 (2014 WL Overlay) $50,000 $50,000 Transfer to Fund 112 Sunset Ave $50,000 $50,000 Transfer to Fund 112 (212th & 76th Improvements) $100,000 $100,000 Total Transfers $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 Total Projects & Transfers $5,234,681 $5,091,812 $2,221,800 $2,185,454 $2,251,018 $2,318,548 $2,388,105 $16,456,737 V v m C m m •. Revenues and Cash Balances 2013-2019 2013 Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Beginning Balance (January 1st) Sewer Connection Fees $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 Transfer in Fund 414 (2012 Sewer Comp Plan Update) $47,000 Transfer in Fund 421 (Lift Station 3,4,5,9,10,11,12,14,&15) $33,638 Transfer in Fund 421 (2012 Sewer Replacement) $550,000 Transfer in Fund 421 (2013 Sewer Replacement) $420,000 2013 Bond I $3,800,000 Total Secured Revenue (Utility Funds, Grants Loans, misc) $3,908,638 $998,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 Unsecured Revenue 2013-2019 2013 Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers $0 $0 $3,100,000 $0 $1,500,000 $0 $0 Total Unsecured Revenue $0 $0 $3,100,000 $0 $1,500,000 $0 $0 Total Revenues Total Projects & Transfers Ending Cash Balance v m 0 m m 0 a w 00 CO Capital Improvements Program Fund 414 - WWTP Projects for 2014-2019 PROJECT NAME CFP Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 (20Total 9) Repair and Replacement $1,200,000 $831,000 $850,000 $855,000 $875,000 $830,000 $875,000 $5,116,000 Upgrades $570,704 $0 Studies and consulting $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $750,000 Transfer to Fund 412-300 Sewer Comp Plan $47,000 $0 Debt Service - Principle and Interest 1 1 $330,793 1 $331,3811 $331,9871 $331,9421 $330,589 $329,7971 $330,355 $1,986,051 Total Project Projects less revenue from outside partnership $2,298,497 $1,312,381 $1,331,987 $1,336,942 $1,305,589 $1,259,797 $1,305,355 $883,929 $1,299,181 $1,318,787 $1,323,742 $1,292,389 $1,246,597 $1,292,155 Revenues and Cash Balances 2013-2019 2013 Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st) $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Intergovernmental $883,929 $1,299,181 $1,318,787 $1,323,742 $1,292,389 $1,246,597 $1,292,155 Interest Earnings $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 Miscellaneous biosolids, Lynnwood, etc $131,578 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 Rebate from PUD for Energy Eff. project $82,790 SRF Loan Proceeds $1,200,000 Subtotal $2,498,497 $1,512,381 $1,531,987 $1,536,942 $1,505,589 $1,459,797 $1,505,355 Total Revenue $2,498,497 $1,512,381 $1,531,987 $1,536,942 $1,505,589 $1,459,797 $1,505,355 Total Project $2,298,497) ($1,312,381) ($1,331,987) ($1,336,942) ($1,305,589) ($1,259,797) ($1,305,355) Ending Cash Balance $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Interest earned estimated at 0.75 % per year Contribution breakdown by agency 2013 Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Edmonds 50.79% $448,921 $659,815 $669,772 $672,289 $656,366 $633,109 $656,247 Mountlake Terrace 23.17% $204,842 $301,072 $305,616 $306,764 $299,498 $288,886 $299,444 Olympic View Water & Sewer District 16.55% $146,299 $215,027 $218,272 $219,093 $213,903 $206,324 $213,865 Ronald Sewer District 9.49% $83,867 $123,266 $125,127 $125,597 $122,622 $118,277 $122,600 TOTALS 100.00%1 $883,9291 $1,299,181 $1,318,7871 $1,323,7421 $1,292,3891 $1,246,5971 $1,292,155 Packet Page 319 of 488 20 CIP PARKS Packet Page 320 of 488 2 IV N Capital Improvements Program Fund 125 - Parka Imnrnvpment Proiprta for 2014-2019 PROJECT NAME CFP E tamate 2014 L 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 (20Total 9) 1 Park Development Projects* Haines Wharf Park & Walkway $8,402 $0 Anderson Center Field / Court / Stage $30,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $150,000 Brackett's Landing Improvements $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $95,000 $5,000 $5,000 $120,000 City Park Revitalization See below $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $90,000 Civic Center Improvements X $15,000 $10,000 $75,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $12. 00 Edmonds Sunset Avenue Overlook Trail $200,000 $200,000 Fishing Pier & Restrooms $2,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000 Former Woodway HS Improvements (with successful capital campaign) X $500,000 $100,000 $300,000 $350,000 $500,000 $450,000 $2,200,000 Maplewood Park Improvements $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 Marina Beach Park Improvements $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $130,000 Mathay Ballinger Park $100,000 $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 $30,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Grounds $5,000 $75,000 1 $5,0001 1 $5,000 1 $85,000 Pine Ridge Park Improvements $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 Seaview Park Improvements $10,0001 $5,000 $10,000 $25,000 Sierra Park Improvements 1 $40,000 $70,000 $110,000 Yost Park / Pool Improvements 1 $120,000 $120,0001 $120,000 $100,000 $25,000 $20,000 $120,000 $505,000 Citvwide Park Improvements* Citywide Beautification $29,000 $30,000 $21,000 $22,000 Not Eligible Not Eligible Not Eligible $73,000 Misc Paving $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $40,000 Citywide Park Improvements/Misc Small Projects $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $330,000 Sports Fields Upgrade / Playground Partnership $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $75,000 Specialized Projects* Aquatic Center Facility (dependent upon successful capital campaign) X $0 Trail Development* Misc Unpaved Trail / Bike Path Improvements $10,000 $2,7121 $10,0001 1 $10,0001 1 $10,000 $32,712 Plannina Cultural Arts Facility Needs Study X Not Eligible $0 Edmonds Marsh / Hatchery Improvements X $25,000 $75,000 $35,000 $65,000 $75,000 $10,000 $20,000 $280,000 1 Edmonds Cemetery Mapping Project $100,000 $100,000 Pine Ridge Park Forest Management Study $50,000 $50,000 Total Project Transfers $369,402 $1,077,712 $756,000 $752,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $4,835,712 Transfer to Park Fund 132 (4th Ave Cultural Corridor) Transfer to Park Fund 132 (Cultural Heritage Tour) Transfer to Park Fund 132 (Dayton St Plaza) $135,500 Transfer to Park Fund 132 (Interurban Trail) Transfer to Park Fund 132 (City Park Revitalization) $500,000 Transfer to Park Fund 132 (Former Woodway HS Improvements) $155,000 Total Transfers $790,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Project &Transfers $1,159,902 $1,077,712 $756,000 $752,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 N cV C m a !v rn m N W Revenues and Cash Balances 2013-2019 2013 Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Beginning Cash Balance(January 1st $1,012,459 $764,557 $436,845 $430,845 $428,845 $428,845 $428,845 Real Estate Tax 1/4% $900,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 Donations (Milltown, unsecured) Interest Earnings Transfer in from General Fund $12,000 Total Revenues $1,924,459 $1,514,557 $1,186,845 $1,180,845 $1,178,845 $1,178,845 $1,178,845 Total Revenue $1,924,459 $1,514,5571 $1,186,845 $1,180,845 $1,178,845 $1,178,845 $1,178,845 Total Project & Transfers ($1,159,902) ($1,077,712 ($756,000) ($752,000) ($750,000) ($750,000) ($750,000 Ending Cash Balance $764,557 1 $436,8451 $430,8451 $428,845 $428,8451 $428,8451 $428,845 'Projects in all categories may be eligible for 1% for art with the exception of planning projects. PROJECT NAME: Anderson Center ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $185,000 Field/Court/Stage 700 Main Street, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 2.3 acres; zoned public neighborhood park/openspace field PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrades to youth sports field, picnic and playground amenities and children's play equipment. Replacement and renovation of amphitheater in 2016 with improved courtyard area and drainage. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: As a neighborhood park, the Frances Anderson Center serves the community with various sports, playground and field activities including various special events. Upgrade and additions essential to meet demand for use. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $0 $30,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $30,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 323 of 488 24 PROJECT NAME: Brackett's Landing ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $125,000 Improvements South: Main Main Street and Railroad Avenue south of Edmonds Ferry Terminal on Puget Sound North: 2.7 acres with tidelands and adjacent to Department of Natural Resources public tidelands with Underwater Park South: 2.0 acres with tidelands south of ferry terminal. Regional park/Zoned commercial waterfront. Protected as public park through Deed -of -Right; partnership funding IAC/WWRC/LWCF /DNR-ALEA & Snohomish Conservation Futures PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Landscape beautification, irrigation, furnishings/bench maintenance, exterior painting, repairs, jetty improvements/repair, north cove sand, habitat improvement, fences, interpretive signs, structure repairs, sidewalk improvements, restroom repairs. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of infrastructure for major waterfront park, regional park that serves as the gateway to Edmonds from the Kitsap Peninsula. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $95,000 $5,000 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 1 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $95,000 $5,000 $5,000 all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 324 of 488 25 PROJECT NAME: City Park Revitalization ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,400,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revitalize City Park play area with new play equipment and addition of a spray park amenity to be used in the summer. Spray parks have become very popular in many communities as replacements for wading pools that are no longer acceptable to increased health department regulations. These installations create no standing water and therefore require little maintenance and no lifeguard costs. Staff will seek voluntary donations for construction costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project combines two play areas and the completion of the master plan from 1992. This is very competitive for State grant funding, as it will be using a repurposing water system. This will be a much valued revitalization and addition to the City's oldest and most cherished park. SCHEDULE: 2013 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $500,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $500,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the arts Packet Page 325 of 488 26 PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Complex ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $125,000 Improvements 6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Park Development Bleacher/stadium repairs, infield mix, baseball/softball turf repair, retaining wall, fence and play structure replacement, skate park and facility amenities, tennis and sports courts repair and resurfacing, irrigation. Regrade and improve track. Upgrade portable restrooms. Landscape and site furnishing improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for Civic Center Field. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $15,000 $10,000 $75,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $15,000 $10,000 $75,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 326 of 488 27 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Sunset Avenue ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $900,000 Overlook Trail PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop a 2,000 foot trail with expansive views of the Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. The trail will connect the downtown business district, surrounding neighborhoods, water access points, and the existing parks and trails system. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This new trail would be ADA accessible and able to accommodate walkers, joggers, bicyclists, picnickers, or those there to enjoy the view. This trail has been a priority for the City of Edmonds for several years. It is included in 5 different City plans, the Transportation Improvement Plan, Non -Motorized Section; the Parks Recreation and Open Plan; the City comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan; the Capital Improvement Plan; and the Shoreline Master Program. Specifically, the Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan identified Sunset Avenue Overlook priorities, namely improved connectivity and multi -modal access, complete the bicycle and pedestrian route system, identify scenic routes and view areas, and landscape improvements. SCHEDULE: COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $200,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $200,000 Packet Page 327 of 488 28 PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms ESTIMATED COST: $70,000 LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fishing pier parking lot landscape improvements. Re -tile and renovate restroom facilities. Electrical upgrade, rail and shelter replacements / renovations. Work with WDFW on structural repairs of concrete spalling on pier subsurface. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $2,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $2,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 328 of 488 29 PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,355,000 Complex at the Former Woodway High School PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained facility with great potential as community multi -use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & $155,000 Administration Construction $500,000 $100,000 $300,000 $350,000 $500,000 $450,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $155,000 $500,000 $100,000 $300,000 $350,000 $500,000 $450,000 all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 329 of 488 30 PROJECT NAME: Haines Wharf Park & ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $178,000 Walkway PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Maintain neighborhood park. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the neighborhood park system. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $8,402 Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $8,402 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 330 of 488 31 PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park ESTIMATED COST: $20,000 Improvements co r — ' PUG `' �, 0pm9 oo 4 r UW oI W J cqI v 00 3 _ I J ♦ n J cv kryv} I W 1962 +n J' n ry .�OIET L9702 97a� NLAN a WAY I 19714r = # �`` 197.LJ C0198gi187: 1972� 0 19804 i98051 •,� 1973CD CM 188ii 19 1 a N -9r 817 1983P 19FP C' � �J i 19 AiSifJ■ _ifYM1� 89t" Place West and 197t" Street SW, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 12.7 acres (10.7 acres Open Space & 2 acres Neighborhood Park) Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the picnic, roadway, parking, play area and natural trail system to Maplewood Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the neighborhood park system. SCHEDULE: 2013, 2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $5,000 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 331 of 488 32 PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park ESTIMATED COST: $135,000 Improvements South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 4.5 acres / Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront, marina beach south purchased with federal transportation funds. WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; Protected through Deed -of -Right RCW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand parking area. Portable restroom upgrades. Repair and improvements to off -leash area. Replace play structure and install interpretive sign. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 332 of 488 33 PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $130,000 78th Place W. & 241 ". St. at Edmonds City Limits. 1.5 acres/Neighborhood Park/Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install path from Interurban Trail spur terminal to parking lot. Replace play structure and improve picnic area. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset in the neighborhood park system. SCHEDULE: 2013 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $100,000 $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $100,000 $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 333 of 488 34 PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Clubhouse ESTIMATED COST: $90,000 Grounds 6801 N. Meadowdale Road, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 1.3 acres / Neighborhood Park / Zoned RS20 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the parking area, wooded area, trail system and landscaping of exterior clubhouse at Meadowdale Clubhouse site. Replace playground. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset with installation that provides community use of the facility and north Edmonds programming for day care, recreation classes and preschool activities. SCHEDULE: 2013 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $5,000 $75,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000 $75,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 . all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 334 of 488 35 PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000 Improvements ry 204TH Sr Sw m co 20405 2 = 2oa27 J � 2 501 — r 2tl50tl1 2W29 JJ 2 1 24? _ 20501 2F603 20 J 4 :' .j a J053i 20 07 I 206 = J � ztl 1 s 2OW 90 m 8 521 207TH ST SW US A24 n rTI 22tl0m42J1 !�J t20 RC PL Si 204TH ST SW 4 421 N€ E 22320d31 8._2ri- 0='I 2DJ23 - 81 2Q43U an129 205�i6 cc 205TH ST J W J .2 2 3 y 'A 205�F > ,d 20 2 2�5 rl 205111 2GJ�11.� 2ar. 0) 2o17%2c r 2nr } ?-205 2Q6-A24 .J — 2060— J � zasa 2 ffl 8 20808 20Btl� W 7,Q617 m"'I 2061� 2D�15 2tl d 2�625 .J 20622) 3 2}23 2D63� 21631 2� 20C* < 206�9 20 J- a U7tl1 Z2 11 207 j 20tt03 2tl F V) J q+4 "C � r 20713 1 071A U 2Q7dq 2tl J �. N 2Jtl 08TTH ST SW 8.3 �8r s� o � i➢ j 2085 �4 03 0 11A . PL SW I 1 $314 7 20U3 �nain 7 81321 81121 204 20811 20' 83rd Avenue West and 204" St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County 22 acres (20 acres zoned openspace/2 acres neighborhood park) Zoned Public; Adopted Master Plan PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Forest improvements, habitat improvements, tree planting, wildlife habitat attractions, trail improvements, signs, parking. Natural trail links under Main Street connecting to Yost Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of natural open space habitat site and regional trail connections. SCHEDULE: 2015 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 New additions meet the 1 % for the Arts Ordinance requirements Packet Page 335 of 488 36 PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park ESTIMATED COST: $35,000 Improvements 801h Street West and 1861h Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public; Purchased and developed with LWCF funds through IAC; protected with Deed - Of -Right PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annual repair and upgrade to facilities and fields. Re -surface tennis courts, pathway improvements, and play area maintenance. Renovate restrooms. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children's play area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, restroom facilities, basketball court, parking and tennis courts. SCHEDULE: 2013 - 2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $0 $10,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $10,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $10,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $10,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 336 of 488 37 PROJECT NAME: Sierra Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $110,000 P,. LACE LEA F JAPAN ESE -MAPLE (Acsr pafmalum dh,t um) Th*d-Fdunus shrsibar 4—is metre co Japan and K—a, 1, t. ulwdly many alemmed and fa liie moss eL- and dell,,,, I ■II maples. Its 1-- ar, x to a Inc hc�s in Icns sh nrr fl nrly cul threadlIke wel tam. 11caI color. aric. by s'-WTe hul the mote cgrn-1 colors are hr{Rhl Rrccn and "d- 'I'hne .r,n have a'inoum form with weep1hg branch-, The.' can he Rrc,wn is cubs and sire card lens r r hnmxl. .7 IF t 80th Street West and 191th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improve pathways and interpretive braille signs. Field renovation to include field drainage for turf repair. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children's play area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, portable restroom facilities, basketball hoops, parking and Braille interpretive trail for the blind. SCHEDULE: 2014-2015 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Stud Eng. & Admin. Construction $40,000 $70,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $40,000 $70,000 'all or part of tmis Project may quality for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 337 of 488 38 PROJECT NAME: Yost Park/Pool ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $625,000 Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pool replastering, tile work, and annual anticipated and unanticipated repairs. Add in -pool play amenities. Park site improvements and repairs to trails and bridges, picnicking facilities, landscaping, parking, tennis/pickleball courts and erosion control. ADA improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Beautiful natural area serves as upland area for environmental education programs as well as enjoyable setting for seasonal Yost Pool users. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $100,000 $25,000 $20,000 $120,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $120,000 1 $120,000 1 $120,000 $100,000 $25,000 $20,000 $120,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 338 of 488 39 PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $216,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include library, Senior Center, outdoor plaza, city park, corner parks, irrigation, planting, mulch, FAC Center, vegetation, tree plantings, streetscape/gateways/street tree planting, flower basket poles. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve beautification citywide and provide comprehensive adopted plan for beautification and trees. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $29,000 $30,000 $21,000 $22,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $29,000 $30,000 $21,000 $22,000 Not Eligible Packet Page 339 of 488 40 PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Paving ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: improvements citywide. Includes miscellaneous small paving and park walkway PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Capital improvement needs citywide in park system. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Stud Engineering & Administration Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 1 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 * all or a portion of these projects may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 340 of 488 41 PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $335,000 Improvements / Misc Small Projects PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Citywide park facility and public landscaping improvements including signage, interpretive signs, buoys, tables, benches, trash containers, drinking fountains, backstops, bike racks, lighting, small landscaping projects, play areas and equipment. Landscape improvements at beautification areas and corner parks, public gateway entrances into the city and 4t" Avenue Corridor from Main St. to the Edmonds Center for the Arts, SR 104, street tree and streetscape improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for citywide park facilities and streetscape improvements in public areas. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering / Administration Construction $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 Packet Page 341 of 488 42 PROJECT NAME: Sports Field Upgrade / ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $75,000 Playground Partnerships PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with local schools, organizations, or neighboring jurisdictions to upgrade additional youth ball field or play facilities or playgrounds to create neighborhood park facilities at non -City facilities. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Annual partnerships with matching funds to create additional facilities. SCHEDULE: 2013 — 2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Engineering & Administration Construction $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 Packet Page 342 of 488 43 PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Center ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 — at Yost Park $23,000,000 r PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the current pool. SCHEDULE: COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL " all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 343 of 488 44 PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Unpaved ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 42,712 Trail/Bike Path/Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete portions of designated trail through public parks to meet the goals of the Bicycle Plan and Pathway Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Walking and connections was listed as a high priority in the comprehensive Park Plan from public survey data. Creating trails, paths and bike links is essential to meet the need for the community. Provides for the implementation of the citywide bicycle path improvements and the elements and goals of the citywide walkway plan. Linked funding with engineering funding. SCHEDULE: 2012-2018 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2018 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $10,000 $2,712 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $10,000 $2,712 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 * all or part of these projects may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 344 of 488 45 PROJECT NAME: Cultural Arts Facility ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000 Needs Study J PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Initiate feasibility study of providing and promoting Cultural / Arts facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008 update process. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority creates the need to study performance, management and long term potential for arts related facilities. SCHEDULE: COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL Not Eligible " all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 345 of 488 46 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Hatchery ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $305,000 Improvements South of Dayton Street and Harbor Square, east of BSNF railroad, west of SR 104, north of UNOCAL 23.2 acres; Natural Open Space / Zoned Open Space PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to support day -lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Hatchery repairs as needed. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co -fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available through various agencies and foundations. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2018 Planning/Study $25,000 Engin. & Admin. Construction $75,000 $35,000 $65,000 $75,000 $10,000 $20,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $25,000 $75,000 $35,000 $65,000 $75,000 $10,000 $20,000 Packet Page 346 of 488 47 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Cemetery ESTIMATED COST: 100,000 Mapping PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Memorial Cemetery was deeded to the City in 1982. The City has been operating the cemetery with no markings, rows, aisles, or surveyed mapping. It is essential that the City survey/map/and mark the cemetery so as to effectively manage the plots. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Operations of a public cemetery, with effective and accurate stewardship. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study 100,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL 100,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 347 of 488 48 PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park Forest ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000 Management Study PROJECT DESCRIPTION: practices in Pine Ridge Park. Hire consultant to develop a plan for best forest management PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This forest park is under stress from over -mature trees especially alder and others. This study will give the Parks Division necessary guidance to better manage this park to become a more healthy forest and open space. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study $50,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $50,000 Packet Page 348 of 488 49 Capital Improvements Program Fiind 126 - Parka Arnuiaitinn ProiPrta for 2014-2019 PROJECT NAME CFP Estimate 2014 2015 8 2019 (20Total 9) Debt Service on City Hall $312,488 $310,900 $310,900 Debt Service Marina Bch/Libra Roof $182,538 $181,673 $180,553 $184,178 $182,293 $185,153 $913,850 Debt Service on PSCC Purchase $71,768 $70,228 $68,608 $66,948 $70,248 $68,290 $344,322 Dept Service on FAC Seismic retrofit $29,624 $29,7631 $29,8741 $29,957 $29,621 $29,640 $148,855 Total Debt $596,418 $592,564 $279,035 $281,083 $282,162 $283,083 $0 $1,717,927 Misc. Open Space/Land I I I 1 $300,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,500,000 Waterfront / Tidelands Acquisition Transfer to 132 $200,000 1 $200,0001 $200,0001 $200,0001 $200,0001 $200,0001 $1,000,000 Total Project $200,000 $200,000 $500,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $0 $2,500,000 Revenues and Cash Balances 2013-2019 2013 Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 IF 2018 2019 Beginning Cash Balance(January 1st $100,000 $300,000 $500,000 $820,965 $842,882 $863,720 $880,637 Real estate Tax 1/4%/1st Qtr % $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 Interest Earnings $3,000 $3,000 Total Revenues $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,723,965 $1,745,882 $1,763,720 $1,780,637 01 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 CD Grants 2012-2019 Estimate Grants/ Loans Sought (not Secured Local/State/Federal $0 Private Donations Misc Open Space) $0 1 $200,000 Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $0 $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 General Fund Subsidy $96,418 $92,564 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenue & Grants & Subsidy $1,096,418 $1,292,564 $1,600,000 $1,723,965 $1,745,882 $1,763,720 $1,780,637 Total Debt $596,418 $592,564 $279,035 $281,083 $282,162 $283,083 $0 Total Project ($200,000) ($200,000) ($500,000) ($600,000) ($600,000) ($600,000) $0 Ending Cash Balance $300,000 $500,000 $820,965 $842,882 $863,720 $880,637 $1,780,637 PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,146,126 Capital Projects and Acquisitions 41 0 1r M 1 x 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on: City Hall: $417,000 (2010-2012), $312,000 (2013-2014), debt retired end of 2014 Marina Beach / Library Roof: $182,428 PSCC (Edmonds Center for the Arts): $69,185 Anderson Center Seismic Retrofit: $29,777 PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Stud Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $596,418 $592,564 $279,035 $281,083 $282,162 $283,083 $0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 350 of 488 51 PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Open ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,500,000 Space/Land PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of properties when feasible that will benefit citizens that fit the definitions and needs identified in the Parks Comprehensive Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Fulfills needs of citizens for parks, recreation and open space. SCHEDULE: 2013 — 2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $0 $300,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $0 Packet Page 351 of 488 52 PROJECT NAME: Waterfront/Tidelands ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,700,000 Acquisition PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire waterfront parcels and tidelands wherever feasible to secure access to Puget Sound for public use as indentified in the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public ownership of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $0 Packet Page 352 of 488 53 0 CV C N v CD m w Cl) 0 A 00 00 Cal -01 Capital Improvements Program P-rl 139 - Parkc Cnnctrurtinn Prniorts fnr 9Rld-9n1Q PROJECT NAME CFP 2013 Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total (2014-2019) 4th Ave Corridor Enhancement $200,000 $1,150,000 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $5,675,000 Cultural Heritage Tour and Way -Finding Signage $43,000 $4,000 $4,000 Dayton Street Plaza $168,000 $0 Interurban Trail Improvements $19,801 $0 Senior Center Parkin Lot / Drainage $0 City Park Revitalization $600,000 $735,000 $735,000 Former Woodway HS Improvements $655,000 $655,000 Waterfront Acquisition, demo, rehab $900,000 $900,000 Public Market Downtown Waterfront $5,000,000 $5,000,000 Total Projects $830,801 $2,494,000 $1,150,000 $1,425,000 $7,900,000 $0 $0 $12,969,000 Revenues and Cash Balances 2013-2019 2013 Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Beginning Cash Balance(January 1st $309,213 $1,334,412 $282,912 $282,912 $282,912 $282,912 $282,912 Beginning Cash Balance Milltown Beginning Cash Balance Cultural Heritage Tour $11,500 $2,500 Transfer in from Fund 117-200 for Cultural Heritage Tour $5,000 Transfer in from Fund 120 for Cultural Heritage Tour Transfer in from Fund 125 for Cultural Heritage Tour Transfer in from Fund 127-200 for Cultural Heritage Tour $1,500 $2,500 Transfer in from Fund 120 for Way -Finding Si na a Grant Match $10,000 Transfer in from Fund 125 for 4th Ave Corridor Enhancement Transfer in from Fund 125 for Dayton St. Plaza $135,500 Transfer in from Fund 125 for City Park Revitalization $500,000 Transfer in from Fund 125 for Former Woodway HS Improvements $155,0001 $500,000 Transfer in from Fund 125 for Senior Center Parkin Lot Transfer in from Fund 126 for Waterfront Acquisition $200,000 1 $200,000 Transfer to Fund 125 for Old Milltown ending balance Total Revenues $1,327,713 $2,039,412 $282,912 $282,912 $282,912 $282,912 $282,912 Grants 2013-2019 2013 Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 rranr�r I „any rcor„ro.lf 4th Ave / Cultural Heritage Tour (Preserve America/National Park Service) $11,500 $2,500 Dayton Street Plaza Arts Fest. Found./Hubbard Trust/Ed in Bloom Interurban Trail Federal CMAQ) Interurban Trail State RCO City Park Spray Park (donations) $215,000 $135,000 RCO State grant / City Park Revitalization $100,000 $400,000 Snohomish County Tourism for Way-Finding$11,000 Conservation Futures/Waterfront Acquisition $500,000 Old Milltown: FGC and EIB, HMF, donations Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $837,500 $537,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 G-M.11 n e cn,v. hf i-# ScrurcAl 4th Ave Corridor Enhancement state, federal, other $200,0001 $1,150,0001 $1,425,0001 $2,900,000 Senior Center Parkin Lot/Drainage DOE, CDBG Public Market Downtown Waterfront $5,000,000 Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought (not secured) $0 $200,000 $1,150,000 $1,425,000 $7,900,000 $0 $0 Grants Subtotal $837,500 $737,500 $1,150,000 $1,425,000 $7,900,000 $0 $0 Total Revenues & Cash Balances & Grants $2,165,213 $2,776,9121 $1,432,912 $1,707,912 $8,182,912 $282,912 $282,912 Total Construction Projects 830,801.00 $2,494,000) (1,150'000.00) (1,425,000.00) ($7,900,000) 0 $0 EndingCash Balance $1,334,412 $282,912 $282,9121 $282,9121 $282,9121 $282,9121 $282,912 *Projects may be partially eligible for 1 % for Art PROJECT NAME: 4" Avenue ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,675,000 Corridor Enhancement PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin 4 th Avenue site development with temporary and/or moveable surface elements and amenities to begin drawing attention and interest to the corridor and create stronger visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Possible projects may include surface art, interpretive signage and wayfinding, or low level lighting. The Cultural Heritage Walking Tour project, funded in part with a matching grant from the National Park Service Preserve America grant program, will be implemented in 2011-12. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Timing for 30% design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the total project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $200,000 $1,150,000 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $200,000 1 $1,150,000 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $0 $0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 354 of 488 55 PROJECT NAME: Cultural Heritage Tour and ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $74,500 Way -Finding Signage EDMONDS DOWNTOWN CULTURAL HERITAGE TOUR (Proposed sites) E 2 Y � A Y E _ 0 SAMue St 6 - E• 0 0 �•nk A•II �[ 0 0 A'S ® R1 i, t. W I� 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create a downtown Edmonds walking tour highlighting a dozen historic sites with artist made interpretive markers, and add way -finding signage for the downtown area. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Promote tourism and economic development in the core downtown. The walking tour and interpretive signage focuses on local history and as unique artist made pieces also reflect the arts orientation of the community. Improved way -finding signage which points out major attractions and services/amenities such as theaters, museums, beaches, train station, shopping, dining and lodging promotes both tourism and economic vitality in the downtown /waterfront activity center. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study $43,000 $4,000 Engineering & Administration Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $43,000 $4,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 355 of 488 56 PROJECT NAME: Dayton Street Plaza ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $168,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Renovate small park and plaza at north end of old public works building, 2nd & Dayton Street. Improve landscaping, plaza, and accessibility. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to public gathering space and creation of additional art amenities and streetscape improvements in downtown on main walking route. Financial support from Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation, Hubbard Foundation and Edmonds in Bloom. SCHEDULE: 2013 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $168,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $168,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 356 of 488 57 PROJECT NAME: Interurban Trail ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,933,000 Improvements Matching Grant Funds WWRC/ IAC, additional funding from PSRC / CMAQ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Trail Improvements Major construction improvements to this abandoned interurban railway link including 1.37 miles of trail, upgraded shared roadway, trail spur to Mathay Ballinger Park, and the creation of Ballinger Station to house a shelter, kiosk, historical interpretation, water fountain and solar bollards. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Final trail system missing link to connect already completed sections in Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace through the Ballinger neighborhood of Edmonds. Increased safety and public enjoyment for recreational ists and bicycle commuters. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $19,801 1 % for Art TOTAL 1 $19,801 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 357 of 488 58 PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Parking ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $500,000 Lot/Drainage PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rehabilitate South County Senior Center parking lot including pavement re -surfacing, storm water/drainage management, effective illumination and landscaping. Seek grant opportunities and partnership opportunities. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain capital assets and provide safety and better accessibility for Seniors. SCHEDULE: COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL x all or part of this Project may quality for 7% for the Arts Packet Page 358 of 488 59 PROJECT NAME: City Park Revitalization ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,335,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revitalize City Park play area with new play equipment and addition of a spray park amenity to be used in the summer. Spray parks have become very popular in many communities as replacements for wading pools that are no longer acceptable to increased health department regulations. These installations create no standing water and therefore require little maintenance and no lifeguard costs. Staff will seek voluntary donations for construction costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project combines two play areas and the completion of the master plan from 1992. This is very competitive for State grant funding, as it will be using a repurposing water system. This will be a much valued revitalization and addition to the City's oldest and most cherished park. SCHEDULE: 2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $600,000 $735,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $600,000 $735,000 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the arts Packet Page 359 of 488 60 PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,355,000 Complex at the Former Woodway High School --------------- I FORMER wOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS PRE PAmTOO THEE MOP!❑S SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY 7017 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained facility with great potential as community multi -use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering & $155,000 Administration Construction $500,000 $100,000 $300,000 $350,000 $500,000 $450,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $155,000 $500,000 $100,000 $300,000 $350,000 $500,000 $450,000 all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 360 of 488 61 PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Acquisition, ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $900,000 demolition, rehabilitation of land PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire waterfront parcel, demolish existing structure, and restore beachfront to its natural state. This has been a priority in the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public ownership of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound, restoration of natural habitat. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL 900,000 Packet Page 361 of 488 62 PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 Waterfront) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to establish a public market, year around, on the downtown waterfront area. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The project will help to create a community gathering area, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a valuable asset to Edmonds. SCHEDULE: This project depends on the ability to secure grant funding, and community partners willing to work with the city to establish this. This potentially can be accomplished by 2017. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $5m * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 362 of 488 63 AM-6089 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 09/10/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Bertrand Hauss Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Tyne: Action Information 9. C. Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #4 with David Evans & Associates for the 76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements project. Recommendation Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the September 17, 2013 City Council meeting. Previous Council Action On August 14, 2012, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #2 with David Evans & Associates for the 76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvement project. Narrative 76th Avenue W @ 212th St. SW is one of the busiest signalized intersections in the City and is served by two federally classified minor arterial streets. The intersection experiences long queues during peak commute and school hours due to the limited capacity of the intersection. Both approaches of 76th Avenue have two shared lanes (w/ no dedicated left turn lane) and the left turn volumes are very high, and are timed independently by split phasing signal timing. The proposed improvement will provide dedicated left turn lanes on 76th Avenue and concurrent turning movements during the protected left turn phase. This project will increase the capacity and improve intersection signal operation, traffic flow, vehicle delay, and air quality by reducing vehicle emissions. The supplement adds the following design tasks: • Stormwater facilities with the addition of flow control and water quality system (based on recommendation from the Stormwater Evaluation Report); • Sanitary sewer line: the existing 8-inch diameter pipeline on 76th Ave. W is in poor condition and needs replacement; • Waterline: the existing 8-inch diameter watermain on 76th Ave. W will be replaced with a 12-inch diameter watermain, to increase capacity; and • Completion of right of way acquisition phase: right of way is needed from seven parcels along the project limits. The sub -consultant (Universal Field Services) is providing right-of-way acquisition assistance for this project. The scope of work will consist of completing exhibits, legal descriptions, survey staking, appraisal / appraisal review, negotiations with property owners, parcel closeout, and right-of-way certification. A federal grant (through Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program) for $940,397 was secured to begin the design and right of way (ROW) phases. The grant requires a local match of 13.5% ($146,700) and this amount is funded by the Street Fund 112. The design fee for Supplement 44 is $146,179 and will be funded by different City Funds (Fund 112 and Utility funds) and the CMAQ grant. The supplement also restores the $22,000 management reserve that was used in Supplement No. 3 to pay for a storm drainage report and right of way project funding estimate. The utility improvements (water, stormwater, and sewer) incorporated into this supplement are funded by the respective utility funds (Fund 421, 422, and 423). The design and ROW phases are scheduled for completion in 2015. No funding source is currently secured for the construction phase, but the completion of the design and right of way phases will help the project score well on future grant applications for construction funding. Packet Page 363 of 488 David Evans & Associates Supplement 4 - Scope & Fee 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: 09/05/2013 Attachments Form Review Date 09/05/2013 01:30 PM 09/05/2013 01:55 PM 09/05/2013 02:15 PM 09/05/2013 02:32 PM 09/05/2013 02:52 PM Started On: 09/05/2013 09:45 AM Packet Page 364 of 488 DRAFT E�ibit A-1 76"' Avenue W and 212"' Street SW Intersection Improvements Project SCOPE OF SERVICES RVICES Supplement No. A. Prepared for: CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Prepared by: DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, RNCo 415 - 118th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98005-3518 (425) 519-6500 August 16, 2013 Packet Page 365 of 488 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION9.0 PS&E DESIGN................................................................................................ 1 SECTION 10.0 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION SUPPORT SERVICES ................................. 1 10.1 Right -of -Way Plan I Parcel Exhibits 1 Legal Descriptions 1 Survey Staking....................1 10.1.1 Right -of -Way Plan......................................................................................................... 1 10.1.2 Parcel Exhibits..........................................................................................I....................1 10.1.3 Legal Descriptions......................................................................................................... 2 10.1.4 Survey Staking................................................................................................................ 2 10.2 RAW Subconsultant Management.................................................................................2 10.2.1 RIW Subconsultant Management and Administration................................................... 2 10.2.2 Design Support for R1W Acquisition Services................................................................ 2 10.2.3 Quality Assurance /Quality Control............................................................................. 2 SECTION12.0 WATERLINE DESIGN...................................................................................... 3 12.1 Waterline Design (90% Completion).............................................................................3 12.2 Waterline Design (100% Completion)...........................................................................4 12.3 Waterline Design (Ad Ready Documents).....................................................................4 12.4 Assistance During Bid Period.......................................................................................4 P.lc%COEOOOOOOOO41000000N16030ContracllSupptement 41Cxhihit A-1 oEA Scope 76th 2121h 2013-08-16.docx City of Edmonds i Scope of Services, Supp. No. 4 76'h Ave. W and 212"' St. SW Project August 16, 2013 Packet Page 366 of 488 City of Edmonds 76t" Avenue W and 212t" Street SW Intersection Improvements Projec'i SCOPE OF SERVICES Supplement No. 4 Section 9.0 PS&E Design The CONSULTANT shall prepare the Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) documents to include plans, profiles, and details of a stormwater detention (flow control) and water quality system situated at the southwest quadrant of the intersection consistent with the findings and recommendations outlined in the Stormwater Evaluation Report. The stormwater detention (flow control) and water quality facilities will be incorporated into the 90% and 100% submittals defined in Supplement No. 2. A replacement for an existing 8-inch diameter sanita►y sewer along 766' Avenue West, within the project limits, shall be incorporated into the 90% and 100% submittals as defined in Supplement No. 2. The location of the failing pipe to be replaced is approximately between Station 123+00 and Station 132+10. Section 10.0Right-of-Way Acquisition Support Services 10.1 Right -of -Way Plan/ Parcel Exhibits 1 Legal Descriptions I Survey Staking 10.1.1 Right -of -Way Plan The CONSULTANT shall prepare right-of-way plans for the preferred improvements, research existing survey records and obtain records of surveys and legal descriptions for the properties affected by the project, and obtain title reports for all affected properties. The CONSULTANT shall develop right-of-way plans. The base information on the plans shall include surveyed topographic base mapping, property lines, right-of-way lines, and easements, names of property owners, parcel areas, sections, townships, ranges, and survey control information. The CONSULTANT shall establish the required right-of-way for the project based on the preliminary design. The new right- of-way together with areas of acquisition for each parcel shall be shown on the right-of-way plans along with permanent and temporary construction easements (TCE). The plans shall be developed in accordance with the WSDOT LAG manual. 103.2 Parcel Exhibits The CONSULTANT shall prepare parcel exhibits for each affected individual parcel. It is estimated that parcel exhibits are required for seven (7) total parcels, of which seven (7) will require both right-of-way acquisition exhibits and TCE exhibits. P:1cICOEDD0000004U100000M0030ConfractlSupplement4kExhibitA-1 DEAScope 761h 2121h 2013-08-16.d= City of Edmonds 1 Scope of Services, Supp. No. 4 76"' Ave. W and 212`!' St. SW Project August 16, 2013 Packet Page 367 of 488 10.1.3 Legal Descriptions The CONSULTANT shall provide descriptions of the fee simple acquisitions, permanent easement acquisitions, or TCE areas. The CONSULTANT will include area calculations and rights -of -way dimensions with the parcel descriptions. It is estimated that legal descriptions are required for seven (7) total parcels. IAL4 Survey Staking The CONSULTANT shall provide staking of the existing right-of-way and of the acquisition area for appraisal and negotiating purposes on the seven (7) private parcels affected by the project. Permanent monuments can be set upon request. The hours for setting permanent monuments are not included in this Scope of Services. Hours estimated are based upon the assumption that a minimum of seven (7) parcels can and will be staked during any given visit to the project site. The CONSULTANT shall engage a qualified subconsultant - Universal Field Services (UFS) to provide Right-of-way acquisition assistance to for the project. Work to acquire real property shall be performed in accordance with the State and Federal Right -of -Way Procedures and Policy and in accordance with the state Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition (Ch. 8.26 RCW) and State Regulations (Ch. 468-100 WAC) Washington Administrative Code and applicable federal regulations. It is assumed the following level of effort will be required: • Seven (7) Partial Acquisitions with needed Temporary Construction Easements (TCE) 10.2 R/W Subconsultant Management 10.Z1 R/WSubcousultatitManagementandAdniinistiation The CONSULTANT shall manage and coordinate the work of UFS consistent with an executed subconsultant agreement and associated scope of work as attached to and made part of this scope of services as identified in Exhibit A-1.2 (dated 8-12-13). 10.2.2 Design Sul)port for R/WAcquisitioii Services The CONSULTANT shall provide design support to the subconsultant UFS during the period it is providing right-of-way acquisition services. It is anticipated that discussions with the affected parcel owners will require specific exhibits and that as part of the negotiations, there will be specific requests for design modifications to be incorporated into the PROJECT. 10.2.3 Quality Assurance /Quality Control The subconsultant UFS shall be responsible for its own QA/QC review of deliverables by a designated QA/QC staff member of the subconsultant team. The review will cover documents, exhibits, and other pertinent information on an ongoing basis. The program entails the periodic review of work products, design, and assumptions, as well as concepts and presentation of product format; and assures that the overall project objectives are being fulfilled. P:1c1COFIT000000041000000N0030ContracllSupplement41EMjb#A-i OEAScope 76lh 212th 2013-08-16docx City of Edmonds 2 Scope of Services, Supp. No. 4 761h Ave. W and 212`I' St. SW Project August 16, 2013 Packet Page 368 of 488 Section 12.0 Waterline Design 12.1 Waterline Design (90% Completion) The CONSULTANT shall prepare 90% plans, specifications, quantities, and cost estimate (PS&E) bid documents to replace an existing water main that lies directly over an existing failing sanitary sewer line. Replacement of the sanitary sewer line (as described in Section 9.0) will require replacement and relocation Laterally of the existing water main as well as reconnection to existing services. The approximate length of the replacement is approximately 1,000 feet (760' Station 132+75 to Station 122+75). The water main replacement will require reconnection to the approximately 9 commercial parcels, 3 residential parcels, and one high school (Edmonds-Woodway HS) that are currently served by to the existing line to be replaced. The City will provide direction for the size and type of the proposed waterline. Two hydrants are anticipated to be replaced and relocated, and one hydrant is anticipated to be reconnected. Deliverable: • 90% Design Plan Completion Level: 5 copies of half-size set (I I"x17"); 3 copies of full-size set (22"x34"); 1 electronic PDF copy and AutoCAD file. • 90% Design Contract Documents: 2 hard copies and 1 electronic PDF version. • WSDOT PS&E Checklist. • Sole Source Justification Memorandum — 1 electronic PDF version Meetings: • One (1) 90% Design Review Meeting. Assumptions: • Final design will be incorporated into the 76"' and 212"' Intersection Improvement Project plans, specifications, and estimate. • Separate plan sheets will be prepared for the waterline replacement. Plan sheets will include plan/profile and details. • Pavement replacement details will be prepared for these improvements. The quantities will be included in either the roadway bid schedule or a separate schedule. The specifications, quantities, and estimate will follow the format for the 76'n' and 212`h Intersection Improvement Project (WSDOT format). Applicable City of Edmond's water standard details will be added in the Appendix. • Non-standard details will be added to the plan set. Special provisions will be added to the specification package being prepared for the project. • Quantities for the waterline worse will be prepared and included in a separate schedule (Schedule B) in the bid proposal. It is assumed that no additional topographic survey or geotechnical investigations will be conducted by the CONSULTANT. Any pothole operations will be coordinated by the CONSULTANT, and performed through the services of the City. • All work will be within City -owned right-of-way or easements. • All permits required for the water main replacement will be obtained by the City of Edmonds. P'ICICOEDOD00D004WOODC01V10030CanlrecllSupplemenl 41Exhibif A DEA Scope_76fh 2121h 2013-08-16.dou City of Edmonds 3 Scope of Services, Supp. No. 4 76"' Ave. W and 212"' St. SW Project August 16, 2013 Packet Page 369 of 488 12.2 Waterline Design (100% Completion) The CONSULTANT shall prepare the following in accordance with the CITY's and WSDOT's 90% completion level review comments and coordination meeting, and in accordance with regulatory agency permit conditions: • Modifications and/or revisions in response to CITY review comments from the 90% design plan set and coordination meeting— 100% Completion submittal. • Modifications and/or revisions in response to CITY review comments from the 90% design specifications set and coordination meeting — 100% Completion submittal. • Modifications and/or revisions in response to CITY review comments from the 90% design cost estimate and coordination meeting— 100% Completion submittal. Deliverables: • 100% Design Plan Completion Level: 5 copies of half-size set (11 'x17); 5 copies of full-size set (22"x34"); 1 electronic PDF copy and AutoCAD file. • 100% Design Contract Documents: 2 hard copies and 1 electronic version. • 100% Design Cost Estimate: 2 bard copies and 1 electronic version. Meetings: • One (1) 100% Design Review Meeting. 12.3 Waterline Design (Ad Ready Documents) The CONSULTANT shall prepare the following in accordance with the CITY's and WSDOT's 100% completion level review comments and coordination meeting, and in accordance with regulatory agency permit conditions: • Modifications and/or revisions in response to CITY review comments from the 100% design plan set and coordination meeting --Ad Ready Documents. • Modifications and/or revisions in response to CITY review comments from the 100% design specifications set and coordination meeting — Ad Ready Documents. • Modifications and/or revisions in response to CITY review comments from the 100% design cost estimate and coordination meeting —Ad Ready Documents. The CONSULTANT will assemble all plan sheets, general and special provisions, cost estimates, and associated documentation for submittal as an Ad Ready PS&E package. Deliverables: • Ad Ready Documents: 5 copies of half-size set (11"x17"); 1 copies of full-size set (22"x34"); 1 electronic PDF copy and AutoCAD file. • Ad Ready Design Contract Documents: 1 hard copies and 1 electronic PDF and MS Word version. • Ad Ready Design Cost Estimate: 1 hard copies and I electronic PDF version. 12.4 Assistance During Bid Period The CONSULTANT shall: • Provide assistance during the ad period for construction bids answering bidder questions. P:4c1COEM00000041000000&WO30ConfracflSopplemeni 41&i ibil A-1 OEA Scope 76fh 2121h 2013-08-1S.d'ocx City of Edmonds 4 Scope of Services, Supp. No. 4 76`I' Ave. W and 212"' St. SW Project August 16, 2013 Packet Page 370 of 488 8-12-13 Scope of Work City of Edmonds 76`" Avenue W and 2121" Street SW Intersection Improvements Remaining Right of Way Acquisition Services Task Element - Right of Way Acquisition UXIEVER&AI, nc�n se�r.cca. i..u. Federal funds are participating in the project, particularly in the Right of Way Phase, therefore Universal Field Services, Inc. (UFS) will complete all Right of Way Acquisition Negotiation services in accordance with the City of Edmond's (CITY) Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT) approved Right of Way Acquisition Procedures, the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act (URA), WSDOT Local Agency Guidelines — Section 25 (Right of Way Procedures), and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC 468-100) state Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition regulations. The project primarily consists of business use properties. Based on preliminary schematic drawings and exhibits, it is assumed up to seven (7) separate tax parcels will require partial fee simple (strip) acquisitions, temporary construction easements, and driveway reconstruction permits. One of the impacted parcels is a commercial condominium. See Table A below. A Project Funding Estimate (PFE) has been completed by UFS under a separate scope of work. This scope of worl< provides for the completion of all remaining right of way activities including preparation of a Relocation Plan, Appraisals, Appraisal Reviews, Acquisition Negotiations, Relocation Assistance, and Right of Way Certification services This scope of worl< is based on the following: 1.) Recent tour of the project limits and input from DEA staff 2.) Review of limited public on-line information (mapping / ownership information) 3.) Review of schematic drawing and exhibits — Final Right of Way plans not available Sub -Task Work Elements: A. Preparation and Administration - Discuss, strategize and plan overall process with project team. Attend up to seven (7) progress meetings — CITY office. Progress meetings can be facilitated by conference calling if preferred. Provide up to seven (7) monthly progress reports indicating the work completed for the invoiced month, anticipated work for the following month, and identify issues requiring the CITY's input or assistance. UFS will provide sample acquisition documents for the CITY's review and approval for use. The CITY's pre -approved forms will be used when provided. Prepare parcel files to include: fair offer letters; recording and ancillary documents; a standard diary form indicating all contacts with owner(s); and other items necessary for negotiations. Deliverables: • Attend seven (7) Progress Meetings • Provide seven (7) Monthly Progress Reports • Coordinate with the CITY, approved Acquisition forms for project use • Prepare parcel acquisition files for negotiations B. Title/Ownership Review -- Obtain title reports from DEA and perform reviews of existing right of way and ownership information. Review special exceptions described in each title report to determine the CITY's acceptance of title at closing. Provide the CITY with a parcel summary memo listing ownerships, title exceptions, etc. One of the impacted parcels is a commercial condominium which may require additional work for clearing title of the real property rights being acquired. Deliverable: • Parcel summary memo completed under separate SOW. 1 of Packet Page 371 of 488 8-12-13 C. Public Outreach - Assist CITY in preparation of a boilerplate "Introduction Informational Letter" for delivery to all impacted property owners. The letter will describe the purpose of the project, the project schedule, identify the CITY's consultants (Engineering, Land Survey, Right of Way Acquisition/Appraisal) and the purpose of each. UFS to schedule and attend early "one on one" on -site meetings (one each) with owners of each of the seven (7) separate tax parcels to discuss the project design and obtain input from the property owner to help minimize and resolve parcel impacts. Project design team (DEA) to attend if needed. Deliverables: • Boilerplate "Introduction Letter" for delivery by CITY to all impacted property owners via regular U.S. Mail. UFS will assist with delivery if needed. • Schedule and attend up to one (1) early "one on one" on -site meeting with owners of each of the seven (7) separate tax parcels. D. Project Funding Estimate — An update of the completed PFE may be necessary in event of the following: a significant amount of time has elapsed upon completion of the PFE and submittal to WSDOT or authorization from FHWA (WSDOT Highways & Local Programs) to present offers; data in the PFE such as comparable sales become out dated and no longer represent market values; design revisions effecting acquisition areas, etc. PFE updates will require an amendment to this scope of work and related fee estimate. The PFE will be completed by the project Appraiser. Deliverables: • NIA - Completed under separate scope of work. E. Relocation Plan -- It is assumed there are no "displaced persons" (residential occupants, businesses or personal property) displaced as a result of this project. Therefore, a relocation plan per WSDOT & Federal guidelines is not required. Deliverable: • Not Applicable F. FHWA Funds Authorization for ROW — Shortly after the Right of Way Plans, the PFE, and Relocation Plan have been submitted to WSDOT and assuming NEPA clearance has been obtained, the CITY would typically receive a letter from FHWA through WSDOT Highways and Local Programs authorizing the use of federal funds to acquire Right of Way. This letter of authorization is required in order for the CITY to receive federal funding participation and reimbursement for costs incurred with Appraisal, Appraisal Review, Acquisition Negotiations, and Relocation Assistance services. Deliverable: • For informational purposes only (assume federal funds are in the Right of Way Phase). G. Appraisal & Appraisal Review — Upon the CITY's receipt of authorization from FHWA to