The URL can be used to link to this page

2013-11-04 City Council - Public Agenda-1522'4- o 90� AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2013 6:15 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER 1. (5 Minutes) Roll Call 2. (45 Minutes) Executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION / FLAG SALUTE 3. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda 4. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items A. AM-6275 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 29, 2013. B. AM-6271 Approval of claim checks #205133 through #205250 dated October 31, 2013 for $882,783.51. C. AM-6257 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Daniel B. Leyde ($61.59) and Latoya Oneal ($50,000.00). 5. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 6. (5 Minutes) Community Service Announcement: 2014 Historic Preservation Commission Calendar AM-6276 7. (10 Minutes) Public Hearing and potential action on an ordinance designating the Charles Larsen AM-6265 Residence located at 630 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, and directing the Development Services Director or his designee to designate the site on the official zoning map with an "FIR" designation. Packet Page 1 of 461 8. (20 Minutes) Public Hearing on 2014 revenue sources including property taxes. AM-6272 9. (20 Minutes) Public Hearing on the 2014 budget. AM-6270 10. (45 Minutes) Public hearing on the Capital Facilities Plan Element update for 2014-2019 to the City's AM-6274 Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Program. The proposal updates the City's Capital Facilities Plan to include improvements, additions, upgrades or extensions of City infrastructure such as transportation, parks, and stormwater along with other public faciilties necessary to implement the City's Comprehensive Plan. 11. (30 Minutes) Discussion on Planning Board Recommendation to Limit Certain Office Uses from AM-6264 Locating in Business Spaces along Designated Ground Floor Street Frontages Within Downtown Business (BD1 - Downtown Retail Core) Zone (File No. AMD20130013), and Setting a Public Hearing Date. 12. (20 Minutes) Discussion and potential action regarding Audited Financial Statement Issue and AM-6269 Council Oversight of Removing Receivables. 13. (15 Minutes) Discussion regarding Council attendance via speaker phone. AM-6248 14. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments 15. (15 Minutes) Council Comments 16. (15 Minutes) Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) 17. (5 Minutes) Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session ADJOURN Packet Page 2 of 461 AM-6275 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 11/04/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Type: Action Committee Action: Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 29, 2013. Recommendation Review and approval. Previous Council Action Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. 10-29-13 Draft City Council Meeting Minutes Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Scott Passey Final Approval Date: 10/31/2013 Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 10/31/2013 02:38 PM Scott Passey 10/31/2013 04:33 PM Started On: 10/31/2013 02:17 PM 4. A. Packet Page 3 of 461 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES October 29, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5f' Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Lora Petso, Council President Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Strom Peterson, Councilmember Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief 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. Rob English, City Engineer Doug Fair, Municipal Court Judge Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Scott Passey, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmembers Peterson and Yamamoto. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO. MOTION CARRIED (4-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM ABSTAINED. 2. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING AND POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) At 6:02 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding pending and potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 60 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 7:02 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:04 p.m. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Packet Page 4 of 461 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE EDMONDS/HEKINAN SISTER CITY RELATIONSHIP Mayor Earling reported the delegation of Edmonds citizens that visited Hekinan in early April 2013 had a wonderful time learning about the community and culture. He welcomed the members of the delegation from Hekinan. He read a proclamation recognizing and honoring the 25`h anniversary of the Edmonds/Hekinan Sister City relationship. He presented the proclamation to Masanobu Negita, Mayor of Hekinan, and Akira Tsuzuki, Chairman of the Hekinan Sister City Association. Hekinan Mayor Negita said he was a member of Hekinan's City Council from 1996 to 2008. He thanked Edmonds for inviting them; it was their honor to be here and they deeply appreciated the warm welcome. On April 5, 1988 the cities of Edmonds and Hekinan become sister cities. He was proud to celebrate the 251h anniversary of that relationship and looked forward to building a deeper relationship with Edmonds in the future. Though the beauty of Edmonds impressed them tremendously, the hospitality impressed them even more. Mayor Earling led the flag salute. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Bloom requested Item C be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2013 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #205012 THROUGH #205132 DATED OCTOBER 24, 2013 FOR $577,307.45. (REISSUED CHECKS #205042 $435.00 AND #205075 $500.00) Item C: ACCEPTANCE OF A 5-FOOT STREET DEDICATION AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN FACE OF SHORT PLAT DOCUMENTS ACCEPTING THE STREET DEDICATION Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding the developer will construct a sidewalk. She asked who will be responsible for maintenance of the sidewalk. City Engineer Rob English answered the City will be following a 2-year warranty period. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding the street dedication required Council acceptance and the Mayor's signature on the face of the short plat document. Mr. English agreed. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM C. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Packet Page 5 of 461 Donna Breske, Snohomish, explained on June 30, 2013 she submitted an application to build a single family house on a vacant lot she owns, 9330 218th Place SW, purchased in 2007 for $220,000. A review letter from the City's Engineering Program Manager stated as a condition of building permit issuance, stormwater from the City's drainage system needed to be diverted onto their lot. She inquired of the Engineering Program Manager what authority the City had to take her property as a stormwater repository, asserting it was a clear constitutional taking of private property for public use without just compensation. In response, she received a 12-page letter dated October 2, 2013 from the Lighthouse Law Group that included terms such as res judicata doctrine and doctrine of collateral estoppel. She was uncertain what those terms meant and asked whether it was standard practice for the City Attorney to respond to questions asked of the Engineering Program Manager with a lengthy letter filled with legal terms. She questioned why the City wants her to re-establish a known flooding condition; stormwater entered the lot in the past, causing flooding of private property. This was corrected by the City in 2002 by installing a piping system. She referred to Councilmember Buckshnis' question of staff in a 2011 email, how this is different from the house the City had to purchase with a water issue which Ms. Breske assumed was a reference to the house near Good Hope Pond. She pointed out there is no difference. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested before the Council approved an increase in water/sewer rates, staff provide a list of other cities and water/sewer districts that have loans for capital improvements. He also inquired about plans to prevent flooding at 400 Pine Street. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the oil train explosion in Canada, anticipating the same could happen in Edmonds. Rather than address the problem of getting ferry traffic over the tracks, he preferred to address the need for emergency access to the west side of the tracks via a single lane overpass at the Unocal site. He provided an example of a 2-lane overpass in Seattle near Cleveland High School. He urged the City to pursue an emergency vehicle overpass and not wait for further studies. Mayor Earling advised he asked Public Works Director Phil Williams to have a representative from Lynnwood describe the construction issue on 76th north of Perrinville. Mr. Williams explained Edmonds entered into an interlocal agreement with Lynnwood who was pursuing a large sewer project in 76th Avenue which is owned by Edmonds. Lynnwood's sewer line was under -capacity and resulted in sewage overflows during heavy rainfall. Edmonds partnered with Lynnwood to replace Edmonds' waterline in 76th Avenue to avoid digging up the street after it was resurfaced. Jeff Elekes, Lynnwood, Deputy Public Works Director, explained a challenge has arisen with the project related to the relationship with the contractor; on Friday, a notice was issued to transfer responsibility from Santana to their surety company due to breach of contract issues. They are working toward a solution in the coming weeks/months to restore the street. A postcard describing the project delay was mailed last Friday to 600-700 residents around the project area; the postcard will also be posted on Edmonds' website. He urged drivers to travel the area at no more than 20 mph. A geotechnical analysis of the road will be done to ensure there are no voids around the sewer pipe and to determine how to restore the street. The street was original built with logs bridging the area; numerous logs were encountered during construction. Mr. Williams explained the construction season is nearing an end. One possibility will be to seek a declaration of emergency from the Council, execute a contract with one of the contractors used to install other water lines in the City, have the water line installed this year and either patch or install a thin overlay to allow the road to over -winter more effectively. Mayor Earling assured the Council will be updated on the status of the project in the future. 7. PRESENTATION TO SANDY CHASE Packet Page 6 of 461 Mayor Earling explained City Clerk Sandy Chase is retiring on October 31 after 20 years of service. She is the epitome of the person that touches many lives in the City — staff, council and citizens. She is a good person doing good work because she believes in what she is doing and is so good at what she does. He wished her well in her retirement and presented her with an award. Ms. Chase commented it has been her honor and privilege to serve as the City Clerk for so many years. She will take with her good memories along with a few interesting moments. She has had the opportunity to work with outstanding people. She thanked Mayor Earling and the City Council for their support as issues came up through the years. It will take a while to get used to not being at Council meetings on Tuesday nights; it has not difficult, just a part of her life. To Jeff Taraday, she said she will miss sitting next to him, sharing the microphone and ensuring the meeting was on track. To Jana Spellman and Jeannie Dines, she said we were a good team. She also thanked the many citizens who stopped her in the street or stopped by City Hall to wish her luck. She and her husband, Chris, have loved living in Edmonds for the past 22 years and she looked forward to seeing everyone in the community in future years. 8. SOUND TRANSIT UPDATE ON THE LYNNWOOD EXTENSION OF THE LIGHT RAIL Michelle Ginder, Sound Transit Project Lead, explained Sound Transit is updating its long range plan to identify public priorities for future transit service and destinations. She displayed a map of current Sound Transit services — Sounder commuter rail, link light rail, ST express buses. She displayed a map of funded light rail expansions, explaining light rail will be at the University of Washington in 2016, Northgate in 2021 and Lynnwood in 2023. Sound Transit's original long range plan was the blueprint for the original Sound Move mass transit plan approved by voters in 1996. That long range plan was updated in 2005, the precursor to ST2 approved by voters in 2008. The 2005 long range plan is the starting point for this update. She relayed the region's population is expected to increase by 30% by 2035, increasing the demand for transit. The long range plan is the blueprint for future development of regional transit system and sets the stage for future ballot measures. The long range plan update could result in a new system expansion plan which could go out to voters as early as 2016. She displayed a map of the existing long range plan. Things to be considered in the update include: • New or modified HCT corridors • Updated transit technologies by corridor o Link light rail o BRT or ST Express o Sounder commuter rail • Access to the system (park and ride lots, bicycle/pedestrian access • Individual projects • Policies Sound Transit will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the long range plan update. The first step is EIS scoping. The 30-day comment period is October 25 through November 25. She invited comments from citizens and jurisdictions about alternatives Sound Transit should consider in the update. Sound Transit plans to hold six meetings throughout the Pierce/King/Snohomish County region; a public meeting in Snohomish County is scheduled on November 19 from 5:30 — 8:30 p.m. at Eisenhower Middle School in Everett. Information is available at their website: www/soundtransit.or./g longrangeplan and a mailer describing the long range plan update process will be sent to everyone in the Sound Transit district. Jurisdictions and citizens can provide comments at meetings, online survey, email or mail. She encouraged everyone to participate in the public scoping process by informing Sound Transit what they would like to see in the long range plan for transit. Packet Page 7 of 461 9. ANNUAL REPORT - PROSECUTOR H. James Zachor, Zachor & Thomas, introduced Rachel Hunter, lead prosecutor for Edmonds, and his son, James Zachor. Melanie Thomas -Dane, case manager, was unable to attend tonight due to illness; she invited Councilmembers to contact her with any questions. He referred to an outline he provided regarding Zachor & Thomas, explaining their firm has seven lawyers who represent several cities in Snohomish County. Edmonds had 1,291 filings in 2012 including 110 DUIs. An extrapolation of filings through August 2013 projects there will be an increase of approximately 100 cases. The number of traffic infractions has increased substantially due to police department activities. They have two court appearances per week and two video hearings per week. The video hearings allow the prisoner to remain at Snohomish County Jail which saves time/money in transporting them to Edmonds. DUIs and domestic violence assaults have increased in Edmonds; these present more complex prosecutions. Washington State Patrol through the Attorney General's Office took the position of no implied consent in drug related DUIs for drawing blood. Ms. Thomas -Dane opposed this approach and a majority of prosecutors in the state supported her position. Her position was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Zachor described Ms. Hunter's background that includes prosecution in Pierce County and one of the few in the state to prosecute domestic violence cases without the victim participating, using the 911 recording and police reports; 50% of victims change their mind after calling police. Efforts are underway to allow past domestic violence to be admitted as evidence. Mr. Zachor explained their office does prosecutor reviews, reviewing cases before filing. They typically rely on direct filing and that is their preference. They are also special prosecutor for Snohomish County. Ms. Hunter explained she has been with Zachor Thomas for four years and has been the lead prosecutor for Edmonds for three years. She complimented Judge Fair, stating he was an exceptional judge and it was an honor to be in front of him four days a week, listening to his rulings and the clear and concise reasons for his rulings. Judge Fair has earned the respect of peers as well as defendants. One of the reasons their office has as many successful prosecutions is the exceptional job done by Edmonds Police Department, multiple experienced and well trained officers who write exceptional reports. Recent changes in the law require mandatory bookings on second DUIs and installation of ignition interlock devices. It has been Judge Fair's policy for some time to require an ignition interlock or an alcohol monitoring ankle bracelet for second DUIs. Ms. Hunter explained changes in domestic violence laws in the past few years include 5-years' probation and 5-year no contact order for domestic violence defendants with a history of domestic violence acts and based on the severity of the offence. As of July 2013, the legislature made it possible in non -domestic violence stalking and harassment cases for municipal, district and superior courts to impose no contact orders as part of a pending case and post -conviction. Those orders were previously not allowed without an intimate or roommate relationship. She commended the Police Department for the smooth transition in hiring a new Domestic Violence Coordinator, Jill Schick. She recognized the previous Domestic Violence Coordinator Kari Hovorka for her service. Ms. Hunter advised that court is typically held four days a week; five if there is a trial. She invited the Council and the public to attend. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her appreciation for the attorney backgrounds Mr. Zachor provided in his outline. She asked the difference between criminal traffic and criminal non -traffic. Mr. Zachor answered examples of criminal non -traffic are shoplifting, theft, trespass. Criminal traffic includes driving while license suspended, reckless driving, hit and run. Packet Page 8 of 461 Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether they were gearing up for drugging and driving offenses. Mr. Zachor answered they represent the South Snohomish County Narcotic's Task Force in matters of drug and felony forfeitures. A person operating a vehicle with a certain reading of marijuana in their blood is DUI. Previously police officers were required to obtain a search warrant for a blood draw; consent has now been reinstated. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained she has been notified of two community situations during the past year, one in North Edmonds and on the Highway 99 corridor; in both the citizens were very complimentary of the Zachor Thomas team. Mr. Zachor advised their office is in Edmonds and he encouraged Councilmembers to visit. 10. BUDGET WORK SESSION #2 - DEPARTMENT PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Police Department Police Chief Al Compaan expressed his pleasure with the prosecutorial services provided by Zachor Thomas. He recognized the members of his team who assisted with developing the Police Department budget, Assistant Police Chief Jim Lawless and Executive Assistant Caroline Thomas. He thanked the Finance Department for their assistance with developing the budget. Chief Compaan reviewed 2013 accomplishments: • Re -accredited by Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs • Policy Manual Updated and Posted on Webpage • Two Police Officers completed FTO and two Police • Officers hired to fill vacancies • Filled Domestic Violence Coordinator vacancy • Continued Integration of North Sound SWAT — Kirkland • Hosted Fraud/Burglary Awareness Meeting on June 20 (another scheduled on November 14) • Hosted Edmonds Night Out on July 30 — Police Foundation • Purchased Replacement Police Dog — Police Foundation Chief Compaan reviewed Police Department challenges: • Staffing — Assistant Chief and Police Officer • Radio Replacement — 2020 — Mobiles and Portables • Attrition and Turnover — Aging Workforce • Complexity of Criminal Investigations — Expectations of • Prosecution, Defense, Judge, Juries • Technology is expensive — DNA, Fingerprints, Trace • Evidence, Virtual Crime Scene Replication • Expectations of the Public for Level of Service, On -Line • Reporting, On -Line Records Requests • State mandated training requirements increased Chief Compaan described recent highlights — 2012 Activities • Part 1 crimes solved — 30.7% • Felony Filings — 237 • Traffic Citations and infractions — 4,180 • DUI arrest — 121 • Total misdemeanor arrests — 1,148 • Animal control incidents — 1,242 Packet Page 9 of 461 • Parking citations - 1,113 • Firearms related requests (CPL, transfers) - 963 • Public disclosure request - 1,865 • Traffic collisions investigated - 707 Chief Compaan reviewed expenditures: Expenditures 2013 Modified Budget 2013 YE Estimate 2014 Recomm. Discussion Salaries, benefits 7,133,316 7,074,582 7,427,044 Staffing DP #16, 49 Overtime 400,000 401,091 402,456 No change tooperational OT Supplies/equipment 155,810 142,018 160,310 Supplies for staff in DP #16, 49 Professional services 95,200 135,911 114,287 $7,000 for towing; licensing DP #15 Other 119,682 97,545 118,682 Intergovernmental 9,998 10,088 10,237 Interfund Rental 568,344 568,344 590,688 Radio DP #17 Total Budget 8,482,350 8,429,579 8,823,704 Chief Compaan reviewed Police Department revenues: Revenues 2013 Modified Budget 2013 YE Estimate 2014 Recomm. Discussion Intergovernmental 45,921 51,821 44,600 Special Events 37,615 41,000 38,300 Animal Licenses & Adoptions 19,821 19,821 47,156 Licensing DP #15 Grants 17,191 12,841 13,676 Other 9,587 11,308 9,775 Total 131,135 136,791 153,507 Chief Compaan reviewed Police Department decision packages: • DP #16: Assistant Chief of Police o This position cut mid -year 2012. Has resulted in periods without command staff availability; difficulty balancing schedules, workflows, meeting of critical deadlines; reassignment of workload; important from personnel and risk management standpoint • DP #17: Radio Replacement Fund o Due to budgetary shortfalls, there was a partial contribution to the fund in 2009 and none in 2011. The entire 800 MHz public safety infrastructure in Snohomish County is set for mandatory replacement by 2020. Increased contributions will be required to ensure sufficient funding for EPD mobile and portable replacement o Total cost in 2020 - $450,000 • DP #49: Police Officer - Entry Level o This is one of four FTE cut during 2012. Goal will be to utilize this FTE as a way of restarting Street Crimes Unit in 2015 • DP #15: Animal Licensing o Calls for utilization of an outside vendor animal licensing and increase in current fee structure. Issuing under current structure costs approximately $1,700/year. With new structure, approximately $29,880/year of new net revenue could be generated. Chief Compaan displayed and reviewed a graph of overtime hours 2007-2013 and overtime paid 2007- 2013. Packet Page 10 of 461 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the New World system. Chief Compaan explained New World is software purchased countywide for emergency services for computer -aided dispatch, records management, and jail records. It is a very complex project and is moving forward. He suggested inviting SnoCom Director Grady to provide the Council an update. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the proposed budget included funds for New World. Chief Compaan advised the New World project is paid via the SnoCom assessment. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired how many Police Department employees left in 2012 via Voluntary Separation Agreements (VSA). Chief Compaan answered there were two VSA and two retirements. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to DP #15, expressing her pleasure with the proposal to increase the animal license fee which has not been changed since 1987. She recalled Seattle's animal license fee is $20. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the Police Department's salary budget increased 3% but benefits increased 10%. Finance Director Roger Neumaier answered that was due to a new deferred compensation program implemented for LEOFF employees. Councilmember Bloom asked if the licensing fee increase will be presented to the Public Safety & Personnel Committee. She and Councilmember Peterson have discussed implementing that as soon as possible. Mayor Earling explained staff citywide was asked to consider fee increases. All the fee increases were included in the budget and total approximately $200,000. The intent was to approve them as part of the budget. Public Works & Utilities, Streets, Facilities, Water, Sewer, Administration, Stormwater, Engineering, WWTP and Fleet Public Works Director Phil Williams reviewed 2013 accomplishments: • Main Street Project - $1.4 million • Treatment Plant Upgrades - $1.3 million • Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update - $120,000 • Highway 99 Decorative Lighting Project - $385,000 • 5th Avenue Overlay Project - $987,000 • Nine Lift Station Rehabs - $4.5 million • Vehicle Fleet Propane Conversion - $110,000 • Francis Anderson Center Locker Room Improvements - $148,000 • 37 New Recycling Stations for Parks and Downtown - $16,000 • Ops Center Stormwater Structure Install - $50,000 • 2013 Water Main Replacement - $1.57 million • 224`h Sewer and Water Main Replacements - $367,000 • 228`h Corridor Improvements - $2.71 million Mr. Williams reviewed 2014 construction projects: • 5 Corners Roundabout - $2.9 million • Signal Cabinet Improvements - $266,000 • SR99 Lighting Phase 3 - $592,000 • 3rd Avenue ADA Curb Ramps - $90,000 • 238`h Street Walkway and Storm Drain Improvements (100`h Ave — 104`hAve) - $1.385 million • 15`h Street SW Walkway (Edmonds Way — 8th Avenue) - $364,000 Packet Page 11 of 461 • 236th Street SW Walkway (Edmonds Way — Madrona Elementary) - $494,000 • 10,000 ft of Water Main Replacement- $2.67 million • 2,000 lineal feet of Water Main Overlays - $250,000 • 6,500 feet of Sewer Main Replacement - $2.8 million • 1,500 feet of C1PP Sewer Rehabilitation - $520,000 • 2014 Pavement Preservation Program - $1.2 million Mr. Williams reviewed revenues: Revenue 2013 Modified Budget 2013 YE Estimate 2014 Recomm. Discussion Motor Vehicle Excise Tax 770,000 766,000 760,000 Flat state rate/gal TBD Annual Registration Fees 645,000 645,000 645,000 No change in fee or # of cars Water Sales 5,945,698 6,051,066 6,048,981 No rate increase Sewer Sales 6,752,279 6,846,390 6,929,578 No rate increase Stormwater Sales 3,207,600 3,239,500 3,255,698 No rate increase Rental Leases 62,500 63,104 63,014 Tower leases, Good Hope Pond house Operations Grant 260,300 199,503 231,652 DOE storm grants, etc. Mr. Williams reviewed exnenditures: Expenditures 2013 Modified 2013 YE 2014 Discussion Budget Estimate Recomm. General Fund 3,063,134 3,036,146 3,419,551 Re -budgeting an existing CPM Street Fund 1,557,715 1,515,509 1,595,810 DP 37 = $300,000 Water Utility Fund 9,313,991 7,935,187 9,462,171 EZ Valve ($49k) and 5 Corners ($700k) not included in 2013 YE Estimate Sewer Utility Fund 18,161,466 14,560,719 13,906,720 Delayed $3.2M in sewer line Replacements in 2013 Storm Utility Fund 4,585,772 3,609,620 5,922,973 Dayton Street, Marsh, Perrinville ER&R Fund 1,095,372 1 1,022,711 1 979,579 1 Propane fuel savings Mr. Williams reviewed Public Works & Utility challenges: • Sustainable funding for street maintenance and operations, approximately $300,000/year. Strategic Objective 3 4a.1 • Sustainable funding for pavement repair/preservation - $1.2 million proposed. Strategic objective 4a.1 • BNSF railroad conflicts/public safety response/ferry operations. Strategic Objective 4a.1 • Stormwater at SR-104 and Dayton Street. Strategic Objective 2a.3 • Staffing capacity for capital project delivery o Graph of staffing capacity for capital project delivery 2008-2016 o Pie graphs of Engineering Division budget 2013 and 2014 • Utility rates o Comparison of other cities utility rates current o Current rate: $80.74, increase to $103.15 in 2016 projected at 3%/year (based on 10 ccf/month) Packet Page 12 of 461 o Average single family utility customer's use 7 ccf/month. Current average rate $75.30 increase to $96.20 in 2016 o Median household income of comparison cities o Percentage of income represented by single family utility rates Mr. Williams reviewed decision packages/major changes: • Street Support o General Fund contribution to Street Fund III to meet current expenditures and maintain service levels. $300,000/yr. • Pavement Preservation Program o $1.2 million to begin a pavement preservation program • Utility Rate adjustments o Stormwater — 4.5% (three years) o Sewer — 9.5% (three years) o Water — 9.0% (three years) • DP #35: PW Engineering —New Capital Project Manager • DP #36: PW Streets — Edmonds Pavement Preservation Program • DP #37: PW Streets — Road Operations Funding from General Fund, REET I and II • DP #38: PW Facilities — Transfer for ESCO III project • DP #39: PW Facilities — Transfer for LED fixtures to streetlights and improve library HVAC system • DP #40: PW Facilities — Transfer for HW and SW on Public Safety HVAC digital control system • DP #44: PW Utilities — Updated Water Meter Fees • DP #45: PW ER&R — Automotive diagnostic scan tool Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the 76"' Avenue completion was on the list of 2014 projects. Mr. Williams answered that is a Lynnwood project; staff may step in and bring a contract to the City Council. If the Council approves the contract, it will be included in the list of 2014 projects. He was hopeful the waterline could be installed this year. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether chip seal will be considered. Mr. Williams answered the pavement preservation program does not rule out chip sealing. Councilmember Buckshnis asked the difference between a Capital Project Manager and a Capital Manager. Mr. Williams answered is only the Capital Projects Manager job title, two are authorized now and he is requesting a third. There are two decision packages; one is a re -budgeting of an existing position that was budgeted in Utilities and should have been in the General Fund, revenues from Utilities offset the expense. Observing more people are moving into Edmonds, Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the revenue from the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) has not changed. Mr. Williams answered it is based on the number of vehicles licensed in the City. He suggested residents may have eliminated a vehicle during the recent economy. The City receives all the revenue collected except for 1% the Department of Revenue receives for providing the service. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested future presentations illustrate the savings by increasing water/sewer/stormwater rates and avoiding bonding for improvements. Mayor Earling advised all directors are present tonight and invited Councilmembers to ask questions about other department's budgets. Council President Petso commented in recent years the Council has been forced out of necessity to impose the 1% property tax increase. It appears the Council is not forced Packet Page 13 of 461 to do so this year. If the Council did not impose the 1% increase this year, she asked whether it could be banked for a future year. Mr. Neumaier answered if the City chooses not to impose the 1%, the levy ordinance could be worded to state the capacity is reserved and could be used on a councilmanic basis in the future. If the Council chose not to impose the 1% property tax increase, Council President Petso asked whether the City would still receive property tax increase from new construction. Mr. Neumaier answered yes, new construction is new buildings or building additions that are added at the current levy rate. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the ECA contingent loan was reduced to $180,000. She asked whether that had been discussed with the ECA. Mr. Neumaier answered that amount was discussed with the EPFD/ECA Executive Director. Public Comments Al Rutledge, Edmonds, observed the budget reflects $400,000 in insurance savings. Observing health insurance rates often increase, he suggested budgeting funds to cover any excess insurance costs. Next, he referred to the comparison of median income, pointing out people who live outside Edmonds work and spend money in Edmonds and Edmonds residents work and spend money outside the City. He suggested comparing the median income to the average wage of City employees. Brian Borofka, Edmonds, suggested the materials the Council received including the presentations be posted on the City's website. He found it difficult to locate budget materials on the website. He observed the 2014 budget included additional IT staff. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reminded of the Cultural Fair at the Edmonds Center for the Arts on Wednesday, October 30 beginning at 10:00 a.m. Two of the performances will be Japanese performers and one will be by the Olympic Ballet. He also reminded of the Friendship Dinner on Friday evening. Mayor Earling explained one of the reasons the Hekinan delegation visits this time of year is they love trick -or -treat and Halloween. The delegation brought their own costumes and their own scarecrow. He invited everyone to the Halloween Trick -or -Treat in downtown Edmonds, noting it attracts thousands of parents and children. Mayor Earling again thanked Sandy Chase for her service. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Petso reminded Councilmembers that proposed budget amendments need to be submitted to staff by November 8. They will be presented to the public and there will be an opportunity for the public to comment on proposed amendments. Council President Petso presented a gift from the City Council to Sandy Chase. She expressed her sincere appreciation for Ms. Chase' efforts. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented Ms. Chase will be missed; her professionalism has been amazing. Councilmember Bloom said Ms. Chase will be missed; she is a very special, wonderful and warm person and her personality and exceptional work will be missed. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her appreciation for Ms. Chase's service. Packet Page 14 of 461 Councilmember Johnson thanked Sandy Chase for her hard work and wished her enjoyment in retirement. She welcomed the Sister City delegation from Hekinan and invited the public to the Japanese Cultural Fair tomorrow at the ECA from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Councilmember Johnson congratulated the Port of Edmonds on their new long term tenant, Jacobsen Marine. She congratulated the Police Department on their acquisition of a new K-9 officer, a German Shepherd named Hobbs. She wished everyone a Happy Halloween and invited them to trick -or -treat in downtown Edmonds from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. 13. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This agenda item was not considered. 14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This agenda item was not considered. 15. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m Packet Page 15 of 461 AM-6271 4. B. City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 11/04/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Submitted By: Nori Jacobson Department: Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subiect Title Approval of claim checks #205133 through #205250 dated October 31, 2013 for $882,783.51. Recommendation Approval of claim checks. 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: 882,783.51 Fiscal Impact: Claims $882,783.51 Attachments Claim checks 10-31-13 Proi ect Numbers 10-31-13 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Roger Neumaier 10/31/2013 11:45 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 10/31/2013 01:06 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/31/2013 02:13 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/31/2013 04:33 PM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 10/31/2013 11:12 AM Packet Page 16 of 461 Final Approval Date: 10/31/2013 Packet Page 17 of 461 vchlist 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 1 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205133 10/31/2013 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 83113 AUG INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 675.04 Total: 675.04 205134 10/31/2013 074633 ACU-LINE CORP 32488 CHT PLAQUES ADDITIONAL NOT G CHT PLAQUES ADDITIONAL NOT G 117.200.64.575.50.41.00 200.00 Total: 200.00 205135 10/31/2013 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND NOV 2013 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 11/2013 El ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 11/2013 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 2,097.71 Total: 2,097.71 205136 10/31/2013 074473 AHERN, RACHEL AHERN 10242013 14 HOURS VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTE 14 HOURS VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTE 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 140.00 Total: 140.00 205137 10/31/2013 060205 ALLIED BUILDING PRODUCTS CORP 5313364-00 WWTP - CONSTRUCTION GROUT WWTP - CONSTRUCTION GROUT 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 67.20 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 6.38 Total: 73.58 205138 10/31/2013 001528 AM TEST INC 77679 WWTP - LAB TEST/MERCURY WWTP - LAB TEST/MERCURY 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 125.00 77680 WWTP - LAB TEST ICP METAL WWTP - LAB TEST ICP METAL 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 75.00 Total: 200.00 205139 10/31/2013 069829 AMIDO, BENJAMIM AMIDO 17749 UKULELE 17749 Page: 1 Packet Page 18 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205139 10/31/2013 069829 AMIDO, BENJAMIM (Continued) UKULELE 17749 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 361.90 Total: 361.90 205140 10/31/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-7081215 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 42.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 4.03 Total: 46.44 205141 10/31/2013 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0489159-IN WWTP - DIESEL WWTP - DIESEL 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 4,842.89 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 460.07 Total: 5,302.96 205142 10/31/2013 069451 ASTRA INDUSTRIAL SERVICES 00132783 WWTP - PLUMBING, REPAIR/REPL) WWTP - PLUMBING, REPAIR/REPL) 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 229.61 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 8.61 Total: 238.22 205143 10/31/2013 074640 62C PUBLISHING 1260 AD IN BLUE CITY MONTHLY NOV 2( Promotional ad in Blue City Monthly N 001.000.61.558.70.44.00 625.00 Total: 625.00 205144 10/31/2013 074031 BARTH, RUTH BARTH 17760 NO FEAR DRAWING 17760 NO FEAR DRAWING 17760 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 290.40 NO FEAR DRAWING 17758 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 242.00 Page: 2 Packet Page 19 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205144 10/31/2013 074031 074031 BARTH, RUTH (Continued) Total: 532.40 205145 10/31/2013 066807 BROWNING, DARREN 102913 Street- Travel Food Reimburse for Street- Travel Food Reimburse for 111.000.68.542.90.43.00 183.00 Total: 183.00 205146 10/31/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 13199251 CANON CONTRACT CHARGES C50 Canon copier charges C5051 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 83.35 Canon copier charges C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 83.35 Canon copier 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 205147 10/31/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 13183669 FLEET COPIER Fleet Copier Oct 2013 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 33.02 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 3.14 13183670 PW ADMIN COPIER PW Office Copier for Oct 2013 001.000.65.519.91.45.00 68.55 PW Office Copier for Oct 2013 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 38.85 PW Office Copier for Oct 2013 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 38.85 PW Office Copier for Oct 2013 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 27.42 Page: 3 Packet Page 20 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205147 10/31/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) PW Office Copier for Oct 2013 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 27.42 PW Office Copier for Oct 2013 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 27.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.519.91.45.00 6.51 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 3.69 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 3.69 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 2.61 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 2.61 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 2.59 13183671 WATER SEWER COPIER Water Sewer Copier Oct 2013 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 70.68 Water Sewer Copier Oct 2013 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 70.68 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 6.72 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 6.71 Total: 441.15 205148 10/31/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 13181241 Contract charge for Building Dept. Contract charge for Building Dept. 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 33.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 3.14 Total: 36.16 205149 10/31/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 13181232 Lease/Council Office Copier -Printer Page: 4 Packet Page 21 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205149 10/31/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) Lease/Council Office Copier -Printer 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 30.65 Total: 30.65 205150 10/31/2013 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 39444016 INV#39444016 ACCT#7898305185 I FUEL FOR NARCS - ROSSI 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 360.13 FUEL FOR NARCS - POFF 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 205.12 TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 5.65 Total: 570.90 205151 10/31/2013 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC 23K-006976 WWTP - PADLOCKS W WTP - PADLOCKS 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 512.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 48.68 Total: 561.08 205152 10/31/2013 073617 CLIFTON, AMBER 103013 TRAVEL REFUND TRAVEL REFUND 001.000.23.523.30.43.00 33.66 Total: 33.66 205153 10/31/2013 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING OCT 2013 DRY CLEANING SEPT/OCT - EDMO CLEANING/LAUNDRY SEPT/OCT 2C 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 695.87 Total: 695.87 205154 10/31/2013 072278 CUETER, THAYER CUETER 17834 TIPTOE 17834 TIPTOE 17834 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 35.20 Total: 35.20 205155 10/31/2013 072189 DATASITE 37658 SHRED COURT PAPERS Page: 5 Packet Page 22 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205155 10/31/2013 072189 DATASITE (Continued) SHRED COURT PAPERS 001.000.23.523.30.49.00 50.00 Total: 50.00 205156 10/31/2013 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 346719 INV#346719 - EDMONDS PD CALIBRATE #GHD-03881 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00 CALIBRATE #LP03397 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00 CALIBRATE #PL22583 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00 CALIBRATE #GVPD-05654 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00 CALIBRATE #GVPD-08496 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00 FUELSURCHARGE 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 10.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 34.20 Total : 394.20 205157 10/31/2013 047610 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE41JA8277 L002 E2FC.WATER LEVEL PROB - SR104 E2FC.Water Level Prob - SR104 MP, 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 312.53 Total: 312.53 205158 10/31/2013 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 13-3398 MINUTE TAKING 10/22 Council Minutes 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 327.00 Total : 327.00 205159 10/31/2013 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 13-2229.1 CITY PARK WETLANDS SURVEY CITY PARK WETLANDS SURVEY 125.000.64.576.80.41.00 1,188.56 Page: 6 Packet Page 23 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205159 10/31/2013 070244 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES II (Continued) Total: 1,188.56 205160 10/31/2013 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 28671 PASSENGER TIRE PASSENGER TIRE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.74 Total: 8.49 205161 10/31/2013 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 14940 SEPTEMBER MONTHLY CHAMBER September 2013 monthly Chamber of 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 20.00 Total: 20.00 205162 10/31/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-25150 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTEI 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTEI 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 42.71 2-25175 9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTEF 9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTEF 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 56.36 2-28275 SPRINKLER SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 83.66 2-37180 MINI PARK MINI PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 47.21 7-05276 820 15TH ST SW 820 15TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 130.11 Total: 360.05 205163 10/31/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 0927501 PARKS AND REC MAINTA6995 PARKS AND REC MAINTA6995 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 32.22 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 3.06 Page: 7 Packet Page 24 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205163 10/31/2013 008812 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINE: (Continued) Total: 35.28 205164 10/31/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 092531 COPIER MAINT COPIER MAINT 001.000.23.523.30.45.00 4.11 Total: 4.11 205165 10/31/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 092660 ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTEN. Maintenance for printers 10/21/13 - 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 327.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 31.12 Total: 358.72 205166 10/31/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 092965 COPIER CHARGES C5051 Copier charges for C5051 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 119.87 Copier charges for C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 119.87 Copier charges for C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 119.81 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 11.39 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 11.39 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 11.38 Total: 393.71 205167 10/31/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 092636 METER READING 9/21 to 10/21 meter reading 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 11.23 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.07 Total: 12.30 Page: 8 Packet Page 25 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 205168 10/31/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 0926121 092618 1 0926371 PO # Description/Account Amount WATER SEWER COPY USE Water Sewer Copy Use- 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 8.98 Water Sewer Copy Use- 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 8.98 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0.86 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.85 PW COPY USE PW Copy Use- 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 16.65 PW Copy Use- 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 9.44 PW Copy Use- 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 9.44 PW Copy Use- 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 6.66 PW Copy Use- 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 6.66 PW Copy Use- 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.66 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 1.58 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 0.90 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 0.90 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.63 FLEET COPY USE Page: 9 Packet Page 26 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205168 10/31/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) Fleet Copy Use- 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.13 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.20 Total: 82.78 205169 10/31/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 0922591 Council Office printer/copier Council Office printer/copier 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 9.42 Total: 9.42 205170 10/31/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 092588 WWTP - COPY MACHINE WWTP - COPY MACHINE 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 96.35 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 9.15 Total: 105.50 205171 10/31/2013 067599 EWING ELECTRIC INC EPD1004 WWTP - SWITCHGEAR PROJECT WWTP - SWITCHGEAR PROJECT 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 478,858.60 9.5% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 45,491.57 Total: 524,350.17 205172 10/31/2013 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU29851 Unit 138 - Supplies Unit 138 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.60 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.48 WAMOU29908 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 14.49 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 1.38 Page: 10 Packet Page 27 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205172 10/31/2013 066378 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY (Continued) Total: 32.95 205173 10/31/2013 009880 FEDEX 2-437-42856 WWTP - SHIP PACKAGE TO HOUSI WWTP - SHIP PACKAGE TO HOUSI 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 4.02 Total: 4.02 205174 10/31/2013 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0396433 LS 4 - PVC LS 4 - PVC 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 332.46 7.7% sales tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 25.60 Total: 358.06 205175 10/31/2013 067004 FINE LINE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS 23548-00 WWTP - 6 DIGIT PROCESS METER WWTP - 6 DIGIT PROCESS METER 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 598.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 27.22 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 59.40 Total: 684.62 205176 10/31/2013 074631 FLEX SYSTEMS LLC 50828 WWTP - COMPUTER SOFTWARE - WWTP - COMPUTER SOFTWARE - 423.000.76.535.80.31.42 7,622.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.42 25.00 Total: 7,647.00 205177 10/31/2013 071311 FORMS AND FILING INC 188917A INV#188917A CUST#8151 - EDMON COLOR TAB "4" 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 27.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 8.54 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 11 Packet Page 28 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205177 10/31/2013 071311 FORMS AND FILING INC (Continued) 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 3.38 188917B CR INV#188917B-REFUND SHIPPIN Freight 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 -8.54 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 -0.82 Total: 29.56 205178 10/31/2013 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM IRRIGATION SYSTEM 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 45.07 Total: 45.07 205179 10/31/2013 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA GLEISNER 17826 MOVING FOR BETTER BALANCE 1 MOVING FOR BETTER BALANCE 1 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 164.00 QIGONG 17822 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 277.72 TAI-CHI 17817 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 205.72 TAI CHI 17816 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 496.00 TAI CHI 17818 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 187.67 QIGONG 17824 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 162.86 Total: 1,493.97 205180 10/31/2013 012199 GRAINGER 9256975526A WWTP- REPAIR AND REPLACE/El- WWTP - REPAIR AND REPLACE/EL 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 698.50 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 66.36 9269787462 WWTP - ELECTRIC VIBRATOR FOR WWTP - ELECTRIC VIBRATOR FOR Page: 12 Packet Page 29 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205180 10/31/2013 012199 GRAINGER (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 698.50 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 66.36 9273666488 RETURNED PART WWTP - Credit memo for returned pe 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 -698.50 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 -66.36 Total: 764.86 205181 10/31/2013 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC 00110118-B WWTP - SWITCHGEAR ENGINEERI WWTP - SWITCHGEAR ENGINEERI 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 3,596.22 Total: 3,596.22 205182 10/31/2013 074638 HEALY, TERESA HEALY 17806 LITTLE FISH PRESCHOOL PREP 17 LITTLE FISH PRESCHOOL PREP 17 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 368.55 Tota I : 368.55 205183 10/31/2013 062383 HEPBURN INDUSTRIES IN106025 VASE CLASSIC PLAS BRZ VASE CLASSIC PLAS BRZ 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 1,037.50 Freight 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 19.07 Total: 1,056.57 205184 10/31/2013 073880 HITE, CARRIE HITE 103012 EXPENSES NRPA CONFERENCE O EXPENSES NRPA CONFERENCE O 001.000.64.571.21.43.00 156.00 Total: 156.00 205185 10/31/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1042743 Sewer - Shut-ofrs, and Nozzels Sewer - Shut -offs, and Nozzels 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 28.22 Page: 13 Packet Page 30 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205185 10/31/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.68 15826653 Storm - Tarp Storm - Tarp 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 24.98 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 2.37 2042422 PW - Supplies PW - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.80 2592052 Traffic Control - Staples, Trash Bags Traffic Control - Staples, Trash Bags 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 26.95 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 2.56 3033751 City Park - Drain Pipes and Downspo City Park - Drain Pipes and Downspo 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 14.24 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.35 3039113 PS - Supplies PS - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 124.18 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.80 3042025 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Supplies Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 64.91 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.17 3042199 City Parks - Green house supplies City Parks - Green house supplies Page: 14 Packet Page 31 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205185 10/31/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.66 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.35 40310 City Park - Green house repair suppli, City Park - Green house repair suppli, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 86.29 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.20 4045727 Fac Maint - Shop Supplies - Sealant Fac Maint - Shop Supplies - Sealant 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.24 5031029 Fac Maint Unit 5 - Pipe Wrenches, Fac Maint Unit 5 - Pipe Wrenches, 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 96.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 9.16 5041485 Sewer - Tarps Sewer - Tarps 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 61.94 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 5.88 5081756 FAC- Mason Line FAC- Mason Line 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.97 Fac Maint - Supply Line 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.46 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.56 6047799 Fac Maint - Shop Supplies Fac Maint - Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.86 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 15 Packet Page 32 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205185 10/31/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.89 6074729 PS - Grip Liner, Camlock PS - Grip Liner, Camlock 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.09 6562235 Traffic Control - Bore Drill Bit Traffic Control - Bore Drill Bit 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 49.97 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 4.75 6562575 Water - Supplies Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 44.98 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.27 7030621 Fac Maint Unit 26 - Rope Ratchet Fac Maint Unit 26 - Rope Ratchet 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 22.42 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.13 7043680 Fac Maint - Shop - Supplies Fac Maint - Shop - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 54.58 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.19 7043682 FAC - Roof Supplies FAC - Roof Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 27.23 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.59 7043758 PS - Cam Locks PS - Cam Locks 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 27.87 Page: 16 Packet Page 33 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205185 10/31/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.65 7047595 PS - Supplies PS - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.43 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.47 7095030 FAC - Gorilla Tape, Supplies FAC - Gorilla Tape, Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 35.82 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.40 71748 Water - Supplies - Clamps, Trash bac Water - Supplies - Clamps, Trash bac 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 82.10 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 7.80 8032659 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Drawar slides, Tal Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Drawar slides, Tal 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.70 8043385 Fac Maint - Shop and Unit 5 Supplies Fac Maint - Shop and Unit 5 Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 46.01 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.37 8091928 Traffic Control - Rope Clamps Traffic Control - Rope Clamps 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 6.56 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 0.62 8561754 PS - Connector PS - Connector Page: 17 Packet Page 34 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205185 10/31/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.47 Tota I : 1,158.38 205186 10/31/2013 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 24604 E2CC.SERVICES THRU 9/29/13 E2CC.Services thru 9/29/13 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 3,326.45 Total: 3,326.45 205187 10/31/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2352657 Planning Dept. calendars Planning Dept. calendars 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 160.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 15.23 2353951 Popper -mint green copy paper. Popper -mint green copy paper. 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 97.16 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 9.23 2354102 Jen - 2014 appt. book. Jen - 2014 appt. book. 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 13.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 1.31 2354445 Misc. office supplies including Misc. office supplies including 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 373.55 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 35.49 2355103 Ref. Inv. 2352657 - rec'd 2013 calend Ref. Inv. 2352657 - rec'd 2013 calend 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 -18.08 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 -1.72 Page: 18 Packet Page 35 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205187 10/31/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) 2356009 Gina/Megan back ordered calendars. Gina/Megan back ordered calendars. 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 58.07 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 5.52 235936 Copy paper for Dev. Svc. - delivered Copy paper for Dev. Svc. - delivered 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 51.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 4.94 Total: 806.71 205188 10/31/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2339061 WWTP - CARTON COPY PAPER, RE WWTP - CARTON COPY PAPER, RE 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 39.99 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 3.80 2339388 WWTP - CARTON COPY PAPER RE WWTP - CARTON COPY PAPER, RE 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 -39.99 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 -3.80 2351977 WWTP - COPY PAPER WWTP - COPY PAPER 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 42.99 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 4.08 2353222 WWTP - OFFICE SUPPLIES WWTP - OFFICE SUPPLIES 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 72.61 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 6.89 2353242 WWTP - OFFICE SUPPLIES WWTP - OFFICE SUPPLIES 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 29.39 Page: 19 Packet Page 36 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205188 10/31/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 2.79 Total: 158.75 205189 10/31/2013 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 728486 WIRE BRUSH WIRE BRUSH 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.13 738069 GLOVES AND CABLES GLOVES AND CABLES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 153.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 14.56 Total: 249.97 205190 10/31/2013 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 485071 Unit 277 - Battery Unit 277 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 87.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.36 61224131 Gen #7 - Battery Gen #7 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 215.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 20.52 727775 Shop - Supplies Shop - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 28.10 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 2.67 727852 Shop Supplies Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 46.08 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 20 Packet Page 37 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205190 10/31/2013 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 4.38 728091 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 115.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 10.97 728247 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 89.70 Jacket 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 39.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.52 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 3.80 728349 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 44.90 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 4.27 728901 Shop Supplies Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 152.63 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 14.50 Total: 898.75 205191 10/31/2013 074637 JIREH CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 10-22-13 INV 10-22-13 - 10225 50TH PLACE V INSTALL CONCRETE PAD FOR K-9 001.000.41.521.26.41.00 750.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.26.41.00 71.25 Total: 821.25 205192 10/31/2013 063493 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 13074887-00 PS - Igniter Page: 21 Packet Page 38 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205192 10/31/2013 063493 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY (Continued) PS - Igniter 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 35.72 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.39 13074938-00 PW - Flame Sensor PW - Flame Sensor 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.33 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.17 Total: 64.61 205193 10/31/2013 074585 JUAREZ, SHAWNA JUAREZ 10/29/2013 14 HOURS AS VOLLEYBALL GYM A 14 HOURS AS VOLLEYBALL GYM A 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 140.00 Total: 140.00 205194 10/31/2013 074634 K&T WE DO DIRT LLC 20131196 YOST POOL ASBESTOS REMOVAL YOST POOL ASBESTOS REMOVAL 125.000.64.576.80.48.00 9,004.84 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.48.00 835.51 Total: 9,840.35 205195 10/31/2013 067330 KAR-VEL CONSTRUCTION INC E1JA.Ret Release E1J.A.RETAINAGE RELEASE E1JA.Retainage Release 421.000.223.400 85,078.38 Total: 85,078.38 205196 10/31/2013 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER KIDZ SOCCER 17763 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 17763 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 17763 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 141.60 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 17764 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 283.20 Page: 22 Packet Page 39 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205196 10/31/2013 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER (Continued) KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 17765 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 354.00 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 17766 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 389.40 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 17772 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 212.40 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 17781 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 495.60 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 17768 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 495.60 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 17769 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 460.20 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 17770 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 212.40 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 17771 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 318.60 Total: 3,363.00 205197 10/31/2013 074326 KIMBALL MIDWEST 3217203 Shop Supplies Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 412.28 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 39.17 Tota I : 451.45 205198 10/31/2013 070285 KPLU-FM 1131032036 BLOCK AD ON KPLU RADIO HOME Promotional ad on KPLU website Oct 001.000.61.558.70.44.00 120.00 Total: 120.00 205199 10/31/2013 066522 LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES INC 3247927MB Water - EZ St Asphalt Water - EZ St Asphalt 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,004.70 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 95.45 Page: 23 Packet Page 40 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205199 10/31/2013 066522 066522 LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES INC (Continued) Total: 1,100.15 205200 10/31/2013 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 32090 WETLAND DELINEATION WETLAND DELINEATION 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 1,212.75 Total: 1,212.75 205201 10/31/2013 066191 MACLEOD RECKORD 6754 E1DA.SERVICES THRU 9/30/13 E1 DA.Services thru 9/30/13 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 23,796.00 Total: 23,796.00 205202 10/31/2013 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1243 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 913 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 Tota I : 176.64 205203 10/31/2013 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 61937106 WWTP - FUSE BLOCKS, FUSES FO WWTP - FUSE BLOCKS, FUSES FO 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 416.85 Freight 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 6.75 61946844 WWTP - SS VALVE, PAINT BRUSHE WWTP - SS VALVE, PAINT BRUSHE 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 368.86 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 7.58 62266129 WWTP - SHELVING BINS, CABINET WWTP - SHELVING BINS, CABINET 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 1,096.24 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 139.75 62638185 WWTP - CLASS CC FUSE Page: 24 Packet Page 41 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205203 10/31/2013 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO (Continued) WWTP - CLASS CC FUSE 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 89.80 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 5.13 Tota I : 2,130.96 205204 10/31/2013 069365 MOON CONSTRUCTION INC 13032 FAC Accessability UPgrades Pmt 2 - FAC Accessability UPgrades Pmt 2 - 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 51,001.82 Retainage 2 016.000.223.400 -2,328.85 Total: 48,672.97 205205 10/31/2013 074556 MOORE, IACOFANO & GOLTSMAN INC 0035726 OPEN SPACE PLAN SEPTEMBER P OPEN SPACE PLAN SEPTEMBER P 001.000.64.571.21.41.00 31,780.00 Total: 31,780.00 205206 10/31/2013 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 13-1427-6 E1 GA.SERVICES THRU 9/30/13 El GA. Services th ru 9/30/13 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 6,329.87 E1 GA.Services thru 9/30/13 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 3,117.69 Total: 9,447.56 205207 10/31/2013 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0357934-IN Water Sewer - supplies Water Sewer - supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 29.35 Water Sewer - supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 29.35 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2.79 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.79 Page: 25 Packet Page 42 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205207 10/31/2013 064570 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC (Continued) Total: 64.28 205208 10/31/2013 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0505423-IN Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 659.37 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 62.64 0505885-IN Fleet - Filters Fleet - Filters 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 171.66 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 16.31 0506014-IN Fleet- Filters Fleet- Filters 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 22.46 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.13 0506015-IN Fleet- Filter Fleet- Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.10 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.29 0506200-IN Filter Inventory - Exchanged Filters Filter Inventory - Exchanged Filters 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 0.27 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 0.03 0506527-IN Fleet - Filters Fleet - Filters 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 59.64 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.67 Total: 1,003.57 205209 10/31/2013 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 55281 Unit 66 - Supplies Unit 66 - Supplies Page: 26 Packet Page 43 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205209 10/31/2013 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 92.04 9.2% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.47 Total: 100.51 205210 10/31/2013 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 45965 WWTP - BISULFITE WWTP - BISULFITE 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 1,723.80 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 163.76 Total: 1,887.56 205211 10/31/2013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-780697 HAINES WHARF HAINES WHARF 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 220.77 Total: 220.77 205212 10/31/2013 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 424 Planning Board minutes on 10/23/13. Planning Board minutes on 10/23/13. 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 320.00 Total: 320.00 205213 10/31/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 940895 WHITE PAPER (WOTS) WHITE PAPER (WOTS) 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 31.76 BINDERS 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 6.82 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 3.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 0.65 Total: 42.25 205214 10/31/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 951698 INV#951698 ACCT#520437 250POL DYMO ADDRESS LABELS (ROLL 35 Page: 27 Packet Page 44 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205214 10/31/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC (Continued) 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 32.72 DYMO ADDRESS LABELS (ROLL 13 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 29.68 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 5.93 Total: 68.33 205215 10/31/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 862136 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 63.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 6.03 Tota I : 69.55 205216 10/31/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 755422 Diane's desk pad calendar. Diane's desk pad calendar. 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 12.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 1.14 818540 Diane - Poetica desk calendar. Diane - Poetica desk calendar. 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 10.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 1.04 Total: 25.13 205217 10/31/2013 074632 OVIVO USA LLC 8461307 WWTP - NEOPRENE WIPES WWTP - NEOPRENE WIPERS 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 734.36 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 69.76 Total: 804.12 205218 10/31/2013 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00069182 Unit 31 - H R Bearing Unit 31 - H R Bearing Page: 28 Packet Page 45 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205218 10/31/2013 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1,698.47 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 42.34 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 165.37 00069214 Unit 66 - Nozels Unit 66 - Nozels 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 58.92 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.25 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.67 Total: 1,983.02 205219 10/31/2013 072878 PACIFIC COAST CHEMICAL CO 122494 WWTP - 40 BAGS CLAY W WTP - 40 BAGS CLAY 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 1,712.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 162.64 Total: 1,874.64 205220 10/31/2013 069322 PETERSEN BROTHERS INC 1314601 Traffic - Guardrail Repair at N Traffic - Guardrail Repair at N 111.000.68.542.64.48.00 3,831.18 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.48.00 363.97 1318301 Traffic - Guardrail Repair at Pioneer Traffic - Guardrail Repair at Pioneer 111.000.68.542.64.48.00 7,694.06 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.48.00 730.94 Total: 12,620.15 205221 10/31/2013 007800 PETTY CASH SEPT23-OCT25 2013 SEPT23-OCT 25 PETTY CASH Kleenex for Development Services Page: 29 Packet Page 46 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 205221 10/31/2013 007800 PETTY CASH 205222 10/31/2013 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 19.26 WCIAAnti Harrassment class - 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 82.91 Voice Recorder for Meetings - Rob CI 001.000.62.558.60.35.00 65.69 Refreshments for training class - 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 59.91 Corporal Assessment Ctr 001.000.22.521.10.49.00 60.77 Travel and Parking for conference - 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 29.05 ITE Annual Meeting - Bertran Hauss 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 20.00 Parking & Mileage to meetings - 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 66.98 Reception supplies - Linda Hynd 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 65.34 Retirement Party Supplies - Jeannie 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 30.51 Mileage to Softwar Symposium - Briai 001.000.31.518.88.43.00 30.51 Mileage to Cross Connection Confere 421.000.74.534.80.43.00 53.56 Mileage to training classes - Sarah 001.000.31.514.23.43.00 47.35 Tota I : 631.84 5834027 W WTP - BREAKER WWTP - BREAKER 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 52.49 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 25.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 7.36 Page: 30 Packet Page 47 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205222 10/31/2013 028860 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC (Continued) Total: 84.85 205223 10/31/2013 074300 PROMOTIONAL MARKETING SERVICES 5206 DELEGATION FRAMES 4x6 frames 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 604.40 Chase retirement award 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 173.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 73.85 Total: 851.25 205224 10/31/2013 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ 17676 FELDENKRAIS 17676 FELDENKRAIS 17676 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 314.00 FELDENKRAIS 17678 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 324.00 Total: 638.00 205225 10/31/2013 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 0016337-IN WWTP - PLACARDS W WTP - PLACARDS 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 12.95 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 11.35 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 2.31 Total: 26.61 205226 10/31/2013 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200002411383 YOST POOL GAS SERVICE YOST POOL GAS SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 158.23 Total: 158.23 205227 10/31/2013 072387 RUSSELL SIGN CO E-20894 DOE 2013 CAPACITY GRANT - BANI DOE 2013 Capacity Grant - Banner 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 690.00 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 31 Packet Page 48 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205227 10/31/2013 072387 RUSSELL SIGN CO (Continued) 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 65.55 Total: 755.55 205228 10/31/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2009-4334-8 23202 EDMONDS WAY 23202 EDMONDS WAY 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 143.04 2026-2041-5 24000 78TH AVE W 24000 78TH AVE W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.27 Total: 174.31 205229 10/31/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2030-9778-7 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 10C WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 10C 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 23,710.23 Total: 23,710.23 205230 10/31/2013 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT CEDM 314953 314977 2 Fleet HEP AB Vaccines 2 Fleet HEP AB Vaccines 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 296.00 Total: 296.00 205231 10/31/2013 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 104757 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / ASH DISPC WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / ASH DISPC 423.000.76.535.80.47.65 2,963.48 104757 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / ASH DISPC WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / ASH DISPC 423.000.76.535.80.47.65 1,736.39 Total: 4,699.87 205232 10/31/2013 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 3298452 Water Sewer - Rag Supplies Water Sewer - Rag Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 45.99 Water Sewer - Rag Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 45.99 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.37 Page: 32 Packet Page 49 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205232 10/31/2013 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 4.37 Total: 100.72 205233 10/31/2013 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100678567.001 E2CC.ELECTRICAL MATERIALS E2CC.Electrical Materials 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 565.85 Total: 565.85 205234 10/31/2013 070864 SUPERMEDIALLC 440011761765 C/A440001307733 10/2013 Web Hosting for Internet 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95 440011762080 C/A 440001304654 Basic e-commerce hosting 10/02/13 - 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95 Total: 69.90 205235 10/31/2013 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18020381 SCREWS SCREWS 00 1.000.64.576.80.3 1.00 104.58 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.94 Total: 114.52 205236 10/31/2013 074636 TERAN, OSCAR TERAN 10222013 PARTIAL REFUND OF DAMAGE DEI PARTIAL REFUND OF DAMAGE DEI 001.000.239.200 75.00 Total: 75.00 205237 10/31/2013 071666 TETRATECH INC 50731747 E3FC.SERVICES THRU 9/30/13 E3FC.Services thru 9/30/13 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 30,364.41 Total: 30,364.41 205238 10/31/2013 071666 TETRATECH INC 50727087 WWTP- CONTROL SYSTEMS UPG WWTP - CONTROL SYSTEMS UPG Page: 33 Packet Page 50 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 34 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205238 10/31/2013 071666 TETRA TECH INC (Continued) 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 2,259.81 Total: 2,259.81 205239 10/31/2013 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION 10015985 1 Yr Subscription - PW Admin - 1 Yr Subscription - PW Admin - 001.000.65.519.91.49.00 195.00 Total: 195.00 205240 10/31/2013 062949 UNIT PROCESS COMPANY 10022521 WWTP- PUMP PARTS WWTP- PUMP PARTS 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 2,579.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 59.65 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 242.76 Total: 2,881.41 205241 10/31/2013 062693 US BANK 2813 Home Depot - Fleet - Shop Supplies Home Depot - Fleet - Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 2.89 Walgreens - Fleet Supplies - Electron 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 28.96 ASE - Refrigerant Recovery 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 15.00 Fisheries - Fleet Shop Supplies - 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 22.21 Unit G20 FIR - Tank Heater 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 70.72 OReilly Auto - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.22 Lind Elect - Unit 450 - Timers 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 190.90 Fisheries Suppies - Unit 304 - Flush 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 26.06 Magic Toyota - Unit 114 - Master Key Page: 34 Packet Page 51 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 35 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 205241 10/31/2013 062693 US BANK 205242 10/31/2013 062693 US BANK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 112.55 Fisheries - Bilge Pump for Shop 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 36.18 Amazon - Unit 26 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 159.86 Adv Sound - Unit EQ92PO - Window 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 208.05 3355 IMSA-2013 Conference - D Browning IMSA -2013 Conference - D Browning 111.000.68.542.90.49.00 560.00 3405 Seattle Home Appliances - Dryer for Seattle Home Appliances - Dryer for 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 601.16 Guardian Secuirty - Old PW 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.00 Viking Sprinkler - Annual Fire 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 3,142.10 3546 WWCCPP - 4 - 2013 Annual Cross WWCCPP - 4 - 2013 Annual Cross 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 335.00 Verizon - Storm Street Watch Phone 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 24.62 Verizon - Storm Street Watch Phone 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 24.62 Total: 5,630.10 2985 MULTIPLE PURCHASES WWTP - FCC LICENSE RENEWAL F 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 65.00 WWTP - ELECTRICAL VARIANCE PI 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 90.30 WWTP - 30-DAY INTERNSHIP POST 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 20.00 Total : 175.30 Page: 35 Packet Page 52 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 36 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 205243 10/31/2013 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WP 0502862-WA 205244 10/31/2013 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9713154556 PO # Description/Account Amount Water - DOT Water - DOT 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 70.00 Total : 70.00 C/A 671247844-00001 Cell Service -Bldg 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 86.03 Cell Service-Eng 001.000.67.532.20.42.00 182.29 Cell Service Fac-Maint 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 131.82 Cell Service -Parks Discovery Prograr 001.000.64.574.35.42.00 28.27 Cell Service Parks Maint 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 57.78 Cell Service-PD 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 350.19 Cell Service-PD 104 Fund 104.000.41.521.21.42.00 188.52 Cell Service-PW Street 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 56.54 Cell Service-PW Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 32.34 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 47.85 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 47.84 Cell Service-PW Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 155.13 Cell Service-PW Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 51.76 Cell Service-WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 55.35 Total : 1,471.71 Page: 36 Packet Page 53 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 37 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205245 10/31/2013 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 29922037 WWTP - ADMIN ASSISTANT WWTP - ADMIN ASSISTANT 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 518.75 29953391 WWTP- ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTAI WWTP- ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTAI 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 506.25 Total: 1,025.00 205246 10/31/2013 073472 WAPRO OCT 2013 WAPRO CERTIFICATION - BROMAI` APP FEE FOR WAPRO CERTIFICAT 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 100.00 Total: 100.00 205247 10/31/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6072 INV#6072 - EDMONDS PD - A/C 5,000 #10 WINDOW ENVELOPES 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 316.00 2,000 BLUE REMITTANCE ENVELOI 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 150.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 44.35 Total: 511.18 205248 10/31/2013 061472 WESTECH ENGINEERING 49600 WWTP- FILTER WWTP - FILTER 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 564.