use federal funds to acquire Right of Way, UFS will coordinate with the CITY to determine which parcels will require Appraisal and Appraisal Reviews. Universal will subcontract and manage the Appraisal and Appraisal Review process with appraisal firms previously qualified by WSDOT and certified by the State of Washington. It is intended the Appraiser that completed the PFE, as discussed in Task D above, will complete the Appraisal reports. The Appraisal reports will be prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Local Agency Guidelines, current WSDOT Right of Way Manual (in particular, Chapters 4 and 5), and the URA. Appraisal content and related expenses for specialty studies of hazardous materials (ESA Phase 1, 2, or 3), parking modification estimates, etc., are excluded. It is assumed properties to be appraised are clean of hazardous materials. Subject to completion of the PFE and CITY direction, it is assumed up to four (4) Appraisal and Appraisal Review reports may be required. Total number of Appraisals and Appraisal reviews is subject to change based on project design revisions, confirmation of larger parcels during the PFE process, complexity of each acquisition, estimated amounts 2 of 5 Packet Page 372 of 488 8-12-13 of just compensation determined in the PFE and at the request of property owners when administrative offers are presented. Note. For offers exceeding $10,000 and less than $25,000, property owners must be informed if the offer is not based on an Appraisal and that one will be prepared if requested. If the property owner elects, an appraisal report together with a corresponding appraisal review report must be completed and a revised offer considered. This requirement ma.y have an impact on the approved right of way bud gt and pro-ject schedule. UFS will prepare Administrative Offer Summary (AOS) worksheets for qualifying parcels, in lieu of Appraisals. Offers to property owners that are based on AOS worksheets are considered Administrative offers. Deliverables: • Four (4) Appraisal reports in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Local Agency Guidelines, current WSDOT Right of Way Manual (in particular, Chapters 4 and 5), and the URA. • Four (4) Appraisal Review reports in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Local Agency Guidelines, current WSDOT Right of Way Manual (in particular, Chapters 4 and 5), and the URA. • Three (3) Administrative Offer Summary (AOS) worksheet H. Acquisition Negotiation — Appraisals, Appraisal Reviews, and AOS worksheets completed in Sub - Tasks D & G above will be submitted to the CITY for written approval establishing the amount of Just Compensation to the property owner. Upon written approval from the CITY, UFS will prepare the offer package(s) and promptly present offers to purchase all the required real property interests and negotiate in good faith to reach a settlement with each property owner(s). Offers will be presented in person when at all possible. Acquire real property rights from up to seven (7) separate tax parcels as shown in Table A below. Additional parcels or real property rights other than those shown in Table A will require an amendment to this scope of work and related fee estimate. Negotiations will be conducted in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements and will include: Coordinate administrative settlement approvals with the CITY; Negotiate as necessary with lien holders, assisting escrow in the closing process; Prepare and maintain parcel files to include fair offer letters, acquisition documents; a standard diary form indicating all contacts with owner(s), and other items necessary for negotiations. Negotiations shall not be deemed to have failed until at least three significant meaningful contacts have been made and documented with each owner and/or their representative through direct personal contacts. Out -of -area owner(s) will be contacted by telephone and by certified mail. If negotiations reach an impasse, UFS will provide the CITY with written notification. The filing and cost of condemnation proceedings shall be the responsibility of the CITY. Deliverables: • Acquisition Negotiation services with owners of up to seven (7) separate tax parcels. • Completed parcel files including necessary records of all Right of Way Acquisition services. I. Relocation Assistance — It is assumed there are no "displaced persons" (residential occupants, businesses or personal property) displaced as a result of this project. Therefore, relocation assistance and advisory services per WSDOT & Federal guidelines is not required. Deliverable: • Not Applicable 3of5 Packet Page 373 of 488 8-12-13 J. Parcel Closeout -- Escrow Closing — As part of Task H above and upon securing required acquisition agreements, UFS will submit the necessary acquisition documents and closing instructions to the designated Title/Escrow Company. Work with the Title/Escrow Company in order to obtain release documentation from the encumbrance(s) of public record that are not acceptable to the CITY in order to provide clear title to the property being acquired, subject to the CITY's title clearing guidelines. The Escrow Company shall prepare and obtain the owner(s) signature on the necessary closing documents. UFS will coordinate signatures on closing documents for submittal to the CITY and payment(s) to the owner(s), coordinate with the Escrow/Title Company in filing documents with Snohomish County. Note: One of the impacted parcels is a commercial condominium which may require additional work for clearing title of the real property rights being acquired. The related fee estimate for this scope of work does not account for this additional effort. Review of the condominium declarations, CCR's (Covenant's Conditions & Restrictions) should reveal the level of effort required. Deliverable: e Deliver completed original Acquisition parcel files to the CITY K. Right -of -Way Certification — Since there are federal funds participating in the project, Right of Way Certification will be coordinated and completed through WSDOT. Right of Way acquisition files will be prepared and completed to the satisfaction of a WSDOT Right of Way review to support federal aid participation. UFS will further coordinate right of way activities with WSDOT's Local Agency Coordinator, Mr. Tom Boyd, as needed throughout the project. Additional Work - If other tasks are required to be performed or there are changes in pertinent information or if negotiations exceed the industry standard for a good faith effort to negotiate (three "in - person" landowner contacts), UFS reserves the right to request additional compensation as an equitable adjustment. UFS shall not be responsible for delays caused beyond its control. 4 of 5 Packet Page 374 of 488 8-12-13 CITY ! DEA will provide the following: I. Approve designation of the escrow company used for this project. The escrow company will bill the CITY directly for all escrow services provided. 2. Right of Way Plans and Drawings, Maps, Exhibits, Right of Way Staking, etc., as necessary. 3. Legal descriptions in electronic format for all real property rights to be acquired. 4. Form approval, in electronic format, of all legal conveyance documents prior to use (i.e. offer letters, purchase and sale agreements, escrow instructions, easements, deeds, leases and permits). S. Review and approval of all determinations of value, established by the project appraisers, and provide written authorization prior to offers being made to property owners. 6. Payment of any and all compensation payments to property owners, recording fees, legal services and any incidental costs which may arise necessary to complete each transaction. 7. Send introduction letters to property owners as necessary. TABLE A co u C _o ' W No Tax Parcel No Owner Current Use U- a E 0 0 �, v to N N L Q ~ 0 w 1 00566900400706 Strickland GC Properties LLC Grease Monkey X X X 2 00566900400703 Strickland GC Properties LLC Car Wash X X X 3 00614300001605 Three Graces 43 LLC & Burger King X X X 00614300001602 Porterfield Development LLC 4 00614300001607 Three Graces #3 LLC & Romio's Pizza X X X Porterfield Development LLC 5 27043000104800 Edmonds School District 15 Edmonds Woodway HS X X X 6 00450400000201 Roehl, Howard and Joan & Dairy Queen X X X Stafford, Shannon and Donna 7 00738800020600 7500 Building LLC - Condo Office Building X X X 5 o f 5 Packet Page 375 of 488 Packet Page 376 of 488 Exhibit E-1: Consultant Fee Determination - Fixed Fee 76th Ave W and 212th Street SW Intersection Improvement Project City of Edmonds Supplement No. 4 David Evans and Associates, Inc. Classification Direct Rate Flours Cost 1 Project Manager (PMGR) $ 57.00 120 $6,840 2 Managing Professional Engr/QC (MGPE) $ 57.00 38 $2,166 3 Professional Engineer (PFEN) $ 42.00 202 $8,484 4 Sr. CADD Technician (SCAD) $ 32.50 134 $4,355 5 Survey Manager (SVYM) $ 57.00 10 $570 6 Project Surveyor (PSVR) $ 35.50 22 $781 7 Party Chief (PCHF) $ 28.00 10 $280 8 Instrument Person (iNST) $ 24.00 10 $240 9 Administrative Assistant (ADMA) $ 26.75 40 $1,070 10 Exec. Administrator (EXAD) $ 31.00 10 $310 Total Hours 596 Salary Cost $25,096 Overhead Cost @ 184.46% of Direct Labor $46,292 Net Fee @ 28.20% of Direct Labor $7,077 Total Overhead & Net Fee Cost $53,369 Direct Expenses Unit Each No. Cost Mall/Deliveries/Fed Ex @ $22 2 $44 Title Reports @ $500 7 $3,500 Mileage miles @ $0.555 /mile 54 $30 Subtotal $3,574 David Evans and Associates Total $82,039 Subconsultants: Costs Universal Field Services - Right -of -Way Support (Neg/Acq) $64,140 Subconsultant Totals $64,140 Total Costs - Supplement No. 4 $146,179 Management Reserve Fund $22,000 Total Contract Amount $168,179 P:Ic\COEDO00000041OOOOCC)Nl003OConlrac[NSupplement4\Fxhihit E-1_0EA Budget_761h & 212th_2013-08-10,xfs Packet Page 377 of 488 Page 1 of 2 Printed: 8/15/2013 Exhibit E-21 Consultant Fee Determination - Summary Sheet 76th Ave W and 212th Street SW Intersection Improvement Project City of Edmonds Supplement No. 4 David Evans and Associates, Inc. 1 z 3 4 s a 7 a s to Work Element # Work Element N m t.7 O as i j w w m '°'-r d o ¢ N ¢ U En _ m' > v oQ`. tl '' d z Lo w Q E PE m N G N C ¢ 4 n E DE4 PCA directrates: 557.00 557.34 542.30 53Z s0 fiS7.n0 535.5n 52s.na 524.n0 528.75 531.33 Total ALL Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs Total hrs Total $ ALL Proj. Management and Quality Control 2.0 2.1 Project Management and File Management 36 12 6 54 $8,001 Work Element 2.0 Total 36 12 6 64 $8,001 9.0 PSSE Design 9.3 Final Design f90%Completion Levelj _ 9.3.1 90% Design Submittal with WQ and Flow Control Facilities 8 2 36 12 4 62 $8.064 9.3.2 90% Desl n Submittal with Sewer 4 1 18 8 1 32 $4.151 9.4 Construction Documents 100% Completion Level) 9.4.1 100% Design Submittal with WQ and Flow Control Faaili0es 4 2 12 4 2 24 $3,219 9.4.2 100% Design Submittal with Sewer 2 1 6 2 _ 1 _ 12 $1.609 9.5 Assistance During Bidding Period Work Elemant 9.0 Total 18 6 72 26 8 130 $17,043 10.0 Right-of•WayAcquisition Services 10.1 Right -of -Way Plan i Parcel Exhibits I Legal Descriptions 1 Survey Staking 10A.1 Right-af-Way Plan 2 2 16 1 4 25 $2,867 10.1.2 Parcel Exhibits 4 4 24 4 8 44 $5,278 10.1.3 Legal Descriptions 1 24 4 8 37 $4,218 10.1.4 Survey Staking 1 1 2 10 10 __ _ 24 $2,204 10,2 Subconsultant Management 10.2.1 Subconsultant Management and Administration 24 4 4 32 $4,999 10,2.2 Design Support for RIW Acquisition Services 12 2 24 12 2 52 $7,033 Work Element 10.0 Total 44 2 30 76 10 22 10 10 6 4 214 $28,600 42.0 Waterline Design 12.1 Waterline Design 90%Completion) 8 16 58 _ 20 a 108 $14,332 12.2 Waterline Design (1C01/6 Completion) 8 12 32 8 4 64 $8,914 123 Waterline Design Ad Ready Documents 2 2 4 4 1 2 14 $1,812 12.4 Assistance Durlrg Bid Period 4 8 100 12 198 $1,763 Work Element S12.0 Total Direct Expenses 22 30 32 14 $26,822 $3.574 Salary Escalation PROJECT WORK ELEMENTS TOTALS 120 38 202 134 10 22 10 10 40 10 5s6 $02,039 Page 2 of 2 P:1c4COED00000D041000000N10030Contract5Supplement 41Exhihit E-1_0EA Budget_761h & 212th_2013-08-16,xis Printed 8115)2013 Packet Page 378 of 488 August 12, 2013 EXHIBIT B City of Edmonds 76th Avenue W. and 212th Street SW Intersection Improvements Fee Estimate - Remaining ROW Services DIRECT SALARY COSTS (DSCI Personnel Hours Rate Cost 1 Quality Assurance 19.5 X $50.24 = $979.68 2 Project Manager 90.0 X $42.00 = $3,780.00 3 Acquisition Specialist 361.0 X $38.00 — $13,718.00 4 Sr Administrative Specialist 97.5 X $29.00 =_ $2,827.50 Total Hours 568.0 Subtotal DSC = $21,305.18 Overhead (OH) 72.10% of DSC = $15,361.03 Fixed Fee (FF) 28% of DSC = $5,965.45 TOTAL DSC = $42,631.67 DIRECT NONSALARY COSTS (DNSQ Mileage 1198 miles @ $ 0.565 676.87 Miscellaneous Expenses (see note 5 below) 225.00 TOTAL DNSC = 901.87 SUBCONSULTANTS Appraisal Reports (4 each) Appraisal Group of the NW 17,000.00 Appraisal Review Reports (4 each) The Granger Company 3,200.00 Administrative Fee 2.0 % (B&O Taxes, etc.) 404.00 TOTAL SUBCONSULTANT FEES = 20,604.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED AMOUNT = 64,137.54 Notes: 1.) Universal reserves the right to re -negotiate estimate total if Notice to Proceed not provided within 180 days from the date of this estimate. 2.) Mileage to be billed at $0.5651mile or the approved IRS rate at the time mileage is incurred. 3.) See Table A in the Scope of Work for list of parcels impacted and the real property rights to be acquired from each. 4.) It is assumed the project appraiser has accurately identified the larger parcels. 5.) Reimbursable miscellaneous expenses including but not limited to, mapping, photos, postage, parking printing, long distance telephone, etc., at cost - no markup. 6.) This fee estimate and related scope of work is based on preliminary information. Tour of project limits, review of limited public on-line ownership information, review of preliminary plans and exhibits, DEA input. 7.) It is assumed federal funds are participating in the right of way acquisition phase. Packet Page 379 of 488 0 C CD ,v CD CD W 00 0 0 A OD W August 12, 2013 City of Edmonds 76'h Avenue W. and 212th Street SW Intersection [improvements Remaou ng Right cf Way Servoces - Est : -mated hicurs and Mileage Universal Field Services, Inc. Rights to be Acquired Negotiation Hours 1 Mileage No. Tax Pei No. Owner Current Use Fee Simple Temp Construction Esmt Driveway Reconstruction Permit Appraisal AOS {See note 2) QA PM Neg Admin Mileage 1 00586900400706 Strickland GC Properties LLC Grease Monkey X X X Appraisal 1.5 7 40 10 150 2 00566900400703 Strickland GC Properties LLC Car Wash X X X AOS 1 6 40 10 150 3 00614300001605 00614300001602 Three Graces #3 LLC, and Porterfield Development LLC Burger King X X X Appraisal 2 10 60 12 200 4 00614300001607 Three Graces #3 LLC, and Porterfield Development LLC RomiD's Pizza X X X AOS 1 6 40 12 200 5 27043000104900 Edmonds School District 15 Edmonds Woodway HS X X X Appraisal 1 a 50 10 100 6 D04504000DD201 Rcehl, Howard & Jean, and Stafford, Shannon & Donna Dairy Queen X X X Appraisal 2 10 65 12 150 7 D0738800020600 7500 Building LLC - Condo Office Building See Note 1 X X X AOS 1 6 40 1 12 150 Attend 7 progress meetings - City office 2.5 14.5 4 0 8 Complete 7 monthly progress reports 1.5 5.5 6 4.5 0 Assist with "Introduction Letter' to property owners 1 1 0 1 0 Attend one (1) early "one on one" property owner meetings with owners of each of the seven 7) larger parcels 0 6 a 2 50 Prepare Subconsultant Agreement 1 Management (Appraiser-PFE) 2 2 0 2 0 Coordinate with the City and City's design consultant to reduce acquisition impacts 2 2 2 2 20 Right of Way CertificaCDn 1 6 6 a 20 Total Hours & Mileage 19.5 1 90 1 361 1 97.5 1 1198 Notes: 1. This property is a commercial condominium. Clearing Df title for this property may require extensive effort and is not accounted for in this estimate. The LOE for this work should be better known upon review of the condominium declarations, and CC&R's. 2. Property valuation method (Appraisal 1 AOS) is subject to change. AM-6090 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 09/10/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted By: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Tyne: Information Information Subject Title Continued discussion on developing a decision tree for Harbor Square deliberations. Recommendation Continue review of decision tree for Harbor Square key issues. Previous Council Action 9. D. 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. The PPP Committee discussed ideas for the decision tree at the August 13, 2013 meeting. 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 continue 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 a decision tree. At the August 13, 2013 PPP Committee meeting, three key issues where identified for incorporation into a decision tree: 1) Height, 2) Residential Development, and 3) Intensity of Uses (Exhibit 5). Exhibits 6 - 8 are the initial drafts of potential decision trees for height, residential development and intensity of uses for further discussion with the PPP. Note: The current "Exhibit 1" is what Council members have been accustomed to referring to as "Exhibit 3" in previous packets. The content is the same. Attachments Exhibit 1 - Harbor Square Master Plan Issue Table (Exhibit 3 from the March 19 - August 6 Council Meetings Agendas) Exhibit 2 - March 19. 2013 Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 3 - March 26, 2013 Council Minutes Excerot Exhibit 4 - August 6. 2013 Council Minutes Excerot Exhibit 5 - August 13, 2013 PPP Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 6 - Height Decision Tree Exhibit 7 - Residential Decision Tree Exhibit 8 - Intensity of Use Decision Tree Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Planning Department Rob Chave 09/05/2013 10:44 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/05/2013 11:18 AM Packet Page 381 of 488 Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2013 11:31 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/05/2013 11:51 AM Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 09/05/2013 09:59 AM Final Approval Date: 09/05/2013 Packet Page 382 of 488 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 Packet Page 383 of 488 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 Packet Page 384 of 488 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 Packet Page 385 of 488 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 Packet Page 386 of 488 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 Packet Page 387 of 488 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 Packet Page 388 of 488 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 Packet Page 389 of 488 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 Packet Page 390 of 488 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 Packet Page 391 of 488 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 Packet Page 392 of 488 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 Packet Page 393 of 488 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 11/2 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 Packet Page 394 of 488 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 Packet Page 395 of 488 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 Packet Page 396 of 488 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 Packet Page 397 of 488 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: • Purchasing policy revision for Public Works projects — approved by the Council tonight. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2013 Page 18 Packet Page 398 of 488 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 Packet Page 399 of 488 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 Packet Page 400 of 488 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 Packet Page 401 of 488 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 Packet Page 402 of 488 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 55 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 55 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 Packet Page 403 of 488 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 Packet Page 404 of 488 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 Packet Page 405 of 488 Councilmember Peterson recalled when the discussion first began, one of the big issues was shoreline buffers; that will be addressed by the SMP 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 Packet Page 406 of 488 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 Packet Page 407 of 488 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 5th 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 5`h 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 Packet Page 408 of 488 Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Minutes August 13, 2013 Page 2 Mr. English discussed why the small works project was necessary and how the improvements will resolve a conflict between the location of the previous waterline and the new sewer pipeline in 224" St. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. E. Report on bids opened August 1, 2013 for the 2013 Sewerline Rehabilitation Project and award of contract to Insituform in the amount $135,344.74. Mr. English Mr. English reviewed the scope of work to be completed and how 1,530 feet of sewer pipe will be repaired using the cured in place pipe (CIPP) method. He also let the Committee know that there are very few contractors who perform this work which explains why more contractors did not provide bids to complete the project. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. 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. Mr. English provided background on the grant received from Department of Ecology for stormwater programmatic and project improvements. ACTION: Staff will make a presentation to the City Council at the August 201" meeting. G. Discussion and recommendation on proposed utility rate adjustments. Mr. Williams provided a recommendation on a three year utility rate adjustment for sewer, water and stormwater utility funds. The recommendation included rate comparisons with other cities. ACTION: Moved the item to the full City Council for a decision. H. Discussion of Street Tree Management Policy. Mr. Williams reviewed the 1978 City Council resolution on trimming and removal of trees within the City's right of way. He explained how sections of the current policy are difficult to administer and he proposed changes to improve the policy. ACTION: Mr. Williams will work with the Committee to update the policy and submit it to the Tree Board for review. Developing a decision tree for deliberating key issues for Harbor Square. PPP and staff discussed approaches in developing a decision tree for deliberating key issues for Harbor Square. Potential key issues noted included height, residential use, intensity of uses and ties to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. With regard to the SMP, it was noted that the SMP is a separate process and any development at Harbor Square must be consistent with the SMP; as such, SMP issues will not figure in a decision tree. For the other key issues, staff and PPP discussed presenting the key issues on a continuum (e.g. ranging from `no residential' to `multi -family') and evaluating tradeoffs and means of achieving desired outcomes (e.g. how Packet Page 409 of 488 Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Minutes August 13, 2013 Page 3 incentive zoning might be used to reach desired ends). Further discussion will be held during the September PPP meeting. ACTION: N/A J. Public Comments Jamie Jensen, Mukilteo Law Office and attorney for Han Park, addressed the PPP regarding the City of Edmonds parcel associated with the Angler's Crossing Plat/PRD (P-2005-136/PRD-2005- 137). Mr. Park is interested in selling his property to developer's who wish to finish the approved Angler's Crossing Plat/PRD; however, the development cannot go forward without the associated City property. Mr. Jensen questioned what he and Mr. Park could do to hasten a decision from the City Council regarding the sale of the associated City property. The meeting adjourned at 7:55 pm. Packet Page 410 of 488 Absolute Height Limit rri J UP Mechanism Heights Something different than contract / Yes UP/Down 25 ft.? Increase Height with Incentives rezone? NO (35ft) Consequence Change UMU III in SMP rTI Residential I Should residential development be a possibility? / No Yes What type? Single -Family Live/Work FLimited Multi family Extensive Multi family v Intensity of Use m (Commercial/Residential) m A w O A CO CD Type of Community? Incentives W AM-6067 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 09/10/2013 Time: 30 Minutes Submitted For: Councilmembers Bloom and Peterson Department: City Council Committee: Public Safety, Personnel Submitted By: Jana Spellman Tyne: Information Subject Title Proposed Code of Conduct for Elected Officials and Board Members Recommendation Information 10. A. Previous Council Action 2012 Council Retreat: Council made this subject a priority for 2012 (minutes attached) April 10, 2012 Public Safety and Personal Committee: This agenda items was discussed (minutes attached). 2013 Council Retreat: This item was discussed (minutes attached). March 12, 2013 Public Safety and Personnel Committee: This item was discussed (minutes attached). July 9.2013 PS/P Committee: This item was discussed (minutes attached). July 30, 2013 Council Meeting: This item was put on the August 20, 2013 Council Agenda. See excerpt from July 30, 2013 minutes below: "DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS This item was moved to the August 20, 2013 Council meeting via action taken under Agenda Item 2." August 20, 2013 Council Meeting_ Council President Petso suggested due to the late hour and remaining items on the agenda items that thisitem be postponed to a future meeting. August 27, 2013 Council Meeting: This item was discussed (minutes attached). Narrative Discussions regarding the formation of a Code of Conduct policy have occurred in the Public Safety/Personnel Committee and at full Council meetings in 2012 and 2013. This agenda topic was discussed again at the August 27, 2013 Council Meeting. This agenda topic has been placed on the Public Safety/Personnel Committee for further discussion. Attachment 1: August 27, 2013 City Council Minutes. Attachment 2: Snohomish County Expectations and Code of Conduct Attachment 3: Kirkland Code of Conduct Attachment 4: Bellevue Code Attachments Attachment 1: 08-27-13 Draft City Council Minutes Attachment 2: Sno County Expectations and Code of Conduct Attachment 3: Kirkland Code of Conduct Packet Page 414 of 488 Attachment 4: Bellevue Code Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 09/05/2013 Form Review Date 09/05/2013 11:50 AM 09/05/2013 01:48 PM 09/05/2013 02:16 PM Started On: 08/28/2013 11:38 AM Packet Page 415 of 488 Councilmember Johnson said longevity compensation makes sense for employees who are at the top of their scale and have no opportunity for further advancement. She expressed interest in further information about the fiscal impact of longevity compensation retroactive to 2013 as well as the fiscal impact for outlying years. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the pay scale for nonrepresented employees is a separate issue and should be addressed separately rather than piecemealed via longevity pay. She noted longevity pay would not motivate employees to seek promotion or to remain in the City's employment. Longevity pay is part of a compensation package that was negotiated with the other groups. She preferred to consider longevity pay for nonrepresented employees as part of a compensation package. Ms. Hite pointed out longevity compensation was part of a package for nonrepresented employees that the compensation consultant presented to the Council. The Council asked to have it pulled out for continued discussion. Councilmember Peterson agreed the Council was provided a compensation package for nonrepresented that was similar to represented employees. It was the Council's decision to separate out some items. He suggested the next agenda memo include the complete compensation package that was presented by the compensation consultant. Ms. Hite summarized the information the Council was requesting in addition to the original compensation package includes, 1) the fiscal impact for retroactivity in 2013, 2) fiscal impact for outlying years, 3) a flat rate approach and the fiscal impact. Due to the absence of 3 Councilmembers from the September 17 and 24 meetings, Mayor Earling suggested information be provided at next week's meeting or a full Council meeting be held on September 10. Council President Petso suggested either staff return with the information soon or it be addressed as a decision package in the 2014 budget. 11. DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS Parks & Recreation/Reporting Human Resources Director Carrie Hite explained the Personnel Committee has been comparing and contrasting Codes of Ethics for cities throughout the Puget Sound region. Two documents the committee has been considering include Kirkland and Bellevue's Code of Ethics. The committee has also discussed Bainbridge Island's code. Kirkland adopted a Code of Conduct in addition to a Code of Ethics. She explained a Code of Conduct describes professional responsibilities; a Code of Ethics describes legal responsibilities. A Code of Ethics would apply to the Council, boards and commissions; staff is guided by a Code of Conduct in the City's personnel policies. The Personnel Committee has also expressed interest in identifying an Ethics Officer. Some of the comparable models reviewed by the Personnel Committee identify an Ethics Officer outside the organization in order to have an objective, non -vested perspective in researching a Code of Ethics issues. For example Kirkland and Bellevue contract with an Ethics Officer on an as needed basis who is only paid when a Code of Ethics issue needs to be investigated. Neither Kirkland nor Bellevue had incurred any expenses for outside review of a Code of Ethics violation. Councilmember Bloom noted the attachments are in the August 20, 2013 packet. She clarified in addition to Councilmembers, boards and commissions, the Code of Ethics would cover all elected officials including the Mayor. Kirkland and Bellevue's Codes of Ethics do not include a Mayor because they have a City Manager form of government. Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with including the requirement in 3.14.040 of Kirkland's policy related to financial disclosure for all officials. Officials are defined as all members of boards and commissions. Kirkland's policy excludes the Mayor and Council because elected officials must present Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 416 of 488 all financial information on a yearly basis. She did not support requiring all members of boards and commissions to disclose their financial information and suggested that be excluded that from Edmonds' Code of Ethics; Bellevue's Code of Ethics does not have that requirement. She also suggested consideration be given to the complaint process and who handles complaints. For example Kirkland involves the Hearing Examiner and the City Council in the event of a complaint regarding a Councilmember. Councilmember Peterson agreed with Councilmember Bloom's concern about requiring members of boards and commissions to disclose financial information. He agreed with the Council considering a Code of Ethics in a proactive approach rather than a reactive approach. He supported the City having a Code of Ethics for elected officials and boards and commissions, anticipating a Code of Ethics would make the Council's work easier if an ethical issue arose. As Councilmember Buckshnis indicated, a Code of Ethics can be subjective, but responding to an ethical complaint would be even more subjective without a Code of Ethics. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised Snohomish County adopted a Code of Conduct for all boards and commissions and every commission and board member must acknowledge they have read and understand the Code of Conduct. She encouraged Councilmembers to review Snohomish County's Code of Conduct for elected and appointed officials. Councilmember Bloom asked whether Snohomish County's Code of Conduct was similar to Kirkland's. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas responded Snohomish County may be more thorough and straightforward. Council President Petso said she was pleased to see Kirkland's Code of Conduct in the packet and was interested in pursuing a Code of Conduct. She was concerned about the Code of Ethics and Ethics Officer and complaint enforcement. She feared a person who did not agree with an official's position on an issue could file an ethics complaint. She indicated she was unlikely to support a Code of Ethics that included a complaint process, an Ethics Officer and enforcement. She found Bellevue's Code of Ethics less objectionable; the statement of intent is to not to limit people who could serve on boards and commissions and elected officials. She agreed the financial disclosure in Kirkland's Code of Ethics would likely deter citizens from volunteering for a board or commission. Council President Petso noted there are other aspects, particularly in Kirkland's Code of Ethics that would deter citizens from volunteering to serve on a board or commission. There are events that do not constitute an ethics issue but might under a poorly drafted policy. For example when she was appointed to Council, a relative was serving on the Sister City Commission; that did not create an issue for her or him. It would have been unfortunate if the Code of Ethics forced one of them to resign their position. One of Kirkland's policies indicated it would be a conflict if a person serving on a board of commission lived in your household. In the example she provided, the person did live in her household for a period of time but it had no impact on his ability to serve on the Sister City Commission. Council President Petso relayed the City Attorney wanted the Council to discuss whether they were interested in developing a Code of Ethics for Edmonds because it will take him a great deal of time to develop it. Less legal time would be involved in drafting a Code of Conduct. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred the Bainbridge Island Code of Ethics. She agreed with not requiring boards and commissions to disclose financial information, commenting Councilmembers file with the Public Disclosure Commission. She liked the Code of Conduct although she feared it could be subjective. She recalled recent emotionally charged conversations with a fellow Councilmember that could have been interpreted as an argument. She preferred to start with a Code of Conduct using Snohomish County as an example. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 417 of 488 Councilmember Bloom also liked Bainbridge Island's Code of Ethics policy the best. She recalled Councilmember Peterson's concern with Bainbridge Island's creation of an Ethics Board and the need for staff support for such a board. She supported adopting a Code of Ethics for the Council, boards and commissions. She explained an ethics violation was not related to conduct but rather conflicts of interest. She asked the City Attorney to describe an ethics violation. City Attorney Sharon Cates answered Code of Ethics are related to conflict of interest issues, not interpersonal interaction. Councilmember Bloom commented Bainbridge Island's policy allows citizens to ask questions about potential ethics violations and the Ethics Board decides whether to pursue a complaint. Bainbridge Island's policy also has consequences for bringing a frivolous or unsubstantiated complaint. She asked if that was typical of ethics policies. Ms. Cates answered a solid ethics code includes a process for determining whether a complaint is an ethics violation. Councilmember Bloom noted an ethics complaint is required to be notarized and to include information about the violation. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the Personnel Committee working on a Code of Conduct similar to Kirkland's. Councilmember Yamamoto agreed with the Committee continuing to consider a Code of Conduct and a Code of Ethics. He encouraged Councilmembers to submit suggestions/comments/concerns to the committee. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested scheduling further discussion on either the September 17 or 24 Council meetings. Council President Petso agreed it could be scheduled with the understanding it would be discussion only due to the absence of three Councilmembers. Councilmember Peterson suggested Councilmembers review Bainbridge Island's ethics policy on their website. He agreed there were good ideas in the policy; he was opposed to creating an Ethics Board. Councilmember Bloom agreed with first establishing a Code of Conduct but did not want to abandon the idea of a Code of Ethics. The Personnel Committee has discussed it at length and the community would like the City to have an ethics policy. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Peterson's concern with creating an Ethics Board. She preferred to use a professional Ethics Officer. 14. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Johnson reported on her participation on the review of arts and cultural aspects of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. She described efforts to gather input from the public including a survey at the recent concert in the park. There is also an online survey available. Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board discussed definitions in the Tree Code including hazardous trees, nuisance trees and trees. Councilmember Bloom reported the Council interviewed a new member for the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee tonight. Councilmember Bloom reported on her first meeting as the Council liaison to the Port of Edmonds liaison. The Commission discussed budget issues and promotional efforts. The Commission was also provided a project update including expansion of Anthony's Beach Cafe as well as the roof on Harbor Square building 2 which is $30,000 under budget and will last 20-30 years. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 418 of 488 EXPECTATIONS AND CODE OF CONDUCT 1. Board members are expected to be respectful at all times. 2. Any Board member who is disrespectful, disruptive, divisive or dominating time in a meeting will be asked, by staff or the Board Chair, to cease and desist such behavior. Repeated behavior of this type can result in the recommended removal of the board member from the Board to the County Executive and County Council with a super majority vote of the Board. 3. Board members may choose to meet without staff present, however, such meetings are not considered official Board meetings and as such no County support will be provided. 4. No Board member shall give anyone the impression they are representing the Board without express written permission authorized by a simple majority vote of the Board. 5. Board members shall never give the public the impression they are representing the County, rather, Board members are advisory to the County. 6. Board members shall not interact with county contractors in the capacity of a Board member without approval by the Board. 7. Board members shall bring concerns or refer any individual who voices a concern related to contractual and/or staff issues to the Division Administrator or Director of Human Services as appropriate. 8. Board members shall refer any individual with questions regarding County policies, or resource management to the Division Administrator. This should not be construed as limiting board members access to elected officials. 9. Board members will strive to appreciate and respect differences in approach and point of view, whether from each other, the community, or staff. 10. The Board chair will ensure that all members have a fair, balanced and respectful opportunity to share their knowledge and perspectives. In the event that a Board member is unable to abide by the "Expectations and Code of Conduct" policies the Board, with a super majority vote, can recommend removal of the board member to the County Executive, for action by the County Council. Snohomish County Human Services Department Adopted August 2013 Packet Page 419 of 488 CITY OF KIRKLAND CODE OF CONDUCT FOR CITY COUNCIL AND BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS The Code of Conduct is supplemental to the Kirkland Municipal Code and the Code of Ethics and applies to the City Council and all members of City advisory boards and commissions. The Code of Conduct describes how Kirkland officials treat each other and work together for the common good of the community. Conducting the City's business in an atmosphere of respect and civility is the underlying theme in this code. City Officials are responsible for holding themselves and each other accountable for displaying actions and behaviors that consistently model the ideals expressed in the code. Implicit in the Code of Conduct is recognition of the worth of individual members and an appreciation for their individual talents, perspectives and contributions. The Code will ensure an atmosphere where individual members, staff and the public are free to express their ideas and work to their full potential. As a City Official of the City of Kirkland, I agree to these principles of conduct.• We consistently demonstrate the principles ofprofessionalism, respect and civility in working for the greater good of Kirkland, We assure fair and equal treatment of all people. We conduct ourselves both personally and professionally in a manner that is above reproach. We refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks on the character or motives of Council members, commissioners, staff and the public. We take care to avoid personal comments that could offend others. We show no tolerance for intimidating behaviors. We listen courteously and attentively to all public discussions and treat all people the way we wish to be treated. We serve as a model of leadership and civility to the community. Our actions inspire public confidence in Kirkland government. Packet Page 420 of 488 Keeping in mind the common good as the highest purpose, we will focus on holding efficient meetings that achieve constructive solutions for the public benefit, We work as a team to solve problems and render decisions that are based on the merits and substance of the matter. We respect differences and views of other people. We adhere to the principles and laws governing the Council/Manager form of government and treat all staff with respect and cooperation. We will refrain from interfering with the administrative functions and professional duties of staff. We will not publicly criticize individual staff but will privately communicate with the City Manager any concerns about a Department or Department Director or staff person. We will refrain from negotiating or making commitments without the involvement and knowledge of the City Manager. We will work with staff in a manner that consistently demonstrates mutual respect. We will not discuss personnel issues, undermine management direction, or give or imply direction to staff. We will communicate directly with the City Manager, department directors or designated staff contacts when asking for information, assistance or follow up. We will not knowingly blindside one another in public and will contact staff prior to a meeting with any questions or issues. We will not attend City staff meetings unless requested by staff. I acknowledge that I have received and read this Code of Conduct Name Date Packet Page 421 of 488 1336-ORD 06/05/13 CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 6110 AN ORDINANCE repealing Bellevue City Code Chapter 3.92 and Ordinance No. 4049, and adopting new Bellevue City Code Chapter 3.92 providing for a Code of Ethics - City Council and City Boards, Commissions and Committees. WHEREAS, the citizens and business of Bellevue are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable local government that has earned the public's full confidence for integrity; and WHEREAS, adopting a Code of Ethics for members of the City Council and the City's boards and commissions will promote public confidence in the integrity of local government and fair operation; and WHEREAS, the Code of Ethics will provide the basis for education and training for City officials both elected and appointed, to ensure that the highest standards and best practices with regard to ethics will be followed; now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Bellevue City Code Chapter 3.92 and Ordinance No. 4049 are hereby repealed. Section 2. A new Chapter 3.92 is hereby adopted to read as follows: 3.92.010 — POLICY A. Purpose. The Bellevue City Council has adopted a Code of Ethics for members of the City Council and Council -appointed public bodies to promote public confidence in the integrity of local government and its fair operation. This Code of Ethics will provide the basis for education and training for City Officials, both elected and appointed, to ensure that the highest standards and best practices with regard to ethics will be followed. B. Intent. The citizens and businesses of Bellevue are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable local government that has earned the public's full confidence. It is further the intent that City Officials be permitted to fulfill their duties to represent the public to the greatest extent possible unless circumstances exist where such engagement is impermissible. Nothing in this chapter is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict the pool of available candidates for service on the Council or service on Council -appointed public bodies, all of which are either part-time or volunteer positions. It is in the public interest to ensure that barriers to citizen public service are not created by the provisions of this chapter. In keeping with the City of Packet Page 422 of 488 1336-O RD 06/05/13 Bellevue's commitment to excellence, the effective functioning of democratic government therefore requires that: (1) public officials, both elected and appointed, comply with the laws and policies affecting the operations of government; (2) public officials be independent, impartial and fair in their actions; (3) public office be used for the public good, not for personal gain; and (4) public deliberations and processes be conducted openly, unless legally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility. 3.92.020 — DEFINITIONS A. "Official" means a member of the City Council or a member of Council - appointed City boards and commissions and other Council -appointed task groups or committees. B. "Relative" means spouse, domestic partner, child, step -child, parent, step- parent, parent -in-law and sibling. 3.92.030 — PROHIBITED CONDUCT A. Conflicts of Interest: Officials shall not participate in quasi-judicial or site - specific land use City decisions, the purchase or condemnation of property, or City decisions involving the awarding of a grant or contract in which any of the following has an interest: 1. The Official, 2. A relative, 3. An individual with whom the Official resides, or 4. An entity that the Official serves as an officer, director, trustee, partner or employee. Officials shall abstain from participating in deliberations and decision - making where conflicts exist. RCW 42.23.040 shall apply conflicts or potential conflicts with respect to remote interests in City decisions involving the awarding of a contract. B. Misuse of Public Position or Resources. Except for infrequent use at little or no cost to the City, Officials shall not use public resources that are not available to the public in general, such as City staff time, equipment, supplies or facilities, for other than a City purpose. 2 Packet Page 423 of 488 1336-ORD 06/05/13 C. Representation of Third Parties. Except in the course of official duties, Officials shall not appear on behalf of the financial interests of third parties before the bodies on which the Officials serve or in interaction with the body's assigned staff. Further, the members of the City Council shall not appear on behalf of the financial interest of third parties before the Council or any board, commission or proceeding of the City, or in interaction with staff. D. Solicitation of Charitable Contributions. No official may make direct personal solicitations for charitable contributions from City employees. E. Gifts and Favors. Officials shall not take any special advantage of services or opportunities for personal gain, by virtue of their public office, which are not available to the public in general. They may not solicit or receive any thing of monetary value from any person or entity where the thing of monetary value has been solicited or received or given, or to a reasonable person, would appear to have been solicited, or received or given with intent to give or obtain special consideration or influence as to any action by the Official in his or her official capacity; provided, that nothing shall prohibit campaign contributions which are solicited or received and reported in accordance with applicable law. They shall not accept or solicit any gifts, favors or promises of future benefits except as follows: 1. No Official may accept gifts, other than those specified in subsection 2 of this section, with an aggregate value in excess of fifty dollars ($50) from a single source in a calendar year or a single gift from multiple sources with a value in excess of fifty dollars ($50) in accordance with RCW 42.52.150(1); provided, that if the fifty dollar ($50) limit in RCW 42.52.150(1) is amended, this section shall be deemed to reflect the amended amount. For purposes of this section, "single source" means any person, corporation, or entity, whether acting directly or through any agent or other intermediary, and "single gift" includes any event, item, or group of items used in conjunction with each other or any trip including transportation, lodging, and attendant costs. The value of gifts given to an Official's family member or guest shall be attributed to the Official for the purpose of determining whether the limit has been exceeded, unless an independent business, family, or social relationship exists between the donor and the Official, family member or guest. 2. The following items are presumed not to influence the vote, action, or judgment of the Official, or be considered as part of a reward for action or inaction, and may be accepted without regard to the limit established by subsection 1 of this section: a. Unsolicited flowers, plants and floral arrangements; b. Unsolicited advertising or promotional items of nominal value, such as pens and note pads; c. Unsolicited tokens or awards of appreciation in the form of a plaque, trophy, desk item, wall memento, or similar item; 3 Packet Page 424 of 488 1336-O RD 06/05/13 d. Unsolicited items received by an Official for the purpose of evaluation or review, if the Official has no personal beneficial interest in the eventual use or acquisition of the item; e. Informational materials, publications or subscriptions related to the recipient's performance of official duties; f. Food and beverages consumed at hosted receptions where attendance is related to the Official's duties for the City; g. Admission to, and the cost of food and beverages consumed at, events sponsored by or in conjunction with a civic, charitable, governmental or community organization; h. Unsolicited gifts from dignitaries from another state or a foreign country which -are intended to be personal in nature; and i. Food and beverages on infrequent occasions in the ordinary course of meals where attendance by the Official is related to the performance of official d uties. j. Any gift which would have been offered or given to the Official if he or she were not an Official 3. The presumption in subsection 2 is rebuttable and may be overcome based on the circumstances surrounding the giving and acceptance of the item. G. Confidential Information. Officials shall not knowingly disclose or use any Confidential Information gained by reason of their official position for other than a City purpose nor may the Officer use such information for his or her personal benefit, nor may the Officer engage in business or professional activity that the Officer might reasonably expect would induce him or her by reason of his or her official position to disclose such Confidential Information.. "Confidential Information" means: 1. Specific information, rather than generalized knowledge, that is not available to a person who files a public records request, and 2. Information made confidential by law. • �� � :► T 9 A. In addition to Section 3.92.030 of the Code of Ethics, which shall be administered by the Ethics Officer, Officials shall comply with the following standards: Compliance with other laws. Officials shall comply with Federal, State and City laws in the performance of their public duties. These laws include, but are not limited to: rd Packet Page 425 of 488 1336-ORD 06/05/13 The United States and Washington constitutions; laws pertaining to conflicts of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures and open processes of government; and City ordinances and policies. See Appendix A. Officials shall comply with the requirements of RCW 42.17.020 through .060 regarding contract interests. As required by RCW 42.17.750, no Official shall knowingly solicit or encourage, directly or indirectly, any political contribution from any City employee. Except under limited circumstances described in RCW 42.17.130, no Official may use or authorize the use of the facilities of the City for the purpose of assisting a campaign for the election of any person to office, or form the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition in a manner not available to the general public on the same terms. B. Officials are also encouraged to comply with the following standards: 1. Personal Integrity. The professional and personal conduct of Officials must be above reproach and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Officials shall refrain from abusive conduct, threats of official action, personal accusations or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other members of Council, boards and commissions, the staff or public. Officials shall maintain truthfulness and honesty and not compromise themselves for advancement, honor, or personal gain. Additionally, Officials shall not directly or indirectly induce, encourage or aid anyone to violate this Code of Ethics and it is incumbent upon Officials to make a good faith effort to address apparent violations of this Code of Ethics. 2. Working for the Common Good. Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their primary concern, Officials will work for the common good of the people of Bellevue and not for any private or personal interest, and they will ensure fair and equal treatment of all persons, claims and transactions coming before the City Council, boards and commissions. 3. Respect for Process. Officials shall perform their duties in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by the City Council and boards and commissions governing the deliberation of public policy issues, meaningful involvement of the public, and implementation of policy decisions of the City Council by City staff. 4. Commitment to Transparency. Transparency, openness and accountability are fundamental values of the City — and are also required by the laws of the state of Washington. The public has a right to inspect and copy public records unless exempt by law from disclosure. All materials relating to the conduct of City government that are prepared, possessed, used or retained by any Official, including Email and other electronic records, are subject to requirements for retention, protection and disclosure. Officials may assume that all copies of materials received from City staff have already been archived and do not need to be retained. Officials shall not discard, damage or destroy the original copy of any public record unless the City complies with the record retention schedules established under Chapter 40.14 RCW. In accordance with the requirements of state law Officials shall 5 Packet Page 426 of 488 1336-ORD 06/05/13 promptly provide any records requested by the Public Records Officer in response to a disclosure request under the Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. It is the responsibility for the Public Records Officer together with the City Attorney, to decide which records meet the definition of "public record" and whether or not such records are exempt from disclosure; Officials must not take it upon themselves to decide whether a record meets the definition of a public, record, that a record is exempt from disclosure, or to otherwise conceal a record. 5. Conduct of Public Meetings. Officials shall prepare themselves for public issues; listen courteously and attentively to all public discussions before the body; and focus on the business at hand. They shall refrain from interrupting other speakers; or otherwise interfering with the orderly conduct of meetings. 6. Decisions Based on Merit. Officials shall base their decisions on the merits and substance of the matter at hand and on greater public policy considerations, rather than on unrelated considerations. 7. Ex parte Communications. In quasi-judicial matters, Officials shall publicly disclose substantive information that is relevant to a matter under consideration by the Council or boards and commissions, which they may have received from sources outside of the public decision -making process. 8. Attendance. As provided in RCW 35A.12.060, a Council Member shall forfeit his or her office by failing to attend three consecutive regular meetings of the Council without being excused by the Council. Unless excused, members of boards and commissions are expected to attend all meetings. 9. Nepotism. The City Council will not appoint Relatives of City Council Members to boards or commissions or other appointed positions. 10. Advocacy. When acting in an official capacity as a City Official representing the City, Officials shall represent the official policies or positions of the City Council, board or commission to the best of their ability when the City Council, board or commission has taken a position or given an instruction. When a City Official is appointed to fill an Official role on a governing body in a capacity that is not dependent upon their status as a City of Bellevue Official, but, for example, as a representative of a geographic area, the Official shall endeavor to represent the policies or positions consistent with those of the constituency he or she has been appointed to represent. When presenting their individual opinions and positions, members shall explicitly state they do not represent their body or the Gity of Bellevue, nor will they allow the inference that they do. Officials have the right to endorse candidates for all Council seats or other elected offices. It is inappropriate to make or display endorsements during Council meetings, board/commission meetings, or other official City meetings. However, this does not preclude Officials from participating in ceremonial occasions, community events or other events sponsored by civic groups. C• Packet Page 427 of 488 1336-ORD 06/05/13 11. Role of Legislative Officials. The Council shall have all the powers and authority granted to legislative bodies, except insofar as such power and authority is vested in the City Manager in accordance with Chapter 35A.13 RCW. UATITSYSTIT41 WMA Ch. 9A.72 RCW Perjury and interference with official proceedings RCW 35A.12.060 Vacancy for nonattendance Ch. 35A.13 RCW Council-manager plan of government RCW 35A.13.020 Incompatible offices Ch. 40.13 RCW Preservation and destruction of public records RCW 42.17.130 Use of public office or agency facilities in campaigns — prohibition — exceptions RCW 42.17.750 Solicitation of contributions by public officials or employees Ch. 42.23 RCW Code of ethics for municipal officers — contract interests Ch. 42.36 RCW Appearance of fairness doctrine — limitations Ch. 42.56 RCW Public Records Act 3.92.50 — NO RIGHT OF ACTION CREATED; EFFECTIVE DATE. A. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as creating or providing a basis for a private cause of action against the City or against any Official by third parties. B. No retroactive application is intended by the adoption of this chapter which shall only apply to acts that occur after the effective date thereof. 3.92.060 — ETHICS OFFICER A. The City Council creates the position of Ethics Officer. The City Council will interview and choose the ethics officer(s) who shall operate under contract with the City of Bellevue. Such selection shall be by unanimous vote, and the Ethics Officer shall be admitted to the practice of law and shall have sufficient experience and training. The services of the Ethics Officer may be terminated only by a supermajority vote of the Council. B. The Ethics Officer will provide for annual review of this Code of Ethics, review of training materials provided for education regarding the Code of Ethics, and advisory opinions concerning the Code of Ethics. The Ethics Officer shall also be responsible for the prompt and fair enforcement of its provisions when necessary, and shall at all times maintain the impartiality of the office by revealing information provided to the Officer only in the context of rendering opinions to the City and its Officials and staff as necessary or in response to legal process. 7 Packet Page 428 of 488 1336-ORD 06/05/13 C. The Ethics Officer, in addition to other duties, shall conduct a review of this ethics code in 2015 and again in 2017 and may recommend changes or additions to this Code of Ethics to the City Council designed to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of processing ethics questions. D. In rendering opinions under 3.92.070 or 3.92.080 below, the Ethics Officer shall consider the Intent section contained in 3.92.010 herein and in RCW 42.23.010. 3.92.070. - ADVISORY OPINIONS A. Upon request of any Official, the Ethics Officer shall render written advisory opinions concerning the applicability of Sections 3.92.030 and 3.92.040 of this Code to hypothetical circumstances and/or situations solely related to the persons making the request. The Ethics Officer will not render opinions on matters that are the purview of other government agencies such as the Public Disclosure Commission or the King County Prosecutor. B. Upon request of any Official, the Ethics Officer may also render written advisory opinions concerning the applicability of the Code of Ethics to hypothetical circumstances and/or situations related to a matter of city- wide interest or policy. C. The Ethics Officer will endeavor to respond to requests for advisory opinions within fourteen (14) days of submission of the request, or more rapidly if the requester expresses urgency in the request. D. An Official's conduct based in reasonable reliance on an advisory opinion rendered by the Ethics Officer shall not be found to violate this Code of Ethics, as long as all material facts have been fully, completely, accurately presented in a written request for an advisory opinion, the Ethics Officer issues an advisory opinion that the described conduct would not violate the Code of Ethics, and the Official's conduct is consistent with the advisory opinion. The Ethics Officer reserves the right to reconsider the questions and issues raised in an advisory opinion and, where the public interest requires, rescind, modify, or terminate the opinion, but a modified or terminated advisory opinion will not form the basis of a retroactive enforcement action against the original requestor. Advisory opinions will contain severability clauses indicating that, should portions of the opinion be found to be unenforceable or not within the Ethics Officer's authority, the remainder of the opinion shall remain intact. E. All Officials subject to this chapter are strongly encouraged to seek advisory opinions from the Ethics Officer at the earliest possible Es3 Packet Page 429 of 488 1336-ORD 06/05/13 opportunity whenever an official has reason to believe that his or her circumstances could present a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest or any other violation of this chapter. F. Advisory opinions are subject to the attorney -client privilege. WAI A. Complaint procedures. 1. Any natural person who believes an Official has committed a violation of the code may file a complaint with the City Clerk. Complaints shall be subject to the following requirements: a. The complaint must be based upon facts within the personal knowledge of the complainant; b. The complaint must be submitted in writing and signed under oath by the complainant; c. The complaint must include a detailed factual description of the alleged violation including the date, time and place of each occurrence and the name of the person or persons who are alleged to have committed a violation. The complaint must also refer to the specific provisions of the Code of Ethics which are alleged to have been violated; d. The complaint must be accompanied by all available documentation or other evidence known to the complainant to support the allegations of the complaint; e. The complaint must be filed within two years of the date of the occurrence or occurrences alleged to constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics. 2. Complaints shall be filed with the City Clerk who shall forward the complaint and any accompanying documentation and evidence to the Ethics Officer and the respondent Official within two business days. The Ethics Officer shall review the complaint for compliance with the requirements of subsection 1 of this section. Should the Ethics Officer find that: a. The complaint is untimely; or b. The complaint has not been signed under oath; or c. The complaint does not, on its face, state facts which, if proven to be true, constitute a violation of the provision of this Code of Ethics referred to in the complaint; or E Packet Page 430 of 488 1336-ORD 06/05/13 d. The complaint fails to refer to a specific provision of the Code of Ethics which is alleged to have been violated, the Ethics Officer shall, within 10 working days of the filing of the complaint, enter a written order stating the Ethics Officer's findings and, except as hereinafter provided, dismissing the complaint. The written order shall be transmitted to the complainant, the Official that is the subject of the complaint, and the City Council. If the Ethics Officer finds that the complaint is deficient pursuant to the findings in subsection 1(b) or (d) of this section, the Ethics Officer shall issue an order notifying the complainant that unless a corrected complaint is filed within five days of the issuance of such order, the complaint shall be dismissed. The complainant may appeal the dismissal of a complaint under this subsection by filing an action in the King County superior court for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Chapter 7.16 RCW within 10 days of the date of issuance of the order dismissing the complaint. 3. The respondent Official shall, within 20 days of the date of mailing or personal service of the complaint by the Clerk, file with the Clerk any response to the complaint the respondent Official wishes to make. A response to a complaint shall be made in writing signed under oath by the respondent. A response may include a detailed statement of facts pertaining to the complaint made on personal knowledge of the respondent and may include any matter constituting a defense to the complaint. A response should be accompanied by all available documentation or other evidence known to the respondent Official which the respondent wishes the Ethics Officer to consider. The respondent Official may stipulate to some or all of the facts alleged in the complaint and shall either admit or deny the alleged violation. If the violation is admitted, the respondent may also submit an explanatory statement and may request a particular disposition. 4. Upon receipt of a response to a complaint, the Ethics Officer shall review the complaint and response, together with all supporting documentation and evidence submitted by the complainant and the respondent Official. Within 10 days of receipt of the response (or, if no timely response is submitted, within 30 days of the date of mailing the complaint to the respondent Official by the City Clerk), the Ethics Officer shall issue a decision in writing, including findings of fact, conclusions of law and a determination of whether any violation of the Code of Ethics has been established. The final written decision shall be signed and dated by the Ethics Officer. The City Clerk shall deliver a copy of the final written decision to the complainant, the respondent Official, the City Council and to any other person who has submitted a written request therefor. 5. A Complaint for Ethical Violations filed under this Chapter shall be considered a claim filed against an Official pursuant to Chapter 3.81 BCC. 6. Either the complainant or respondent Official may, within 30 days of the date of the written decision, appeal to the King County superior court by writ of certiorari pursuant to Chapter 7.16 RCW. 10 Packet Page 431 of 488 1336-ORD 06/05/13 7. If the final decision of the Ethics Officer contains a determination that one or more violations of this Code of Ethics has occurred, the decision shall also contain any recommendations of the Ethics Officer to the City Council for any remedial action or sanction that the Council may find appropriate and lawful under the Council's Rules. If no appeal is filed in superior court, the Council in consultation with the City Attorney shall, within 45 days of the date of the decision, determine what, if any, of the recommendations of the Ethics Officers to adopt. Such determination shall be adopted at an open public meeting by a majority vote of those Officials who are not respondents to the complaint or complaints. Section 3. Severability. Should any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance be held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days after passage and publication. Passed by the City Council this " day of , 2013 and signed in authentication of its passage this 5 day of , 2013. (SEAL) Approved as to form: Lori M. Riordan, City Attorney Attest: Myrna L. Basich, City Clerk Published t; Conrad Lee, Mayor 11 Packet Page 432 of 488 AM-6072 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 09/10/2013 Time: 30 Minutes Submitted For: Councilmembers Bloom and Peterson Department: City Council Committee: Public Safety, Personnel Submitted By: Jana Spellman Tyne: Information Subject Title Consideration of Council Comments regarding Code of Ethics Recommendation Information 10. B. Previous Council Action 2012 Council Retreat: Council made this subject a priority for 2012 (minutes attached) April 10, 2012 Public Safety and Personal Committee: This agenda items was discussed (minutes attached). 2013 Council Retreat: This item was discussed (minutes attached). March 12, 2013 Public Safety and Personnel Committee: This item was discussed (minutes attached). July 9. 2013 PS/P Committee: This item was discussed (minutes attached). July 30, 2013 Council Meeting: This item was put on the August 20, 2013 Council Agenda. See excerpt from July 30, 2013 minutes below: "DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS This item was moved to the August 20, 2013 Council meeting via action taken under Agenda Item 2." August 20, 2013 Council Meeting: Council President Petso suggested due to the late hour and remaining items on the agenda items that this item be postponed to a future meeting. August 27, 2013 Council Meeting; This item was discussed (minutes attached). Narrative Discussions regarding the formation of a Code of Ethics policy have occurred in the Public Safety/Personnel Committee and at full Council meetings in 2012 and 2013. This agenda topic was discussed again at the August 27, 2013 Council Meeting. This agenda topic has been placed on the Public Safety/Personnel Committee for further discussion. Attachment 1: February 3, 2011 City Council Retreat Minutes Attachment 2: April 10, 2012 Public Safety/Personnel Committee Minutes Attachment 3: Excerpt from 2012 Final Edmonds Personnel Policies Attachment 4: Ord 3689 Conflict of Interest Attachment 5: Excerpt from 2013 Council Retreat Minutes Attachment 6: March 12, 2013 Public Safety/ Personnel Committee Minutes Attachment 7: July 9, 2013 Public Safety/ Personnel Committee Minutes Attachment 8: Kirkland Code of Conduct Attachment 9: Bellevue Code of Ethics Attachment 10: Bainbridge Island - Ethics Requirements for Advisory Commissions and Committees Attachment 11: City of Kirkland Chapter 3.14 Code of Ethics Packet Page 433 of 488 Attachment 12: August 27, 2013 Council Meeting Minutes Attachments Attach 1: 2012 Council Retreat Minutes Attach 2 Al2ril-10-12 Minutes Public Safety, Pcrsonnel Committee Attach 3 - Exerpt from 2012 FINAL Edmonds Personnel Policies Attach 4 - Ord 3689 Conflict of Interest Attach 5: Excerpt from 2013 Council Retreat Minutes Attach 6: Minutes 3/12/13 PS/P Committee Attach 7: Minutes 7/9/13 PS/P Committee Attach 8: Kirkland Code of Conduct Attach 9: Bellevue Code of Ethics Attach 10: Bainbrid,ae Island - Ethics Requirements for Advisory Commissions and Committees Attach 11: CITY OF KIRKLAND Chapter 3.14 CODE OF ETHICS Attach 12 - 8/27/13 DRAFT Council Minutes Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 09/05/2013 Form Review Date 09/05/2013 11:50 AM 09/05/2013 01:47 PM 09/05/2013 02:16 PM Started On: 08/29/2013 09:29 AM Packet Page 434 of 488 before the Council is first a committee meeting or work session. Issues that have a financial impact will be discussed at a work session rather than just by the Finance Committee. It was the consensus of the Council to change the name of the Community Services/Development Services Committee to the Public Works, Parks and Planning Committees. • Mission Statements Committees will determine whether to develop a mission statement. Councilmembers Buckshnis and Yamamoto will develop a mission statement for the Finance Committee. • Clarify the Public Safety/Human Resources Committee It was the consensus of the Council to change the name of the Public Safety/Human Resources to Committee to the Public Safety and Personnel Committee. • Community Outreach, Tree Board Council President Peterson explained there has been a proposal to restart the Community Outreach Committee. Councilmember Plunkett recalled the Community Outreach Committee was discontinued after 3 years; no new methods of communicating were identified. Mayor Earling commented on the potential for an electronic newsletter. Discussion followed regarding whether to form a code rewrite committee so that the code rewrite is Council and citizen driven, technical expertise required for the code rewrite, having staff make periodic presentations at Council work sessions regarding the rewrite, the proposal by staff to restructure the code, providing opportunity for citizen comment but having professionals assemble the changes, citizen knowledge that could benefit the process, concern with citizens participating for their own benefit or at least that perception, proposal to have user groups test the model, ability for any citizen to identify code conflicts regardless of whether there is a committee structure, and asking staff whether forming a committee in the future could be helpful. The Council agreed to seek feedback from Planning Manager Rob Chave and Building Official Leonard Yarberry regarding forming a code rewrite committee and schedule further discussion on a work session agenda. Council President Peterson suggested enhancing the Council portion of the website with more updates, etc. and working with the Mayor on an electronic newsletter and then consider whether a Community Outreach Committee is needed. It was the consensus of the Council to add a Council liaison to the Tree Board and to make it a paid committee position. 0 Ethics Council President Peterson recalled there has been discussion about developing a code of ethics for Councilmembers. Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas, Bloom and Petso offered to serve on an ad hoc committee that would review other cities' codes and present a draft to the Council. • Miscellaneous Mr. Taraday explained a special meeting notice must be issued for Tuesday committee meetings that begin at 6:00 p.m. If the Council wished to continue holding committee meetings at 6:00 p.m., he suggested revising the code to reflect that start time. Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes February 2-3, 2011 Page 17 Packet Page 435 of 488 PUBLIC SAFETY/PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES April 10, 2012 Committee members present: Council Member K. Michael Plunkett Council Member Joan Bloom Others present: HR Manager Mary Ann Hardie Citizen Don Hall Council Member Plunkett called the meeting to order at 7:19 pm. DISCUSSION ON CODE OF ETHICS (RELATING TO COUNCIL MEMBERS) Council Member Michael Plunkett opened the discussion by stating it was unclear as to what action/direction should be taken at this point with regard to this as Council had not given any specific direction regarding this topic although one or some council member(s) may have wanted to discuss this further. Council Member Joan Bloom stated that she had reviewed the City of Kirkland's Code of Ethics and the Mountlake Terrace Code of Ethics and there were some concerns that she had with using a code of ethics similar to theirs. Council Member Bloom further stated that she was not aware that there was a code of ethics for Council Members. HR Manager Mary Ann Hardie affirmed this. Council Member Bloom stated that she would like to build a policy regarding a code of ethics and that this process needs to move forward. Council Member Plunkett stated that he was willing to discuss this topic since it was on the agenda, but that that he may not be interested in moving this forward [for Council consideration]. Ms. Hardie stated that she had discussed this HR Committee subject with Carrie Hite (Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director) prior to the meeting and that they both agreed that HR would likely not be the best (nor most appropriate) committee for this forum. Additionally, while HR had provided samples of codes of ethics from other cities it would seem that the City Attorney and/or the City Clerk's Office [or Council] may be more appropriate for this process. Ms. Hardie also emphasized that HR was willing to continue to provide information as needed to the committee to assist with the process, but that this was not a [specific to] HR function since it did not pertain to employee related policies. There was some discussion that followed by the committee about what the process would be to create a code of ethics policy for Council members, creating a committee for this and whether or not the HR Committee was the appropriate committee for the discussion. Council Member Plunkett emphasized his concern about the subjectivity of some of the other policies from other cities and that [while the City may not have a specific code of ethics for Council Members] there are state laws that Council Members must follow. Council Member Bloom stated that she understood Council Member Plunkett's concerns but that due to the expressed interest/concern from the citizens about the possible need for this policy, she felt it was important for: 1) The City of Edmonds to have this policy; 2) this information to be available to citizens (as well as being part of transparency of information and citizen participation); and 3) there to be continued work toward the creation of such a policy. Council Member Plunkett stated that he would like to make this information easier for citizens to access. Council Member Bloom stated that since there does not usually appear to be a large agenda for the HR Committee, that the work on this code of ethics policy could be done at this committee and that the Cities of Kirkland, Mountlake Terrace and another city may be reviewed for further policy consideration. Council Member Plunkett agreed that this could be kept on the HR Committee Meeting agenda and that further review of the policy will occur at the next meeting. Packet Page 436 of 488 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Citizen Don Hall stated that he agreed with Council Member Plunkett that some of the code of ethics policies from other cities that he had come across did appear to be too subjective. Citizen Hall further stated that he became more interested in this topic of discussion after it was discovered that Council Members were not considered to be employees of the City and are not held to the same City Personnel Policy standards although [perhaps] they should be. This process will likely require a lot of "hands on" work and will be a difficult process. The meeting adjourned at 7:44 pm 2 Packet Page 437 of 488 CHAPTER X EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITIES AND CODE OF ETHICS 10.1 GENERAL CODE OF CONDUCT The City's primary function is to provide service to the citizens of Edmonds. To achieve that goal, all employees are expected to treat the public as their most valued customer. All employees are expected to serve the public in a professional manner, which is courteous, efficient and helpful. Employees must maintain a clean and neat appearance appropriate to their work assignment, as determined by their position and department head. Since the proper working relationship between employees and the City depends on each employee's on -going job performance, professional conduct and behavior, the City has established certain minimum standards of personal and professional conduct. Among the City's expectations are: tact and courtesy towards the public and fellow employees; adherence to City policies, procedures, safety rules and safe work practices; compliance with directions from supervisors; preserving and protecting the City's equipment, grounds, facilities and resources; and providing orderly and cost efficient services to its citizens. In addition, all persons representing the City of Edmonds are expected to conduct business in the following manner: • All persons, representing the City of Edmonds, shall conduct business in a professional manner, respecting all citizens' rights, and showing courtesy to all. • Their actions shall be conducted within compliance of the laws and regulations governing the City's actions, including but not limited to RCW Title 42. • City representatives are expected to conduct business in an open manner. • They shall not engage in any conduct which would reflect unfavorably upon City government or any of the services it provides. • They must avoid any action which might result in or create the impression of using their position for private gain, giving preferential treatment or privileged information to any person, or losing impartiality in conducting the City's business. 10.2 OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Employees shall not, directly or indirectly, engage in any outside employment or financial interest which may conflict, in the City's opinion, with the best interests of the City or interfere with the employee's ability to perform his/her assigned City job. Examples include, but are not limited to, outside employment which: 53 Packet Page 438 of 488 (1) prevents the employee from being available for work beyond normal working hours, such as emergencies or peak work periods, when such availability is a regular part of the employee's job; (2) is conducted during the employee's work hours; (3) utilizes City telephones, computers, supplies, credit, or any other resources, facilities or equipment; (4) is employed with a firm which has contracts with or does business with the City; or (5) may reasonably be perceived by members of the public as a conflict of interest or otherwise discredits public service. 10.3 REPORTING IMPROPER GOVERNMENT ACTION In compliance with the Local Government Employee Whistleblower Protection Act, RCW 42.41.050, this policy is created to encourage employees to disclose any improper governmental action taken by city officials or employees without fear of retaliation. This policy also safeguards legitimate employer interests by encouraging complaints to be made first to the City, with a process provided for speedy dispute resolution. Key Definitions: Improper Governmental Action is any action by a city officer or employee that is: (1) undertaken in the performance duties, whether or not the action employment, and of the official's or employee's official is within the scope of the employee's (2) in violation of any federal, state or local law or rule, is an abuse of authority, is of substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety, or is a gross waste of public funds. (3) "improper governmental action" does not include personnel actions (hiring, firing, complaints, promotions, reassignment, for example). In addition, employees are not free to disclose matters that would affect a person's right to legally protected confidential communications. City employees who become aware of improper governmental action should follow this procedure: • Bring the matter to the attention of his/her supervisor, if non-involved, in writing, stating in detail the basis for the employee's belief that an improper action has occurred. This should be done as soon as the employee becomes aware of the improper action. 54 Packet Page 439 of 488 • Where the employee believes the improper action involves their supervisor, the employee may raise the issue directly with Human Resources, their Department Director or the Mayor. Where the employee believes the improper action involves the Mayor, the employee may raise the issue with Human Resources or the City Attorney. • The Mayor or his/her designee, as the case may be, shall promptly investigate the report of improper government action. After the investigation is completed (within thirty (30) days of the employee's report), the employee shall be advised of the results of the investigation, except that personnel actions taken as a result of the investigation may be kept confidential. An employee who fails to make a good faith effort to follow this policy shall not be entitled to the protection of this policy against retaliation, pursuant to RCW 42.41.030. In the case of an emergency, where the employee believes that damage to persons or property may result if action is not taken immediately, the employee may bypass the above procedure and report the improper action directly to the appropriate government agency responsible for investigating the improper action. For the purposes of this section, an emergency is a circumstance that if not immediately changed may cause damage to persons or property. Employees may report information about improper governmental action directly to an outside agency if the employee reasonably believes that an adequate investigation was not undertaken by the City to determine whether an improper government action occurred, or that insufficient action was taken by the City to address the improper action or that for other reasons the improper action is likely to recur. Outside agencies to which reports may be directed include: Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney M/S 504 Everett, WA 98201 (425)388-3333 Washington State Attorney General 1125 Washington Street SE P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504 (360)753-6200 Washington State Auditor Capital Campus P.O. Box 40021 Olympia, WA 98504 (360)902-0370 If the above -listed agencies do not appear to appropriate in light of the nature of the improper action to be reported, contact information for other state and county agencies may be obtained via the following link: http://access.wa.gov/agency/agency.aspx. It is unlawful for a local government to take retaliatory action because an employee, in good faith, provided information that improper government action occurred. Retaliatory 55 Packet Page 440 of 488 Action is any material adverse change in the terms and conditions of an employee's employment. Employees who believe they have been retaliated against for reporting an improper government action should follow this procedure: Procedure for Seeking Relief against Retaliation: (1) Employees must provide a written complaint to the supervisor within thirty (30) days of the occurrence of the alleged retaliatory action. If the supervisor is involved, the notice should go to the Mayor. If the Mayor is involved, the notice should go to the City Attorney. The written charge shall specify the alleged retaliatory action and the relief requested. (2) The Mayor or his/her designee, as the case may be, shall investigate the complaint and respond in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of the written charge. Additional time to respond may be necessary depending on the nature and complexity of the complaint. (3) After receiving the City's response, the employee may request a hearing before a state administrative law judges (ALJ) to establish that a retaliatory action occurred and to obtain appropriate relief under the law. The request for hearing must be delivered within the earlier of either fifteen (15) days of receipt of the City's response to the charge of retaliatory action or forty-five (45) days of receipt of the charge of retaliation to the Mayor for response. (4) Within five (5) working days of receipt of a request for hearing the City shall apply to the State Office of Administrative Hearing's for an adjudicative proceeding before an administrative law judge. Office of Administrative Hearings PO Box 42488 Olympia, WA 98504-2488 360.407.2700 800.558.4857 360.664.8721 Fax (5) At the hearing, the employee must prove that a retaliatory action occurred by a preponderance of the evidence in the hearing. The ALJ will issue a final decision not later than forty-five (45) days after the date of the request for hearing, unless an extension is granted. The Mayor or designee is responsible for implementing these policies and procedures. This includes posting the policy on the City bulletin board, making the policy available to any employee upon request, and providing the policy to all newly hired employees. Officers, managers and supervisors are responsible for ensuring the procedures are fully implemented within their areas of responsibility. 56 Packet Page 441 of 488 Violations of this policy and these procedures may result in appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. 10.4 POLITICAL ACTIVITIES City employees may participate in political or partisan activities of their choosing provided that City resources and property are not utilized, and the activity does not adversely affect the responsibilities of the employees in their positions. Employees may not campaign on City time or in a City uniform or while representing the City in any way. Employees may not allow others to use City facilities or funds for political activities without a paid rental agreement. Any City employee who meets with or may be observed by the public or otherwise represents the City to the public, while performing his/her regular duties, may not wear or display any button, badge or sticker relevant to any candidate or ballot issue during working hours. Employees shall not solicit, on City property or City time, for a contribution for a partisan political cause. Except as noted in this policy, City employees are otherwise free to fully exercise their constitutional First Amendment rights. 10.5 NO SMOKING POLICY The City maintains a smoke -free workplace. No smoking of tobacco products or electronic smoking devices is permitted anywhere in the City's buildings or vehicles, and offices or other facilities rented or leased by the City. If an employee chooses to smoke, it must be done outside at least 25 feet from entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation air intakes. 10.6 PERSONAL POSSESSIONS AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS The City cannot assume responsibility for any theft or damage to the personal belongings of City employees. Therefore, the City requests that employees avoid bringing valuable personal articles to work. Employees are solely responsible for ensuring that their personal belongings are secure while at work. Employees should have no expectation of privacy as to any items or information generated/stored on City systems. Employees are advised that work -related searches of an employee's work area, workspace, computer and electronic mail on the City's property may be conducted without advance notice. The City reserves the right to search employee desks, lockers and personal belongings brought onto City premises if necessary. Employees who do not consent to inspections may be subject to discipline, up to and including immediate termination. Please see Attachment A - INFORMATION SERVICES - ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY - for guidelines on use of City computers. 10.7 USE OF TELEPHONES AND CITY VEHICLES Use of City phones and City cellular phones for local personal phone calls and text messaging should be kept to a minimum; long distance personal use is prohibited. Other City equipment, including vehicles, should be used by employees for City business only, unless otherwise 57 Packet Page 442 of 488 approved by the Department Director. Employees' misuse of City services, telephones, vehicles, equipment or supplies can result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. The City reminds employees that Washington state law restricts the use of cell phones and PDA's while driving. Employees must comply with applicable laws while engaging in work for the City. 10.8 BULLETIN BOARDS Information of special interest to all employees is posted regularly on the City bulletin boards. Employees may not post any information on these bulletin boards without the authorization of the Department Head. 10.9 MEDIA RELATIONS The Mayor or designated department heads shall be responsible for all official contacts with the news media during working hours, including answering of questions from the media. The Mayor or department head may designate specific employees to give out procedural, factual or historical information on particular subjects. 10.10 USE OF SAFETY BELTS Per Washington law, anyone operating or riding in City vehicles must wear seat belts at all times. 10.11 DRIVER'S LICENSE REQUIREMENTS As part of the requirements for certain specific City positions, an employee may be required to hold a valid Washington State Driver's license and/or a Commercial Driver's License (CDL). If an employee fails his or her CDL physical examination or the license is revoked, suspended or lost, or is in any other way not current, valid, and in the employee's possession, the employee shall promptly notify his/her department head and will be immediately suspended from driving duties. The employee may not resume driving until proof of a valid, current license is provided to his/her department head. Depending on the duration of license suspension, revocation or other inability to drive, an employee may be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Failure on the part of an employee to notify their department director of the revocation, suspension, or loss of driving privileges may subject the employee to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. 10.12 SOLICITATIONS Most forms of selling and solicitations are inappropriate in the workplace. They can be an intrusion on employees and citizens and may present a risk to employee safety or to the security of City or employee property. The following limitations apply: Persons not employed by the City may not solicit, survey, petition, or distribute literature on our premises at any time. This includes persons soliciting for charities, salespersons, questionnaire surveyors, labor union organizers, or any other solicitor or distributor. Exceptions to this rule may be made in special circumstances where the City determines that an exception would serve the best interests of the organization and our employees. An example of an exception might be the United Way campaign or a similar, community -based fund raising effort. Packet Page 443 of 488 Employees may not solicit for any purpose during work time. Reasonable forms of solicitation are permitted during non -work time, such as before or after work or during meal or break periods. Soliciting employees who are on non -work time may not solicit other employees who are on work time. Employees may not distribute literature for any purpose during work time or in work areas, or through the City's electronic systems. The employee lunchroom is considered a non -work area under this policy. 10.13 USE OF CITY CREDIT Unless otherwise authorized by City policy or specifically authorized by the Mayor, no City employee is authorized to commit the City to any contractual agreement, especially an agreement that lends the City's credit in any way. Employees are prohibited from conducting personal business with companies in any way which improperly implies the employee is acting as an agent of the City. 10.14 SUBSTANCE ABUSE The City's philosophy on substance abuse has two focuses: (1) a concern for the well being of the employee and (2) a concern for the safety of other employees and members of the public. As part of our employee assistance program, we encourage employees who are concerned about their alcohol or drug use to seek counseling, treatment and rehabilitation. Although the decision to seek diagnosis and accept treatment is completely voluntary, the City is fully committed to helping employees who voluntarily seek assistance to overcome substance abuse problems. In most cases, the expense of treatment may be fully or partially covered by the City's benefit program. Please see the EAP counselor for more information. In recognition of the sensitive nature of these matters, all discussions will be kept confidential. Employers who seek advice or treatment will not be subject to retaliation or discrimination. Although the City is concerned with rehabilitation, it must be understood that disciplinary action may be taken when an employee's job performance is impaired because he/she is under the influence of drugs or alcohol on the job. The City may discipline or terminate an employee possessing, consuming, selling or using alcohol, or controlled substances (other than legally prescribed) during work hours or on City premises, including break times and meal periods. The City may also discipline or terminate an employee who reports for duty or works under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances. Employees may also not report for work when their performance is impaired by the use of prescribed or over-the-counter medications. The City reserves the right to search employee work areas, offices, desks, filing cabinets etc. to ensure compliance with this policy. Employees shall have no expectation of privacy in such areas. Any employee who is convicted of a criminal drug violation in the workplace must notify the organization in writing within five calendar days of the conviction. The organization will take appropriate action within 30 days of notification. Federal contracting agencies will be notified when appropriate. 59 Packet Page 444 of 488 Testing: Certain employees of the City, including those who must possess CDLs or who have safety sensitive positions, are subject to random drug and alcohol testing. Any employee may also be required to submit to alcohol or controlled substance testing when the City has reasonable suspicion that the employee is under the influence of controlled substances or alcohol. Refusal to submit to testing, when requested, may result in immediate disciplinary action, including termination. The City may also choose to pursue criminal charges, if violations of law are suspected. The City has adopted Drug and Alcohol Testing Policies and Procedures, which more specifically describe the City's substance abuse policy, and these are incorporated herein by reference as Appendix B. Z1 Packet Page 445 of 488 0006.90000 BFP: 5/21/08 ORDINANCE NO.3689 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 3 ECC, REVENUE AND FINANCE, TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 3.70 ECC, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, REGARDING CONTRACTS WITH FORMER EMPLOYEES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the city has contracted for professional services with firms that have hired former city employees; and WHEREAS, Chapters 42.20 and 42.23 RCW, which regulates conflict of interest in municipal contracting, does not specifically address dealings with former employees; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it to be in the best interest of the city to adopt regulations establishing criteria for contracting with former employees or firms that hire former employees; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A new Chapter 3.70 ECC, Conflict of Interest., is hereby adopted in Title 3 ECC, Revenue and Finance., to read as follows: Chapter 3.70 CONFLICT OF INTEREST 3.70.000 Definitions. 