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 155.60 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 68.36 Total: 787.96 205249 10/31/2013 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR 184418 RUBBER BOOTS FOR KATRINA RUBBER BOOTS FOR KATRINA 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 106.24 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 9.77 Page: 37 Packet Page 54 of 461 vchlist Voucher List Page: 38 10/31/2013 10:57:27AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 205249 10/31/2013 072634 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR (Continued) Total: 116.01 205250 10/31/2013 064213 WSSUATREASURER 135 FALL SOFTBALL UMPIRES FOR OC FALL SOFTBALL UMPIRES FOR OC 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 759.00 Total: 759.00 118 Vouchers for bank code : usbank Bank total : 882,783.51 118 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 882,783.51 Page: 38 Packet Page 55 of 461 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 EOAA STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC STM 190th PI SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 EOJA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3J13 STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA 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 STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) c390 E2GB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 EOIA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC SWR City -Wide Sewer Improvements c301 EBGD Revised 10/31/2013 Packet Page 56 of 461 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c409 E3FD WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 EOLA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA FAC Frances Anderson Center Accesibilty Upgrades c393 EKA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) c298 EBGA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 EBMB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive c410 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 E3FC WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1 FD STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA 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 STR SR104 Corridor Transoportation Study c427 E3AB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 ElEA Revised 10/31/2013 Packet Page 57 of 461 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1 FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) c349 E1 FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 EOFC STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1 FA STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA Revised 10/31/2013 Packet Page 58 of 461 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Proiect Engineering Accounting Proiect Funding Number Number Proiect 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 STR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project STR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR 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 STR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR c298 EBGA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) 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 STR 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 STR 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) STR 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 WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment SWR c347 E1GA 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement Revised 10/31/2013 Packet Page 59 of 461 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Proiect Engineering Accounting Proiect Funding Number Number Proiect Title STM c349 E1 FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STR c354 E1DA Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR c363 EOJA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program STR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update WTR c370 E1 GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update General c372 E1EA 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 E2FA 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 E2FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update STR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project FAC c393 EKA Frances Anderson Center Accesibilty Upgrades WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STR c399 E2CC 5th Ave Overlay Project STR c404 E2AC Citywide Safety Improvements STR c405 E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM c406 E3FA 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 E3FE Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive WTR c418 E3JB 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) STR c420 E3AA School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant STR c421 E3DA 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk Revised 10/31/2013 Packet Page 60 of 461 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Proiect Engineering Accounting Proiect Funding Number Number Proiect Title WTR c422 E4JA 2014 Waterline Replacement Program STR c423 E3DB 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR c424 E3DC 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR c425 E3DD 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR c426 E3DE ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STR c427 E3AB SR104 Corridor Transoportation Study STM c428 E3FF 190th PI SW Wall Construction STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM m013 E7FG NPDES Revised 10/31/2013 Packet Page 61 of 461 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Funding Number STR EOAA Protect Accounting Number Project Title c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM EOFC c326 Stormwater GIS AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements WTR EOJA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project FAC EOLB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs e Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements General EW"SR104 Telecommunications Condgg Crossinn STM E1 FA c336 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM Public ,ilities Water Quality Upgrades STM E1 FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STM E1 FH _JL c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives E001 OR Perrinville Creek Culvert Replaceme SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement ff—c370 WTR E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program WTR —A `;aa W Waterline Extension with Lvnnwood WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c346 WTR E1JE c340 WTR c375 STR E2AA c391 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment 2012 Waterline Replacement Program Main Street Watermain . Transportation Plan Uodate Hv�mprove� t STR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlav Proaram STR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project �M V Interurban EENEr STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements Revised 10/31/2013 Packet Page 62 of 461 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title STM Am c379 SW�s Basin #3-238th 4MW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM Wallingelffssociated Projects 2012 Ebb STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements SW R c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update SW R E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) S School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Gra STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transoportation Study 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) 15th St. SW Walkwa ve) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STM E3FA c406 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement OF c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projec STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study 09 Dayton Street Storm Wprovements (6th Ave - 8th Ave STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive 190th PI SW Wall Construction SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project OVD Sewer Late WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program 4th Waterline Relocation (2013) WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) FAC IFFIEffFrances Anderson Center Accesibilty Upgrades WTR E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program STR E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkwa STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project General E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR St. SW Corridmrovements STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road STM m013 NPDES PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza Revised 10/31/2013 Packet Page 63 of 461 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title SWR E8GA c298 _ Lift Station 2 Improvements (mated from Us 13 - 09101/08) SWR E8GD c301 City -Wide Sewer Improvements PM + E8MA Mr Fourth Avenue Cultural Corrid PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking E9CAJ1W c294 2009 Street Overlay Program STIR E91DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project Ibot Rd. Stqjffi,@jain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 10/31/2013 Packet Page 64 of 461 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Fundinq Protect Title Number Number FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 EOLA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 EOLB FAC Frances Anderson Center Accesibilty Upgrades c393 EKA General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 EBMB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 EOFC STM SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1FA STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1 FD STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) c349 E1 FH STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FIN STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E21FE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c409 E3FD STM Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM 190th PI SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STM NPDES m013 E7FG STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STIR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 EOAA STIR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA STIR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STIR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA Revised 10/31/2013 Packet Page 65 of 461 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Fundinq Protect Title Number Number STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA STR SR104 Corridor Transoportation Study c427 E3AB STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) c298 EBGA SWR City -Wide Sewer Improvements c301 EBGD SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 EOIA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 EOJA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC Revised 10/31/2013 Packet Page 66 of 461 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Fundinq Protect Title Number Number WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3J13 WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) c141 E3J13 WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA Revised 10/31/2013 Packet Page 67 of 461 AM-6257 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 11/04/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Linda Hynd Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Type: Action Information Committee Action: 4. C. Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Daniel B. Leyde ($61.59) and Latoya Oneal ($50,000.00). Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Daniel B. Leyde 2609 NW 198th St. Shoreline, WA 98177 ($61.59) Latoya Oneal 18316 Hurst Road Apartment 103 Lynnwood, WA 98037 ($50,000.00) Leyde Claim for Damages Oneal Claim for Damages Inbox Reviewed By Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey Fonn Started By: Linda Hynd Final Approval Date: 10/31/2013 Attachments Form Review Date 10/30/2013 04:05 PM 10/31/2013 04:33 PM Started On: 10/28/2013 09:40 AM Packet Page 68 of 461 RECEIVED OCT 2 8 Date Claim Form EDMdZMVf'ftERK Please take note that 1)4 rz/ [ U 4e yd e —,who currently resides atlz6 o � NW I -FBt S t she rt_J/nr�, G.f�'77 �r mailing address F Pd 13o X /bz3 S 200 ZD , home phone #r-206 62" 96 % work phone #oUP 778=719V , and who resided at C above- at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is MOW. is claiming damages against �� O'� Gdl'Yt01 .[3 in the sum of $ l •-S'Y arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: / TIME: y LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: �Iwtd 1, LJ,-PS4- b)u — d f C.C. CITY OF EDMONDS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM DESCRIPTION: Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage. nA _4 n%C 4,Ir.a /o.. tr Lety� X6,,r +I.a 0A1,rr Ali ,1.41't. f �us4 n-,e AzC. 1F r, L{ u rt �? YYl l n ei e e r ►nit r ` t - + l iS .. k., h'a'n S r_ 2c i'eA rM.wGt;r in , cC� ch an Ara sheet Mr additional information, if needed) 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, a dre ses, and phone numbers. c * ►-e- . o-r t �'�0 1 Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: _ Yes X No * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * * License Plate # A M V 9280 Type Auto: ,201.3 ly W Driver License # year} (make (model) DRIVER: OWNER Address: .5Lloyt,�r►"RPr N 8 f L[1J77 Address: Phone#: -OL� 67 _ Phone#: Passengers: Name: i��r !� I-e id e Name: Address: 0 2 ge,rd 5'f. Address: Form Revised 07/16/09 Page 1 of 2 Packet Page 69 of 461 * * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * , being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above described; that I have read A above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the s e o be true. x X Signature of Claimant(s) State of Washingto�� County of I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Awl W Le GL� is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowledg�t to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 011�1 V� 6 -%� Signature Title O o� My appointment expires: _ Please present the completed claim form to: Form Revised 07/16/09 Notary Public State of Washington IRINA KHAPERMAN My COMMISSION EXPIRES January29, 2016 City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5`" Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Page 2of2 Packet Page 70 of 461 RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS OCT 2 9 2013 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM EDMONDS MYRK Date Claim Form Rscive� d by city Please take note that Latoya Oneal who currently resides at 18316 Hurst Road, Apt. 103, Lynnwood, WA 98037 mailing address same home phone # 425-583-5075 , work phone #i and who resided at same at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is -, is claiming damages against City of Edmonds in the sum of $ 50,000.00 _ arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 05/07/2013 TIME: 23:05 hours LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: 18316 Hurst Road, Lynnwood, Washington DESCRIPTION: 1. Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage. Dog bite of arm. Contusion of forearm. Soft tissue injury of forearm. Permanent scarring. Pain. Anxiety. See attached incident report (attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. See attached incident report 4. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes xx No If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: License Plate 4 Type Auto: DRIVER: _ Address: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Address: * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY Driver License # (year) (make) Form Revised 07/16/09 (model) OWNER: Address: Phone#: Name: Address: Page 1 of 2 Packet Page 71 of 461 THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES A. DOROS 2540 Westlake Ave. N., Suite B Seattle, WA 98109 Ph: 206-633-2080 October 23, 2013 City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5" Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Dog Bite Incident of May 7, 2013 Dear Sir or Madam: 11255 Rhody Drive Port Hadlock, WA 98339 Ph: 360-385-6792 This office represents Latoya F. Oneal, who was the victim of a dog attack by an Edmonds Police Department police dog on May 7, 2013. Accordingly, please find enclosed the following: 1. City of Edmonds Claim for Damages Form; 2. Snohomish County Incident Report; 3. Chronological Medical Expenses; 4. Group Health Cooperative medical and billing reports related to the dog attack. Would you kindly acknowledge receipt of these documents and please direct all correspondence to my office? Thank you for your courtesies in this matter. Verytruly, yours, James A. Doros JAD:mjt Enclosures cc: Latoya F. Oneal 2392\Correspondence\Edmonds\102313 Packet Page 72 of 461 * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * * Latoya Oneal , being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. %�.rlfr Sig�ature of Claimant(s) State of Wash' gton County of ti I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 1 is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and Acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 1 'N� IMNWA %,III f �-( J To ��.,R�p SVO Si nature `_ ; S �'►r. C� �F174,+y Vs Ct7 Title ' • ~ �"' My appointment expires: Nay '4v Nv ~ 2 O. WAS`�� Please present the completed claim form to Form Revised 07/16/09 City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5'" Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Page 2 of 2 Packet Page 73 of 461 AM-6276 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 11/04/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted By: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subiect Title Community Service Announcement: 2014 Historic Preservation Commission Calendar Recommendation For information only. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative A representative from the Historic Preservation Commission will provide a presentation. Inbox Reviewed By Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey Form Started By: Scott Passey Final Approval Date: 11/01/2013 Form Review Date 11/01/2013 08:26 AM 11/01/2013 08:31 AM Started On: 10/31/2013 04:30 PM 71, Packet Page 74 of 461 AM-6265 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 11/04/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted By: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Review Committee: Type: Action Information Subject Title Committee Action: 7. Public Hearing and potential action on an ordinance designating the Charles Larsen Residence located at 630 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, and directing the Development Services Director or his designee to designate the site on the official zoning map with an "HR" designation. Recommendation Approve the ordinance (Exhibit 1) as recommended by the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The current owners of the Charles Larsen Residence, located at 630 Main Street, have nominated the residence for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places and signed the property owners' written consent for listing the property (Exhibit 2). The Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the nomination to place the Charles Larsen Residence on the Edmonds Register at a public hearing on October 10, 2013 and concluded that the site is eligible for listing pursuant to the designation criteria in ECDC 20.45.010 (Exhibit 5). The house at 630 Main Street was constructed around 1895 and was the long time residence of Charles Larsen who was City Marshal in 1929, 1930 - 31 and 1935 - 40. The house is a largely intact example of the American Foursquare (Working Man's Foursquare) style single family home. The original side appeared to shiplap which at some point was changed to wood shingles and a minor addition was added to the east side of the porch at the rear of the house. The house is located on Main Street just west of the library parking lot and is currently occupied by McDonald McGarry Insurance. Most of the older houses on the block have been replaced with multifamily structures. Packet Page 75 of 461 Attachments Exhibit 1 - Ordinance designating the Charles Larsen Residence for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places Exhibit 2 - Nomination Form Exhibit 3 - HPC Designation Staff Report Exhibit 4- Vicinity Map Exhibit 5 - October 10, 2013 Historic Preservation Commission draft minutes Inbox Reviewed By Planning Department PBHEX Admin City Clerk Scott Passey Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey Form Started By: Kernen Lien Final Approval Date: 10/31/2013 Form Review Date 10/31/2013 09:32 AM 10/31/2013 10:56 AM 10/31/2013 11:38 AM 10/31/2013 04:33 PM Started On: 10/29/2013 11:04 AM Packet Page 76 of 461 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF THE RESIDENCE KNOWN AS THE CHARLES LARSEN RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 630 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission held a public hearing on October 10, 2013, to consider the eligibility of the Charles Larsen Residence for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the staff recommendation the Historic Preservation Commission unanimously voted to recommend to the City Council that the residence be listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and and WHEREAS, the owner(s) have given their written consent for such designation; WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission regarding the features of the site which contribute to its designation and finds that the application meets the criteria of the ordinance as contained in Chapter 20.45 of the ECDC, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: -1- Exhibit 1 Packet Page 77 of 461 Section 1. The residence known as the Charles Larsen Residence located at 630 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington 98020, is hereby approved for designation to the Edmonds Historic Register. The exterior of the building is hereby designated as significant. Section 2. The Development Services Director, or his designee, is hereby authorized to designate the listed site on the Edmonds zoning map with an "HR" designation. This designation does not change or modify the underlying zone classification. 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. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Im JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. - 2 - Exhibit 1 Packet Page 78 of 461 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 4th day of November, 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF THE RESIDENCE KNOWN AS THE CHARLES LARSEN RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 630 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of November, 2013. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY -3- Packet Page 79 of 461 f,11% Edmonds Edmonds Register of Historic Historic Places Preservation Commission Domination Form Type or print all entries — Please complete all applicable sections. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Received: '1, CL "i Received by: File #: t v -1 Survey/Site #: A Site Name Location211^' Historic Name (if applicable): j f, Common (or Current) Name (if applicable): 1V1 ,u,_)L0 VC Site Address /Location Street Address or Location Description: & ��,I City / ZIP Code: Ebmolu ` � { Tax / Parcel Number. 4 20 WO ( Name: t', lie i 1IV V / 'V A (.0 Street Address: t ' City / State / ZIP Code: k/A Phone #: 3 Name (say "Owner" if same as owner listed above): 6 t { uzzjd ) Contact Address: Street: City / ZIP: Contact Phone #: Date Form Completed: D Consent`to be Listed O tiorial Not re u�red for anomination I / WE the undersigned certify that we are the owners of the property identified on this form and hereby give our consent to having the property listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Name (Please Print) ki 1 r Signature Date Name (Please nt) 0k d W eX`� iJ Signature 1` Date l Rel,099 M KgMk of 461 P40 - Historic Register Nomination Form Page I of 5 E Elrgib, t for Listing on,the Edmonds Register ,..� . v.� �. , _r _v _„� ri�� a _ �� '_ �w Historical Significance — Please check all that apply: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state or local history. 2. Embodies the' distinctive architectural characteristics of a type, period, style or method of design or construction, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. 3. Is an outstanding work of a designer, builder or architect who has made a substantial contribution to the art. 4. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city's cultural, special, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history. 5. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in national, state or local history. �d�c1` 6. Has yielded or may be likely to yield important archaeological information related to history or prehistory. !'J 7. Is a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the only surviving structure significantly associated with a historic person or event. 8. IV Is a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance and is the only surviving structure or site associated with that person. 9. Is a cemetery which derives. its primary significance from age, from distinctive design features, or from association / with historic events or cultural patterns. 10. /V Is a reconstructed building that has been executed in a historically accurate manner on the original site. 11. Is a creative and unique example of folk architecture and design created by persons not formally trained in the architectural or design professions, and which does not fit into formal architectural or historical categories; the designation shall include description of the boundaries. �f r *cjf- tj Historical Description In the space below, describe the history and significance of the site to Edmonds' heritage. You may elect to describe the site's significance in your own words, attach copies of other documents or photographs, and/or make reference to other materials (noting where those materials are available to be reviewed). For example, you may simply note that the site is on an historical survey, noting the survey name and site number. (Please feel free to attach any additional continuation sheets if you need more space.) �3a f / !z 0 s Revised on 9114110 P40 - Historic Register Nomination Form Page 2 of 5 Packet Page 81 of 461 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance: (Use continuation sheets if necessa7y, and for any photographs or copies you are providing.) A 70 14L;- /�&--J L-V,/,q , T A) q13 AL, li4V& wt WL 14, bt& -PI-4V& t- ZATLY,) :f�ug T K)A� -)')W 140 -7) RAIi- or zur, 'OYIU 'T' 151-14A , , P09C4, 14jjoa/�� (Please list and reference any sources which help document the historical value of the site) 'F` --& -1 -- --fi-bi�mw, r-1,41.CV 6')F PCXiCL, V, -T�j" A.tet Thk jr M Location Detail Parcel # UTM Reference: Township Category District — Building(s) Structure Site — Object Within a District? Yes No Zone Range Ownership Public Private Both Northing 1/4Section 1/4 IASection Resource Status Usage Survev/lnventory Current: Contributing? Local District: Yes No Unknown National or State Register / District: Easting Section Revised on 9114110 P40 - Historic Register Nomination Form Page 4 of 5 Packet Page 82 of 461 This section must be completed if the site is not on the State or National Register, or it is not on an approved historic survey. Please provide as much information as you can. YearBuilt: MV5,Y_ Architect: I &xfij k) Builder or Engineer (specify): Architectural Style(s)*: Building Form*: z I Roof Type*: _�k))M6e- Cladding*: Note: See later reference sheets for list of choices for these items. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Overall Changes from Condition: Original: Excellent Plan: Cladding: Windows: Other: Site: Good V Intact Intact Intact Intact iZOriginal Site Fair —Slight V/ Slight Slight Slight Moved Deteriorated Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Date Moved: Ruins Extensive Extensive !Extensive Extensive Unexposed Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Plan Type: Structural System: Foundation: Roof Material: — Apsidal Pavilion BallooruPlatfonn —Brick V"'Asphalt Comp, — Metal — Tile — Center Space/ — Polygonal Braced Frame ZConcrete block — A. Comp, - built up — None Courtyard — Rectangle —Brick -Concrete poured _ A. Comp - shingle _ Other Cross/Cruciform Round Clay Tile —Log — A. Comp — rolled — Slate E-Shape Semi -circular —Concrete block —None — Tile — Unknown Hexagonal Square —Concrete poured —Other —Tile -clay — Wood H-Shape Triangular Log __Parged — Tile - concrete — Wood plank Irregular T-Shape —Mixed —Post & Pier — Metal — Wood shake L-Shape Unknown —None —Stone — Metal - corrugated — Wood shingle None U-Shape — Other —Unknown — Metal - standing scam Octagonal Y-Shape k Other ) t i '� [?tX. fM A;e &'i _ Number of Stories 11 j ? —Plank —Post & Beam Steel —Stone - cut Stone - uncut —Unknown Revised on 9114110 P40 - Historic Register Nomination Form Page 3 of 5 Packet Page 83 of 461 EDMONDS: 100 YEARS FOR THE GEM OF PUGET SOUND - PAGE 7 Clerical error infuriates Edmonds property owners as taxes soar 300 percent BY MICHAEL BRECKENRIDGE On Thursday, August 25, 1910, the County Commissioners, the Assessor and indignant citizens found themselves in a comic opera situa- tion, involving illegal dealmaking and much consternation, all over a simple clerical error. Probably there was no one who learned that lesson as quickly as the board of county commissioners of Snohomish County. If it was true, as was alleged by Everett papers and as claim- ed by Commissioner Jordan, that an illegal compact was entered into by the other members of the board to allow the assessor's figures to stand unchanged in order to win the support of their constituents in the election of 1911, the whole conspiracy had been knocked into several kinds of cocked hat, and all through an honest honest error by one of Commissioner Jordan's clerks. From the evidence at hand it ap- peared that Commissioner Jordan, in blissful ignorance of the agree- ment with the assessor, dutifully started with a large force of special clerks and stenographers to equalize the valuations in this district. As the work neared completion, notices of changes were sent to the pro- perty owners. The increase over 1909's figures were not alarming and did not call for protest, but it so happened that a clerical error crept in to the notice sent to Edmonds property owners, and instead of stated that lots assessed at $10 in 1909 would be assessed at $30 in 1910. The clerk made it read that Edmonds property would be advanced 300 %. That this created consternation and alarm and aroused a tremendous fighting spirit went without saying. Meetings with property owners were held and on August 20, 58 property owners of Edmonds took the ear- ly boat to the county seat, descending in a body on the county fathers, prepared to make a mighty and reverberating protest. However, the clerical error had been discovered in the meantime by Commissioner Jordan, so when the delegation arrived, it was explained to them that there was no alarming change from last year's figures and that no pro- test was necessary. After the board agreed to allow the assessor's figures for Edmonds to remain unchanged, all the other districts came in with similar demands. They were all granted, chiefly through the motions made up and supported by Commissioners Whitfield and Wilhite. Packet Page 84 of 461 Edmonds was sparsely populated when this picture was taken around 1895 looking west from the Edmonds Grade School at Seventh and Main. Early land- marks such as the Bishop Hotel, Matt Hyner's home and the Congregational Church are easily identified. The effects of the recent logging operations are apparent in the field across the street which is filled with tree stumps. (Photo courtesy Raymond H. Kjolso) time, going from just over 2,000 in 1950 to just under 3,000 in 1954. Former Mayor Gordon Maxwell recalled that around this time Jack Bennett and his associates approach- ed the City Council with a request to annex to Edmonds the growing com- munity surrounding 196th SW and Highway 99. "We turned them down," Maxwell said, "so they formed Lynnwood." Looking back on this decision 30 years later, Maxwell said "I'm not sure we made a wise decision." After a mo- ment's hesitation, he added, "I guess we did." In 1955, the same year Maxwell became mayor upon the death of Paul McGibbon, the city began a series of annexations that eventually increased the city's geographical limits to nine times its original size. At the end of 1955 and early in 1956, annexations pushed the city see ANNEXATION bate 8 4 - Drycleaning �y- A tradition of quality since-1969 Thank you Edmonds for allowing us Packet Page 85 of 461 PAGE 8 - EDMONDS: 100 YEARS FOR THE GEM OF PUGET SOUND ANNEXATION from page 7 Emits south past Edmonds Way, north along Ninth to 196th and south along Ninth to 220th. The following year the Five Corners area was added to the city. Other factors determined some an- nexations; for example, the location of the new high school at 212th and 76th was annexed in 1957 while the building was under construction. To accommodate the new marina —and later the underwater park —the shoreline was extended westward in 1962. As Lynnwood and Mountlake Ter- race prepared to incorporate in the late 1950s, the City of Edmonds hastened to push its boundaries to the abutting territory, adding the area northeast of Five Corners in 1959, expanding east of Highway 99 toward Lake Ballinger along the county line in 1961, and ad- ding the Talbot Park area north along the Sound almost to Lund's Gulch in By the time the postcard bearing this view of Edmonds taken looking northwest from around Seventh and Maple was mailed in 1912, the downtown area of the city had begun to be well filled with houses and businesses. (Photo courtesy of Mel Steinke) :,at 31aylrlg Card Sea Gulls Su,n- Glasses <et Pape sbai de rs . .. Plates Religious items Stuffed Animals Windsocks Pigs George (Main) Street from around Seventh toward the west had begun to fill with homes as can be seen in this postcard photo postmarked September 1911. (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical Museum) 1961. The move to annex the areas east of the city to Edmonds was prompted, according to former Mayor Sproule McGinness, by the city's desire to have "some control of an area that affects us here." Land clearing and home construction on the slopes east of the city, for example, would necessarily result in additional rainfall runoff which in turn would have an impact on streams and sewers in the city at the bottom of the hill. Along with these accumulated an- nexations, the population grew from around 3,000 in 1954-55 to just over H �V��— r'7f _ 1�1rA b-'------^ 8,000 in 1961. Additional housing within this area accounted for the con- tinuing growth in the next two years, with the population growing to 11,800 in 1962 and 12,775 in the early part of 1963. The northward expansion was n- pleted in 1963 with annexation _ an area reaching from Lund's Gulch (Meadowdale County Park) on the north to roughly 208th on the south, an area of 1578 acres —three times the size of the original town site and by far the largest single addition ever add - see EXPANSION page 9 The Service for Newcomers in Edmonds Packet Page 87 of 461 Chy of Edmonds HR'5t®rrk Pireseir jf:'®rn ColflnmR'ss�'®rn Bea'grn,%flo n Sh9ff Re p®rrt 'nc. lga� Meeting ®ate: October 10, 2013 Agenda Subject: Application for designation of Charles Larsen Residence at 630 Main Street as eligible for inclusion on t Edmonds Register of Historic Places Staff Lead: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Property• • Site Name/Location: Charles Larsen Residence (McDonald McGarry Insurance) 630 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Tax Account #: 00434209700900 Township 27 Range 03E Section 24 '/a Sec SW '/-'/ Sec Construction date: 1901 (Snohomish County Assessor). A photo from Edmonds: The First Century taken from the school house shows the house in existence at that time. Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission finds that the Charles Larsen Residence meets the criteria for designation on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The exterior of the structure contains the significant architectural features. Charles Larson Residence HistPres designation staff report.docx Packet Page 88 of 461 1. Significantly associated with the ® The house is associated with the early history, architecture, archaeology, pioneer settlement of Edmonds. Former engineering or cultural heritage of City Marshal Charles M. Larsen lived in Edmonds... the house from approximately 1928 — 1960. 2. Has integrity... ® The house is a largely intact example of the American Foursquare (Working Man's Foursquare) style single family home. The original side appeared to shiplap which at some point was changed to wood shingles and a minor addition was added to the eastside of the porch at the rear of the house. 3. Age at least 50 years old, or has ® 1901 (Snohomish County Assessor). A exceptional importance if less than 50 photo from Edmonds: The First Century years old... taken from the school house shows the house in existence at that time. Irf either case, the house is at least 50 years old. 4. Falls into at least one of the following designation categories: Designation Category a. Associated with events that have ® The house is associated with the early made a significant contribution to the pioneer settlement of Edmonds. broad patterns of national, state or local history. b. Embodies the distinctive architectural ® The house is an example of the American characteristics of a type, period, style Foursquare (Working Man's Foursquare) or method of design or construction, style popular from the 1890's into the or represents a significant and 1930s. distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. c. Is an outstanding work of a designer, ❑ builder or architect who has made a substantial contribution to the art. d. Exemplifies or reflects special ❑ elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history. Charles Larsen Residence HistPres designation staff report.docx Page 2 of 7 Packet Page 89 of 461 ® • o Mir= • e. Is associated with the lives of persons ® Charles M. Larsen, City Marshal in 1929, significant in national, state or local 1930 — 31, and 1935 — 40 lived in the history. house from around 1928 to 1960. f. Has yielded or may be likely to yield ❑ important archaeological information related to history or prehistory. g. Is a building or structure removed ❑ from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the only surviving structure significantly associated with a historic person or event. h. Is a birthplace or grave of a historical ❑ figure of outstanding importance and is the only surviving structure or site associated with that person. i. Is a cemetery which derives its ❑ primary significance from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events or cultural patterns. j. Is a reconstructed building that has ❑ been executed in a historically accurate manner on the original site. k. Is a creative and unique example of ❑ folk architecture and design created by persons not formally trained in the architectural or design professions, and which does not fit into formal architectural or historical, the designation shall include description of the boundaries of categories. Charles Larsen Residence HistPres designation staff report.docx Page 3 of 7 Packet Page 90 of 461 3. Openings A centrally located front door is enclosed by a porch with a front gabled (entries, etc.): roof. Original windows have been replaced around the house. Large windows are located on each side of the front door with double hung sash windows on the sides of the house. 4. Projections: A front gable porch projects on the north side of the house with hipped roof utility room at the rear of the house. S. Trim & secondary N/A features 6. Materials: Shingled side is overlaid on the original shiplap siding. 7. Setting: The house is located on Main Street just west of the library parking lot. Most of the older houses on the block have been replaced with multifamily structures. 8. Materials at close N/A range 9. Craft details: N/A 10. Individual N/A. Interior features are not considered for nomination. rooms/spaces: I L Related spaces or N/A sequences: 12. Interior features: N/A. Interior features are not considered for nomination 13. Surface finishes & N/A materials: 14. Exposed structure: N/A Charles Larsen Residence HistPres designation staff report.docx Page 4 of 7 Packet Page 91 of 461 Charles Larsen Residence 630 Main Street (foreground) circa 1895 (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical Museum) Charles Larsen Residence 630 Main circa 1913 (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical Museum) Charles Larsen Residence HistPres designation staff report.docx Page 5 of 7 Packet Page 92 of 461 Current View from Main Street Current view from Main Street Charles Larsen Residence HistPres designation staff report.docx Page 6 of 7 Packet Page 93 of 461 Notes on historic register nominations: Chapter 20.45.020 ECDC* states that if the Commission finds that the nominated property is eligible for placement on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, the Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council that the property be listed on the register with owner's consent. According to Chapter 20.45.040 ECDC, listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places is an honorary designation denoting significant association with the historic, archaeological, engineering or cultural heritage of the community. Properties are listed individually or as contributing properties to a historic district. No property may be listed without the owner's permission. Prior to the commencement of any work on a register property, excluding ordinary repair and maintenance and emergency measures defined in Section 20.45.000(H), the owner must request and receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission for the proposed work. Violation of this rule shall be grounds for the Commission to review the property for removal from the register. Prior to whole or partial demolition of a register property, the owner must request and receive a waiver of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Because Edmonds is a Certified Local Government (CLG), all properties listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places may be eligible for a special tax valuation on their rehabilitation. Edmonds Community Development Code Charles Larsen Residence HistPres designation staff report.docx Page 7 of 7 Packet Page 94 of 461 c�T �~ o d o O CD CD Mmo0< o o0 �(D oy �•r� 4 (tin) � M-1 0 n• 70 CD ;a N cc CD n rolL CD m I z O O N 0 O n �' oCD CD m cu m 9 to D N ; N O z m z 0 M O Ch 540 0° 302 tD �I cn 529 530 531 538 ANococ _ � 0 533 542 533 518 n 540 543 m� 550 D 543 530 m o IU m W al o Z 550 547 z 54 454 536 r- X-< n 558 555 550 555 542 cn 7TH AVE S D cn 0 < 0 303 704 215 N w 705 710 09 718 707 716 7 720 711 720 724 715 730 72 730 717 740 739 736 721 750 y 7 6TH AVE S 600 610 N a� ST 6TH AVE N 601 y 601 600 611 614 618 617 627 615 623 622 627 628 DURBIN 632 � �I �'' rJ, 640 z O � � o � o m D Ay o o [AH D 729 z 731 739 650 660 'E N 0 200 202 204 720 0o m 732 731 736 739 y 745 220 m 0 0 z 0 714 720 726 728 733 746 _ 739 31 73 CITY OF EDMONDS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SUMMARY MINUTES OF MEETING October 10, 2013 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Vogel called the meeting of the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission Meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the P Floor Conference Room of City Hall, 121 — 5th Avenue North. He read the Commission's mission statement. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Larry Vogel, Chair Steve Waite, Vice Chair Sandra Allbery Andy Eccleshall Tim Raetzloff Gerry Tays Kristiana Johnson, City Council Member Lora Petso, City Council Member READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Kemen Lien, Senior Planner Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Chris Deiner-Karr (excused) Emily Scott COMMISSIONER ECCLESHALL MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 AS SUBMITTED. COMMISSIONER RAETZLOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. AGENDA ADDITIONS/CHANGES The agenda was altered to place the public hearing before the committee reports. The remainder of the agenda was accepted as presented. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Jolene Smith, Edmonds, said she is new to the Edmonds area, and she was attending the meeting to learn more about City processes and to become more a part of the community. NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY OF THE "CHARLES LARSEN RESIDENCE" LOCATED AT 630 MAIN STREET FOR LISTING ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES (FILE NUMBER PLN20130047) Mr. Lien presented the nomination for a structure located at 630 Main Street to be added to the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. He noted that the structure is currently occupied by McDonald McGarry Insurance, but the Museum identifies it as the "Charles Larsen Residence." He advised that Charles M. Larsen, an Edmonds City Marshal for a number of years, lived Packet Page 96 of 461 in the home from about 1928 to the early 1960's. He noted that the nomination was submitted by the property owners, John and Sandy McDonald, and they have given authorization for it to be placed on the Register. He briefly reminded the Commission of the responsibilities and privileges associated with placing a property on the Register and reviewed how the application would meet the following designation criteria. • Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or cultural heritage of Edmonds. The house is associated the early pioneer settlement of Edmonds and was occupied by a former City Marshal. • Has Integrity. This house is largely intact. However, the original siding was changed to wood shingles and a minor addition was added to the eastside of the rear porch before 1913. It does not appear that the interior layout has been altered. • Age at least 50 years old, or has exceptional important if less than 50 years old. The County Assessor's data for the structure dates back to 1901, and a circa 1895 photograph of the structure is also available. • Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state or local history. The house is associated with the early pioneer settlement, which is clear from the 1895 photograph. • Embodies the distinctive architectural characteristics of a type, period, style or method of design or construction, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. The house is an example of the American Foursquare style, which was popular from the 1890's into the 1930's. • Is associated with the lives of persons significant in national, state or local history. Again, he noted that Charles Larsen, a former City Marshal, lived in the home from about 1928 until the early 1960s. Mr. Lien advised that the historic features of the structure include its intact example of the American Foursquare Style, the hipped roof over the main portion of the house and the original rear back porch area, and the front facing gable on the front porch roof. He noted that the structure is located on Main Street, just west of the library parking lot. Most of the older homes on the block have been replaced with multi -family residential structures. Mr. Lien summarized that staff finds the exterior of the structure contains significant architectural features and meets the criteria for designation on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. He recommended the Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Meagan McDonald, Edmonds, said she was present to represent the applicants, John and Sandy McDonald, who own the home. Ms. McDonald indicated that staff has clearly explained the implications of placing the property on the Register, particularly that no additions or alterations would be allowed without a Certificate of Appropriateness. She said one reason they love the house is because it is old and historic, and they do not intend to alter it in any way. Commissioner Raetzloff pointed out that even the garage that was added in the 1930's would be considered historic, as the original wood floor is still intact. Ms. McDonald added that they believe the two lilac trees between the garage and the back porch are at least 80 years old. Commissioner Waite asked if staff has any information about who the first inhabitants of the house were. Mr. Lien said the information he obtained from the museum did not identify the builder or the first inhabitants. The Commission discussed that it is not clear from the historic photographs whether or not the front porch and the gable roof on the north fagade is original. They agreed that if not original, it was added very early on. Via the photographs, it appears that the cedar siding was added in the 1960s or before. Commissioner Waite asked if the applicant would like to add the garage to the Register, as well. Ms. McDonald agreed to discuss this potential with the property owners. Mr. Lien questioned whether or not the garage would meet the designation criteria. No one else in the audience indicated a desire to address the Commission regarding the proposed nomination, and the public hearing was closed. COMMISSIONER ECCLESHALL MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION FORWARD THE NOMINATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 630 MAIN STREET (CHARLES LARSEN RESIDENCE) TO BE LISTED ON THE Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 10, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 97 of 461 EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES (FILE NUMBER PLN20130047) WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER RAETZLOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council Member Petso advised that the nomination is scheduled to come before the City Council on November 41h. Chair Vogel advised that he is also scheduled to present the Historic Preservation Commission's 2014 Calendar to the City Council on November 4th. He agreed to read the Commission's Mission Statement to the City Council as part of his presentation and encourage more people to come forward to nominate properties for the Register or apply for the open Commission positions. COMMITTEE REPORTS Registration Committee The Registration Committee did not have any activities to report. Education and Outreach Committee Chair Vogel announced that he made historic preservation presentation to the Alderwood Rotary Club. Although his time was limited, the presentation was well received. He offered to make his presentation available as an item for the silent and live auctions that will be part of the Edmonds South Snohomish County Historical Society's Heritage Days Dinner that is coming up in November. Preservation Planning Committee The Preservation Planning Committee did not have any activities to report. Edmonds South Snohomish Countv Historical Societv (Museum Commissioner Allbery reported that plans are coming along well for the society's annual Heritage Days dinner that is scheduled for November 8th. This is the first year that the auctions will be added as a fundraiser. She announced that Rick Steves will be the featured speaker at the event. The Commission discussed the idea of using Commission funding to purchase a table at the Heritage Days dinner and invite people who have properties on the Register as their guests. They agreed not to pursue the issue, noting that owners of property on the Register were sent individual invitations to attend the event. Commissioner Allbery agreed to monitor the list of attendees and identify those who have properties on the Register. The Commission agreed that they need to establish a budget for expending their available funds. They also asked staff to submit a request to the City Council for funding in 2014 to reprint the Preservation Guide. Ms. Cunningham shared that Commissioner Deiner-Karr informed her that the Historic Preservation Commission's open house would not be held in conjunction with the Society's annual dinner. Instead, she suggested they schedule the open house in early 2014. Commissioner Allbery announced that the Edmonds Historical Museum will celebrate its 40th anniversary with a "40 for 40 Exhibit" that will contain 40 years of artifacts from the museum's collection. Commissioner Allbery reported that gross receipts from the summer markets were about $107,000, which is slightly more than last year. Vice Chair Waite reported that he met with Bob Clos, Tarin Erickson, and Clayton Moss from the Edmonds Historical Museum to review a preliminary proposal for relocating the Museum's main entrance, modifying the landscaping, adding a display panel and removing the school bell and veteran's memorials that are currently displayed outside the Museum. He made some suggestions and encouraged them to revise their proposal before submitting it to the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Commissioners shared their thoughts on the importance of balancing the need to maintain the historic integrity of the building with allowing changes that make the property more useable and aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Tays suggested that the museum should be notified that the proposal must meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for rehabilitation of historic structures that are listed on the Register. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 10, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 98 of 461 Discussion on Mission Statement Commissioner Tays expressed concern that the powers and duties of the Commission that are outlined in the ordinance that created the Commission are inconsistent with the Commission's current Mission Statement. The ordinance states that the major responsibility of the Historic Preservation Commission is to: • Identify and actively encourage the conservation of the City's historic resources by initiating and maintaining a register of historic places and reviewing proposes changes to registered properties; • Raise community awareness of the City's history and historic resources; and • Serve as the city's primary resource in matters of history, historic planning and preservation. Commissioner Tays suggested that to make the two documents consistent, the word "history" should be deleted from the last item on the list. He also suggested that Item J of the ordinance should be amended by deleting the word "history." COMMISSIONER RAETZLOFF MOVED THAT COMMISSIONER TAYS WORK WITH STAFF TO PREPARE A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE BY DELETING THE WORD "HISTORY" AS DISCUSSED BY THE COMMISSION AND FORWARD IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. COMMISSIONER ALLSBERY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Updates to the Preservation Guide Commissioner Tays reported that he has reviewed and identified potential updates to the Preservation Guide. He reviewed the proposed changes, which were highlighted in "rose" color. Commissioner Waite agreed to review the document, as well. Calendar Distribution and Proposal on How to Distribute Chair Vogel reminded the Commission that he would officially present the 2014 Historic Preservation Calendar to the City Council on November 4th. Distribution of the calendar would start immediately following the presentation. Ms. Cunningham reported that she has already sent calendars to all the Certified Local Governments in the State of Washington. The Commission discussed a plan for a fair and logical distribution of the calendars. They agreed that the calendars should be available at City Hall and other public places like the Edmonds Historical Museum. Businesses would be limited to a maximum of 20 calendars, and individuals would be limited to 3. Prior to November 4th, Commissioners would deliver 20 calendars to each of the businesses that provided financial assistance to print the 2013 calendars and/or sold the calendars on behalf of the Commission. They agreed to offer calendars to the Sister City Commission and the Edmonds Historical Museum, as well. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Vogel thanked the Commissioners and guests for their attendance. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Raetzloff congratulated the Edmonds South Snohomish County Historical Society for getting an internationally -famous speaker (Rick Steves) for their Heritage Days dinner. Commissioner Eccleshall reminded the Commission that it is time to start making plans for the 2015 calendar. Ms. Cunningham noted that Commissioner Waite's term expires at the end of 2013. She asked him to notify staff if he plans to sign up for another term. She noted that he is the only professional member on the Commission. I" DIIJ"11lu 10401" The meeting was adjourned at 7:08 p.m. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes October 10, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 99 of 461 AM-6272 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 11/04/2013 Time: Submitted For: Department: Review Committee: 20 Minutes Roger Neumaier Finance Type: Information "information Subject Title Public Hearing on 2014 revenue sources including property taxes. Submitted By: Committee Action: Roger Neumaier Recommendation Open the public hearing and receive comment on the 2014 revenue sources including property taxes. Previous Council Action Narrative Each year the City Council must pass an ordinance authorizing the levy for collection of City Property Taxes. For the 2014 Budget, two alternative ordinances are offered to the Council. They are summarized below: LEVY ORDINANCE ASSUMED IN RECOMMENDED BUDGET The recommended 2013 regular property tax levy for collection in 2014 is the amount levied in 2012 for collection in 2013, plus an increase of $98,000 which is a percentage increase of 1%, plus an increase equal to the amount allowed by one or more of the following; new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, for an estimated total levy of $9,980,000. It includes the 2013 EMS property tax levy for collection in 2014 is the amount levied in 2012 for collection in 2013, plus an increase of $0 which is a percentage increase of 0%, plus an increase equal to the amount allowed by one or more of the following; new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, for an estimated total levy of $3,300,000. It also includes levied current taxes of $946,303 the purpose of which is to make debt service payments on voter approved bonds. ALTERNATIVE LEVY ORDINANCE The alternative levy reserves the right of the City at some point in the future to initiate, on a concilmatic basis, the regular levy increase of 1% allowed for 2014. It does not authorize that increase in 2014. This is called banking the levy increase capacity. The alternative levy banks the 1% ($98,000) increase in the regular levy. As a result, the estimated levy Packet Page 100 of 461 for the regular levy is $9,882,000. With that exception, all other elements in the alternative levy are consistent with the Recommended Levy Ordinance. RecommendedPPTaxOrd with 1 % AlternativePPTax Ordinance Banking 1 % Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Roger Neurnaier Final Approval Date: 10/31/2013 Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Scott Passey 10/31/2013 01:06 PM Dave Earling 10/31/2013 02:14 PM Scott Passey 10/31/2013 04:33 PM Started On: 10/31/2013 11:16 AM Packet Page 101 of 461 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY BY INCREASING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY BY THE CURRENT 101 % LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY LEVYING AN ESTIMATED REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF $9,980,000, AN EMS LEVY OF $3,300,000 AND LEVYING $946,303 FOR VOTED INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the City of Edmonds have properly given notice of the public hearing held on November 4, 2013, to consider the City's current expense budget for 2014, pursuant to RCW 84.55.120; and WHEREAS, the City Council in the course of considering the budget for 2014 have reviewed all sources of revenue and examined all anticipated expenses and obligations; and WHEREAS, the district's actual levy amount for the previous year was $9,767,873 for regular property levy, and $2,772,620 for EMS levy, and $916,103 for debt service payments, and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines following public hearing that it is in the best interest of and necessary to meet the expenses and obligations of the City to increase the regular property levy by 1%; and keep the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) levy at the prior year level, and WHEREAS, the population of this district is greater than 10,000, and WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Assessor's Office has requested that all Snohomish County Taxing Districts submit their levy certifications to the county on the State Department of Revenue standardized form REV 64 0100; NOW, THEREFORE Packet Page 102 of 461 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The limit factor for the regular levy to be collected in budget year 2012 shall be limited to the 101 %, or 100% plus inflation, whichever is lower of the highest amount of regular property taxes that could have been levied in the City in any year since 1985. Section 2. Regular Property Tax. The 2013 regular property tax levy for collection in 2014 is the amount levied in 2012 for collection in 2013, plus an increase of $98,000 which is a percentage increase of 1 %, plus an increase equal to the amount allowed by one or more of the following; new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, for an estimated total levy of $9,980,000. Section 3. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) property tax levy. The 2013 EMS property tax levy for collection in 2014 is the amount levied in 2012 for collection in 2013, plus an increase of $0 which is a percentage increase of 0%, plus an increase equal to the amount allowed by one or more of the following; new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, for an estimated total levy of $3,300,000. Section 4. There shall be and is hereby levied current taxes of $946,303 the purpose of which is to make debt service payments on voter approved bonds. Section 5. The levies contained in sections 2 through 3 are subject to amendment upon receipt of 2011 assessed valuation from Snohomish County. Section 6. Pursuant to the request by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office, the Finance Director is hereby authorized to submit to the Snohomish County Council Packet Page 103 of 461 certification of the hereby approved levies on the State Department of Revenue standardized form REV 64 0100 attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 7. 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 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. It is enacted on a vote of a majority plus one of the City Council. APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, JEFFREY TARADAY BY CITY ATTORNEY, JEFFREY TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 104 of 461 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the _ day of November, 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY BY INCREASING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY BY THE CURRENT 101 % LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY LEVYING AN ESTIMATED REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF $9,980,000, AN EMS LEVY OF $3,300,000 AND LEVYING $946,303 FOR VOTED INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _ day of November, 2013. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 105 of 461 FDEPARTMENT OF REVENUE WASH{HGTOH STATE Exhibit A — Levy Certification Levy Certification Submit this document to the county legislative authority on or before November 30 of the year preceding the year in which the levy amounts are to be collected and forward a copy to the assessor. In accordance with RCW 84.52.020, I, Roger Neumaier, Finance Director, for the City of Edmonds, do hereby certify to the Snohomish County legislative authority that the Council of said district requests that the following levy amounts be collected in 2014 as provided in the district's budget, which was adopted following a public hearing on November 17, 2013. Regular Levy: $9,980,000 Excess Levy: $3,300,000 EMS Levy: $946,303 Signature Date Packet Page 106 of 461 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY BY CONTINUING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY AT 100% OF THE CURRENT LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY LEVYING AN ESTIMATED REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF $9,882,000, AN EMS LEVY OF $3,300,000 AND LEVYING $946,303 FOR VOTED INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX, PRESERVING FUTURE LEVY CAPACITY AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the City of Edmonds have properly given notice of the public hearing held on November 4, 2013, to consider the City's current expense budget for 2014, pursuant to RCW 84.55.120; and WHEREAS, the City Council in the course of considering the budget for 2014 have reviewed all sources of revenue and examined all anticipated expenses and obligations; and WHEREAS, the district's actual levy amount for the previous year was $9,767,873 for regular property levy, and $2,772,620 for EMS levy, and $916,103 for debt service payments, and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines following public hearing that it is in the best interest of and necessary to meet the expenses and obligations of the City to keep the regular property levy at the prior year level; and keep the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) levy at the prior year level, and WHEREAS, the population of this district is greater than 10,000, and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to protect the City's future levy capacity pursuant to RCW 84.55.092; and Packet Page 107 of 461 WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Assessor's Office has requested that all Snohomish County Taxing Districts submit their levy certifications to the county on the State Department of Revenue standardized form REV 64 0100; NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The limit factor for the regular levy to be collected in budget year 2012 shall be limited to the 101 %, or l 00% plus inflation, whichever is lower of the highest amount of regular property taxes that could have been levied in the City in any year since 1985. Section 2. Regular Property Tax. The 2013 regular property tax levy for collection in 2014 is the amount levied in 2012 for collection in 2013, plus an increase equal to the amount allowed by one or more of the following; new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, for an estimated total levy of $9,882,000. Section 3. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) property tax levy. The 2013 EMS property tax levy for collection in 2014 is the amount levied in 2012 for collection in 2013, plus an increase of $0 which is a percentage increase of 0%, plus an increase equal to the amount allowed by one or more of the following; new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, for an estimated total levy of $3,300,000. Section 4. There shall be and is hereby levied current taxes of $946,303 the purpose of which is to make debt service payments on voter approved bonds. Section 5. The levies contained in sections 2 through 3 are subject to amendment upon receipt of 2011 assessed valuation from Snohomish County. Packet Page 108 of 461 Section 6. The City's unused general property tax levy capacity for the year 2014, at the lesser of 101% or 100% plus inflation as provided by RCW 84.55.005(2)©, is reserved for future levy as provided by RCW 84.55.092. Section 7. Pursuant to the request by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office, the Finance Director is hereby authorized to submit to the Snohomish County Council certification of the hereby approved levies on the State Department of Revenue standardized form REV 64 0100 attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 8. 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 9. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. It is enacted on a vote of a majority plus one of the City Council. APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, JEFFREY TARADAY Packet Page 109 of 461 BY CITY ATTORNEY, JEFFREY TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 110 of 461 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the _ day of November, 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY BY INCREASING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY BY THE CURRENT 101 % LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY LEVYING AN ESTIMATED REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF $9,980,000, AN EMS LEVY OF $3,300,000 AND LEVYING $946,303 FOR VOTED INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _ day of November, 2013. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 111 of 461 FDEPARTMENT OF REVENUE WASH{HGTOH STATE Exhibit A — Levy Certification Levy Certification Submit this document to the county legislative authority on or before November 30 of the year preceding the year in which the levy amounts are to be collected and forward a copy to the assessor. In accordance with RCW 84.52.020, I, Roger Neumaier, Finance Director, for the City of Edmonds, do hereby certify to the Snohomish County legislative authority that the Council of said district requests that the following levy amounts be collected in 2014 as provided in the district's budget, which was adopted following a public hearing on November 17, 2013. Regular Levy: $9,980,000 Excess Levy: $3,300,000 EMS Levy: $946,303 Signature Date Packet Page 112 of 461 AM-6270 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 11/04/2013 Time: 20 Minutes Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Review Committee: Type: Information I"fnrm a+inn Subject Title Public Hearing on the 2014 budget. Submitted By: Committee Action: Recommendation Open the public hearing and receive comments on the proposed 2014 budget. Previous Council Action 9. Roger Neumaier Narrative On October 1st, Mayor Earling presented his recommended 2014 budget to the City Council. The 2014 Budget Ordinance summarizes the elements of that budget. City Departments have reviewed the budget in Council meetings on October 22 and 29. In addition, public comment was taken in those meetings. Councilmember Petso has requested discussion of proposed amendments to this budget (and public comment) on November 26th with proposed adoption of a final budget on December 3rd. Fiscal Year: Revenue: Expenditure: 2014 $75,610,68 $89,073,104 Fiscal Impact Fiscal Impact: The Recommended 2014 Budget includes expenditure authority for all City departments and funds for the calendar year 2014 2014 Budget Ordinance A++ai-hman+c Form Review Inbox Packet Page 113 of 461 Reviewed By Date City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Roger Neumaier Final Approval Date: 10/31/2013 Scott Passey Dave Earling Scott Passey 10/31/2013 11:32 AM 10/31/2013 11:40 AM 10/31/2013 04:33 PM Started On: 10/31/2013 10:27 AM Packet Page 114 of 461 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2014 AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, on or before the first business day in the third month prior to the beginning of the fiscal year of 2014, the Finance Director submitted to the Mayor the estimates of revenues and expenditures for the next fiscal year as required by law; and, WHEREAS, the Mayor reviewed the estimates and made such revisions and/or additions as deemed advisable and prior to sixty days before January 1, 2014, filed the said revised preliminary budget with the City Clerk together with a budget message, as recommendation for the final budget, and WHEREAS, the City Clerk provided sufficient copies of such preliminary budget and budget message to meet the reasonable demands of taxpayers therefore and published and posted notice of filing and the availability of said preliminary budget together with the date of a public hearing for the purpose of fixing a final budget, all as required by the law, and WHEREAS, the City Council scheduled hearings on the preliminary budget for the purpose of providing information regarding estimates and programs, and WHEREAS, the City Council did meet on November 19, 2013 which was on or before the first Monday of the month next preceding the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year, for Packet Page 115 of 461 the purpose of fixing a final budget at which hearing all taxpayers were heard who appeared for or against any part of said budget, and WHEREAS, following the conclusion of said hearing the City Council made such adoptions and changes as it deemed necessary and proper, NOW, THEREFORE; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Attached hereto and identified as Exhibit A, in summary form, are the totals of estimated revenues and appropriations for each separate fund and the aggregate totals for all such funds combined, and by this reference said Exhibit A is incorporated herein as if set forth in full and the same is hereby adopted in full. The Finance Director is authorized to update year-end fund balances in the final budget document as projected prior to printing the final budget document. Section 2. A complete copy of the final budget for 2014, as adopted, together with a copy of this adopting ordinance shall be transmitted by the City Clerk to the Division of Municipal Corporations of the Office of the State Auditor and to the Association of Washington Cities. Section 3. This ordinance is a legislative act delegated by statute to the City Council of the City of Edmonds, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect January 1, 2014. �. ... 0sm MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 116 of 461 APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: CITY ATTORNEY, JEFFREY TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 117 of 461 On the passed Ordinance No. SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington day of , 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, . A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of ,2013. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 118 of 461 EXHIBIT "A" 2014 BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND Fund No. Fund Description Revenue Expenditure Difference (Rev - Exp) 001 General Fund $ 36,252,919 $ 37,936,571 $ (1,683,652) 009 LEOFF Medical Insurance Reserve Subfund $ 594,946 $ 503,361 $ 91,585 011 IRisk Management Reserve Subfund $ 903,858 $ 300,000 $ 603,858 012 Contingency Reserve Subfund $ 527,115 $ - $ 527,115 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ - 016 Building Maintenance Subfund $ 679,800 $ 720,200 $ (40,400) 104 Drug Enforcement Fund $ 20,075 $ 81,033 $ (60,958) 111 Street Fund $ 1,712,100 $ 1,595,810 $ 116,290 112 Street Construction Fund $ 9,021,607 $ 9,388,866 $ (367,259) 117 Municipal Arts Acquisition Fund $ 91,473 $ 152,575 $ (61,102) 118 Memorial Tree Fund $ 25 $ - $ 25 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund $ 54,140 $ 54,000 $ 140 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund $ 20,308 $ 26,786 $ (6,478) 122 Youth Scholarship Fund $ 1,623 $ 3,600 $ (1,977) 123 Tourism Promotional Arts Fund $ 18,200 $ 19,000 $ (800) 125 REET 2 $ 904,343 $ 1,377,712 $ (473,369) 126 Special Capital/Parks Acquisition $ 904,243 $ 1,318,291 $ (414,048) 127 Gifts Catalog Fund $ 43,708 $ 18,200 $ 25,508 129 Special Projects Fund $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ - 130 Cemetery Maintenance/imp.Fund $ 160,136 $ 175,435 $ (15,299) 132 Parks Construction Fund $ 1,340,000 $ 2,494,000 $ (1,154,000) 136 Parks Trust Fund $ 186 $ - $ 186 137 Ce mete ry Ma i nte na nce Fund $ 12,970 $ - $ 12,970 138 Sister City Commission Fund $ 4,519 $ 4,500 $ 19 139 Transportation Benefit District Fund $ 645,000 $ 645,000 $ - 211 LID Control Fund $ 28,600 $ 28,600 $ - 213 LID Guaranty Fund $ 28,626 $ - $ 28,626 231 2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund $ 1,022,689 $ 1,022,690 $ (1) 421 Water Utility Fund $ 6,241,818 $ 9,462,171 $ (3,220,353) 422 Storm Utility Fund $ 3,530,158 $ 5,922,973 $ (2,392,815) 423 Sewer/WWTPUtility Fund $ 8,347,200 $ 13,906,720 $ (5,559,520) 424 Utility Debt Service Fund $ 840,816 $ 840,816 $ 511 Equipment Rental Fund $ 1,478,108 $ 979,579 $ 498,529 617 Firemen's Pension Fund $ 174,379 $ 89,615 $ 84,764 Totals $ 75,610,688 1 $ 89,073,104 $ (13,462,416) * Amount represents a contribution of (use of) fund balance Packet Page 119 of 461 AM-6274 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 11/04/2013 Time: 45 Minutes Submitted For: Rob English Department: Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Subiect Title Submitted By: Robert English Type: Action Information 10. Public hearing on the Capital Facilities Plan Element update for 2014-2019 to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Program. The proposal updates the City's Capital Facilities Plan to include improvements, additions, upgrades or extensions of City infrastructure such as transportation, parks, and stormwater along with other public faciilties necessary to implement the City's Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation Approve both documents. Previous Council Action On September 24, 2013, both documents were presented to the City Council for review and comments. On September 10, 2013, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee reviewed this item. 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. Thus, capital projects that preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These preservation projects are identified within the six -year capital improvement program (CIP) along with capital facility plan projects which encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects. CIP vs. CFP The CFP and CIP are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to different needs. While the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying those projects to the various City funds and revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City levels of service standards. The CFP is also required to be consistent with the other elements (transportation, parks, etc) of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP. The proposed 2014-2019 CFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has three project sections comprised of General, Transportation and Stormwater. The proposed 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. Exhibit 3 is a comparison that shows added, deleted and changed projects between last year's CFP/CIP to the proposed CFP/CIP. Packet Page 120 of 461 The CFP and CIP were presented and a public hearing was held at the Planning Board meeting on September 25, 2013. The Planning Board recommended the CFP and CIP be forwarded to the City Council for approval. The draft minutes from the Planning Board meeting are attached as Exhibit 4. Attnehmonts Draft CFP 2014-2019 Draft CIP 2014-2019 CFP-CIP Comparison 2013-2014 Planning Board Minutes - CFP/CIP Public Hearing Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Megan Luttrell 10/31/2013 03:10 PM Public Works Kody McConnell 10/31/2013 03:45 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 10/31/2013 03:46 PM Mayor Dave Earling 11/01/2013 08:27 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/01/2013 08:31 AM Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 10/31/2013 02:06 PM Final Approval Date: 11/01/2013 Packet Page 121 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT 2014-2019 Koo" �F EDP DRAFT Packet Page 122 of 461 Packet Page 123 of 461 CFP GENERAL Packet Page 124 of 461 City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Parks, General, and Regional Projects (2014-2019) Current Grant Project (2014-2019) Project Nam 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 Playfield until 2021). $0 $0 Total $5 M Civic Playfield 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 Total CFP $16,835,000 Annual CFP Totals $4,335,000 1 $100,000 1 $300,000 1 $3,600,000 1 $5,500,000 $3,000,000 Packet Page 125 of 461 Revised Six -Year CFP (2014-2019)_07.24.13: General_CFP 9/3/2013 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 126 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Art Center / Art Museum ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 r:. 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 127 of 461 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 128 of 461 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 129 of 461 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 130 of 461 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 PREPARED 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 131 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million Maintenance & Operations Building Existing Building Outline \ / Existing Fence Line Yard Fu 0 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 132 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4 - 10 mil. 0 y 'J Q R 4; 0 Q. 7. J I �' Al EDMONDS i cfi w SHOPPING CTR 3Q5 DAYTON Mddressad off Dayton} �- R MP 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 133 of 461 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 AIrN� o�aa I I '�4 ne�vey G.rww uwv. Edmo��Js i.w 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 134 of 461 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 135 of 461 CFP TRANSPORTATION Packet Page 136 of 461 I Grant Project (2014-2019) 1 Project Name Opportunity Phase Total Cost Funding Source 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Safetv / Cauacity Analvsis 212th St SW @ 84th Ave W Intersection improvements to $1,839,000 (Federal or State secured) $1,839,000 (5corners) Intersection Improvements decrease intersection delay and $0 (Federal or State unsecured) 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 $843,500 (Federal or State unsecured) $86,500 $141,000 $616,000 and SB to a signalized intersection. Possible Grant Conceptual $35,500 (Unsecured) $13,500 $22,000 $0 (Local Funds) $879,000 Total $100,000 $163,000 $616,000 Main St. and 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. $1,626,548 (Federal or State unsecured) $218,548 $1,408,000 Possible Grant Design / ROW $0 (Unsecured) $371,475 (Local Funds) $283,320 $88,155 $2,718,000 Total $657,000 $653,000 $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 SB 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 $1,024,000 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 Highway 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 Packet Page 137 of 461 City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Transportation Projects (2014-2019) Grant Project (2014-2019) Project Name I: I I ose Opportunity Phase Total Cost Funding Source 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 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 for200' $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 Packet Page 138 of 461 S:\ENGR\CIP_CFP BOOKS\2014-2019\CFP\Revised Six -Year CFP (2014-2019)_07.24.13 9/10/2013 City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Transportation Projects (2014-2019) TOPPort. Grant Project (2014-2019) 1 Project Name Purpose Phase Total Cost Funding Source 2014 2015 2016 2 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 and sight Seview Elementary and nearby $993,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $30,000 $116,000 $847,000 distance improvements parks. Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $993,000 Total $30,000 $116,000 $847,000 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. between 7th Ave. S to 8th Provide safe sidewalk along short $0 (Federal or State secured) Ave. 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. $1,462,983 (Federal or State unsecured) $90,000 $1,372,983 RCO / TIB Grant Design $0 (Unsecured) $241,977 (Local Funds) $27,960 $214,017 $1,788,000 Total $201,000 $1,587,000 Packet Page 139 of 461 S:\ENGR\CIP_CFP BOOKS\2014-2019\CFP\Revised Six -Year CFP (2014-2019)_07.24.13 9/10/2013 City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Transportation Projects (2014-2019) -1 Grant Project (2014-2019) J Project Name Purpose Opportunity Phase Total Cost Funding Source 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main Provide safe sidewalk, connecting to $0 (Federal or State secured) St. to 200th St. SW 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. Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along missing $0 (Federal or State secured) 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 Walkway and minor arterial and collector. $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Stormwater Improvements 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 Packet Page 140 of 461 S:\ENGR\CIP_CFP BOOKS\2014-2019\CFP\Revised Six -Year CFP (2014-2019)_07.24.13 9/10/2013 City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Transportation Projects (2014-2019) Grant Project (2014-2019) Project Name I Purpose 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 so (Federal or State secured) and 186th St. SW Walkway those (2) local streets. SO (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual so (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 Total CFP $42,529,929 1 Annual CFP Totals 1 $8,875,480 1 $6,230,449 1 $1,435,000 1 $6,369,000 1 $6,956,000 1 $12,664,000 1 $18,143,000 Revenue Summary by Year Totals Source 2014 1 2015 1 2016 1 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 $7,688,244 Total Federal & State (Secured) $6,317,947 $1,370,297 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,514,031 Total Federal& State (Unsecured) $100,000 $3,291,531 $0 $3,208,500 $6,823,000 $12,091,000 $0 $774,500 Unsecured $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $38,500 $133,000 $573,000 $18,143,000 $8,521,154 Local Funds $2,447,533 $1,558,6211 $1,425,000 $3,090,000 $0 $0 $0 Packet Page 141 of 461 S:\ENGR\CIP_CFP BOOKS\2014-2019\CFP\Revised Six -Year CFP (2014-2019)_07.24.13 9/10/2013 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. SCHEDULE: 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 142 of 461 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'xldZo 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: The intersection LOS must meet MUTCD traffic signal warrants and be approved by WSDOT since 196t" St. SW is a State Route (SR524). 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 143 of 461 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 144 of 461 PROJECT NAME: 76" Ave W @ 212 St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,923,000 Intersection Improvements LANE j j J ' F1 J M DICA LU LU c INIc J _ Arbor Apt, xAlla Olin n W16-J J _j J 292TH S-r Sw EDMONDS-WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL - � _ [:iJ2112th St Plaza OFFICE ��3 7301 ARTS j -0-00 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. Right-of-way acquisition is anticipated to begin in fall 2013. 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 145 of 461 PROJECT NAME: 2201hSt SW @ 76 th Ave W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $173,000 Intersection Improvements 219TH ST SW 1 WL_J 21919 ;r [i 221 sT PL SW TOP FOODS 220TH 5T 5W _J LYNWOOD I 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 146 of 461 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 76th Avenue West. 4) Add illumination between 224th St SW and 228th St SW on SR 99 5) Overlay of 228th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to — 2,000' east of 76th Ave. W. (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. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planning/Study Engineering, $150,000 Administration, and ROW Construction $2,560,000 $2,830,449 1 % for Art TOTAL $2,710,000 $2,830,449 *All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the arts Packet Page 147 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 Gateway / ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000,000 Revitalization PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would include, among other features, wider replacement sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for access control and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, as well as landscaping and other softscape treatments to warm-up this harsh corridor and identify the area as being in Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved. SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled 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 & $500,000 $500,000 Administration & ROW Construction $4,000,000 $5,000,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $500,000 4,500,000 $5,000,000 Packet Page 148 of 461 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 149 of 461 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 150 of 461 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 151 of 461 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 / P.0 � / 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 152 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 1741" Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $906,000 W Intersection Improvements � lil illlll` �4141Myu� Parking h! so seat SI.Thomas Moo re a ° i`� camor. S�hooi p / aauriem Z N Sanctuary r— 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 153 of 461 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 154 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. @ 9th Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000 Intersection Improvements In W a z LA W a z ALDER ST Cd M co ti 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. 