3.70.010 Restrictions on future employment of city employees. 3.70.020 Disclosure of Privileged, Confidential, or Proprietary Information. {SFP696127.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 - Packet Page 446 of 488 3.70.030 Exemption. 3.70.040 Penalties. 3.70.000 Definitions. The definition of words used in Chapter 3.70 ECC shall be consistent with the definitions, context and usage of the terms in Chapter 42.23 RCW, and their interpretation by Washington Courts. 3.70.010 Restrictions on future employment of city employees. No former city official, officer or employee may, within a period of one year from the date of termination or city employment, accept employment or receive compensation from an employer if: (a) The former city official, officer or employee, during the two years immediately preceding termination of city employment, was engaged in the negotiation or administration of one or more contracts on behalf of the city with that employer and was in a position to make discretionary decisions affecting the outcome of such negotiation or the nature of such administration; and (b) Such a contract or contracts have a total value of more than ten thousand dollars; and (c) The duties of the employment with the employer or the activities for which the compensation would be received include fulfilling or implementing, in whole or in part, the provisions of such a contract or contracts or include the supervision or control of actions taken to fulfill or implement, in whole or in part, the provisions of such a contract or contracts. This session shall not be construed to prohibit a city elected or appointed official or a city employee from accepting employment with a city employee organization. 2. No former city official, officer or employee may, within a period of one year following the termination of city employment, have a direct or indirect beneficial interest in a contract or grant that was expressly authorized or funded by specific legislative or executive action in which the former city official, officer or employee participated. {BFP696127.DOQ1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page 447 of 488 3. No former city official, officer or employee may, within a period of one year following the termination of city employment, represent any person before any city board, body, agency, department, committee, examiner, adjustor, or commission regarding a specific project the former official or employee worked on, and was in a position to make discretionary decisions or recommendations, during his/her term of service or employment unless: (a) The former city official, officer or employee receives no compensation for representing that person; or (b) The specific project was a legislative issue; or (c) The matter involved in the representation by the former city official, officer or employee directly affects properties owned by the former city official, officer or employee. 4. Any elected or appointed official having the power to perform an official act or action shall, for a period of one year after the termination of his or her employment or term of service, refrain from lobbying the city department, agency, elected body, commission, or board on which they last served unless: (a) The former city elected or appointed official is receiving no compensation for such lobbying; or (b) The matter being lobbied directly affects properties owned by the former elected or appointed official. 3.70.020 Disclosure of Privileged, Confidential, or Proprietary Information. No former city official, officer or employee shall disclose or use any privileged, confidential, or proprietary information gained because of his or her service or employment with the city. 3.70.030 Exemption. 1. The prohibitions of ECC 3.10.010 notwithstanding, the city may contract with a former city official, officer or employee for expert or consultant services within one year of the latter's leaving city service upon determination and approval by resolution from the City Council that: {BFP696127.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 - Packet Page 448 of 488 (a) It is important for the city to obtain the services in the contract, and time is of the essence; (b) The former city official, officer or employee is best qualified to perform the services, and contracting with another would result in undue burden on the city; and (c) The interests of the city, including but not limited to legal, financial and operations, will not be undermined as a result thereof. 2. The prohibitions of ECC 3.10.010 shall not apply to a former official, officer or employee acting on behalf of a governmental agency, if the City Council determines that the service to the agency is not adverse to the interest of the city. 3. Nothing in this ordinance shall prohibit an official elected to serve a governmental entity other than the City of Edmonds from carrying out his or her official duties for that government entity. 3.70.040 Penalties. Any person violating any provision of ECC 3,70.010 and ECC 3.70.020 shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and subject to punishment in accordance with ECC 5.50.020. Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum, and shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPRD D: Atle� - MAY G Y AAAKENSON f BFP696127.DOC; 1/00006.900000/) - 4 - Packet Page 449 of 488 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Ad'o��- z &:�� ' TY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVEDYTA : OFFICE OF EY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 06/13/2008 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 06/17/2008 PUBLISHED: 06/22/2008 EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/22/2008 ORDINANCE. NO, 3689 (BFFP696127.DDC. 1/00006.9000001) - 5 - Packet Page 450 of 488 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3689 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 17th day of June, 2008, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No.3689. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 3 ECC, REVENUE AND FINANCE, TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 3.70 ECC, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, REGARDING CONTRACTS WITH FORMER EMPLOYEES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 18th day of June, 2008, -'ear. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE { €3FP696127.DOC; I/CD006.9000001} Packet Page 451 of 488 Humann, Debi From: Chase, Sandy Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:00 AM To: Humann, Debi Subject: RE: Ordinance Search Attachments: Ordinance 3689.pdf Hi Debi, I believe you are looking for Ordinance 3689 (attached) that was adopted in May 2008 that relates to "conflict of interest", former employees, etc. I did a quick word search for anything to do with "ethics" and nothing came up. Also, I do not recall any other ordinance that may apply. If I come across anything, I will be sure to let you know. Sandy From: Humann, Debi Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:34 AM To: Chase, Sandy Subject: Ordinance Search Hi Sandy: I know you are too busy for words but I need help when you get a chance. At last night's PS/HR Committee meeting, Wilson and Bernheim reviewed the Ethics Board issue. They requested that I supply the ordinance that apparently was prepared when Don Fiene went from being an employee to working for a private company. No idea what this is about. Don left our employment 4/08 if that helps. If you can think of any other ordinance that might deal with ethics, that would be appreciate also. Thank you. Debi Packet Page 452 of 488 to watch the January 23 joint meeting with the Planning Board, Economic Development Commission and the consultant. With regard to student volunteers, he recalled his son was a student volunteer on the skate park and worked three years to design and build it. He used that experience in college. If the Council pursues a parks levy, he recommended including a project for students in order to engage them in campaigning for the levy. He agreed with Mr. Hertrich's suggestion for the Council to appoint a representative to the School District and also suggested Councilmembers attend the Superintendent's monthly roundtable meetings. Councilmember Bloom explained she wanted the Council to adopt an ethics policy that addresses board/commission, elected officials and staff. There are many policies in Washington could be adapted for Edmonds. The next step is to form an ethics committee; if a citizen has a question about something such as a conflict of interest, they can go to the ethics committee and determine whether something is potentially an ethics violation. She recommended the Council, 1) adopt an ethics policy, and 2) form an ethics committee. She sought Council approval for the Public Safety & Personnel Committee to pursue this. Ms. Hite explained the recently adopted personnel policy has an extensive ethics policy for employees; that is the best place for policies regarding employees. She encouraged the Council to develop an ethics policy for boards/commissions and elected officials but not to include employees. Discussion followed regarding other cities' ethics policies, past unsuccessful efforts to develop a code of ethics policy, developing a policy with enough examples to provide direction, and the difference between a code of conduct and code of ethics. Summary: Refer development of code of ethics to Public Safety and Personnel Committee. 11. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION No action. 10. MISCELLANEOUS Based on yesterday's discussion regarding public comment at committee meetings, Council President Petso distributed language for committee meeting notices and asked Councilmember to submit comments/concerns to Ms. Chase. The retreat was adjourned at 11:37 p.m. Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes February 1-2, 2013 Page 21 Packet Page 453 of 488 Action: Take item to full Council for further discussion after draft discussion points and possible ordinance language received from Officer Dawson. C. Discussion and potential action regarding possible amendment of City Code 8.48, Parking, Paragraph 8.48.215 B.2. Joan Ferebee, Court Administrator, explained she attended a Parking Committee Meeting to bring to their attention the difficulty the Municipal Court is experiencing with the section of the City Code that allows citizens who receive a parking ticket to pay a reduced fine if the individual pays the fine by the end of the next business day after the issuance of the parking ticket. Generally, the Court does not have the tickets in their system that quickly. Therefore, the individuals can become very angry and upset when they come to the Municipal Court and are not able to pay. Ms. Ferebee stated that the Parking Committee recommended removing the section of the Code that allows for a reduced fine if it is paid by the end of the next business day. Councilmember Peterson stated that he was in agreement with eliminating the reduced fine. He stated that he would work with the City Attorney to create an ordinance to place on the consent agenda. Councilmember Bloom was in agreement. Action: Councilmember Peterson will work with the City Attorney to create an ordinance eliminating the reduced fine. The Ordinance is to be placed on a future Consent Agenda for approval. D. Student and Senior Volunteers Councilmember Bloom stated she would like to support the Boards and Commissions in obtaining student volunteers. She suggested that a senior volunteer could assist Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Assistant, in getting the word out to the various schools. Councilmember Peterson suggested Ms. Spellman could email the school board or a volunteer coordinator in the school system to determine if there are students interested in volunteering. Councilmember Bloom suggested a senior volunteer could work with Jana to develop a framework for contacting all of the schools with the appropriate person to contact and to advertise. Councilmember Peterson cautioned that managing a volunteer can take more time. He suggested talking with the Council President as she is in charge of Ms. Spellman's schedule. Councilmember Bloom also recalled that at the Council Retreat, Councilmember Johnson suggested an event be held to recognize city volunteers. Councilmember Bloom stated she will discuss with the Mayor the idea of scheduling a yearly event. E. Ethics Board and Code of Ethics Councilmember Bloom suggested narrowing down the list of sample policies from other cities for the City Attorney to work with in developing the policy for Edmonds. She suggested using the policies from the cities of Bainbridge Island, Lynnwood and Monroe. Public Safety & Personnel Committee March 12, 2013 Page 2 of 3 Packet Page 454 of 488 Councilmember Bloom stated that she would like the policy to include appointed officials (directors) in addition to elected officials and members of boards and commissions. Councilmember Peterson stated that he did not think the policy needed to address appointed officials (directors) as they answer to the Mayor. The Committee concluded that a further discussion on a Code of Ethics policy would be scheduled for the April Committee Meeting to determine which policy will be sent to the City Attorney. F. Discussion regarding taking minutes during Council Committee Meetings. Councilmember Peterson stated that if detailed/complete minutes are desired it would be necessary to pay someone to attend the meetings for this purpose. If action minutes are prepared (which is the way it has generally always been done), then he did not think councilmembers should take the minutes as it is difficult to participate in the discussion and take minutes. Councilmember Bloom agreed that councilmembers should not take minutes. After discussion, Councilmembers Bloom and Peterson agreed on the following recommendation: • Action minutes for committee meetings, prepared by staff members in attendance. • If a controversial item is scheduled, arrangements for more detailed minutes will be made. • Summary comments made by citizens should be included. Committee members will summarize citizen comments if no staff is available. • Work with Council President related to agenda items to make sure a staff member is available for each item discussed at the committee meeting. • Committee minutes are to be forwarded to committee chairs for review (as time allows). G. Public Comments There were no public comments. The committee meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Public Safety & Personnel Committee March 12, 2013 Page 3 of 3 Packet Page 455 of 488 Councilmember Peterson suggested dropping reference to 2.10.050 in this section of the code. Councilmember Bloom next pointed out that 2.10.050 refers to both finance director and community services director, however the title of the section does not reflect this. Further, Councilmember Bloom believes the positions of Executive Assistant to the Council and the Mayor's Executive Assistant should not be part of this chapter as they are not City Officers. Committee members agreed to request the City Attorney to determine if these positions should be in a different section of the code. D. Discussion regarding Code of Ethics. Committee members discussed ethics policies from Bainbridge Island, Lynnwood and Kirkland. Councilmember Bloom referred to the policy from Bainbridge Island and would like to include the requirement for members to "disclose a conflict of interest" as a standing requirement at all city meetings for all officials. Councilmember Peterson commented that he believes the Council does a good job at this disclosure; however, having it on each agenda is a good reminder. Further discussion occurred related to policies, including the possible consideration of a Code of Ethics Officer. After discussion the committee agreed to forward to the next work session of the City Council the Bellevue and Kirkland ethics policies and the Kirkland Code of Conduct for discussion. The committee also recommended including the statement from Bainbridge Island related to disclosure of conflict of interest for all officials. After full Council discussion, direction can then be given to the City Attorney on how to proceed. Ms. Hite indicated she would bring back information on a Code of Ethics Officer. The meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Public Safety & Personnel Committee July 9, 2013 Page 5 of 5 Packet Page 456 of 488 CITY OF KIRKLAND CODE OF CONDUCT FOR CITY COUNCIL AND BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS The Code of Conduct is supplemental to the Kirkland Municipal Code and the Code of Ethics and applies to the City Council and all members of City advisory boards and commissions. The Code of Conduct describes how Kirkland officials treat each other and work together for the common good of the community. Conducting the City's business in an atmosphere of respect and civility is the underlying theme in this code. City Officials are responsible for holding themselves and each other accountable for displaying actions and behaviors that consistently model the ideals expressed in the code. Implicit in the Code of Conduct is recognition of the worth of individual members and an appreciation for their individual talents, perspectives and contributions. The Code will ensure an atmosphere where individual members, staff and the public are free to express their ideas and work to their full potential. As a City Official of the City of Kirkland, I agree to these principles of conduct.• We consistently demonstrate the principles ofprofessionalism, respect and civility in working for the greater good of Kirkland, We assure fair and equal treatment of all people. We conduct ourselves both personally and professionally in a manner that is above reproach. We refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks on the character or motives of Council members, commissioners, staff and the public. We take care to avoid personal comments that could offend others. We show no tolerance for intimidating behaviors. We listen courteously and attentively to all public discussions and treat all people the way we wish to be treated. We serve as a model of leadership and civility to the community. Our actions inspire public confidence in Kirkland government. Packet Page 457 of 488 Keeping in mind the common good as the highest purpose, we will focus on holding efficient meetings that achieve constructive solutions for the public benefit, We work as a team to solve problems and render decisions that are based on the merits and substance of the matter. We respect differences and views of other people. We adhere to the principles and laws governing the Council/Manager form of government and treat all staff with respect and cooperation. We will refrain from interfering with the administrative functions and professional duties of staff. We will not publicly criticize individual staff but will privately communicate with the City Manager any concerns about a Department or Department Director or staff person. We will refrain from negotiating or making commitments without the involvement and knowledge of the City Manager. We will work with staff in a manner that consistently demonstrates mutual respect. We will not discuss personnel issues, undermine management direction, or give or imply direction to staff. We will communicate directly with the City Manager, department directors or designated staff contacts when asking for information, assistance or follow up. We will not knowingly blindside one another in public and will contact staff prior to a meeting with any questions or issues. We will not attend City staff meetings unless requested by staff. I acknowledge that I have received and read this Code of Conduct Name Date Packet Page 458 of 488 1336-ORD 06/05/13 CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 6110 AN ORDINANCE repealing Bellevue City Code Chapter 3.92 and Ordinance No. 4049, and adopting new Bellevue City Code Chapter 3.92 providing for a Code of Ethics - City Council and City Boards, Commissions and Committees. WHEREAS, the citizens and business of Bellevue are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable local government that has earned the public's full confidence for integrity; and WHEREAS, adopting a Code of Ethics for members of the City Council and the City's boards and commissions will promote public confidence in the integrity of local government and fair operation; and WHEREAS, the Code of Ethics will provide the basis for education and training for City officials both elected and appointed, to ensure that the highest standards and best practices with regard to ethics will be followed; now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Bellevue City Code Chapter 3.92 and Ordinance No. 4049 are hereby repealed. Section 2. A new Chapter 3.92 is hereby adopted to read as follows: 3.92.010 — POLICY A. Purpose. The Bellevue City Council has adopted a Code of Ethics for members of the City Council and Council -appointed public bodies to promote public confidence in the integrity of local government and its fair operation. This Code of Ethics will provide the basis for education and training for City Officials, both elected and appointed, to ensure that the highest standards and best practices with regard to ethics will be followed. B. Intent. The citizens and businesses of Bellevue are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable local government that has earned the public's full confidence. It is further the intent that City Officials be permitted to fulfill their duties to represent the public to the greatest extent possible unless circumstances exist where such engagement is impermissible. Nothing in this chapter is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict the pool of available candidates for service on the Council or service on Council -appointed public bodies, all of which are either part-time or volunteer positions. It is in the public interest to ensure that barriers to citizen public service are not created by the provisions of this chapter. In keeping with the City of Packet Page 459 of 488 1336-O RD 06/05/13 Bellevue's commitment to excellence, the effective functioning of democratic government therefore requires that: (1) public officials, both elected and appointed, comply with the laws and policies affecting the operations of government; (2) public officials be independent, impartial and fair in their actions; (3) public office be used for the public good, not for personal gain; and (4) public deliberations and processes be conducted openly, unless legally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility. 3.92.020 — DEFINITIONS A. "Official" means a member of the City Council or a member of Council - appointed City boards and commissions and other Council -appointed task groups or committees. B. "Relative" means spouse, domestic partner, child, step -child, parent, step- parent, parent -in-law and sibling. 3.92.030 — PROHIBITED CONDUCT A. Conflicts of Interest: Officials shall not participate in quasi-judicial or site - specific land use City decisions, the purchase or condemnation of property, or City decisions involving the awarding of a grant or contract in which any of the following has an interest: 1. The Official, 2. A relative, 3. An individual with whom the Official resides, or 4. An entity that the Official serves as an officer, director, trustee, partner or employee. Officials shall abstain from participating in deliberations and decision - making where conflicts exist. RCW 42.23.040 shall apply conflicts or potential conflicts with respect to remote interests in City decisions involving the awarding of a contract. B. Misuse of Public Position or Resources. Except for infrequent use at little or no cost to the City, Officials shall not use public resources that are not available to the public in general, such as City staff time, equipment, supplies or facilities, for other than a City purpose. 2 Packet Page 460 of 488 1336-ORD 06/05/13 C. Representation of Third Parties. Except in the course of official duties, Officials shall not appear on behalf of the financial interests of third parties before the bodies on which the Officials serve or in interaction with the body's assigned staff. Further, the members of the City Council shall not appear on behalf of the financial interest of third parties before the Council or any board, commission or proceeding of the City, or in interaction with staff. D. Solicitation of Charitable Contributions. No official may make direct personal solicitations for charitable contributions from City employees. E. Gifts and Favors. Officials shall not take any special advantage of services or opportunities for personal gain, by virtue of their public office, which are not available to the public in general. They may not solicit or receive any thing of monetary value from any person or entity where the thing of monetary value has been solicited or received or given, or to a reasonable person, would appear to have been solicited, or received or given with intent to give or obtain special consideration or influence as to any action by the Official in his or her official capacity; provided, that nothing shall prohibit campaign contributions which are solicited or received and reported in accordance with applicable law. They shall not accept or solicit any gifts, favors or promises of future benefits except as follows: 1. No Official may accept gifts, other than those specified in subsection 2 of this section, with an aggregate value in excess of fifty dollars ($50) from a single source in a calendar year or a single gift from multiple sources with a value in excess of fifty dollars ($50) in accordance with RCW 42.52.150(1); provided, that if the fifty dollar ($50) limit in RCW 42.52.150(1) is amended, this section shall be deemed to reflect the amended amount. For purposes of this section, "single source" means any person, corporation, or entity, whether acting directly or through any agent or other intermediary, and "single gift" includes any event, item, or group of items used in conjunction with each other or any trip including transportation, lodging, and attendant costs. The value of gifts given to an Official's family member or guest shall be attributed to the Official for the purpose of determining whether the limit has been exceeded, unless an independent business, family, or social relationship exists between the donor and the Official, family member or guest. 2. The following items are presumed not to influence the vote, action, or judgment of the Official, or be considered as part of a reward for action or inaction, and may be accepted without regard to the limit established by subsection 1 of this section: a. Unsolicited flowers, plants and floral arrangements; b. Unsolicited advertising or promotional items of nominal value, such as pens and note pads; c. Unsolicited tokens or awards of appreciation in the form of a plaque, trophy, desk item, wall memento, or similar item; 3 Packet Page 461 of 488 1336-O RD 06/05/13 d. Unsolicited items received by an Official for the purpose of evaluation or review, if the Official has no personal beneficial interest in the eventual use or acquisition of the item; e. Informational materials, publications or subscriptions related to the recipient's performance of official duties; f. Food and beverages consumed at hosted receptions where attendance is related to the Official's duties for the City; g. Admission to, and the cost of food and beverages consumed at, events sponsored by or in conjunction with a civic, charitable, governmental or community organization; h. Unsolicited gifts from dignitaries from another state or a foreign country which -are intended to be personal in nature; and i. Food and beverages on infrequent occasions in the ordinary course of meals where attendance by the Official is related to the performance of official d uties. j. Any gift which would have been offered or given to the Official if he or she were not an Official 3. The presumption in subsection 2 is rebuttable and may be overcome based on the circumstances surrounding the giving and acceptance of the item. G. Confidential Information. Officials shall not knowingly disclose or use any Confidential Information gained by reason of their official position for other than a City purpose nor may the Officer use such information for his or her personal benefit, nor may the Officer engage in business or professional activity that the Officer might reasonably expect would induce him or her by reason of his or her official position to disclose such Confidential Information.. "Confidential Information" means: 1. Specific information, rather than generalized knowledge, that is not available to a person who files a public records request, and 2. Information made confidential by law. • �� � :► T 9 A. In addition to Section 3.92.030 of the Code of Ethics, which shall be administered by the Ethics Officer, Officials shall comply with the following standards: Compliance with other laws. Officials shall comply with Federal, State and City laws in the performance of their public duties. These laws include, but are not limited to: rd Packet Page 462 of 488 1336-ORD 06/05/13 The United States and Washington constitutions; laws pertaining to conflicts of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures and open processes of government; and City ordinances and policies. See Appendix A. Officials shall comply with the requirements of RCW 42.17.020 through .060 regarding contract interests. As required by RCW 42.17.750, no Official shall knowingly solicit or encourage, directly or indirectly, any political contribution from any City employee. Except under limited circumstances described in RCW 42.17.130, no Official may use or authorize the use of the facilities of the City for the purpose of assisting a campaign for the election of any person to office, or form the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition in a manner not available to the general public on the same terms. B. Officials are also encouraged to comply with the following standards: 1. Personal Integrity. The professional and personal conduct of Officials must be above reproach and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Officials shall refrain from abusive conduct, threats of official action, personal accusations or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other members of Council, boards and commissions, the staff or public. Officials shall maintain truthfulness and honesty and not compromise themselves for advancement, honor, or personal gain. Additionally, Officials shall not directly or indirectly induce, encourage or aid anyone to violate this Code of Ethics and it is incumbent upon Officials to make a good faith effort to address apparent violations of this Code of Ethics. 2. Working for the Common Good. Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their primary concern, Officials will work for the common good of the people of Bellevue and not for any private or personal interest, and they will ensure fair and equal treatment of all persons, claims and transactions coming before the City Council, boards and commissions. 3. Respect for Process. Officials shall perform their duties in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by the City Council and boards and commissions governing the deliberation of public policy issues, meaningful involvement of the public, and implementation of policy decisions of the City Council by City staff. 4. Commitment to Transparency. Transparency, openness and accountability are fundamental values of the City — and are also required by the laws of the state of Washington. The public has a right to inspect and copy public records unless exempt by law from disclosure. All materials relating to the conduct of City government that are prepared, possessed, used or retained by any Official, including Email and other electronic records, are subject to requirements for retention, protection and disclosure. Officials may assume that all copies of materials received from City staff have already been archived and do not need to be retained. Officials shall not discard, damage or destroy the original copy of any public record unless the City complies with the record retention schedules established under Chapter 40.14 RCW. In accordance with the requirements of state law Officials shall 5 Packet Page 463 of 488 1336-ORD 06/05/13 promptly provide any records requested by the Public Records Officer in response to a disclosure request under the Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. It is the responsibility for the Public Records Officer together with the City Attorney, to decide which records meet the definition of "public record" and whether or not such records are exempt from disclosure; Officials must not take it upon themselves to decide whether a record meets the definition of a public, record, that a record is exempt from disclosure, or to otherwise conceal a record. 5. Conduct of Public Meetings. Officials shall prepare themselves for public issues; listen courteously and attentively to all public discussions before the body; and focus on the business at hand. They shall refrain from interrupting other speakers; or otherwise interfering with the orderly conduct of meetings. 6. Decisions Based on Merit. Officials shall base their decisions on the merits and substance of the matter at hand and on greater public policy considerations, rather than on unrelated considerations. 7. Ex parte Communications. In quasi-judicial matters, Officials shall publicly disclose substantive information that is relevant to a matter under consideration by the Council or boards and commissions, which they may have received from sources outside of the public decision -making process. 8. Attendance. As provided in RCW 35A.12.060, a Council Member shall forfeit his or her office by failing to attend three consecutive regular meetings of the Council without being excused by the Council. Unless excused, members of boards and commissions are expected to attend all meetings. 9. Nepotism. The City Council will not appoint Relatives of City Council Members to boards or commissions or other appointed positions. 10. Advocacy. When acting in an official capacity as a City Official representing the City, Officials shall represent the official policies or positions of the City Council, board or commission to the best of their ability when the City Council, board or commission has taken a position or given an instruction. When a City Official is appointed to fill an Official role on a governing body in a capacity that is not dependent upon their status as a City of Bellevue Official, but, for example, as a representative of a geographic area, the Official shall endeavor to represent the policies or positions consistent with those of the constituency he or she has been appointed to represent. When presenting their individual opinions and positions, members shall explicitly state they do not represent their body or the Gity of Bellevue, nor will they allow the inference that they do. Officials have the right to endorse candidates for all Council seats or other elected offices. It is inappropriate to make or display endorsements during Council meetings, board/commission meetings, or other official City meetings. However, this does not preclude Officials from participating in ceremonial occasions, community events or other events sponsored by civic groups. C• Packet Page 464 of 488 1336-ORD 06/05/13 11. Role of Legislative Officials. The Council shall have all the powers and authority granted to legislative bodies, except insofar as such power and authority is vested in the City Manager in accordance with Chapter 35A.13 RCW. UATITSYSTIT41 WMA Ch. 9A.72 RCW Perjury and interference with official proceedings RCW 35A.12.060 Vacancy for nonattendance Ch. 35A.13 RCW Council-manager plan of government RCW 35A.13.020 Incompatible offices Ch. 40.13 RCW Preservation and destruction of public records RCW 42.17.130 Use of public office or agency facilities in campaigns — prohibition — exceptions RCW 42.17.750 Solicitation of contributions by public officials or employees Ch. 42.23 RCW Code of ethics for municipal officers — contract interests Ch. 42.36 RCW Appearance of fairness doctrine — limitations Ch. 42.56 RCW Public Records Act 3.92.50 — NO RIGHT OF ACTION CREATED; EFFECTIVE DATE. A. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as creating or providing a basis for a private cause of action against the City or against any Official by third parties. B. No retroactive application is intended by the adoption of this chapter which shall only apply to acts that occur after the effective date thereof. 3.92.060 — ETHICS OFFICER A. The City Council creates the position of Ethics Officer. The City Council will interview and choose the ethics officer(s) who shall operate under contract with the City of Bellevue. Such selection shall be by unanimous vote, and the Ethics Officer shall be admitted to the practice of law and shall have sufficient experience and training. The services of the Ethics Officer may be terminated only by a supermajority vote of the Council. B. The Ethics Officer will provide for annual review of this Code of Ethics, review of training materials provided for education regarding the Code of Ethics, and advisory opinions concerning the Code of Ethics. The Ethics Officer shall also be responsible for the prompt and fair enforcement of its provisions when necessary, and shall at all times maintain the impartiality of the office by revealing information provided to the Officer only in the context of rendering opinions to the City and its Officials and staff as necessary or in response to legal process. 7 Packet Page 465 of 488 1336-ORD 06/05/13 C. The Ethics Officer, in addition to other duties, shall conduct a review of this ethics code in 2015 and again in 2017 and may recommend changes or additions to this Code of Ethics to the City Council designed to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of processing ethics questions. D. In rendering opinions under 3.92.070 or 3.92.080 below, the Ethics Officer shall consider the Intent section contained in 3.92.010 herein and in RCW 42.23.010. 3.92.070. - ADVISORY OPINIONS A. Upon request of any Official, the Ethics Officer shall render written advisory opinions concerning the applicability of Sections 3.92.030 and 3.92.040 of this Code to hypothetical circumstances and/or situations solely related to the persons making the request. The Ethics Officer will not render opinions on matters that are the purview of other government agencies such as the Public Disclosure Commission or the King County Prosecutor. B. Upon request of any Official, the Ethics Officer may also render written advisory opinions concerning the applicability of the Code of Ethics to hypothetical circumstances and/or situations related to a matter of city- wide interest or policy. C. The Ethics Officer will endeavor to respond to requests for advisory opinions within fourteen (14) days of submission of the request, or more rapidly if the requester expresses urgency in the request. D. An Official's conduct based in reasonable reliance on an advisory opinion rendered by the Ethics Officer shall not be found to violate this Code of Ethics, as long as all material facts have been fully, completely, accurately presented in a written request for an advisory opinion, the Ethics Officer issues an advisory opinion that the described conduct would not violate the Code of Ethics, and the Official's conduct is consistent with the advisory opinion. The Ethics Officer reserves the right to reconsider the questions and issues raised in an advisory opinion and, where the public interest requires, rescind, modify, or terminate the opinion, but a modified or terminated advisory opinion will not form the basis of a retroactive enforcement action against the original requestor. Advisory opinions will contain severability clauses indicating that, should portions of the opinion be found to be unenforceable or not within the Ethics Officer's authority, the remainder of the opinion shall remain intact. E. All Officials subject to this chapter are strongly encouraged to seek advisory opinions from the Ethics Officer at the earliest possible Es3 Packet Page 466 of 488 1336-ORD 06/05/13 opportunity whenever an official has reason to believe that his or her circumstances could present a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest or any other violation of this chapter. F. Advisory opinions are subject to the attorney -client privilege. WAI A. Complaint procedures. 1. Any natural person who believes an Official has committed a violation of the code may file a complaint with the City Clerk. Complaints shall be subject to the following requirements: a. The complaint must be based upon facts within the personal knowledge of the complainant; b. The complaint must be submitted in writing and signed under oath by the complainant; c. The complaint must include a detailed factual description of the alleged violation including the date, time and place of each occurrence and the name of the person or persons who are alleged to have committed a violation. The complaint must also refer to the specific provisions of the Code of Ethics which are alleged to have been violated; d. The complaint must be accompanied by all available documentation or other evidence known to the complainant to support the allegations of the complaint; e. The complaint must be filed within two years of the date of the occurrence or occurrences alleged to constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics. 2. Complaints shall be filed with the City Clerk who shall forward the complaint and any accompanying documentation and evidence to the Ethics Officer and the respondent Official within two business days. The Ethics Officer shall review the complaint for compliance with the requirements of subsection 1 of this section. Should the Ethics Officer find that: a. The complaint is untimely; or b. The complaint has not been signed under oath; or c. The complaint does not, on its face, state facts which, if proven to be true, constitute a violation of the provision of this Code of Ethics referred to in the complaint; or E Packet Page 467 of 488 1336-ORD 06/05/13 d. The complaint fails to refer to a specific provision of the Code of Ethics which is alleged to have been violated, the Ethics Officer shall, within 10 working days of the filing of the complaint, enter a written order stating the Ethics Officer's findings and, except as hereinafter provided, dismissing the complaint. The written order shall be transmitted to the complainant, the Official that is the subject of the complaint, and the City Council. If the Ethics Officer finds that the complaint is deficient pursuant to the findings in subsection 1(b) or (d) of this section, the Ethics Officer shall issue an order notifying the complainant that unless a corrected complaint is filed within five days of the issuance of such order, the complaint shall be dismissed. The complainant may appeal the dismissal of a complaint under this subsection by filing an action in the King County superior court for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Chapter 7.16 RCW within 10 days of the date of issuance of the order dismissing the complaint. 3. The respondent Official shall, within 20 days of the date of mailing or personal service of the complaint by the Clerk, file with the Clerk any response to the complaint the respondent Official wishes to make. A response to a complaint shall be made in writing signed under oath by the respondent. A response may include a detailed statement of facts pertaining to the complaint made on personal knowledge of the respondent and may include any matter constituting a defense to the complaint. A response should be accompanied by all available documentation or other evidence known to the respondent Official which the respondent wishes the Ethics Officer to consider. The respondent Official may stipulate to some or all of the facts alleged in the complaint and shall either admit or deny the alleged violation. If the violation is admitted, the respondent may also submit an explanatory statement and may request a particular disposition. 4. Upon receipt of a response to a complaint, the Ethics Officer shall review the complaint and response, together with all supporting documentation and evidence submitted by the complainant and the respondent Official. Within 10 days of receipt of the response (or, if no timely response is submitted, within 30 days of the date of mailing the complaint to the respondent Official by the City Clerk), the Ethics Officer shall issue a decision in writing, including findings of fact, conclusions of law and a determination of whether any violation of the Code of Ethics has been established. The final written decision shall be signed and dated by the Ethics Officer. The City Clerk shall deliver a copy of the final written decision to the complainant, the respondent Official, the City Council and to any other person who has submitted a written request therefor. 5. A Complaint for Ethical Violations filed under this Chapter shall be considered a claim filed against an Official pursuant to Chapter 3.81 BCC. 6. Either the complainant or respondent Official may, within 30 days of the date of the written decision, appeal to the King County superior court by writ of certiorari pursuant to Chapter 7.16 RCW. 10 Packet Page 468 of 488 1336-ORD 06/05/13 7. If the final decision of the Ethics Officer contains a determination that one or more violations of this Code of Ethics has occurred, the decision shall also contain any recommendations of the Ethics Officer to the City Council for any remedial action or sanction that the Council may find appropriate and lawful under the Council's Rules. If no appeal is filed in superior court, the Council in consultation with the City Attorney shall, within 45 days of the date of the decision, determine what, if any, of the recommendations of the Ethics Officers to adopt. Such determination shall be adopted at an open public meeting by a majority vote of those Officials who are not respondents to the complaint or complaints. Section 3. Severability. Should any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance be held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days after passage and publication. Passed by the City Council this " day of , 2013 and signed in authentication of its passage this 5 day of , 2013. (SEAL) Approved as to form: Lori M. Riordan, City Attorney Attest: Myrna L. Basich, City Clerk Published t; Conrad Lee, Mayor 11 Packet Page 469 of 488 Ethics Requirements for Advisory Commissions and Committees The Bainbridge Island Ethics Program (revised March 23, 2011) now applies to the citizen members of advisory commissions and committees as well as city officials. Accordingly, advisory group members must comply with the requirements of the Code of Ethics in Article II of the Ethics Program. These requirements are summarized below; please consult the Code of Ethics for specific language and details of the requirements. 1. Gifts and Compensation. An advisory group member and his or her immediate family members may not accept gifts related to the advisory group member's services to the city, with some exceptions including unsolicited gifts of trivial value. 2. Confidentiality. An advisory group member or former member may not disclose or use privileged, confidential or proprietary information obtained in the course of his or her duties as a member. 3. Conflict of Interest. An advisory group member may not act officially on a matter in which the member or an immediate family member has any substantial employment related to the matter or other financial or private interest in the matter, or is party to a contract or owns an interest in property that would be significantly affected by the action. However, if the member fully discloses the conflict on the public record, the commission or committee may vote to allow the member to participate in discussion or vote. Members of advisory groups shall sign a conflict of interest statement upon appointment and reappointment. 4. Conduct of Public Meetings. Advisory group meetings should be conducted in a manner that maximizes transparency of relationships that could affect decision -making. Meetings should have a standing agenda item for members to disclose relationships with persons and issues on the agenda, and members should discuss these relationships to judge whether a conflict of interest exists. 7/14 Packet Page 470 of 488 CITY OF KIRKLAND Chapter 3.14 CODE OF ETHICS Sections: 3.14.010 Policy. 3.14.020 Definitions. 3.14.030 Prohibited conduct. 3.14.040 Financial disclosure statements. 3.14.050 Ethical standards. 3.14.060 Ethics officer. 3.14.070 Advisory opinions. 3.14.080 Complaints, investigations, hearings and enforcement. 3.14.010 Policy. (a) Purpose. The Kirkland city council has adopted a code of ethics for members of the city council and the city's boards and commissions to promote public confidence in the integrity of local government and its fair operation. This code of ethics will provide the basis for education and training for city officials, both elected and appointed, to ensure that the highest standards and best practices with regard to ethics will be followed. (b) Intent. The citizens and businesses of Kirkland are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable local government that has earned the public's full confidence. In keeping with the city of Kirkland's commitment to excellence, the effective functioning of democratic government therefore requires that: (1) Public officials, both elected and appointed, comply with the laws and policies affecting the operations of government; (2) Public officials be independent, impartial and fair in their judgment and actions; (3) Public office be used for the public good, not for personal gain; and (4) Public deliberations and processes be conducted openly, unless legally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility. (Ord. 4348 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2012) 3.14.020 Definitions. (a) "Official" means a member of the city council or a member of council -appointed city boards and commissions and other council -appointed task groups or committees, including youth members. (b) "Relative" means spouse or domestic partner, child, step -child, parent, step- parent, parent -in-law, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, son - or daughter-in-law, brother- or sister-in-law. (Ord. 4348 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2012) 3.14.030 Prohibited conduct. (a) Conflicts of Interest. In order to ensure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the common good, officials shall not participate in government decisions in which any of the following has a financial interest: (1) the official, (2) a relative, (3) an individual with whom the official resides, or (4) an entity that the official serves as an Attachment 11 Packet Page 471 of 488 officer, director, trustee, partner or employee. Officials shall abstain from participating in deliberations and decision -making where conflicts exist. This section shall not apply (1) to decisions regarding taxes or fees, (2) if the financial interest is shared with more than ten percent of the city's population, or (3) if the financial interest exists solely because of the official's ownership of less than one percent of the outstanding shares of a publicly traded corporation. (b) Appearance of Conflict. If it could appear to a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, that the official's judgment is impaired because of either (1) a personal or business relationship not covered under the foregoing subsection, or (2) a transaction or activity engaged in by the official, the official shall make a public, written disclosure of the facts giving rise to the appearance of a conflict before participating in the matter. (c) Misuse of Public Position or Resources. Except for infrequent use at little or no cost to the city, officials shall not use public resources that are not available to the public in general, such as city staff time, equipment, supplies or facilities, for other than a city purpose. (d) Representation of Third Parties. Except in the course of official duties, officials shall not appear on behalf of the financial interests of third parties before the bodies on which the officials serve or in interaction with assigned staff. However, the members of the city council shall not appear on behalf of the financial interest of third parties before the council or any board, commission or proceeding of the city, or in interaction with staff. (e) Solicitations of Charitable Contributions. No official may make direct personal solicitations for charitable contributions from city employees. (f) Gifts and Favors. Officials shall not take any special advantage of services or opportunities for personal gain, by virtue of their public office, which are not available to the public in general. They may not solicit or receive any thing of monetary value from any person or entity where the thing of monetary value has been solicited, or received or given or, to a reasonable person, would appear to have been solicited, received or given with intent to give or obtain special consideration or influence as to any action by the official in his or her official capacity; provided, that nothing shall prohibit campaign contributions which are solicited or received and reported in accordance with applicable law. They shall not accept or solicit any gifts, favors or promises of future benefits except as allowed by Section 3.80.140. (g) Confidential Information. Officials shall not disclose or use any confidential information gained by reason of their official position for other than a city purpose. "Confidential information" means (1) specific information, rather than generalized knowledge, that is not available to a person who files a public records request, and (2) information made confidential by law. (Ord. 4348 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2012) 3.14.040 Financial disclosure statements. All officials, except members of the city council, shall file a city of Kirkland disclosure statement annually. In accordance with Chapter 42.17 RCW, members of the Kirkland city council shall disclose investments, interests in real property, sources of income, and creditors through the filing of a Public Disclosure Commission Form F-1, "Personal Financial Affairs Statement." Members of boards and commissions shall be advised, as part of the application process, that they will be required to file the applicable city of Attachment 11 2 Packet Page 472 of 488 Kirkland disclosure statement within ten days of appointment. (Ord. 4348 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2012) 3.14.050 Ethical standards. In addition to Section 3.14.030 of the code of ethics, which shall be administered by the ethics officer, officials are also encouraged to comply with the following standards: (1) Compliance with Other Laws. Officials shall comply with federal, state and city laws in the performance of their public duties. These laws include, but are not limited to: the United States and Washington Constitutions; laws pertaining to conflicts of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures and open processes of government; and city ordinances and policies. See Appendix A. As required by RCW 42.17.750, no official shall knowingly solicit or encourage, directly or indirectly, any political contribution from any city employee. Except under limited circumstances described in RCW 42.17.130, no official may use or authorize the use of the facilities of the city for the purpose of assisting a campaign for the election of any person to any office, or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition in a manner not available to the general public on the same terms. (2) Personal Integrity. The professional and personal conduct of officials must be above reproach and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Officials shall refrain from abusive conduct, threats of official action, personal accusations or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other members of council, boards and commissions, the staff or public. Officials shall maintain truthfulness and honesty and not compromise themselves for advancement, honor, or personal gain. Additionally, officials shall not directly or indirectly induce, encourage or aid anyone to violate the code of ethics and it is incumbent upon officials to make a good faith effort to address apparent violations of this code of ethics. (3) Working for the Common Good. Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their primary concern, officials will work for the common good of the people of Kirkland and not for any private or personal interest, and they will ensure fair and equal treatment of all persons, claims and transactions coming before the city council, boards and commissions. Officials need to be mindful that making special requests of staff —even when the response does not benefit the official personally —puts staff in an awkward position. (4) Respect for Process. Officials shall perform their duties in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by the city council and board and commissions governing the deliberation of public policy issues, meaningful involvement of the public, and implementation of policy decisions of the city council by city staff. (5) Commitment to Transparency. Transparency, openness, and accountability are fundamental values of the city —and are also required by the laws of the state of Washington. The public has a right to inspect and copy public records unless exempt by law from disclosure. All materials relating to the conduct of city government that are prepared, possessed, used or retained by any official, including email and other electronic records, are subject to requirements for retention, protection, and disclosure. Officials may assume that all copies of materials received from city staff have already been archived and do not need to be retained. Officials shall not discard, damage, or destroy the original copy of any public record unless directed by the city public records officer (the city clerk), who has responsibility to ensure that the city complies with the Attachment 11 3 Packet Page 473 of 488 record retention schedules established under Chapter 40.14 RCW. Officials shall promptly provide any records requested by the public records officer in response to a disclosure request under the Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. It is the responsibility of the public records officer, together with the city attorney, to decide which records meet the definition of "public record" and whether or not they are exempt from disclosure; officials must not take it upon themselves to decide whether a record meets the definition of a public record, that a record is exempt from disclosure, or to otherwise conceal a record. (6) Conduct of Public Meetings. Officials shall prepare themselves for public issues; listen courteously and attentively to all public discussions before the body; and focus on the business at hand. They shall refrain from interrupting other speakers; making personal comments not germane to the business of the body; or otherwise interfering with the orderly conduct of meetings. (7) Decisions Based on Merit. Officials shall base their decisions on the merits and substance of the matter at hand, rather than on unrelated considerations. (8) Ex Parte Communications. In quasi-judicial matters, officials shall publicly disclose substantive information that is relevant to a matter under consideration by the council or boards and commissions, which they may have received from sources outside of the public decision -making process. (9) Attendance. As provided in RCW 35A.12.060, a council member shall forfeit his or her office by failing to attend three consecutive regular meetings of the council without being excused by the council. Unless excused, members of boards and commissions are expected to attend all meetings. (10) Nepotism. The city council will not appoint relatives of city council members to boards or commissions or other appointed positions. (11) Advocacy. When acting in an official capacity as a city official representing the city, officials shall represent the official policies or positions of the city council, board or commission to the best of their ability when the city council, board or commission has taken a position or given an instruction. When presenting their individual opinions and positions, members shall explicitly state they do not represent their body or the city of Kirkland, nor will they allow the inference that they do. Officials have the right to endorse candidates for all council seats or other elected offices. It is inappropriate to make or display endorsements during council meetings, board/commission meetings, or other official city meetings. However, this does not preclude officials from participating it ceremonial occasions, community events, or other events sponsored by civic groups. (12) Policy Role of Officials. Officials shall respect and adhere to the council- manager structure of Kirkland city government as outlined by Chapter 35A.13 RCW. In this structure, the city council determines the policies of the city with the advice, information and analysis provided by the public, boards and commissions, and city staff. Except as provided by state law, officials shall not interfere with the administrative functions of the city or the professional duties of city staff; nor shall they impair the ability of staff to implement council policy decisions. Attachment 11 4 Packet Page 474 of 488 APPENDIX A Ch. 9A.72 Perjury and interference with RCW official proceedings RCW Vacancy for nonattendance 35A.12.060 Ch. 35A.13 Council-manager plan of RCW government RCW Incompatible offices 35A.13.020 Ch. 40.14 Preservation and destruction of RCW public records RCW Use of public office or agency 42.17.130 facilities in campaigns — Prohibition —Exceptions RCW Solicitation of contributions by 42.17.750 public officials or employees Ch. 42.23 Code of ethics for municipal RCW officers —Contract interests Ch. 42.36 Appearance of fairness RCW doctrine —Limitations Ch. 42.56 Public Records Act RCW KMC Kirkland code on acceptance of 3.80.140 g ifts Ch. 3.12 Limitations on campaign KMC contribution (Ord. 4348 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2012) 3.14.060 Ethics officer. (a) The city council creates the position of ethics officer. The city manager will contract with one or more agencies to fill this position. The ethics officer will provide for annual review of the code of ethics, review of training materials provided for education regarding the code of ethics, and advisory opinions concerning the code of ethics. The ethics officer shall also be responsible for the prompt and fair enforcement of its provisions when necessary. (b) The ethics officer, in addition to other duties, may recommend changes or additions to this code of ethics to the city council. The ethics officer shall provide input into and review the training materials and program developed for this code of ethics. (Ord. 4348 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2012) 3.14.070 Advisory opinions. (a) Upon request of any official, the ethics officer shall render written advisory opinions concerning the applicability of Sections 3.14.030 and 3.14.040 of this code to hypothetical circumstances and/or situations solely related to the persons making the request. The ethics officer will not render opinions on matters that are the purview of Attachment 11 Packet Page 475 of 488 61 other government agencies or officials, e.g., the public disclosure commission, the city public records officer, etc. (b) Upon request of any official, the ethics officer may also render written advisory opinions concerning the applicability of the code of ethics to hypothetical circumstances and/or situations related to a matter of city-wide interest or policy. (c) The ethics officer will endeavor to respond to requests for advisory opinions within forty-five days of submission of the request, or more rapidly if the requester expresses urgency in the request. (d) A person's conduct based in reasonable reliance on an advisory opinion rendered by the ethics officer shall not be found to violate this code of ethics, as long as all material facts have been fully, completely, accurately presented in a written request for an advisory opinion, the ethics officer issues an advisory opinion that the described conduct would not violate the code of ethics, and the person's conduct is consistent with the advisory opinion. The ethics officer reserves the right to reconsider the questions and issues raised in an advisory opinion and, where the public interest requires, rescind, modify, or terminate the opinion, but a modified or terminated advisory opinion will not form the basis of a retroactive enforcement action against the original requestor. Advisory opinions will contain severability clauses indicating that should portions of the opinion be found to be unenforceable or not within the ethics officer's authority, the remainder of the opinion shall remain intact. (Ord. 4348 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2012) 3.14.080 Complaints, investigations, hearings and enforcement. The ethics officer shall resolve inadvertent and minor violations of the code of ethics informally and may resolve inadvertent or minor violations informally, unless the ethics officer determines that doing so would not serve the public interest. When a violation is neither inadvertent nor minor, the ethics officer may initiate an action in accordance with this section. (1) Complaint Process. (A) Complaint Requirements —Service. Any person may submit a written complaint to the ethics officer alleging one or more violations of this code of ethics by an official. The complaint must set forth specific facts with enough precision and detail for the ethics officer to make a determination of sufficiency. It must be signed under penalty of perjury by the person(s) submitting it in a manner consistent with Chapter 9A.72 RCW. (B) Finding of Sufficiency. The ethics