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 155 of 461 PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave W from 188 th St ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $993,000 SW to Olympic View Dr. Walkway and sight distance improvements 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). 80th Ave. W will be re- graded north of 184th St. SW, in order to improve sight distance. 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 $116,000 Administration Construction $847,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $30,000 $116,000 $847,000 Packet Page 156 of 461 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 near Madrona Elementary School and along 236t" St. SW. SCHEDULE: Engineering is scheduled to begin in 2013 and construction completed by 2014. Funding is 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 157 of 461 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 (Unsecured Funding) 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 158 of 461 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 159 of 461 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 160 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,876,000 from Bell St to Caspers St. �G �.�:■�■ 11 C Z P*/_i�-- SONN UV IE W APTS 111�01■� ♦ � �� 11111■0 11 NEI . � w ♦ � � I■1■1 � 11 01 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 $201,000 Construction $1,587,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $201,000 $1,587,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 161 of 461 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 162 of 461 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 163 of 461 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 s 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 164 of 461 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 165 of 461 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 166 of 461 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 0 cOMM H M u� w LIBRARY mE& a BASEBALL r 23FIE L13 23 TO 42 OLD WOODWAYHIGH SCHOOL 236TH PL SW HICKMAN PARK JJ 0 0 a r Q J Y 237TH 3 3 J W a r- a N O O w n a w 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 167 of 461 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 Rr.r.�i:f.9 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 and 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 168 of 461 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 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 169 of 461 PROJECT NAME: 84 1h Ave. W between 188 1h St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000 SW and 186th St. SW Walkway [ I I I I I I � I � 11 --H 3 985TH PL SW w I88TH 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 and access for 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 170 of 461 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 171 of 461 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 172 of 461 PROJECT NAME: 151St. SW from Edmonds ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $374,000 Way (SR-104) to 8t" Ave. S Q� s fi a s 226TH ST SW '^ 9 5TH ST SW 4 �Q W a a 226TH PL SW 0,�, 9� ROSEWOOD CT SUNRISE BALLFIELDS SHERWOOD ELEM. SCHOOL PARKING N EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY QUEST BLOCKBUSTER L' w Q [KING [[PARKING QFC 0 z Y n PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk on 15 th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8t" 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 173 of 461 CFP STORMWATER Packet Page 174 of 461 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/Stormwater Fees) $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/Stormwater Fees) $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 (Debt/Stormwater Fees) $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 connnectivity 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 $1,800000 $150,000 flooding. $1,562,500 (Debt/Stormwater) $300,000 $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 (Debt/Stormwater Fees) $100,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $2,600,000 Total $100,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500:000 $500,000 Revenue Summary by Year Totals Source 2014 2015 2016 1 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 Packet Page 175 of 461 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 176 of 461 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. I otal costs are in 2t)12 dollars. 2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%; 2017 4%; 2018 3% Packet Page 177 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Lake Ballinger Associated ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $700,000 Projects — SSWCPI 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 178 of 461 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 lleiy.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 179 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Perrinville Creek High Flow ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,500,000 Reduction/Management Project— SSWCPI 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 180 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2014-2019 � O-V EDP O 1!0 Packet Page 181 of 461 Packet Page 182 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2014-2019) Table of Contents GENERAL 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 Special Capital / Parks & Recreation 126 Parks Acquisition 50 Parks Construction 132 (Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 54 Packet Page 183 of 461 Packet Page 184 of 461 Cip GENERAL Packet Page 185 of 461 Capital Improvements Program Fund 112 - Transportation Projects Projects for 2014-2019 PROJECT NAME CFP 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 I (20Total E 9) Orecev,i�4i..n /AA�in4en Anne Orn ien4c Annual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc.) $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $8,100,000 5th Ave S Overlay from Elm Way to Walnut St 1 $987,732 $14,800 $14,800 Citywide - Signal Improvements $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 Citywide Safety Improvements - Signal Cabinet Pedestrian Countdown Display $34,000 $266,000 $650,000 $916,000 Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave @ 238th St. SW 1 $508,000 $508,000 Cafafv / r`anarifv dnalvcic 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 $2,830,449 $5,540,449 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 Improvements X $173,000 $173,000 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 i X 1 $500,0001 $4,500,0001 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 Type 2 Raised Pavement Markers 1 $98,0001 1 $98,000 Nnn_mnfnrizad frannnnrfaffnn nmiecfs Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St. X $88,000 $201,000 $1,587,000 $1,788,000 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 Sight Distance Improvements X $30,000 $116,000 $847,000 $993,000 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 $190,000 $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 1 $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 1 $10,0001 $10,0001 $10,000 1 $30,000 Traffic Calming Projects Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming (Sunset Ave, other stretches) I X 1 $10,0001 $10,0001 $10,0001 $25,0001 $25,0001 $25,000 $105,000 Total Projects $2,350,926 $11,955,280 $7,370,449 $1,210,000 $6,797,000 $8,952,000 $14,334,000 $50,578,729 Packet Page 186 of 461 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 Total Debt & Transfers $76,680 $84,798 $75,958 $75,597 $75,235 $74,874 $75,513 Revenues and Cash Balances 2013-2019 2013 Estimate 2014 2015m 2016 2017 2018 Beginning Cash Balance $384,261 $421,109 $165,278 $130,699 $341,102 $125,367 $149,493 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax $116,000 $115,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 Transfer in - Fund 125 - REET 2 Transp.-Annual Street Preservation Prgm $115,732 $314,800 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 Transfer in - Fund 126 - REET 1 - Annual Street Preservation Program $450,600 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 Transfer in - General Fund for Annual Street Preservation Program $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 Transfer in - Fund 125 - (Parks) $200,000 Transfer in - Fund 421 for 5th Ave. S Overlay $301,000 Transfer in - Fund 422 for 5th Ave. S. Overlay $20,000 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 Caspers 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) 1 $103,000 $106,0001 $109,0001 $116,000 $120,000 Traffic Impact Fees $158,300 $105,0001 $70,0001 $70,0001 $70,0001 $70,000 $70,000 Total Revenues $1,172,793 $3,879,409 $1,905,278 $1,616,699 $1,830,102 $1,621,367 $1,649,493 Grants 2013-2019 2013 Estimate 2014 2)16 2017 2018 (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 Caspers 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 along 3rd Ave. S from Main St. to Pine St. $50,000 (Federal) School Zone Flashing Beacons $37,500 Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $1,675,922 $7,225,947 $1,370,297 $0 $0 $0 $0 Packet Page 187 of 461 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Grants 2013-2019 Estimate Grants/ Loans Souaht / Fundina (not Securedl Annual Street Overlays $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 Citywide Safety Improvements - Signal Cabinet $650,000 Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave W @ 238th St SW $256,000 228th St SW Corridor Safety Improvements $1,700,000 76th @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $218,548 $1,408,000 196th St SW @ 88th Ave W - Guardrail $30,000 196th St SW @ 88th Ave W - Intersection Improvements $86,500 $141,000 $616,000 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 $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 Type 2 Raised Pavement Markers $98,000 Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St to Cas ers St $90,000 $1,372,983 ADA Curb Ramps Improvements as part of Transition Plan $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 80th Ave / 188th St SW / Olympic View Dr Walkway & Sight Distance Improvements $30,000 $116,000 $847,000 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 si ns $58,000 $58,000 Bicycle Route Signing $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Citywide Traffic Calming Program $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Alternatives Study 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 $1,100,000 $4,301,531 $1,675,922 $8,325,947 $5,671,828 $10,000 $5,167,500 $10,000 $5,167,500 $7,555,000 $12,849,000 $7,555,000 $12,849,000 Total Revenues & Grants $2,848,715 $12,205,356 $7,577,106 $1,626,699 $6,997,602 $9,176,367 $14,498,493 Total Projects ($2,350,926) ($11,955,280) ($7,370,449) ($1,210,000) ($6,797,000) ($8,952,000) ($14,334,000) Total Debt ($76,680) ($84,798) ($75,958) ($75,597) ($75,235) ($74,874) ($75,513) Ending Cash Balance $421,109 $165,278 $130,699 $341,102 $125,367 $149,493 $88,980 Packet Page 188 of 461 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 I Unknown Total Project $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenues and Cash Balances 2013-2019 2013 Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 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 $55,859 $55,8591 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 Total Project 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ending Cash Balance 1 $55,859 1 $55,8591 $55,8591 $55,8591 $55,8591 $55,8591 $55,859 Packet Page 189 of 461 Capital Improvements Program Fund 116 - Buildina Maintenance Proiects for 2014-2019 PROJECT NAME CFP 3 201a E 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total (20 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 1 1 $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 Fagade 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 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 Packet Page 190 of 461 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 $01 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 $306,4951 $275,495 $309,495 $276,495 $284,495 Total Project ($173,130 ($688,200) ($306,000) ($241,000) ($308,000) ($267,000) ($205,000) Ending Cash Balance $40,895 $31,495 $4951 $34,495 $1,4951 $9,495 $79,495 Packet Page 191 of 461 Capital Improvements Program Fund 125 - REET 2 Transportation Projects for 2014-2019 PROJECT NAME CFP 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 IL E (20Total 9) Transfer to Fund 112 for future Transportation Projects $115,732 $314,800 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,814,800 Total Projects $115,732 $314,800 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,814,800 Revenues and Cash Balances 2013-2019 2013 Estimate 2014 2016 2017 2018 qw Beginning Balance (January 1st) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 REET 2 Revenues $115,732 $314,800 $300,0001 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 Investment Interest $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenues $115,732 $314,800 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 Total Revenue 1 $115,732 1 $314,8001 300,0001 300,0001 300,000 $300,000 $300,000 Total Construction Projects 1 1 ($115,732) ($314,800) ($300,000) ($300,000) ($300,000) ($300,000) ($300,000) Ending Cash Balance 1 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Packet Page 192 of 461 Capital Improvements Program Fund 129 - Snecial Proiects Proiects for 2014-2019 PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Est (20Totalima9) 1 State Route SR 99 International District Enhancements $196,947 $4,000 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 Be innin Balance (January1st $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 $5,7331 $5,733 $5,733 $5,733 $5,733 Total Construction Projects $196,947 $4,000 $0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 lEnding Cash Balance 1 1 $5,733 $5,7331 $5,7331 $5,7331 $5,7331 $5,7331 $5,733 Packet Page 193 of 461 Capital Improvements Program P.-I d91 - Wafar Prni-fc Prni-f. Mr 9n1d-9n1a 13 [PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Estimate (2014-2019) 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 Replacement Program $107,065 $3,202,600 $3,309,665 2019 Replacement Program $112,000 $3,330,704 $3,442,704 2020 Replacement Program $116,480 $116,480 224th Waterline Replacement $168,000 $2,000 $2,000 Five Corners 3.0 MG Reservoir Recoating I 1 11 1 $722,800 $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 1 $68,600 $11,000 $11,500 $11,900 $12,400 $12,900 $13,4001 $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 Transfer 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 $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 2 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 $114,600 $119,184 $123,900 $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 Unsecured Revenue 2013-2019 2013 Estimate 2018 2019 $6,700,000 $6,400,000 New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers Total Unsecured Revenue $0 $0 $6,700,000 $0 $6,400,000 $0 $0 Total Revenues Total Projects & Transfers Endina Cash Balance Packet Page 194 of 461 Capital Improvements Program F-d d99 Rfnrm Prniarfc fnr 9n1d_9n19 13 PROJECT NAME 6UP 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Estimate (20Total 9) 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 Lane X $105,000 $441,000 $546,000 Edmonds Marsh Related Proiects Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Alternatives Study $80,000 $0 Dayton Stand Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements X $98,000 $1,700,000 $1,200,000 $250,000 $3,248,000 Willow Creek Pipe Rehabilitation $518,000 $518,000 Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Dr/Willow Cr - Feasibility Study / Marsh Restoration (See Note 2) X $108,000 $500,000 $600,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $200,000 $5,550,000 Northstream Culvert Abandonment South of Puget Dr - Assessment / I Stabilization $11,000 $55,000 $177,160 $232,160 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 1 $60,000 $0 Waste handling facility upgrade (See Note 2) $70,450 L $154,0001 1$154,000 Storm Drainage Improvement Projects Da ton St between 6th and 8th Ave N 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 Ci -wide Drainage Replacement Projects 1 1 $147,000 $154,0001 $161,0001 $166,0001 $500,0001 $1,000,0001 $1,200,0001 $3,181,000 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects I I $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 1 $250,000 Additional Storm Projects Goodhope Pond Basin Study / Projects $200,0001 $50,0001 $100,0001 $500,0001 $500,0001 $1,350,000 Storm System Video Assessment I 1 250,000 $250,0001 $250,0001 1 1 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 Packet Page 195 of 461 Prnipctc fnr 901A-9019 13 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Est�F2014 (2014-2019) l ransters To 112 - Street Fund SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Drainage portion of 238th SW Sidewalk project (connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System) $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 $48,500 $1,096,500 $103,000 $106,000 $209,000 $116,000 $120,000 $1,750,500 To 117 - Arts 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 1 1 1 1 1 $500 76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements 1 $1,5001 1 1 1 1 $1,500 Stormwater Utility - Transportation Projects 1$750 $773 $773 $795 $818 $870 $9001 $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 $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 2018 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 - Feasibili 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 $375,0001 $375,0001 $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 Packet Page 196 of 461 Capital Improvements Program Fund 423 - Sewer Proiects Projects for 2014-2019 PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Estimate (20Total 9) Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitations Lift Stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, & 15 1 1 $4,508,828 $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 $529,600 1 1 1 $529,600 224th Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project $207,784 $2,OOOL I I I$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 Packet Page 197 of 461 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 $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 Packet Page 198 of 461 Capital Improvements Program Fund 414 - WWTP Projects for 2014-2019 PROJECT NAME CFP 2013 E 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 1 $0 Debt Service - Principle and Interest $330,793 $331,381 $331,9871 $331,9421 $330,5891 $329,7971 $330,3551 $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 $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 JEnding Cash Balance I $200,000 1 $200,0001 $200,0001 $200,0001 $200,0001 $200,0001 $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 $883,929 $1,299,181 $1,318,7871 $1,323,7421 $1,292,3891 $1,246,5971 $1,292,155 Packet Page 199 of 461 Packet Page 200 of 461 CIP PARKS Packet Page 201 of 461 Capital Improvements Program Fund 125 - Parkw Imnrnvpmpnt Prnipcts for 2014-201g PROJECT NAME UP E?13 2014 2016 2017 �M20118 2019 (2014-2019) Park Development Projects• 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 $125,000 Sunset Avenue Walkway $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 Haines Wharf Park & Walkway $8,402 $0 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 $5,0001 1 $5,0001 1 $85,000 Pine Ridge Park Improvements $5,000 $5,000 $5,0001 $15,000 Seaview Park Improvements $10,000 $5,000 $10,0001 $25,000 Sierra Park Improvements 1 $40,000 $70,000 1 $110,000 Yost Park / Pool Improvements $120,000 $120,0001 $120,000 $100,000 $25,000 $20,000 $120,0001 $505,000 Citvwide Park Imarovements* 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 $40,0000 $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 $i) 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 Packet Page 202 of 461 Revenues and Cash Balances 2013-2019 2013 Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20Ll Beginning Cash Balance (January1st $1,012,459 $764,557 $436,845 $430,845 $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 $764,157 $436,8451 $430,8451 $428,845 $428,8451 $428,8451 $428,845 *Projects in all categories maybe eligible for 1 %for art with the exception of planning projects. Packet Page 203 of 461 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 204 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Brackett's Landing ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $125,000 Improvements South: Main Street and Railroad Avenue south of Edmonds Ferry Terminal on Puget Sound North: 2.7 acres with tidelands and adjacent to Department of Natural Resources public tidelands with Underwater Park South: 2.0 acres with tidelands south of ferry terminal. Regional park/Zoned commercial waterfront. Protected as public park through Deed -of -Right; partnership funding IAC/WWRC/LWCF /DNR-ALEA & Snohomish Conservation Futures PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Landscape beautification, irrigation, furnishings/bench maintenance, exterior painting, repairs, jetty improvements/repair, north cove sand, habitat improvement, fences, interpretive signs, structure repairs, sidewalk improvements, restroom 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 205 of 461 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 206 of 461 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 207 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Sunset Avenue Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,876,000 __ 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a sidewalk on the west side of Sunset Ave with expansive views of the Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. The sidewalk will connect the downtown business district, surrounding neighborhoods, water access points, and the existing parks and trails system. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This sidewalk 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 208 of 461 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 209 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,355,000 Complex at the Former Woodway High School 5------ "I yi r HOGAN FORMER WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED FOR THE E DMON ❑S SCHOOL DISTRICT 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 1 $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 210 of 461 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 211 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park ESTIMATED COST: $20,000 Improvements J I98A1r97; ea w m .30 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 212 of 461 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 213 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $130,000 78th Place W. & 241 st. 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 214 of 461 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/Stud 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 215 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000 Improvements 2 2a 241 83`d 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 216 of 461 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 217 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Sierra Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $110,000 ►� -.� y � •� I •� � � � •.'may ��..' � ^hY,� 80"' Street West and 191 °i Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public LAC ELEA F JAPAN ESh MAVLF IAerr pmlmaium dlsscrmm] Thi+lderld.... shrub or t— Is naxhr to Jmyan and Korea• it !. uMtly alry mnd drtzu, ut nil maples. Its 1-- or, 2 tp 4 Inc his iu 1cnt;lh 4r fl ncip rul Inrn thrna 1 &C lefl lmn. Leaf rmnr s •rira hq . arlexp but thr must common colors an• hrl pin Rrren and rcd. 'I'h— ha,c n mounded form with we.pinp branches The.' cmn br gn- In tubs .nd .rr excel lcnf fo. 6 m» u 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/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $40,000 $70,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $40,000 $70,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 218 of 461 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 219 of 461 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 220 of 461 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/Study 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 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 * all or a portion of these projects may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 221 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $335,000 Improvements / Misc Small Projects It 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 222 of 461 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 223 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Center ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 — at Yost Park $23,000,000 % r4m. _ i* 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 224 of 461 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 1 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 * all or part of these projects may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Packet Page 225 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Cultural Arts Facility ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000 Needs Study 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 226 of 461 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/StudyPlanning/Study $25,000 Engin. & Admin. Construction $75,000 $35,000 $65,000 $75,000 $10,000 $20,000 1 % for Art TOTAL 1 $25,000 $75,000 $35,000 1 $65,000 $75,000 $10,000 $20,000 Packet Page 227 of 461 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/StudyPlanning/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 228 of 461 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/StudyPlanning/Study $50,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $50,000 Packet Page 229 of 461 Capital Improvements Program Fiinr1 12A _ Rnarial Canifal/Parks Arnnicifinn PrniartQ fnr 9n1d-9n1Q PROJECT NAME CFP 2013 Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 (20Total 9) Debt Service on City Hall $298,385 $300,005 $300,005 Debt Service Marina Bch/Library Roof $81,628 $80,528 $84,428 $83,228 $82,028 $80,828 $79,628 $490,668 Debt Service on PSCC Purchase $58,898 $57,998 $57,098 $56,198 $60,298 $54,298 $53,398 $339,288 Dept Service on FAC Seismic retrofit $29,624 $29,763 $29,874 $29,957 $29,621 $29,640 $29,630 $178,485 Total Debt $468,535 $468,294 $171,400 $169,383 $171,947 $164,766 $162,656 $1,308,446 Project Name Misc. Open Space/Land 1 $200,0001 $200,0001 $200,0001 $200,0001 1 $800,000 Transfers Transfer to 132 for Waterfront / Tidelands Acquisition $200,000 $200,0001 $200,0001 $200,0001 $200,0001 $200,0001 1 $1,000,000 Transfer to Fund 112 for Annual Street Preservation Program 1 $450,0001 $450,000 1 $450,000 1 $450,000 1 $450,000 1 $450,000 1 $2,700,000 Total Project & Transfers $200,000 $650,000 $850,000 $850,000 $850,000 $850,000 $450,000 $4,500,000 Revenues and Cash Balances 2013-2019 2013 Estimate 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st) $309,555 $641,681 $520,194 $650,794 $631,411 $609,464 $594,698 Real estate Tax 1/4%/1st Qtr % $902,243 $902,243 $950,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Interest Earnings $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Total Revenues $1,213,798 $1,545,924 $1,472,194 $1,650,794 $1,631,411 $1,609,464 $1,594,698 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 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 $1,310,216 $1,638,488 $1,672,1941 $1,650,7941 $1,631,4111 $1,609,464 $1,594,698 Total Debt ($468,535) ($468,294) ($171,400) ($169,383) ($171,947) ($164,766) ($162,656) Total Project & Transfers ($200,000) ($650,000) ($850,000) ($850,000) ($850,000) ($850,000) ($450,000) Ending Cash Balance $641,681 $520,194 $650,7941 $631,411 1 $609,464 1 $594,698 $982,042 Packet Page 230 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,146,126 Capital Projects and Acquisitions w- ^r''` _ I 2 y 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/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $596,418 $592,564 $279,035 $281,083 $282,162 $283,083 $0 x all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 231 of 461 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 232 of 461 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 233 of 461 Capital Improvements Program P-H 139 - Parkc Cnnctrnetinn Prniactc fnr 9r11d-9r119 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 Si na a $43,000 $4,000 $4,000 Dayton Street Plaza $168,000 $0 Interurban Trail Improvements $19,801 $0 Senior Center Parkin Lot / Drainage I I I I I 1 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 $200,000i $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 2 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 rra ter 1 . rso..,rorn 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 CMAO 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: FGCand EIB, HMF, donations Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $837,500 $537,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grants/ Loans Sought (not Secured) 4th Ave Corridor Enhancement state, federal, other $200,000 $1,150,000 $1,425,000 $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 $2,776,912 $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 IlEnding Cash Balance $1,334,412 $282,9121 $282,9121 $282,9121 $282,9121 $282,9121 $282,912 *Projects maybe partially eligible for 1 % for Art Packet Page 234 of 461 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 235 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Cultural Heritage Tour and ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $74,500 Way -Finding Signage EDMONDS DOWNTOWN CULTURAL HERITAGE TOUR (Proposed sites) s r r e e 0� i �m x O ems. v x Oar[o�5[ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create a downtown Edmonds walking tour highlighting a dozen historic sites with artist made interpretive markers, and add way -finding signage for the downtown area. 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 236 of 461 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 237 of 461 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 238 of 461 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 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Page 239 of 461 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 240 of 461 PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,355,000 Complex at the Former Woodway High School 5------ "I yi r HOGAN FORMER WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED FOR THE E DMON ❑S SCHOOL DISTRICT 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 1 $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 241 of 461 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 242 of 461 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 243 of 461 UP / CIP COMPARISON (2013 TO 2014) ADDED PROJECTS FUND PROJECT NAME I UP I DESCRIPTION 112 Hwy 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements X Widen 220th St. SW to add a right turn lane for the westbound movement onto Hwy. 99. Widen Hwy. 99 to add 2nd left southbound left turn lane. 112 Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion Convert left turn phasing from protective left turn to protective / permissive in order to improve intersection delay. 112 SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization The project would include, among other features, wider replacement sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for access control and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe X crosswalks, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, as well as landscaping and other softscape treatments to warm-up this harsh corridor and identify the area as being in Edmonds. 112 ADA curb ramps along 3rd Ave. S from Main St. to ADA upgrades to all curb ramps along this stretch. 112 School Zone Flashing Beacons Addition of the school zone flashing beacons at (5) school zones. 112 Alternatives study to resolve conflicts at Dayton St. / Analyse diffferent alternatives in order to provide safe and efficient access to Main St. RR Crossings I Ithe Ferry Terminal and Waterfront. 116 Cemetery Building Gutter Replacement Non -clog gutter system 116 ESCO III Financing For remaining share of current project if funds available. 116 ESCO IV Street Lights and Fishing Pier LED changeouts. 116 Public Safety HVAC Controls system update because of obsolete hardware 421 12020 Replacement Program Estimated future costs for waterline replacements. 421 12014 Waterline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to waterline replacements. 422 1 Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements. I X lAdd lift station and other new infrastucture to reduce intersection flooding. 423 2017 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Impr Estimated future costs for sewerline replacements/rehab/improvements. 423 2019 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Impr Estimated future costs for sewerline replacements/rehab/improvements. 423 2020 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Impr Estimated future costs for sewerline replacements/rehab/improvements. 423 �2013 CIPP Rehabilitation Cured in place sewer pipe rehabilitation project for pipes located at various locations in the City. Packet Page 244 of 461 423 224th Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project Breakout of part of 2012 Sewerline replacement Project. This project was done in conjunction with OVWSD as part of one of their improvements. Packet Page 245 of 461 CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2013 TO 2014) DELETED PROJECTS FUND PROJECT NAME CFP I DESCRIPTION 112 Signal Upgrades for NB LT - 100th Ave. W @ 238th St SW (interim) Completed in 2012. 112 Walnut St. @ 9th Ave. S (interim solution) Completed in 2012. 112 SR-104 Pedestrian Mid -block Crossing Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) project / secured grant funding to complete project in 2014. 112 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road X Completed in 2012. 112 226th St. SW Walkway X Completed in 2012. 112 Olympic View Dr. Sidewalk Contribution Project completed. 116 Anderson Center Roofing Project Delayed another year. 116 Anderson Center Countertop Replacement Delayed another year. 116 Anderson Center Radiator Replacement Delayed another year. 116 City Hall Exterior Cleaning/Repainting Delayed another year. 421 12010 Replacement Program Project Completed in 2012. 421 1 Pioneer Way Road Repair/Monitoring Project Completed in 2012. 422 Low Impact Develpment Retrofit Project - 93rd/95th Low Impact Development (LID) projects will be integrated in existing St Drianage Improvement Project X transportation projects. 423 1 Lift Station 2 1 1 Project Completed in 2012. Packet Page 246 of 461 UP / CIP COMPARISON (2013 TO 2014) CHANGED PROJECTS FUND PROJECT NAME I UP I CHANGE 112 Hwy 99 Enhancement (Phase 3) Revised project name from SR-99 Lighting (Phase 3) to Hwy. 99 Enhancement (Phase 3). 112 212th St. SW @ 84th Ave. W (Five Corners) A stormwater quality system was incorporated into the project. Roundabout X 112 76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection The replacement of the existing waterline and sewerline within the project Improvements X limits were added to the scope of the project. Stormwater detention and a stormwater quality system were also added. 112 Annual Street Preservation Program Added $1.2M in project cost and revenue between 2014-2016. Transfers from the 125 REET 2 Transportation Fund ($300k), General Fund ($450k) and 126 Special Capital/Parks Acquisition Fund ($450k) will fund the project costs. 112 80th Ave W. from 188th St. SW to Olympic View Dr. Sight distance improvements was added to the project name and scope of Walkway and Sight Distance Improvements. work because it was inadvertently dropped from the 6-year TIP several years X ago. In June 2013, the City Council approved the 6-year TIP with sight distance improvements in the project name. 132 Woodway HS Improvements Added to match for State appropriation. 132 Waterfront Acquisition Received Conservation Futures grant for waterfront property acquisition. REET 1 authorization of $200,000 from 2013 and will be proposing $200,000 from 2014. 132 City Park Revitalization Budget increased, identified grant funds ( RCO: $500,000, Snohomish County: $80,000, Hazel Miller Foundation:$270,000) 422 Southwest Edmonds Basin Study Projects 1 &3 - 238th St SW drainage project has been merged with sidewalk project and is Connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park now under "Transfers to 112- Street Fund." Rain gardens on 104th Ave W infiltration system with rain gardens and replace X deleted. infiltration pipe (near 107th PI W.) Packet Page 247 of 461 423.100 Repair and Replacement Switchgear Upgrade: This project will be completed by Dec 2013, it replaces all main plant switchgear, includes load bank testing for generator, weather proof cabinets, remote transfer station and SCADA monitoring . 2013 Energy Project: This project will replace the water feature pump and vfd for energy savings. In -Plant equipment Replacement: Replace the unreliable polymer equipment, the diesel day tank, the plant skylights, plant air compressors, repair weather damage to tiles and add weir washer system. VFD replacement: This project replaces 3 and adds 2 VFDs which improves pumping performance - it is ongoing. 423.100 Upgrades Offsite Flow Telemetry: This project will modify the offsite monitoring stations to solar power in an effort to significantly lower our energy bills. Control System Upgrade: Replace aging control system equipment and provide for redundancy - long term plan is to replace 1 cabinet per year. We plan to self purchase equipment and go out for an RFQ for programming and ongoing support. 423.100 Studies and Consulting Facility Remodel: The building remodel will be designed and put out to bid in 2013 - construction will be in 2014. The project will repair damage to the men's locker room, enlarge the locker room and replace the flooring throughout the building. Incinerator testing, evaluation and pre -design: This project will test the SSI, determine the required upgrade to meet the new regulations. Final design would take place in 2014 with construction slated for 2015. In plant coatings: We will begin preparation of bid documents for tank recoating of clarifiers M, 2 primary tanks and the contact chamber. Packet Page 248 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 25, 2013 Chair Reed called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT John Reed, Chair Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Ian Duncan Neil Tibbott Madeline White, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Kevin Clarke (excused) Bill Ellis (excused) Philip Lovell (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Development Services Director Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. VICE CHAIR STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience. PUBLIC HEARING ON CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CIP) ELEMENT UPDATE FOR 2014 — 2019 TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FOR 2014 — 2019. THE PROPOSAL UPDATES THE CITY'S CAPITAL FACILITEIS PLAN TO INCLUDE IMPROVEMENTS, ADDITIONS, UPGRADES OR EXTENSIONS OF CITY INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION, PARKS AND STORMWATER ALONG WITH OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE CITY'S COMPREPHENSIVE PLAN (FILE NUMBER AMD20130012) Mr. English explained that the CFP and CIP are different documents and have different purposes. The CIP is used as a budgeting tool and includes both capital and maintenance projects. The CFP is mandated by the Growth Management Act and is intended to identify longer -term capital needs (not maintenance) to implement the City's level of service standards and Packet Page 249 of 461 growth projections. The CFP must be consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and it can only be amended once a year. He provided a graph to illustrate how the two plans overlap. He advised that the CFP is comprised of three sections: general, transportation and stormwater. The CIP has two sections related to general and parks projects, and each project is organized by the City's financial fund numbers. He specifically highlighted the following projects: Fund 112 — Transportation • The Main Street Project between 5th and 61h Avenues was completed in late 2012. This project incorporated the "complete streets" concept that the City Council adopted several years ago. When designing or rehabilitating a street, it is important to consider access for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles. As part of this project, the street was narrowed a bit and traffic calming measures were incorporated. The sidewalks were widened to provide a better pedestrian experience, and a mid -block pedestrian crossing was placed at the middle of the project to facilitate pedestrians crossing the street to access both sides of the block. • The 5th Avenue Overlay Project from Elm Way to Walnut Street is currently in process to replace the curb ramps to bring them into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The top two inches of the surface will be ground off and the entire street will be repaved. New water lines were installed in this location a few years ago, and the project will replace the patch that was put in the street at that time. • Four Signal Cabinets will be replaced. The old cabinets are becoming obsolete and it is difficult to find parts to keep them operational. • The Five Corners Roundabout Project is scheduled to start construction in early 2014. Staff is currently completing right-of-way negotiations for two parcels. • The 228th Street Corridor Improvement and Phase 3 of the SR-99 Lighting Projects have been combined, and the goal is to go out to bid in 2014. The 228tb Street Corridor Improvement Project will provide the missing link between SR-99 and 761h Avenue. It will provide Snohomish County with a new access route to the south bound ramp of Interstate 5 and improve circulation by taking some of the congestion off of 2201h Street. • The 212th Street and 76th Avenue Intersection Improvement Project is in the design phase, and right-of-way acquisition will start soon. The project will improve the level of service, but is two years away from construction. The City does not have the actual construction funding, but it plans to apply for a grant in the spring of 2014. • The Sunset Avenue Walkway Project will be grant funded, and design work will begin for a walkway or trail along the west side of Sunset Avenue. The project will incorporate the "complete streets" concept. The new walkway or trail will provide pedestrian access and improve the connection to the ferry terminal and other walking routes that go along the waterfront. There is currently no construction funding, but the project has a lot of potential to provide access to pedestrians and bicyclists while still maintaining vehicular access. • Sidewalk improvements on 238th Street, 15th Street and 236th Street will be funded by grants the City received from the Safe Routes to School Program. The projects are planned for 2014. • The 3rd Avenue ADA Curb Improvement Project will bring the street into compliance with ADA requirements. • School Zone Flashing Beacons will be installed in five locations near schools. These projects will be funded by a grant from to the Safe Routes to School Program, as well. • The SR-104 Corridor Study was added to the CIP at the request of the City Council. The 2013 CIP identified $50,000 for the project, but it has not been started yet. Staff is currently working to define the scope of work for the study, which will get started in 2014. • An Alternatives Study to resolve conflicts at the Dayton and Main Street railroad crossings will start in 2014. The goal is to provide safe access to the waterfront. • The Transportation Plan was last updated in 2009. The City will begin the next update in 2014, with the goal of completing the project in 2015. Fund 421— Water Utility • In 2013 the City replaced 9,500 feet of water main. The City Council approved a Water Main Replacement Program as part of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan update. This annual update program has allowed the City to replace water mains in a proactive fashion to maintain the system. • Three pressure reducing valves (PRVs) were installed in 2013. These valves control the water pressure within the City. • In 2014, the City will overlay approximately 2,000 lineal feet of roadway that has been affected by waterline installation. Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 250 of 461 • Approximately 10,000 lineal feet of water main will be replaced in 2014 and two additional PRV stations will be added. Fund 422 — Stormwater Utility • The Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Creek Feasibility Study was started more than a year ago, and the feasibility portion has been completed. The study will continue in 2014 with additional survey work within the marsh looking at restoration opportunities. The City has submitted a grant application for additional funding to continue the work started by the feasibility study. • The Dayton Street and SR-104 Drainage Alternative Study was started in 2012 and looks at options for resolving the drainage problems at the intersection. One option is to install a lift station to pump the water out of the intersection and into Puget Sound. • The Public works Yard and Pile Cover Project was completed in 2013. The covers protect materials that were previously exposed to rain and stormwater runoff. • The Lake Ballinger Model Improvement Project will provide hydrologic modeling for Lake Ballinger and the Weir. The City is working with Mountlake Terrace, Lake Forest Park and Lynwood to mitigate some of the flooding issues that have occurred over the last several years in this location. • The 238th Street Drainage Improvement Project has received grant funding for a sidewalk between 100th and 1041h Avenues. The stormwater fund would be used to install a storm drain as part of the sidewalk project. • The Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction and Retrofit Study will start in late spring of 2014 and will be funded by a grant from the Department of Ecology (DOE). The goal is to reduce the storm flow that hits the Perrinville system and causes significant erosion in the lower stretches of the creek. • The Vactor Waste Handling Facility at the Public Works Yard will be upgraded to improve how the City handles the waste from the trucks that clean the catch basins, etc. • Pre -design work for the Shellabarger Creek and Dayton/SR-104 Projects will move forward in 2014. Fund 423 — Sewer Utility • Nine Lift Stations will be rehabilitated in 2013. The stations were in much need of upgrade and repair, both from a pump system component and an electrical and communications standpoint. The project started in early 2013 and eight of the stations have been completed. The City is currently in the process of completing the ninth station. Overall construction costs for this project will be about $4.2 million. The lift stations are a key component of keeping the City's sewer system functioning properly. • Also in 2013 the City replaced 300 feet of sewer main on 224th Street where there were problems with overflow during high peak events. This project should resolve the problem. • The Sewer Comprehensive Plan is in the final stages of completion and was presented to the City Council on September 241h. It was previously presented to the Planning Board for review, and it is now ready for final approval from the City Council. • The Cured -in -Place Pipe Project (CIPP) will start next month. This is a process where the existing sewer pipes can be rehabilitated by installing a liner. This is a more cost-effective and efficient approach for maintaining the system than replacement. • The Sewer Comprehensive Plan calls for an on -going maintenance program for maintaining and upgrading the sewer system on an annual basis. Fund 125 — Parks Improvement • The International District Improvement Project included a combination of lighting and banners. The City is planning to host a ribbon cutting ceremony for the project in October. • The Mathay Ballinger Park Improvement Project was completed in 2013. • The City has started the design phase of the City Park Renovation Project, which will include a water spray park and incorporate "green" design elements. • The City continues to make progress on the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Project by providing wayfinding signs. • Money was set aside in 2013 for the Woodway High School Athletic Complex and the City has received grant funding to begin the design work. Additional funding has been set aside in 2014 so the project can continue. • The Boiler at Yost Pool was replaced in 2013, and additional work is still needed in 2014 to properly maintain the facility. Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 251 of 461 • The Parks Fund will provide some funding for stormwater improvements associated with Edmonds Marsh and daylighting Willow Creek. • Funding is identified to implement the improvements identified in the Marina Beach Park Master Plan. Mr. English summarized that the draft CFP and CIP were presented to the City Council's Planning, Parks and Public Works Committee on September 10`h. Staff was scheduled to present the two plans to the entire City Council on September 24th However, due to time constraints, the presentation was postponed to October 1 St. A public hearing before the City Council has been scheduled for November 1 st Chair Reed recalled the significant storm that occurred three weeks ago and noted that the City received several claims for damage from property owners. He said the City of Everett has indicated they would compensate property owners for flood damage that occurred because the existing stormwater system was unable to handle the flow. He asked if the City of Edmonds would do the same. Mr. English commented that the City of Everett's offer is ambitious and will likely result in significant payments. The recent storm was considered a "100-year event" as far as intensity and amount of water. The City's stormwater system is designed to handle only so much flow, and no system is designed to handle "100-year storms" on a continual basis. While the City found some points where improvements could be made, it does not have the ability to retrofit the entire system to handle significant storms on a frequent basis. From the City's standpoint, they will consider each situation on a case -by -case basis and make the best repairs they can, but the system can only handle so much flow. He said he does not anticipate the City will offer to compensate property owners for damage. Chair Reed asked if the CFP's financial picture has started to improve now that the economy appears to be getting better. Mr. English said it depends on the fund and the type of project. Utility funds come from rate capital, which provides a continual stream of revenue and does not fluctuate based on economic conditions. There are also grant opportunities, but most require the City to have matching funds and he does not foresee a significant increase in the amount of grant dollars available. The Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenue is tied to the economy and the assessed value of homes. As the economy improves, he would expect to see more REET funding available for transportation. The gas tax is the main source of funding for transportation projects. As people are using less gas, he does not anticipate that this funding source will significantly improve. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed concern about the lift stations that were installed in 2013. These large steel structures were installed in neighborhoods without any type of buffering. He expressed his belief that projects of this type should require Architectural Design Board (ADB) review, and the City should have some design criteria that must be met. Mr. Hertrich pointed out that none of the neighbors on Sunset Avenue have been invited to participate in the design phase of the Sunset Avenue Sidewalk Improvement Project. This project was started at the City Council level and the Engineering Department moved it forward when grant funding came available. He noted that the property owners near Five Corners were not invited to participate in the early design process for the new roundabout, either. Once grant funding was obtained, the Engineering Department moved forward with designs without consulting with the neighboring property owners. He suggested that the City should always invite the property owners most impacted by a project to participate in the design process as early as possible. Mr. Hertrich observed that, as currently proposed, the track would be eliminated to accommodate the new athletic facility at the old Woodway High School site. He noted that many people use the track on a regular basis for exercise. Also, because the Edmonds School District indicated they did not want a pool on the site, the site was eliminated as a potential location for the aquatic center even though there is adequate room on the subject property to accommodate the use. He expressed his belief that the City should consider opportunities for more than just athletic fields on this site. Mr. Hertrich said he is a member of the Economic Development Commission and serves on the Tourism Subcommittee that has been studying the idea of providing public restrooms in the downtown. He noted that the proposed CIP and CFP do not identify restrooms as a potential future project. He expressed his belief that restrooms are essential for economic development in the downtown and waterfront areas. Mr. Hertrich advised that the lift station project was reviewed by the Hearing Examiner, who required the Engineering Department to address the impact that construction noise would have on neighborhoods. Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 252 of 461 Mr. Hertrich said his personal interest right now is Edmonds Way and SR-104. While he believes a study is appropriate, he felt it would be insufficient and generally conclude that the Department of Transportation does not believe there is a traffic problem. He pointed out that there are currently backups on Edmonds Way as a result of ferry traffic, and constructing new buildings right up to the sidewalk will make the situation worse. He suggested the City should focus on keeping the traffic moving through the area and providing a safe turn lane for people to enter the shopping centers, etc. When dealing with the Westgate Plan, it is important to involve people who have knowledge of traffic planning. Allowing structures to be built right up to the sidewalk will make it economically impossible to widen the street if needed in the future. Mr. Hertrich observed that the multimodal facility is not included in either the CIP or the CFP at this time. He recalled that citizens fought hard a number of years ago to get an alternative site for the ferry terminal because there was a natural hill to provide access from the UNOCAL site over the railroad tracks. Now he understands that Mayor Earling is proposing to include funding in the 2014 budget to study options for placing a tunnel under the tracks to provide access to the waterfront. He expressed his belief that the City should go back to the original multimodal facility proposal to provide access over the tracks. He expressed his belief that having a highway move through the downtown would eliminate the ability to tie the downtown and waterfront together. He summarized that the City needs to do thoughtful planning, and he hopes his comments will create some activity towards good planning. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. English agreed with Mr. Hertrich that it is important to plan for the future, and he noted that the multimodal facility project is included in the CFP. He emphasized that no tunnel has been proposed for inclusion in either the CIP or the CFP. However, the alternative study would look at options to potentially solve the at -grade connections at Main and Dayton Streets. Mr. English advised that the Five Corners roundabout has been included in the CIP for a number of years, and the City recently received grant funding to move the project forward. He also explained that the City is just completing survey work for the Sunset Avenue sidewalk project, which is the first step in establishing a pre -design. The public will be invited to participate in the process once preliminary designs are available. Vice Chair Stewart said she supports the idea of considering the old Woodway High School site as a potential location for an aquatic center. She suggested that Mr. Hertrich attend the meetings of the Parks Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Planning Team. The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director is open to having more participants enter the discussion and express their ideas and concerns. She announced that community workshops are scheduled for October 16th and 17th to discuss the process for updating the PROS Plan. She urged Mr. Hertrich and others to attend one or both of these events. Board Member Tibbott asked staff to provide more insight into the lift stations. He agreed that they are unsightly. Mr. English pointed out that it is necessary to maintain access to the front of the structures, and there are also requirements for clearance. Each station had different screening requirements based on negotiations with adjacent property owners. Some stations have plants to buffer the visual impact of the equipment, and fences were used, as well. Board Member Tibbott asked if the lift stations needed to be that tall, and Mr. English answered that the height was needed to house the equipment necessary for the station to operate. He noted that the project did not go before the ADB for review. Chair Reed recalled public restrooms were identified as a high priority in the citizen survey that was done for the Strategic Plan. He suggested that restrooms should be incorporated into the CFP and CIP at some point. Mr. English said that the issue of restrooms could be addressed as part of the PROS Plan that is currently being updated. Once included in the PROS Plan, public restrooms could be added to the CIP. Vice Chair Stewart noted that the CIP identifies a number of sidewalk improvements near schools. However, some will not take place until 2016 or 2017. She expressed her belief that projects that improve safety for children should be high priorities. She recalled that at the recent PROS Team meeting, research was given that indicated parents and children would walk up to a mile to school if there was safe pedestrian access. Mr. English agreed that pedestrian access, particularly for children, is very important. He said the City would continue to seek grant funding for these projects. Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 253 of 461 Chair Reed commented that the timing on the first stop light after Westgate as you head out of town towards Interstate 5 has changed significantly. The length of time that cars are held up on SR-104 to allow cross traffic seems too long. He asked if the City or State controls the timing of this light. Mr. English answered that the City likely has control over the timing of the light, and he agreed to look into the matter. Vice Chair Stewart requested more information about the funds set aside for waterfront acquisition. She recalled that at the last PROS Team meeting there was discussion about how wonderful it would be to have a continuous walkway along the beach. Mr. English noted that these are park issues that would be better addressed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director. Board Member Tibbott said his understanding is that many of the capital projects related to transportation will be grant funded. He asked how the City would fund the maintenance projects. Mr. English agreed that many of the transportation capital improvement projects will be grant funded, and many will require the City to provide matching funds that will come from gas tax revenue. The City's current policy is that any REET revenue over $750,000 will be used for transportation projects. As the REET fund improves, there may be some additional funds for preservation work. Board Member Tibbott asked if the City has considered other options for funding such as tax levies or bonds. Mr. English answered not at this point. Board Member Tibbott asked if the park survey would help inform the CIP or CFP. Mr. English answered that the park survey will tie into the PROS Plan update and will result in potential changes to the CIP and CFP in coming years. Vice Chair Stewart announced that the draft PROS Plan should be available for public review by December 1st CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION IT BE INCORPORATED INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. HE FURTHER MOVED THAT THE BOARD FIND THE PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, IS NOT DETREMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE, AND WILL MAINTAIN THE APPROPRIATE BALANCE OF USES WITHIN THE CITY. VICE CHIAR STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD WTH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Reed commented that when the City Council considers the two plans, the Board would like them to take note of the public comment and the Board's discussion as they move forward to final approval. DISCUSSION ON WHETHER TO INCLUDE A DEFINITION OF "REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE" WITHIN THE CITY'S CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS (FILE NUMBER AMD20130009) City Attorney Taraday advised that he recently made a recommendation to the City Council that the definition of "reasonable economic use" be deleted from the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). This recommendation led to Interim Ordinance 3931 that was adopted by the City Council on July 2°d. The task before the Planning Board now is to consider the change for permanent adoption or to come up with another recommendation for the City Council to consider. City Attorney Taraday explained that when the CAO is applied to a property in such a manner that no reasonable economic use is allowed, a property owner can apply to the City for a reasonable use exception. This is very common in jurisdictions throughout the State, and the State's model CAO actually contains a very similar process and sets forth criteria that is almost word for word the same as the criteria in the City's reasonable use exception. The biggest difference is the City's defmition for "reasonable economic use" and the example that is provided. The definition and example essentially suggested that if a person owns a single-family residential lot, some type of single-family residential development must be allowed on the lot in order to allow for the reasonable economic use of the property. He expressed his belief that this is not an accurate statement of the law. He said the case law interpretation constitutes what ultimately covers whether or not reasonable economic use has been completely deprived from a property. Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 254 of 461 AM-6264 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 11/04/2013 Time: Submitted By: Department: Review Committee: Type: Subject Title 30 Minutes Stephen Clifton Community Services Information Information Committee Action: it. Discussion on Planning Board Recommendation to Limit Certain Office Uses from Locating in Business Spaces along Designated Ground Floor Street Frontages Within Downtown Business (BD 1 - Downtown Retail Core) Zone (File No. AMD20130013), and Setting a Public Hearing Date. Recommendation June 8, 2011 - During the Planning Board meeting, the Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the proposed amended table in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.43.020 and forward the recommendation to the City Council. The current proposal is similar in concept to what was proposed in June, 20111, i.e., limiting certain office uses from locating in business spaces along designated ground floor street frontages within the Downtown Business (BD 1 - Downtown Retail Core) Zone, however, modifications to the proposal have been made since the June 8, 2011 Planning Board meeting. June 13, 2013 — The Economic Development Commission expressed support to forward the proposal to limit certain office uses within in the BD 1 zone to the Planning Board with a statement that the EDC supports limiting office uses in the BD 1 Zone. The motion carried unanimously. October 9, 2013 - The Planning Board unanimously approved forwarding a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the proposed amendments to ECDC 16.43 (file number AMD20130013) as written and amended by staff (see amendment to footnote below table 16.43-1), in addition to recommending the City Council specifically evaluate the 90-day versus 180-day timeframe for nonconformance. Previous Council Action See Attachment 3 - Chronology of Events Narrative Amendments to Downtown Business (BD) Zones - The Planning Board discussed four potential amendments to the downtown BD zones beginning in March of 2011. One of the proposed amendments to the BD1 zone included limiting certain office uses from locating along the ground floor storefronts of designated street frontages within the Downtown Business (BD) 1 Zone. Attached are four documents related to this proposal: Attachment 1 - This document is titled Creating Economic Vitality - An Edmonds City Center That Is Packet Page 255 of 461 Economically Strong, Thriving, Lively and Social and was prepared by the Economic Development Commission Land Use Subcommittee. It contains an executive summary which references the primary goal of the proposal, an introduction, and references to City documents and various reasons cited by Roger Brooks for supporting the proposal and creating an outstanding downtown. It also includes a proposed draft amended Table referenced as Table 16.43-1 within the Edmonds Community Development Code which highlights which uses would or would not be limited to locating along the ground floor storefronts of designated street frontages within the BD Downtown Retail Core Zone. This document has been modified (see green text) based on comments received by the Planning Board during September 11, 2013 workshop (see below). Attachment 2 - Chronology of Events. Because this proposal has been discussed by the City Council, Planning Board and Economic Development Commission since early 2011, I thought it would be helpful to provide a chronology listing the dates and/or time frames when the issue was discussed by these entities and links to meeting agendas and minutes. Also included are references to two meetings held with owners of property located within the BD 1 Zone. Attachment 3 - Map depicting the boundary of the Downtown Business (BD) 1 Zone. Attachment 4 - As requested by property owners on May 13, 2013, a spreadsheet listing businesses located along the ground floor street frontages within the BD 1 Zone was prepared. Business spaces highlighted in yellow are those that would be affected under the proposal, albeit, there is no requirement for existing businesses to vacate spaces. Only when owners choose to vacate highlighted business spaces would the spaces need to be filled with an allowable use. Owners would have the ability to fill the vacated space with a similar use to the one that left, if it is done within 180 days or six months from the date a space is vacated. September 11, 2013, the Planning Board Workshop On September 11, 2013, the Planning Board conducted a workshop on the most recent proposal. During the meeting, the Planning Board asked about inserting clarifying language into Edmonds Community Development Code Section 16.43.020, Table 16.43.-1 related to real estate offices; recommended clarifying language related to the footnote BD 1 zone GFSF......... on page 8 of Attachment 1 specifically noting that buildings set back 15 feet from the sidewalk shall not be subject to the BD Zone GFSF; asked about how to address window displays; and a question was raised about applying a 90-day non-conformance timeline versus the City's current non-conformance timeline of 6 months, etc. Green text within Attachment 1 are modifications to the document based on discussions and issues raised during the September 11, 2013 Planning Board workshop. No new language has been added related to window displays as this is an issue that relates to visibility and aesthetics as opposed to the type of uses allowed in the BD 1 zone. Language relating to applying a 90-day non-conformance timeline to business spaces that are vacated, vs. a 6-month non-conformance timeline, is also not included within the document. The reason is that although the question was raised, there was no clear indication from the Planning Board that this is what they would support. City staff believes that 90 days is not much time to recruit businesses and the 6-month timeframe should be retained. Additionally, since one of the goals is at a minimum to prevent the number of certain office uses from increasing within the BD 1 Downtown Retail Core zone, the current proposal accomplishes this goal. October 9, 2013 On October 9, 2013 the Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the proposal. One business owner provided comments following Mr. Clifton's presentation (see attached minutes). Although the Packet Page 256 of 461 Planning Board unanimously approved forwarding a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the proposed amendments to ECDC 16.43 (file number AMD20130013) as written and amended by staff (see amendment to footnote below table 16.43-1 in Attachment 1), the Planning Board also recommended that the City Council evaluate a 90-day non-conformance timeframe versus the propsoed 180-day non-conformance timeframe. Attachments Attachment 1 - Proposal Overview tachment 2 - Chronology of Events Attachment 3 - BD 1 Zone Map Attachement 4 - Spreadsheet Listing Businesses Located along the Ground Floor of Designated Street Frontages within the BD 1 Zone Attachment 5 - Setember 11, 2013 Planning Board Minutes Attachment 6 - October 9, 2013 Planning Board Minutes Attachment 7 - Comments Received by Planning Board (2013) Letter from Joe Tovar (related to first comment in Attachment 7) Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Final Approval Date: 10/31/2013 Reviewed By Scott Passey Dave Earling Scott Passey Form Review Date 10/31/2013 11:24 AM 10/31/2013 11:44 AM 10/31/2013 04:33 PM Started On: 10/29/2013 10:50 AM Packet Page 257 of 461 CREATING ECONOMIC VITALITY AN EDMONDS CITY CENTER THAT IS ECONOMICALLY STRONG, THRIVING, LIVELY AND SOCIAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Goal: To preserve and strengthen the distinctive character and charm of downtown Edmonds by providing opportunities for retail/entertainment oriented establishments to cluster for the convenience of the public and to create mutually beneficial business relationships thereby creating a dedicated area for "destination retail/entertainment". Discussion: Downtowns are the social, cultural and economic centers of cities. In order to have a vibrant, lively, thriving and prosperous downtown core, the cities must encourage uses that generate high levels of pedestrian traffic in a concentrated area within ground floor spaces along street frontages that encourage/promote/attract specialty retail shops (housewares, books/music, wine, food, antique, and clothing stores), personal services (hair/beauty salons), eating and drinking establishments (bakeries, coffee shops, restaurants, bistros), entertainment venues (music houses/theaters, art galleries, and cultural facilities) and education centers; these types of uses reinforce the distinctive charm/character of Edmonds. These uses also tend to have windows with interesting displays, visibility into the businesses, and longer operating hours which add to a lively daytime and nighttime pedestrian environment within downtowns. A City can spend millions of dollars on beautification, public parking, street trees, facade improvements, and a host of other things yet still have a lifeless downtown. After all, what makes a downtown work as a community center is what's happening IN the buildings. Clustering works - people are drawn to a critical mass of similar/complimentary businesses. Retail/entertainment areas are dependent upon synergy and lively activity, not interrupted with uses other than retail; eating; drinking; and entertainment oriented services on the ground floor. Requiring professional office uses to locate behind ground floor retail or on the second floor of buildings within a downtown core provides more street frontage spaces for these types of uses, thus creating a well-defined core that generates higher levels of ground floor activity. By focusing on clustering retail/entertainment uses and requiring office uses to locate behind retail/entertainment or on the second floor of buildings within a specific geographic area, this could result in the establishment of a "niche" making Downtown Edmonds competitive with outlying areas; competitive environment in terms of attracting patrons and "local tourists", as well as drawing desirable establishments that help further define Edmonds' brand. Recommendation: Support the passage of a proposed ordinance limiting certain office uses from locating along designated ground level street frontages (first 45 feet) of the downtown core. Packet Page 258 of 461 CREATING ECONOMIC VITALITY AN EDMONDS CITY CENTER THAT IS ECONOMICALLY STRONG, THRIVING, LIVELY AND SOCIAL Introduction. Downtowns are the social, cultural and economic centers of cities. As such they should maintain a wide range of uses at a compact and walkable scale while providing appropriately designated areas for professional offices, service establishments, retail/eating/drinking/entertainment oriented uses, and recreational amenities offering various ranges of commodities and services. The City of Edmonds hosted a public meeting on November 8, 2012 during which Roger Brooks, Destination Development Inc., presented information on the topics of marketing and downtown destination development. What makes an outstanding downtown? Mr. Brooks mentioned 20 critical ingredients and elaborated on each; these include: • Nearly all begin with a plan - Importance of having one • Defining a strong brand and retail focus • Orchestrating recruitment of "critical mass" or "clustering" • Establishing anchor tenants • Lease agreements include defined operating hours and days (consistency) • People living and/or staying downtown: hotels, condos, loft apartments • Identifying pioneers with patient money and convincing them to invest • Starting with just one block - a "demonstration project" • Public washrooms • Developing gathering places • Creating positive first impressions - Community gateways • Designing, fabricating and installing a wayfinding system (signage) • A good first impression — District or Neighborhood gateways • 20/20 signage equals $$$ (blade signs?) • Sidewalk cafes and dining • Investing heavily in retail beautification • Activities and entertainment • Distinctive downtown district names • Experiential marketing NOTE: Ingredients highlighted in blue above tie to creating a dedicated area for "destination retail/entertainment". Packet Page 259 of 461 Edmonds' current planning documents are supportive of several critical ingredients referenced above. The City's Comprehensive Plan has goals and policies which include: • "promote downtown 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 from throughout the region" (pg. 44). • "define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian -oriented design elements, while protecting downtown's identity" (pg. 45). • "...provide for a strong central retail core at downtown's focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core...." (pg. 45). The City's Economic Development Plan also contains goals that tie directly to some of the 20 critical ingredients, Le..... • Goal 2: "revitalize the City's business districts, balancing redevelopment, preservation and the need for consumer amenities" • Goal 3: "diversify the tax base and increase revenues" • Goal 4: "strengthen the quality of life and vitality of the community for residents, workers and visitors to enjoy" Goal 2 Policy 2i of the City's Economic Development Plan is more specific, i.e., "Create synergy for commercial businesses where possible, for example, by implementing a "retail core" area in the downtown". Defining and Enhancing the Downtown Core by Establishing a Retail/Entertainment Focus. When information provided by Mr. Brooks is combined with goals and policies contained within City adopted plans, what stands out is the issue of defining a retail focus and creating a critical mass or clustering within the downtown core. In order to have a vibrant, lively, thriving and prosperous downtown core, the City must encourage uses that generate high levels of pedestrian traffic in a concentrated area within ground floor spaces along street frontages that encourage/promote/attract specialty retail shops (housewares, books, wine, food, antique, clothing and music stores), personal services (hair/beauty salons), eating and drinking establishments (bakeries, coffee shops, restaurants, bistros), entertainment venues (music houses/theaters, art galleries, and cultural facilities) and education centers...... all of which reinforce the distinctive charm/character of Edmonds. These uses tend to have windows with interesting displays, visibility into the businesses, and longer operating hours which add to a lively daytime and nighttime pedestrian environment within the Downtown. Packet Page 260 of 461 Creating, implementing and maintaining a vibrant, lively, thriving and prosperous downtown core. In addition to marketing, installation of physical improvements, and recruitment of certain types of businesses, one way to enhance/strengthen the "retail/dining/drinking/entertainment" core is to preserve ground floor space along designated commercial street frontages for commercial retail/service oriented uses/businesses where possible. • The term preserve or preservation equates to possibly limiting office uses along the ground floor of designated street frontages within Edmonds (this would apply to the first 45 feet only measured from public rights -of -way or sidewalk). Office typically means a building or separately defined space within a building used for a business which does not include on -premises sales of goods or commodities. Requiring professional office uses to locate behind ground floor retail or on the second floor of buildings within the downtown core, e.g., land zoned BD1, would provide more street frontage spaces for these types of uses, thus creating a well-defined core that generates higher levels of ground floor activity and hopefully establishing a "niche" making Downtown Edmonds competitive with outlying areas. Starting with BD1 zoned land only could serve as an initial phase, i.e., a "demonstration" and if successful, could be expanded. • Ultimately, the desire is to provide opportunities for retail oriented establishments to cluster for the convenience of the public and for efficient business operations in mutually beneficial relationships to each other, and finally to enhance and protect the retail/entertainment oriented core of downtown from the intrusion of incompatible activities which might impair the areas' appearance or functioning as a convenient, lively, and thriving retail/entertainment oriented area. It is intended that all uses in this area maintain ground floor visibility to serve patrons on an unannounced or drop -in basis, conduct a majority of their business face-to-face on the premises with their customers, and maintain retail storefronts comparable to traditional retail sales operations, including display of goods and services for sale. There are significant reasons for supporting and maintaining a focus on retail/eating/drinking/entertainment uses along street frontages within the 113131 zone or downtown core area; these include: • Clustering works - People are drawn to a critical mass of like -businesses; think food court, gas stations or auto malls. Retail areas are dependent upon synergy and lively activity which is interrupted when uses other than retail/eating/drinking/entertainment oriented/service exist on the ground floor adjacent to public rights of way/sidewalks. • There is power in "Critical Mass" - A great case study? Walnut Creek, California - similar in size to Edmonds, 20 minutes from Oakland, and half an hour east of San Packet Page 261 of 461 Francisco. In their downtown they have more than 85 restaurants - and you can walk to all of them within 7 or 8 minutes. The locals hang out in their own town, and now it's become a major destination city for ALL of Northern California. That's the power of "Critical Mass." • Creating a dedicated area for "destination retail/entertainment," often referred to in planning circles as "festival retail." This is where a City can have a "restaurant row" and many non -chain, non -franchise, businesses that are organic to Edmonds. Included in this mix must be a couple of "anchor tenants," just like a mall. • A City can spend millions of dollars on beautification, public parking, street trees, facade improvements, and a host of other things and still have a lifeless downtown. After all, what makes a downtown work is what's IN the buildings. The rest is ambiance - important - but not the ultimate reason we spend time downtown. A City and business community MUST help orchestrate the business mix - expressing support to establish a retail/dining/entertainment core helps dictate the kind of businesses to recruit. • Office uses typically close in the early evenings and weekends, creating dark, lifeless streetscapes, thereby discouraging a pedestrian friendly environment extending into the later evening. The resulting impression of the area is that it is not inviting, interesting, nor friendly to walk around. • Because Edmonds' downtown has many one and two-story buildings and a low height limit, Downtown Edmonds is challenged with getting the density of customers necessary that would allow more sparse retail to survive without the synergy from a consistent clustering of retail/service uses. • "Charming & thriving downtowns" to which people strive to emulate: Walnut Creek, Carmel and Palo Alto, CA, and other cities, place limits on what can take place at/near the street level. Assessment: If the City Council were to support the passage of a proposed ordinance limiting uses along designated street frontages (first 45 feet) of the BD1 zone, this should accompany a requirement to re-evaluate the ordinance within two -three years to ensure that the ordinance is having a positive effect on the downtown core and vicinity in general. Packet Page 262 of 461 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1. Permitted Uses BD1 BD1 GFSF BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A A A A A A Offices A X A A A A Legal/Law Firms X Financial X Advising X Mortgage X Banks (without tellers) X Accounting X Counseling X Architecture X Engineering X Advertising X Insurance X Fitness related business (yoga/pilates/gym/fitness club) X Service uses A A A A A Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment storage, sales or services X X X X X Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant, microbreweries/distilleries or food service establishment that also provides an on -site retail outlet open to the public A A A A A Automobile sales and service X A A X X Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents C A A A X Printing, publishing and binding establishments C A A A C Public markets licensed pursuant to provisions in Chapter A A A A A 4.90 ECC' Packet Page 263 of 461 Permitted Uses Residential Uses 13131 BD1 GFSF BD2 BD3 13134 13135 Single-family dwelling A X A A A A Multiple dwelling unit(s) — must be located on second floor or behind first 45 feet from sidewalk or rights of way. A A A A A Permitted Uses Other Uses 13131 13131 GFSF BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Bus stop shelters A A A A A A Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R) A A A A A Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 C C C A C Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 A A A A A Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B B B B B Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone B B B B X Commercial parking lots C X C C C X Wholesale uses X X X C X X Hotels and motels A A A A A A Amusement establishments C C C C C C Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C X C C C C Drive-in/through businesses (businesses with drive through facilities) X C A C X Laboratories X C C C X Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use X X C X X Packet Page 264 of 461 Permitted Uses BD1 BD1 GFSF BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Day-care centers C X C C A C Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums X X C C A X Medical uses, e.g., A X Physicians A X Dental A X Optometrist (without retail) A X Physical Therapy (without retail) A X Counseling A X Other similar medical services A X Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 A A A A A A Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 C X C C C A Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers X X C C A X Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 C C C C C C Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D X D D D D Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC X X D D I D I D A = Permitted primary use B = Permitted secondary use C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit X = Not permitted BD1 Zone GFSF = Ground Floor Designated Street Frontage (first 45 feet measured from public rights of way/sidewalk or park/plaza) as defined under Edmonds Community Development Code Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for BD Zones. Buildings set back 15 feet or more from the sidewalk shall not be subject to the BD1 Zone GFSF requirements. * Services (by appointment uses) not providing open door retail/dining/entertainment functions as a primary component of the business are not allowed within BD1 GFSF (first 45 feet). Open door businesses, e.g., real estate offices, banks (with tellers and no drive throughs), nail and hair salons are allowed. Packet Page 265 of 461 Proposal to Limit Certain Office Uses from Locating in Business Spaces along Designated Ground Floor Street Frontages within the Downtown Business (BD) 1 Zone Chronology of Events 2011 The Planning Board discussed four potential amendments to Downtown BD zones during meetings on March 9 (minutes), March 23 (minutes), April 13 (minutes), and April 27 (minutes). One of the proposed amendments to the BD1 zone included limiting certain office from locating along the ground floor storefronts of designated street frontages within the Downtown Business (BD) 1 Zone. June 8 (minutes) - During the Planning Board meeting, the Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the proposed amended table in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.43.020 and forward the recommendation to the City Council. July 26 (minutes) - The City Council held a public hearing on the Planning Board's recommendation to support potential amendments to downtown BD Zones. The Council voted to reschedule this item and it was to be placed on the August 9, 2011 City Council CS/DS aka Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee. August 9 (minutes — see page 6 of August 15th Council meeting) —The City Council CS/DS aka Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee agreed to forward to the full Council for further action; no committee recommendation. August 23 (minutes) - The City Council voted against limiting certain office uses from locating in storefronts/spaces along the ground floor of designated street frontages within the BD1 Zone (2-3 vote). September 27 (minutes) - No action was taken by the City Council; a request was made to reschedule this item on an agenda when all Council members were present. October 4 (minutes) - No action was taken by the City Council. This item was postponed to a future City Council meeting. 2012 February 7 (minutes) - The City Council discussed reconsideration of this issue and expressed an interest in studying it further during a 4th Tuesday work session, most likely in May, 2012. August 6 (minutes) - The City Council voted to schedule this item to the August 14, 2012 Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee as a discussion item and to reschedule before the full council at the following City Council meeting for discussion and possible action. August 14—The City Council voted to support scheduling a special Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee meeting on August 20, 2013 to discuss two items, this being one of them. Packet Page 266 of 461 August 20 (minutes) - The City Council Planning, Parks and Public Works committee discussed the issue of limiting certain office uses from locating within ground floor storefronts along designated street frontages within the BD1 Zone. No recommendation was made. August 21 (minutes) — the Edmonds City Council voted to refer this issue to the Planning Board and Economic Development Commission, more specifically, to discuss what kind of office only uses should be limited and any other proposals the EDC and Planning Board feel are appropriate. October 8 — Several members of the Economic Department Commission and Planning Board participated in a field trip to the City of Kirkland, Washington to meet with Eric Shields, Kirkland Planning Director. The purpose of the meeting/walkabout was to discuss the City's implementation of downtown land use codes related to mixed use zoning and in particular, limiting office uses on the ground floor near street frontages within Kirkland's downtown core. Mr. Shields conducted a tour of the Kirkland downtown and discussed the City's limitation on certain office uses within its core, answered questions from City of Edmonds representatives, and talked about how the limitations have worked since 1990. Overall, the regulations have been working fairly well. 2011/2012/2013 — This issue has been discussed at numerous Economic Development Commission meetings. Following the field trip to Kirkland, the EDC Land Use Committee scheduled a few meetings to discuss this topic and prepare an issue paper that includes an executive summary, introduction, and references to City documents and various reasons cited by Roger Brooks for supporting the proposal. Part of the committee discussions included providing clarity as it relates to the following three primary concerns raised during discussions at Planning Board and/or City Council meetings, before bringing back to the full Economic Development Commission. What are the proposed boundaries of a zone that would restrict office uses (see attached map)? More clearly define what would be allowed and not allowed in a retail only/commercial core (see attached amended ECDC Table 16.43-1). Grandfathering - how long is the proposed period before a landlord has to conform to new regulations, if amended? 2013 May 13 — Because subject proposal has a direct effect on owners of property located within the BD1 Zone, property owners were invited to attend a meeting in the City Hall Brackett Meeting Room. Mr. Clifton provided and overview of the proposal and talked about why the proposal is being considered by the City. Roger Brooks, Destination Development Inc. (DDI), spoke about the benefits of clustering and power in critical mass. Property owners were provided the issue paper prepared by the Economic Development Commission Land Use Subcommittee which included a proposed draft amended Table referenced as Table 16.43-1 within the Edmonds Community Development Code. Property owners were also given an opportunity to ask questions. At the conclusion of meeting, Mr. Brooks asked property/building owners attending the meeting to express their thoughts on this proposal. Preliminary support was expressed by several individuals and others wanted to discuss this issue further; no one expressed outright opposition to the proposal. Additionally, a request was made for the City to conduct an inventory of what businesses currently exist along designated ground level Packet Page 267 of 461 street frontages in the Edmonds downtown core, i.e., BD 1 Zone; this task was completed and presented during a second meeting with owners of property in September, 2013. June 19 (minutes) — The Economic Development Commission expressed support to forward the proposal to limit certain office uses within in the BD1 zone to the Planning Board with a statement that the EDC supports limiting office uses in the BD1 Zone. The motion carried unanimously. September 4 — Owners of property located within the BD1 Zone were invited to a second meeting in the City Hall Brackett Meeting Room. Similar to the meeting which took place on May 13, 2013, Mr. Clifton provided an overview of the proposal and talked about why the proposal is being considered by the City. Mr. Brooks did not attend this meeting so Mr. Clifton highlighted Mr. Brooks' 20 Ingredients for an Outstanding Downtown and how several relate to subject proposal. He referenced Mr. Brooks' comments about clustering and power in critical mass. Property owners were also provided the issue paper prepared by the Economic Development Commission Land Use Subcommittee which included a proposed draft amended Table referenced as Table 16.43-1 within the Edmonds Community Development Code. As requested by property owners on May 13, 2013, a spreadsheet listing businesses located along the ground floor street frontages within the BD 1 Zone was also provided. Business spaces highlighted in yellow are those that would be affected under the proposal, albeit, there is no requirement for existing businesses to vacate spaces. Only when owners choose to vacate certain business spaces would they need to be filled with an allowable use. Owners would have the ability to fill the vacated space with a similar use to the one that left, if it is done within 180 days or six months from the date a space is vacated. Property owners were given an opportunity to ask questions. No statements opposed to the proposal were made and general support was expressed by those attending the meeting. September 11, 2013 (minutes) -The Planning Board conducted a workshop on the most recent proposal. During the meeting, the Planning Board asked about.... inserting clarifying language in the Service Uses line item within ECDC Section 16.43.020, Table 16.43.-1 related to real estate office; recommended clarifying language related to the footnote BD1 zone GFSF......... on page 8 of Attachment 1 specifically noting that buildings set back 15 feet from the sidewalk shall not be subject to the BD1 Zone GFSF; asked about how to address window displays; and a question was raised about applying a 90-day non-conformance timeline versus the City's current non- conformance timeline of 6 months, etc. October 9, 2013 (minutes) - The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the proposal. One business owner provided comments following Mr. Clifton's presentation (see attached minutes). Although the Planning Board unanimously approved forwarding a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the proposed amendments to ECDC 16.43 (file number AMD20130013) as written and amended by staff (see amendment to footnote below table 16.43-1). The issue of whether a 90-day vs. 180-day timeframe for non-conformance was discussed by the Planning Board and seemed to be a significant enough issue that the Planning Board also recommended that the City Council evaluate the 90-day versus 180-day timeframe. Packet Page 268 of 461 :1 0 Cb� sr � iry VL 122 > 115 a LESLIE 128 127�Z 2 140 H AYTN ST i PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 508 CD 510 514 us' 10 �1r r 10 104 11 110 120 122 124 130 Q c� 20CD cl � 21 27 215 23 0 U) 210 1 22 4ki 23 2 Packet Pag41 iff61229 MAIN ST mwIF Lu DYT < . 01 LLD cq CNIc� MILLT ' N HRI STIAN U)l 203 23 SCIENCE 1 CHURCH 0 51 U-> 240 49-0 Fe et A I B I C I D I E I F I G 1 NOTE: Business spaces highlighted in yellow are those that would be effected by the proposal. Existing businesses are not required to relocate or cease operations. Only when owners choose to vacate businesses would highlighted spaces need to be filled with an allowable use. Owners would have the ability to fill the vacated space with a similar use to the one that left, if it is done within 180 days or six months from the date a space is vacated. Inventory current as of September 6, 2013. 2 Description Address Suite City State Zip 3 SOUND STYLES DBA JENKA INC Retail Trade 100 5TH AVE N EDMONDS WA 98020 4 GARDEN GEAR & GALLERY Retail Trade 102 5TH AVE N EDMONDS WA 98020 5 NAMAS CANDY STORE Retail Trade 102 5TH AVE N B EDMONDS WA 98020 6 TREASURES AND TEAS ADVANCED HEARING SYSTEMS WOODEN SPOON LLC Retail Trade 102 5TH AVE S EDMONDS Retail Trade 104 5TH AVE N EDMONDS Retail Trade 104 5TH AVE S EDMONDS WA WA WA 98020 98020 98020 7 8 9 CLINE JEWELERS Services EDWARD JONES Services ICOLE GALLERY AND ARTISTS SUPPLIES Retail Trade 105 5TH AVE S EDMONDS 107 5TH AVE N STE 101 EDMONDS 107 5TH AVE S EDMONDS WA WA WA 98020 98020 98020 10 11 12 RUSTY PELICAN CAFE EDMONDS INC Retail Trade 107 5TH AVE N EDMONDS WA 98020 13 COLDWELL BANKER BAIN ASSOC Services 108 5TH AVE S EDMONDS WA 98020 14 JACK MURPHYS BAR Services 109 4TH AVE N EDMONDS WA 98020 15 THE HAGGEN FIRM LLC BREAKTHROUGH PARTNERS SEMANTICS GALLERY LLC CLOSED Services Non Profit Retail Trade 110 3RD AVE N 110 3RD AVE N 110 4TH AVE N 201 101 EDMONDS EDMONDS EDMONDS WA WA WA 98020 98020 98020 16 17 18 EMBELLISHED INC Services Ill 4TH AVE N EDMONDS WA 0 19 EDMONDS BOOKSHOP Retail Trade 111 5TH AVE S EDMONDS WA 98020 20 EDMONDS TRAVELER INC (Savvy Traveler) Services 112 5TH AVE S EDMONDS WA 0 21 ENGELS PUB & DELI Retail Trade 113 5TH AVE S EDMONDS WA 0 22 ENGELS PUB & DELI Retail Trade 113 5TH AVE S EDMONDS WA 0 23 RED TWIG LLC Retail Trade 117 5TH AVE S EDMONDS WA 98020 24 CHRISTIAN SCIENCE READING ROOM KOENIG FINANCIAL GROUP SAETIA LLC TWIST VINYASA YOGA Canarino Gelato Non Profit Services Retail Trade Other Retail Trade 120 5TH AVE S SUITE C 120 5TH AVE S SUITE B 120 5TH AVE S A 122 5TH AVE S STE A 201 5TH AVE S Suite 105 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98020 25 26 27 28 29 1 EDMONDS GLIDE TOURS-SEGWAY OF EDMONDS Services 201 5TH AVE S STE 106 EDMONDS WA 0 Packet Page 270 of 461 A B C D E F G 30 EDMONDS VISION CENTER PS INC Retail Trade 201 5TH AVE S 102 EDMONDS WA 98020 31 LAS BRISAS Services 201 5TH AVE S 101 EDMONDS WA 0 SOUNDVIEW FAMILY DENTAL Other 201 5TH AVE S STE 103 EDMONDS WA 0 BANK OF WASHINGTON ice/Insurance/Real E: 202 5TH AVE S EDMONDS WA 98020 ICHEESEMONGERS TABLE Services 203 5TH AVE S STE 1 EDMONDS WA 98020 32 33 34 35 DUANES BARBER SHOP LLC Services 203 5TH AVE S STE 7 EDMONDS WA 98020 36 MILLTOWN LOUNGE Retail Trade 203 5TH AVE S STE 4 EDMONDS WA 98020 37 MILLTOWN NAILS & SKINCARE Services 203 5TH AVE S STE 3 EDMONDS WA 98020 38 OTHERWORLDS Retail Trade 203 5TH AVE S STE 2 EDMONDS WA 98020 39 Cafe' Louvre EDWARD D JONES & CO LP WINDERMERE MORTGAGE SERVICE SERIES LLC/GH Retail Trade Services Services 210 5TH AVE S 210 5TH AVE S 210 5TH AVE S EDMONDS STE 104 EDMONDS STE 102 EDMONDS WA WA WA 98020 98020 0 40 41 42 WINDERMERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT/LORI GILL &ice/Insurance/Real E! 210 5TH AVE S STE 203 EDMONDS WA 0 43 WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE/GH LLC Services 210 5TH AVE S SUITE 102 EDMONDS WA 98020 44 CLAIRES PANTRY Retail Trade 301 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA BANK OF AMERICA NA 4353-0010108 Retail Trade 306 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA TOSHIS TERRYAKI & BURGER Services 311 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA EDWARD JONES INVESTMENTS ice/Insurance/Real E! 313 MAIN ST STE 101 EDMONDS WA CHANTERELLE SPECIALTY FOODS Services 316 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 98020 0 98020 98020 45 46 47 48 49 IWISHING STONE LLC Retail Trade 317 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 50 HOUSE WARES INC Retail Trade 318 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0 51 IMAS STUDIO NAILS & SKIN Services 319 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 52 RED PETAL CAKES Retail Trade 321 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 53 Bill the Butcher Retail Trade 323 Main St. EDMONDS WA 98020 54 INTERIORS OF EDMONDS Retail Trade 326 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0 55 SEMANTICS GALLERY II CLOSED Retail Trade 401 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0 56 BELLISSIMO SALON-BELLISSIMO HAIR SALON INC Services 402 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0 57 CHRISTINES Retail Trade 403 1/2 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 58 A.T. JEWELERS Retail Trade 403 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 59 DESIGNER CONSIGNOR LLC DBA REBEKAH Retail Trade 404 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 60 KATE ALISE BOUTIQUE LLC Retail Trade 405 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0 61 STUNNINGLY STRANGE Retail Trade 407 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 62 ART SPOT Retail Trade 408 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 Packet Page 271 of 461 A B C D E F G 63 MANYA VEE SELECTS LLC Retail Trade 409 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 64 COMSTOCK JEWELERS INC Retail Trade 411 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 65 PAPERY THE Retail Trade 412 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 66 MAIN STREET BURGERS Other 414 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0 67 DAPHNES CAFE Services 415 MAIN ST SUITE A EDMONDS WA 98020 68 Edmonds Theater Movie Theater 415 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 69 THAI COTTAGE RESTAURANT Retail Trade 417 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 70 EDMONDS BAKERY Retail Trade 418 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 71 TERIS TOYBOX Retail Trade 420 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 72 KINDER BRITCHES Retail Trade 422 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0 73 EL PUERTO INC Retail Trade 425 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 74 STARBUCKS COFFEE #10764 Retail Trade 502 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 75 GALLERY NORTH Retail Trade 508 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0 76 GLAZED & AMAZED LLC Retail Trade 514 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 77 LOFT THE Services 515 MAIN ST STE A EDMONDS WA 0 78 A VERY TAKI TIKI BAR & GRILL- BENNBOYS LLC Retail Trade 518 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 79 HOME STYLE MERCANTILE Non Profit 519 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0 80 FABRIC OF LIFE FOUNDATION LONGSTAFF JOAN AND ASSOCIATES FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP EDMONDS TIM SQUARED LLC- EPULO RESTAURANT Non Profit 523 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0 81 Services Services Retail Trade 524 MAIN ST 525 MAIN ST 526 MAIN ST EDMONDS EDMONDS EDMONDS WA WA WA 98020 98020 98020 82 83 84 REVELATIONS YOGURT LLC Retail Trade 527 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 85 KARA NAILS Services 533 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 86 ARTWORKS ARIA STUDIO GALLERY Retail Trade 535 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 87 Christopher FRAMING & GALLERY Retail Trade 537 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 88 MODA HAIR CAFE & DAY SPA INC Services 538 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 89 EWING ELECTRIC INC Retail Trade 539 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0 90 RELIABLE FLOOR COVERING INC Retail Trade 542 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 91 BEVERLY ROGERS LMP Services 543 MAIN ST STE 102 EDMONDS WA 98020 HEAVENLY HANDS MASSAGE THERAPY Services 543 MAIN ST 101 EDMONDS WA 98020 HYPNOTIC JOURNEY LLC Services 543 MAIN ST STE E EDMONDS WA 0 JACOBS MERRI LEE PHD Services 543 MAIN ST STE105 EDMONDS WA 98020 JAMIESON DIANE L PH D PS Services 543 MAIN ST 104 EDMONDS WA 98020 92 93 94 95 Packet Page 272 of 461 A B C D E F G 96 LAWRENCE MAGGIE INCORPORATED Services 543 MAIN ST SUITE 102 EDMONDS WA 98020 MERCK COUNSELING SERVICES Services 543 MAIN ST SUITE 103 EDMONDS WA 98020 NW INSTITUTE OF VEDIC SCIENCES Services 543 MAIN ST STE D EDMONDS WA 0 97 98 99 TONY D POOL OD Services 543 MAIN ST SUITE C EDMONDS WA 98020 100 TOUCHSTONE MANUAL THERAPY Services 543 MAIN ST SUITE B EDMONDS WA 98020 101 EDMONDS FAMILY DENTISTRY Services 545 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0 102 STEWART FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC Services 547 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 103 HOPPER PATRICIA Quietude Massage Other 549 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0 104 SWEARINGEN INC Quietude Massage Services 549 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 0 105 NEXT TO NATURE Retail Trade 550 MAIN ST SUITE A EDMONDS WA 98020 106 OMBU SALON AND SPA Services 550 MAIN ST B EDMONDS WA 98020 107 PINK HOUSE 555 MAIN ST EDMONDS WA 98020 Packet Page 273 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 11, 2013 Chair Reed called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5"b Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT John Reed, Chair Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair Bill Ellis Philip Lovell Neil Tibbott BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Kevin Clarke (excused) Todd Cloutier (excused) Ian Duncan (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2013 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, advised that he is a member of the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and participates on the Land Use Subcommittee. He clarified that he was not present to speak on behalf of the Land Use Subcommittee or the EDC, but it is fair to presume that his comments reflect the subcommittee's discussion regarding the proposal to limit certain office uses within the Downtown Business (BD) 1 zone. He noted that the goal of the proposal is "To preserve and strengthen the distinctive character and charm of downtown Edmonds by providing opportunities for retail/entertainment oriented establishments to cluster for the convenience of the public and to create mutually beneficial business relationships thereby creating a dedicated area for `destination retail/entertainment. "' Mr. Senderoff recognized the efforts of the Planning Board to put forward a similar concept for discussion in 2011. While the City Council considered the concept, they did not take action to move it forward. It was noted that more background information was necessary to support the concept. Packet Page 274 of 461 Mr. Senderoff voiced his support for the current proposal. He pointed out that all of the comments he has made in various City meetings over the past several years reflect that he is a strong supporter of traditional values in Edmonds, and he believes the proposal falls within that realm. He said it is important to note that the the goal statement mentions the "distinctive character and charm of Edmonds," and the City should build on this. He observed that all candidates for City Council positions in recent years have made the "character and charm of Edmonds" a platform of their campaign. Mr. Senderoff clarified that the proposed change is not intended to impose upon property owners. In fact, Mr. Clifton has taken the lead in conversations with property owners who are generally supportive of the concept. The goal of the proposal is to put forth a program that benefits the investment potential of property owners, the success of businesses, and the community values important to residents and tourists to downtown Edmonds. Mr. Senderoff advised that, during their deliberations on the proposal, the EDC had lengthy discussions about the uses that should be permitted in the BD1 zone, particularly real estate offices. The City Council discussed this issue, as well. It was discussed that people typically stop and look at the pictures of properties for sale within the City, and this swayed the EDC's decision to allow real estate uses in the BD1 zone. It is also important to keep in mind that real estate will always be a significant component of the City's economy. While the EDC is recommending that real estate offices be allowed, the proposed change does not specifically point that out. Instead, real estate uses would simply fall under the category of "service." He suggested that in order to provide clarity, a note could be added below the use table (ECDC 16.43-1) to provide specific examples of service uses that would be allowed and disallowed. This would help clarify the issue as the proposal moves forward to the City Council. DISCUSSION ON PROPOSAL TO LIMIT CERTAIN OFFICE USES FROM LOCATING IN BUSINESS SPACES ALONG DESIGNATED GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTAGES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS (BD) 1 ZONE Mr. Clifton advised that the proposal to limit certain offices uses from locating in businesses spaces along designated ground floor street frontages within the BD1 zone has been discussed by the City Council, Planning Board and Economic Development Commission since early 2011. He referred to the Staff Report, which contains the following documents: Attachment 1 is titled, "Creating Economic Vitality — An Edmonds City Center That is Economically Strong, Thriving, Lively and Social." The document was prepared by the EDC and provides a summary and introduction, as well as references to City documents and various reasons cited by Roger Brooks for supporting the proposal. He noted that while the agenda titles the proposal as "limiting certain offices uses from locating in business spaces along designated ground floor street frontages within the BD1 zone," the issue paper is actually titled, "Creating Economic Vitality — An Edmonds City Center that is Economically Strong, Thriving, Lively and Social. He summarized that the issue paper's title more accurately reflects the true goal of the proposal. • Attachment 2 provides a chronology of events. Because the process has been going on for 2.5 years, he felt it would be helpful to put together a list of all the Planning Board, City Council and EDC agendas related to the topic. The City's website provides links to the meeting agendas and minutes for these various meetings. In addition to these meetings, members of the Planning Board and EDC participated in a field trip to the City of Kirkland to meet with Eric Shields, Kirkland Planning Director. Staff also met with property owners within the BD1 zone on two occasions to discuss the concept and solicit feedback. • Attachment 3 is a map depicting the boundary of the BD zone. • Attachment 4 is an inventory of businesses located along the ground floor street frontages within the BD 1 zone. The inventory was prepared at the request of property owners at a May 13, 2013 meeting with staff. The property owners wanted a better understanding of how many businesses and property owners would be affected by the proposed change. The business spaces highlighted in yellow are those that would be affected under the proposal. Mr. Clifton said his comments are intended to explain why consideration should be given to restricting and promoting certain uses along designated ground level street frontages within the BD1 zone. He recalled that the proposed concept was raised, in part, as a result of past conversations with property owners and leasing agents, and looking at what other cities are doing to Packet Page 275 of 461 create a stronger retail and entertainment core. He observed that the concept or goal of creating a stronger retail core within the City of Edmonds actually goes back to 2006. Policy 2.i in the adopted Economic Development Plan states, "create synergy for commercial businesses where possible, for example, by implementing a retail core area in the downtown." Mr. Clifton explained that another way to phrase the proposal is "how can the community open up more opportunities for retail dining, specialty shops, entertainment venues, and galleries within a concentrated area. He pointed out that the land use goals and strategies for many downtown areas incorporate prominent themes: a central gathering place, a sense of place, connectivity and density. In order to achieve these objectives, downtowns need economic development and vitality, safety, housing, businesses and tourism. A vibrant retail service core helps advance these objectives. Mr. Clifton stated his belief that retail restaurants and open-door service uses, particularly those that are independently owned, add to Edmonds distinctiveness because they are the most visible elements within the downtown core of Edmonds. As stated in 2010 email he sent to a property owner, "Edmonds' unique downtown character is defined by the diversity and concentration of complimentary commercial uses such as restaurants, cafes, art galleries, house wares, books, garden supplies, specialty boutiques, etc. These uses generate pedestrian activity and a lively social environment that, in turn, sustain a mix of uses. A critical mass of this type of activity will also help create the drawing power of a central, commercial, retail sector. While pure, by -appointment office uses have the ability and the flexibility to open in more locations within commercial areas, uses such as retail stores, restaurants, art galleries, etc. have limited business spaces and stock and thrive best when there is a concentration of similar uses. Mr. Clifton reported that the City and business community have been working to attract businesses that will help bring life to the City's downtown streets during the weekend and evening hours, and it is starting to pay off. He noted at a public meeting hosted by the City of Edmonds on November 8, 2012, Roger Brooks, Destination Development, Inc., spoke of the 20 critical ingredients of an outstanding downtown. Two of the ingredients relate to how clustering like businesses works and the power in critical mass. Mr. Brooks noted that, "a city can spend millions of dollars on beautification, public parking, street trees, fagade improvements, and a host of other things. While this helps improve the physical environment, a downtown can still be lifeless." He said he experienced this on a recent trip to downtown Phoenix where the streetscape was absolutely beautiful, but there were very few people on the streets. He commented that what makes a downtown work, as a community center and gathering place, is what is happening in the buildings. It is important to have businesses along the streetscape that attract people. Mr. Clifton pointed out that office uses typically close in the early evenings and on weekends, creating less lively and darker streetscapes. The resulting impression of the area is that it is not inviting, thriving, interesting or friendly to walk around. A healthy retail core is also important for maintaining safe streets in many central cities. According to the document, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Guidelines, businesses on the ground floor provide eyes on the street and deter criminal activity. Retail restaurants, art galleries, etc. stay open for longer periods of time than office uses, thus providing more activity on the street beyond 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. The proposal before the Board, over time, is expected to help create a more concentrated, festival retail environment that does not close up after 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. It will result in a downtown core that invites people to hang out and enjoy the environment later into the evening. Regarding intensity or density, Mr. Clifton explained that retail, restaurant, art gallery, and active service uses can also help stimulate housing and business development within the downtown areas. They often provide essential services to the City residents living and working downtown. This can be partially attributed to the vibrancy that these uses add to the downtown streets. Regarding tourism, Mr. Clifton advised that a strong retail, restaurant, gallery, and active service core helps attract shoppers and tourists. He noted that tourists invest significant amounts of money into many city, county and state economies. In fact, tourism is the State's fourth largest industry. It supports businesses and their employees, and downtown Edmonds is home to many independent retailers and restaurants. When tourists are shopping downtown, they are supporting the growth of smaller, independent businesses. Conversely, negative fluctuations in the retail market, such as the absence of a critical mass, can result in vacant store fronts, thus affecting the street environment and eventually weakening the vitality of the downtown core. He emphasized that retail and active service uses are a critical part of sustaining the health of the downtown. Packet Page 276 of 461 Mr. Clifton recommended that a city and business community can help and should orchestrate the business mix. Expressing support to establish a retail, dining, entertaining, or festival core will help guide the types of businesses the City wants to recruit. This concept applies to the City, the Chamber, landlords and leasing agents. He highlighted that if there is no concerted effort to fill spaces within certain areas, there will be less incentive or motivation to search for the types of activities or businesses that would help increase the drawing power of the central, commercial retail sector. Mr. Clifton pointed out that the proposal is directly tied to several of the items identified in Mr. Brook's "20 Ingredients of an Outstanding Downtown. He specifically noted the following: • Nearly all begin with a plan. The Economic Development Plan calls for creating a retail core, and several Comprehensive and Economic Development Plan goals and policies support this effort. (See Attachment 1) • Defining a strong brand a retail focus. If the City can increase the critical mass, they can brand the downtown as being a retail area. Mr. Brooks referenced Walnut Creek, CA, which is similar in size to the City of Edmonds. There are 85 restaurants in their downtown, and they have actually branded the downtown as "The Walnut Collection." Anything that is purchased from Walnut Creek has this brand on it. It would be great for the City to study this option. • Orchestrating recruitment of "critical mass" or "clustering." The issue paper (Attachment 1) that was created by the EDC's Land Use Subcommittee, references several statements by Mr. Brooks regarding the importance of critical mass and the power of clustering. • Start with a demonstration project. Three primary issues were highlighted throughout the process: defining the boundary, what kinds of uses should be allowed, a grandfathering existing uses. A lot of people have suggested that the concept be expanded to a larger geographic area. However, because the BD 1 zone has the highest concentration of retail uses, he felt the City should start by using this zone as a demonstration project. If it is successful in the BD zone, it could be expanded at some point in the future. • Develop a gathering place. Over time, as the City starts to develop a critical mass in the BD1 zone, a stronger gathering place will be created. Sidewalk cafes and outdoor dining will increase, as illustrated by the Main Street Project. • Invest heavily in retail beautification. He has been pointing out the strong concentration of "beige" color to property owners in the BD1 zone. Conversations are also taking place at the Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association. Several buildings have been repainted recently, using colors that make the buildings "pop." Mr. Clifton emphasized that the Economic Development Commission unanimously supports the proposal, and they discussed the issue at length. He also reported the he conducted two meetings with owners of property within the BD zone: May 13th and September 0'. Roger Brooks was invited to attend the May 13th meeting to provide examples and reasons for creating critical mass and what it can do to increase rents for landlords and increase retail sales for businesses. The discussion was spirited and animated. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Brooks invited the participants to share their feelings on the proposal. Several property owners expressed support, and others wanted to continue the conversation. No one expressed opposition to the proposal. All of the property owners in attendance at the September 4th meeting expressed support for the proposal. He emphasized that the proposal will not only have a positive impact on the community, but it will have a direct affect on the people who own the properties and buildings. They deserve to be a part of the conversation. Mr. Clifton said staff conducted a significant amount of research regarding the proposed concept. He particularly highlighted the following: • The City of Kirkland, a close neighbor, has restricted office uses from the ground floor in its core downtown since 1990. Members of the Planning Board and EDC met with Eric Shields, Kirkland Planning Director, and toured downtown Kirkland. Mr. Shields reported that the concept has worked effectively in Kirkland. However, he noted that because of the significance of the economic downturn, they provided some flexibility to their 90-day non- conformance provision. Packet Page 277 of 461 The City of Escondido, CA, conducted an effort to reserve the downtown storefronts for shopping, dining and entertainment. Their goal was and is to reserve downtown storefronts for upscale restaurants and businesses that attract shoppers and nightlife. • The Cities of Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN, have a policy to maintain a compact retail core by concentrating major retail facilities within an area designated as the retail district. The retail district serves as the primary center of retail activity in the downtown. They intend to provide a continuous retail presence within the retail district by requiring retail uses on both the street and the skyway levels. Restaurants and other entertainment uses that compliment retail uses are also encouraged at the street and skyway levels. • In 2007, the City of Ensenada, CA, a proposal to preserve their downtown by restricting its ground floor space to retail businesses received unanimous support from their City Council. The proposal was to preserve the downtown by restricting its ground floor to retail businesses. Mr. Clifton referred to the proposed changes to Table 16.43-1, which highlights the uses allowed and not allowed in the BD1 GFSF spaces. He noted that, as proposed, businesses with drive -through facilities would be prohibited in the BD1 zone. He said this should not be a problem for banks in the future. He heard a recent report where Bank of America will cease their drive -through operations, and that tends to be the direction many banks are moving towards. From his perspective, drive - through businesses should not be allowed in the downtown core; it is a significant waste of land needed for business spaces and critical mass. Mr. Clifton referred to the spreadsheet that lists the businesses currently located in the BD1 zone, particularly identifying those that would be affected by the proposal. He specifically noted that banks would be allowed in the BD1 zone if they had tellers, but not drive -through facilities. He referred to the note at the top of the inventory list and emphasized that although several businesses would be affected by the proposal, it is important to keep in mind that existing businesses would not be required to relocate or cease operations. It is not the City's intent to encourage existing offices to leave the BD zone. Only when owners choose to vacate businesses would these spaces need to be filled with an allowable use. Owners would have the ability to fill the vacated space with a similar use to the one that left, if it is done within 180 days or six months from the date a space is vacated. Board Member Lovell referred to Attachment 2, which outlines a chronology of events. He noted that the first item on the list should make it clear that the Planning Board's discussion about potential amendments to the BD 1 zone took place in 2011. He also pointed out that the proposal would simply amend Table 16.43-1, and would not provide any additional narrative. Mr. Clifton responded that the proposal would not change the narrative in the current code. An additional column would be added to the table to identify the uses that would and would not be permitted in the BD1 ground floor street front (GFSF) spaces. Board Member Lovell asked if staff believes the existing narrative related to the BD1 zone would support the proposed changes to the table. Mr. Clifton answered affirmatively. He referred to the note located below the table, which provides a definition for the term "Ground Floor Designated Street Frontage (GFSF)" as the "first 45 feet measured from public rights -of -way." A note was also provided to explain that services not providing open door/retail/dining/entertainment functions as a primary component of the business would not be allowed within the BD1 GFSF areas. However, it might be helpful to add a specific definition for what is meant by "open door." Chair Reed asked if the proposal would alter any of the current requirements for development in the BD1 zone. Mr. Clifton explained that the easiest way to show what is being proposed is to create a new column in Table 16.43-1. However, the design requirements of the BD1 zone would remain unchanged. He expressed his belief that the current proposal provides more clarity than the proposal that went before the City Council in 2011. Board Member Lovell requested an explanation of how the proposal would impact a property owner's ability to provide multi -family residential uses. Mr. Clifton answered that residential uses would not be allowed within the areas designated as BD1 GFSF. However, residential uses would be allowed behind the 45-foot street front spaces and in the upper floors. Mr. Chave suggested that it might be helpful to add a reference in the footnote to the applicable chapter in the code to provide more clarity. Packet Page 278 of 461 Mr. Clifton pointed out that the proposal would be difficult to apply to structures that are setback significantly from the sidewalk. It might also be difficult to apply the proposal to structures that are occupied by a number of different businesses. In these cases, it will be difficult to have the spaces vacated in any significant quantity to create retail space along the street frontage. He suggested that perhaps a provision should be included in the proposal to address these situations. Board Member Lovell pointed out that real estate offices were not highlighted on the inventory as uses that would be prohibited by the proposed change. Mr. Clifton said that, as proposed by the EDC, real estate uses would be allowed. While this is not stated outright in the proposal, it is not listed as a prohibited use, either. He suggested they may want to add some qualifying language to make this clearer. He reminded the Board that real estate offices are typically open door service uses that bring in customers. Mr. Clifton said the EDC also had a significant discussion about whether or not banks should be allowed in the BD1 GFSF areas. He explained that, as per the proposed amendment, banks would be allowed in the BD1 GFSF areas, but only if they have tellers and no drive -through facilities. Board Member Tibbott noted that, oftentimes, real estate offices are open beyond 6:00 p.m., and they typically have window displays. He asked if there has been any discussion about requirements or suggestions for window displays in the BD 1 zone. Mr. Clifton said Ms. Chapin has been working to find ways to get art within windows of vacated businesses spaces that are waiting to be filled. Mr. Chave said there is a requirement in the BD1 zone that street front windows cannot be obscured. Board Member Tibbott suggested, and Mr. Clifton concurred, that it might be appropriate to provide some guidelines or suggestions for displaying merchandise. Mr. Clifton referred to Table 16.43-1 and noted that there are several categories listed for medical uses. For example, optometry and physical therapy offices would be allowed in the BD1 GFSF areas if they include a retail component. He reported that the City of Kirkland addressed this issue creatively when a physical therapist wanted to locate in the heart of the downtown. The use was allowed, as long as the business provided retail items within the first 30 feet, with the massage tables and equipment located behind. From the street, the business looks like a retail athletic store. Board Member Tibbott asked if would be conceivable that a counseling center could have a bookstore or other items for sale in the front portion of the building. Mr. Clifton agreed this would be possible, but highly unlikely. He also noted that nearly 100% of the customers for a counseling business would be by appointment, and the City's goal is to encourage open-door types of businesses. Board Member Tibbott noted that there was a lot of business turnover in Kirkland prior to the recession, with even more turnover during the recession. It is his understanding that there was not enough residential traffic in that part of downtown until additional density was created by high-rise condominiums. He asked how important it is to have residential development in or near the downtown to support the types of activities that are desirable in the BD1 zone. Mr. Clifton answered that residential development is very important. He announced that an application for a mixed -use development was presented to the Architectural Design Board. The project would include retail space for the post office, as well as residential units. Other potential residential properties are on the market, as well. He summarized that Edmonds has a high concentration of residentially -developed properties within the downtown or in close proximity compared to other downtowns in the Puget Sound area. He agreed that more residential development is desirable, and there are properties that can accommodate this growth. Board Member Tibbott asked if there have been studies to identify whether it is better to have one floor or two floors of residential space above retail commercial development. Mr. Clifton advised that the post office proposal identifies a three- story building. The north half would have three levels of residential units, with two levels of residential units above the post office space. Aided by the slight grade change on the property, the applicant was able to make the proposal work within the existing height limit. Using new construction techniques, the developer is proposing 7-inch floors and a thinner roof that is somewhat flat. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that the key to density is to draw the kinds of population the City needs. They always talk about the need to bring in Generation Y (born between 1980 and 2000) and young professionals so there is activity for younger people. She hopes that continues to be the City's goal. The height limit makes this difficult and presents challenges to developers who want to incorporate green elements to make projects more efficient. Mr. Clifton referred to an article that Packet Page 279 of 461 Vice Chair Stewart forwarded to staff about what Generation Y is looking for. They are driving less, and they want to be within a walkable distance of amenities, retail and entertainment. It is important to keep in mind that retirees want the same things. He noted that this is spot on with the comments made to the City Council in 2005 by Mark Hinshaw. Surveys and interviews show that this is the direction the populous is moving towards. Vice Chair Stewart recalled that she and former Board Member Johnson did an inventory of the existing businesses in the BD1 zone and found there were 10 health and beauty services. She asked if Kirkland allows beauty and nail salons at the street front. Mr. Clifton said most cities, including Kirkland, do not preclude beauty salons. Most of these businesses are open door, and many are open until 9:00 p.m. Vice Chair Stewart suggested the Board consider limiting the percentage of beauty service businesses in the retail core to provide more space for the types of retail uses they want to encourage. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that play areas along the street front can be very useful in providing a place for parents to gather while their children play. Mr. Clifton said the proposal would not preclude play areas from being located in plaza areas. However, daycare centers would be prohibited. Vice Chair Stewart agreed with Board Member Tibbott that the Board should provide some guidance related to window displays. While she understands the need for privacy screens, they do not encourage a pedestrian environment. Mr. Clifton said that is just one reason why medical uses are not desirable on the ground floor in the downtown retail core. Because of HIPAA privacy laws, patients must be screened. Placing screens up in the windows is contrary to the intent of the proposal. Vice Chair Stewart asked if other cities allow fitness facilities on the ground floor street front within the downtown retail core. Mr. Clifton answered that these uses are typically not allowed. He noted that the Yoga business on Main Street has papered over all of the windows, which creates dead space for pedestrians walking along the street. It would be better for this business to be located along the back of the building, opening the street front space for retail uses. Vice Chair Stewart asked if property owners in other downtowns have tweaked their lease agreements to somehow encourage the right kinds of businesses. She noted that many of the buildings in downtown Edmonds are paid for, so owners can sit back and wait several months before they agree to lower the rents to attract the desired retail uses for the downtown. Mr. Clifton clarified that, under the current proposal, the faster a property owner fills the space, the more flexibility he/she has. If they wait until the six-month time frame expires, they will be required to fill the space with the uses allowed. Vice Chair Stewart expressed concern that the proposal is not strong enough to move towards getting different uses in the spaces. She suggested that the City could provide incentives that would encourage property owners to fill the spaces with the right kinds of uses. Mr. Clifton said this was discussed in 2011. Because of the recession, no one wanted to tamper with the six-month timeframe. However, the Board could recommend a reduction in the timeframe for the non-conformance provision. Mr. Chave noted that a six-month time frame applies to all non -conformances in the City. However, the City could make an exception that applies specifically to uses in the BD1 zone. Again, Vice Chair Stewart expressed her belief that the City should be more proactive. Mr. Chave explained that, if the proposed amendment is adopted, the City would not lose ground on the amount of retail space in the BD zone; they would only gain ground. Although it may be a slow process, the City would be moving in the right direction. Mr. Clifton expressed concern that if the City shortens the timeframe for non- conformance, the support from property owners could be reduced. Mr. Clifton said it is important to understand that change will not happen overnight. It will only occur as business spaces are vacated. A business that is prohibited under the new proposal may not vacate for several years. But at least the proposal would move the City forward. He pointed out that he has been contacted by three business owners who want to locate in the downtown core, but they cannot find the right space. They need smaller spaces, many of which are occupied by businesses that would no longer be permitted per the proposal. The more inventory they create, the more flexibility there will be over time. Vice Chair Stewart questioned if the larger spaces could be broken into smaller spaces. Mr. Clifton agreed that is possible and has been done is some cases. He said he has been working with representatives of Wallace Properties, owners of the building at 5th Avenue North and Dayton Street, to encourage them to lease the space for uses that add life and vitality to the downtown. Board Member Lovell recalled that when they looked at the plans to redo Main Street between 51h and 6th Avenues North, there was going to be wider sidewalks and diagonal parking on one side only. Instead, they ended up with parking on both sides. Mr. Clifton said diagonal parking was never part of the proposal. Packet Page 280 of 461 Board Member Lovell said he has heard that property owners are supportive, but they are not enthusiastic about the proposed change. Mr. Clifton said that a few property owners are enthusiastic. Board Member Lovell noted that there are retailers who want to locate in Edmonds but cannot afford the high rents. In addition, they do not need the large spaces that are currently available. He asked if this issue was raised in staff s discussion with property owners. Mr. Clifton answered no. He commented that approximately 20 of the 51 property owners in the BD 1 zone attended at least one public meetings. However, he has also spoken with property owners who didn't attend either meeting. They are very supportive and willing to write letters. A few of the property owners who are very supportive of the proposal own multiple properties in the BD 1 zone, which carries a lot of weight. Board Member Lovell referred to the second to the last bulleted item on Page 5 of Attachment 1, which talks about how the large number of one and two-story buildings in downtown Edmonds and the low height limit makes it challenging to get the density of customers necessary to allow more sparse retail to survive without the synergy from a consistent clustering of retail/service uses. He asked if that also means that if the City allowed taller buildings, there would be a denser population in the downtown to support a less concentrated retail core. Mr. Chave said he interprets the statement to mean that because Edmonds doesn't have as much density as it might, given the existing situation, synergy is that much more critical. Chair Reed thanked the EDC for the effort they put into the proposal. He said he recently sent out a copy of the four proposed amendments to the BD1 zone put forward by the Planning Board in 2011, which included limiting certain office uses from locating along the ground floor of designated street frontages within the BD zone. He noted that, at that time, the Board only made minor changes to Table 16.43-1. The current proposal provides a lot more information, but it also raises some questions the Board must be clear on. For example, it may be necessary to expand the definition for "services" to be more specific on the types of service businesses that would and would not be allowed. Mr. Clifton invited the Board to comment on the proposed changes to Table 16.43-1. He advised that the proposed changes to the table were reviewed by the Planning Department staff, and they made a number of comments and suggestions that were incorporated into the table. Chair Reed expressed his belief that Attachment 1 is a good document. Mr. Clifton thanked the Land Use Subcommittee for creating the executive summary (Attachment 1) page. It is helpful for people who don't have time to read all of the detailed information. Chair Reed commented that while the summary includes too much information to incorporate in the zoning code, perhaps some of the language could be included in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clifton and Mr. Chave agreed that it may be appropriate to incorporate at least some language from the document into the Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Reed recalled Mr. Clifton's earlier comment that it may be difficult to implement the proposal on certain properties in the BD1 zone because they are set back a greater distance from the sidewalk. He suggested it would be appropriate to add another footnote at the end of the table to address these situations. Mr. Clifton concurred. Mr. Chave said another approach would be to include a provision that allows the Economic Development Director the authority to grant exceptions for unusual configurations of existing buildings and properties. However, the exception would not apply to new construction. Vice Chair Stewart asked if non-profit businesses would be allowed to locate in the street fronts. She also asked if religious services would be allowed. Mr. Chave commented that it is difficult to identify allowed uses according to ownership or the profit or non-profit status. Use must be addressed by what actually takes place in the building. Mr. Clifton agreed and reminded the Board that the goal is to encourage open-door businesses, and some non-profit businesses meet this criteria. He added that some religious services have associated retail components, which would be allowed. Vice Chair Stewart indicated her support of the proposal, but she would like the Board to consider shortening the vacancy period for non -conforming uses to three months instead of six months. Board Member Tibbott said it sounds like staff actively keeps a list of potential tenants for businesses. If a non -conforming use were to vacate a site, staff could provide a list of potential tenants to property owners. This would provide incentive for property owners to fill the spaces as soon as possible. Mr. Clifton said he already provides this service. Board Member Tibbott said it is helpful to know that the City has a plan in place, and staff is very interested and being proactive to fill the spaces with appropriate uses. Mr. Chave said this is the critical element that makes the proposal work. If the City writes too much into the regulations, it tends to handcuff their possibilities. Regulations that clearly indicate what is desirable yet still Packet Page 281 of 461 provide some flcxibility can be paircd with markcting and outreach to form a whole. Doing one without the other will not likely be successful. Board Member Lovell said he agrees with the EDC's recommendation that real estate sales office should be allowed. He suggested that additional language should be added to the note that is located below Table 16.43-1. Mr. Clifton agreed that this would provide greater clarity. Board Member Ellis observed that certain types of services do not contribute to the goal of having a vibrant downtown. He asked how they can draw the line between the businesses they want and the ones they don't. It seems that the goal is to get people downtown to walk from business to business. While some service uses do this implicitly, he is uncertain how others will fit into the goal. Mr. Chave advised that the footnote below Table 16.43-1 was an attempt to describe the types of services uses that are desirable. He agreed that additional language could be added for clarity. For example, they could include examples. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that a footnote be added to encourage service and retail uses that have evening business hours. Board Member Tibbott asked if it is possible for the City to partner with a private property owner to create a gathering space on property that is vacant or underutilized (i.e. a live music venue). He felt this type of use would create additional synergy in the downtown core. Mr. Clifton agreed to research this opportunity and report back. Board Member Ellis asked if staff has any feel for how much retail trade must occur before a service becomes a retail establishment. Mr. Chave said the classification would be based on the business's primary activity. Mr. Clifton said he worked with the City's Information and Technology and Financial Departments to prepare a matrix and map for his presentation to the Chamber regarding economic development. The City's Strategic Plan calls for finding some way to measure whether the City codes and current business recruitment efforts are being manifested in an increase in sales and use tax revenue. The matrix identifies property valuations and the sales and use tax revenue generated by each of the geographic areas (downtown, Five Corners, Westgate, Highway 99, Firdale Village, and Perrinville) for 2011 and 2012. He noted that Highway 99 generates five times the sales and use tax revenue as the downtown. He noted that the information is available to Board Members upon request. The Board scheduled a public hearing on the proposal for October 9t". Mr. Clifton indicated that a notice would be sent to all property owners in the BD1 zone. Chair Reed agreed to meet with Mr. Chave and Mr. Clifton to review the updated draft prior to the public hearing. . clxl"N l� �I I�i.�IY1.7:�YJ�YI_Y_ i �i.'/�. ICNV Y 1I\►1 Mr. Chave said the purpose of the work session is to explore in more detail two prominent parts of the proposed form -based code for Westgate: the amenity/open space and green factor section and the height bonus section. He specifically asked the Board to provide direction on whether they reflect the Board's priorities and provide the appropriate balance to achieve the intended goals. Mr. Chave referred to the Westgate Height Bonus Score Sheet (Item 6.5.3) and noted that at least one item in each of the categories (housing, green building, green factor, amenity space, and alternative transportation) is required for any development in the Westgate area. In order to obtain an additional story of height, an applicant would have to earn a total of 8 points, and the points must be spread over four different categories. A total of 12 points would be required in exchange for an additional two stories in height. He asked the Board to provide feedback about whether or not the points required are sufficient to obtain the additional height. Mr. Chave said he is not sure it is beneficial to include so many detailed options in the Housing Unit Size Category. He pointed out that most of the categories are not additive. For example, in the Green Building Category, a developer that obtains a LEED Gold rating would not also get credit for meeting the LEED Silver requirements. However, a developer could receive one point for each of the items in the Housing and Transportation Categories. He suggested that this needs to be clarified. Packet Page 282 of 461 Mr. Chave noted that the weighting is important. For example, providing an amenity space that is greater than 30% of the total property requires a large piece of land. Therefore, the larger score (4 points) is warranted. He also said Living Building status is very difficult to achieve, and perhaps four points is not enough. It is at least a couple of orders of magnitude more difficult to get from LEED Platinum to Living Building. If the Board wants to encourage Living Building, they could consider increasing the points. He noted that a developer has to meet numerous requirements to obtain Living Building status, which includes landscaping, surfaces, etc. Board Member Lovell recalled that three of the four quadrants at Westgate have relatively steep slopes at the perimeter. The Board discussed the need to take advantage of the topography and allow buildings to be constructed back into the hill so that at -grade parking could be accommodated under the buildings without penalizing the available height of the rest of the building. However, recent development in the area placed the building away from the retaining wall to accommodate the required fire lane. Mr. Chave clarified that the intent was never to push taller buildings into the hillside. The idea was that if the hillside is there, having a tall building somewhere on the site would have much less impact to surrounding residents. If the City encourages buildings to be pushed back into the slope, some of the natural buffer between the site and the residential properties would be eliminated. Rather than encouraging developers to build back into the hillside as far as possible, they should encourage them to retain as much of the hillside as possible. He reminded the Board of their discussion about the desirability of having buildings located closer to the traveled way rather than pushed back. He noted that four and five -story buildings may also require stepbacks. Board Member Lovell asked what benefit the City would receive by allowing taller buildings at Westgate. Mr. Chave said a lot of discussion in the Westgate Plan focuses on having greater proportions of smaller units that attract younger households who might find an active environment more desirable. Smaller units are typically more affordable, as well. The Green Building options would have broad benefits to the City. They are better for the climate and they put less stress on City facilities. In addition, the Green Factor options would have direct benefits to the City by providing more green space and landscaping, which people find attractive. Amenity space would be geared towards meeting space or public active areas, which also benefit the community. He said the City has been encouraging charging facilities for electric vehicles to reduce the amount of emissions. Car share, parking and bicycle options help reduce the number of vehicles or vehicle miles traveled in the City. The intent is that the items on the list will benefit the City or the general public in some way. Chair Reed referred to Figure 6.5-1, which identifies the parcels that are eligible for the 5th-story height bonus, as well as areas that are not eligible for development because the slope is greater than 8 degrees. He asked if the figure should be updated to reflect the step back requirement. Mr. Chave suggested that rather than revising Figure 6.5-1, an additional figure could be added to identify properties that are eligible for four and five stories, and where stepbacks would be required. He said Figure 6.5-1 is particularly important to make it clear that buildings cannot be set so far back into the hillside that the green barrier is eroded. Mr. Chave recalled previous discussion that the City should not necessarily force buildings to the 10-foot setback, and it would not be a requirement. However, if buildings are setback greater than 10 feet, it is important to provide connections and additional open space in the intervening area so at least there is still a presence or a way to get to the street front. Again, Mr. Chave clarified that Figure 6.5-1 was intended to identify where development would not be allowed because of steep slopes and where five -story development would be allowed. Four-story development would be allowed on any of the other parcels within the Westgate area, except where the slope is greater than 8 degrees. He suggested that an additional color be added to the map to identify the properties that are eligible for four-story development. Board Member Lovell recalled that early in the planning process, two or three concepts were initially developed for Westgate. One was centered around the concept of creating significant landscape buffers between the buildings and the highway, particularly along SR-104. He asked if it would be appropriate to include this concept in the plan. Mr. Chave explained that the Green Factor and Amenity Categories are meant to deal with the interstitial space around buildings. These categories are weighted fairly heavily compared to other categories. Mr. Chave expressed concern that the options listed in the Alternative Transportation Category are not well defined. For example, how many electric charging stations should be required? In looking at the overall rating system, he suggested that the most important categories are the Green Building, Green Factor and Amenity Space Categories. These are weighted Packet Page 283 of 461 more than the other categories. If the Board believes these categories are even more important, they could increase the scores. Another option would be to require at least one point in each of these three categories. He summarized that the scoring system should reflect the City's priorities. Board Member Ellis asked who created the height bonus score sheet. Mr. Chave answered that it was created by the University of Washington team. Board Member Ellis asked how the points were assigned to each of the credit options, particularly those related to housing unit size. Mr. Chave said the numbers were based on available information. Board Member Ellis noted that, as currently proposed, it appears the City wants to discourage units that are greater than 1,400 square feet. Mr. Chave agreed that the goal is to encourage smaller, affordable units in the Westgate area. Board Member Ellis expressed his belief that some of the scores seem arbitrary. Mr. Chave agreed. For example, perhaps it would not be appropriate to offer a point for each of the housing ranges. If the goal is to encourage affordable units, then perhaps more points could be offered to developers who provide smaller units. Perhaps it is overkill to have so many housing credit options. As currently proposed, an applicant could accumulate half of the needed points for an additional story just by meeting the four credits in the Housing Unit Size option. Board Member Ellis asked if it would be possible to encourage property owners to aggregate amenity spaces to create large rather than small spaces on each lot. Mr. Chave answered that this would require that small properties be developed as a group. However, large properties have flexibility to consolidate the amenity space to create a larger area. Board Member Ellis questioned the benefit of creating a lot of small amenity spaces on the individual properties. He felt larger amenity spaces that provide enough room for people to congregate would be more valuable. Mr. Chave said he does not anticipate a significant problem since there are not a lot of small property ownerships in the Westgate area. The language would allow a property owner to develop one property and consolidate the amenity space on another property that is under the same ownership. Board Member Ellis agreed that more specificity is needed for the Alternative Transportation options. He asked if the credits could be better related to things the City of Edmonds wants to encourage. Mr. Chave said most of the options are aimed at discouraging people from using private cars. Electric cars would have no emissions compared to gasoline, and the Sustainability and Transportation Elements in the Comprehensive Plan both call out the need for more charging stations. Car share parking encourages people to share vehicles, which results in fewer cars on the road. The goal is to maximize the use of the transportation facilities that already exist. However, he agreed that the Alternative Transportation options could be more specific. Another issue to consider is whether it would be appropriate to allow a developer to get more than half of the required points for an additional story by doing all of the credits in this one category. Board Member Ellis said that as he reviewed the Height Bonus Score Sheet in preparation for the meeting, he found he had insufficient information to judge whether or not the points proposed for the various credit options are appropriate. Mr. Chave explained that without detailed studies looking at the economic benefit of each of the credit options, the City must rely on experience. Once implemented, the City can keep track of what developers actually choose to get an idea of what is valuable and what is not. He noted that it is easy to get a feel for how difficult and costly some of the credit options will be to implement. Developers will probably not choose the more costly options unless the City offers more points. He said he would prefer that developers focus more on the Green Building, Green Factor, and Amenity Space options and less on the Housing Unit Size and Alternative Transportation options. Board Member Ellis said he would benefit from the Planning staff's input as to what credit options would be better suited to the City's goals. Board Member Ellis noted that the Height Bonus Score Sheet only applies to developers who are trying to obtain additional height. Mr. Chave noted that the required options would apply to all development in the Westgate area, regardless of height. He suggested that this should be clarified. Chair Reed asked if there are other bonuses the City could offer besides height such as financial incentives or tax credits. Mr. Chave said the score sheet was created specifically for the height bonus, which is where developers tend to get the most "bang for their buck." The only other incentive that would factor into the bottom line of a project would be parking. He cautioned against offering tax credits. Packet Page 284 of 461 Chair Reed recalled that the Firdale Village Plan incorporated the concept of shared parking. Mr. Chave said this concept is not unique to Firdale Village and is available to any project in the City. The concept is outlined in the parking section of the code. Chair Reed suggested that rather than offering points for charging facilities for electric cars and LEED Silver ratings, perhaps they should be required. Mr. Chave agreed that charging stations could be required for any parking lot over a certain size, but he cautioned against making it a requirement for small parking areas, as well. He suggested that perhaps a minimum LEED Silver rating and charging stations for electric vehicles should be required for all four and five -story buildings. The remainder of the Board agreed that would be appropriate. Vice Chair Stewart recalled Mr. Chave's earlier comment about how difficult and costly it can be to obtain Passive House, LEED Platinum and Living Building status. She suggested that perhaps the City should offer 4 points to developers to obtain Passive House or LEED Platinum status. Living Building status is very difficult to obtain and should receive more points, perhaps as many as 6. She pointed out that when a developer meets the requirements for any of the three highest green building programs, they will also be fulfilling a number of other options included on the score sheet. Board Member Ellis suggested that the point system would need to be tweaked to implement Vice Chair Stewart's suggestion. He pointed out that if a developer receives six points for obtaining Living Building status, he/she would only have to obtain two more points to qualify for the additional story. As currently written, a developer must obtain points from at least three other categories. He suggested that if the Living Building status would fulfill a number of other options, perhaps it should be the only prerequisite for a four-story building. Mr. Chave suggested that if a developer obtains Living Building Status, perhaps it would be appropriate to allow him/her to pick up the other required points in any category. This would recognize that Living Building status is an expensive proposition and something the City wants to encourage. Board Member Ellis said he does not want unintended consequences to discourage something the City really wants. Mr. Chave explained that if they find that over time most developers are choosing credits that are less important to the City, they could change the point system. He commented that it is difficult to be precise when weighting each of the options because each property owner will bring their own values to the equation. The weighting has to be a combination of what the City wants to see happen, as well as some recognition of how difficult and/or expensive it is to do. Mr. Chave agreed to revise the Height Bonus Score Sheet based on the Board's comments. He suggested that staff could also solicit feedback from architects who are familiar with the concept. The Board agreed that would be helpful. Mr. Chave referred the Board to the Green Factor Score Sheet (Appendix 5a), which was developed and has been used successfully by the City of Seattle. He asked the Board to provide feedback regarding the proposed weighting for each of the various factors. He noted that higher weightings recognize that some factors are more valuable than others. Mr. Chave suggested staff could apply the score sheet to existing development in Westgate, particularly the newer developments. He said he anticipates that most of the existing development at Westgate would receive a low score. He briefly explained how the score sheet would be used to calculate the requirements for a given site. Board Member Ellis asked if there are definitions for the terms used in the Green Factor Score Sheet, such as structural soil systems. Mr. Chave answered that architects and landscapers are familiar with the terms used in the score sheet. Mr. Chave said he can understand why vegetative walls would receive a higher score in the City of Seattle where the building sites are very limited. Green walls are costly, if done right. However, green walls may be less important in Edmonds, which means that the score could be lower. Vice Chair Stewart pointed out that Seattle provides a list of additional resources that are available on their Green Factor Website. One particular resource is the Director's Rules (10-2011) for Landscaping and Green Factor Standards, which provides definitions for the various terms used on the score sheet. She suggested that the City could provide a similar document. Mr. Chave advised that the City's Engineering Department administratively adopts design standards for various things such as pervious pavement. Packet Page 285 of 461 Mr. Chave suggested that Item HA on the score sheet (landscaping and food cultivation) should be replaced with "landscaping for habitat." He said he does not believe that landscaping and food cultivation would be practical on business sites. Vice Chair Stewart suggested the language be changed to "landscaping for food cultivation and habitat." Vice Chair Stewart suggested that Items B.6 and B.7 could be eliminated from the score sheet. She noted that there are no large existing trees on the Westgate properties. Mr. Chave commented that if the City wants to encourage developers to plant trees that will get large, then Items B.6 and B.7 should remain on the score sheet as options. Board Member Tibbott commented that the intent of Item B.7 is to encourage developers to preserve existing large trees. Mr. Chave noted that any large trees on the site will likely be located on the perimeter. He reminded the Board that the Green Factor Program could potentially be applied to other areas in the City, and not just Westgate. The Board agreed to retain Items B.6 and B.7. Vice Chair Stewart referred to Item C.1 and noted that 2 inches of soil does not seem sufficient for an affective green roof. She felt the City should require a minimum soil depth of 4 inches. Before making this change, Mr. Chave suggested the Board seek feedback from Board Member Duncan. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that while vegetated walls (Item D) are important elements, perhaps they should not be weighted so heavily. She also suggested that it would be appropriate to provide some examples to clarify what is meant by approved water features (Item E). Mr. Chave suggested that perhaps Seattle's detailed rules provide a description of this term. He agreed to check for additional criteria. Vice Chair Stewart referred to Item F (permeable paving) and commented that greater depths of permeable pavement should receive a higher score. Mr. Chave agreed to solicit feedback from the City's stormwater engineer. Vice Chair Stewart also recommended that the Board should review the City's plant and tree list to make sure the score sheet is consistent. Mr. Chave pointed out that, other than a street tree list, the City does not have a plant or tree list. The University of Washington team used Seattle's list, which is well researched. Board Member Lovell suggested that Item H.3 (landscaping visible to passersby from adjacent public right-of-way or public opens spaces) should be weighted more heavily. He noted that this is a definite public benefit. Mr. Chave concurred. He pointed out that the options in Item H are bonuses that can be added on to the elements listed in Items A through G. Vice Chair Stewart suggested it would be helpful to eliminate the decimals from the scores. She commented that it is so much easier to work with whole numbers. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Reed briefly reviewed the Board's extended agenda, noting that a public hearing on the proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is scheduled for September 25"'. He noted that the Board already received copies of the draft plans. Also on September 25`', the Board will continue their review of the two amendments related to the Critical Areas Ordinance. Chair Reed reminded the Board that they previously scheduled a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Downtown Business (BD) 1 zone. The Board will also review the code sections related to telecommunications. He advised that, instead a public hearing, the Board will continue their discussion regarding the Westgate Plan and form -based code. Mr. Chave noted that the public hearing on the Westgate Plan would be pushed back to November or December. Once they finish the review of the Westgate Plan, the Board can move forward with the Five Corners Plan. Chair Reed noted that the second meetings in November and December have been cancelled to accommodate the holidays. The Board will elect new officers at their December I Vh meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Reed reported that the next Economic Development Commission meeting is scheduled for September 18th at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett Meeting Room at City Hall. At the meeting, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) from Edmonds Swedish Hospital will make a presentation regarding the hospital's proposed plans. Board Member Lovell indicated he would not be Packet Page 286 of 461 able to attend the meeting, and Chair Reed agreed to attend the meeting to represent the Planning Board. He also encouraged other Board members to attend, if possible. Chair Reed announced that he will present the Planning Board's quarterly report to the City Council on September 24th. The next quarterly report will not be until January 2014. Chair Reed advised that he received a letter from the City's Chief of Police, commending the Parks Board for their work. The letter specifically complimented Board Member Tibbott for his presentation to the City Council regarding the recommended new name for the SR-104 Mini Park. They were impressed with the way he presented the logic and answered the City Council's questions. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Tibbott reported that during the recent flash flood, one of his neighbors had 8 to 10 inches of water in his garage and another house had 4 to 5 inches. It was found that the storm drain directly connected to the properties has no outlet. There are only cisterns. This incident reminded him that even though the City has a storm drain system, it is limited in some areas. He said he is curious as to the kinds of damage sustained elsewhere in the City. He reported that City crews were out today building a berm by the storm drain system to channel the water somewhere else in the future. Vice Chair Stewart reminded the Board that the City is hosting a free workshop for community members on September 17th from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. in the Edmonds Plaza Room above the library. Representatives from Rain Dog Designs will be present to help participants learn how to design and install rain gardens that can filter pollution, reduce flooding, and add beauty. Vice Chair Stewart said she is currently working to find a student representative for the Planning Board. A total of four students have submitted applications to be representatives, and two have already been assigned to work with the Economic Development Commission and the City Council. She said she plans to interview the two remaining candidates, and she would like another Board Member to participate. Vice Chair Stewart announced that a representative from Built Green will make a presentation at the next Mayor's Climate Protection Committee meeting on October 3rd at 9:00 a.m. Planning Board members will receive formal invitations to the meeting, and she encouraged them to attend, if possible. Vice Chair Stewart reported that she attended the Architectural Design Board's September 4th meeting, at which Doug Spec provided an excellent presentation of his proposal to redevelop the current post office site. She encouraged Board Members to attend meetings of other City boards and commissions when possible to improve communication and understand how their responsibilities overlap. �ID]LU 0131_0401" The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Packet Page 287 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 9, 2013 Chair Reed called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5 h Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT John Reed, Chair Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Bill Ellis Philip Lovell BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Kevin Clarke Ian Duncan Neil Tibbott READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. VICE CHAIR STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO LIMIT CERTAIN OFFICE USES FROM LOCATING IN BUSINESS SPACES ALONG DESIGNATED GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTAGES (GFSF) WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS (BD1) ZONE (FILE NUMBER AMD20130013) Mr. Clifton informed the Board that, in addition to the required public notification, the City sent hearing notices to all property owners within the BD zone. He advised that the proposal before the Board has been discussed by the City Council, the Planning Board and the Edmonds Economic Development Commission (EDC) since early 2011. He noted that the Staff Report contains four documents related to the proposal to limit certain office. He reviewed each of the attachments as follows: Packet Page 288 of 461 • Attachment 1 provides an overview of the proposal, which contains a summary, introduction, and references to City documents and various reasons cited by Roger Brooks for supporting the proposal. He noted that the title of the document is not the same as the title of the agenda packet. The title on Attachment 1 (Create Economic Vitality — An Edmonds City Center that is Economically Strong, Thriving, Lively and Social) is intended to reflect the true goal of the proposal. • Attachment 2 provides a chronology of the events that occurred during the long, 2'h-year process. • Attachment 3 is a map depicting the boundaries of the BD1 Zone. • Attachment 4 is an inventory conducted by staff in response to a May 13th meeting with property owners within the BD1 zone. Mr. Clifton advised that his comments are intended to illustration why consideration should be given to restricting and promoting certain uses along designated ground level street frontages within the BD1 zone. He reminded the Board that the issue was raised, in part, as a result of past conversations with property owners and leasing agents and looking at what other cities are doing to create a stronger retail/entertainment core. In fact, the concept or goal of creating a strong retail core in Edmonds goes back to 2006 when the Edmonds Economic Development Plan was adopted. He specifically noted that Goal 2, Policy 2i of the plan states, "Create synergy for commercial businesses where possible, for example, by implementing a retail core area in the downtown." He suggested that another way to phrase this goal is "How does our community open more opportunities for retail, dining, specialty shops, entertainment venues and galleries within a concentrated area?" He pointed out that land -use goals and strategies for many downtown areas incorporate four prominent themes: a central gathering place, sense of place, connectivity, and varying degrees of density. He emphasized that in order to achieve these objectives, downtowns need economic development/vitality, safety, housing, businesses, and tourism. A vibrant open-door retail/service core will help advance these objectives. He specifically discussed the following concepts: Central Gathering Place. Retail/restaurants and open-door service uses, particularly independently owned, add to Edmonds' distinctiveness because they are the most visible elements within the downtown core of Edmonds. As stated in a 2010 email he sent to a property owner, "Edmonds' unique downtown character is defined by the diversity and concentration of complimentary commercial uses such as restaurant/cafes, art galleries, house wares, books, garden supplies, specialty boutiques, hair/nail salons, etc. These uses generate pedestrian activity and a lively social environment that, in turn, sustains a mix of uses. Creation of a critical mass of this type of activity also helps to increase the drawing power of the central area commercial retail sector. While pure, by -appointment office uses have the ability and flexibility to open in more locations within commercial areas, uses such as retail stores, restaurants, art galleries, etc., have limited business spaces/stock and thrive best when there is a concentration of similar uses." The City and business community have been working to attract businesses that will help bring life to the downtown streets during the weekend and evening hours, and it is starting to pay off. This message is consistent with information provided by Mr. Brooks nearly two years later (November 8, 2012) during his presentation at the Wade James Theater regarding the "20 ingredients of an outstanding downtown." Two of these ingredients relate to how clustering of like -businesses works and the power in critical mass. He said Mr. Brooks specifically highlighted that while spending millions of dollars on beautification, public parking, street trees, fagade improvements and a host of other things can help improve the physical environment, a downtown can still be lifeless. He emphasized that what is happening inside the buildings is what makes a downtown work as a community center and gathering place. There are beautiful streetscapes that have no street activity, which he suggested is due to lack of businesses along the streetscape that attract people. Public Safety/Less Activity. Office uses are typically closed in the early evenings and on weekends, creating less lively and darker streetscapes. The resulting impression of the area is that it is not inviting, thriving, interesting or friendly to walk around. A healthy retail core is also important for maintaining safe streets in many central cities. According to Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, businesses on the ground floor provide "eyes on the street" and deter criminal activity. Retail businesses, restaurants, art galleries, etc., stay open for longer periods of time than office uses, thus providing more activity on the street beyond 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. The proposal before the Board is expected, over time, to help create a more concentrated "festival retail" environment that does not close at 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. Instead, the downtown core would invite people to hang out and enjoy the environment later into the evening. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 289 of 461 • Intensity. Retail, restaurant, gallery, and service uses can also help stimulate housing and business development within downtown areas as they often provide essential services to City residents. This can be partially attributed to the vibrancy that these uses add to downtown streets. Tourism. A strong retail core helps attract shoppers and tourists who invest significant amounts of money into the city, county and state economies. Tourism is the 4th largest industry in Washington State; and in turn, it supports businesses and their employees. Downtown Edmonds is home to many independent retailers and restaurants. When tourists shop downtown, they are supporting the growth of smaller independent businesses. Conversely, negative fluctuations in the retail market, such as the absence of critical mass, can result in vacant storefronts thus affecting the street environment and eventually weakening the vitality of the downtown core. Retail and active -service uses are a critical part of sustaining the health of downtown. Direction of the Downtown Core. A city and business community can help and should orchestrate the business mix. Expressing support to establish a retail/dining/entertainment or "festival retail" core helps guide the kinds of businesses to recruit. This applies to the City, Chamber, landlords and leasing agents. If there is no concerted effort to fill spaces with certain uses, there will be less incentive/motivation to search for the types of activities or businesses that help increase the drawing power of the central area commercial retail sector. In other words, it can sometimes be easier to lease to a tenant that will not add to the commercial vitality of the business core. He could cite a number of successful conversations he has had with property owners and leasing agents about leasing property in the downtown core for uses other than office. Once again, Mr. Clifton referred to Mr. Brooks' "20 Ingredients of an Outstanding Downtown," and noted that the following are specifically tied to the current proposal: • Nearly all begin with a plan. The Economic Development Plan calls for creating a retail core and several Comprehensive and Economic Development Plan goals and policies support this effort. These specific goals and policies are outlined in Attachment 1. • Defining a strong brand and retail focus. • Orchestrating recruitment of "critical mass" or "clustering." Staff recently reviewed a video from the Roger Brooks Library regarding the concept of "critical mass." The video talks about the power of getting like businesses in a concentrated environment and how much synergy and livelihood that creates. • Starting with a demonstration project. Many people have asked why the City is not proposing to apply the proposed amendment to the entire downtown core. As recommended by Mr. Brooks, staff is proposing to start small. If the concept is successful, the boundaries can be expanded. If not, the boundaries can be pulled back. • Developing gathering places. • Sidewalk cafes and dining. He noted that the recent widening of Main Street allowed restaurants to place chairs and tables on sidewalks, which has resulted in a more vibrant street front. • Investing heavily in retail beautification. He has promoted a program he calls, "Paint the Town," and many property owners have already painted their facades. More are planning to do so. This has created more of a "funky," colorful downtown. • Activities and entertainment. Mr. Clifton advised that, on June 13th, the EDC expressed unanimous support for the proposal, and staff conducted meetings with property owners in the BD1 Zone on May 13th and September 4th. Approximately 50 invitations were sent out, and over 20 people attended. He noted that, at the May 13'h meeting, some property owners expressed support for the proposal, and others wanted to continue the discussion. At the September 4th meeting, it seems most property owners supported the proposal. He concluded that, to date, none of the property owners he has spoken with have expressed outright opposition. Mr. Clifton advised that within his critical mass video (referenced earlier), Mr. Brooks talks about the Ten Ten Ten Rule where cities try to get 10 places that sell food, 10 places that serve as destination retail shops and ten places that are open after 6:00 p.m. all within three lineal blocks. Walnut Creek, California, is a good example of this concept. Although the city's population is only about 65,000, they have over 200 restaurants near the core of their downtown. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 290 of 461 Mr. Clifton advised, that over the past few years, staff has conducted research to learn how other jurisdictions have successfully implemented provisions that restrict service/office uses within their retail core areas. He specifically noted the following: • Kirkland, Washington. In 1990, the City of Kirkland adopted a code provision that limits the uses at street level to certain kinds of commercial uses. He recalled that members of the EDC and Planning Board met with Kirkland's Planning Director, who indicated that the provisions have been working well. However, he noted that they amended their 90-day nonconformance provision to 180 days to provide more flexibility during the recession. • Escondido, California. In 2010 the Escondido City Council conducted an effort to reserve downtown storefronts for shopping, dining and entertainment. One of the city's specific goals was to promote a vibrant and exciting downtown environment by establishing areas with land uses that foster an 18-hour atmosphere. • Minneapolis, Minnesota. This city's policy is to maintain a compact core by concentrating major retail facilities within an area designated as "Retail District." The Retail Detail serves as the primary center of retailing activity in the downtown. • Encinitas, California. In 2007, The Encinitas City Council unanimously supported a proposal to preserve its downtown by restricting its ground -floor space to retail businesses. Mr. Clifton pointed out that many cities in California have adopted similar policies including Coronado, San Diego, Redwood City, Alameda, Arcadia, San Luis Obispo, and Walnut Creek. Mr. Clifton referred to Attachment 4, which is a spreadsheet of existing businesses in the BD1 zone. The businesses highlighted in yellow are those that would be impacted by the proposed amendment. He emphasized that it is not the City's intent to push out existing businesses that are not consistent with the proposal. These businesses would not be required to leave. A property owner would have the ability to fill any vacant space with a similar use to the one that left, if it is done with 180 days or six months from the date a space is vacated. It is not the City's objective to push these businesses out; rather, it is to prevent the number of certain office uses in the BD 1 zone from increasing. Mr. Clifton reviewed that the Planning Board conducted a workshop on the proposed amendment on September 11t'. At that time, they asked about inserting clarifying language into Table 16.43-1 related to real estate offices. They also recommended that the first footnote at the end of the table should be changed to make it clear that buildings setback 15 or more feet from the sidewalk would not be subject to the BD1 zone GFSF requirements. In addition, the Board discussed the best way to address window displays and a question was raised about applying a 90-day nonconformance timeline versus the City's current nonconformance timeline of six months. Mr. Clifton referred to Attachment 1 and noted that the modifications made as a result of the Planning Board's discussion are identified in green. He explained that window displays relate to visibility and aesthetics as opposed to the types of uses allowed in the BD Zone, so no new language was added to the amendment. Language relating to a 90-day versus 6-month nonconformance timeline was also not incorporated into the draft document. While the Board raised the question, there was no clear indication that the majority of the Board supported a shorter timeframe. He expressed concern that 90-days is not much time to recruit businesses, and he recommended the Board retain the 6-month timeframe. He summarized his belief that, at a minimum, the proposal would accomplish the City's goal of preventing the number of certain office uses from increasing within the BD1 Zone. He specifically noted that one property owner only supported the proposal when he learned of the 6-month timeframe and that his business would not be required to vacate the site when the amendment is adopted. In addition to the changes made since the Board's last review on September I Ith, Mr. Clifton recommended that the first footnote below Table 16.43-1 should be amended by adding the words "or park/plaza" after "sidewalk." He noted that this recommendation is based on a discussion he recently had with the EDC's Land Use Subcommittee about how to address the Old Mill Town property. Mr. Clifton referred the Board to the following written public comments that were received regarding the proposed amendment: Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 291 of 461 • In an email dated October 3, 2013, Chris Fleck expressed support for the proposed amendment. • In an email dated October 8, 2013, Pat McDevitt voiced his support for limiting certain office uses in the BD zone. • In an email dated October 9, 2013, Richard Senderoff expressed support for the proposal, as well. He emphasized that, although he serves on the EDC, he was offering his support as a citizen. Vice Chair Stewart asked the typical length of a lease in the BD1 Zone. Mr. Clifton answered that property owners do not share this information with him, but the typical timeframe is a minimum of five years. Chair Reed clarified that the Board is being asked to approve the draft amendments to ECDC 16.43 found on Pages 6 through 8 of Attachment 1. Mr. Clifton explained that if the Board recommends approval, the draft changes would be forwarded to the City Council for adoption. If the City Council supports the amendments, they would direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to formally adopt them into the ECDC. Ray Ault, Advanced Hearing Systems, Inc., said he leases property for his business at 104 — 5th Avenue North in Edmonds. He said that while he understands the intent of the proposed amendments, he has some questions and concerns. He asked if another hearing business could locate on the site if he vacates the premise or if future uses would have to conform to the new requirement. He requested clarification about why the Edmonds Vision Center would be an allowed use when his hearing business would not. Mr. Clifton explained that if Advanced Hearing System, Inc. vacates its site, the property owner would have a timeframe of six months to lease the site to a similar business. If the site is not filled with a similar use within that timeframe, the property owner would be required to adhere to the new use requirement. He explained that the hearing business is different than the vision center because the vision center provides a retail environment at the storefront by selling glasses and sunglasses. He reminded the Board that they had a lengthy discussion about this issue at their last meeting, when he shared the example of a physical therapy business that is currently located in downtown Kirkland. Although physical therapy is not considered an allowed use along the street front, the business owner met the city's requirement by providing a retail component (exercise equipment) at the front of the building, with the actual therapy taking place behind. He noted that hearing centers are less retail oriented and more medical oriented. He re-emphasized that Advanced Hearing System Inc. would be allowed to remain on the site until the business owner chooses to vacate. At that time, the site would be subject to the new code, and the property owner would have six months to fill the space with the same or a similar use. After six months, the property owner would be required to fill the space consistent with the new use requirement. Board Member Lovell clarified that Mr. Ault would not be allowed to relocate his existing business to another site in the BD1 zone. Chair Reed referred to the footnote at the bottom of Table 16.43-1, which clarifies that service uses that do not provide open- door retail/dining/entertainment functions as a primary component of the business would not be allowed in the BD1 zone. The term "open-door" can be used to distinguish between the vision center and other types of medical uses. Mr. Clifton agreed. He also reminded the Board that only banks with tellers and no drive-thru service would be allowed in the BD zone. Making note of the three written comments described earlier by Mr. Clifton, Chair Reed closed the public portion of the hearing. Board Member Lovell observed that the additional language added to the last footnote under Table 16.43-1 was intended to clarify the types of service uses that would be allowed. He asked if the Board feels the language is sufficient to address the issue clearly. Mr. Clifton explained that it would be impossible to identify all potential uses that are considered open-door. The three examples were provided in the footnote because they were the topic of several lengthy discussions. He emphasized the need for some flexibility, as well. Board Member Lovell said he supports a 6-month timeframe for nonconformance rather than a 90-day timeframe. Again, Mr. Clifton said he has heard from some property owners who are only willing to support the proposed amendment if the six- month timeframe is included. One property owner was under the impression that his site would have to be vacated once the amendment is adopted. Explaining the nonconformance and grandfather provisions provided him with enough assurance to support the change. He reminded the Board that one objective of the proposal is to prevent the number of office uses in the BD zone from increasing. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 292 of 461 Vice Chair Stewart expressed her belief that a 6-month nonconformance timeframe seems counterintuitive to the City's goal of decreasing the number of service and office uses in the BD1 zone. From her perspective, it would be too easy for a property owner to fill the space with a similar use, particularly if it will affect their bottom line. She suggested the City provide incentives to property owners to search for a different use that is consistent with the proposed amendment. This would create synergy and ultimately make other businesses more successful. If property owners are allowed up to six months to lease to a similar use, the City will be stuck for at least five more years with a use that is inconsistent with its goal for the BD zone. She said she would support a 90-day nonconformance timeframe. Mr. Chave pointed out that there are very few locations that would be nonconforming based on the current proposal. If approved, the proposal would prevent property owners from converting existing retail spaces to service or office uses. He suggested that, in the absence of concrete incentives and mandating the change through regulations, the City has had some success using the art of persuasion to encourage property owners to change uses. Again, he reminded the Board that only a small percentage of properties in the BD1 zone are occupied by uses that would no longer be allowed. The goal of the proposal is to make sure the number of office uses in the BD1 zone does not expand. He expressed concern that if the City pushes too hard, they may face more resistance from property owners. Again, he said staff has had a lot of success with getting property owners on board. Typically, they are willing to try when offered options. Mr. Clifton recalled that Roger Brooks talked about how important it is for the community to help orchestrate the types of uses they want in the downtown core. As the downtown core starts to transform, property owners will realize they can get more rent from a retail use than an office use. Once the pieces fall together, property owners will offer even more support for the vision. He noted that the City has already had some success with this concept, and the proposed code change would provide more motivation. Vice Chair Stewart expressed her belief that the number of businesses that would be non -compliant with the new code provision is more than a few. She suggested that the Board include both timeframe options (90-days and 6-months) for public hearing purposes. She also suggested that the Board raise the concept of creative incentives at the public hearing. She specifically noted that a non-profit business improvement district or a community enhancement fund could be used to help building owners make the transition. She suggested the Board could provide a range of options and then let the City Council make the final decision. Mr. Clifton agreed that Vice Chair Stewart's comments could be included as part of the Board's recommendation. However, he referred to the concern raised earlier by Mr. Chave. In conversations he has had with property owners in the BD zone, he saw a shift in their support when they realized they would have more flexibility. They understand the goal, and they support it. However, he cautioned against scaring property owners away by shortening the nonconformance timeframe. If they can keep the number of noncompliant uses from expanding, the City will have achieved success. Mr. Clifton cautioned that it will be a challenge to apply the new code provisions to the property located at 543 Main Street, which is currently occupied by several small counseling offices. Staff is considering options for addressing this particular property. Board Member White asked why the Twist Vinyasa Yoga Studio is identified as a nonconforming use based on the current proposal. Mr. Clifton explained that the yoga studio is considered a fitness center. It is operated by appointment only, and only members are allowed on site. Therefore, it would not be classified as an open-door service use. He noted that currently, the site has screened all sides of the business, and there is no connection between what is happening inside the building and the street. This results in a less lively streetscape. Board Member Ellis asked if business owners have a clear understanding that the proposed amendments would not impact their ability to sell a business. Mr. Clifton said he has tried to make it clear that a business owner could sell and the same use or a similar use would be allowed to continue in its existing location. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that only 14 of the 105 businesses currently located in the BD 1 zone would be considered nonconforming based on the proposed amendment. That is not a significant number, but adding more, Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 293 of 461 particularly on Main Street would be undesirable. He agreed with Mr. Clifton that applying the proposed amendment to the property at 543 Main Street would be difficult. Mr. Clifton said he has been working with three business owners, in particular, who are interested in relocating to downtown Edmonds but have been unable to find space that meets their needs. The building at 3rd Avenue and Dayton Street is too large. He suggested that these situations lend support to the proposed amendment. At the request of Board Member Cloutier, Mr. Clifton briefly explained why real estate offices and some banks would be allowed in the BD1 zone. Mr. Clifton recalled that this issue was discussed at length by both the EDC and the Planning Board. It was determined that real estate uses are somewhat open door in that people love to walk by and view the displays and they can go inside and speak to an agent. Mr. Chave noted that he walks around Edmonds almost every day and notices that people are frequently stopped in front of the real estate offices looking at the window displays. Mr. Clifton advised that while banks would be considered open-door businesses, those with drive-thru facilities would not be allowed, and the banks must have tellers. CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 16.43 (FILE NUMBER AMD20130013) AS WRITTEN AND AMENDED BY STAFF (SEE AMENDMENT TO FOOTNOTE BELOW TABLE 16.43-1). HE FURTHER MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY EVALUATE THE 90-DAY VERSUS 180-DAY TIMEFRAME FOR NONCONFORMANCE. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Ellis indicated his support for a 180-day timeframe for nonconformance. However, he agreed it would be appropriate to leave the matter up to the City Council, recognizing the different viewpoints expressed during the Board's discussion. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. DISCUSSION/UPDATE ON POTENTIAL ISSUES RELATED TO INITIATIVE 502 (I-502) (CANNABIS) IMPLEMENTATION IN EDMONDS Mr. Chave reported that on August 20th, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3938, establishing an immediate emergency moratorium on all marijuana related business activities. The moratorium expires in February. He explained that the issue is divided into two categories: medical marijuana and recreational marijuana. The purpose of the moratorium is 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. He said he anticipates the State will start issuing licenses for the production, processing and retail sales of recreational marijuana in March or April, and the City needs to have appropriate regulations in place by that time. Mr. Chave advised that on September 3rd, the City Council had a discussion about marijuana issues, and none of the Council Members indicated a desire to outright ban recreational marijuana. He noted that the City of Kent has taken that approach, and they are currently being sued. Assuming the City Council's position holds, the next step will be to adopt specific regulations to govern the use. Any land -use amendments will come before the Planning Board for a public hearing and recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Chave reviewed that, at one time, the Liquor Control Board recommended that recreational marijuana uses should not be allowed to locate within a 1,000 foot distance from schools, daycares, churches, parks, etc. However, the distance would be measured by the most common pathway between the two uses. The Federal Government pushed back, and the Liquor Control Board is now recommending a distance of 1,000, measured as the crow flies. As currently proposed, marijuana uses would not be allowed within 1,000 feet of the perimeter of a school, daycare, church, park, etc. He expressed his belief that the latter approach would be the simplest to implement. Mr. Chave referred to the map that was provided in the Staff Report to reflect the staff's best effort to identify where the required buffers would rule out the opportunity for marijuana uses to be sited. He said that at a recent meeting of the City Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 294 of 461 Council's Planning, Public Works and Parks Committee it was suggested that it might make the most sense to permit recreational marijuana uses (processing, production and retail sales) in the General Commercial (CG) and General Commercial 2 (CG2) zones, which are located along Highway 99. Sites within this zone are accessible to most anyone. The neighborhood commercial zones are very small and there is more chance that a restrictive use will eventually locate in the area, making it difficult for a marijuana business to renew its license. This would be less likely to occur along Highway 99. Mr. Chave explained that the purpose of this discussion is to introduce the issue to the Planning Board. Since it is likely that the Board will be asked to act quickly, it is important for them to be aware of the issues. The City Council committees will continue their discussions and provide additional direction for how they want the Board to proceed. Mr. Chave pointed out that, technically, medical marijuana uses are not licensed or otherwise authorized by any state or federal agencies. Therefore, the City may choose not to regulate them from a land -use standpoint. The City can just prohibit these uses until the State or Federal Government provides regulations. Board Member Lovell reported that he attended the first City Council meeting where this topic was discussed. The package that was prepared for the Staff Report provides a good answer to many of the questions that were raised by the City Council. Based on State law, the City does not have a lot of flexibility related to recreational marijuana rules and regulations. Because he does not anticipate there will be large parcels of land on which a marijuana production or processing business could locate, the City will likely be dealing with just retail sales. Mr. Chave disagreed. He pointed out that a production facility could be located in a warehouse facility that accommodates indoor operations. However, he agreed that most of the spaces in the neighborhood commercial zones are too small. Board Member Lovell referred to a memorandum from the City Attorney, which was included in the Staff Report. In the letter, the City Attorney cautions the City not to ban recreational marijuana business from locating in the City because it will likely be challenged. He noted that the State has proposed guidelines for the number of recreational marijuana retail sales locations each City should be allowed to have, and Edmonds has been allocated two. He summarized that while the City must allow for these uses, they can limit where they are located via zoning and land use regulations. He agreed with staff s suggestion that these uses be limited to sites along Highway 99 in the CG and CG2 zones. Chair Reed asked if the buffers identified on the map provided in the staff report are statutory. Mr. Chave answered that they the buffers identified on the map are based on State law. They could potentially be enlarged, but not reduced. He reminded the Board that most of the neighborhood commercial centers could potentially accommodate marijuana uses, but they are small locations and it is possible a day care or other use could locate in the area that would prevent the marijuana business from renewing its license. Board Member Lovell noted that the staff report also provides information about the direction the state is taking regarding taxation. Currently, a 25% excise tax would be charged, as well as an 8% sales tax on the production, processing and retail sales. This equates to about $6.25 per gram. He concluded that it would take a significant amount of traffic to support a marijuana business, given the high level of taxation involved. The location needs to be accessible to a large amount of traffic, and Highway 99 fits this requirement. Board Member Lovell asked how much of the anticipated excise tax collected from recreational marijuana production, processing and sales would come to the City. Mr. Chave answered that it would be very little. Most would be considered State revenue. Mr. Chave said he anticipates the issue will come before the Board before the end of the year or at their first meeting in January, since the moratorium ends at the end of February. Board Member Ellis said he recently viewed a news item on television about the ability to sell recreational marijuana at farmer's markets. He asked if the City would address this issue in its regulations. Mr. Chave answered that this would require a separate provision. It would not be an issue if the use is limited to CG and CG2 zones since farmer's markets are not allowed in these zones. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 295 of 461 Board Member Ellis asked how the use would be regulated in the Esperance area, which is not part of incorporated Edmonds. Mr. Chave said this area would be regulated by Snohomish County. He pointed out that, in King County, most of the retail locations for marijuana sales will be located within cities. That is not the case for Snohomish County where nearly half of the locations are unallocated. He noted that locations in Esperance would still have to abide by the buffer rules. Board Member Lovell pointed out that State law prevents a single business from being a producer, processor and retailer of marijuana. If someone chooses to establish a processing business on Highway 99, no retail sales would be allowed to occur on the site. Board Member Lovell asked if anyone on the Planning Board would support a proposal to ban recreational marijuana businesses in Edmonds. No one indicated support for that approach. STUDY SESSION ON AT&T MOBILITY AND THE BUSCH LAW FIRM'S APPLICATION TO AMEND THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) TO ADDRESS THE LEGAL STATUS OF EXISTING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES THAT WERE BUILT PRIOR TO AND JUST AFTER ADOPTION OF EDMONDS' ORIGINAL WIRELESS ORDINANCE (FILE NUMBER AMD20130005) Mr. Clugston advised that AT&T and the Busch Law Firm have applied to amend the ECDC to address the legal status of an existing wireless communication facility that is located on the Commodore Condominiums but currently unpermitted. He reviewed that, for a number of years, AT&T has been working with City staff to address the issue, and they are proposing the code amendment as the best approach. He noted that minutes from the Board's August 14th discussion were included in the Staff Report as Attachment 1. Attachment 2 is the applicant's proposed code amendment. Mr. Clugston explained that the applicant's goal is to have their facility, and their facility alone, become nonconforming by the proposed amendment in ECDC 17.40.023. He noted that upon review of all of the wireless permits, he found that this site is the only location where the amendment would apply. While there is an additional wireless facility on top of another building in the bowl, it is already identified as nonconforming and the amendment would not be applicable. Board Member Lovell asked if staff anticipates any additional exceptions down the road. Mr. Clugston answered no. He said he reviewed permits for the past 17 years and this is the only unpermitted facility that exists in the City. The one on the Harbor Building is nonconforming, so the change would not apply. He explained that AT&T went through the building permit process and applied to move the antenna from the roof to the side of the building as required by code. However, after the permit was approved, the building owner denied AT&T's request based on comments received from residents living in the condominium development. Staff asked if it would be possible for AT&T to relocate the antenna to the side of another building in the downtown, but AT&T indicated this is a key building within their network in the bowl. AT&T has worked to come up with other options to get the site permitted, and the proposed amendment is the solution they have come up with. Chair Reed recalled that when the wireless code was last updated in 2009, the City went to great lengths to ensure that the facilities would be as unobtrusive as possible. The proposed amendment would sidestep that requirement. He questioned if it would be appropriate for the City to require the applicant to make every effort to comply with the new rules. Mr. Clugston explained that this is a unique site and the only one in Edmonds with this issue. He agreed that there are other tall buildings in the downtown where the applicant could locate the antenna on the side of the building as required by the new code. However, the applicant has indicated that is something they just cannot do. The way their system is set up in the bowl, their siting on the Commodore Condominiums is the lynch pin to their entire operation in downtown Edmonds. Clearly, one option to address the problem is to declare the facility legally nonconforming. Vice Chair Stewart recalled that when Mr. Lyons from the Busch Law Firm came before the Board previously, he mentioned that the proposed amendment would only apply to wireless communication facilities constructed between July 12, 1997 and August 5, 1998. However, the proposed code language states that it would apply to all wireless communication facilities constructed prior to August 5, 1998. She asked if this change would increase the number of facilities impacted by the change. Mr. Clugston answered that it would not increase the number of facilities impacted. As long as the end date is August 5, 1998, it is probably not necessary to include a beginning date. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 296 of 461 Board Member Ellis recalled that there was a very small period of time when wireless installations were in limbo. Because no permit was required, there is no record of their existence. The proposed amendment would only apply to facilities that were constructed before August 5, 1998, which equates to just this one facility. He noted that the facility is not visible from the street, and it is very difficult to identify from uphill properties, as well. In addition, he understands that the residents of the building do not want the facility located on the side of the building as required by the current code. The Board scheduled a public hearing on the proposed amendment for December l lth REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Reed reviewed that the October 23rd meeting will be dedicated to park issues (quarterly report, Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, and Park Naming Policy). The November 131h meeting is scheduled for a continued discussion on proposed revisions to the allowed activities provisions in the Critical Areas Ordinance and a public hearing on the reasonable use provisions in the Critical Areas Ordinance, as well the City Council's interim zoning ordinance. The Board would also continue their discussion on the Westgate Plan and form -based zoning. The agenda for December l Ph will include election of 2014 officers and a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Wireless Facilities Regulations. A public hearing on the Westgate Plan and form -based zoning has also been tentatively scheduled for December 1 lth. Chair Reed advised that the Board's next quarterly report to the City Council is scheduled for January 7th. Board Member Lovell asked if a transportation study is being done in conjunction with the Westgate Plan. Mr. Chave answered that the City is still working to secure funding for the study. The City Council has allocated $50,000 in the budget, which is not enough for the extensive study that is envisioned. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Reed announced the Snohomish County Summit and Candidate's Forum that is scheduled for October 12`h from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in Everett. He also announced that on October 14th, the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE) and the Senior Center will host a City Council Candidates Forum. The event convenes at 6:00 p.m. at the Senior Center. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chair Stewart reported on her attendance at the recent meeting of the Edmonds Tree Board where it was reported that they are drawing up a resolution that would designate "heritage trees" in the City. They will ask the City Council for funding to hire a consultant to draw up some definitions they need for their Tree City USA proposal. The definitions will include terms such as pervious and impervious. They are also hoping to get funding for a GIS Study for an overlay of impervious surfaces and tree canopy in the City to help inform future planning. Vice Chair Stewart said she also attended the October 8th City Council Meeting at which the City Council decided to no longer move forward with master planning for Harbor Square. Some City Council Members were in support of further visioning as part of a more comprehensive planning effort. The City Council also continued their discussion on the Shoreline Master Program and have scheduled another workshop. Vice Chair Stewart urged the Board Members to use electronic copies for their packets. This would not only save paper, but staff time and trees. Interested Board Members should contact Ms. Cunningham to have electronic documents sent to them. They are also available on the City's website. I:11 13L11117►1u 111►Y 1 The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 297 of 461 ----Original Message ----- From: joe@josephtovar-faicp.com [mailto:joe@josephtovar-faicp.com] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:33 AM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Clifton, Stephen Subject: Letter to Edmonds Planning Board regarding use limitation in the BD-1 zone Good morning. Please forward the attached letter to the Edmonds Planning Board as part of the record for tommorow night's public hearing. Thank you. Joseph W. Tovar 10.10.13 Letter to Planning Board.pdf (See Attachment 8 to view a copy of this letter) From: Pat McDevitt [mailto:pat@pacificflowershippers.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 9:25 AM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Clifton, Stephen Subject: Meeting on office space in downtown corre Diane — Prior to your next hearing / meeting, I wanted to send you a quick note to voice my support for limiting certain office use in business spaces along designated ground floor street space within the downtown retail core in Edmonds. Let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you for your service. Pat McDevitt (Owner of two buildings in downtown Edmonds) 518 Main Street (Taki Tiki space) 330 Dayton Street (office space) (residence — 18211 85th Pl W — Edmonds) C — 425-772-0848 Packet Page 298 of 461 From: Chris Fleck [mailto:thetaxman@mytaxgenius.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 9:59 AM To: Clifton, Stephen Subject: Re: Proposal to Limit Certain Office Uses from Locating in Business Spaces along Designated Ground Floor Street Frontages within the Downtown Business (BD) 1 Zone Hi Stephan - thanks for this. We have reviewed the proposal & support it! Count us in. Chris Fleck On Oct 3, 2013, at 8:09 AM, Clifton, Stephen wrote: Hi Chris, As discuss, the link below will connect to the September 11, 2013 Planning Board meeting. Please see agenda item: a.6098 Proposal to Limit Certain Office Uses from Locating in Business Spaces along Designated C within the Downtown Business (BD) 1 Zone Attachments Attachment 1 - Proposal Overview Attachment 2 - Chronology of Events Attachment 3 - BD1 Zone Map Attachement 4 - Spreadsheet Listing Businesses Located along the Ground Floor of Designated StrE Zone This will provide you links to 4 documents. Similar documents will be posted to the City's website on the afternoon of October 4 for the October 9 Planning Board Public Hearing. If you want to provide comments to the Planning Board, please send the to Diane. Cunnin_.hag mkEdmondsWa.gov and you can also copy me. We will make sure your comments are forwarded to the Planning Board. http://agenda.ci.edmonds.wa.us/agenda publish. cfm?mt=ALL& get month=9&get year=2013& dsp=ag&seq=878 Take care, Stephen Sent from my iPad Packet Page 299 of 461 Richard Senderoff [mailto:richsend@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 2:32 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Chave, Rob; Clifton, Stephen Subject: Regarding the Festival Retail Proposal Public Hearing Tonight... Dear Ms. Cunningham, I was hoping you might forward my comments (below) to the Planning Board Members regarding tonight's Public Hearing on establishing a downtown festival retail focus; Public Hearin on n Proposal to Limit Certain Office Uses from Locating in Business Spaces along Designated Ground Floor Street Frontages within the Downtown Business (BD1 - Downtown Retail Core) Zone (File No. AMD20130013). Unfortunately, it does not look like I will be able to attend. I hope these comments may be provided in lieu. Kind regards, Rich **************************** Dear Planning Board Members, I appreciated your deliberations regarding the downtown festival retail proposal during your previous workshop. In addition to my public comments made previous to that workshop, I was hoping to add additional feedback in lieu of my attendance at tonight's (10/9/2013) Public Hearing; unfortunately, I have another commitment this evening. For the record, I am an Edmonds Economic Development (EDC) commissioner and have been actively involved in this proposal (as a member of the Land-Use/Business Incentive subcommittee). My comments are not necessarily representative of the EDC per se. But they do reflect my personal viewpoints and knowledge of the process leading to the proposal. Let me start by stating simply, "Clustering works!" Clustering works, whether we're referring to biotech - focused industrial parks (Canyon Park; Bothell), warehouse districts with live -work artisan/start-up tech, or retail/destination tourism (as per this proposal). "Like attracts like!" And it's in this way that policy makers can help businesses to help themselves, with the community benefiting from a more vital downtown retail core. Now, a few comments based on your previous workshop: • 1 thought the workshop was helpful in pointing out clarifications that were needed regarding allowable uses. o I believe the changes to the proposal (noted in green) address these concerns. • The permitted use for hair/nail salons within BD1(which was discussed as a concern during the workshop) was something we considered (going back and forth) extensively during our EDC Land Use/ Business Incentives subcommittee discussions. Ultimately, we decided that the secondary activities (shopping, eating, etc.) following these regular appointments justified permitting their use within the context of the goals. Also, these businesses generally accept "walk-ins" (not "by appointment only"). And these types of businesses (with open windows) can Packet Page 300 of 461 generate pedestrian interest which is also a goal of the proposal. Folks often sneak a peek as they walk by. Perhaps you've witnessed the interest generated by Rudy's Barber Shop on University Avenue (Seattle). o We also had concern, as was raised, that we might end up with too many of these establishments. But although it requires a certain degree of "faith" —in theory— it was our opinion and hope that "market forces" would control this. I also understand the concern about the 180 days to re -lease non -permitted businesses. But I think it's most important that property owners buy into this concept. If they do and understand that this approach will benefit them in the long-term, then I would presume that they would be motivated to bring in permitted use businesses (regardless of the grace period). And I also think/hope that as these transitions begin that there will be building momentum to continue the transition.... Again, this requires a bit of "faith". I have also been working on a business incentive program on the EDC. And I do think there are some incentives that could help with this transition. For instance, I do not necessarily agree with Mr. Chave that a temporary property tax waiver for property owners that facilitate the transition within the 180 days doesn't serve the City in the long term. And there could be other types of fee waivers that facilitate new businesses to come in (traffic mitigation fees associated with change of use, for instance). And, of course, there can be additional "out of the box" thinking on this; I might encourage further discussion in this area. However, I think that this should be addressed independently from this proposal as part of a "Business Incentive Proposal". As I mentioned, these concepts are currently being considered by the EDC Land- Use/Business Incentives subcommittee. Lastly, but importantly, I was frustrated and concerned that several Planning Board members used the workshop discussion for commentary about building heights (and residential)... in BD1???- of all places. And this was even after Mr. Clifton pointed out that the BD1 zone already has significant nearby residential (surrounding BD1, in fact) relative to other downtowns that have undertaken similar initiatives; this seems very obvious to me, even without Mr. Clifton's comments. o My concern is that this proposal has absolutely nothing to do with building heights. Let me repeat that, "This proposal has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do about building heights." And I'm afraid that the mere mention of building heights associated with this proposal may raise skepticism and prompt "slippery slope" comments at both the Planning Board and the Council comments/public hearings (creating misinformation that will negatively and inappropriately impact this proposal's potential for passage). ■ With all due respect, please be mindful of the potential impact or unintended consequences that your words may have on public opinion. Thanks for your consideration, Rich Edmowxdk, W aOvc+�.. . A Great Pkw.e'raspP,v►&A Day Or A LifeV"neil Richard I. Senderoff, Ph.D. Commissioner- Edmonds Citizens Economic Development Commission Steering Committee- Community Backyard Habitat of Edmonds 425-778-9746 Packet Page 301 of 461 1 Joseph W.Tovar F A I C P October 10, 2013 City of Edmonds Planning Board 121 Fifth Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Board Members: I write to express my strong support for the proposed code amendment to limit certain office uses from locating along the ground floor storefronts of designated street frontages within the Downtown Business (BD) 1 Zone. As an Edmonds resident and frequent patron of downtown businesses, I appreciate efforts such as this to protect and enhance the vitality and ambience of the Downtown's retail core. As a land use and urban design professional with city code writing experience for downtowns, including Kirkland and La Conner, I have found that such a use limitation is one effective way to serve the City's policy objectives. By allowing existing office uses to continue, the rights and reasonable expectations of existing businesses and land owners are appropriately respected, while making clear that the long-term objective is for all these spaces to transition to uses more in keeping with the vision for this part of the community. No one code amendment is the answer to all problems, but this specific tool can complement the many other city and private sector actions being taken to keep downtown Edmonds a thriving district. I urge you to recommend that this code amendment be adopted by the City Council. Thank you for your consideration, and for your service to our community. Sincerely, 4 Joseph W. Tovar, FAICP cc Stephen Clifton, AICP Email: joe@josephtovar-faicp.com Tel:425.263.2792 540 Dayton Street, #202, Edmonds, WA 98020 www.josephtovar-faicp.com Packet Page 302 of 461 AM-6269 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 11/04/2013 Time: Submitted For: Department: Review Committee: Type: 20 Minutes Councilmember Buckshnis City Council Information Information Submitted By: Committee Action: 12. Jana Spellman Subject Title Discussion and potential action regarding Audited Financial Statement Issue and Council Oversight of Removing Receivables. Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative The City of Edmonds recently had its financial statements published on the Washington's State Auditor's Office (see AR1010443). Without notice to Finance Committee or Council the Administration removed a $4,965,000 receivable from the City's balance sheet and thus an offsetting removal of a $4,965,000 payable from the component units known as the Edmonds Public Facilities District (PFD). The Administration indicated it was removed based on an Auditor's recommendation and there are no policies restricting their authority. The removal of these items resulted in a decrease in the City's balance sheet which was not materially noticeable; however, on pages 24 and 25 of the Financial Statements, the component unit (PFD) shows a material increase (almost double) in its net position (net worth) of $4,965,000. The previous net position (worth) of the PFD for 11 years has been around $5,276,594 and now it is being reported at $9,769,594. The one line item explanation indicated a "prior period adjustment" without a footnote or explanation. Note 18 on page 77 of the Financial Statements stated "Remove PFD long-term receivable" with the amount of $4,965,000. For 11 years, the treatment of this long-term payable and receivable was as follows: on the City's the balance sheet, there had a receivable (due from) the component unit (the PFD) and on their financial statements there was a payable of like amount (due to) representing a pledged sales tax revenue stream. This pledged tax revenue stream is outlined in an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) City of Edmonds — South County Public Facilities District — Edmonds Public Facilities District (or PFD) (see attached) and again in a 2011 Letter from Shawn Hunstock discussing the 2002 bond refunding and the PFD's repayment stream (see attached). This Generally Accepted Accounting Principle (GAAP) of a receivable/payable (or "pledged sales tax revenue") transaction has been through many audits and was further outlined in a State of Washington Auditors Report issued last year (see AR108676). These tax receipts are measurable, guaranteed and the ILA contractually binds the PFD. In fact, the letter from the former finance director Shawn Hunstock to Packet Page 303 of 461 the component unit further describes that the PFD will have a better financial position since the refunding of the 2002 bonds has reduced the amount the PFD will need to reimburse the City for debt service payments on the 2002 bonds. This receivable/payable change presents a material impact to any future investors or bond underwriters as the net position of the PFD is inflated despite the tax revenues stream is still considered an obligation. This change could put the City at risk as outlined in a memo from former attorney Scott Snyder to Council Member Buckshnis regarding financial statement misstatements see attached). Further, in future years, note 18 will not exist as the prior period adjustment occurred this year and therefore the PFD's financial statements will reflect close to $10 million as their net position. The Auditors and Administration have suggested that a footnote be made and then to outline the obligation. This reasoning further supports the fact that the payable is in fact measurable and recognizable; and therefore why not disclose the receivable/payable transaction in the spirit of transparency to the public. With the City -Wide Financial position of over $74 million (down from $79 since the receivable was removed), the Administration voiced concern that the Auditors might write a qualifying opinion or a finding regarding allowing this receivable to remain on the City's balance sheet. However, many Cities can, and in fact have, disputed Auditor's findings if they have sufficient empirical support and are concerned about the validity of the entire financial statement portrayal. For this reason, this Council Member supports transparency and restating the true condition of the obligation. Further, if a qualified opinion or finding is noted, it would seem that bond underwriters and/or investors would like more disclosure rather than less. The Auditors recommendation is based on Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) pronouncement #48 specifically paragraphs 77, 78, and 79 which states the "debt -issuing component units" record tax revenues when they are measureable and recognizable at the end of each year. The PFD did not issue the bonds and therefore are not a "debt -issuing component unit". The Auditors also provided examples of other City's using the year-to-year recognition. Councilmember Buckshnis reviewed those Cities and their component units and it appeared that those City's component units were "debt issuing component units". The Auditors also did not have an answer for why the past 11 auditors that reviewed these transactions had not had not recommended this significant change and since this calculation was part of the working capital general fund, it had to have been reviewed. Further, after 11 years of structured payments following a planned schedule outlined in the ILA, it would seem that this schedule was and is acceptable as a measurable unit of revenue. Case in point, the PFD provided a surplus of tax revenues in two separate years and rather than pay all measurable tax revenues to the 2002 receivable, the excess was put toward the Contingent Load Agreement represented by the 2008 bonds (the 2008 bond history is not part of this agenda item). Both Council Members Buckshnis and Petso disagreed with the Auditors recommendation and this interpretation as the GASB reference is inaccurate since the PFD in 2002 did not issue the bonds; the City of Edmonds issued the bonds. The payable/receivable established via the ILA outlines the pledged the sales tax revenue from the PFD to the City. Conversely, as outlined in the aforementioned text, placing a footnote for future financial statements is actually creating the same recognition of the obligation that the PFD owes the City but the City and PFD now has to maintain two sets of books. Two issues need to be addressed: 1) Should the Administration be granted the power to perform the removal of receivables (in the guise of a prior period adjustment) without Council consent? My recommendation is that the Council directs the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending City Packet Page 304 of 461 Code that provides for Council approval of write-offs of any accounts receivable, regardless of the amount even if it is in the guise of a prior period adjustment. 2) Should the Financial Statements be restated to reflect the true nature of the accounting transaction? It is uncertain if the PFD's audited financial statements have been published, but should we require restatement on their financials as well? My recommendation is yes and that the materiality of the Component Unit and its new net position is misleading to the public or any new investor or bond underwriter. Further, if the Auditors determine that a finding is necessary, we can utilize these documents as an explanation as to why we disagree as clearly we have not found a GASB citation that allows for this transaction since the Auditors quoted a GASB that related to a "debt -issuing component unit". Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: Revenue: Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact is recording -keeping matter (and perhaps future liability issues) as the obligation still remains intact despite being removed from both sets of balance sheets. However, concern should be noted that we all have knowledge that the financial statements of both the PFD and the City are incorrect in that they have removed an obligation that will continue to go down in value and there is no method of tracking this transaction except on a separate set of books. The City and Council could be liable for allowing such a significant misstatement of a financial position. Further all the ratios that investors and auditors look at on the PFD's financial statements are now very misleading and could lead to potential liability on the part of the PFD's board. Attachments 2012 WSAO Financial Statements and Federal Single Audit Report WSAO Audit Summary for Public Dev Auth and PFD EPFD - County PFD - City - County Interlocal Agree Finance20l 2Letteron2O l2DebtService Memo from Snyder to Buckshnis Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 10/31/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Scott Passey 10/30/2013 12:13 PM Dave Earling 10/31/2013 09:47 AM Scott Passey 10/31/2013 04:33 PM Started On: 10/30/2013 10:23 AM Packet Page 305 of 461 Washington State Auditor's Office Financial Statements and Federal Single Audit Report City of Edmonds Snohomish County Audit Period January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 Report No. 1010443 Issue Date September 23, 2013 WASHINGTON TROY KELLEY STATE AUDITOR Packet Page 306 of 461 Washington State Auditor Troy Kelley September 23, 2013 Mayor and City Council City of Edmonds Edmonds, Washington Report on Financial Statements and Federal Single Audit Please find attached our report on the City of Edmonds' financial statements and compliance with federal laws and regulations. We are issuing this report in order to provide information on the City's financial condition. Sincerely, TROY KELLEY STATE AUDITOR Insurance Building, P.O. Box 40021 • Olympia, Washington 98504-0021 • (360) 902-0370 • TDD Relay (800) 833-6388 Packet Page 307 of 461 Table of Contents City of Edmonds Snohomish County January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 FederalSummary ...................................................................................................................... 1 Independent Auditor's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards..................................................................... 3 Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance For Each Major Federal Program and on Internal Control Over Compliance in Accordance with OMB Circular A-133 ............................... 5 Independent Auditor's Report on Financial Statements.............................................................. 8 FinancialSection.......................................................................................................................11 Packet Page 308 of 461 Federal Summary City of Edmonds Snohomish County January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 The results of our audit of the City of Edmonds are summarized below in accordance with U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS An unmodified opinion was issued on the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, the aggregate discretely presented component units, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information. Internal Control Over Financial Reporting: • Significant Deficiencies: We reported no deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be significant deficiencies. • Material Weaknesses: We identified no deficiencies that we consider to be material weaknesses. We noted no instances of noncompliance that were material to the financial statements of the City. FEDERAL AWARDS Internal Control Over Major Programs: • Significant Deficiencies: We reported no deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over major federal programs that we consider to be significant deficiencies. • Material Weaknesses: We identified no deficiencies that we consider to be material weaknesses. We issued an unmodified opinion on the City's compliance with requirements applicable to . We reported no findings that are required to be disclosed under section 510(a) of OMB Circular A-133. Packet Page 309 of 461 Identification of Major Programs: The following during the period under audit: CFDA No. Program Title 20.205 Highway Planning and Construction Cluster The dollar threshold used to distinguish between Type A and Type B programs, as prescribed by OMB Circular A-133, was $300,000. The City did not qualify as a low -risk auditee under OMB Circular A-133. Packet Page 310 of 461 Independent Auditor's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards City of Edmonds Snohomish County January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 Mayor and City Council City of Edmonds Edmonds, Washington We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, the aggregate discretely presented component units, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated September 11, 2013. INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City's internal control over financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the City's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. Packet Page 311 of 461 Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified. COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City's financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of the City's compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City's internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. It also serves to disseminate information to the public as a reporting tool to help citizens assess government operations. TROY KELLEY STATE AUDITOR September 11, 2013 Packet Page 312 of 461 Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance For Each Major Federal Program and on Internal Control Over Compliance in Accordance with OMB Circular A-133 City of Edmonds Snohomish County January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 Mayor and City Council City of Edmonds Edmonds, Washington REPORT ON COMPLIANCE FOR EACH MAJOR FEDERAL PROGRAM We have audited the compliance of the City of Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington, with the types of compliance requirements described in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended December 31, 2012. The City's major federal programs are identified in the accompanying Federal Summary. Management's Responsibility Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts and grants applicable to its federal programs. Auditor's Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance for each of the City's major federal programs based on our audit of the types of compliance requirements referred to above. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations. Those standards and OMB Circular A-133 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the City's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion on compliance for each major federal program. Our audit does not provide a legal determination on the City's compliance. Packet Page 313 of 461 Opinion on Each Major Federal Program In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended December 31, 2012. REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE Management of the City is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above. In planning and performing our audit of compliance, we considered the City's internal control over compliance with the types of requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each major federal program in order to determine the auditing procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing an opinion on compliance for each major federal program and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control over compliance. A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of OMB Circular A-133. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. It Packet Page 314 of 461 also serves to disseminate information to the public as a reporting tool to help citizens assess government operations. -j ,y X i <-) ,� � TROY KELLEY STATE AUDITOR September 11, 2013 Packet Page 315 of 461 Independent Auditor's Report on Financial Statements City of Edmonds Snohomish County January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 Mayor and City Council City of Edmonds Edmonds, Washington REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, the aggregate discretely presented component units, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements as listed on page 11. Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditor's Responsibility Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the City's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. Packet Page 316 of 461 We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions. Opinion In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, the aggregate discretely presented component units, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Edmonds, as of December 31, 2012, and the respective changes in financial position and, where applicable, cash flows thereof and the budgetary comparison for the general fund for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Other Matters Required Supplementary Information Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management's discussion and analysis on pages 12 through 23, pension trust fund and information on postemployment benefits other than pensions on pages 78 through 79 be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. Supplementary and Other Information Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements. The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non -Profit Organizations. This schedule is not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the information is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. OTHER REPORTING REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated September 11, 2013 on our consideration of the City's internal control over financial reporting Packet Page 317 of 461 and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City's internal control over financial reporting and compliance. TROY KELLEY STATE AUDITOR September 11, 2013 Packet Page 318 of 461 Financial Section City of Edmonds Snohomish County January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Management's Discussion and Analysis - 2012 BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Statement of Net Position — 2012 Statement of Activities — 2012 Balance Sheet — Governmental Funds — 2012 Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet to the Statement of Net Position — Governmental Funds— 2012 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance — Governmental Funds— 2012 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities — 2012 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Balance — Budget and Actual — General Fund — 2012 Statement of Net Position — Proprietary Funds — 2012 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position — Proprietary Funds— 2012 Statement of Cash Flows — Proprietary Funds — 2012 Statement of Fiduciary Net Position — Fiduciary Funds — 2012 Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position — Fiduciary Funds — 2012 Notes to Financial Statements — 2012 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Firemen's Pension Trust Fund — 2012 Retiree Medical and Long -Term Care Benefits for LEOFF I Employees — 2012 Notes to the Required Supplemental Information — 2012 SUPPLEMENTARY AND OTHER INFORMATION Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards — 2012 Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards — 2012 Packet Page 319 of 461 MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS The City of Edmonds (City) presents this Management's Discussion and Analysis of its financial activities for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. The City's discussion and analysis is designed to: • Assist the reader in focusing on significant financial issues • Provide an overview of the City's financial activity • Identify changes in the City's financial position (its ability to meet future years' challenges) • Identify any material deviations from the approved budget • Identify individual fund issues or concerns Management's Discussion and Analysis is designed to focus on the current year's activities, resulting changes and currently known facts. Therefore, it should be read in conjunction with the Transmittal Letter and the City's financial statements. Financial Highlights • At December 31, 2012 the City's net position, the amount by which total assets exceeded total liabilities, totaled $141.2 million. Of this amount, $116.3 million is invested in capital assets, such as land, buildings, and infrastructure net of related debt. The remaining net position of $24.8 million is restricted for debt service, construction, and various other purposes. • The City's total net position decreased by $1.1 million or -.77% in 2012. Governmental activities decreased by $2 million and business -type activities increased by $873,092. • Governmental funds reported a combined ending fund balance of $15 million; a $1.6 million increase over the prior year. Of this amount, $10.7 million is unassigned and available to fund ongoing activities. The unassigned fund balance of $10.7 million represents 33.63% of total 2012 general fund expenditures. • Total capital assets increased by $1.4 million or 1.0% in 2012. • Total debt decreased by a net of $3 million during the current fiscal year. Outstanding bonded debt, loans, and long term contracts at year-end totaled $34.5 million. Using this Annual Financial Report This annual report consists of a series of financial statements and notes to those statements. These statements are organized so the reader can understand the City of Edmonds as a financial whole or as an entire operating entity. The statements then proceed to provide an increasingly detailed look at specific financial conditions. The Statement of Net Assets and Statement of Activities provide information about the activities of the whole City presenting both an aggregate view of the City's finances and a longer -term view of those assets. Major fund financial statements provide the next level of detail. For governmental funds, these statements tell how services were financed in the short-term as well as what dollars remain for future spending. The fund financial statements also look at the City's most significant funds with all other non - major funds presented in total in one column. Overview of the Financial Statements The City's basic financial statements are presented in three parts: 1) Government -wide financial statements Packet Page 320 of 461 2) Fund financial statements 3) Notes to the financial statements Other supplementary information, in addition to the basic financial statements, is also contained in this report. This section of the management's discussion and analysis is intended to introduce and explain the basic financial statements. Government -wide Financial Statements The government -wide financial statements are designed to be corporate -like in that all governmental and business -type activities are consolidated into columns which add to a total for the City. The focus of the Statement of Net Position is designed to be similar to bottom -line results for the City and its governmental and business -type activities. This statement combines and consolidates governmental funds' current financial resources (short-term spendable resources) with capital assets and long-term obligations. Over time, increases or decreases in net assets may be one indicator of improvement or deterioration in the City's overall financial health. The Statement of Activities is focused on both the gross and net cost of various functions, including both governmental and business -type activities, which are supported by the City's general tax and other revenues. This is intended to summarize and simplify the user's analysis of cost of various governmental services and/or subsidy to various business -type activities. The revenue generated by the specific functions (charges for services, grants, and contributions) is compared to the expenses for those functions to show how much each function either supports itself or relies on taxes and other general funding sources for support. All activity on this statement is reported on the accrual basis of accounting, requiring that revenues are reported when they are earned and expenses are reported when they are incurred, regardless of when cash is received or disbursed. Governmental activities of the City include general government (executive, finance, legal, human resources, court), security (police), physical environment, economic environment, transportation, health and human services, and culture and recreation. The City's business -type activities include water, sewer, storm water and wastewater treatment utilities. Governmental activities are primarily supported by taxes, charges for services, and grants while business -type activities are self-supporting through user fees and charges. The City also includes as a discretely presented component unit the Edmonds Public Facilities District (EPFD), a performing arts center in Edmonds, and the EPFD's blended component unit, the Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA), a non-profit established to collect donations and manage the operations for the EPFD. Although legally separate, the EPFD is important because the City provides financial support and oversight responsibilities connected to the activities of the board. Fund Financial Statements The fund financial statements will look familiar to the traditional users of governmental financial statements. However, the focus now is on major funds rather than fund types. Individual funds are used to maintain control over resources that are segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance -related legal requirements. There are three categories of City funds: governmental funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciaryfunds. Governmental funds account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government -wide financial statements. Most of the City's basic services are reported in the governmental funds. These statements, however, focus on cash and other assets that can readily be converted to available resources, as well as any balances remaining at year-end. Such information is useful in determining what financial resources are available in the near future to finance the City's programs. Packet Page 321 of 461 Readers may better understand the long-term impact of the government's near -term financing decisions by comparing the information presented for the governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the government -wide financial statements. The Governmental Funds' Balance Sheet and the Governmental Funds' Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate the comparison. Information for the major governmental funds is presented separately in the Governmental Fund Balance Sheet and in the Governmental Fund's Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances; information for the non -major funds is presented in the aggregate. The City's main operating fund is the general fund. However, the City maintains many accounts and subfunds within the general fund, including the criminal investigations subfund, the emergency financial reserve subfund, the leoff-medical insurance reserve subfund, the reserve subfund, the risk management reserve subfund, the contingency reserve subfund, the historic preservation gift subfund, the multimodal transportation subfund, and the building maintenance subfund. Proprietary funds account for services for which the City charges outside customers and internal City departments. Proprietary funds provide the same information as shown in the government -wide financial statements, only in more detail, since both use the accrual basis of accounting. Proprietary funds report the same functions presented as business -type activities in the government -wide financial statements. The City has two types of proprietary funds, enterprise funds and internal service funds. Enterprise funds are used to account for goods and services provided to citizens. Internal service funds are used to account for goods and services provided internally to various City departments. The enterprise fund statements provide information for the City's water, sewer, storm water and wastewater treatment utilities. Enterprise funds of the City are consolidated into one fund for financial statement reporting purposes. The City uses an internal service fund to account for its fleet of vehicles. Because these services largely benefit governmental rather than business -type functions, they have been included within the governmental activities in the government -wide financial statements. Fiduciary funds account for assets held by the City in a trustee capacity or as an agent for individuals, private organizations, other governments, or other funds. Fiduciary funds are not included in the government -wide financial statements because their assets are not available to support City programs. The City's fiduciary activities are reported in a separate Statement of Fiduciary Net Assets and a Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Assets as part of the basic financial statements. Notes to the Financial Statements The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of the financial statements. They provide additional disclosures essential to a full understanding of the information provided in the government -wide and fund financial statements. The notes to the financial statements immediately follow the basic financial statements in this report. Other Information In addition to the basic financial statements and accompanying notes, this report also presents certain required supplementary information concerning a schedule of funding progress for the Firemen's Pension Trust Fund and other post -employment benefits. Additional pension benefit information is found in note 10. Packet Page 322 of 461 Government -wide Financial Analysis The Statement of Net Position can serve as a useful indicator of the City's financial position. The City of Edmonds' net position (assets in excess of liabilities) at December 31, 2012 totaled $141.2 million. Following is a condensed version of the government -wide statement of net assets with a comparison to 2011: City of Edmonds Net Position Governmental Activities Business -type Activities Total As of 12/31/12 As of 12/31/11 As of 12/31/12 As of 12/31/11 As of 12/31/12 As of 12/31/11 Current and other assets $ 23,923,817 $ 26,846,674 $ 19,478,622 $ 22,506,614 $ 43,402,439 $ 49,353,288 Capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation 72,037,041 72,715,560 67,838,217 65,774,450 139,875,258 138,490,010 Total assets 95,960,858 99,562,234 87,316,839 88,281,064 183,277,697 187,843,298 Long-term Liabilities 19,044,977 21,170,376 19,600,092 20,410,294 38,645,069 41,580,670 Other liabilities 2,183,815 1,701,116 1,284,828 2,311,943 3,468,643 4,013,059 Total liabilities 21,228,792 22,871,492 20,884,920 22,722,237 42,113,712 45,593,729 Net Position Invested in capital assets, net of related debt Restricted Unrestricted Total Net Position 61,259,051 61,004,928 55,063,391 45,783,325 116,322,442 106,788,253 3,793,023 3,288,857 7,409,482 9,096,615 11,202,505 12,385,472 9,679,992 12,396,957 3,959,046 10,678,887 13,639,038 23,075,844 $ 74,732,066 $ 76,690,742 $ 66,431,919 $ 65,558,827 $ 141,163,985 $ 142,249,569 Approximately $6.4 million of the primary government's total net assets are restricted for construction projects to renovate or improve the City's buildings, parks, street and utilities infrastructure. The remaining balance of net assets is primarily allocated to restrictions for debt service payments, transportation improvements, and other purposes in the amount of $4.8 million and unrestricted net assets of $13.6 million. The business -type unrestricted assets of $4 million may only be spent on utility activities. Other functions of the City may access the governmental unrestricted assets of $9.7 million to meet ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. There are no restrictions, commitments, or other limitations that significantly affect the availability of resources for future use. The largest component of the City's net assets, $116.3 million, or 82.4%, is its investment in capital assets, less debt related to the acquisition or construction of those assets. These capital assets, such as streets, parks, trails, and vehicles and equipment related to police and public works, are used to provide services to the citizens. As a result, these assets are not for sale, and are therefore not available to fund current and future City obligations. The City elected the GASB 34 reporting option to include all general infrastructure of the City acquired or substantially renovated since 1980. Unrestricted net assets of the City's business -type activities, totaling $4 million, represent the portion of unrestricted net assets that may only be spent on activities related to one of the City's utilities (water, sewer, storm water and wastewater treatment). Examples of utility activities include maintenance of water/sewer mains, pump and lift stations, storm drain flushing, water meter reading, and the wastewater treatment plant. Restricted governmental fund net assets are $3.8 million and are restricted for purposes such as debt service, public safety and other purposes. The remaining net assets of the City may be used for functions such as general government employee salaries and supplies, park and road maintenance, and police services. Packet Page 323 of 461 Changes in Net Assets The change in net assets represents the increase or decrease in City net assets resulting from its various activities. Following is a condensed version of the City's changes in net assets. The table shows the revenues, expenses and related changes in net assets for both governmental -type and business -type activities: City of Edmonds Changes in Net Position Governmental Activities Business -type Activities Total 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 Revenues: Program revenues: Charges for services $ 8,713,374 $ 8,378,697 $ 15,970,380 $ 15,620,997 $ 24,683,754 $ 23,999,694 Operating grants and contributions 1,324,353 145,406 53,743 179,479 1,378,096 324,885 Capital grants and contributions 1,942,259 1,771,199 1,052,305 498,486 2,994,564 2,269,685 General revenues: Property tax 13,382,296 13,539,536 - - 13,382,296 13,539,536 Retail sales and use tax 5,637,393 5,286,262 5,637,393 5,286,262 I nterfu nd utility tax 1,527,310 1,517,150 1,527,310 1,517,150 Utility tax 4,813,324 4,715,339 4,813,324 4,715,339 Excise tax 1,819,610 1,368,160 1,819,610 1,368,160 Othertaxes - 1,020,419 - 1,020,419 Real estate excise taxes - Hotel/motel taxes Fuel taxes - - Payments from component unit 404,161 396,493 404,161 396,493 Investment earnings 22,565 16,070 22,786 15,287 45,351 31,357 Miscellaneous revenue 64,315 84,770 - 311 64,315 85,081 Gain on sale of capital assets (148,542) 36,762 (148,542) 36,762 Total revenues 39,502,418 38,276,263 17,099,214 16,314,560 56,601,632 54,590,823 Expenses: General government 7,860,158 8,092,028 7,860,158 8,092,028 Public safety 17,490,480 18,037,057 17,490,480 18,037,057 Transportation 3,922,273 3,412,126 3,922,273 3,412,126 Physical environment 1,546,080 1,405, 398 1,546,080 1,405, 398 Culture and recreation 4,237,656 4,298,852 4,237,656 4,298,852 Economic environment 1,011,062 1,063,894 1,011,062 1,063,894 Health and human services 12,168 9,731 12,168 9,731 Interest on long-term debt 760,142 781,881 760,142 781,881 Prior Period Adjustment - - - - Combined utility fund - - 15,258,298 14,140,249 15,258,298 14,140,249 Total expenses 36,840,019 37,100,967 15,258,298 14,140,249 52,098,317 51,241,216 Increase in net position before transfers 2,662,399 1,175,296 1,840,916 2,174,311 4,503,315 3,349,607 Transfers 565,628 482,316 (565,628) (482,316) - - Change in net position 3,228,027 1,657,612 1,275,288 1,691,995 4,503,315 3,349,607 Net position -beginning of period 76,690,742 75,033,130 65,558,827 63,866,832 142,249,569 138,899,962 Prior Period Adjustment (5,186,703) - (402,196) - (5,588,899) - Net position -end of period $ 74,732,066 $ 76,690,742 $ 66,431,919 $ 65,558,827 $ 141,163,985 $ 142,249,569 Governmental activities contributed $3 million to the total increase in City net assets. Revenues to fund capital assets are recorded as program or general revenues in the statement of activities. However, asset purchases are not recorded as expenses in the year purchased and construction costs are not recorded as expenses in the year incurred. Instead, the costs are recorded as long-term assets and are depreciated over their useful life. Packet Page 324 of 461 General fund tax revenue changes during 2012: • Property tax revenue increased $27,754, or .21 %. • Sales tax collections increased by $347,134, or 6.25%. • Utility taxes rose by $108,145 or 1.71 %. • Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenue increased by $450,604, or 29.29%. Governmental activity expenses decreased by $260,948, or .71 %. The decrease reflected the desire of City administration to adapt spending patterns to actual revenue collections throughout the year. The next chart summarizes the government activity revenue by source, while the second one reflects the specific programs' revenues and related expenses for the various activities of the City. Gaps between specific programs' revenues and their related expenditures are funded through general tax revenues. Revenues by Source -Governmental Activities Other taxes 5% Other revenue Charges for services Utility&admission taxes 1% r 22% 12% -� I i I n terfu n d uti I ity taxes 4% Operating grants& contributions Sales taxes 3% 14% —Capital grants & contributions 5% Property taxes 34% Packet Page 325 of 461 $20,000,000 $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14, 000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 Program Revenues and Expenses -Governmental Activities o Program revenues ■Expenses Business -type activities net position increased by $873,092. Key components of this increase include: • $1,027,212 relates to utility capital contributions. • Net Income (Change in Net Position) went down by $416,707, or 24.6% from 2011. In 2012, this change was $1,275,288, and with the prior period corrections that decreased fund balance by $402,196, this totals the increase of $873,092 for business -type activities. • Business -type activities expenses increased by $1,118,049, or 7.91 %, from 2011. • Net transfers -out totaled $565,628. The transfers generally related to construction costs accounted for in other funds where the utility fund also incurred costs for improvements, such as a water main replacement when a street overlay occurs. The majority of net assets in the City's enterprise funds relate to capital asset infrastructure, such as water and sewer mains, storm water infrastructure, and the wastewater treatment plant. As such, most of the net assets are not available to support the ongoing expenses of the funds. The following chart depicts major sources of revenue for business -type activities: Packet Page 326 of 461 Revenues by Source - Business -Type Activity Investment earnings & other revenue 0% Intergovernm reven ue 0% Capital cone 6% Business -type iscellaneous income 14% Charges for services 80% Financial Analysis of Governmental Funds The purpose of the City's governmental funds is to report on near -term revenues/financial resources and expenditures. This information helps determine the City's financial requirements in the near future. Specifically, fund balance is a good indicator of the City's financial resources. As of December 31, 2012, the City's governmental funds had combined fund balances of $15,037,284 an increase of $1,621,262 or 10.78%. This increase is related to: • General fund ($1,069,940) • Contingency reserve subfund $5,278,152 • Public safety emergency reserve subfund ($1,338,178) • Emergency financial reserve subfund ($1,927,600) • REET 2 fund $595,120 • Parks construction fund $310,029 • Street fund ($269,068) • Other governmental fund $42,745 Of the governmental funds' total fund balances, $10,686,840 is unassigned. Restricted fund balances include $3,022,707 earmarked for culture and recreation purposes, $507,242 for transportation purposes, $26,229 for debt service, $118,537 for public safety, $103,792 for economic environment, and $14,516 for other purposes. Committed fund balances include $432,251 for culture and recreation purposes, and $53,600 for utilities and environment. The general fund is the primary operating fund of the City. All receipts and payments of ordinary City operations are processed through it unless they are accounted for in another fund. At the end of 2012, the general fund had a fund balance of $10,686,910, of which substantially all is unreserved. The fund balance for the general fund is comprised of the following subfunds: Packet Page 327 of 461 LEOFF medical insurance reserve subfund $388,509 • Risk Management reserve fund $114,000 • Contingency reserve fund $5,278,152 • Historic Preservation Gift fund $1,063 • Multimodal transportation subfund $55,859 • Building maintenance subfund $214,026 • General fund $4,635,231 Other governmental funds that had significant fund balances include: • Street construction fund $384,261 • Parks construction fund $396,823 • Municipal arts acquisition fund $432,251 • Cemetery maintenance trust fund $818,644 • Reet 2 fund $1,031,760 The following chart shows the relative fund balances for governmental funds: Governmental Funds -Fund Balances Debt service funds 0% Special revenue funds 29% General fund 71% The $1,124,272 increase in the general fund balance results from revenue of $33,219,646, expenses of $31,799,368, transfers into the fund of $276,016, transfers out of $370,320. In comparison with 2011, revenue increased by $266,466, expenditures decreased by $382,802, transfers out decrease by $193,692, transfers in decreased by $182,236 and income from the sale of capital assets decreased by $16, 257. Packet Page 328 of 461 General Fund Budgetary Highlights The budget is developed to study and review the City's financial direction. It outlines how financial resources will be managed during the upcoming fiscal year; the course can be changed through the allocation of resources. Major groups that participate in the budget process are the Mayor, City Council, Department directors, Managers, and interested Edmonds citizens. The 2012 budget was amended seven times. The final general fund expenditure budget was $6.3 million higher than the original adopted budget. The majority of this difference was due to establishing the Contingency Reserve fund. Of the $5.3 million transferred to this fund, $2 million was from the general fund, $1.9 was from the emergency/financial reserve fund, and $1.3 million was from the reserve fund. A comparison of the actual performance of the general fund on a budgetary basis to the final budget indicates that the total revenues were more than budgeted total revenues by $210,274. This was due to an increase in retail sales and use tax, a decrease in charges for services, and an increase in licenses and permits among others. Expenditures were approximately $2 million below budget, the largest savings were due to salary and benefits of $909,573, professional services of $323,320, repairs and maintenance of $103,661, intergovernmental services of $267,201, and the remaining $404,299 was due to various other expense line items. Financial Analysis of Proprietary Funds The City's proprietary funds provide the same type of information as found in the government -wide financial statements, but in greater detail. Factors affecting the finances of the City's proprietary funds have already been addressed in the discussion of the City's business -type activities. Capital Asset and Debt Administration Capital Assets The City's investment in capital assets for both its governmental and business -type activities as of December 31, 2012 totaled $139.9 million (net of accumulated depreciation), an increase of $1.4 million from 2011. This investment in capital assets includes land, buildings, improvements, machinery and equipment, construction in progress, utility transmission/distribution systems, roads, and other infrastructure. Major capital asset changes during the year include: Land, building and right-of-way costs were incurred during the year, resulting in an increase in governmental infrastructure of $2.1 million. The majority is due to projects related to the Street Overlay Program. $6.1 million was spent by proprietary funds on capital projects during the year. The largest additions were the result of waterline replacement, and sewer lift station improvements. Packet Page 329 of 461 A summary of the City's net assets follows: Summary of Capital Assets (net of depreciation) Governmental Activities Business -type Activities Total As of 12/31/12 As of 12/31/11 As of 12/31/12 As of 12/31/11 As of 12/31/12 As of 12/31/11 Land $ 14,530,663 $ 14,530,663 $ 1,257,106 $ 1,257,106 $ 15,787,769 $ 15,787,769 Building 11,942,436 12,784,930 21,581,600 22,285,872 33,524,036 35,070,802 Improvements other than buildings 6,794,504 7,191,208 38,313,154 34,059,505 45,107,658 41,250,713 Infrastructure 26,752,773 27,095,351 - - 26,752,773 27,095,351 Machinery and equipment 2,381,055 2,422,704 230,209 266,436 2,611,264 2,689,140 Intangible assets - - 294,876 346,776 294,876 346,776 Construction in progress 9,635,611 8,690,704 6,161,274 7,558,755 15,796,885 16,249,459 Total $ 72.037.042 $ 72,715,560 $ 67,838,219 $ 65,774,450 $139,875,260 $138,490,010 More detailed information on capital assets is provided in note 8. Long-term Debt At the end of the current fiscal year, the City had total bonded debt outstanding of $30,175,000. Of this amount, $13,604,427 is general obligation bonds for governmental activities, $3,320,573 is general obligation bonds for business -type activities, for a total of $16,925,000 in general obligation bonds, and $13,250,000 is revenue bonds for the City operated utilities. The City currently maintains a rating of Aa3 with Moody's for its revenue bonds, Aa2 for voter approved general obligation bonds, and Aa3 for councilmanic general obligation bonds. The following schedule summarizes the City's long-term debt: General obligation debt Revenue bonds Capital contracts Public Works Trust Fund loans Total Economic Factors Summary of Long -Term Debt Governmental Activities Business -type Activities Total As of 12/31/12 As of 12/31/11 As of 12/31/12 As of 12/31/11 As of 12/31/12 As of 12/31/11 $ 13,604,427 $ 15,520,201 $ 3,320,573 $ 3,554,800 $ 16,925,000 $ 19,075,001 - - 13,250,000 13,720,000 13,250,000 13,720,000 1,063,924 1,229,863 - - 1,063,924 1,229,863 895,893 968,095 2,407,905 2,563,901 3,303,798 3,531,996 $ 15,564,244 $ 17,718,159 $ 18,978,478 $ 19,838,701 $ 34,542,722 $ 37,556,860 The economic conditions have continued to increase at a slow rate, sales tax collections increased 6.25%, and REET revenue has increased 29.29%. Property tax and Utility tax revenue collections are still holding steady. City staff has continued to hold the line on spending and therefore the City's 2013 budget reflects no new programs and is passed in large part on the 2012 estimated actual results with minimal increases to 2012 revenue. Economic Overview The economy of the City of Edmonds is primarily based on retail and service activity, health care and waterfront activity. Located along the shore of Puget Sound about 15 miles north of the City of Seattle and south of Everett, Edmonds is primarily an upper -middle income residential community, with extensive waterfront and water view residential property. Packet Page 330 of 461 Business Districts. The City's business districts include the Downtown/Waterfront, Highway 99, Westgate, Five Corners, Firdale Village, and Perrinville. Downtown shops and galleries highlight the contemporary, offering everything from best-seller books, fine art, gifts, travel supplies, gourmet food, garden supplies, to the latest in clothing styles, shoes, jewelry, and unique housewares. Restaurants, cafes, and bistros offer dining experiences near the center of town and beachfront eateries feature scenic views of Puget Sound, the Olympic Mountains, and magnificent sunsets. One of a kind coffee shops, wine bars and cuisine from around the world offer many choices - from a quick break to relaxed dining. The Harbor Square shopping area offers 60 businesses, including an athletic club and a hotel. More shopping and dining can be found along Highway 99 and in the neighborhood commercial districts of Westgate, Five Corners, Firdale Village and Perrinville. Healthcare. Swedish Edmonds Hospital, which originally opened in 1964 is a full service facility licensed for 217 and staffed by 450+ physicians and specialists. Prior to joining Swedish, the Edmonds hospital (formerly known as Stevens Hospital) was governed by the Public Hospital District No. 2 of Snohomish County. The District's Board of Commissioners no longer oversees the day-to-day operations at Swedish/Edmonds, but is still involved in some of the major decisions. It also manages the Verdant Health Commission, formerly South Snohomish County Commission for Health, to promote good health in the surrounding communities. Transportation. The Edmonds/Kingston ferry connects south Snohomish County and north King County with the Kitsap Peninsula and, via the Hood Canal Bridge, the Olympic Peninsula. A Burlington Northern Railroad line runs adjacent to the Edmonds' shoreline and is used for Sound Transit Commuter and Amtrak passenger rail service and moving freight. Community Transit provides local and commuter bus service. Waterfront. The Edmonds waterfront area includes four public beaches, a public fishing pier, off -leash dog area, and the oldest underwater park on the West Coast and Port. The 950-foot long fishing pier, located just south of the ferry terminal, includes benches, lighting and bait and cleaning areas, and is open year-round, 24 hours a day. Edmonds Underwater Park, the oldest of its kind on the West Coast, is located just north of the ferry terminal. The 32-acre park was dedicated as a marine preserve in 1971, and provides divers with a number of underwater structures and a wide variety of fish and plant life to explore. The Port of Edmonds operates a marina with approximately 729 moorage slips in the water and 350 spaces for dry boat storage. The marina provides guest moorage, public launching and parking facilities, a 35-ton travelift, a pressure washing facility, and a workyard. The port's charter fishing fleet attracts more than 10,000 customers annually, making it the third largest in the State. Parks and Art. Residents and visitors can walk along an award winning waterfront walkway, access four public beaches, swim at outdoor Yost pool, use an the Off Leash Area for their dogs, go to a summer concerts at downtown City Park, take a picnic and enjoy views from public parks and beaches, take self - guided walking tours of public art, view murals in the downtown area, attend an annual Arts Festival and Third Thursday Artwalks, and attend performing art events at Edmonds Center for the Arts, and live theatre at Wade James and Phoenix Theaters. Requests for Information The City's financial statements are designed to provide users with a general overview of the City's finances as well as to demonstrate the City's accountability to its citizens, investors, creditors, and other customers. If you have a question about the report, please contact the Finance Director, 121 Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington, WA 98020, (425) 771-0240. Packet Page 331 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON STATEMENT OF NET POSITION DECEMBER 31. 