officer shall make a determination of sufficiency within thirty days of receipt of the written complaint. A complaint shall be sufficient if the allegations, if established, would violate Section 3.14.030 or 3.14.040 of this code. The ethics officer's determination is not reviewable. If the finding is one of sufficiency of the complaint, then the ethics officer shall investigate the complaint as set forth below. (C) Dismissal. The ethics officer shall dismiss the complaint if the ethics officer determines that the violation was inadvertent and minor; or a violation occurred, but appropriate actions have been taken to fully address the allegedly unethical conduct. (D) Notice. Notice of action by the ethics officer shall be provided as follows- (i) Notice of a finding of insufficiency or dismissal of a complaint by the ethics officer shall be sent to the person who made the complaint and the person complained against within seven days of the decision by the ethics officer. A finding of insufficiency or Attachment 11 6 Packet Page 476 of 488 dismissal of a complaint by the ethics officer is final and binding, and no administrative or other legal appeal is available through the ethics officer. (ii) Within seven days of the ethics officer rendering a finding of sufficiency, the city clerk shall send notice to the person who made the complaint and the person complained against, of the ethics officer's determination. If, after investigation, the ethics officer has reason to believe that a material violation of Section 3.14.030 or 3.14.040 has occurred, the city clerk shall give notice of the public hearing which will be held to determine if a violation has occurred. Notice shall be provided at least thirty days prior to the date set for the hearing. The person complained against shall have the right to file a written answer to the charge and to appear at the hearing with or without legal counsel, submit testimony, be fully heard, and to examine and cross examine witnesses. (E) Stipulations. At any time after a complaint has been filed with the ethics officer, the ethics officer may seek and make recommendations that the city council enter into a stipulation with the person complained against. The recommended stipulation will include the nature of the complaint, relevant facts, the reasons the ethics officer thinks a stipulation is appropriate, an admission of the violation by the person complained against, a promise by the person complained against not to repeat the violation, and if appropriate, a recommended remedy or penalty. The recommended stipulation shall be sent to the person who made the complaint and the person complained against and forwarded to the city council for action. (2) Conduct of Hearings. (A) All hearings on complaints found to be sufficient by the ethics officer shall be conducted by the hearing examiner. The hearing shall be informal, meaning that the hearing examiner shall not be bound by the strict rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity. The hearing examiner may call witnesses on his or her own motion and compel the production of books, records, papers, or other evidence as needed. To that end, the hearing examiner shall issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum. All testimony shall be under oath administered by the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner may adjourn the hearing from time to time to allow for the orderly presentation of evidence. The hearing examiner shall prepare an official record of the hearing, including all testimony, which shall be recorded by mechanical device, and exhibits; provided, that the hearing examiner shall not be required to transcribe such records unless presented with a request accompanied by payment of the cost of transcription. (B) Within thirty days after the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing examiner shall, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, make and fully record in his or her permanent records, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and his or her recommended disposition. A copy of the findings, conclusions, and recommended disposition shall be sent to the person who made the complaint and to the person complained against. Additional copies of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations shall be forwarded to the ethics officer and city council. (3) City Council Action. Final city council action to decide upon stipulations and recommendations from the ethics officer and findings, conclusions, and recommendations from the hearing examiner shall be by majority vote in a public meeting. If the proceeding involves a member of the city council, deliberations by the council may be in executive session. The member of the council against whom the Attachment 11 7 Packet Page 477 of 488 complaint was made will not participate in any executive session and shall not vote on any matter involving him or herself. However, upon request of the member of the council against whom the complaint was made, a public hearing or public meeting before the council will be held on the issue of penalties. (4) Disposition. In the event the hearing examiner finds that the person against whom the complaint was made has violated the code of ethics, then the city council may take any of the following actions by a majority vote of the council. The action of the city council shall be final and not subject to further review or appeal except as may be otherwise provided by law or as provided in subsection (5) of this section. (A) Dismissal. Dismissal of the complaint without penalties. (B) Referral. A complaint may be referred to another agency with jurisdiction over the violation, such as the public disclosure commission. Final action on the complaint may be stayed pending resolution of the matter by the agency to which it was referred. (C) Admonition. An admonition shall be an oral non-public statement made by the mayor, or his/her designee, or if the complaint is against the mayor, the deputy mayor or his/her designee, to the official. (D) Reprimand. A reprimand shall be administered to the official by a resolution of reprimand by the city council. The resolution shall be prepared by the city council and shall be signed by the mayor or, if the complaint is against the mayor, the deputy mayor. (E) Censure. A resolution of censure shall be a resolution read personally to the person in public. The resolution shall be prepared by the city council and shall be signed by the mayor, or if the complaint is against the mayor, the deputy mayor. The person shall appear at a city council meeting at a time and place directed by the city council to receive the resolution of censure. Notice shall be given at least twenty calendar days before the scheduled appearance at which time a copy of the proposed resolution of censure shall be provided to the person. The resolution of censure shall be read publicly, and the person shall not make any statement in support of, or in opposition thereto, or in mitigation thereof. The resolution of censure shall be read at the time it is scheduled whether or not the official appears as required. (F) Removal —Member of Board or Commission or Other Appointed Task Group or Committee. In the event the individual against whom the complaint was made is currently a member of a city board or commission or other task group or committee, appointed by the city council, the city council may, in addition to other possible penalties set forth in this section, and notwithstanding any other provision of the Kirkland Municipal Code, by a majority vote remove the individual from such board or commission effective immediately. (G) Civil Penalties. The city council may assess a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars or three times the economic value of anything received in violation of this code of ethics or three times the economic value of any loss to the city, whichever is greater. Any monetary penalty assessed civilly shall be placed in the city's general fund. (H) Contract Void. As provided by RCW 42.23.050, any contract made in violation of Chapter 42.23 RCW, "Code of ethics for municipal officers— contract interests," is void. (1) Other Penalties. The city council may impose a restriction, loss of a committee assignment, or loss of appointment as a representative of the city for any regional or Attachment 11 8 Packet Page 478 of 488 multijurisdictional body or membership on any board or commission which requires an appointment or confirmation of an appointment by the city council. (5) Review of Civil Penalties. If the city council orders an official to pay a civil penalty, the official may seek a writ of review from the superior court pursuant to Chapter 7.16 RCW, within thirty days of the city council's order. (6) Protection Against Retaliation. Neither the city nor any official may take or threaten to take, directly or indirectly, official or personal action, including but not limited to discharge, discipline, personal attack, harassment, intimidation, or change in job, salary, or responsibilities, against any person because that person files a complaint with the ethics officer. (7) Public Records. Records filed with the ethics officer become public records that may be subject to inspection and copying by members of the public, unless an exemption in law exists. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by RCW 42.56.230(2), identity information may be redacted when an unsubstantiated complaint is made available in response to a public records request; however, in each case, the justification for the redaction shall be explained fully in writing. A finding by the ethics officer determining that a complaint is sufficient shall contain at the beginning the following specific language: NOTICE: ANY PORTION OF THIS FINDING DETERMINING SUFFICIENCY OF ANY PORTION OF A COMPLAINT DOES NOT DETERMINE THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE ETHICS OFFICER. THE ETHICS OFFICER HAS ONLY DETERMINED THAT IF CERTAIN FACTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPLAINT ARE FOUND TO BE TRUE DURING A LATER HEARING TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER, THEN VIOLATION(S) OF THE CODE OF ETHICS MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE OCCURRED. The city shall release copies of any written reports resulting from an investigation of a sustained complaint, any hearing examiner orders, and any written censures or reprimands issued by the city council, in response to public records requests consistent with Chapter 42.56 RCW and any other applicable public disclosure laws. (8) Liberal Construction —Limitation Period —Effective Date. (A) This code of ethics shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose and policy and to supplement existing laws that relate to the same subject. (B) Any action taken under this code of ethics must be commenced within three years from the date of violation. (C) This code of ethics shall take effect February 18, 2012. (Ord. 4348 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2012) Attachment 11 9 Packet Page 479 of 488 Councilmember Johnson said longevity compensation makes sense for employees who are at the top of their scale and have no opportunity for further advancement. She expressed interest in further information about the fiscal impact of longevity compensation retroactive to 2013 as well as the fiscal impact for outlying years. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the pay scale for nonrepresented employees is a separate issue and should be addressed separately rather than piecemealed via longevity pay. She noted longevity pay would not motivate employees to seek promotion or to remain in the City's employment. Longevity pay is part of a compensation package that was negotiated with the other groups. She preferred to consider longevity pay for nonrepresented employees as part of a compensation package. Ms. Hite pointed out longevity compensation was part of a package for nonrepresented employees that the compensation consultant presented to the Council. The Council asked to have it pulled out for continued discussion. Councilmember Peterson agreed the Council was provided a compensation package for nonrepresented that was similar to represented employees. It was the Council's decision to separate out some items. He suggested the next agenda memo include the complete compensation package that was presented by the compensation consultant. Ms. Hite summarized the information the Council was requesting in addition to the original compensation package includes, 1) the fiscal impact for retroactivity in 2013, 2) fiscal impact for outlying years, 3) a flat rate approach and the fiscal impact. Due to the absence of 3 Councilmembers from the September 17 and 24 meetings, Mayor Earling suggested information be provided at next week's meeting or a full Council meeting be held on September 10. Council President Petso suggested either staff return with the information soon or it be addressed as a decision package in the 2014 budget. 11. DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS Parks & Recreation/Reporting Human Resources Director Carrie Hite explained the Personnel Committee has been comparing and contrasting Codes of Ethics for cities throughout the Puget Sound region. Two documents the committee has been considering include Kirkland and Bellevue's Code of Ethics. The committee has also discussed Bainbridge Island's code. Kirkland adopted a Code of Conduct in addition to a Code of Ethics. She explained a Code of Conduct describes professional responsibilities; a Code of Ethics describes legal responsibilities. A Code of Ethics would apply to the Council, boards and commissions; staff is guided by a Code of Conduct in the City's personnel policies. The Personnel Committee has also expressed interest in identifying an Ethics Officer. Some of the comparable models reviewed by the Personnel Committee identify an Ethics Officer outside the organization in order to have an objective, non -vested perspective in researching a Code of Ethics issues. For example Kirkland and Bellevue contract with an Ethics Officer on an as needed basis who is only paid when a Code of Ethics issue needs to be investigated. Neither Kirkland nor Bellevue had incurred any expenses for outside review of a Code of Ethics violation. Councilmember Bloom noted the attachments are in the August 20, 2013 packet. She clarified in addition to Councilmembers, boards and commissions, the Code of Ethics would cover all elected officials including the Mayor. Kirkland and Bellevue's Codes of Ethics do not include a Mayor because they have a City Manager form of government. Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with including the requirement in 3.14.040 of Kirkland's policy related to financial disclosure for all officials. Officials are defined as all members of boards and commissions. Kirkland's policy excludes the Mayor and Council because elected officials must present Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 480 of 488 all financial information on a yearly basis. She did not support requiring all members of boards and commissions to disclose their financial information and suggested that be excluded that from Edmonds' Code of Ethics; Bellevue's Code of Ethics does not have that requirement. She also suggested consideration be given to the complaint process and who handles complaints. For example Kirkland involves the Hearing Examiner and the City Council in the event of a complaint regarding a Councilmember. Councilmember Peterson agreed with Councilmember Bloom's concern about requiring members of boards and commissions to disclose financial information. He agreed with the Council considering a Code of Ethics in a proactive approach rather than a reactive approach. He supported the City having a Code of Ethics for elected officials and boards and commissions, anticipating a Code of Ethics would make the Council's work easier if an ethical issue arose. As Councilmember Buckshnis indicated, a Code of Ethics can be subjective, but responding to an ethical complaint would be even more subjective without a Code of Ethics. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised Snohomish County adopted a Code of Conduct for all boards and commissions and every commission and board member must acknowledge they have read and understand the Code of Conduct. She encouraged Councilmembers to review Snohomish County's Code of Conduct for elected and appointed officials. Councilmember Bloom asked whether Snohomish County's Code of Conduct was similar to Kirkland's. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas responded Snohomish County may be more thorough and straightforward. Council President Petso said she was pleased to see Kirkland's Code of Conduct in the packet and was interested in pursuing a Code of Conduct. She was concerned about the Code of Ethics and Ethics Officer and complaint enforcement. She feared a person who did not agree with an official's position on an issue could file an ethics complaint. She indicated she was unlikely to support a Code of Ethics that included a complaint process, an Ethics Officer and enforcement. She found Bellevue's Code of Ethics less objectionable; the statement of intent is to not to limit people who could serve on boards and commissions and elected officials. She agreed the financial disclosure in Kirkland's Code of Ethics would likely deter citizens from volunteering for a board or commission. Council President Petso noted there are other aspects, particularly in Kirkland's Code of Ethics that would deter citizens from volunteering to serve on a board or commission. There are events that do not constitute an ethics issue but might under a poorly drafted policy. For example when she was appointed to Council, a relative was serving on the Sister City Commission; that did not create an issue for her or him. It would have been unfortunate if the Code of Ethics forced one of them to resign their position. One of Kirkland's policies indicated it would be a conflict if a person serving on a board of commission lived in your household. In the example she provided, the person did live in her household for a period of time but it had no impact on his ability to serve on the Sister City Commission. Council President Petso relayed the City Attorney wanted the Council to discuss whether they were interested in developing a Code of Ethics for Edmonds because it will take him a great deal of time to develop it. Less legal time would be involved in drafting a Code of Conduct. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred the Bainbridge Island Code of Ethics. She agreed with not requiring boards and commissions to disclose financial information, commenting Councilmembers file with the Public Disclosure Commission. She liked the Code of Conduct although she feared it could be subjective. She recalled recent emotionally charged conversations with a fellow Councilmember that could have been interpreted as an argument. She preferred to start with a Code of Conduct using Snohomish County as an example. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 481 of 488 Councilmember Bloom also liked Bainbridge Island's Code of Ethics policy the best. She recalled Councilmember Peterson's concern with Bainbridge Island's creation of an Ethics Board and the need for staff support for such a board. She supported adopting a Code of Ethics for the Council, boards and commissions. She explained an ethics violation was not related to conduct but rather conflicts of interest. She asked the City Attorney to describe an ethics violation. City Attorney Sharon Cates answered Code of Ethics are related to conflict of interest issues, not interpersonal interaction. Councilmember Bloom commented Bainbridge Island's policy allows citizens to ask questions about potential ethics violations and the Ethics Board decides whether to pursue a complaint. Bainbridge Island's policy also has consequences for bringing a frivolous or unsubstantiated complaint. She asked if that was typical of ethics policies. Ms. Cates answered a solid ethics code includes a process for determining whether a complaint is an ethics violation. Councilmember Bloom noted an ethics complaint is required to be notarized and to include information about the violation. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the Personnel Committee working on a Code of Conduct similar to Kirkland's. Councilmember Yamamoto agreed with the Committee continuing to consider a Code of Conduct and a Code of Ethics. He encouraged Councilmembers to submit suggestions/comments/concerns to the committee. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested scheduling further discussion on either the September 17 or 24 Council meetings. Council President Petso agreed it could be scheduled with the understanding it would be discussion only due to the absence of three Councilmembers. Councilmember Peterson suggested Councilmembers review Bainbridge Island's ethics policy on their website. He agreed there were good ideas in the policy; he was opposed to creating an Ethics Board. Councilmember Bloom agreed with first establishing a Code of Conduct but did not want to abandon the idea of a Code of Ethics. The Personnel Committee has discussed it at length and the community would like the City to have an ethics policy. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Peterson's concern with creating an Ethics Board. She preferred to use a professional Ethics Officer. 14. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Johnson reported on her participation on the review of arts and cultural aspects of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. She described efforts to gather input from the public including a survey at the recent concert in the park. There is also an online survey available. Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board discussed definitions in the Tree Code including hazardous trees, nuisance trees and trees. Councilmember Bloom reported the Council interviewed a new member for the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee tonight. Councilmember Bloom reported on her first meeting as the Council liaison to the Port of Edmonds liaison. The Commission discussed budget issues and promotional efforts. The Commission was also provided a project update including expansion of Anthony's Beach Cafe as well as the roof on Harbor Square building 2 which is $30,000 under budget and will last 20-30 years. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 482 of 488 AM-6084 City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 09/10/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted For: Council President Petso Department: City Council Committee: Public Safety, Personnel Submitted By: Jana Spellman Tvne: Information Information Subject Title Discussion regarding Council attendance via speaker phone. Recommendation Provide direction for City attorney to draft a proposed resolution for full Council consideration. Previous Council Action N/A 10. C. Narrative In the opinion of MRSC, a council member participating by phone or other technology shall be able to hear and be heard. Other items among the various policies include: 1. A limit of two times per year per council member 2. Allow if needed for a quorum 3. Allow if an issue of high importance to the council member 4. Allow if an issue for which it is important to have all councilmembers participate 5. Limit to one item, and don't allow an entire meeting 6. Provide advance notice 7. Only under extraordinary circumstance 8. Only with permission of the entire Council (majority?) 9. Not for matters set for public hearings or quasi judicial 10. Permission from Council President 11. Review all applicable material 12. Participate in all related aspects of the meeting Attachments Attach 1 - City of Bothell Protocol Attendance via S12eaker2hone Attach 2 - Spokane City Council Rules_03-04-2013 Attach 3 - Port Townsend Teleconferencing Policy Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/05/2013 10:16 AM Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2013 11:38 AM Packet Page 483 of 488 Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 09/05/2013 Sandy Chase 09/05/2013 11:51 AM Started On: 09/04/2013 09:43 AM Packet Page 484 of 488 7.12 Restrictions on Political Involvement by Staff Bothell is a nonpartisan local government. Professional staff formulates recommendations in compliance with Council policy for the good of the community, not influenced by political factors. For this reason, it is very important to understand the restrictions of political involvement of staff. By working for the City, staff members do not surrender rights to be involved in political activities. Employees may privately express their personal opinions. They may register to vote, sign nominating or recall petitions, and they may vote in any election. 7.13 Council Attendance Policy RCW 35A.13.020 (Council -Manager Plan of Government) directs us to RCW 35A.12.060 (Mayor -Council Plan of Government) - Vacancy for Nonattendance. A council position shall become vacant if the Council Member fails to attend three consecutive regular meetings of the council without being excused by the council. At the start of each City Council meeting, the Mayor or City Clerk, or designee, will call the roll. Any absent Council Member who has called the Mayor or City Manager's Office prior to 5:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting to advise of such absence will be deemed excused. 7.14 Attendance via Speakerphone (AVS) From time to time, a Council Member will not be able to be physically present at a Council meeting, but will want to be involved in the discussion and/or decision on a particular agenda item. The procedure and guidelines for permitting a Council Member to attend a Council meeting via speakerphone are as follows: A. The Rare Occasion Attendance via speakerphone should be the rare exception, not the rule, and AVS is limited to two times per year per Council Member. Examples of situations where AVS would be appropriate include, but are not limited to: • An agenda item is time sensitive, and AVS is needed for a quorum; • An agenda item is of very high importance to the Council Member that cannot be physically present; • It is important for all Council Members to be involved in a decision, but one Council Member is unable to be physically present. • AVS should be limited to one agenda item, not the entire Council meeting. Page 41 of 122 Packet Page 485 of 488 B. Attendance - Procedure 1. The Council Member attending via speakerphone a. must be able to hear the discussion on the agenda item taking place in the Council chambers, and b. must be able to be heard by all present in Council Chambers. 2. When the particular agenda item is ready to be discussed, the Mayor (or presiding officer, if the Mayor is not physically present) should state for the record: a. Let the record reflect that Council Member speakerphone for Agenda Item No. , is attending via relating to b. Council Member , can you hear me? [There must then be a clearly audible response in the affirmative.] c. Let the record reflect that Council Member , who is attending via speakerphone, can be heard by all present in Council chambers. 3. Upon conclusion of the particular agenda item, the Mayor (or presiding officer, if the Mayor is not physically present) should state: a. Council Member , discussion on Agenda Item No. has concluded. Thank you for your attendance via speakerphone. The telephone connection will now be terminated. [Connection should be terminated at this time.] b. Let the record reflect Council Member 's attendance via speakerphone has been terminated. Next on the agenda is ... C. Notification If a Council Member wishes to attend a Council meeting via speakerphone for an agenda item, the Council Member should notify Council of his or her intent at the Council meeting prior to the meeting for which they wish to attend via speakerphone. This notification should be made during the Council's review of the projected agenda. If that is not possible, the Council Member should notify the City Manager of his or her wish to attend a Council meeting via speakerphone for an agenda item not later than the business day prior to the Council meeting for which he or she wishes to attend via speakerphone. With less notice, it may not be possible to make the necessary arrangements to allow attendance via speakerphone. Page 42 of 122 Packet Page 486 of 488 cases of voice vote, it shall be sufficient for the Chair to announce, and the record to reflect, whether the motion carried or failed. Regardless of method of voting, each council member shall have the right, before the next matter is considered, to explain the reasons for his or her vote and such a request shall be regarded as a matter of privilege. 5.5.7 A Councilperson may only abstain from voting when he or she has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the Council, which is fully expressed to all other members of the Council during the Council meeting. Rule 5.6 SUSPENSION OF RULES These rules may be temporarily suspended for a particular matter by five votes. Rule 5.7 RECONSIDERATION A council member may move reconsideration of an item voted on during an administrative session at that day's legislative session or at the next briefing session. All legislative decisions of the City Council regarding ordinances, resolutions and hearing items are final. When permissible, a council member may re -submit a subsequent ordinance or resolution to repeal or modify a prior city council action. Rule 5.8 PARTICIPATION BY TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION A Councilperson may participate telephonically in all or part of a Council Meeting if: 1. prior approval is given by the Council President for good cause, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, 2. all persons participating in the meeting are able to hear each other at the same time, such as by the use of speaker phone and 3. the Councilperson participating telephonically shall have reviewed all of the applicable material and participated in the relevant portion of the Council Meeting related to the topic to which the Councilperson is voting on. Any technical prohibitions or difficulties that prevent all parties present at the Council Meeting from adequately communicating with one another will negate any authorization previously given by the Council President. RULE 6 — ADJUDICATIVE APPEALS AND HEARINGS Adjudicative hearings are quasi-judicial hearings involving named parties. Testimony during adjudicative hearings is limited to the parties involved in the hearing. Public testimony is not accepted in adjudicative hearings. Where procedures for appeals and hearings have been established by ordinance, the Council shall follow those 14 Packet Page 487 of 488 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND (g) In the situation where the City Attorney states that a Councilor's participation would violate or appears to be violating the appearance of fairness doctrine by failure to recuse, a super majority (majority plus 1 of members present) of the nonaffected Council members may vote to require the affected member not to participate in a particular proceeding, and if so, the affected Council member's vote shall not be counted and the affected Council member shall not participate in the proceeding. (h) Teleconference participation by Council members may be allowed under the following circumstances, subject to reasonable technical availability at the meeting location: Requests to use teleconference participation for voting purposes shall be limited to extraordinary circumstances and must be ruled upon by the Council -of -the -Whole by specific motion before the Council main agenda begins. Adequate notice for these requests must be conveyed to the Presiding Officer to permit installation of the required equipment prior to the specified Council meeting or meetings. In such case, a microphone pickup must allow the teleconference participant to engage in Council discussion and be heard. Teleconferencing charges are to be at the Council member's own expense, unless waived in the Council motion. 2. Requests to participate by teleconference in a nonvoting capacity shall be granted provided technical capability exists and adequate notice is given, and shall be at the Council member's own expense, unless waived in the Council motion. 3. No teleconference participation for voting purposes shall be allowed for public hearings or any quasi-judicial proceedings. 4. Examples of extraordinary circumstances would be: emergencies or illness, accident, unforeseen urgent business, etc. (i) A motion or request by a Council member (with or without a second) to "call the question" (or similar words indicating an intent to terminate further debate and take a vote on a pending motion) allows a vote on the pending motion to immediately take place, unless any Council member requests that the motion to "call the question" be put to a vote, in which case, debate is only terminated if adopted by a 2/3s vote of the Council members present. 3.7 Enacted Ordinances, Resolutions and Motions. (a) An enacted ordinance is a legislative act prescribing general, uniform, and permanent rules or regulations relating to the operation and corporate affairs of the municipality. Council action shall be taken by ordinance when required by law, or where such conduct is enforced by penalty. Revised March 4, 2002 11 COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE Packet Page 488 of 488