2012 PRIMARY GOVERNMENT IL COMPONENT UNIT - GOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS -TYPE EDMONDS PUBLIC ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES Tim FACILITIES DISTRICT CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS (Note 3) $ 14,072,292 $ 15,226,248 $ 29,298,540 $ 85,403 CASH WITH OUTSIDE AGENCIES 39,040 - 39,040 - INVESTMENTS (Note 3) 3,493,760 3,493,760 - RECEIVABLES: TAXES 401,663 - 401,663 - CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS 702,270 2,259,942 2,962,212 18,359 COURT RECEIVABLE 663,558 - 663,558 OTHER RECEIVABLES - - 70,752 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 32,866 32,866 - INTEREST ON INVESTMENT 1,203 - 1,203 DUE FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 3,263,117 589,298 3,852,415 31,800 DUE FROM COMPONENT UNIT 555,631 - 555,631 - MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES INVENTORY 81,591 99,568 181,159 2,261 DEFERRED CHARGES 28,777 319,403 348,180 64,609 RESTRICTED ASSETS: CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS (Note 3) - 984,163 984,163 - SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 93,712 - 93,712 INVESTMENT IN JOINT VENTURE 494,337 - 494,337 - DEPRECIABLE CAPITALASSETS (NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION): (Note 8) 47,870,767 60,419,837 108,290,604 10,592,176 NON-DEPRECIABLECAPITALASSETS 24,166,274 7,418,380 31,584,654 3,444,885 95,960,858 87,316,839 183,277,697 14,310,245 LIABILITIES: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 1,048,575 561,964 1,610,539 84,060 WAGES AND BENEFITS PAYABLE 1,161,356 202,476 1,363,832 61,058 INTERNAL BALANCES (157,365) 157,365 - DUETOOTHER GOVERNMENTAL UNITS - 136,762 136,762 OTHER LIABILITIES PAYABLE 98,852 185,744 284,596 PAYABLE FROM RESTRICTED ASSETS: ACCRUED INTEREST 32,397 37,218 69,615 11,607 DEPOSITS - 3,299 3,299 75,506 UNEARNED REVENUE - - - 204,234 DEFERRED CREDITS 178,746 268,198 446,944 BONDS AND OTHER DEBT PAYABLE: NET PENSION OBLIGATION 208,751 - 208,751 NET OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT OBLIGATION 445,956 - 445,956 DUE WITHIN ONE YEAR (Note 12) 3,943,601 1,291,441 5,235,042 155,000 DUE IN MORE THAN ONE YEAR (Note 12) 14,267,923 18,040,453 32,308,376 3,949,763 TOTAL LIABIL 88 4,541,228 NET POSITION: INVESTED IN CAPITAL ASSETS, NET OF RELATED DEBT RESTRICTED FOR DEBT SERV ICE PUBLIC SAFETY TRANSPORTATION CULTURE AND RECREATION ECONOMIC ENV IRONMENT CONSTRUCTION OTHER PURPOSES UNRESTRICTED NET POSITION TOTAL NET POSITION 61,259,051 55, 063, 391 116,322,442 10,437, 061 26,229 984,163 1,010,392 475,533 118,537 - 118,537 507,242 507,242 3,022,707 3,022,707 103,792 - 103,792 - 6,422,020 6,422,020 14,516 3,299 17,815 9,679,992 3,959,046 13,639,038 (1,143,577) $ 74,732,066 $ 66,431,919 $ 11 M 985 $ 9,769,017 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. Packet Page 332 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012 Page 1of2 EXPENSES CHARGES FOR SERVICES PROGRAM REV ENUES OPERATING GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS CA PIfAL GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS FUNCTIONS / PROGRAMS: PRIM ARY GOVERNMENT: GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES: GENERAL GOVERNMENT $ 7,860,158 $ 4,624,432 $ 7,000 $ PUBLIC SAFETY 17,490,480 1,066,201 10,712 TRANSPORTATION 3,922,273 765,565 1,229,725 1,436,914 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1,546,080 141,400 - - CULTURE AND RECREATION 4,237,656 1,342,837 69,866 505,345 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 1,011,062 616,346 6,859 - HEALTHAND HUMAN SERVICES 12,168 156,593 - NTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 760,142 - 191 TOTAL GOVERNMENTALACTIVrIIES 36,840,019 8,713,374 1,324,353 BUSINESS-TYPEACTIV ITIES: COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 15,258,298 15,970,380 53,743 1,052,305 TOTAL BUSINESS -TYPE ACTIVITIES 15,258,298 15,970,380 53,743 1,052,305 TOTAL PRIMARY GOVERNMENT $ 52,098,317 $ 24,683,754 $ 1,378,096 $ 2,994,564 COM PONENT UNIT: EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT $ 2,419,265 $ 846,029 $ 680,339 $ TOTAL COMPONENT UNIT $ 2,419,265 $ 846,029 $ 680,339 $ GENERAL REVENUES: TA XES: PROPERTY RETAIL SALES AND USE INTERFUND UTILITY UTILITY EXCISE PAYMENTS FROM COMPONENT UNIT INVESTMENT EA RNINGS MISCELLANEOUS GAIN (LOSS) ON SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS TRANSFERS (Note 6) TOTAL GENERAL REVENUES CHANGE IN NEI POSITION NEr POSITION - BEGINNING PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENT NEr POSITION - ENDING The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. Packet Page 333 of 461 Page 2 of 2 PRIMARY GOV ERNMEVT NET (E(PENSE) REVENUEAND CRA NGES IN NET ASSETS COMPONENT UNIT GOV E2NMENTAL BUSINESS -TYPE EDMONDS PUBLIC ACTH ITIES ACTIVITY T FACILITIES DISTRICT $ (3,228,726) $ $ (3,228,726) (16,413,567) (16,413,567) (490,069) (490,069) (1,404,680) (1,404,680) (2,319,608) (2,319,608) (387,857) (387,857) 144,425 144,425 (759,951) (759,951) (24,860,033) (24,860,033) 1,818,130 1,818,130 1,818,130 1,818,130 (24,860,033) 1,818,130 (23,041,903) 13,382,296 13,382,296 5,637,393 5,637,393 1,527,310 1,527, 310 4,813,324 4,813,324 1,819,610 1,819,610 404,161 404,161 22,565 22,786 45,351 64,315 - 64,315 (148,542) (148,542) 565,628 (565,628) - 28,088,060 (542,842) 27,545,218 3,228,027 1,275,288 4,503,315 76,690,742 65,558,827 142,249,569 (5,186,703) (402,196) (5,588,899) 74,732,066 $ 66,431,919 $ 141,163,985 $ (892,897) (892,897) 418,866 1,454 420,320 (472,577) 5,276,594 4,965,000 $ 9,769,017 Packet Page 334 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON BALANCE SHEET GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS DECEMBER 31, 2012 ' TUCK u n I GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL GOVERNMENTAL FUND FUNDS FUNDS ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS: CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS $ 7,035,103 $ 2,518,814 $ 9,553,917 INVESTMENTS 2,993,760 500,000 3,493,760 DEPOSITS WITH TRUSTEES 39,040 - 39,040 RECEIVABLES: TAXES 401,663 - 401,663 CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS 690,311 10,767 701,078 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS - 32,866 32,866 ACCRUED INTEREST RECEIVABLE 334 869 1,203 DUE FROM COMPONENT UNIT 555,631 - 555,631 INTERFUND RECEIVABILE (Note 6) 157,365 44,277 201,642 DUE FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1,398,308 1,863,252 3,261,560 SUPPLIES INVENTORY 70 - 70 LONG-TERM ASSETS: DEFERRED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS - 93,712 93,712 TOTAL ASSETS $ 13,271,585 $ 5,064,557 $ 18,336,142 ML Now - LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES: CURRENT LIABILITIES: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE WAGES AND BENFITS PAYABLE INTERFUND PAYABLE (Note 6) OTHER LIABILITIES PAYABLE LONG-TERM LIABILITIES: DEFERRED REVENUE TOTAL LIABILITIES FUND BALANCES: NON -SPENDABLE INVENTORY RESTRICTED FOR: DEBT SERV ICE PUBLIC SAFETY TRANSPORTATION CULTURE AND RECREATION ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT OTHER PURPOSES COMMITTED TO: UTILITIES AND ENVIRONMENT CULTURE AND RECREATION OTHER PURPOSES UNASSIGNED TOTAL FUND BALANCES TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES $ 482,057 $ 506,686 $ 988,743 1,015,668 33,459 1,049,127 - 44,277 44,277 97,828 1,024 98,852 989,121 128,737 1,117, 858 2,584,674 714,183 3,298,857 70 70 26,229 26,229 118,537 118,537 507,242 507,242 3,022,707 3,022,707 103,792 103,792 14,516 14,516 53,600 53,600 432,251 432,251 - 71,500 71,500 10,686,840 - 10,686,840 10,686,910 4,350,374 15,037,284 $ 13,271,584 $ 5,064,557 $ 18,336,141 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. Packet Page 335 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON RECONCILIATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET TO THE STATEMENT OF NET POSITION GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS DECEMBER 31. 2012 Total governmental fund balances as reported on this statement $ 15,037,284 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of net position are different because: Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and therefore not reported in the funds. These assets consist of: Land $ 14,530,663 Construction in progress 9,635,611 Subtotal: Non -depreciable capital assets 24,166,274 Investment in joint venture 494,336 Buildings 25,479,908 Improvements other than buildings 13,531,609 Inf restructure 57,784,955 Kbchinery and equipment - general government 7,385,975 Less: Accumulated depreciation (56,311,679) Subtotal: Depreciable capital assets 47,870,768 72,531,378 Other long-term assets are not available to pay for current -period expenditures and theref ore are deferred in the funds. Court receivable 663,558 Deferred charges 28,777 Interest receivable on investments 0 Unearned revenue beyond the city's 30-day measurable and available period 0 Deferred charges for bond issue costs (178,746) 513,589 Internal service funds are used by management to charge the cost of equipment maintenance to individual funds. The assets and liabilities of these internal service funds are included in governmental activities in the statement of net assets. Capital assets of $2,026,934 are included in the capital asset adjustment above. Compensated absence liability of $22,398 is included in the adjustment below . 4,509,350 Some liabilities are not due and payable in the current period and theref ore are not reported in the funds. General obligation bonds (13,604,427) Compensated absences ($2,647,280 total liability, less $22,398 attributable to internal service funds) (2,624,882) Accrued Wages Payable (Voluntary Separation Incentive Program) (101,163) Capital contracts (1,063,924) Public works trust fund loans (895,893) Subtotal: Long-term debt payable (18,290,289) Accrued interest (32,397) Net pension obligation (208,751) Net other post employment benef it obligation (445,956) Unearned revenues reported as deferred revenues in the Balance Sheet - Governmental Funds are not reported in the government-w ide Statement of Net Position (Note 1) 1,117,858 (17,859,535) Net position of government activities as reported on the statement of net position $ 74,732,066 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement Packet Page 336 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012 OTHER TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL GOVERNMENTAL FUND FUNDS FUNDS REVENUES: TAXES: PROPERTY $ 13,464,310 $ - $ 13,464,310 RETAIL SALES & USE 5,557,905 79,488 5,637,393 INTERFUND UTILITY 1,527,310 - 1,527,310 UTILITY 4,813,325 - 4,813,325 EXCISE 281,008 1,538,602 1,819,610 LICENSES AND PERMITS 1,686,196 24,888 1,711,084 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 975,506 3,474,724 4,450,230 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 3,929,688 884,394 4,814,082 FINES AND FORFEITURES 598,398 - 598,398 INVESTMENT EARNINGS 10,566 11,996 22,562 MISCELLANEOUS 375,434 235,592 611,026 TOTAL REVENUES 33,219,646 6,249,684 39,469,330 EXPENDITURES: CURRENT: GENERAL GOV ERNMENT SERV ICES PUBLIC SAFETY UTILITIES AND ENVIRONMENT TRANSPORTATION ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH CULTURE AND RECREATION DEBT SERVICE: PRINCIPAL INTEREST AND OTHER COSTS CAPITAL OUTLAY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND OTHER PAYMENTS TOTAL EXPENDITURES EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES): PROCEEDS OF GENERAL LONG-TERM DEBT PAYMENTS TO ESCROW FOR BOND REFUNDING PREMIUM ON BONDS SOLD BOND ISSUANCE DISCOUNT SALES OF CAPITAL ASSETS TRANSFERS IN (Note 6) TRANSFERS OUT (Note 6) TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES AND USES NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES FUND BALANCES - BEGINNING PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENT FUND BALANCES - ENDING 7,182,874 1,336 7,184,210 17,267,023 56,602 17,323,625 1,355,506 156,009 1,511,515 - 1,568,930 1,568,930 999,891 4,259 1,004,150 12,168 - 12,168 3,259,549 228,032 3,487,581 1,147,442 818,318 1,965,760 291,818 466,406 758,224 13,097 3,025,563 3,038,660 250,000 - 250,000 31,779,368 6,325,455 38,104,823 1,440,278 (75,771) 1,364,507 9,004,043 9,004,043 (9,227,996) (9,227,996) 343,536 343,536 (49,522) (49,522) - 2,490 2,490 276,016 1,900,694 2,176,710 (370,320) (1,400,486) (1,770,806) (94,304) 572,759 478,455 1,345,974 496,988 1,842,962 9,562,638 3,853,386 13,416,024 (221,703) - (221,703) $ 10,686,910 $ 4,350,374 $ 15,037,284 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. Packet Page 337 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012 Net change in fund balances per the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Amount reported as change in net assets in the Statement of Activities are different because: Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the statement of activities the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense. This is the amount bywhich capital outlay($3,030,410) is exceeded bydepreciation and amortization ($3,738,102) in the current period. Capital outlays $ 3,027,526 Internal service fund - capital outlays 490,116 Current year depreciation (includes $337,943 for internal service fund) (4,029,999) Adjustment in investment in joint venture (16,737) Revenues in the Statement of Activities that do not provide current financial resources are not reported as revenues in the funds: Deferred taxes (82,015) Other deferred revenue 266,515 Record of court receivable (6,208) Bond proceeds provide current financial resources to governmental funds, but issuing debt increases long-term liabilities in the statement of net assets. Repayment of long-term debt is an expenditure in the governmental funds, yet the repayment reduces long-term liabilities in the statement of net assets. This is the amount bywhich repayments exceeded proceeds. $ 1,842,962 (529,094) 178,292 Amortization of deferred charges 5,033 Long-term debt repayments 1,965,761 1,970,794 Internal service funds are used bymanagement to charge the costs of equipment rental to individual funds. The net revenue (expense) of this internal service fund is reported with governmental activities. Capital activity of $152,173 is included in the capital asset adjustment above. (278,782) Some expenses reported in the Statement of Activities do not require the use of current financial resources and therefore are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds. Accrued interest expense 26,680 Net pension obligation 11,314 Net other post -employment benefit obligation (8,484) Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (101,163) Accrued compensating absence expense ($147,402 total expenditure less $31,894 attributable to internal service funds) 115,508 43,855 Change in net assets on the Statement of Activities $ 3,228,027 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. Packet Page 338 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL GENERAL FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012 ORIGINAL BUDGET (GAAP BASIS) FINAL BUDGET (GAAP BASIS) ACTUAL RESULTS VARIANCE WITH FINAL BUDGET REVENUES: TAXES: PROPERTY $ 13,434,570 $ 13,434,570 $ 13,464,310 $ 29,740 RETAIL SALES & USE 5,252,325 5,252,325 5,557,905 305,580 INTERFUND UTILITY 1,548,996 1,548,996 1,527,310 (21,686) UTILITY 4,801,786 4,801,786 4,813,325 11,539 EXCISE 281,419 281,419 281,008 (411) LICENSES AND PERMITS 1,586,261 1,586,261 1,686,196 99,935 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,013,653 1,013,653 975,506 (38,147) CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,065,102 4,065,102 3,929,688 (135,414) FINES AND FORFEITURES 619,272 619,272 598,398 (20,874) INVESTMENT EARNINGS 17,960 17,960 10,566 (7,394) MISCELLANEOUS 363,168 388,028 375,434 (12,594) TOTAL REVENUES 32,984,512 33,009,372 33,219,646 210,274 EXPENDITURES CURRENT: GENERAL GOVERNMENT 7,397,277 8,036,734 7,182,874 853,860 PUBLIC SAFETY 18,117,581 18,117,581 17,267,023 850,558 UTILITIES AND ENVIRONMENT 1,342,858 1,368,658 1,355,506 13,152 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 1,038,671 1,050,581 999,891 50,690 MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH 10,300 10,300 12,168 (1,868) CULTURE AND RECREATION 3,471,365 3,489,708 3,259,549 230,159 DEBT SERVICE 1,449,280 1,446,646 1,439,260 7,386 CAPITAL OUTLAY 17,144 17,144 13,097 4,047 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND OTHER PAYMENTS 250,000 250,000 250,000 - TOTAL EXPENDITURES 33,094,476 33,787,352 31,779,368 2,007,984 EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (109,964) (777,980) 1,440,278 2,218,258 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES): TRANSFERS IN (Note 6) 681,686 6,214,616 276,016 (5,938,600) TRANSFERS OUT (Note 6) (719,623) (6,333,061) (370,320) 5,962,741 TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES AND USES (37,937) (118,445) (94,304) 24,141 NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES (147,901) (896,425) 1,345,974 2,242,399 FUND BALANCES - BEGINNING 9,432,760 9,562,638 9,562,638 - PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENT - - (221,703) (221,703) FUND BALANCES - ENDING $ 9,284,859 $ 8,666,213 $ 10,686,909 $ 2,020,696 The notes to the financial statements are an integral partofthis statement. Packet Page 339 of 461 MAJOR PROPRIETARY FUNDS ENTERPRISE FUNDS The City's enterprise fund is used to account for operations that are financed and operated in a manner similar to private business operations. The goods and services this fund provides to the general public are primarily financed by service charges. Enterprise funds are self-supporting and use the accrual method of accounting. Edmonds has one major enterprise fund. The Combined Utility Fund This fund accounts for all maintenance, construction, and debt service requirements associated with the City's water, sewer and stormwater systems. Packet Page 340 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS, W ASHINGTON STATEMENT OF NET POSITION PROPRIETARY FUNDS DECEMBER 31. 2012 ASSETS: CURRENT A SSETS: CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS DUE FROM OTHER GOV ERNMENTA L UNITS INVENTORY TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS LONG-TERM ASSETS: RESTRICTED CASH, BOND RESERVES DEFERRED CHA RGES CAPITAL ASSETS: DEPRECIABLE CAPITAL ASSETS (NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION) CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS LA ND TOTAL CA PTTAL ASSETS (NET OF A/D) TOTAL LONG-TERM ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES: CURRENT LIABILITIES: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE WAGES AND BENEFITS PAYABLE COMPENSATED ABSENCES INTERFUND PAY ABLES PUBLIC WORKS TRUST FUND LOANS PA YA BLE CURRENT REVENUE BONDS PAY ABLE -CURRENT (NET OF UNAMORTIZED PREMIUMIDISCOUNT) GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS PA YABLE CURRENT ACCRUED INTEREST DEPOSITS DUE TO OTHER GOV ERNMENTAL UNITS OTHER LIA BILIIIES PAYABLE TOTAL CURRENT LIABLITIES LONG-TERM LIA BILMES: DEFERRED CREDITS LOA NS PAYABLE REVENUE BONDS PAY ABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS PAYABLE TOTAL LONG-TERM LIA BILMES TOTAL LIABILITIES NEf POSITION: INV ESTER IN CA PITAL ASSETS, NET OF RELATED DEBT RESTRICTED FOR: DEBT SERV ICE CUSTOMER DEPOSITS CONSTRUCTION UNRESTRICTED TOTAL NEI A_ 411 / 412 / 414 GOVERNMENTAL COMBINED ACTIVITIES UTILITY INTERNAL FUNDS SERVICE FUNDS $ 15,226,248 $ 4,518,375 2,259,942 1,192 589,298 1,558 99,568 81 521 18,175,056 984,163 319,403 60,419,837 2,026,934 6,161,274 - 1,257,106 67,838,217 2,026,934 9,141,783 2,026,934 87,316,839 6,629,580 561,964 59,832 202,476 33,464 403,249 157,365 221,522 515,000 220,047 37,218 3,299 136,762 185,744 2,644,646 93,296 218,365 2,186, 383 12,735,000 3,100, 526 18,240,274 - 20,884,920 93,296 55,063,391 2,026,934 984,163 - 3,299 - 6,422,020 - 3,959,046 4,509,350 $ 66,431,919 $ 6,536,284 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. Packet Page 341 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION PROPRIETARY FUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012 OPERATING REVENUES: CHARGES FOR SERVICES OTHER OPERATING REV ENUE TOTA L OPERATING REV ENUES OPERATING EXPENSES: PERSONNEL SERVICES OPERATIONS & MAINTENA NCE PROFESSIONA L SERVICES INSURA NCE DEPRECIATION/AMORTIZA TION TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) NON -OPERATING REVENUE (E(PENSE): INTERGOVERNMENTAL INVESTMENT EARNINGS OTHER NON -OPERA TING REVENUES GAIN (LOSS) ON SALE OF CAPITA L ASSETS INTEREST EXPENSE TOTAL NON -OPERATING REVENUE (EXPENSE) CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS TRANSFERS IN (Note 6) TRANSFERS OUT (Note 6) N 10 TOTAL NET POSITION BEGINNING OF YEAR PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENT SITIO OF YEAR 411 / 412 / 414 GOV ERNMENTA L COMBINED ACTH ITIES UTILITY INTERNA L FUNDS SERV ICE FUNDS $ 13,646,242 $ 1,077,456 2,320,443 - 15,966,685 1,077,456 3,954,711 297,831 7,715,029 508,850 382,535 615 242,229 32,530 2,627,060 337,943 14,921, 564 1,177,769 1,045,121 (100, 313) 82,530 - 22,786 6,487 - 6,549 - (151,032) (336,733) - (231,417) (137,996) 1,027,212 - - 111,700 (565,628) - 1,275,288 (126,609) 65,558,827 6,662,893 (402,196) - $ 66,431,919 $ 6,536,284 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. Packet Page 342 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS PROPRIETARY FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012 Page 1 of 2 411 / 412 / 414 GOVERNMENT COMBINED ACTIVITIES UTILITY INTERNAL FUNDS SERVICE FUNDS CASH FLOW S FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: CASH RECEIVED FROM USERS $ 15,799,478 $ 1,077,456 CASH PAID TO SUPPLIERS (9,123,427) (523,801) CASH PAID FOR INVENTORY 1,438 (49,133) CASH PAID TO EMPLOYEES (3,931,597) (332,196) NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES 2,745,892 172,325 CASH FLOW S FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES: INTERFUND LOAN 9,575 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFER 82,530 - TRANSFERS IN - 111,700 TRANSFERS OUT (565,628) - NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY NON - CAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES (473,523) 111,700 CASH FLOW S FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES: PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF EQUIPMENT - 15,331 PURCHASE OF CAPITAL ASSETS (4,685,449) (490,323) CONTRIBUTED CAPITAL 1,027,212 - PROCEEDS FROM INSURANCE SETTLEMENT - 6,549 PRINCIPAL PAYMENT ON DEBT (909,221) - INTEREST PAYMENT ON DEBT (590,685) NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) FOR CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES (5,158,143) (468,443) CASH FLOW FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: INTEREST RECEIVED 22,786 6,487 NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) IN INVESTING ACTIVITIES 22,786 6,487 NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS (2,862,988) (177,930) CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS -BEGINNING OF YEAR 19,073,399 4,696,305 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS -END OF YEAR $ 16,210,411 $ 4,518,375 CASH AT END OF YEAR CONSISTS OF: CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS 15,226,248 $ 4,518,375 RESTRICTED CASH -BOND PAYMENTS 984,163 - TOTAL CASH $ 16,210,411 $ 4,518,375 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. Packet Page 343 of 461 CITY OFEDMONDS, WASHINGTON STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS PROPRIETARY FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012 Page 2 of 2 4111412/414 GOVERNMENT COMBINED ACTIVITIES UTILITY INTERNAL FUNDS SERVICE FUNDS RECONCILIATION OF NET OPERATING INCOME TO NEW CASH PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) ADJUSTMENTS TO RECONCILE OPERATING INCOME TO NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES: DEPRECIATION ASSET (INCREASES) DECREASES DUE FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL UNITS MISCELLANEOUS A/R-REVENUE INVENTORY LIABILITY INCREASES (DECREASES) : ACCOUNTS & VOUCHERS PAYABLE DEPOSITS PAYABLE WAGES & BENEFITS PAYABLE DUE TO GOVERNMENTAL UNIT OTHER LIABILITIES DEFERRED REVENUE TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES $ 1,045,120 $ (100,314) 2,627,060 337,943 361,182 (704) (211,614) - 1,438 (49,133) (1,069,087) 18,898 (1,399) - 23,114 (34,365) 48,779 (75,728) (2,974) - 1.700.771 272.639 $ 2,745,892 $ 172,325 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. Packet Page 344 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON STATEMENT OF FIDUCIARY NET POSITION FIDUCIARY FUNDS DECEMBER 31, 2012 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND ASSETS: CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS $ 221,735 TOTAL ASSETS $ 221,735 LIABILITIES: CURRENT PAYABLES TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 5,016 5,016 NET POSITION: HELD IN TRUST FOR PENSION BENEFITS AND OTHER PURPOSESNNJJJMPIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�$ 216,719 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. Packet Page 345 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FIDUCIARY NET POSITION FIDUCIARY FUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND ADDITIONS: EMPLOY ER CONTRIBUTIONS $ 48,023 FIRE INSURANCE PREMIUMS 44,665 INVESTMENT EARNINGS 301 TOTAL ADDITIONS 92,989 DEDUCTIONS: BENEFIT PAYMENTS PROFESSIONA L SERV ICES TOTAL DEDUCTIONS CHANGE IN NET POSITION NET POSITION - BEGINNING NET POSITION - ENDING 88,415 1,065 89,480 3,509 213,210 $ 216,719 The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. Packet Page 346 of 461 NOTE 1 — SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES The accounting and reporting policies of the City of Edmonds, which conform to generally accepted accounting principles for governments as prescribed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), are regulated by the Washington State Auditor's Office. The City's significant accounting policies are described below. A. REPORTING ENTITY The City of Edmonds was incorporated in 1890 and operates under a Council/Mayor form of government. The City Council is composed of seven members elected at large who each serve a four-year term. The Mayor is elected at large and serves a four-year term. The Mayor is responsible for all City affairs. The City provides a full range of general government services: including public safety, streets, parks and recreation, planning and zoning, permits and inspection, general administration, and water, sewer, storm water and wastewater treatment utilities. The accompanying financial statements include all funds, agencies, and boards controlled by or dependent on the City. Criteria used to determine agency dependence on the City were: selection of the governing body, budget adoption, taxing authority, outstanding debt service secured by City revenues or general obligations, City obligation to finance possible deficits, or receipt of significant City subsidies. Discretely Presented Component Unit - The Edmonds City Council formed the Edmonds Public Facilities District (PFD) on April 24, 2001 by Ordinance. 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 is to construct and operate a "regional center" in the City of Edmonds. RCW 35.57 defines a regional center as a conference, convention or special events center along with related parking. A five member board governs the PFD and is appointed to four-year terms by the Edmonds City Council. The PFD has authority under state law to issue debt, levy certain taxes, and enter into contracts. In 2002 the City Issued Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds for the acquisition, renovation and remodeling of a Performing Arts Center by the PFD in the amount of $7,015,000. These proceeds were transferred to the PFD. The bonds are a debt of the City and not the PFD; however the PFD is obligated by inter -local agreement to transfer sales tax rebate revenues to the City to offset the City's debt service costs over the life of the bonds. In 2008 the PFD issued bonds to retire short-term debt it had issued to complete construction of the Edmonds Center for the Arts. The PFD is currently not able to meet its debt service obligation on the 2008 bonds. However, the City guarantees repayment of those bonds through a Contingent Loan Agreement. Advances by the City to the PFD for debt service on the 2008 bonds are shown in the City's Statement of Net Position as a Due from Component Unit. More information about the PFD, including complete financial statements, can be obtained from Edmonds Performing Arts Center, c/o Joe Mclalwain, 401 Fourth Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020. Blended Component Unit - The Edmonds Transportation Benefit District is governed by the seven —member board appointed by the City of Edmonds Council. Although it is legally separated from the City of Edmonds the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District is reported as if it were part of the primary government because its sole purpose is to finance and construct City of Edmonds streets. Packet Page 347 of 461 Joint Ventures - A joint venture is an organization that results from a contractual arrangement and is owned, operated, or governed by two or more participants as a separate activity. In addition to joint control, each participant must have either an ongoing financial interest or an ongoing financial responsibility. The City participates in a single joint venture with Snohomish County and other local governments in the Snohomish County Emergency Radio System. See note 16 for additional information. B. GOVERNMENT-WIDEAND FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The government -wide financial statements (i.e. the statement of Net Position and the statement of activities) report information on all of the non -fiduciary activities of the primary government and its component units. Government activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, are reported separately from business -type activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and charges for support. Likewise, the primary government is reported separately from certain legally separate component units for which the primary government is financially accountable. The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or segment is offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or segment. Program revenues include (1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or segment and (2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or segment. The City has allocated certain indirect costs that are included in the program expense reported for individual functions and activities. Taxes and other items not properly included among program revenues are reported as general revenues. As a general rule the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from the government -wide financial statements. Exceptions to this general rule are charges between the government's water and sewer function and other functions of the government. Elimination of these charges would distort the direct costs and program revenues reported for the various functions concerned. Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary funds. The fiduciary funds are not included in the government -wide financial statements. Major individual funds are reported as separate columns, while the remaining funds are combined for presentation purposes in the governmental funds statements and the proprietary funds statements. C. MEASUREMENT FOCUS, BASIS OF ACCOUNTING, AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION The accounts of the City are organized on the basis of funds, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. Each fund is accounted for with a separate set of self -balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenue, and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. The City resources are allocated to, and accounted for in, individual funds according to the purpose for which they are spent and how they are controlled. The basis of accounting refers to the timing of when revenues and expenditures or expenses are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. Packet Page 348 of 461 The government -wide financial statements (i.e. the statement of Net Position and the statement of activities) report information on all of the non -fiduciary activities of the primary government and its component units. Government activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, are reported separately from business -type activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and charges for support. Likewise, the primary government is reported separately from certain legally separate component units for which the primary government is financially accountable. The statement of Net Position presents the reporting entity's nonfiduciary assets and liabilities, with the difference reported as Net Position. Net Position is reported in three categories: Invested in capital assets, net of related debt consists of capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation and reduced by outstanding balances for bonds, notes, and other debt that are attributed to the acquisition , construction, or improvement of those assets. Restricted Net Position result when constraints placed on net asset use are either externally imposed by creditors, grantors, contributors, and the like, or imposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation. • Unrestricted Net Position consists of Net Position that does not meet the definition of the two preceding categories. Unrestricted Net Position often is designated to indicate that management does not consider them available for general operations. Unrestricted Net Position often has constraints on resources that are imposed by management, but can me modified or removed. The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or segment is offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or segment. Program revenues include (1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or segment and (2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or segment. The City has allocated certain indirect costs that are included in the program expense reported for individual functions and activities. Taxes and other items not properly included among program revenues are reported as general revenues. The government -wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the proprietary and pension trust fund financial statements. Interfund services provided and used are not eliminated in the process of consolidation. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. The modified accrual basis of accounting is followed in all governmental and permanent funds of the City. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized when measurable and available. Revenues are generally considered available if they are collected within the current period or soon enough thereafter (60 days) to pay current liabilities. For derived tax revenues, such as sales tax and utility business and occupation taxes, revenues are recognized in the period when the underlying exchange has occurred. For imposed non -exchange taxes, such as property taxes, revenues are recognized when the use of resources is permitted, or when resources are available. Grant revenue is recognized in the period in which the expenditure occurs and the eligibility requirements have been met. Non -exchange Packet Page 349 of 461 transactions, such as contributions, are recognized when the donation eligibility requirements have been satisfied. Those specific major revenue sources accrued are: The accrual basis of accounting is followed in all proprietary, agency, and pension trust funds. Under the accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recorded when incurred. Major Governmental Funds - The General Fund is the general operating fund of the City and accounts for all activities not required to be accounted for in some other fund. Proprietary Fund - The Combined Utility Operation Fund accounts for the provision of water, sewer, storm water and wastewater treatment services to the residents of the City and some residents of Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Woodway, Olympic View Water District and Ronald Wastewater District. All activities necessary to provide such services are accounted for in this fund, including but not limited to, administration, financing, and related debt service, billing, and collection. The proprietary fund statements distinguish operating revenues and expenses from non - operating items. Operating revenues and expenses result from providing services and delivering goods in connection with principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenues of the City's utility fund are charges to customers for sales and service. The City also recognizes as operating revenue the portion of utility connection fees intended to recover the cost of connecting new customers to the water and sewer systems. Operating expenses for enterprise funds include operating and maintenance costs, employee benefit expenses, contracted services, insurance and depreciation on capital assets. All other revenues and expenses are reported as non -operating revenues and expenses. Internal Service and Fiduciary Funds - The Equipment Rental Fund is an internal service fund used to account for the Fleet Maintenance Division. The Fleet Maintenance Division is responsible for maintaining the City's vehicle fleet. Fiduciary funds are used to account for City assets held in a trustee capacity or as an agent for individuals, private organizations, and other governments. These funds share characteristics with both the government and proprietary funds and therefore, as described below, use the measurement focus and basis of accounting most appropriate to their specific operations. The Firemen's Pension Fund accounts for a single employer defined benefit system established under state law to provide benefits to eligible firefighters. Although this pension plan has subsequently been replaced by the State Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters pension system, firefighters hired prior to March 1, 1970 continue to be eligible for benefits under its provisions. Revenues received by the fund include proceeds of a state -imposed tax on fire insurance premiums and as needed, allocations from the City's annual property tax levy based on actuarial estimates. Private -sector standards of accounting and financial reporting issued prior to December 1, 1989, generally are followed in both the government -wide and proprietary fund financial statements to the extent that those standards do not conflict with or contradict guidance of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City's policy to use restricted resources first, then unrestricted as they are needed. Packet Page 350 of 461 D. BUDGET AND BUDGETARY ACCOUNTING Scope of Budget - Budgets are adopted at the fund level and this constitutes the legal level of control where expenditures may not exceed appropriations. Purely as a management tool, budgets are broken out to departments, activities and expense types. Transfers or revisions within funds are allowed, but only the City Council can increase or decrease a fund's budget, which is done by City ordinance. The City adopts the budget for governmental funds on the modified accrual basis and all unexpended appropriations lapse at year-end. Budgetary accounts are integrated in fund ledgers for all budgeted funds, but financial statements include budget -to -actual comparisons for general funds only. Proprietary fund budgets are "management budgets" and are not legally required to be reported. Procedures for Adopting the Original Budget - The budget process steps are: 1) prior to November 1st, the Mayor submits a proposed annual budget to the City Council. It is based on Council -established priorities and estimates provided by City departments during the preceding months, and balanced with revenue estimates made by the Mayor; 2) the City Council conducts public hearings on the proposed budget in November and December; 3) the Council makes its adjustments to the proposed budget and adopts by ordinance a final balanced annual budget no later than December 31; 4) the final annual budget as adopted is published and distributed by the end of the year. Limited copies of the budget book can be obtained from City of Edmonds, c/o City of Edmonds Finance Department, 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020, or by visiting our web site at www.edmondswa.gov. E. ASSETS, LIABILITIES, AND FUND EQUITY Cash and Equity in Pooled Investments - The City of Edmonds invests all short-term cash surpluses. The City considers all highly -liquid assets, including investment in the Washington State's Local Government Investment Pool, and short-term investments with a maturity of three months or less when purchased to be cash equivalents. Investments - Investments are presented in the financial statements at fair value based on quoted market prices. The City's position in the Local Government Investment Pool is the same as the value of the pool shares. Pool investments are reported as Cash and Cash Equivalents. Interest earned on the pooled investments is allocated to individual funds at the end of each month on the basis of their average daily cash balance during the preceding month. Investments are also held separately by several funds with interest earned directly for each fund's benefit. The City holds most investments to maturity. For reporting, all funds' interest earnings are recognized in the accounting period in which they become available and measurable. Additional deposit and investment information is presented in Note 3. Inventories - Inventories are generally valued using the weighted -average cost method and consist of expendable materials and supplies. Governmental fund types use the consumption method, where cost is recognized as an expenditure when the inventory is consumed. Inventories in the proprietary funds use two separate methods. The combined utility fund inventories are expensed as consumed. The internal service fund inventories are expensed when purchased with the inventories adjusted at year-end. Receivables - Property taxes - The County Treasurer collects annual property taxes levied in the county for all taxing authorities. Taxes are levied on January 1 for property value listed as of May 31. Packet Page 351 of 461 The County Assessor establishes assessed values at 100 percent of fair market value. Beginning with the 2004 assessment for taxes payable in 2005, all property is appraised annually and updated to reflect the current market value. This will result in smaller increases in assessed value than property owners experienced in the past with the 4- year revaluation cycle. It also allows property values to be adjusted downward if there is a change in the market, instead of the value being "fixed" for a 4-year period. Due to voter approval of Initiative 747 in November 2001, levy increases are limited to the lesser of the implicit price deflator for personal consumption expenditures for the 12- month period ending in July of each year, or 1 %. Any increase above this limit requires voter approval. Property taxes levied by the County Assessor and collected by the County Treasurer become a lien on the first day of the levy year and may be paid in two equal payments if the total exceeds $10. The first half is due on April 30 and the balance is due October 31. Delinquent taxes bear interest at 12 percent and are subject to additional penalties if not paid as scheduled. Washington State Constitution and Washington State law, RCW 84.55.010, limit the rate. Property tax is recorded as a receivable and revenue when levied. Property tax collected in advance of the fiscal year to which it applies is recorded as deferred revenue and recognized as revenue of the period to which it applies. No allowance for uncollectible tax is established because delinquent taxes are considered fully collectible. Prior year tax levies were recorded using the same principal, and delinquent taxes are evaluated annually. In 2012, the City levied the following property taxes on an assessed value of $5,794,644,465. The special levies identified in the table were approved by the voters and are not subject to the limitation listed above. Levy Rate per Total Levy Purpose of the Levy $1,000 Amount General Go\,ernment $1.6608 $ 9,623,702 Emergency medical service (EMS) Debt Service on voter approved general obligation bonds Total City Levy 0.5000 2,897,322 0.1651 895,640 $2.3259 $13,416,664 Customer Accounts - Customer accounts receivable consist of amounts owed by private individuals and organizations for goods delivered or services rendered in the regular course of business operations. Notes and contracts receivable arise from a written agreement or contract with private individuals or organizations. Receivables are shown net of allowances for uncollectible accounts. Interfund - Activity between funds that is representative of lending/borrowing arrangements outstanding at the end of the fiscal year is referred to as either interfund loans receivable/payable or advances to/from other funds. All other outstanding balances between funds are reported as due to/due from other funds. Advances to other funds in governmental funds are equally offset by a fund balance reserve account, which indicates that they do not constitute available spendable resources since they are not a component of net current assets. Deferred Revenues and Deferred Charges - Deferred revenues include amounts collected before revenue recognition criteria are met because under the modified accrual basis of accounting, they are measurable but not yet available. The deferred items Packet Page 352 of 461 consist primarily of delinquent property taxes, contracts and agreements, special assessments, and amounts due from component unit. In the proprietary funds the premium or discount and issuance costs of long-term debt are amortized over the life of the debt. For current refunding and advance refunding of revenue bonds, the difference between the reacquisition price and net carrying amount is amortized over the shorter of the remaining life of the old debt or the life of the new bond issues. Restricted Assets - In accordance with the utility bond resolutions, state law, or other agreements, separate restricted assets have been established. These assets are restricted for specific purposes including the establishment of bond reserve funds, financing the ongoing capital improvement programs of the various utilities, and other purposes. At December 31, 2012 the City had $984,163 cash in the enterprise fund restricted for debt service. Capital Assets - General capital assets are those assets not specifically related to activities reported in the proprietary funds. The capital assets purchased or constructed by a governmental fund are recorded as expenditures in the fund at the time the related purchases are made; however, the associated capital assets are reported in the governmental activities column of the government -wide statement of Net Position while not reported in the fund balance sheets. The City classifies assets with an estimated useful life in excess of one year as capital assets. Capital assets include land, buildings, improvements, machinery, equipment, and infrastructure. Land is capitalized at cost with no minimum threshold. Buildings, improvements, and machinery and equipment are capitalized when cost meets or exceeds $5,000. Public domain (infrastructure) assets consist of certain improvements other than buildings, including utility systems, streets, traffic controls, and overlays are capitalized when cost equals or exceeds $50,000. Costs of normal maintenance and repair for general assets are not capitalized. However, any improvement that increases an asset's value, capacity or materially extends its life is added to that asset's capitalized costs. Equipment items acquired through capital lease agreements and land purchased through conditional sales contracts are reported as general capital assets in the government -wide statement of Net Position. In the governmental fund financial statements, lease and contract payments are reported as expenditures. All project costs are included in construction in progress in the government -wide statement of Net Position. At completion, capital costs are reclassified to property plant and equipment. In the governmental fund financial statements, projects are reported as expenditures. Capital assets acquired or constructed by the proprietary funds are capitalized in those funds at historical cost. Contributed assets are recorded at their estimated fair values as of the date acquired. The estimated value of donated assets is recorded as contributed capital by the fund which receives them. Land and construction in progress are not depreciated. Buildings, equipment, non - building improvements and intangible assets are depreciated using the straight line method, using varying estimated service lives for individual assets and asset classifications depending on particular characteristics of an asset and factors surrounding its anticipated use. Depreciation is reported as part of the related program expense column on government -wide statement of activities and as a fund expense in the proprietary funds, while not reported in the fund statements of governmental funds. Packet Page 353 of 461 Capital assets are reported net of accumulated depreciation on the government -wide statement of Net Position and in the proprietary funds statement of Net Position, while not reported in the governmental fund balance sheets. Refer to note 8 for additional information regarding capital assets. The average service lives used to calculate depreciation for specific categories of assets are summarized below: Asset Tvpe Est. Service Life (Yrs) Buildings 30-50 Improvements other than Buildings 25-60 Infrastructure 20-100 Machinery and Equipment 2-20 Intangible Assets 20-30 Accumulated Compensated Absences - Compensated absences including payroll taxes are reported as a current liability in the balance sheet. Actual balances are accrued for all types of compensated absences except sick leave, the liability for which is generally estimated using the termination method provided by GASB Statement No. 16. Vacation Pay — Employees earn vacation based upon their years of service and may accumulate earned vacation up to a maximum of two years accrual. Unused vacation at retirement or termination is considered vested and payable to the employee. Sick Pay — Employees may accumulate up to 1000 hours of sick leave. Up to 800 hours of unused sick leave at retirement or termination is paid based on a percentage of accumulated sick leave. Payment is based on current wage at termination. Other Compensated Absences — Other compensated absences include compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay; holiday earned by fire and police employees; and other compensation earned by City employees under law or union contracts. Unused compensated absences are payable at retirement or termination. F. FUND BALANCES The difference between fund assets and liabilities is "Net Position" on the government - wide, proprietary, and fiduciary fund statements, and is "fund balance" on the governmental fund statements. The fund balance amounts for governmental funds have been reclassified in accordance with GASB Statement No. 54. As a result, amounts previously reported as reserved and unreserved are now reported as non -spendable, restricted, committed, assigned, or unassigned. • Non -spendable fund balance includes items that cannot be spent. This includes activity that is not in a spendable form (inventories, prepaid amounts, long-term portion of loans/notes receivable, or property held for resale unless the proceeds are restricted, committed or assigned) and activity that is legally or contractually required to remain intact, such as a principal balance in a permanent fund. Restricted fund balances have constraints placed upon the use of the resources either by an external party or imposed by law through a constitutional provision or enabling legislation. Packet Page 354 of 461 • Committed fund balance can be used only for specific purposes pursuant to constraints imposed by a formal action of the City Council, the City's highest level of decision -making authority. This formal action is the passage of an ordinance by City Council creating, modifying, or rescinding an appropriation. • Assigned fund balance includes amounts that are constrained by the City's intent to be used for a specific purpose, but are neither restricted nor committed. For governmental funds, other than the general fund, this is the residual amount within the fund that is not restricted or committed. • Unassigned fund balance is the residual amount of the general fund not included in the four categories described above. Also, any deficit fund balances within the other governmental fund types are reported as unassigned. Each fund has been analyzed to classify the fund balance in accordance with GASB Statement No. 54. Funds are created by the City Council and money is authorized to be transferred to the fund for a particular purpose. At this point, balances in these funds are at least committed, and may be further restricted depending on whether there is an external party, constitutional provision, or enabling legislation constraint involved. The appropriated balance in the general fund is committed, and the remaining balance is unassigned. All other governmental funds are presented as restricted or committed. Appropriations specify the funding source, and therefore the order in which restricted, committed, assigned, or unassigned fund balance gets spent. G. REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND EXPENSES Under the modified accrual basis of accounting: Charges for services, interest on investments, and rents generally are considered measurable and available when earned in governmental funds. Taxes and federal or state entitlements or shared revenues that have been collected but not remitted by an intermediary collection agency to the City are considered measurable and available. Special assessments are considered measurable and available when they become due. Grants are considered measurable and available to the extent that expenditures have been made. Other intergovernmental revenues are considered measurable and available when earned. Interfund revenues for goods and services are considered measurable and available when earned. Proceeds from sale or loss of capital assets are recognized as other financing sources. Revenues from taxpayer -assessed taxes (i.e., sales tax), net of estimated refunds, are recognized when measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. All other revenues are either not measurable or considered not available until collected. Expenditures are generally recognized when incurred, except for principal and interest on general long-term debt, which are reported as expenditures when paid, and compensated Packet Page 355 of 461 absences, which are reported as expenditures when liquidated from expendable available financial resources. Under the accrual basis of accounting: Revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recognized when incurred. Contributions of capital in proprietary fund financial statements arise from internal and external contributions of capital assets or from grants or outside contributions of resources restricted to capital acquisition and construction. Transfers between government and business -type activities on the government -wide statement of activities are reported as general revenues. Transfers between funds reported in the governmental activities column are eliminated, as are transfers between funds reported in the business -type activities column. H. ESTIMATES The preparation of the financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results may differ from those estimates. CHANGES IN ACCOUNTING STANDARDS The accompanying financial statements of the City of Edmonds have been prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) as prescribed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). GASB is the accepted standard - setting body for governmental accounting and financial reporting principles, which are primarily set forth in GASB's Codification of Governmental Accounting and Financial Reporting Standards. NOTE 2 — STEWARDSHIP, COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY There have been no material violations of contract provisions. At December 31, 2012 Fund 130 — Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement exceeded its budget by $1,340. All funds amended expenditure budgets totaled $89,730,241, which includes $18,876,741 of supplemental appropriations. Funds with supplemental appropriations during 2012 and the amounts are shown below: Packet Page 356 of 461 2012 2012 2012 Fund Fund Original Supplemental Amended Number Description Budget Appropriations Budget 001 General Fund 004 Criminal Investigations 006 Emergency/Financial Reserve 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 010 Public Safety Emergency Reserve 011 Risk Management Reserve Fund 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 111 Street Fund 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 116 Building Maintenance 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 Park Acq/Improvement 126 Special Capital Fund 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 129 Special Projects Fund 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 132 Parks Construction 136 Parks Trust Fund 138 Sister City Commission 211 Lid Fund Control 213 Lid Guaranty Fund 231 2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund 234 Ltgo Bond Debt Service Fund 411 Combined Utility Operation 412 Combined Utility Const/Improve 414 Capital Improvements Reserve 511 Equipment Rental Fund 617 Firemen's Pension Fund 631 Transportation Benefit District Totals NOTE 3 - DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS $ 32, 949, 288 $ 2,889,214 - 2,500 - 1,927,600 619,811 - - 1,339,400 - 139,100 - 8,500 80,233 - 1,604,948 71,800 2,075,625 866,841 245,000 - 134, 550 - - 140 73,750 (17,250) 26,086 400 4,000 - 19, 000 5,500 875,000 210,000 697,717 - 12,275 11,204 313,000 170,500 172,005 - 1,187, 000 274,343 - 6,930 4,600 - 46, 500 105,000 - 244,000 - 9,363,474 478,573 - 15, 598, 246 (219, 044) 10,465, 068 854,750 1,126, 376 445,139 1,321,334 131,700 123,515 - 600, 000 45,000 35, 838, 502 2,500 1,927,600 619,811 1,339,400 139,100 8,500 80,233 1,676,748 2,942,466 245,000 134,550 140 56,500 26,486 4,000 24,500 1,085,000 697,717 23,479 483,500 172,005 1,461,343 6,930 4,600 151,500 244,000 9,363,474 478,573 15,379,202 11,319,818 1,571,515 1,453,034 123,515 645,000 $ 70, 853, 500 $ 18, 876, 741 $ 89, 730, 241 Interest rate risk. Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in interest rates of debt investments will adversely affect the fair value of an investment. As a means of limiting its exposure to fair value losses arising from rising interest rates, the City's investment policy manages the exposure to declines in fair values by limiting the weighted average of maturity of its investments to less than four years, unless an investment is matched to an anticipated future cash flow. Credit risk. Credit risk is the risk that an issuer or other counterparty to an investment will not fulfill its obligations. State law and the City's investment policy limits the instruments in which the City may invest. These include: Packet Page 357 of 461 1. United States bonds. 2. United States certificates of indebtedness. 3. Bonds or warrants of the State of Washington. 4. General obligation or utility revenue bonds or warrants of its own or of any other city or town in the State. 5. Its own bonds or warrants of a local improvement district which are within the protection of the local improvement guarantyfund. 6. Savings or time accounts in designated public depositories. 7. Certificates, notes or bonds of United States agencies, or corporations wholly owned by the United States. 8. Repurchase agreements. 9. Banker's acceptances. 10. Federal Home Loan Bank notes and bonds, Federal Land Bank bonds, Federal National Mortgage Association notes, debentures and guaranteed certificates of participation, or obligations of any other government sponsored corporation whose obligations are or may be eligible as collateral for advances to member banks as determined by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or any portion thereof in investment deposits as defined in RCW 39.8.010 secured by collateral in accordance with RCW 39.58. 11. Interim financing warrants of local improvement districts. 12. State Local Government Investment Pool. The City held no debt securities as of December 31, 2012. The Washington State Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP), created by the Washington State Legislature in 1986, is managed and operated solely by the Office of the State Treasurer. The State Finance Committee administers the statute that created the pool and adopts appropriate rules. The State Treasurer established the LGIP Advisory Committee to provide advice on the pool's operation. The advisory committee includes 12 members selected from the active pool participants. Eight members are appointed by the participant associations, and four are appointed by the State Treasurer. The LGIP is considered extremely low risk and is recorded as a cash equivalent. The pool is unrated by financial rating agencies. It is operated in a manner consistent with the Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. Rule 2a-7 funds are limited to high quality obligations with limited maximum and average maturities, the effect of which is to minimize both market and credit risk. The City's position in the pool is the same as the value of the shares. Custodial Credit Risk - Deposits. In the case of deposits, this is the risk that in the event of a bank failure, the City's deposits may not be returned to it. All City deposits are insured by Federal Depository Insurance (FDIC) up to $250,000. All deposits not covered by FDIC insurance are covered by the Washington Public Deposit Protection Commission (WPDPC) of the State of Washington. The WPDPC is a statutory authority established under RCW chapter 39.58. It constitutes a multiple financial institution collateral arrangement that provides for additional assessments against members of the pool on a pro rata basis up to a maximum of 10 percent of each institution's public deposits. Provisions of RCW chapter 39.58, section 60 authorize the WPDPC to make pro-rata assessments in proportion to the maximum liability of each such depository as it existed on the date of loss. Custodial Credit Risk — Investments. For investments, this is the risk that in the event of the failure of the counterparty, the City will not be able to recover the value of its investments or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. All City securities are held for safekeeping by the Bank of New York, as the City's agent, in the City's name. Packet Page 358 of 461 Concentration of Credit Risk. Concentration of credit risk is the risk of loss attributed to the magnitude of an investment in a single issuer. The City diversifies its investments by security type and institution. The investment policy states: "No more than fifty percent (50%) of the City's portfolio, at the time of purchase, shall be in any single financial institution" with the exception of US Treasury securities and the State Investment Pool. A reconciliation of cash, cash equivalents (including pooled investments) and investments as shown in the government -wide and fund financial statements is as follows: Deposits $ 9,470,528 Local Government Investment Pool 21,033,910 Investments 3,493,760 $ 33, 998,198 Financial Statements Governmental Business -type Total Fiduciary Activities Activities Primary Govt. Funds Total Cash and Cash Equivalents $ 14,072,292 $ 15,226,248 $ 29,298,540 $ 221,735 $ 29,520,275 Restricted Cash and Cash Equivalents - 984,163 984,163 - 984,163 Investments 3,493,760 - 3,493,760 - 3,493,760 $ 17,566,052 $ 16,210,411 $ 33,776,463 $ 221,735 $ 33,998,198 NOTE 4 — PROPERTY TAXES The county treasurer acts as an agent to collect property tax levied in the county for all taxing authorities. Property Tax Calendar January 1 Tax is levied and become an enforceable lien against properties. February 14 Tax bills are mailed. April 30 First of two equal instalment payments is due. May 31 Assessed value of property established for next year's levy at 100 percent of market value. October 31 Second installment is due. Property tax is recorded as a receivable and revenue when levied. Property tax collected in advance of the fiscal year to which it applies is recorded as deferred revenue and recognized as revenue of the period to which it applies. No allowance for uncollectible tax is established because delinquent taxes are considered fully collectible. Prior year tax levies were recorded using the same principal, and delinquent taxes are evaluated annually. The City may levy up to $3.10 Per $1,000 of assess valuation for general governmental services. Washington State Constitution and Washington State law, RCW 84.55.010, limit the rate. Packet Page 359 of 461 The City's regular levy for 2012 was $1.8259 per $1,000 on an assessed valuation of $5,794,644,465 for a total regular levy of $13,416,664. The special levies identified in the table were approved by the voters and are not subject to the limitations listed above. Levy Rate per Total Levy Purpose of the Levy $1,000 Amount General Government $1.6608 $ 9,623,702 Emergency medical service (EMS) Debt Service on voter approved general obligation bonds Total City Levy NOTE 5 -RECEIVABLES AND PAYABLES 0.5000 0.1651 2,897,322 895,640 $2.3259 $13,416,664 Receivables at December 31, 2012, are as follows: Due from Customer Special Due From Other Component Accounts Taxes Assessments Governments Units Total Governmental Activities General Fund $ 690,311 $ 401,663 $ - $ 1,398,308 $ 555,631 $ 3,045,913 Other Governmental Funds 10,767 - 126,578 1,863,252 - 2,000,597 Internal Service 1,192 - - 1,557 - 2,749 Total Governmental Activities $ 702,269 $ 401,663 $ 126,578 $ 3,263,118 $ 555,631 $ 5,049,259 Business -type Activities Combined Utility Fund $2,259,942 $ $ $ 589,298 $ $ 2,849,240 Total Business -type Activities $2,259,942 $ $ $ 589,298 $ $ 2,849,240 Payables at December 31, 2012, are as follows: Salaries and Accounts Due to Other Other Current Benefits Payable Governments Liabilities Total Governmental Activities General Fund $ 1,116,831 $ 482,057 $ $ 97,828 $ 1,696,716 Other Governmental Funds 33,458 506,686 1,024 541,169 Internal Service 11,066 59,832 - 70,898 Total Governmental Activities $ 1,161,356 $ 1,048,575 $ $ 98,852 $2,308,783 Business -type Activities Combined Utility Fund $ 202,476 $ 561,963 $ 136,762 $ 185,744 $ 1,086,946 Total Business -type Activities $ 202,476 $ 561,963 $ 136,762 $ 185,744 $ 1,086,946 Lease Receivables - The City receives revenue by leasing land to T-Mobile West Corporation for a cell tower placed on the Five Corners Water Tank Site. The original lease was signed in 1997 for a term of five years and could be renewed for five additional five-year terms. A new agreement was signed in May 2004 with T-Mobile West Corporation amending the original lease agreement. The new lease has a term of 20 years. The annual rental fee may be reviewed upon either party's prior written request sixty days prior to the renewal date only on every 5th anniversary of the commencement date. Along with the actual tower lease, there are two sub- leases to co -locate on the tower leased to T-Mobile. The first lease with AT&T Wireless Services was signed in 1997 for a five-year term and could be renewed for three additional five-year Packet Page 360 of 461 periods for a total of 20 years. Clearwire, LLC signed a five-year lease in May of 2006 subject to renewal for three additional five year periods for a total of 20 years. The Edmonds City Council entered into a settlement agreement purchasing property located at 20719 86th Place West in April of 2011. The City entered into a property management agreement with Windermere Real Estate / North Inc in June of 2011 for one year appointing Windemere to rent, lease operate and manage the property. The property located at 20719 86th PL W has an original cost of $302,471 and a book value of $288,171. Depreciation expense for 2012 was $8,177. The City entered into a telecommunications contract in March of 2007 with the Netriver Corporation. The three year contract allows Netriver Corporation to use the City's fiber optic network. At the end of the three year contract, the agreement shall continue on a month to month basis until the contract is terminated in writing or a new contract is executed. The City receives revenue from operating leases as a result of renting space in various City buildings. At the Anderson Center, the City has six recreation contracts that allow various organizations to rent out a total of 22 spaces. The recreation leases are renewed annually. The Anderson Center has an original cost of $3,056,857 and a book value of $1,408,943. Depreciation expense for 2012 was $81,986. The City rents space at the old Public Works building. The City entered into a month -to -month contract with the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation on November 13, 2009. The Foundation rents three garage bays as part of the City's Cultural Arts Plan. The City also entered into a ten year lease agreement with the Driftwood Players in December of 2009 to rent administrative office space along with the old crew area space. The old Public Works building has an original cost of $249,396 and a book value of $44,876. Depreciation expense for 2012 was $3,451. The Edmonds Chamber of Commerce rents space on the first floor of city hall. The contract automatically renews annually unless terminated by the parties. City Hall's original cost is $3,910,469 and carries a book value of $1,657,932. Depreciation expense for 2012 was $131,756. The City has two leases which provide recreational services to the citizens. A four year lease agreement was entered into on December 29, 2006 with the Boys and Girls Clubs of Snohomish County. The agreement may be renewed for consecutive five-year terms upon mutual agreement of the parties. The original cost of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Snohomish County is $85,570 and is fully depreciated. A lease agreement was entered into with the South County Senior Center, Inc on December 1, 2009. The term of the lease is for eleven years and is automatically renewable for two additional five-year terms for a total of twenty-one years. The Senior Center original cost is $1,060,523 and carries a book value of $91,270. Depreciation expense for 2012 was $23,303. In August of 2010, an Interlocal Agreement was signed with the City of Lynnwood for use of the City of Edmonds Municipal Court for video hearings. The Lynnwood Municipal Court terminated their agreement with the City of Edmonds as of 10/12/2012. In 2012, the General Fund received $159,588 and the Enterprise Fund received $55,180 in rental income. NOTE 6 — INTERFUND ACTIVITY There was one interfund balance as of December 31, 2012. It was for the transfer of utility tax revenues from the Utility Fund to the General Fund for services rendered in the amount of $157,364. Packet Page 361 of 461 Interfund transfers are the flow of assets without a reciprocal return of assets, goods or services. The City uses transfers to 1) move revenues from the fund that statute or budget requires to collect them to the fund that statute or budget requires to expend them and 2) use unrestricted revenues collected in the general fund to finance various programs accounted for in other funds in accordance with budgetary authorizations. There were three significant transfers in 2012 to establish the Contingency Reserve Fund. These three transfers totaled $5.3 million from Funds 001, 006, and 010. The difference between the following table and the Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance is due to the transfer between the General Fund and the Firemen's Pension Fund, which is not included in the table below. Interfund activity for the year is as follows: Transfers Out Other Transfers In General Governmental Enterprise Total General Fund $ 276,016 $ 0 $ 276,016 $ - $ 276,016 Other Go\(ernm ental 1,900,693 217,196 1,117, 869 565,628 1,900,693 Internal Service 111,700 105,100 6,600 - 111,700 Total $ 2,288,410 $ 322,297 $ 1,400,485 $ 565,628 $ 2,288,410 NOTE 7 — RESTRICTED COMPONENT OF NET POSITION The government -wide statement of net position reports $3,793,023 for Governmental Activities and $7,409,482 for Business -Type Activities of restricted component of net position. Governmental Activities Restricted for: Debt service restrictions Per RCW, proceeds from seizures are limited to law enforcement activities exclusively Restricted per RCW related to state fuel taxes, transportation benefit fees, impact fees and grant agreements Restricted per RCW related to REET revenue and lodging tax restrictions, private donors, and grant agreements Per RCW, proceeds are limited to paying "all or part of the cost of tourism promotion" Restricted by grant agreements and private donations limited to a specific purpose Total Restricted Component of Net Position $ 26,229 118,537 507,242 3,022,707 103,792 14,516 $ 3,793,023 Business -Type Activities Restricted for: Customer deposits $ 3,299 Debt service restrictions Unspent capital project debt proceeds Total Restricted Component of Net Position 984,163 6,422,020 $ 7,409,482 Packet Page 362 of 461 NOTE 8 — CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION Capital asset activity for the year ended December 31, 2012 is as follows: Schedule of Capital Asset Activity Balance Balance 1/1/2012 Increases Decreases 12/31/2012 Governmental Activities Capital assets, not being depreciated: Land $ 14,530,663 $ - $ - $ 14,530,663 Construction in Progress 8,690,704 3,016,976 (2,072,069) 9,635,611 Total capital assets, not being depreciated: 23,221,367 3,016,976 (2,072,069) 24,166,274 Capital assets, being depreciated Building 25,479,908 25,479,908 Improvements other than buildings 13,531,609 13,531,609 Infrastructure 55,732,774 2,052,181 57,784,955 Machinery and Equipment 7,542,487 520,756 (677,268) 7,385,975 Total capital assets being depreciated: 102,286,778 2,572,937 (677,268) 104,182,447 Less accumulated depreciation for: Buildings Improvements other than buildings Infrastructure Machinery and Equipment Total accumulated depreciation: Total capital assets, being depreciated, net: Governmental activities capital assets, net: Business -type Activities Capital assets, not being depreciated: Land Construction in Progress Total capital assets, not being depreciated Capital assets, being depreciated: Building Improvements other than buildings Machinery and Equipment Intangible Assets Total capital assets being depreciated: Less accumulated depreciation for: Buildings Improvements other than buildings Machinery and Equipment Intangible Assets Total accumulated depreciation: Total capital assets, being depreciated, net Business activities capital assets, net: (12,694,978) (842,494) (13,537,472) (6,340,401) (396, 704) - (6,737,105) (28, 637, 423) (2,394,759) (31, 032,182) (5,119, 783) (396, 042) 510,905 (5,004,920) (52,792,585) (4,029,999) 510,905 (56,311,679) 49,494,192 (1,457,062) (166,363) 47,870,767 $ 72,715,560 $ 1,559,914 $(2,238,432) $ 72,037,042 Beginning Increases Decreases Ending $ 1,257,106 $ - $ - $ 1,257,106 7,558,755 4,042,074 (5,439,555) 6,161,274 8,815,861 4,042,074 (5,439,555) 7,418,380 36, 888, 321 - - 36, 888, 321 55,558,005 6,088,310 - 61,646,315 908,194 - - 908,194 1,260,260 - - 1,260,260 94,614,780 6,088,310 - 100,703,090 (14,602,449) (704,272) - (15,306,721) (21,498,501) (1,834,661) - (23,333,162) (641,757) (36,227) - (677,984) (913,484) (51,900) - (965,384) (37,656,192) (2,627,060) - (40,283,252) 56,958,588 3,461,250 - 60,419,838 $ 65, 774, 450 $ 7,503,324 $ (5, 439, 555) $ 67, 838, 219 Packet Page 363 of 461 Depreciation/amortization expense was charged to functions/programs of the City as follows: Depreciation Expense by Function Governmental Activities: General government Public safety Culture and recreation Transportation Physical Environment Internal service Total depreciation expense - Governmental Activities Business -Type Activities: Stormwater Water Sewer Wastewater Treatment Total depreciation expense - Business Type Activities NOTE 9 — RECORDED VACATION AND SICK LEAVE $ 673,108 300,525 314,450 2,398,681 5,291 337,943 $ 4,029,999 $ 411,854 524,345 357,636 1,333,225 $ 2,627,060 In accordance with GASB Statement No. 16, the City accrues vacation and sick leave pay. The accrual is shown on the government -wide statement of Net Position for both governmental and proprietary funds. The accrual is also seen in the separate proprietary fund balance sheets, but is excluded from the separate governmental fund balance sheets since it is not currently due and payable at year-end (please refer to note 11). NOTE 10 — PENSION PLANS Substantially all City full-time and qualifying part-time employees participate in one of the following statewide retirement systems administered by the Washington State Department of Retirement Systems, under cost -sharing multiple -employer public employee defined benefit retirement plans. The Department of Retirement Systems (DRS), a department within the primary government of the State of Washington, issues a publicly available comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) that includes financial statements and required supplementary information for each plan. The DRS CAFR may be obtained by writing to: Department of Retirement Systems, Communications Unit, P.O. Box 48380, Olympia, WA 98504-8380; or it may be downloaded from the DRS website at www.drs.wa.gov. The following disclosures are made pursuant to GASB Statements No. 27, Accounting for Pensions by State and Local Government Employers and No. 50, Pension Disclosures, an Amendment of GASB Statements No. 25 and No. 27. Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) Plans 1, 2, and 3 Plan Description The Legislature established PERS in 1947. Membership in the system includes: elected officials; state employees; employees of the Supreme, Appeals, and Superior employees of legislative committees; community and technical colleges, college and university employees not participating in higher education retirement programs; employees of district and municipal courts; and employees of local governments. Approximately 50 percent of PERS salaries are accounted for by state employment. PERS retirement benefit provisions are established in Chapters 41.34 and 41.40 RCW and may be amended only by the State Legislature. Packet Page 364 of 461 PERS is a cost -sharing multiple -employer retirement system comprised of three separate plans for membership purposes: Plans 1 and 2 are defined benefit plans and Plan 3 is a defined benefit plan with a defined contribution component. PERS members who joined the system by September 30, 1977 are Plan 1 members. Those who joined on or after October 1, 1977 and by either, February 28, 2002 for state and higher education employees, or August 31, 2002 for local government employees, are Plan 2 members unless they exercised an option to transfer their membership to Plan 3. PERS members joining the system on or after March 1, 2002 for state and higher education employees, or September 1, 2002 for local government employees have the irrevocable option of choosing membership in either PERS Plan 2 or PERS Plan 3. The option must be exercised within the 90 days of employment. Employees who fail to choose within 90 days default to Plan 3. Notwithstanding, PERS Plan 2 and Plan 3 members may opt out of plan membership if terminally ill, with less than five years to live. PERS is comprised of and reported as three separate plans for accounting purposes: Plan 1, Plan 2/3, and Plan 3. Plan 1 accounts for the defined benefits of Plan 1 members. Plan 2/3 accounts for the defined benefits of Plan 2 members and the defined benefit portion of benefits for Plan 3 members. Plan 3 accounts for the defined contribution portion of benefits for Plan 3 members. Although members can only be a member of either Plan 2 or Plan 3, the defined benefit portions of Plan 2 and Plan 3 are accounted for in the same pension trust fund. All assets of this Plan 2/3 defined benefit plan may legally be used to pay the defined benefits of any of the Plan 2 or Plan 3 members or beneficiates, as defined by the terms of the plan. Therefore, Plan 2/3 is considered to be a single plan for accounting purposes. PERS Plan 1 and Plan 2 retirement benefits are financed from a combination of investment earnings and employer and employee contributions. Employee contributions to the PERS Plan 1 and Plan 2 defined benefit plans accrue interest at a rate specified by the Director of DRS. During DRS' Fiscal 2012, the rate was five and on -half percent compounded quarterly. Members of PERS Plan 1 and Plan 2 can elect to withdraw total employee contributions and interest thereon upon separation from PERS-covered employment PERS Plan 1 members are vested after the completion of five years of eligible service. Plan 1 members are eligible for retirement after 30 years of service, or at the age of 60 with five years of service, or at the age of 55 with 25 years of service. The monthly benefit is 2 percent of the average final compensation (AFC) per year of service, but the benefit may not exceed 60 percent of the AFC. The AFC is the monthly average of the 24 consecutive highest -paid service credit months. The monthly benefit is subject to a minimum for retirees who have 25 years of service and have been retired 20 years, or who have 20 years of service and have been retired 25 years. If a survivor option is chosen, the benefit is further reduced. Plan 1 members retiring from inactive status prior to the age of 65 may also receive actuarially reduced benefits. Plan 1 members may elect to receive an optional COLA that provides an automatic annual adjustment based on the Consumer Price Index. The adjustment is capped at 3 percent annually. To offset the cost of this annual adjustment, the benefit is reduced. PERS Plan 1 provides duty and non -duty disability benefits. Duty disability retirement benefits for disablement prior to the age of 60 consist of a temporary life annuity. The benefit amount is $350 a month, or two-thirds of the monthly AFC, whichever is less. The benefit is reduced by any workers' compensation benefit and is payable as long as the member remains disabled or until the member attains the age of 60, at which time the benefit is converted to the member's service retirement amount. A member with five years of covered employment is eligible for non -duty disability retirement. Prior to the age of 55, the benefit amount is 2 percent of the AFC for each year of service reduced by 2 percent for each year that the member's age is less than 55. The Packet Page 365 of 461 total benefit is limited to 60 percent of the AFC and is actuarially reduced to reflect the choice of a survivor option. Plan 1 members may elect to receive an optional COLA amount (based on the Consumer Price Index), capped at 3 percent annually. To offset the cost of this annual adjustment, the benefit is reduced. PERS Plan 1 members can receive credit for military service while actively serving in the military if such credit makes them eligible to retire. Members can also purchase up to 24 months of service credit lost because of an on-the-job injury. The survivor of a PERS Plan 1 member who dies after having earned ten years of service credit has the option, upon the member's death, of either a monthly survivor benefit or the lump sum of contributions plus interest PERS Plan 2 members are vested after the completion of five years of eligible service. Plan 2 members are eligible for normal retirement at the age of 65 with five years of service. The monthly benefit is 2 percent of the AFC per year of service. The4AFC is the monthly average of the 60 consecutive highest -paid service months.) There is no cap on years of service credit; and a cost -of -living allowance is granted (based on the Consumer Price Index), capped at 3 percent annually. PERS Plan 2 members who have at least 20 years of service credit and are 55 years of age or older are eligible for early retirement with a reduced benefit. The benefit is reduced by an early retirement factor (ERF) that varies according to age, for each year before age 65. PERS Plan 2 members who have 30 or more years of service credit and are at least 55 years old can retire under one of two provisions: With a benefit that is reduced by 3 percent for each year before age 65. With a benefit that has a smaller (or no) reduction (depending on age) that imposes stricter return -to -work rules. PERS Plan 2 retirement benefits are also actuarially reduced to reflect the choice, if made, of a survivor option. The surviving spouse or eligible child(ren) of a PERS Plan 2 member who dies having earned ten years of service credit has the option of either a monthly benefit or a lump sum payment of the member's contributions plus interest. PERS plan 3 has a dual benefit structure. Employer contributions finance a defined benefit component and member contributions finance a defined contribution component. As established by Chapter 41.34 RCW, employee contribution rates to the defined contribution component range from 5 percent to 15 percent of salaries, based on member choice. There are currently no requirements for employer contributions to the defined contribution component of PERS Plan 3. PERS Plan 3 defined contribution retirement benefits are dependent upon the results of investment activities. Members may elect to self -direct the investment of their contributions. Any expenses incurred in conjunction with self -directed investments are paid by members. Absent a member's self -direction, PERS Plan 3 investments are made in the same portfolio as that of the PERS 2/3 defined benefit plan. For DRS' fiscal year 2012, PERS Plan 3 employee contributions were $95.2 million, and plan refunds paid out were $66.2 million. The defined benefit portion of PERS Plan 3 provides members a monthly benefit that is 1 percent of the AFC per year of service. The AFC is the monthly average of the 60 consecutive highest - paid service months. There is no cap on years of service credit, and Plan 3 provides the same cost -of -living allowance as Plan 2. Packet Page 366 of 461 Effective June 7, 2006 PERS Plan 3 members are vested in the defined benefit portion of their plan after ten years of service; or after five years of service, if twelve months of that service are earned after age 44; or after five service credit years earned in PERS Plan 2 by June 1, 2003. Plan 3 members are immediately vested in the defined contribution portion of their plan. Vested Plan 3 members are eligible for normal retirement at age 65, or they may retire early with the following conditions and benefits: If they have at least ten service credit years and are 55 years old, the benefit is reduced by an ERF that varies with age, for each year before age 65. If they have 30 service credit years and are at least 55 years old, they have the choice of benefit that is reduced by 3 percent for each year before age 65; or a benefit with a smaller (or no) reduction factor (depending on age) that imposes stricter return -to -work rules. PERS Plan 3 benefit retirement benefits are actuarially reduced to reflect the choice, if made, of a survivor option. PERS Plan 2 and PIan3 provide disability benefits. There is no minimum amount of service credit required for eligibility. The plan 2 monthly benefit amount is 2 percent of the AFC per year if service. For Plan 3, the monthly benefit amount is 1 percent of the AFC per year of service. These disability benefit amounts are actuarially reduced for each year that the member's age is less than 65, and to reflect the choice of a survivor option. There is no cap on years of service credit, and a cost -if -living allowance is granted (based on the Consumer Price Index) capped at 3 percent annually. PERS Plan 2 and Plan 3 members may have up to ten years of interruptive military service credit; five years at no cost and five years that may be purchased by paying the required contributions. PERS Plan 2 and Plan 3 members who become totally incapacitated for continued employment while serving the uniformed services, or a surviving spouse or eligible child(ren), may request interruptive military service credit. PERS Plan 2 and Plan 3 members can purchase up to 24 months of service credit lost because of an on-the-job injury. PERS members may also purchase up to five years of additional service credit once eligible for retirement. This credit can only be purchased at the time of retirement and can be used only to provide the member with a monthly annuity that is paid in addition to the member's retirement benefit. Beneficiaries of a PERS Plan 2 or PIan3 member with ten years of service who is killed in the course of employment receive retirement benefits without actuarial reduction. This provision applies to any member killed in the course of employment, on or after June 10, 2004, if found eligible by the Director of the Department of Labor and Industries. A on -time duty -related death benefit is provided to the estate (or duly designated nominee) of a PERS member who dies in the line of service as a result of injuries sustained in the course of employment, or if the death resulted from an occupational disease or infection that arose naturally and proximately out of the member's covered employment, if found eligible by the Department of Labor and Industries. From January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007, judicial members of PERS were given the choice to elect participation in the Judicial Benefit Multiplier (JBM) Program enacted in 2006. Justices and judges in PERS Plan 1 and Plan 2 were able to make an irrevocable election to pay increased contributions that would fund a retirement benefit with a 3.5 percent multiplier. The Packet Page 367 of 461 benefit would be capped at 75 percent of AFC. Judges in PERS Plan 3 could elect a 1.6 percent of pay per year of service benefit, capped at 37.5 percent of AFC. Members who chose to participate would: accrue service credit at the higher multiplier beginning with the date of their election; be subject to the benefit cap of 75 percent of AFC, stop contributing to the Judicial Retirement Account (JRA); pay higher contributions; and be given the option to increase the multiplier on past judicial service. Members who did not choose to participate would: continue to accrue service credit at the regular multiplier; not be subject to a benefit cap; continue to participate in JRA, if applicable; continue to pay contributions at the regular PERS rate; and never be a participant in the JBM Program. Newly elected or appointed justices and judges who chose to become PERS members on or after January 1, 2007, or who had not previously opted into PERS membership, were required to participate in the JBM Program. Members required into the JBM program would: return to prior PERS Plan if membership had previously been established; be mandated into Plan 2 and not have a Plan 3 transfer choice, if a new PERS member; accrue the higher multiplier for all judicial service; not contribute to JRA; and not have the option to increase the multiplier for past judicial service. There are1,184 participating employers in PERS. [1] Membership in PERS consisted of the following as of the latest actuarial valuation date for the plans of June 30, 2011: Retirees and Beneficiaries Receiving Benefits 79,363 Terminated Plan Member Entitled to But Not Yet Receiving Benefits 29,925 Active Plan Members Vested 105,578 Active Plan Member Non -vested 46,839 Total 261,705 Funding Policy Each biennium, the state Pension Funding Council adopts PERS Plan 1 employer contribution rates, PERS Plan 2 employer and employee contribution rates, and PERS Plan 3 employer contribution rates. Employee contribution rates for Plan 1 are established by statute at 6 percent for state agencies and local government unit employees, and at 7.5 percent for state government elected officials. The employer and employee contribution rates for Plan 2 and the employer contribution rate for Plan 3 are developed by the Office of the State Actuary to fully fund Plan 2 and the defined benefit portion of Plan 3. Under PERS Plan 3, employer contributions finance the defined benefit portion of the plan and member contributions finance the defined contribution portion. The Plan 3 employee contribution rates range from 5 percent to 15 percent, based on member choice. Two of the options are graduated rates dependent on the employee's age. As a result of the implementation of the Judicial Benefit Multiplier Program in January 2007, a second tier of employer and employee rates was developed to fund, along with investment earnings, the increased retirement benefits of those justices and judges that participate in the program. The methods used to determine the contribution requirements are established under state statute in accordance with Chapters 41.40 and 41.45 RCW . The required contribution rates expressed as a percentage of current -year covered payroll, as of December 31, 2012, are as follows: Packet Page 368 of 461 Members Not Participating in JBM: PERS Plan 1 PERS Plan 2 PERS Plan 3 Employer* 7.21 % ** 7.21 % ** 7.21 % *** Employee 6.00% **** 4.64% *** **** * The employer rates include the employer administrative expense fee currently set at 0.16%. ** The employer rate for state elected officials is 10.74% for Plan 1 and 7.21% for Plan 2 and Plan 3. *** Plan 3 defined benefit portion only. **** The employee rate for state elected officials is 7.50% for Plan 1 and 4.64% for Plan 2. ***** Variable from 5.0% minimum to 15.0% maximum based on rate selected by the PERS 3 member. Members Participating in JBM: PERS Plan 1 PERS Plan 2 PERS Plan 3 Employer -State Agency* 9.71 % 9.71 % 9.71 % ** Employer -Local Government* 7.21 % 7.21 % 7.21 % ** Employee -State Agency 9.76% 9.10% 7.5% *** Employee -Local Government 12.26% 11.60% 7.5% *** * The employer rates include the employer administrative expense fee currently set at 0.16%. ** Plan 3 defined benefit portion only. ***Minimum rate. Both city and the employees made the required contributions. [2] The city required contributions for the years ended December 31 were as follows: PERS Plan 1 PERS Plan 2 PERS Plan 3 2012 $ 26,031 $ 631,650 $ 83,572 2011 $ 16,259 $ 541,368 $ 68,507 2010 $ 22,090 $ 470,368 $ 45,011 Law Enforcement Officers' and Fire Fighters' Retirement System (LEOFF) Plans 1 and 2 Plan Description LEOFF was established in 1970 by the Legislature. Membership includes all full-time, fully compensated, local law enforcement commissioned officers, firefighters and, as of July 24, 2005, emergency medical technicians. LEOFF membership is comprised primarily of non -state employees, with Department of Fish and Wildlife enforcement officers, who were first included prospectively effective July 27, 2003, being an exception. LEOFF retirement benefit provisions are established in Chapter 41.26 RCW and may be amended only by the State Legislature. LEOFF is a cost -sharing multiple -employer retirement system comprised of two separate defined benefit plans. LEOFF members who joined the system by September 30, 1977 are Plan 1 members. Those who joined on or after 25 October 1, 1977 are Plan 2 members. Effective July 1, 2003, the LEOFF Plan 2 Retirement Board was established by Initiative 790 to provide governance of LEOFF Plan 2. The Board's duties include adopting contribution rates and recommending policy changes to the Legislature for the LEOFF Plan 2 retirement plan. LEOFF retirement benefits are financed from a combination of investment earnings, employer and employee contributions, and a special funding situation in which the state pays through state Packet Page 369 of 461 legislative appropriations. Employee contributions to the LEOFF Plan 1 and Plan 2 defined benefit plans accrue interest at a rate specified by the Director of DRS. During DRS' fiscal year 2012, the rate was five and one-half percent compounded quarterly. Members in LEOFF Plan 1 and Plan 2 can elect to withdraw total employee contributions and interest earnings upon separation from LEOFF-covered employment. LEOFF Plan 1 members are vested after the completion of five years of eligible service. Plan 1 members are eligible for retirement with five years of service at the age of 50. The benefit per year of service calculated as a percent of final average salary (FAS) is as follows: Terms of Service Percent of Final Average Salary 20 or more years 2.0% 10 but less than 20 years 1.5% 5 but less than 10 years 1.0% The FAS is the basic monthly salary received at the time of retirement, provided a member has held the same position or rank for 12 months preceding the date of retirement. Otherwise, it is the average of the highest consecutive 24 months' salary within the last 10 years of service. A cost - of -living allowance is granted (based on the Consumer Price Index). LEOFF Plan 1 provides death and disability benefits. Death benefits for survivors of Plan 1 members on active duty consist of the following: (1) If eligible spouse, 50 percent of the FAS, plus 5 percent of FAS for each eligible surviving child, with a limitation on the combined allowances of 60 percent of the FAS; or (2) If no eligible spouse, eligible children receive 30 percent of FAS for the first child plus 10 percent for each additional child, subject to a 60 percent limitation of FAS, divided equally. A one-time duty -related death benefit is provided to the estate (or duly designated nominee) of a LEOFF Plan 1 member who dies as a result of injuries or illness sustained in the course of employment, or if the death resulted from an occupational disease or infection that arose naturally and proximately out of the member's covered employment, if found eligible by the Department of Labor and Industries. The LEOFF Plan 1 disability allowance is 50 percent of the FAS plus 5 percent for each child up to a maximum of 60 percent. Upon recovery from disability before the age of 50, a member is restored to service with full credit for service while disabled. Upon recovery after the age of 50, the benefit continues as the greater of the member's disability benefit or service retirement benefit. LEOFF Plan 1 members may purchase up to five years of additional service credit once eligible for retirement. This credit can only be purchased at the time of retirement and can be used only to provide the member with a monthly annuity that is paid in addition to the member's benefit. LEOFF Plan 2 members are vested after the completion of five years of eligible service. Plan 2 members are eligible for retirement at the age of 53 with five years of service, or at age 50 with 20 years of service. Plan 2 members receive a benefit of 2 percent of the FAS per year of service (the FAS is based on the highest consecutive 60 months), actuarially reduced to reflect the choice of a survivor option. Members who retire prior to the age of 53 receive reduced benefits. If the member has at least 20 years of service and is age 50, the reduction is 3 percent for each year prior to age 53. Otherwise, the benefits are actuarially reduced for each year prior to age 53. A cost -of -living allowance is granted (based on the Consumer Price Index), capped at 3 percent annually. Packet Page 370 of 461 LEOFF Plan 2 provides disability benefits. There is no minimum amount of service credit required for eligibility. The Plan 2 benefit amount is 2 percent of the FAS for each year of service. Benefits are reduced to reflect the choice of survivor option and for each year that the member's age is less than 53, unless the disability is duty -related. If the member has at least 20 years of service and is age 50, the reduction is 3 percent for each year prior to age 53. A disability benefit equal to 70 percent of their FAS, subject to offsets for workers' compensation and Social Security disability benefits received, is also available to those LEOFF Plan 2 members who are catastrophically disabled in the line of duty and incapable of future substantial gainful employment in any capacity. Effective June 2010, benefits to LEOFF Plan 2 members who are catastrophically disabled include payment of eligible health care insurance premiums. Members of LEOFF Plan 2 who leave service because of a line of duty disability are allowed to withdraw 150 percent of accumulated member contributions. This withdrawal benefit is not subject to federal income tax. Alternatively, members of LEOFF Plan 2 who leave service because of a line of duty disability may be eligible to receive a retirement benefit of at least 10 percent of FAS and 2 percent per year of service beyond five years. The first 10 percent of the FAS is not subject to federal income tax. LEOFF Plan 2 retirees may return to work in an eligible position covered by another retirement system, choose membership in that system and suspend their pension benefits, or not choose membership and continue receiving pension benefits without interruption. LEOFF Plan 2 members who apply for retirement may purchase up to five years of additional service credit. The cost of this credit is the actuarial equivalent of the resulting increase in the member's benefit. LEOFF Plan 2 members can receive service credit for military service that interrupts employment. Additionally, LEOFF Plan 2 members who become totally incapacitated for continued employment while serving in the uniformed services or a surviving spouse or eligible child(ren), may request interruptive military service credit. LEOFF Plan 2 members may also purchase up to 24 consecutive months of service credit for each period of temporary duty disability. Beneficiaries of a LEOFF Plan 2 member who is killed in the course of employment receive retirement benefits without actuarial reduction, if found eligible by the Director of the Department of Labor and Industries. Benefits to eligible surviving spouses and dependent children of LEOFF Plan 2 members killed in the course of employment include the payment of on -going health care insurance premiums paid to the Washington state Health Care Authority. A one-time duty -related death benefit is provided to the estate (or duly designated nominee) of a LEOFF Plan 2 member who dies as a result of injuries or illness sustained in the course of employment, or if the death resulted from an occupational disease or infection that arose naturally and proximately out of the member's covered employment, if found eligible by the Department of Labor and Industries. Legislation passed in 2009 provides to the Washington -state -registered domestic partners of LEOFF Plan 2 members the same treatment as married spouses, to the extent that the treatment is not in conflict with federal laws. There are 373 participating employers in LEOFF. [1] Membership in LEOFF consisted of the following as of the latest actuarial valuation date for the plans of June 30, 2011: Packet Page 371 of 461 Retirees and Beneficiaries Receiving Benefits 9,947 Terminated Plan Members Entitled to But Not Yet Receiving Benefits 656 Active Plan Members Vested 13,942 Active Plan Members Non -vested 3,113 Total 27,658 Funding Policy Employer and employee contributions rates are developed by the Office of the State Actuary to fully fund the plans. Starting on July 1, 2000, Plan 1 employers and employees contribute zero percent as long as the plan remains fully funded. Plan 2 employers and employees are required to pay at the level adopted by the LEOFF Plan 2 Retirement Board. The Legislature, by means of a special funding arrangement, appropriated money from the state General Fund to supplement the current service liability and fund the prior service costs of Plan 2 in accordance with the recommendations of the Pension Funding Council and the LEOFF Plan 2 Retirement Board. However, this special funding situation is not mandated by the state constitution and this funding requirement could be returned to the employers by a change of statute. For DRS' fiscal year 2012, the state contributed $52.8 million to the LEOFF Plan 2. The methods used to determine the contribution requirements are established under state statute in accordance with Chapters 41.26 and 41.45 RCW . The required contribution rates expressed as a percentage of current -year covered payroll, as of December 31, 2012, are as follows: LEOFF Plan 1 LEOFF Plan 2 Employer* 0.16% 5.24%** Employee 0.00% 8.46% State N/A 3.38% *The employer rates include the employer administrative expense fee currently set at 0.16%. **The employer rate for ports and universities is 8.62%. Both the city and the employees made the required contributions. [2] The city's required contributions for the years ended December 31 were as follows: LEOFF Plan 1 LEOFF Plan 2 2012 $0 $273,236 2011 $0 $274,168 2010 $0 $274,168 Firemen's Pension Plan Description The Law Enforcement Officers' and Firefighters' (LEOFF) pension system was established by the State of Washington on March 1, 1970. The City retained the responsibility for all benefits payable to members (or to their survivors) who retired prior to that date. In addition, the City Packet Page 372 of 461 retained the responsibility for a portion of the benefits payable to members who were active on that date. As a result, the City of Edmonds is the administrator of the Firemen's Pension Plan which is shown as a trust fund in the City's financial reports. Separate financial statements are not issued. This system is a closed, single -employer, defined benefit pension system. All City firefighters who served before March 1, 1970 are participants of this pension fund. Benefits are established in accordance with Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 41.18 and 41.20. At December 31, 2012, there were four retirees receiving pension and medical benefits from this fund. Firefighters hired between March 1, 1970 and September 30, 1977 are members of the LEOFF 1 pension system and are also eligible for a supplemental retirement benefit plus health benefits under the City plan. Generally, benefits under the LEOFF 1 retirement benefit system are greater than or equal to the retirement benefits under the City plan. However, should the benefits under the old law exceed those under LEOFF 1 the City becomes liable for the excess benefits. As such, the laws require the payment of excess benefits only and do not require a specific contribution rate by the City. At December 31, 2012 there were 26 retirees receiving medical benefits. These benefits were paid from the LEOFF 1 Retiree Medical Reserve Fund. Funding Policy and Funding Status Under State law, the Firemen's Pension Fund is provided an allocation of 25% of all monies received by the State from taxes on fire insurance premiums. The General Fund may provide additional funding through transfers to help fund benefits and administrative costs as necessary. Active pension plan members are not required to contribute to the plan. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Basis of accounting - The financial statements are prepared using the accrual basis of accounting. Benefits are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the plan. Valuation of investments — For reporting, interest earnings are recognized in the accounting period in which they become available and measurable. Investments are reported on the financial statements at fair value based on quoted market prices. Concentration of Investments At December 31, 2012 the Fire Pension Fund did not hold any investments. The net pension obligation has been recorded as a noncurrent liability on the City's government -wide statement of Net Position. THREE YEAR TREND INFORMATION Fiscal Year Contribution as a Ending Annual Percentage of Net Pension 12/31 Pension Cost (APC) APC Obligation (NPO) 2010 $ 35,461 88% $ 181,254 2011 32,582 -19% 220,065 2012 30,690 137% 208,751 The City's annual pension cost and net pension obligation changes for the current year and two preceding years were as follows: Packet Page 373 of 461 Annual Normal Cost (BOY) Amortization of UAAL (BOY) Interest to EOY [(1)+(2)]x(i)* Annual Required Contribution (ARC) at EOY [(1)+(2)+(3)] Interest on NPO Adjustment to ARC Annual pension cost (APC) [(4)+(5)-(6)] Employer Contributions** Change in NPO [(7)-(8)] NPO at BOY [(11) prior year] NPO at EOY [(9)+(10)] 12/31 /2010 12/31 /2011 12/31 /2012 39,330 37,117 37,117 1,573 1,485 1,485 $ 40,903 $ 38,602 $ 38,602 7,080 7,250 8,803 12,522 13,270 16,715 $ 35,461 $ 32,582 $ 30,690 31,197 (6,229) 42,004 4,264 38,811 (11,314) $ 176,990 $ 181,254 $ 220,065 $ 181,254 $ 220,065 $ 208,751 *'i' is the assumed interest rate that year: 4.0% in 2010, 4.0% in 2011, 4.0% in 2012. ** Employer contributions for pensions are total contributions to the Fund net of disbursements from the Fund for medical expenses under RCW 41.26.150 and administrative expenses. Actuarial Information On March 4, 2013, Northwest Plan Services, Inc., actuaries and consultants, completed the Firemen's Pension Fund Actuarial valuation. This valuation was updated on December 31, 2012. In order to comply with reporting requirements, they computed the annual required contribution (ARC) using the Entry Age Cost Normal Actuarial Method. Under this method, the projected benefits are allocated on a level basis as a percentage of salary over the earnings of each individual between entry age and assumed exit age. The amount allocated to each year is called the Normal Cost and the portion of the Actuarial Present Value of all benefits not provided for by future Normal Cost payments is called the Actuarial Liability. Since all members have already retired, the annual Normal Cost is zero. The Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) is the Actuarial Accrued Liability minus the actuarial value of the Fund's assets. The UAAL is amortized as a level dollar amount over a closed 30 years beginning January 1, 2000. Significant actuarial assumptions used in the valuation include: • 4.0 percent investment return, compounded annually • 3.5 percent annual salary increase • 2.5 percent growth in fire insurance premium • 2.5 percent increase in consumer price index • 7.25 percent increase in medical inflation rate, trending down to 5 percent after 9 years • 5.0 percent increase in long term care inflation rate • Plan assets are valued at market value Prior actuarial studies used 9.0 percent growth in the medical inflation rate. There were no material changes to the benefit provisions, actuarial funding method, or other significant factors that affect required contributions. Packet Page 374 of 461 Municipal Employees Benefits Trust (MEBT) Full- and qualifying part-time City employees participate in the City -defined contribution plan. By majority vote, City employees approved the City's withdrawal from the Social Security System pursuant to 2 U.S.C.A., Sec. 418 (g) effective July 1, 1977. City employees who customarily work 1,000 or more hours per year and who otherwise would be eligible for Social Security coverage and benefits are required to participate. Both the City and participants are required to contribute an amount equal to the current Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax rate. The City's contribution for fiscal year 2012 was $993,908 which represents its full liability. For the year ending December 31, 2012, the City's covered payroll was $15,702,016. The City's total current year payroll for all employees is $16,051,822. No significant benefit changes occurred in 2012. The plan is administered by a Plan Committee consisting of two members appointed by the Mayor and five members elected by the employees who contribute to the plan. Members appointed by the Mayor hold office at the pleasure of the Mayor, elected members serve a two- year term and may be re-elected for an additional two-year term. Plan assets are not City property, but are maintained in trust at American Stock Transfer and Trust Company. Plan assets, therefore, are not included in accompanying financial statements. The City may amend the provisions of the plan, provided that no such amendment shall enlarge the duties or liabilities of the plan trustee without its consent. The City has the right at any time to reduce suspend or completely discontinue its contributions to the plan. Actuarial determinations are not required because 1) long-term disability insurance and survivor income insurance are provided by Group Insurance Policy No. 377655 with Standard Insurance Company, and 2) each participant shall, at his/her normal retirement, instruct the Trustee to (a) acquire a non -forfeitable, non -transferable annuity contract, (b) pay his/her retirement benefit from his/her account (no City or participant contributions shall be added to his account after retirement), and (c) pay a single cash sum. When a participant terminates, the Trustee shall be instructed to pay the full amount of the participant's contributions plus the vested portion credited to his account. NOTE 11 — OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEB) In addition to providing pension benefits described under "Fireman's Pension," the City provides post -employment health care benefits. In accordance with RCW 41.26.150, all employees who become eligible after age 50 or become disabled while employed with at least five years of service in the LEOFF I System are eligible. In addition to the 10 firefighters referenced in the Fireman's Pension Fund there currently 19 retired police officers who meet the eligibility requirements. Under authorization of the Disability Board, the City pays medical insurance premiums and medical expenses including long-term care. Post -employment health care benefits are being funded on a pay as you go basis. The retiree does not contribute towards the cost of his/her medical care. Post -employment health care costs of $350,447 and long-term care costs of $174,607 were reported in the LEOFF 1 Medical Reserve Fund 009. At December 31, 2012 there was $410,197 of cash and cash equivalents available to pay benefits. The City's annual OPEB cost, the percentage of annual OPEB cost contributed to the plan, and the net OPEB obligation were as follows: Packet Page 375 of 461 Fiscal Year Ending 12/31 Annual OPEB Cost Contribution as a Percentage of Annual OPEB Cost Net OPEB Obligation 2010 $ 587,305 89% $ 383,211 2011 593,358 91% 437,472 2012 591,657 99% 445,956 The City's annual OPEB and Net OPEB obligation for the current and preceding year were as follows: Annual Normal Cost (BOY) Amortization of UAAL (BOY) Interest to EOY [(1)+(2)]x(i)* Annual Required Contribution (ARC) at EOY [(1)+(2)+(3)] Interest on Net OPEB Obligation Adjustment to ARC Annual pension cost (APC) [(4)+(5)-(6)] Employer Contributions** Change in Net OPEB Obligation [(7)-(8)] Net OPEB Obligation at BOY [(11) prior year] Net OPEB Obligation at EOY [(9)+(10)] 12/31 /2010 12/31 /2011 12/31 /2012 570,510 577,965 577,965 22.820 23.119 23.119 $ 593,330 $ 601,084 $ 601,084 12,763 15,328 17,499 18,788 23,054 26,926 $ 587,305 $ 593,358 $ 591,657 523,170 539,097 583,173 64,135 54,261 8,484 $ 319,076 1,472 $ 383,211 $ 437,472 $ 445,956 *'i' is the assumed interest rate that year: 4.0% in 2010, 4.0% in 2011, 4.0% in 2012. Actuarial Information GASB Statement 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Post -employment Benefits other than Pensions requires the disclosure of the employer liability for retiree medical subsidies and other post -employment benefits. On March 4, 2013, Northwest Plan Services, Inc., actuaries and consultants, completed an actuarial valuation. In order to comply with reporting requirements, they computed the annual required contribution (ARC) using the Entry Age Cost Normal Actuarial Method. This valuation was updated as of December 31, 2012. The ARC is equal to an amount required each year to fully fund the liability. The amount allocated to each year is called the Normal Cost and the portion of the Actuarial Present Value of all benefits not provided for by future Normal Cost payments is called the Actuarial Liability. Since all members have already retired, the annual Normal Cost is zero. The Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) is the Actuarial Accrued Liability minus the actuarial value of the Fund's assets. The UAAL is amortized as a level dollar amount over a closed 30 years beginning January 1, 2007. Significant actuarial assumptions used in the valuation include: • 4.0 percent investment return, compounded annually • 2.5 percent increase in consumer price index • 7.25 percent increase in medical inflation rate, trending down to 5.0 percent after 9 years • 5.0 percent increase in long term care inflation rate Packet Page 376 of 461 • Asset valuation method N/A Association of Washington Cities Employee Benefit Trust (Trust) Trust Description. The City is a Participating Employer in the Association of Washington Cities Employee Benefit Trust, a cost -sharing multiple -employer welfare benefit plan administered by the Association of Washington Cities. The Trust provides medical benefits to certain eligible retired employees of the Participating Employers and their eligible family members. Under Article VII of the Trust document, the Trustees have the authority and power to amend the amount and nature of the medical and other benefits provided by the Trust. The Trust issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information for the Trust. That report, along with a copy of the Trust document, may be obtained by writing to Trust at 1076 Franklin Street SE, Olympia, WA 98501-1346 or by calling 1-800-562- 8981.. Funding Policy. The Trust provides that contribution requirements of Participating Employers and of participating employees, retirees and other beneficiaries, if any, are established and may be amended by the Board of Trustees of the Trust. Retirees of the City receiving medical benefits from the Trust contribute the following amounts: AWC Healthfirst 1000 Plan $789.14 per month for non -Medicare enrolled retiree -only coverage, $1,584.71 for non -Medicare enrolled retiree and spouse coverage, $421.75 for Medicare enrolled retiree and $855.23 for Medicare enrolled retiree and spouse coverage, and for the HealthFirst 2500 Plan $689.11 per month for non -Medicare enrolled retiree -only coverage, $1,382.77 for non -Medicare enrolled retiree and spouse coverage, $369.29 for Medicare enrolled retiree and $747.59 for Medicare enrolled retiree and spouse coverage Participating Employers are contractually required to contribute at a rate assessed each year by the Trust. The required contribution rate expressed as a percentage of current year covered payroll is 18.2 percent. The City's contribution to the Trust for the year ended December 31, 2012 was $2,754,438, which equaled the required contribution for the year. Retiring employees from a Participating Employer have several retiree medical plans to choose from. The AWC Trust works directly with the retired employee, and no monies pass through the former employer. Additionally, the AWC Trust pools the health care costs of the retiree medical programs, and rates the programs accordingly. Currently, the AWC Trust Board of Trustees have committed to a retiree medical plan subsidy of 25% which is drawn from the accumulated medical reserve fund. The medical reserves have accumulated over the years from excess premium contributions of employers, active employees and retirees in favorable claims years. The Trust Board of Trustees can change their retiree medical plan subsidy policy in any given year. NOTE 12 — LONG-TERM DEBT The City of Edmonds' issues general obligation and revenue bonds to finance the acquisition and construction of major capital facilities and capital programs. Bonded indebtedness has also been entered into in 2012 to refund four of the City's LTGO bonds. General obligation bonds have been issued in the past for both general government and business- type activities and are being repaid from the applicable resources. Governmental Activities long-term debt is paid from property and sales tax revenues. The revenue bonds are being repaid by the revenues generated by the related utility. The City of Edmonds is also liable for eight Public Works Trust Fund Loans; three are general obligation loans and five businesses -type loans. The notes are considered obligations of both the general government and the Utility and are being repaid from the applicable resources. The City is in compliance with all Washington State debt limitation statutes and bond indenture agreements. Packet Page 377 of 461 General obligation bonds currently outstanding are as follows: Maturity Interest Original Principal Balance Issue Name Date Rates Amount Installments 12/31/12 Gove rnm ental Debt: General Obligation Bonds: 2003 UTGO Ref. Bonds - Public Safety Building 12/01/2016 2.00-3.50% $ 7,000,000 $70,000 - $960,000 $ 3,520,000 2007 LTGO Bonds - Capital Improvements 3/15/2026 3.65-3.95% 1,384,904 $130,000-$370,000 1,080,384 2012 LTGO Refunding Bonds 12/1/2031 1.75-3.00% 9,004,043 $80,000 - $880,000 9,004,043 Total Governmental GO Bonds 17,388,947 13,604,427 Bus iness-type Debt: General Obligation Bonds 2007 LTGO Bonds - Capital Improvements 3/15/2026 3.65-3.95% 3,845,096 $130,000-$370,000 2,999,616 2012 LTGO Refunding Bonds 12/1/2031 1.75-3.00% 320,957 $80,000 - $880,000 320,957 Total Business- type GO Bonds 4,166,053 3,320,573 Revenue bonds currently outstanding are as follows: Maturity Interest Original Principal Balance Issue Name Date Rates Amount Installments 12/31/12 Bus iness- type Debt: Revenue Bonds 2011 Water/Sew er Bonds 12/1/2031 3.65-3.95% 13,720,000 $470,000 - $945,000 13,250,000 Total Revenue Bonds $13,720,000 $13,250,000 Public Works Trust Fund Loans currently outstanding are as follows: Maturity Interest Original Principal Balance Issue Name Date Rates Amount Installments 12/31/12 Gove rnm ental Debt: Public Works Trust Fund Loans: PW Trust Fund Loan - Street Construction 6/30/2022 0.50% $ 340,000 $13,421 - $18,143 $ 181,433 PW Trust Fund Loan - Street Construction 6/30/2024 0.50% 400,000 $20,000 - $21,176 254,118 PW Trust Fund Loan - Street Construction 5/24/2026 0.50% 624,750 $32,882 460,342 Total Governmental Debt Public Works Trust Fun J Loans 1,364,750 895,893 Bus iness-type Debt: Public Works Trust Fund Loans: PW Trust Fund Loan - Trt. Rant/Sew er Improv. 6/30/2022 0.50% 1,347,250 $67,363 - $71,325 713,250 PW Trust Fund Loan - Water Improvements 6/30/2024 0.50% 408,000 $4,295 - $25,839 310,067 PW Trust Fund Loan - Storm Improvements 6/30/2024 0.50% 605,625 $30,281 - $32,063 384,750 PW Trust Fund Loan - Sew er Improvements 6/30/2025 0.50% 1,216,902 $12,809 - $67,615 939,838 PW Trust Fund Loan - 09 Water Improvements 7/1/2015 0% 100,000 $18,000 - $20,000 60,000 Total Business- type Debt Public Works Trust Fund Loans 3,677,777 2,407,905 Total Public Works Trust Fund Loans $5,042,527 $3,303,798 Packet Page 378 of 461 Capital Contracts currently outstanding are as follows: Maturity Interest Original Principal Balance Issue Name Date Rates Amount Installments 12/31/12 Gove rnm ental Debt: Capital Contracts 1996 Note - Fire Station #10 01/01/2015 1.00% $ 1,136,115 $54,592 - $65,300 $ 193,964 2005 Contract - Public Safety Radio Equipment 12/01/2019 3.00-5.00% 1,595,046 $77,457 - $141,288 869,960 Total Capital Contracts $ 2,731,161 $ 1,063,924 Debt Limit RCW 39.36.020 provides cities with three segments of debt capacity, each equal to two and one- half percent of the city's assessed valuation, for a total of seven and one-half percent (7.5%). Allowable uses of these segments are as follows: Segment 1 — General Governmental Purposes The City can incur debt up to one and one-half percent (1.5%) of its assessed valuation solely with a vote of the legislative body (often referred to as "councilmanic" debt). To use the remaining one percent (1 %), a 60 percent vote in favor of the issue by at least 40 percent of the voters voting in the last general election is required. Segment 2 — City -Owned Water and Sewer Purposes The City can incur debt up to an additional two and one-half percent (2.5%) for water and sewer purposes with a 60 percent vote in favor of the issue by at least 40 percent of the voters voting in the last general election. Segment 3 — Acquiring and Developing Open Space, Parks Facilities, and Capital Facilities Associated with Economic Development The City can incur debt up to an additional two and one-half percent (2.5%) for acquiring and developing open space, parks facilities, and capital facilities associated with economic development purposes with a 60 percent vote in favor of the issue by at least 40 percent of the voters voting in the last general election. Debt Limit Capacity Water & Sewer Park & Capital Governmental Purposes Purposes Facilities Without Vote (Councilmanic) With Vote With Vote With Vote Item 1.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Legal Limits $ 83,178,598 $ 55,452,398 $ 138,630,996 $ 138,630,996 Net outstanding indebtedness (18,734,331) (3,520,000) - - Margin Available $ 64,444,267 $ 51,932,398 $ 138,630,996 $ 138,630,996 Packet Page 379 of 461 Refunded Debt In prior years, the City has defeased several revenue bond issues by creating separate irrevocable trust funds. New debt has been issued and the proceeds used to purchase U.S. Government securities that were placed in the trust funds. Investments and fixed earnings from the investments are sufficient to fully service the defeased debt until the debt is called or matures. For financial reporting purposes, the debt is considered defeased and therefore removed as a liability from City financial statements. In 2012, the City issued $9,325,000 in LTGO bonds with annual interest rates ranging from 1.75% to 3.00% to refund the following debt issuances: $790,000 of outstanding 1998 LTGO bonds with annual interest rates ranging from 4.00% to 4.40%, $1,615,000 of outstanding 2001A LTGO bonds with annual interest rates ranging from 3.00% to 4.90%, $1,270,000 of outstanding 2001B LTGO bonds with annual interest rates of 2.65% to 5.45%, and $5,650,000 of outstanding 2002 LTGO bonds with annual interest rates ranging from 3.00% to 4.90%. The net proceeds of $9,819,940 were also deposited in an irrevocable trust with U.S. Bank National Association. There was a net present value savings in the amount of $1,912,892 for an economic gain. Debt Service to Maturity The requirements to amortize the long-term debt as of December 31, 2012 are presented below. Debt service for the LTGO bonds are met by the General Fund and certain special revenue funds, and reimbursements from proprietary funds of the City with the exception of the refunded 2002 LTGO issue. The PFD is obligated by inter -local agreement to transfer sales tax rebate revenues to the City to help offset the City's debt service costs over the life of these bonds (refer to Note 1 — Reporting Entity). Debt service for the UTGO bonds are covered by property tax levies that authorized the bond issues. Debt service for the revenue bonds is paid by the Utility Fund. Debt service for the capital contracts is expended from the General Fund. In prior years the City has typically used the General Fund to liquidate long-term liabilities other than debt. Following is a table which reflects debt service to maturity for Governmental Activities and Business -Type Activities. GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES BUSINESS TYPE ACTIVITIES Year Principal Interest Total Principal Interest Total 2013 $ 1,928,748 $ 388,768 $ 2,317,516 2014 2,022,067 338,906 2,360,974 2015 1,741,977 285,936 2,027,913 2016 1,760,065 235,542 1,995,607 2017 836,306 182,187 1,018,493 2018-2022 4,096,806 607,060 4,703,865 2023-2027 2,868,275 184,852 3,053,127 2028-2032 310,000 17,663 327,663 $ 956,569 $ 598,794 $ 1,555,363 974,627 580,457 1,555,083 970,381 556,286 1,526,667 972,733 531,930 1,504,662 997,230 506,854 1,504,084 5,388,647 2,088,511 7,477,159 5,153,293 1,218,756 6,372,048 3,565,000 363,400 3,928,400 $15, 564, 244 $ 2, 240, 913 $17, 805,157 $ 18,978,478 $ 6,444, 988 $ 25,423, 467 At December 31, 2012 the City had $984,163 in the Enterprise fund available for debt service. Arbitrage The Federal Tax Reform Act of 1986 requires tax-exempt debt issuers to pay investment income received at yields that exceed the issuer's borrowing rates to the United States Treasury. The liability is recorded at present value and payable every five years or 60 days after defeasance of the debt. At December 31, 2012, the City of Edmonds had no arbitrage liability. Packet Page 380 of 461 Revenue Bond Debt Service Coverage The required debt service coverage for the 2011 utility revenue bonds is 1.25. Please refer to Schedule 16 in the statistical section. The restricted rate stabilization fund for the utility revenue bonds was established to minimize the effect on rates of revenue fluctuations between years. By transferring cash into this stabilization fund, adjusted net revenue available for debt service, as defined, would be decreased by the amount of the transfer. Conversely, transfers out of the account would increase adjusted net revenue available for debt service. NOTE 13 —CHANGES IN LONG-TERM LIABILITIES During the year ended December 31, 2012, the following changes occurred in long-term liabilities: Beginning Ending Balance Balance Due Within 1/1/2012 Additions Reductions 12/31/2012 One Year Governmental activities Bonds payable: General obligation bonds $ 15,520,201 $ 9,004,043 $ (10,919,817) $ 13,604,427 $ 1,684,953 Total bonds payable: 15,520,201 9,004,043 (10,919,817) 13,604,427 1,684,953 Net Pension Obligation 220,065 (11,314) 208,751 OPEB payable 437,472 8,484 445,956 - Compensated absences 2,794,680 1,827,946 (1,975,346) 2,647,280 2,014,853 Capital contracts 1,229,863 - (165,939) 1,063,924 171,594 Public Works Trust Loan 968,095 - (72,202) 895,893 72,201 Governmental activity long-term liabilities $ 21,170,376 $ 10,840,473 $ (13,144,618) $ 18,866,231 $ 3,943,601 Business -type activities Bonds Payable: General obligation bonds $ 3,554,800 $ 320,957 $ (555,184) $ 3,320,573 $ 220,047 Revenue bonds 13,720,000 - (470,000) 13,250,000 515,000 Less deferred amounts: For issuance premiums 419,715 - (20,986) 398,729 20,986 For issuance discount (13,165) 16,415 (1,484) 1,766 1,181 On refunding (254,127) - 72,000 (182,127) (72,000) Total bonds payable: 17,427,223 337,372 (975,654) 16,788,941 685,214 Compensated absences 416,194 364,217 (377,162) 403,249 384,705 Public Works Trust Loan 2,563,901 60,845 (216,841) 2,407,905 221,522 Business -type activity long-term liabilities $ 20,407,318 $ 762,434 $ (1,569,657) $ 19,600,095 $ 1,291,441 Internal service funds predominately serve the governmental funds. Accordingly, the December 31, 2012 long-term liabilities for the fund are included as part of the above totals for governmental activities. At year end $22,389 of internal service funds compensated absences are included in the above amounts. Packet Page 381 of 461 NOTE 14 —CONTINGENCIES AND LITIGATIONS The City is exposed to the risk of loss from torts, theft of or damage to assets, business interruption, errors or omissions, law enforcement actions, contractual actions, natural disasters, environmental regulations, and other third -party liabilities. The City also bears the risk of loss for job -related illnesses and injuries to employees. The City has insurance policies to cover these general liability risks with the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA). Refer to Note 13 for more detailed information on risk management. There are several disputes and pending lawsuits in which the City is named. The City Attorney estimates the potential claims against the City not covered by insurance resulting from such disputes and litigation could range from $800,000 to $1,150,000 and estimates the likelihood of this range is from reasonably possible to remote. The City participates in a number of federal- and state -assisted programs. These programs are subject to audit by the governmental unit administering the program or their representative. Such audits could result in requests for reimbursement of disallowed expenditures. Based on audit history, City management believes that any disallowance will be immaterial. The City Council approved a guaranty of a borrowing of the Edmonds Public Facilities District for up to $7 million. This guaranty represents an outstanding contingent liability of the City. NOTE 15 — RISK MANAGEMENT The City of Edmonds is a member of the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA). Utilizing Chapter 48.62 RCW (self-insurance regulation) and Chapter 39.34 RCW (Inter -local Cooperation Act), nine cities originally formed WCIA on January 1, 1981. WCIA was created for the purpose of providing a pooling mechanism for jointly purchasing insurance, jointly self - insuring, and / or jointly contracting for risk management services. WCIA has a total of 153 Members. New members initially contract for a three-year term, and thereafter automatically renew on an annual basis. A one-year withdrawal notice is required before membership can be terminated. Termination does not relieve a former member from its unresolved loss history incurred during membership. Liability coverage is written on an occurrence basis, without deductibles. Coverage includes general, automobile, police, public officials' errors or omissions, stop gap, and employee benefits liability. Limits are $4 million per occurrence self -insured layer, and $16 million per occurrence in the re -insured excess layer. The excess layer is insured by the purchase of reinsurance and insurance and is subject to aggregate limits. Total limits are $20 million per occurrence subject to aggregate sub -limits in the excess layers. The Board of Directors determines the limits and terms of coverage annually. Insurance coverage for property, automobile physical damage, fidelity, inland marine, and boiler and machinery are purchased on a group basis. Various deductibles apply by type of coverage. Property insurance and auto physical damage are self -funded from the members' deductible to $750,000, for all perils other than flood and earthquake, and insured above that amount by the purchase of insurance. In-house services include risk management consultation, loss control field services, claims and litigation administration, and loss analyses. WCIA contracts for the claims investigation consultants for personnel issues and land use problems, insurance brokerage, and lobbyist services. Packet Page 382 of 461 WCIA is fully funded by its members, who make annual assessments on a prospectively rated basis, as determined by an outside, independent actuary. The assessment covers loss, loss adjustment, and administrative expenses. As outlined in the inter -local, WCIA retains the right to additionally assess the membership for any funding shortfall. An investment committee, using investment brokers, produces additional revenue by investment of W CIA's assets in financial instruments which comply with all State guidelines. A Board of Directors governs WCIA, which is comprised of one designated representative from each member. The Board elects an Executive Committee and appoints a Treasurer to provide general policy direction for the organization. The WCIA Executive Director reports to the Executive Committee and is responsible for conducting the day to day operations of WCIA. Workers' Compensation Title 51 RCW requires the City to ensure payment of benefits for job -related injuries and diseases through the Workers' Compensation fund or through self-insurance. The City participates in the State of Washington's Workers' Compensation program. Premiums are based on individual employer's reported payroll hours and insurance rates based on each employer's risk classification and past experience. The premium is paid by employer and employee contributions. NOTE 16 — JOINT VENTURE The City entered into a joint venture with Snohomish County and other local governments in the establishment and operations of the Snohomish County Emergency Radio System. Control of this joint venture is shared equitably by the controlling organizations. This entity is reported as a governmental joint venture. The Snohomish County Emergency Radio System is considered a separate reporting entity. The City's and each participants share of authority is defined by the terms of the enabling charter. Control as represented by the City Council or Board of County Commissioners is divided between the County and participating Cities. Separate financial statements for the Snohomish County Emergency Radio System can be obtained from Snohomish County. The Snohomish County Emergency Radio System was created by agreement under the Interlocal Cooperation Act (RCW 39.34) between The City of Edmonds, Snohomish County and various other cities and political districts. The purpose of the venture is to equip and operate a radio system primarily for the use of public safety agencies. The City of Edmonds has an 8% interest in the equity and operations of the venture. The City's share of the assets and fund equity as of December 31, 2012 was $494,337. The venture appears to be accumulating significant resources, and is not experiencing any fiscal stress that would cause an additional financial burden on the participating governments. Packet Page 383 of 461 NOTE 17 -COMMITMENTS The City has several capital improvement projects in progress. As of December 31, 2012, the City's outstanding contractual obligations, which include construction and engineering contracts, are summarized below: Original Expenditures to Rem aining Contract Nam a Am ount Date Com m itm ent 2011 Waterline Replacement Program $ 394,038 $ 340,017 $ 54,021 2011 Waterline Replacement Program (Dayton St.) 39,694 28,712 10,982 2012 Sanitary Sewer Com p Plan Update 188,083 94,891 93,192 2012 Waterline Replacement Program 46,750 27,247 19,503 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement 9,530 9,530 - 2013 Sewer Line Replacement Program 27,262 23,807 3,455 2013 Waterline Replacement Program 23,264 23,064 200 226th St SW Walway Project 18,631 18,474 157 228th Street SW Corridor Improvement Project 411,517 284,745 126,772 76th Ave W & 212th St. SW Inters ection 300,700 146,027 154,673 76th Ave W 75th PI W Walkway and 16nd Park 161,000 52,485 108,515 9th Ave Project & 228th Street SW Corridor 5,580 4,708 873 A Basin Upgrade 174,531 159,077 15,454 Building Roof Replacement 344,925 324,700 20,636 Dayton St/SR 104 Drainage Alternative Study 192,210 98,846 93,364 Edm onds Mars h Feas ibility Study 21,995 11,603 10,392 Fibre Optic (cons truction and des ign) 92,890 89,780 3,110 Five Corners Roundabout 396,613 304,033 92,580 Interurban Trail 1,644,251 1,561,079 83,172 Lift Station 2 Rehab 487,525 467,348 20,178 Main Street Decorative Lighting & Sidewalk 1,475,726 1,338,423 137,304 N. Talbot Road Drainage Im provements 20,000 17,182 2,818 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement 20,251 8,496 11,755 Public Works Facilities Water Quality Upgrades 80,031 21,908 58,123 Sewer Lift Stations Rehabilitation 4,728,640 637,857 4,090,783 SR99 International District Enhancements 333,260 177,103 156,158 Stormwater Development Review Support 10,000 6,466 3,534 Suns et Walkway Project (Grant Writing) 16,784 16,779 5 Suns et Walway Project 9,885 9,882 3 SW Edm onds Bas in #3 (238th to Hickman Infiltration) 85,684 84,309 1,375 Switchgear Upgrade - des ign only 111,658 75,450 36,208 Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Im provement 61,962 58,335 3,627 Trans portation Plan Update 12,400 10,472 1,928 Water, Sewer, Stormwater Revenue Req Update 12,450 9,710 2,740 $ 11,959,720 $ 6,542,545 $ 5,417,590 Packet Page 384 of 461 NOTE 18 — PRIOR PERIOD CORRECTIONS Gove rnme nta I Activities General Government Move PFD Receivable from A/R to Contingent Loan Balance $ (221,703) Remove PFD Long-term receivable $ (4,965,000) $ (5,186,703) Business-Tvpe Activities Correction of Grant amount accrued in error in 2010 $ (44,037) Correction of revenues that were over -estimated in a prior year (360,939) Correction of Retainage that was not decreased in error 2,780 (402,196) NOTE 19 —TERMINATION BENEFITS In 2012, in an effort to accommodate budgetary constraints, the City implemented a Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (VSIP). The purpose of this program was to reduce the City's overall salary costs by reducing FTE levels, while minimizing impacts to employees to voluntarily separate from employment, either through retirement or resignation. There were four tiers of incentive options dependent on years of service: • 0-5 Years of Service 1. Three months salary, OR 2. Two months salary plus 50% COBRA health benefits for nine months, OR 3. Two months salary plus 75% COBRA health benefits for six months. • 6-10 Years of Service 1. Four months salary, OR 2. Three months salary plus 50% COBRA health benefits for nine months, OR 3. Three months salary plus 75% COBRA health benefits for six months. 11-15 Years of Service 1. Five months salary, OR 2. Four months salary plus 50% COBRA health benefits for nine months, OR 3. Four months salary plus 75% COBRA health benefits for six months. >15 Years of Service 1. Six months salary, OR 2. Five months salary plus 50% COBRA health benefits for nine months, OR 3. Five months salary plus 75% COBRA health benefits for six months Five employees total participated in the program, with two receiving payouts in 2012, and three in 2013; all chose the salary only options. This program is a one-time offer, with a one-time payout distribution. The total cost in 2012 of this incentive was $62,589 and $101,164 in 2013. NOTE 20 — SUBSEQUENT EVENT On August 6th, 2013, the City sold $15,010,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds through a competitive bond sale. Net proceeds of the sales will be used to finance water, sewer, and stormwater capital projects. The City had applied to Moody's Investors Service and the outstanding rating of the City's Water and Sewer Bonds of "Aa3" was affirmed. The rating reflects positively on the City, City management and staff and the sound financial position of the Water & Sewer Utility. The Bonds were structured as 25 year bonds with a final maturity in 2038. The Bond debt service was "wrapped" around the City's outstanding Water & Sewer debt service, resulting in approximately level overall debt service payments. Packet Page 385 of 461 FIREMEN'S PENSION TRUST FUND SCHEDULE OF FUNDING PROGRESS (rounded to thousands) Actuarial Unfunded Acturial UAAL as a Actuarial Actuarial Value Accrued Accrued Liabilities Funded Covered Percentage of Valuation Date of Assets Liabilities (UAAL) Ratio Payroll Co\,ered Payroll January 1,2012 $ 217 $ 755 $ 538 29% N/A N/A January 1, 2010 267 774 507 34% N/A N/A January 1, 2008 297 871 574 34% N/A N/A January 1, 2006 301 704 403 43% N/A N/A January 1, 2004 397 702 305 57% N/A N/A SCHEDULE OF EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS Medical and Fiscal Year Long Annual Percentage of Ending Term Care Fire Insurance Total Employer Required ARC 12/31 Payments Premium Taxes Contributions*** Contribution Contributed" 2012 $ (2,661) $ 44,665 $ 42,004 $ 38,602 109% 2011 (6,307) 78 (6,229) 38,602 -16% 2010 (13,708) 44,905 31,197 40,903 76% 2009 (8,589) 42,172 33,583 40,903 82% 2008 (4,524) 44,226 39,702 28,629 139% 2007 (25, 575) 42,531 16,956 28,629 59% 2006 (59,930) 38,540 (21,390) 23,901 -89% 2005 (62,106) 35,519 (26,587) 23,901 -111% 2004 (68,388) 33,452 (34,936) 14,060 -248% RETIREE MEDICAL AND LONG-TERM CARE BENEFITS FOR LEOFF 1 EMPLOYEES SCHEDULE OF FUNDING PROGRESS (rounded to thousands) Actuarial Unfunded Acturial UAAL as a Actuarial Actuarial Value Accrued Accrued Liabilities Funded Covered Percentage of Valuation Date of Assets Liabilities (UAAL) Ratio Payroll Co\tered Payroll January 1, 2012 $ $ 9,576 $ 9,576 0% N/A N/A January 1, 2010 - 9,607 9,607 0% N/A N/A January 1, 2008 - 9,887 9,887 0% N/A N/A January 1, 2006 - 8,635 8,635 0% N/A N/A SCHEDULE OF EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS Fiscal Year Annual Percentage of Ending Total Employer Required ARC 12/31 Contributions*** Contribution Contributed" 2012 $ 583,173 $ 601,084 97% 2011 539,097 601,084 90% 2010 523,170 593,330 88% 2009 479,076 593,330 81% 2008 444,701 561,707 79% 2007 469,004 561,707 83% Packet Page 386 of 461 NOTES TO REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FIREMEN'S PENSION TRUST FUND Actuarial Valuations Actuarial valuation date Actuarial cost method Amortization method Remaining amortization period Asset valuation method January 1, 2012 Entry age normal 30 year, closed as of January 1, 2000 17 years Fair market value Assumptions Investment rate of return 4.00% Projected salary increases 3.50% Price inflation 2.50% Based upon salary increase assumptions when appropriate for Trust benefits. * Based upon inflation assumption for some Trust benefits and all LEOFF benefits. * Under the Firemen's Pension Trust Fund, most adjustments are based on the change in salary for the rank of members held at retirement or based on the Consumer Price Index. Adjustments are determined in accordance with RCW 41.18.150, RCW 41.20 and RCW 41.26. RETIREE MEDICAL AND LONG-TERM CARE BENEFITS FOR LEOFF 1 EMPLOYEES Actuarial Valuations Actuarial valuation date January 1, 2012 Actuarial cost method Entry age normal Amortization method 30 year, closed as of January 1, 2007 Remaining amortization period 24 years Asset valuation method Fair market value Assumptions Investment rate of return 4.00% Medical inflation rate 7.25%, downgrading to 5.00% over nine years Long-term care inflation 5.00% Packet Page 387 of 461 MCAG No. 0661 Schedule 16 CITY OF EDMONDS SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS For Year Ended December 31, 2012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Expenditures From Other Award Pass- From Federal Program Pass -through Agency I.D. Through Direct CFDA # Federal ABencV Name National Park Service Name Name Number ARRA Awards Awards Total Foot -Note 15.904 Historic Preservation Fund Grants -In -Aid Department of the Interior 53-10-AP- N 0 4.077 4,077 1,2 5051 16.607 US Department of Justice Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program N/A N/A N 0 3.969 3,969 1,2 20.205 U.S. DOT Highway Planning and Construction Washington State Department of CM-2512Transportation N 211,614 0 211,614 1,2 (007) 20.205 U.S. DOT Highway Planning and Construction Washington State Department of STPE- N 666,126 0 666,126 1,2 Transportation 2512(008) 20.205 U.S. DOT Highway Planning and Construction Washington State Department of STPUL-2502 N 144,662 0 144,662 1,2 Transportation (001) 20.205 U.S. DOT Highway Planning and Construction Washington State Department of EDM-13 N 143,231 0 143,231 1,2 Transportation 20.205 U.S. DOT Highway Planning and Construction Washington State Department of HSIP-2501Transportation N 3,342 0 3,342 1,2 (003) 20.205 U.S. DOT Highway Planning and Construction Washington State Department of EDM-21 N 129,803 0 129,803 1,2 Transportation 20.205 U.S. DOT Highway Planning and Construction Washington State Department of STPE- N 252,826 0 252,826 1,2 Transportation 0099(100) 20.601 U.S. DOT Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures Washington State Traffic Safety N/A N 1,315 0 1,315 1,2 Incentive Grants I Commission 20.600 U.S. DOT State and Community Highway Safety Washington State Traffic Safety N/A N 5,522 0 5,522 1,2 Commission Total Federal Awards Expended $1,558,442 $8,047 $1,566,489 Packet Page 388 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS: 2012 CAFR SCHEDULE 16 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON NOTES TO THE SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE For the Year Ended December 31, 2012 NOTE 1 — BASIS OF ACCOUNTING This schedule is prepared on the same basis of accounting as the city of Edmond's financial statements. The City uses the modified accrual accounting method which is followed in all government funds, expendable trust, and agency funds and the full accrual accounting method in its proprietary funds. NOTE 2 — PROGRAM COSTS The amounts shown as current year expenditures represent only the grant portion of the program costs. Entire program costs, including the City's portion, may be more than shown. NOTE 3 — AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACCT (ARRA) OF 2009 Expenditures for this program were funded by ARRA. NOTE 4 — FEDERAL LOANS The City does not have any federal loans. NOTE 5 — REVOLVING LOAN — PROGRAM INCOME The City does not have any revolving loans. Packet Page 389 of 461 ABOUT THE STATE AUDITORS OFFICE The State Auditor's Office is established in the state's Constitution and is part of the executive branch of state government. The State Auditor is elected by the citizens of Washington and serves four-year terms. Our mission is to work with our audit clients and citizens as an advocate for government accountability. As an elected agency, the State Auditor's Office has the independence necessary to objectively perform audits and investigations. Our audits are designed to comply with professional standards as well as to satisfy the requirements of federal, state, and local laws. The State Auditor's Office employees are located around the state to deliver services effectively and efficiently. Our audits look at financial information and compliance with state, federal and local laws on the part of all local governments, including schools, and all state agencies, including institutions of higher education. In addition, we conduct performance audits of state agencies and local governments and fraud, whistleblower and citizen hotline investigations. The results of our work are widely distributed through a variety of reports, which are available on our Web site and through our free, electronic subscription service. We take our role as partners in accountability seriously. We provide training and technical assistance to governments and have an extensive quality assurance program. State Auditor Chief of Staff Director of State and Local Audit Deputy Director of State and Local Audit Deputy Director of State and Local Audit Deputy Director of State and Local Audit Deputy Director of Quality Assurance Deputy Director of Communications Local Government Liaison Public Records Officer Main number Toll -free Citizen Hotline Website Subscription Service Troy Kelley Doug Cochran Chuck Pfeil, CPA Kelly Collins, CPA Jan M. Jutte, CPA, CGFM Sadie Armijo Barb Hinton Thomas Shapley Mike Murphy Mary Leider (360) 902-0370 (866) 902-3900 www.sao.wa.gov www.sao.wa.gov/EN/News/Subscriptions Packet Page 390 of 461 Audit Summary for Public Development Authorities and Public Facilities Districts 0 Issued November 21, 2012 Reissued January3, 2013 Report No.1008676 Packet Page 391 of 461 9SHING�..WAI§ I W &I LVj 1 Table of Contents Audit Summary - Public Development Authorities and Public Facilities Districts...................................................................................3 Appendix A: Suggested Law Changes................................................................ 9 Appendix B: Summary of findings issued by the State Auditor's Office, 2009 to present..................................10 Appendix C: State of Washington Public Development Authorities .....12 Appendix D: State of Washington Public Facilities Districts .....................15 Appendix E: November 2011 Review of Public Facilities DistrictBonds...................................................................................18 State Auditor's Office Contacts.............................................................................23 2 Packet Page 392 of 461 Audit Summary - Public Development Authorities and Public Facilities Districts Why are we issuing this report? As local governments receiving public dollars, public development authorities (PDAs) and public facilities districts (PFDs) are subject to audit. During the course of these audits, we have determined many PDAs and PFDs do an effective job of carrying out their roles and of serving the public. Thirty-eight PDAs and 25 PFDs operate in the state. They provide facilities and services including convention centers, sports and event centers, museums, housing and economic development. The law allows both entity types to combine public money and private donations to complete projects and maintain operations. Our audits of these entities also have found common themes among the audit issues we have noted. This report examines: • Inadequate Monitoring. Our audits have found entities that create PDAs/ PFDs often do not monitor their operations. • Inadequate Governance. PDA/PFD governing boards often are not effectively involved in monitoring activities of the Districts. • Declining or distressed financial condition. • Non-compliance with laws and regulations. What are PDAs and PFDs? Public Development Authorities are created by cities, towns or counties to carry out a specific function. For example, PDAs may manage the development and operation of a single project, such as a convention center or a housing project. The charter establishing a PDA may include a sunset provision that dissolves it when the project is completed. Public Facilities Districts are also created by cities, towns or counties in order to acquire, create or operate certain public facilities such as convention centers; museums; and sports, recreation and entertainment facilities. The Washington state Legislature authorized the creation of PDAs in the 1970s and PFDs in the late 1980s. The laws regarding them are listed below: • PDAs: RCW 35.21 • PFDs: (City- and town -created) RCW 35.57 (County -created) RCW 36.100 In response to a PFD bond default, the Legislature in 2012 revised the law regarding PFDs. It now requires the state Department of Commerce, through the Municipal Research and Services Center, to conduct an independent financial feasibility review prior to formation of a PFD, issuance of indebtedness by a PFD and/or the long-term lease, purchase or development of a facility. It had previously revised the law in 2009 to require PFDs to identify, in their annual budgets, proposed expenditures for promotional activities and to adopt rules governing promotional hosting. State laws say PDAs are subject to the general laws regulating local government, including bid laws; open public meetings and records; the municipal code of ethics; annual financial reporting requirements; and audits. 3 Packet Page 393 of 461 • State Auditor's Office • Public Development Authorities and Public Facilities Districts The map below shows the number of PDAs by county. State of Washington Public Development Authorities Whatcom O SanJuan�O ,ry Skagit Okanogan Ferry Pend OStevens O Oreille Island Clallam O Snohomish Chelan Jefferson Douglas Lincoln Kitsa Maso King ® © Spokane O Grays Harbor Kittitas © Thurston Pierce Grant Adams Whitman Pacific Lewis O O Franklin Garfiel Yakima Columbia Cowlitz Benton Walla Walla Asotin Wahkiakum Skamania Clark Klickitat See Appendix C for details about PDAs in the state. In 2010, the total combined revenues for all PDAs were $108,282,248 and combined expenses were $104,619,288. The chart at right shows the source of revenues by percentages. Note that miscellaneous revenues for PDAs can include interest and other earnings, rent, leases and concessions, contributions and donations from private sources. Financial information on specific PDAs may be found in the State Auditor's Office Local Government Financial Reporting System database at http://portal.sao.wa.gov/LGCS/ Repo rts/Default.aspx. It Packet Page 394 of 461 • State Auditor's Office • Public Development Authorities and Public Facilities Districts Public facilities districts may construct and operate only public facilities specifically authorized in state law. • PFDs generally are allowed to collect non -voted sales tax to use for qualifying regional centers. These tax revenues are public funds and their use is restricted to the project. • City and town - created PFDs may develop and operate convention, conference and special events centers, including related parking, which serve a regional population. • County PFDs have slightly broader powers. They can develop and operate sports, entertainment and convention facilities in addition to regional centers as defined above, together with parking facilities. In November 2011 we reviewed the ways PFDs are funded by bonds and who is ultimately responsible to pay these bonds. We found these bonds and the underlying obligation take many forms. See Appendix E. The map below shows the number of PFDs by county. State of Washington Public Facilities Districts Whatcom O San Juan^Q SkaOgit Okanogan Ferry Pend Stevens Oreille Island Clallam Snohomish OChelan Jefferson Douglas Lincoln Kitsa Mason � King O Spokane O Grays Harbor OKittitas Thurston Pierce Grant Adams Whitman O 0 Pacific Lewis O Franklin Garfiel Yakima Columbia Cowlitz Benton Walla Walla Asotin 0 Skamania 0 OWahkiakum Clark Klickitat See Appendix D for details about PFDs in the state. 5 Packet Page 395 of 461 • State Auditor's Office • Public Development Authorities and Public Facilities Districts In 2010, PFDs had total combined revenues of $277,765,428 and combined expenses of $96,798,391. The difference between the revenues and expenditures for these PFDs is held in cash and investments. The chart at right shows the categories of revenues. Note that proprietary/trust gains (losses) and other income (expenses) revenues could include income (losses) from joint ventures; capital contributions from private sources; and local, state and federal grant revenues. Financial information on specific PFDs may be found through the State Auditor's Office Local Government Financial Reporting System at http://portal.sao.wa.gov/LGCS/Reports/ Default.asox What we have learned during our audits Many PDAs and PFDs do an effective job of carrying out their roles and serving the public. When we have concerns about their operations, they fall into four general categories. 1. The entities that create them often do not monitor PDA/PFD operations. Cities, towns and counties create these entities by a vote of their councils or commissions. Our audits have noted that while some creating entities take an active role in monitoring the activities of the PDAs and PFDs, many do not, often placing public resources at risk. Examples of effective monitoring are found at the Cities of Everett, Bellingham and Seattle. Their staff members are engaged in PDA/PFD operations and regularly attend meetings with auditors. When a creating entity is closely monitoring a PDA or PFD, it can assist these entities in mitigating problems when they are small, instead of having to intervene when problems become more serious. State law (RCW 35.21.745) is very clear that any city, town or county must control and oversee operations and funds, ensure any deficiencies are corrected, and ensure the PDA is accomplishing its stated purpose. State law for PFDs does not contain similar wording. 6 Packet Page 396 of 461 • State Auditor's Office • Public Development Authorities and Public Facilities Districts 2. PDA/PFD governing boards often are not effectively involved in monitoring. The creating entities appoint governing boards for PDAs and PFDs. Appointees may have business experience relevant to their role on the board, but may not always have adequate knowledge of state laws and regulations for the entity. While many appointed board members are dedicated to these jobs, it is not clear what, if any, guidance they receive on PDA/PFD operations. If a board member does not understand the applicable laws and regulations, it is difficult to monitor compliance. Active involvement is particularly important in entities for which the board has completely contracted out service delivery and does not have employees monitoring activities. For example, the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board relied on a non-profit organization to handle fundraising and to develop arts programming, marketing and promotions for the PFD. The Board allowed all receipts from operations to be deposited in the non -profit's private bank account. The Board was unaware that the funds were co -mingled. The Board could not be sure it received all the revenues from the use of the facility and had no way to ensure public funds were used appropriately since private and public funds were not held separately. 3. Declining or distressed financial condition. Cities, towns and counties need to consider in advance what steps they would take if a PDA or PFD they created falls into financial decline. Creating entities also need to ensure they have an effective way to monitor the financial stability of entities they create. Recently, we completed a statewide analysis of local governments with declining financial conditions. Of those entities, seven out of the state's 64 PDAs and PFDs were on the list as having reportable financial condition concerns. 4. Non-compliance with laws and regulations Often PDAs and PFDs operate and compete as if they are a private business. They are not. Many of the same laws that apply to the entities that create them apply to the PDAs and PFDs. Understanding this, and guidance and monitoring by the entities that create them, would increase the likelihood that PDAs and PFDs follow laws and regulations and safeguard public funds. Auditfindings issued since 2009 for related PDAs and PFDs are summarized in Appendix B. 7 Packet Page 397 of 461 • State Auditor's Office • Public Development Authorities and Public Facilities Districts Recommendations to entities that have created PDAs and PFDs Ensure PDA and PFD appointed officials receive training and guidance on what city, town or county laws are applicable. The Municipal Research and Services Center website has information specific to newly elected officials that may be useful. The links are: For City and town - created PDAs and PFDs http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/governance/newcityo.@Wx For County -created PDAs and PFDs http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/governance/newcountyo.aspx • Ensure board members take an active role in monitoring PDA and PFD operations. • Have elected officials and/or staff from the creating entity attend audit exit and entrance conferences. Our Office will be asking these individuals to attend these meetings so they will be aware of any audit issues we identify. • Monitor the financial health of the PDAs and PFDs. Such monitoring should examine whether the creating entity has the debt capacity to handle any PDA or PFD financial difficulty and determine if/when financial support is needed. Inform the State Auditor's Office when a new entity is created. Recommendation to the Legislature State law (RCW 35.21.745) requires any city, town or county which creates a PDA to control and oversee operations and funds, ensure any deficiencies are corrected, and ensure it is accomplishing its stated purpose. State law for PFDs does not contain similar wording. In addition, the law does not require PDAs or PFDs to periodically report to the creating entities. Consider changes to state law to require creating entities to: • Monitor the PFDs they have created. Establish an annual reporting requirement for PDAs and PFDs to summarize operations for the creating entities. • Notify the State Auditor's Office when PDAs and PFDs are created. See Appendix A for suggested law changes. 8 Packet Page 398 of 461 Appendix A: Suggested Law Changes Proposed Public Development Authority law changes: Amend RCW 35.21 to accomplish the following: Notification of the State Auditor's Office by the lead city or town when it creates a PDA. b. Requiring an annual summary to the creating entity or entities of operations that discusses, at a minimum, the PDAs financial condition, accomplishments and challenges. Proposed Public Facilities District law changes: Amend 35.57 to accomplish the following: Notification of the State Auditor's Office by the lead city or town when it creates a PFD. b. Requiring an annual summary to the creating entity or entities of operations that discusses, at a minimum, the PFDs financial condition, accomplishments and challenges. C. Make clear general local government laws apply to PFDs. Amend 36.100 to accomplish the following: Notification of the State Auditor's Office by the lead city or town when it creates a PFD. b. Requiring an annual summary to the creating entity or entities of operations that discusses, at a minimum, the PFDs financial condition, accomplishments and challenges C. Make clear general local government laws apply to PFDs. 9 Packet Page 399 of 461 Appendix B: Summary of findings issued by the State Auditor's Office, 2009 to present The following is a summary of PDA and PFD findings issued by the State Auditor's Office from 2009 to present. Declining financial position Greater Wenatchee Regional Events Center PFD (2010 and 2011). The District has insufficient revenues to pay for current operations and debt obligations. http://www.sao.wa.gov/findings/1004560.pdf, http://www.sao.wa.gov/findings/1006263.pdf Edmonds PFD (2010 and 2011). The District's financial position continues to place it at risk of not meeting its financial obligations and it has not identified new revenue streams, or reduced expenses enough to compensate for declining sales tax revenues dedicated to cover its annual debt obligations. The District continues to be dependent on financial assistance from the City of Edmonds to cover its financial obligations. http://www.sao.wa.gov/findings/1004403.pdf, http://www.sao.wa.gov/findings/1008553.pdf Grays Harbor Historical Seaport Authority (PDA) (2010). The Authority had insufficient funds to cover operating expenses. http://www.sao.wa.gov/findings/1004995.pdf The Capitol Hill Housing Improvement Program (PDA) (2009). The Program's financial condition continues to decline, which means the program could be at risk of not covering its operating expenses and not meeting its debt service obligations. http://www.sao.wa.gov/findings/1002859.pdf Lack of effective oversight • Seattle Indian Services Commission (PDA) (2011). The Commission Board did not provide adequate oversight of Commission activities, resulting in questionable expenditures of $73, 943. It did not monitor revenue and expenditures or receive financial statements from its staff. The Commission's financial health is getting better due to the decrease in staff and expenditures from the District. http://www.sao.wa.gov/findings/1006665.pdf • Edmonds PFD (2011). The District Board was not aware that that District management and staff comingled District funds with private funds of a non-profit that was running the facility. The District was unable to determine the amount of public money involved. This could result in a lending or gifting of public funds. http://www.sao.wa.gov/findings/1006956.pdf • Seattle Chinatown International District Preservation and Development Authority (PDA) (2009). The Board was not aware that Authority management paid two employees more in salary than was authorized. Staff accrued leave in excess of the maximum amount allowed by policy. The authority's award of additional leave was a gifting of public funds, as well as violation of its own policy. http://www.sao.wa.gov/findings/1002720.pdf Non- compliance with state laws and regulations • Greater Wenatchee Regional Events Center PFD (2009). The District did not have sufficient internal controls over payments to ensure they were allowable and supported, resulting in questionable expenditures of $135,848. http://www.sao.wa.gov/findings/1002329.pdf 10 Packet Page 400 of 461 • Appendix B • Summary of Findings • Edmonds Public Facility District (2009). The District had inadequate controls over cash-receipting and an accounting software system that could not handle the complexity of the District's transactions. http://www.sao.wa.gov/findings/1002416.pdf • Seattle Chinatown International District Preservation and Development Authority (PDA) (2012). The Authority exceeded its statutory authority by entering into an unallowable interest rate swap. http://www.sao.wa.gov/findings/1007270.pdf • Everett Public Facility District (2009). The District placed public funds at risk by putting its money in a depository not approved by the Public Deposit Protection Commission as required by state law. http://www.sao.wa.gov/findings/1004158.pdf • Kennewick Public Development District (PDA) (2009). The District is placing public funds at risk by putting its money in a depository not approved by the Public Deposit Protection Commission as required by state law. http://www.sao.wa.gov/findings/1004921.pdf • Seattle Indian Services Commission (PDA) (2009). The Commission did not comply with prevailing wage laws for paying maintenance workers. http://www.sao.wa.gov/findings/1001649.pdf Historic Seattle Preservation and Development Authority (PDA) (2011). The Authority waived the competitive bid process when it declared an emergency on a public works project to get a project done faster. The declaration did not comply with state bid law. httD://www.sao.wa.aov/findings/1005260.Ddf • Republic Public Development Authority (2010). The Authority did not consistently document compliance with laws relating to the Board's open public meetings. http://www.sao.wa.gov/findings/1004411.pdf 11 Packet Page 401 of 461 Appendix C: State of Washington Public Development Authorities PDA name Purpose Creating entity Bellevue Convention This PDA operates Maydenbauer Center in Bellevue, Washington. City of Bellevue Center Authority The 54,000 square foot Meydenbauer Center opened in 1993 to help grow and sustain Bellevue's economic vitality. Bellingham Public The PDA's mission is to develop and promote the use of City City of Bellingham Development Authority owned property for the financial, social and environmental well being of the community; cleaning up vacant sites; and developing underused city lots. Burke -Gilman Place Public The Burke Gilman Place PDA manages the former Coast Guard City of Seattle Development Authority property in northeast Seattle, near Children's Hospital. At present, facilities include Ronald McDonald House (two facilities), Provail (formerly United Cerebral Palsy) housing, Burke -Gilman apart- ments (subsidized and market -rate housing), The Children's Center (a child care center), and housing under the auspices of the Capitol Hill Housing Improvement Program. The PDA has also taken an ac- tive role in monitoring developments in Burke Gilman Park. Capitol Hill Housing Capitol Hill Housing provides affordable housing and leads com- City of Seattle Improvement Program munity development efforts- helping families, immigrants and the recently homeless. Based in Capitol Hill, this PDA has properties in nine Seattle neighborhoods. Cultural Development This PDA was organized as a quasi -autonomous public develop- King County Authority of King County ment authority governed by a 15-member citizen board for mak- ing grants and operating programs related to arts funding, public art, and heritage programs. Downtown Redevelop- This PDA advises the City of Vancouver on the implementation of City of Vancouver ment Authority the Esther Short Sub area and Redevelopment Plan using policies developed by City Council, Planning Commission, Project Review committee and citizen advisory groups. East Lewis County Public This PDA promotes small business and light industrial develop- Lewis County Development Authority ment in the eastern part of Lewis county. Ellensburg Business This PDA provides economic development services for the City of City of Ellensburg Development Authority Ellensburg and manages the Incubator and Airport Buildings. Foss Waterway The Tacoma City Council formed the seven -member Foss Water- City of Tacoma Development Authority way Development Authority Board in 1996 to oversee property development and marketing of the publicly -owned Foss Waterway property. They are creating a mixed -use waterfront community adjacent to downtown Tacoma. Garfield Public This PDA promotes residential and commercial development in the Town of Garfield and Development Authority Town of Garfield. Whitman County Grays Harbor Historical This PDA's mission is to provide educational, vocational, recreation- City of Aberdeen Seaport Authority al and ambassadorial activities and experiences that promote and preserve the maritime history of Grays Harbor, the Pacific North- west, and our nation while serving the needs of the community. Grays Harbor Public This Authority was organized to facilitate the redevelopment of the Grays Harbor County, Development Authority Satsop site. Grays Harbor PUD and Port of Grays Harbor Hamilton Public This Authority assists in moving Town facilities and infrastructure Skagit County Development Authority and residences out of the floodway both from within Town limits and in unincorporated Skagit County. 12 Packet Page 402 of 461 • Appendix C • State of Washington Public Development Authorities PDA name Purpose Creating entity Harrington Public This PDA promotes economic development and creates City of Harrington Development Authority infrastructure and opportunities for economic diversification. It is renovating the Harrington Opera House and working on downtown revitalization. Historic Seattle Historic Seattle believes that buildings provide an essential link City of Seattle Preservation and to the past. Founded in 1974, Historic Seattle is the only nonprofit Development Authority membership organization dedicated to preserving Seattle and King County's architectural legacy. Its mission is to educate, advocate and preserve. Museum Development The Seattle Art Museum (SAM) provides a welcoming place for City of Seattle Authority of Seattle people to connect with art and to consider its relationship to their lives. SAM is one museum in three locations: SAM Downtown, Seattle Asian Art Museum at Volunteer Park, and the Olympic Sculpture Park on the downtown waterfront. SAM collects, preserves and exhibits objects from across time and across cultures, exploring the dynamic connections between past and present. North Beach Public The purpose of this PDA was to acquire two private water Pacific County Development Authority companies in the north beach area. The PDA acquired the companies and began water operations during 2006. The authority transferred the ownership to the North Beach Water District as of January 1, 2009. Northwest Lincoln County This PDA was formed in a cooperative effort by the communities Towns of Almira, Wilbur Regional Public of Almira, Wilbur and Creston. This is the first regional PDA. They and Creston Development Authority worked to create a 5,000 sf facility that they leased to Columbia Bioenergy - a biodiesel refinery west of Creston. Odessa Public This PDA created the Odessa Industrial Park. They have partnered Town of Odessa Development Authority with Inland Empire Oilseed and turned an empty flat house into a biodiesel facility. Pacific Hospital The mission of the Pacific Hospital Preservation & Development City of Seattle Preservation and Authority is to champion effective health care for the vulnerable Development Authority and disadvantaged in their community. Pierce County Community The Pierce County Community Development Corporation Pierce County Development Corporation was established to manage housing repairs and business loan programs that assist low-income residents of Pierce County. Pike Place Market This PDA is a not -for -profit, public corporation which manages City of Seattle Preservation and the properties in the nine -acre Market Historic District. The Development Authority PDA rehabilitates and protects the Market's buildings; increases opportunities for farm and food retailing in the Market; incubates and supports small and marginal businesses; and provides services for low-income people. Port Angeles Harborworks This PDA was established to clean up and redevelop the Rayonier Port Angeles, Port of Port Development Authority Mill property, and to participate in assessment of hazardous waste Angeles and potential remediation measures in Port Angeles Harbor. Reardan Area Public This PDA incubates small businesses and manages the Audubon Lincoln County Development Authority Lakes Wildlife Viewing Area and the Railroad Museum. Redmond Public The PDA operates as an industrial development corporation. It City of Redmond Corporation was formed to facilitate the issuance of non -recourse tax exempt revenue bonds, the proceeds of which are used by private parties to create industrial facilities. Republic Public This PDA leases space in the Torboy Industrial Park to assist in City of Republic Development Authority economic development in the area around the City of Republic. 13 Packet Page 403 of 461 • Appendix C • State of Washington Public Development Authorities PDA name Purpose Creating entity Ritzville Public The Ritzville Public Development Authority has been established City of Ritzville Development Authority to actively pursue all opportunities that have the potential to further economic prosperity and community well-being for the citizens of the City of Ritzville. Seattle Chinatown This PDA has been established to promote and develop the Seattle City of Seattle International District Chinatown International District. Preservation and Development Authority Seattle Indian Services The commission was formed in 1972 to obtain a Seattle Model City of Seattle Commission City Program grant of $600,000 to purchase a building for use as a center for Indian service organizations. Skagit County Emergency This PDA provides county -wide emergency medical services to Skagit County Medical Services Skagit County. Commission South Correctional Entity This PDA was formed by the city of Renton to finance a portion of City of Renton Facility Public Develop- the costs of acquiring, constructing, improving and equipping the ment Authority South Correctional Entity, a multi -jurisdictional misdemeanor jail located in Des Moines, WA. Spokane Parking Public This PDA manages and regulates public parking facilities in the City City of Spokane and Development Authority of Spokane. Spokane County Sprague Public This PDA plans to develop donated acreage at the 1-90 City of Sprague Development Authority interchange. Tacoma Community This PDA administers loans to a variety of clients: low-income City of Tacoma Redevelopment Authority families who need help in buying or repairing their homes; owners who provide multi -family housing to low-income families; businesses which create jobs or rehabilitate older, blighted buildings; and non-profit organizations that provide services to the community. Twisp Public Development This PDA develops Town Center Properties in Twisp. The goal is to Okanogan County Authority promote economic vitality in the Methow Valley, by transforming the former U.S. Forest Service complex in Twisp into a vibrant center for art, agriculture, innovative technology and education. Uniontown Community The purpose of this PDA is to promote the economic improvement Uniontown Development Association of Uniontown. The Association has two development projects: the restoration of the Jacobs Building for reuse as a craftsman bakery and cafe and the renovation and redevelopment of the Dahmen Dairy Barn for use as an artisan center, event facility and an area to display the agricultural history of the area. Vancouver City Center This PDA has been established to facilitate the redevelopment of City of Vancouver Redevelopment Authority property within the Vancouver City Center Vision plan. Washtucna Public This PDA has been established to promote economic prosperity in Town of Washtucna and Development Authority the Town of Washtucna in Adams County. Adams County 14 Packet Page 404 of 461 Appendix D: State of Washington Public Facilities Districts PFD name Purpose Creating entity Bellingham-Whatcom The District was created to increase economic growth in Belling- City of Bellingham and Public Facilities District ham and to lay the foundation for a public private investment Whatcom County in the Community. The PFD owns the Mt. Baker Theatre and the Whatcom Museum's Light Catcher Building. Benton County Public Benton County Public Facilities District was formed to support the Benton County Facilities District projects of other public facility districts (PFDs) in Benton County. The District has inter -local agreements with the Kennewick and Richland PFDs. It collects the state sales tax for the unincorporated areas of the county. Capital Area Regional The Capital Area Regional Public Facilities District is a special tax- Thurston County and Public Facilities District ing district created by an inter -local agreement between Thurston Cities of Olympia, Lacey County and the cities of Olympia, Lacey and Tumwater for the pur- and Tumwater pose of financing two regional event centers, the Lacey Regional Athletic Complex and the Olympia Hands On Children's Museum. City of Kent Special Events The District is established for the sole purpose of pursuing the de- City of Kent Center Public Facilities sign, construction, and/or financing of a regional center comprised District of a Special Events Center, known as the Showare Center, home of a public purpose arena and the Thunderbirds. Clark County Public The District was formed for the purpose of developing two Clark County Facilities District regional centers in Clark County. These two centers are the Van- couver Convention Center and the Exhibition Hall at the Clark County Fairgrounds. These projects are expected to boost tourism and economic development within the county. The District has no employees but uses Clark County employees and the county's systems for centralized processing of receipts and disbursements. Cowlitz County Public The District was formed to create a convention and community Cowlitz County Facilities District center. Edmonds Public Facilities The District was created to finance, design, construct, operate and City of Edmonds and District maintain a public facility. A 501(c)3 nonprofit corporation was Snohomish County created called Edmonds Center for the Arts to help raise funds from private sources to support the construction and operation of the new center. The Edmonds Center for the Arts Board also assists with the development of arts programming, marketing and promotion of the center and its presentations and fundraising to support annual operations. Everett Public Facilities The District oversees operations at the Everett Events Center. A City of Everett and District third -party management company, responsible to the Board of Snohomish County Directors through a contract, manages District operations. The District has no employees. Grays Harbor Public The District was formed to acquire, construct and maintain the Grays Harbor and the City Facilities District Ocean Shores Convention Center. of Ocean Shores Greater Tacoma Regional The District's main purpose is to levy and collect sales and use tax Cities of Tacoma, Fife, Public Facilities District and transfer the money to the city of Tacoma Convention Center Lakewood and University capital improvement fund. Place 15 Packet Page 405 of 461 • Appendix D • State of Washington Public Facilities Districts PFD name Purpose Creating entity Greater Wenatchee The District was formed for the purpose of building, developing Chelan and Douglas Regional Events Center and operating a regional center in the city of Wenatchee called Counties, the Cities Public Facilities District the Town Toyota Center. of Wenatchee, East Wenatchee, Chelan, Cashmere, Entitat, Rock Island and the Town of Waterville. Kennewick Public Facilities The District was created in December 2000 to acquire, build, own City of Kennewick District and operate a regional convention center. The center has been built and now operates under the name of Three Rivers Convention Center. This convention center also includes the Toyota Center and Toyota Arena. Kitsap Public Facilities The Kitsap County Public Facilities District was created in June Kitsap County District 2000 to build, improve and operate sports, recreation, entertainment and conference facilities. Lewis County Public Facili- The District was formed to acquire, construct and maintain a public Lewis County ties District facility to hold community events. This PFD created the Lewis County Event Center and Sports Complex in partnership with the City of Centralia and Centralia School District. Lynnwood Public Facilities The Lynnwood Public Facilities District was created to establish, City of Lynnwood and District finance, design, construct, operate and maintain the Lynnwood Snohomish County Convention Center. The Convention Center opened in the spring of 2005 and is used for local, regional and state meetings and events. Pasco Public Facilities The District was created to participate in acquisition, construction, City of Pasco District operation and/or financing of a regional center in the Tri-Cities area. Richland Public Facilities The District operates the Hanford Reach National City of Richland District Interpretative Monument Heritage and Visitor Center (the Reach) built on a 50-acre site at Columbia Point, the confluence of the Yakima and Columbia Rivers in Richland. Skagit Regional Public The District's purpose is to acquire, construct, maintain and finance Skagit County Facilities District the McIntyre Hall Performing Arts and Conference Center located on the campus of the Skagit Valley College in Mount Vernon. Snohomish County Public This PFD was created to finance one or more regional centers for Snohomish County Facilities District the purpose of increasing economic prosperity and promoting private investment in Snohomish County. The District has allocated funding to four projects: the Everett Events Center (Comcast Arena and Edward D Hansen Conference Center) owned by the Everett Public Facilities District, the Lynnwood Convention Center owned by the Lynnwood Public Facilities District, the Edmonds Center for the Arts operated by the Edmonds Public Facilities District, and the Future of Flight museum operated by Snohomish County. Spokane Public Facilities The Spokane Public Facilities District was created by the Washing- City of Spokane and District ton State Legislature in 1989 to acquire, construct, own and Spokane County operate Spokane Veterans Memorial Arena, a sports and enter- tainment facility. In 2003, the District acquired ownership of the Spokane Convention Center and the INB Performing Arts Center (formerly Spokane Opera House). 16 Packet Page 406 of 461 • Appendix D • State of Washington Public Facilities Districts PFD name Purpose Creating entity Tri-Cities Regional Public This Board is made up of three representatives from each city. The Cities of Pasco, Kennewick Facilities District public projects use for this tax funding are voted on by Tri-Cities and Richland residents. The four current projects are: The Performing Arts Center, a Regional Aquatics Center, the Hanford Reach Interpretive Center and an expansion of the Three Rivers Convention Center. Vancouver Public Facility This District was established to create a Convention Center and City of Vancouver District hotel in Vancouver, Washington. Washington State Major The District operates as a municipal corporation of the state of State of Washington and League Baseball Stadium Washington and was formed to research a site and design, build King County Public Facilities District and operate a major league baseball park known as Safeco Field in Seattle. Washington State This PFD was created to own and operate the Washington State Convention Center Public Convention Center. Facilities District Yakima Regional Public The District was created to create the Yakima Convention Center Facilities District King County Cities of Yakima, Selah and Union Gap 17 Packet Page 407 of 461 Appendix E: November 2011 Review of Public Facilities District Bonds Bond Funding Scenarios Below is a diagram of the various bond fund scenarios we found in PFDs in November 2011. Who owns the project? Who issued Are PFD bonds the bonds? guaranteed? Potential situations No PFD debt 1. PFD only responsible for project operations. PFD 5owns Bonds fully guaranteed 2. PFD responsible for project and debt. the project by others Guarantor City/County only responsible for debt to extent PFD is unable to pay. 3. PFD responsible for project and debt. Revenue bonds Bonds partially guaranteed Guarantor City/County only responsible issued by PFD by others for those portions of debt that were guaranteed to the extent PFD is unable to pay. Bonds are unguaranteed 4. PFD solely responsible for project and debt. 5. Bonds are issued by PFD in the amount of expected sales tax revenues. The PFD City/County/other Limited sales tax Bonds guaranteed by pays debt service from sales tax revenues party owns the project bonds issued by PFD a CLA from City/County and the City/County is only obligated to the extent such revenues are less than expected. If operating expenses exceed revenues, City/County owners must subsidize the project with general revenues. PFD owners do not have other revenues and must either obtain support from other sources or else cease operations. No PFD debt The debt issuer is respon- sible to pay debt service. NOTE: City/County/Other project owners may have issued additional debt for the project - only debt issued by PFDs is addressed in this chart. Guarantees are in the form of Contingent Loan Agreements (CLA) which obligate the City or County only if the PFD fails to make debt service or maintain adequate reserves. 6. PFD receives sales tax and passes it to projects owned by City/County/Others. Project owners often have debt expected to be repaid in whole or part by pledged PFD sales tax. Every PFD and project is unique and may contain complex legal structures, so the above categories represent only the general "in substance" types of situations. 18 Packet Page 408 of 461 • Appendix E • Potential Situations for Public Facilities Districts List of Public Facilities Districts bond funding scenarios and those PFDs using each scenario as of November 2011. NOTE: This Appendix does not reflect funding activity since November 2011. For example, of special note, the Greater Wenatchee Regional Events Center Public Facilities District (Wenatchee PFD) defaulted on its bond anticipation notes in December 2011; subsequently entered into additional inter -local agreements; issued new bonds; and paid off its 2008 bond anticipation notes. In addition on October 25, 2012 the Washington Supreme Court issued a ruling that if the City of Wenatchee guarantees the PFDs debt that guarantee is subject to the City's debt limit. These notes apply to all the following tables. 1. Some projects are listed more than once because they are funded by multiple PFDs who are in different situations with respect to the project 2. Some PFDs are listed more than once because they are in different situations with respect to different projects. 3. Project ownership was considered in substance as the party with responsibility for revenues and expenditures of project operations; in these cases, there are also leasehold interests that do not appear to be affected by project performance. Potential situations Project(s)' Public Facility Districtz City / County responsibilty3 1 PFD only responsible Safeco Field Washington State Major Bonds issued by Mariners and King County to for project operations. League Baseball Stadium be paid from sources other than PFD revenues. Public Facilities District Edmonds Center for Edmonds Public Facility the Arts District City of Edmonds issued 2002 GO bonds ($5.5M outstanding) secured by a pledge of Sales Tax revenue from the PFD. City is also responsible under a CLA for debt service on the PFD's 2008 Sales Tax and Refunding Bonds ($3.91M outstanding) to extent PFD is unable to pay. Art & Children's Bellingham-Whatcom City of Bellingham issued 2004 GO bonds Museum and Mount Public Facilities District secured by a pledge of Sales Tax revenue Baker Theatre from the PFD ($71VI outstanding). City is also responsible under CLA for 2007 Limited Sales Tax Obligation Bonds to extent PFD is unable to pay ($9.9M outstanding). Finally, City issued PFD responsible a loan to the PFD in 2008 ($1.81M outstanding). for project and Lewis County Event Lewis County Public Lewis County is responsible under a CLA for debt. Guarantor Center and Sports Facilities District debt service to extent PFD is unable to pay City or County only Complex ($5.7M outstanding). County and Centralia responsible for debt to School District to operate portions of project. extent PFD is unable to pay. Lynnwood Lynnwood Public City of Lynnwood responsible under CLA for Convention Center Facilities District debt service to extent PFD is unable to pay ($28.3M outstanding). In addition, City and Snohomish County both pledge set annual payments of Lodging Tax Revenues. Three Rivers Kennewick Public City of Kennewick responsible under CLA Convention Center Facilities District 3 for debt service to extent PFD is unable to and Coliseum pay ($12.8M outstanding). In addition, City pledged set annual payments of up to $725K per year to support PFD. McIntyre Hall Skagit Regional Public Skagit County responsible under CLA for debt Performing Arts and Facilities District service to extent PFD is unable to pay ($8.51M Conference Center outstanding). 19 Packet Page 409 of 461 • Appendix E • Potential Situations for Public Facilities Districts List of Public Facilities Districts facing potential situations, continued Potential situations Project(s)' Public Facility District' City / County responsibilty3 PFD responsible for project and debt. Guarantor City or County only responsible for debt to extent PFD is unable to pay. Hanford Reach Richland Public Facilities City of Richland responsible under CLA for Interpretative Center District debt service to extent PFD is unable to pay (The Reach) ($6.2M outstanding). In addition, City pledged set annual payments of Lodging tax to support PFD. McIntyre Hall Skagit Regional Public Performing Arts and Facilities District Conference Center Hanford Reach Richland Public Facilities Interpretative Center District (The Reach) Skagit County responsible under CLA for debt service to extent PFD is unable to pay ($8.5M outstanding). City of Richland responsible under CLA for debt service to extent PFD is unable to pay ($6.2M outstanding). In addition, City pledged set annual payments of Lodging tax to support PFD. Everett Events Everett Public Facilities City of Everett responsible under a CLA on Center (Comcast District the PFD's 2007 Project Revenue bonds ($27.4M Arena and Edward D outstanding) for debt service to extent PFD Hansen Conference is unable to pay. No CLA on the PFD's 2007 PFD responsible Center) Limited Sales Tax and Interlocal Agreement for project and Revenue Bonds ($25.4M outstanding). In debt. Guarantor addition, the City pledged annual payments of City or County only $500K per year to support PFD. 3 responsible for those portions of debt that Town Toyota Center Greater Wenatchee City of Wenatchee responsible under a CLA were guaranteed to the Regional Events Center for interest on 2008 Special Tax & Revenue extent PFD is unable to Public Facilities District Bond Anticipation Notes (BANS) ($36.6M pay outstanding) to extent PFD is unable to pay. No CLA is in place for PFD's 2008 Limited Sales tax BANS (5.1M outstanding) or capital lease ($431 K minimum lease payments). See note on top of page 19. Washington State Washington State None ($313.5M outstanding secured solely by Convention Center Convention Center PFD revenues) Public Facilities District PFD solely responsible Spokane Veterans Spokane Public Facilities None ($95M outstanding secured solely by 4 for project and debt. Memorial Arena, District PFD revenues) Spokane Convention Center and INB Performing Arts Center Bonds are issued by PFD in the amount of expected sales tax revenues. The PFD pays debt service from sales tax revenues and the City / County is only obligated to the extent such revenues are less than expected. Ocean Shores Grays Harbor Public Convention Center Facilities District Sales Tax Debt ($9.7M outstanding) was issued by PFD with proceeds passed to City of Ocean Shores for project construction. Bonds were structured to equal expected sales tax receipts of the District. PFD has a CLA with the City to make up any difference. Kent Events Center Kent Public Facilities Sales Tax and Revenue Debt ($61M District outstanding) issued by PFD with proceeds passed to City of Kent for project construction. City responsible under the bond agreement for paying debt service with project revenue and under a CLA as a general obligation to extent PFD sales tax and the City's project revenue are insufficient. Packet Page 410 of 461 20 • Appendix E • Potential Situations for Public Facilities Districts List of Public Facilities Districts facing potential situations, continued Potential situations Project(s)' Public Facility District' City / County responsibilty3 "PFD receives sales tax and passes it to projects owned by City / County / Others. Project owner often has debt expected to be repaid in whole or part by pledged PFD sales tax. Kitsap Fairgrounds Kitsap Public Facilities Kitsap County owns the project and has issued Events Center District general obligation debt expected to be repaid by the PFD's pledged sales tax revenues ($10.2M outstanding). North Kitsap Kitsap Public Facilities North Kitsap School District owns the project. Regional Events District No debt outstanding on the project. Center Kitsap Conference Kitsap Public Facilities Center at Bremerton District Harborside Longview Columbia Cowlitz Public Facilities Theatre 3 District Cowlitz County Expo Cowlitz Public Facilities Center 3 District Three Rivers Convention Center and Coliseum Three Rivers Convention Center and Coliseum Greater Tacoma Convention & Trade Center Benton County Public Facilities District Pasco Public Facilities District City of Bremerton owns the project and has issued debt on it that is being repaid from sources other than the PFD ($10.8M outstanding). City of Longview owns the project and has issued general obligation debt expected to be repaid by the PFD's pledged sales tax revenues ($6M outstanding). Cowlitz County owns the project and has issued general obligation debt expected to be repaid by the PFD's pledged sales tax revenues ($5.6M outstanding). Kennewick PFD owns the project (see notes above) Kennewick PFD owns the project (see notes above) Greater Tacoma Regional City of Tacoma owns the project and has Public Facilities District issued debt on it ($51M outstanding). Regional Athletic Capital Area Regional City of Lacey owns the project and has issued Complex Public Facilities District general obligation debt expected to be repaid by the PFD's pledged sales tax revenues ($7.2M outstanding) Hands on Children's Capital Area Regional Museum Public Facilities District City of Olympia owns the project and has issued general obligation debt expected to be repaid in part by the PFD's pledged sales tax revenues ($5.6M outstanding) Vancouver Clark County Public The Downtown Redevelopment Authority Convention Center Facility District (DRA) owns the project and has issued debt and Hotel on it ($72.3M outstanding). City of Vancouver is responsible under a CLA for debt service to extent DRA is unable to pay. Vancouver Vancouver Public Facility The Downtown Redevelopment Authority Convention Center District (DRA) owns the project and has issued debt and Hotel on it ($72.3M outstanding). City of Vancouver is responsible under a CLA for debt service to extent DRA is unable to pay. Packet Page 411 of 461 21 • Appendix E • Potential Situations for Public Facilities Districts List of Public Facilities Districts facing potential situations, continued Potential situations Project(s)' Public Facility District' City / County responsibilty3 Situation 6, continued: Spokane Fair & Expo Spokane Public Facilities Spokane County owns the project and has Center District issued general obligation debt on it ($15.21M outstanding). Sales tax revenue pledged by PFD is used along with several other financing sources to pay debt service. PFD receives sales tax and passes it to projects owned by City / County / Others. Project owner often has debt expected to be repaid in whole or part by pledged PFD sales tax." CenterPlace at Spokane Public Facilities Mirabeau Point Park District Everett Events Center, Lynnwood Convention Center, Edmonds Center for the Arts and the Future of Flight museum Snohomish County Public Facility District City of Spokane Valley owns the project and has issued debt on it ($8.1M outstanding, of which $6M is expected to be repaid from pledged PFD sales taxes). Everett PFD owns the project (see notes above) Yakima Convention Yakima Regional Public City of Yakima owns the project and has issued Center and Capitol Facilities District general obligation debt on it ($15.1M total Theater outstanding, $12M of which is expected to be repaid from pledged PFD sale taxes). Notes: 1. Some projects are listed more than once because they are funded by multiple PFDs who are in different situations with respect to the project 2. Some PFDs are listed more than once because they are in different situations with respect to different projects. 3. Project ownership was considered in substance as the party with responsibility for revenues and expenditures of project operations; in these cases, there are also leasehold interests that do not appear to be affected by project performance. 22 Packet Page 412 of 461 State Auditor's Office Contacts State Auditor Brian Sonntag, CGFM (360) 902-0361 BRIAN.SONNTAG@SAO.WA.GOV Chuck Pfeil, CPA Kelly Collins, CPA Director of State and Local Audit Deputy Director of State and Local Audit (360) 902-0366 CHUCK. PFEIL@ SAO.WA.GOV Mindy Chambers Director of Communications (360) 902-0091 MINDY.CHAMBERS@SAO.WA.GOV Headquarters (360) 902-0370 Americans with Disabilities In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this document will be made available in alternate formats. Please call (360) 902-0370 for more information. (360) 725-5359 KELLY.COLLINS@SAO.WA.GOV To request public records Mary Leider Public Records Officer (360) 725-5617 PUBLICRECORDS@SAO.WA.GOV General information Website www.sao.wa.gov To find your legislator http://apps.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder Twitter @WAStateAuditor The State Auditor's Office Mission The State Auditor's Office independently serves the citizens of Washington by promoting accountability, fiscal integrity and openness in state and local government. Working with these governments and with citizens, we strive to ensure the efficient and effective use of public resources. Packet Page 413 of 461 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT CITY OF EDMONDS - SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT - EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT Packet Page 414 of 461 Packet Page 415 of 461 1L,U1vruh 1v1tU GUPY 200211060003 11iu8/2002 09:30 AM Snohomish P.0035 RECORDED County.,, INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SEP 1 8 2003 EDMONDS CENTRE FOR THE ARTS BUCK & GORDON This Interlocal Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into this � day of�! 1/ 2002, among the City of Edmonds, a city duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Washington (the "City"); the Snohomish County Public Facilities District, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Washington (the "County PFD"), Snohomish County, a political subdivision of and duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Washington and the charter of Snohomish County (the "County"); and the Edmonds Public Facilities District, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Washington, established by the City of Edmonds (the "City PFD"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City (the "City Council"), by Ordinance No. 3358, effective May 4, 2001, established the City PFD for City purposes, pursuant to chapter 35.57 RCW, to acquire, design, construct, own, finance, operate and maintain a regional center defined under RCW 35.57.020 (a "Regional Center") as a convention, conference, or special events center, or any combination of such facilities, and related parking facilities serving a regional population at a development cost (for construction, improvements, or rehabilitation) of at least Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000) including debt service; and WHEREAS, "Special Events Center" is defined under RCW35.57.020 as a facility available to the public, used for community events, sporting events, trade shows, and artistic, musical; theatrical, or other cultural exhibitions, presentations, or performances. Packet Page 416 of 461 WHEREAS, the City PFD has determined to proceed with the development of a performing arts center within the City of Edmonds (the " Edmonds Centre For the Arts") that will provide for meetings, conferences, community events, sporting events, trade shows, and artistic, musical, theatrical, or other cultural exhibitions, presentations, or performances to the City, the County, the County PFD and the entire state, and their residents; and WHEREAS, the City PFD has, under the authority of RCW` 82.14.390, imposed a Sales and Use Tax at the rate of 0.033 percent of the selling price or value of any article sold or used within the corporate limits of the City to support the development of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts; and WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Council (the "County Council"), by amended Ordinance No. 01-041, adopted June 27, 2001, established the County PFD, pursuant to chapter 36.100 RCW, for the purpose of exploring, with city or town public facilities districts located within the County, the joint acquisition, construction, operation, and/or financing of one or more Regional Centers to serve the County; and WHEREAS, the County PFD has imposed a Sales and Use Tax under the authority of RCW 82.14.390 at the rate of 0.033 percent of the selling price or value of any article sold or used in the County (recognizing that amounts collected in those incorporated areas which have formed a city PFD will be credited by the State Department of Revenue against the County PFD's collections) to support the development of one or more regional centers determined by the County PFD to be viable projects in accordance with amended Ordinance No, 01-041 of the County Council and the County PFD's Charter; and WHEREAS, money received by the City PFD or the County PFD under the authority of RCW 82.14.390(4) must be used for the acquisition, financing, design, construction, operation and maintenance of a Regional Center and related parking facilities as defined by RCW 35.57.020 and must be matched with an amount, from other public or private sources, equal to 33 percent of the amount collected by the City PFD or the County PFD under RCW 82.14.390; and Packet Page 417 of 461 WHEREAS, the City PFD has previously retained the consulting firms of Lund Consulting, Inc., Kymera Industries, Inc., Property Counselors, Inc., and Netzel Associates, Inc. to conduct feasibility studies, including a market analysis, a site analysis and a financial analysis, for a proposed performing arts center complex to be located in the City of Edmonds; and WHEREAS, City and the City PFD and its consultants have determined that the Edmonds Centre For the Arts project is financially feasible as planned; and WHEREAS, the County PFD has determined that the Edmonds Centre For the Arts project is viable, based upon the determinations of the City, City PFD and its consultants; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2002, the City PFD entered into a binding agreement with the current owner to purchase the Puget Sound Christian College Site and is proceeding with design work on an Edmonds Centre For the Arts to be located thereon; and WHEREAS, the City, the County, the City PFD and the County PFD have the authority to enter into interlocal agreements under chapter 39.34 RCW` and chapter 35.59 for joint and cooperative action, including provisions to finance joint or cooperative undertakings, multi- purpose community centers, regional centers and other facilities and to provide for services to be provided by one government to another; and WHEREAS, the City, the City PFD, the County and the County PFD have the authority, pursuant to applicable provisions of state law, including chapters 35.57 RCW 36.100 RCW and RCW 82.14.390, to acquire, design, construct, own, remodel, maintain, equip, re -equip, repair, finance and operate a Regional Center, including related parking facilities; and these agencies propose to use one or more interlocal agreements to make effective and efficient use of the powers and authorities granted to them to construct, own and operate special events facilities such as the Edmonds Centre For the Arts to serve the City, the County and adjacent regional areas; and WHEREAS, the City, the City PFD, the County and the County PFD have each determined that the development of the Edmonds Centre for the Arts will benefit their respective jurisdictions and desire that the PFD Parties develop the Edmonds Centre For the Arts in order to Packet Page 418 of 461 provide conference, arts, cultural and community services to the City and to the County as well as to a wider regional community; and WHEREAS, the City, the City PFD and the County PFD desire to make ongoing project payments to the City PFD to contribute to the cost of the joint construction and operation of the Edmonds Centre for the Arts; NOW, THEREFORE, the City, the City PFD, the County and the County PFD enter into this Agreement which outlines the responsibilities and commitments of each Party in the development of the Edmonds Centre for the Arts: A. DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Agreement, the terms defined in this Section shall have the following meanings: Additional Party is a public entity which joins this Agreement at a later date with the consent of the Contributing Parties and Consulting Party; Agreement is this Interlocal Agreement entered into among the City, the City PFD, the County and the County PFD under the authority of chapter 39.34 RCW for the development of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts as a Regional Center. City is the city of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of the state of Washington. City PFD is the Edmonds Public Facilities District, a municipal corporation established by the City of Edmonds by Ordinance No. 3358, adopted by the City Council pursuant to the authority of chapter 35.57 RCW. Contributing Parties are the City PFD, the City, and the County PFD. Commences Construction shall mean commencing or commencement of construction of a new regional center, or improvement or rehabilitation of an existing new regional center as defined in RCW 82.14.390. Consulting Party is the County. County is Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the state of Washington. Packet Page 419 of 461 4 County PFD is the Snohomish County Public Facilities District, a municipal corporation established by amended Ordinance No. 041, adopted by the County Council on June 27, 2001, pursuant to the authority of chapter 36.100 RCW. Edmonds Centre For the Arts is the Edmonds Centre For the Arts to be located in Edmonds as a Regional Center developed by the City PFD to serve the City PFD, the City, the County, the County PFD and the state, consistent with chapter 35.57 RCW. Develop or Development includes any one or more of the following: acquisition of, construction of, ownership of, remodeling, maintaining, equipping, re -equipping, repairing, financing, and operating the Edmonds Centre For the Arts as specified herein and undertaken by the Contributing Parties as agreed to in this Agreement according to the powers conferred upon the PFD Parties under chapter 35.57 and 36.100 RCW and RCW 82.14.390. Joint Board means the Joint Board established in Section D of this Agreement to assist in the administration of the joint and cooperative undertaking of financing, constructing and operating the Edmonds Centre For the Arts. Local Match is the amount of money or in -kind contributions derived from public or private sources required by RCW 82.14.390(4) to match the amount of Sales and Use Taxes received and utilized by the City PFD or the County PFD for the development of a Regional Center. Parties means the following four parties to this Agreement: the City, the City PFD, the County and the County PFD. PFD Parties means the County PFD and the City PFD. Regional Center is a center or other combination of facilities, as defined in RCW 35.57.020. Sales and Use Tax(es) are the taxes imposed, received and applied by the City PFD or the County PFD pursuant to the authority of RCW 82.14.390 for the development of one or more Regional Centers. 5 Packet Page 420 of 461 B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE EDMONDS CENTRE FOR THE ARTS The Contributing Parties intend to jointly develop the Edmonds Centre For the Arts, in accordance with this Agreement, as a multipurpose regional facility, meeting the definition of a "regional center" under RCW 35.57.020 and a multi -purpose community center under RCW 35.59.010. The Edmonds Centre For the Arts is intended to directly serve the City, the County, the County PFD, the City PFD and their respective residents, as well as serving a broader population in the region and the state. The Contributing Parties each find that the Edmonds Centre For the Arts is a viable project that is likely to commence construction before January 1, 2004. The City and the County PFD agree to assist the City PFD in the design, construction and acquisition of the improvements necessary for the development of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts, all as set forth herein. The PFD Parties, on their own behalf and on behalf of the Contributing Parties, shall commence construction of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts as a "regional center" prior to January 1, 2004. The City PFD shall, on behalf of itself and the other Contributing Parties to this Agreement, be the agency with the primary responsibility for the development of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts as a regional center; as defined by RCW 35.57.020, and shall finance, acquire, design, construct, own, operate and maintain the Edmonds Centre For the Arts, and otherwise administer its development and operation for the benefit of and in cooperation with the City, County, and County PFD, all subject to the limitations set forth herein. The County's cooperation shall consist of the provision of $10.00 (receipt of which is acknowledged by the City PFD on behalf of the Contributing Parties) and other good and valuable consideration to the Edmonds Centre For the Arts project. B.1. Proiect Description. The Edmonds Centre For the Arts shall be developed as a remodeled facility for the performing arts with meeting rooms and a gymnasium with related parking facilities, to be later Packet Page 421 of 461 6 constructed and improved over multiple phases. The Edmonds Centre For the Arts project, including a description of the land, and buildings included therein is described in Exhibit C. B.2. Timeline for Develo ment of Performing Arts Center. The PFD Parties, on their own behalf and on behalf of the City, intend to carry out the demolition and remodeling of certain existing structures commencing in 2003. The Parties acknowledge that the Centre will be in continuous use prior to January, 2004, with an initial opening of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts on December 1, 2004. An estimated timeline for financing and construction of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts is set forth in Exhibit A. The Parties acknowledge that the dates set forth in Exhibit "A" are target dates for action by each agency; however, certain dates are critical to achieving the development schedule for the construction of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts. The failure of the PFD Parties to meet the dates set forth in the timeline for Financing and Construction of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts shall have no effect on the other provisions of this Agreement, provided that construction of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts commences before January 1, 2004. B3. Site Ae uisition Develo ment and 0wnershi . a. The City PFD agrees to acquire, on behalf of the Contributing Parties, all real property necessary to serve as a site for the Edmonds Centre For the Arts and the City agrees to exercise its eminent domain authority, if necessary, to acquire that real property. Title to Edmonds Centre For the Arts property shall be in the City PFD which shall hold that property on behalf of and for the benefit of the Contributing Parties subject to the Special Disposition provisions below. For purposes of eminent domain and related real estate proceedings, this Agreement shall serve as a joint defense agreement and the Contributing Parties and their attorneys may jointly share confidential information which shall be nondisclosable to others. 7 Packet Page 422 of 461 b. The City PFD shall, on behalf of the Contributing Parties, acquire the approvals necessary and shall take such other actions as may be required to enable the site to be suitable for use as a Edmonds Centre For the Arts. G. The City PFD shall develop the Edmonds Centre For the Arts, and shall own and operate the Centre for and on behalf of the Contributing Parties subject to the Special Disposition set forth in Section BA below. The total cost of Development of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts is expected to be approximately Sixteen Million Three Hundred Seventy -Five Thousand Dollars ($16,375,000). Each of the non -City PFD Contributing Parties' respective ownership interests in the Edmonds Centre For the Arts shall terminate and revert to the City PFD upon the redemption or defeasance of the bonds described in Section C and the termination of the County PFD's obligation to make project payments to the City PFD. The City PFD's ownership interests in the Edmonds Centre For the Arts shall be transferred to the City if the City PFD ceases to exist; provided that all City PFD and all County PFD obligations with respect to the Edmonds Centre For the Arts shall have been retired or fully provided for, or, if not, that the City shall assume all remaining obligations of the City PFD and of the County PFD related to the Edmonds Centre For the Arts. Packet Page 423 of 461 8 B.4. Special Disposition. In the event remodeling of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts is not substantially completed in accordance with Phases l.a. and l.b., and made operational by December 31, 2005; or in the event the Edmonds Centre For the Arts is abandoned by ceasing operation for six consecutive months, while any of the County PFD financial obligations pursuant to this Agreement remain outstanding (either of said events being a "Special Disposition Event"), then, any Contributing Party, upon 180 days notice (specifying the Special Disposition Event) to the other Parties, shall have the right to require the disposition by sale of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts property (including all land and buildings) pursuant to these provisions; provided, however, if the Special Disposition Event described in the Contributing Party's notice is eliminated through the substantial completion and commencement of operations of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts or the resumption of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts operations. Unless the Special Disposition Event is so cured after the giving of the notice thereof, then upon expiration of the notice period, the Edmonds Centre For the Arts property shall be disposed of as follows: a. The City PFD or the receiver, if one has been appointed as provided for below, shall be constituted as the exclusive agent on behalf of the Contributing Parties with full authority to oversee and consummate the sale of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts property at its reasonable fair market value (as determined by the Joint Board in consultation with a qualified MAI appraiser selected by the City and not reasonably objected to by the other Parties) and shall expeditiously with all due diligence use its best efforts to sell the Edmonds -Centre For the Arts property on behalf of the Contributing Parties; Provided, however, if the property is not sold within twelve (12) months after the end of the notice period reference above, then any Contributing Party may request that the Presiding Judge of the Snohomish County Superior Z Packet Page 424 of 461 Court appoint a receiver and/or master to sell the property. The Parties agree that in the event the appointment of a receiver is sought by any Contributing Party, the other Contributing Parties shall not oppose the appointment of a receiver by the court, provided each party reserves the right to propose or oppose any particular person to be appointed as receiver, in such event. b. At the request of any of the Contributing Parties, during the notice period referenced above, the City PFD agrees to expeditiously process, in good faith, an application to rezone the Edmonds Centre For the Arts property, consistent with the City's comprehensive plan, to its highest and best use, prior to offering the property for sale (the cost of which shall be charged against the proceeds from the sale of the property). Nothing herein shall be interpreted to bind the City Council in the exercise of its legislative or quasi-judicial authority under State law. C. The City PFD and the other Contributing Parties, as necessary, agree to execute and deliver such agreements, documents and instruments as are necessary or reasonably requested by the County PFD to effectuate the sale and disposition of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts property. d. The net proceeds of sale of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts property, after deducting the costs associated with any rezone, appraisal cost and the other costs of sale, shall be distributed to the County PFD and the City, in proportion to their respective capital contributions, as follows: (1) 65.2% of said proceeds to the County PFD; (2) 34.8% of said proceeds to the City. 1 Packet Page 425 of 461 In the event that either the County PFD or the City in the sole discretion of the respective party, make additional capital contributions to the project in excess of the funding detailed in Exhibits B-1 and B-2, the parties agree to adjust the percentages set forth in this paragraph to reflect the present value of any such capital contribution which shall be set forth in an Addendum hereto. Provided, however, nothing herein shall be interpreted to require either party to make such an additional capital contribution. B.5. Joint Board Review of Edmonds Centre For the Arts. a. As a part of the plan for the joint development of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts, the Joint Board created in Section D of this Agreement may, within the proposed schedule for Development of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts, review and comment on the proposed design process and .performance specifications of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts during the assessment and design phases. The City PFD shall periodically provide reports to the Joint Board on the design, remodeling, construction and operation of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts, at such times and in such form as the Joint Board may require. b. Unanimous approval by all of the voting members of the Joint Board established in Section D of this Agreement, shall be required to proceed at a future time with Development of additions to or subsequent phases (other than as set forth in the Project Description in Exhibit C attached hereto) of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts. If some or all of the Parties agree to participate in the development of such additions, the respective Parties may enter into an addendum to this Agreement governing the rights and obligations of those Parties with respect to the design, construction and operation of the additional improvements. If all Contributing Parties participate in the expansion, with either the participation or the approval of the Consulting Party, the Development and operation of the expanded project shall be subject to Packet Page 426 of 461 oversight by the Joint Board in the same manner as for the original project, except as the Contributing Parties (and the Consulting Party, as applicable) may otherwise agree. So long as the Bonds described in Section C below are outstanding, if the Edmonds Centre For the Arts generates surplus revenue after payment of operating and maintenance expenses, debt service on obligations and reasonable reserves for operation, repair and replacement, that surplus revenue shall be spent on costs relating to the Edmonds Centre For the Arts or for the retirement of bonds and for no other purpose unless the Contributing Parties agree. B.5. Edmonds Centre For the Arts Operation. The City PFD shall operate the Edmonds Centre For the Arts in a businesslike manner and provide a level of service equivalent to or better than the services provided by comparable public facilities in the state. The Edmonds Centre For the Arts shall be available for use by the general public at rates established by the City PFD. The City PFD shall also make Edmonds Centre For the Arts facilities available for use by governmental and nonprofit entities at special rates consistent with its business plan and revenue needs, recognizing that such special rates may be available only at certain specified times. The City PFD agrees to provide, through the Edmonds Centre For the Arts, performing arts, meeting and community services to each of the Parties. C. FINANCING OF THE EDMONDS CENTRE FOR THE ARTS C 1 Revenue Obligations. a. The City PFD and the County PFD have each imposed the Sales and Use Taxes authorized by RCW 82.14.390 to finance, among other things; the joint design, construction, operation and maintenance of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts. Packet Page 427 of 461 12 The City PFD shall continue to impose said Sales and Use Taxes in the maximum amount allowed by law for so long as the bonds issued by the City or the obligations of the County PFD under this Agreement remain outstanding. b. The City PFD shall collect and apply, to the Development of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts, all the funds received from the City and described on Exhibit B-2. The City PFD shall collect and apply all Sales and Use Taxes to the Development of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts and to City PFD administrative and operations expenses; provided it shall apply portions thereof to make the intergovernmental payments to the City as set forth on Exhibit B-3. The County PFD (subject to the adjustments, if any, pursuant to Section C.5 below) shall make project payments to the City PFD on or before October 15 of each year in the amounts and from the sources set forth in Exhibit B-1. The City PFD shall, on or before November 1 of each year, transfer to the City the amounts received annually from the County PFD, together with the City PFD payments in the amounts and from the sources set forth in Exhibit B-3. The Contributing Parties acknowledge that they are each making their respective payments set forth in said Exhibits B-1, B-2 and B-3 to assist the City and City PFD in the long-term revenue financing of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts, regardless of the actual cost of borrowing. The County PFD payments shall not commence until the City PFD gives notice to the County PFD that the City PFD on behalf of the PFD Parties has commenced construction of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts, accompanied by a written opinion of counsel to the City PFD addressed to the County PFD that the commencement of construction on behalf of the PFD Parties is within the meaning of the term "commences construction" as contained in RCW 82.14.390. Upon the delivery of that opinion, the County PFD shall promptly remit to the City PFD amounts shown on Exhibit B-1 that have accrued but not been paid. The obligation of the Parties to pay the amounts set forth in 13 Packet Page 428 of 461 Exhibits B-1, B-2 and B-3 shall be payable solely from the sources identified therein; however, the County PFD's obligation shall be limited exclusively to the Sales and Use Taxes lawfully collected under RCW 82.14.390 and available after satisfaction of the County PFD's obligations: (i) First, under the Interlocal Agreement For the Development of The Everett Events Center, dated December 20, 2001 and recorded under Recording No. 200201160349 of the official records of Snohomish County, Washington; and (ii) Second, under the First Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement, among the City of Lynnwood, the South Snohomish County Public Facilities District, the County PFD and the County for the Convention Center described therein. The County is not undertaking to make any project payments under this Agreement, but reserves the ability to commit to make project payments under a separate agreement. The Parties reserve the right to make, or to agree to make, additional payments or transfers among themselves with respect to the Edmonds Centre For the Arts, so long as such agreements and/or payments are consistent with the terms of this Agreement. C. The City shall issue limited tax general obligation bonds for the development of the Edmonds Centre for the Arts in an amount sufficient to produce available proceeds estimated at $7,315,000, but in no event less than $6,000,000, and shall transfer the proceeds therefrom together with a $1,000,000 cash contribution which the City shall contribute to the City PFD to provide for part of the cost of the development including design and construction of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts. The City hereby commits and agrees to apply to the payment of the debt service on said bonds, in addition to the monies to*be received from the City PFD and County PFD as set forth on Exhibits B-3 and B-1, respectively, City tax revenues as set forth on Exhibit B-2. In the event market conditions, at the time of issuance, result in bond proceeds of less than $7,315,000, the City PFD shall file, witi-. the Ciry and County PFD, a revised business Packet Page 429 of 461 14 plan consistent with Section "F" of Exhibit "C", reflecting project reductions; provided that if the bond proceeds available for the Development of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts, are or would be less than $6,000,000 due to adverse market conditions, this Agreement shall terminate and each Party shall be relieved of its obligations hereunder. The City's limited tax general obligation bonds may be issued up to the maximum term allowed by law. The obligations issued by the City may be in one or more series, and the City may issue bond anticipation notes prior to the issuance of any series of bonds. City limited tax general obligation bonds shall be repaid from any lawful source designated by the City, including without limitation City -imposed real estate excise taxes, and intergovernmental project payments to the City bythe City PFD as described in subsection C. Lb, above. Such intergovernmental project payments shall be made from (i) Sales and Use Tax revenues imposed by the City PFD, and (ii) intergovernmental project payments transferred by the County PFD to the City PFD under subsection C. Lb and then transferred by the City PFD to the City. The City shall pledge its full faith and credit to the repayment of its limited tax general obligation bonds, within its debt limit. d. Project payments by the County PFD shall be allocated solely to Edmonds Centre For the Arts costs that are appropriate costs of design, construction, operation and maintenance of a Regional Center as defined in RCW 35.57.020. C.2. Local Match. The City PFD will provide for the contribution of 33 percent Local Match, as required by RCW 82.14.390(4), with respect to the Sales and Use Taxes levied and received by the City PFD and the Sales and Use Taxes levied b;' the Count}- PFD and contributed to the City PFD pursuant 15 Packet Page 430 of 461 to this Agreement. It is anticipated that such match will be provided by Hotel -Motel and/or Real Estate Excise Tax contributions from the City, in kind contributions from the City, revenues from the operation and rental of facilities, and cash and in -kind contributions from public or private sector partners. Current committed Sales and Use Taxes total an estimated $4,335,353 million from the City PFD and $6,447,112 million from the County PFD, for a total of $10,782,465. Current committed funds from the City total an estimated $2 million. Current estimates of rent revenues from and disposition of City PFD-owned buildings adjoining the Edmonds Centre For the Arts will total an estimated $1,175,000. The fair market value of the in kind contributions from the City is estimated at $50,000. The amounts to be received and applied from grants and fundraising will total an estimated $6,500,000. Accordingly, the total local match available over 25 years (not including operating revenue from the Edmonds Centre For the Arts) is estimated at $9,725,000, or 90.2% of the total Sales and Use Taxes estimated to be collected during that 25 year period. C.3. Pledge of Revenue in Support of Bonds. The Contributing Parties acknowledge and agree that the City will pledge this Agreement, as well as certain limited tax revenues and the Sales and Use Tax revenues comprising the intergovernmental project payments transferred by the City PFD to the City (including the County PFD intergovernmental project payments to the City PFD), to the payment i of bonds issued to finance the Edmonds Centre For the Arts. Such pledge will be material to the offer and sale of the bonds, and will be disclosed to potential purchasers and purchasers of the bonds. However, the City pledges that the revenues listed in Exhibit B-3 will be the primary guarantee for payment of such bonds, the City taxes supporting the project payments listed in Exhibit B-2 will be a secondary guarantee of such payment, and the project payments listed in Exhibit 13-1 will be a tertiary guarantee. The Contributing Parties consider this Agreement to be a binding contract and acknowledge that lenders to the City, including bondowners, holders of Packet Page 431 of 461 short-term notes and financial institutions providing credit support for such bonds or other obligations, will rely on the terms of this Agreement, including the pledge by each of the Contributing Parties to make the payments described in Section C.1 and Exhibit B (to the extent amounts from the identified sources are actually received at the time the payments are due or when and if the payments are later received), in deciding to make loans to the City PFD or in purchasing bonds or short-term notes for the funding of the development of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts, or in providing credit support for such bonds, notes or other obligations. Each of the Contributing Parties acknowledges that its commitment under this agreement constitutes a valid and binding enforceable, contractual commitment by that Party. The County PFD's obligation to make project payments is subordinate to its primary and secondary obligations to make similar payments with respect to the Everett Special Events Center under the Interlocal Agreement executed on December 20, 2001, and with respect to the Convention Center to be located in Lynnwood, Washington under the Interlocal Agreement as referenced in Section C.l.b above and subject to the deductions provided for in Section F.3 hereof in the event the County PFD is required to provide indemnification to the City thereunder. The Parties recognize and agree that the amounts set forth on Exhibit B are approximate allocations and disbursements, and that the actual amounts received by the City PFD and the County PFD and disbursed to the City and/or City PFD may differ from those estimated amounts. In the event that the Edmonds Centre For the Arts as described in Exhibit C of the Agreement fails to be developed as planned or is abandoned, then, at that time, all revenue, assets, property and income of every kind of the City PFD (including but not limited to City PFD bonding capacity, rental income from City PFD real property, all City PFD equity in real property) will be pledged to the retirement of the revenue obligations with respect to which any County PFD tax revenues have been pledged as contemplated under subsection C.I. of the Agreement, and for no other purpose unless the Contributing Parties unanimously agree, 17 Packet Page 432 of 461 provided nothing in this provision shall preclude the sale of the Edinonds Centre For the Arts property pursuant to the Special Disposition Provisions set forth in Section B.4 of this Agreement. Limited tax general obligation bonds issued by the City, and disclosure documents related thereto, shall contain a statement to the effect that those bonds are obligations of the City, payable solely from project payments transferred to the City by the City PFD, from City Real Estate Excise Tax receipts, and from other money of the City legally available therefor, and that those bonds are not obligations of the City PFD, the County or the County PFD. Such disclosure documents shall also contain the following statement: "The Edmonds Public Facilities District, Snohomish County, and the Snohomish County Public Facilities District are political subdivisions of the state of Washington that are separate from the City. All liabilities incurred by the City and/or Edmonds Public Facilities District shall be satisfied exclusively from the assets, credit, and property of the City and/or City PFD and no creditor or other person shall have any right of action against or recourse to Snohomish County, the Snohomish County PFD or any of their respective assets, credit, or services. on account of any debts, obligations, liabilities, or omissions of the City and/or City PFD." Such disclosure documents shall also contain the following statement: "The County PFD is a municipal corporation organized under RCW 3 6.100.010 and amended Ordinance No. 01-041 of Snohomish County. Amended Ordinance No. 01-041 expressly provides: `All liabilities incurred by the District [the `County PFD'] shall be satisfied exclusively from the assets, credit, and property of the District and no creditor or other person shall have any right of action against or recourse to the County, its assets, credit, or services on account of any debts, obligations, liabilities, or omissions of the District."' CA. Limitation on Additional Participants. 18 Packet Page 433 of 461 So long as the County PFD is providing any funds for the Development of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts pursuant to this Agreement, then without the County PFD's written concurrence, no other public facility district (not including the City PFD) shall provide funding for the Development of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts and no city other than Edmonds, Washington, shall be included within the City PFD. C 5 Annexation Adjustments. In the event that the City annexes territory which, at the time this Agreement is entered into, is located within the County (the "Annexed Territory"), while any obligations of the County PFD, under this Agreement, remain outstanding, then, and in that event, the County PFD's obligations hereunder and the amounts allocated to the Edmonds Centre For the Arts as set forth on Exhibit B-1 shall be reduced, dollar -for -dollar, by the amount of the sales and use taxes collected by the City PFD from transactions occurring within the Annexed Territory. D. ADMINISTRATION Subject to Joint Board direction, as hereafter provided, the City PFD shall be the administrator (within the meaning of RCW 39.34.030(4)) of this cooperative undertaking of acquiring, designing, remodeling, building and operating the Edmonds Centre For the Arts as provided for in this Agreement. There is hereby established a Joint Board consisting of one representative of each of the Parties, to advise the City PFD with respect to the design, remodeling, construction, operation and development of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts. During construction, the City PFD shall periodically report on progress to the Joint Board, either in writing or in meetings, at such times and in such manner as the Joint Board may require; however, in any event, the City PFD shall provide each of the Parties with a written construction progress report at least monthly. Thereafter, the City PFD shall provide an annual report to the Joint Board and such other reports as the Joint Board may require, however, in any event, the City PFD shall provide each of the other Parties with written financial statements (including an income statement, the balance sheet, and the funds flow statement) at least quarterly. A Joint Board meeting may be called by any of the Parties at any time upon reasonable notice to the 19 Packet Page 434 of 461 other Parties. Each of the Contributing Parties shall have one vote on the Joint Board. Any decision to proceed with Subsequent phases of Development of the Project as described in the last paragraph of Exhibit C shall require unanimous approval by all of the voting members of the Joint Board. All other actions of the Joint Board shall require two affirmative votes. If the City PFD decides to use the supplemental alternative public works procedure (design -build) as authorized by chapter 39.10 RCW, the City PFD shall report to the Joint Board and shall consider the review considerations advanced by the Joint Board. However, except as otherwise determined by the affirmative vote of the Joint Board, the City PFD shall have the responsibility, power and authority to make all final decisions on behalf of the Contributing Parties regarding the design, construction and operation of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts, provided any material change in the project cost exceeding 20% of the estimate set forth in Exhibit C, or material change in plans for construction (which substantially changes the purposes or function of the facility) shall require unanimous approval by all of the voting members of the Joint Board. E. NATURE OF OBLIGATIONS It is understood and agreed by all Parties that each of the Contributing Parties' obligations to make the intergovernmental project payments set forth in Exhibit B, is solely an obligation of that Contributing Party and is limited to the sources described in this Agreement. The City and City PFD agree not to seek to collect such amounts from any Party other than the Party responsible for its respective project payments. Neither the City nor the County PFD shall have any liability to fund capital or operating shortfalls or have any other financial commitments other than the respective payments to the City PFD in the amounts, at the times and from (and to the extent of funds available from) the sources set forth in Exhibits B-2 and B-1, respectively. The obligation of each of the Contributing Parties to the City or City PFD, as the case may be, is not and shall not be deemed a general obligation or debt of any other party. None of the Parties shall have any obligation for, nor shall they be liable for; the payment of amounts due to the City or City PFD from any other Party. The County (i.e., the Consulting Party) shall have no Packet Page 435 of 461 20 obligation for, and shall not be liable for, the payment of amounts due from the County PFD. Neither the City, City PFD nor any other Contributing Party shall seek to collect such amounts from the County. The County PFD is a municipal corporation organized under RCW 36.100.010 and amended Ordinance No. 01-041 of the Snohomish County Council. Amended Ordinance No. 01-041 expressly provides: "All liabilities incurred by the District [the County PFD] shall be satisfied exclusively from the assets, credit, and property of the District and no creditor or other person shall have any right of action against or recourse to the County, its assets, credit, or services on account of any debts, obligations, liabilities, or omissions of the District." F. INDEMNIFICATION F.1. City PFD Indemnification of Other Parties. To the extent permitted by law, the City PFD shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, the County and the County.PFD and, respectively, their officials, officers, employees, and agents (except that the City PFD shall not be considered an agent of the County PFD for the purposes of this Section) when acting within such designated capacity (collectively, the "Section F.1 Indemnified Parties"), from all claims, losses, suits, actions, legal or administrative proceedings, costs, attorneys' fees, litigation costs, expenses, damages, penalties, fines, judgments or decrees by reason of any death, injury or disability to or of any person or party, including employees, and/or damage to any property or business, including loss of use (collectively "damages") caused by any negligent act, error or omission of the City PFD or its officials, officers, employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors, when acting within such designated capacity (collectively, the "City PFD's Functionaries"), arising out of the development, financing, acquisition, design, construction, ownership, operation, or maintenance of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts. The City PFD's obligation shall include, but not be limited to, defending all claims alleging damages from any negligent action, error or omission or breach of any common law, 21 Packet Page 436 of461 statutory or other delegated duty by the City PFD, and the City PFD's Functionaries. The City, the County and the County PFD each have a direct interest in any settlement agreement that the City PFD may obtain while defending under this hold harmless and indemnity. The City PFD grants to the City, the County and the County PFD veto authority regarding any settlement proposal. However, if the City PFD agrees to a settlement proposal and any of the City, the County or the County PFD vetoes the proposal, then the vetoing Party shall, immediately after vetoing the settlement proposal, assume the defense including the cost of the City PFD's personnel time at then current billing rates in support of the defense and any cost of judgment or settlement in excess of payments and terms provided in the settlement proposal. The City PFD will provide information to the City, the County and the County PFD regarding all claims. The City PFD's obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless shall apply except and to the extent where caused by the sole or concurrent negligence and/or willful misconduct of any of the Section F.1 Indemnified Parties. If the claim, suit, or action for injuries, death, or damages as provided for in this Section F.1 is caused by or results from the concurrent negligence of (i) any of the Section F.1 Indemnified Parties; and (ii) the City PFD or the City PFD's Functionaries, the indemnity provisions provided for in this paragraph of this Section F.1 shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the City PFD or the City PFD's Functionaries. The City PFD agrees to acquire and maintain insurance in form and amounts as are approved by the Joint Board and that are consistent with the coverage of comparable facilities and undertakings related to said facilities as contemplated under this Agreement and to name the County, the County PFD and the City as additional named insureds. F 2 City Indemnification of County PFD. To the extent permitted by law, the City shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the County PFD and its officials, officers, employees, and agents when acting within such 22 Packet Page 437 of 461 designated capacity (collectively, the "Section F.2 Indemnified Parties"), from all claims, losses, suits, actions, legal or administrative proceedings, costs, attorneys' fees, litigation costs, expenses, damages, penalties, fines, judgments or decrees by reason of any death, injury or disability to or of any person or party, including employees, and/or damage to any property or business, including loss of use (collectively "damages") caused by any negligent act, error or omission of the City or its officials, officers, employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors, when acting within such designated capacity (collectively, the "City Functionaries"), arising out of the development, financing, acquisition, design, construction, ownership, operation, or maintenance of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts. The City's obligation shall include, but not be limited to, defending all claims alleging damages from any negligent action, error or omission or breach of any common law, statutory or other delegated duty by the City and the City's Functionaries. The County PFD has a direct interest in any settlement agreement that the City may obtain while defending under this hold harmless and indemnity. The City grants to the County PFD veto authority regarding any settlement proposal. However, if the City agrees to a settlement proposal and the County PFD vetoes the proposal, then the County PFD shall, immediately after vetoing the settlement proposal, assume the defense including the cost of the City's personnel time at then current billing rates in support of the defense and any cost of judgment or settlement in excess of payments and terms provided in the settlement proposal. The City will provide information to the County PFD regarding all claims. The City's obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless shall apply except and to the extent where caused by the sole or concurrent negligence and/or willful misconduct of any of the Section F.2 Indemnified Parties. If the claim, suit, or action for injuries, death, or damages as provided for in this Section F.2 is caused by or results from the concurrent negligence of (i) any of the Section F.2 Indemnified Parties; and (ii) the City or the City's Functionaries, the indemnity provisions provided for in this paragraph of this Section F shall be valid and enforceable onlv to the extent of the negligence of the City or the City's Functionaries. 23 Packet Page 438 of 461 F.3. County PFD Indemnification of City. To the extent permitted by law, and subject to the limitations set forth herein, the County PFD shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees, and agents when acting within such designated capacity (collectively, the "Section F.3 Indemnified Parties"), from all claims, losses, suits, actions, legal or administrative proceedings, costs, attorneys' fees, litigation costs, expenses, damages, penalties, fines, judgments or decrees by reason of any death, injury or disability to or of any person or party, including employees, and/or damage to any property or business, including loss of use (collectively "damages") caused by any negligent act, error or omission of the County PFD or its officials, officers, employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors, when acting within such designated capacity (collectively, the "County PFD's Functionaries"), arising out of the development, financing, acquisition, design, construction, ownership, operation, or maintenance of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts. The County PFD's obligation shall include, but not be limited to, defending all claims alleging damages from any negligent action, error or omission or breach of any common law, statutory or other delegated duty by the County PFD, and the County PFD's Functionaries; Provided the County PFD's total financial obligation and liability, under these Section F.3 indemnity provisions, for damages (as defined above) and for compliance with any judgments or decrees, to the extent not covered and paid by the County PFD's insurance carrier, shall be limited to and deducted from the amounts otherwise available to the City PFD from the County PFD under this Interlocal Agreement (as set forth on Exhibit B-1) as of the time such indemnification is required hereunder. The City has a direct interest in any settlement agreement that the County PFD may obtain while defending under this hold harmless and indemnity. The County PFD grants to the City veto authority regarding any settlement proposal. However, if the County PFD agrees to a settlement proposal and the City vetoes the proposal, then the City shall, immediately after vetoing the settlement proposal, assume the defense including the cost of the Packet Page 439 of 461 24 County PFD's personnel time at then current billing rates in support of the defense and any cost of judgment or settlement in excess of payments and terms provided in the settlement proposal. The County PFD will provide information to the City regarding all claims. The County PFD's obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless shall apply except and to the extent where caused by the sole or concurrent negligence and/or willful misconduct of any of the Section F.3 Indemnified Parties. If the claim, suit, or action for injuries, death, or damages as provided for in this Section F.3 is caused by or results from the concurrent negligence of (i) any of the Section F.3 Indemnified Parties; and (ii) the County PFD or the County PFD's Functionaries, the indemnity provisions provided for in this paragraph of this Section F.3 shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the County PFD or the County PFD's Functionaries. The City and the City PFD expressly agree and consent to the deductions from funds otherwise available to it from the County PFD if and as necessary to give full effect to the indemnification(s) required under this Section F.3. G. SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS The Contributing Parties agree to complete and execute all supplemental documents necessary or appropriate to fully implement the terms of this Agreement. H. DURATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until such time as all bonds, short- term notes and other obligations issued by the City PFD for the construction of the Edmonds Centre For the Arts are fully paid and redeemed. I. EFFECTIVE DATE; FILING WITH COUNTY AUDITOR This Interlocal Agreement shall be effective upon such execution and filing with the Snohomish County Auditor as required by the provisions of RCW 39.34.040. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement by their duly authorized officers and representatives as of the day indicated below. 25 Packet Page 440 of 461 CITY Obi ED Mayor v},4 Date: EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT Chair Date: C SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT. S ecre -Treasurer Date: C Z, 1A SNOHOMISH COUNTY County Ex tine GARY WEIKEL Deputy Executive 2ate: - �- ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to Form Onl77 k 0� — Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date: � 3/ ` o� 26 Packet Page 441 of 461 EXHIBIT A Fall 2002: Hire transition consulting team; obtain Snohomish County PFD funds; obtain title; begin public relations and marketing activities; negotiate partnership agreements; sell bonds; solicit and retain A/E; begin conditional use process; solicit fundraiser; retain property manager; define construction management approach. Winter 2003: A/E work; obtain master plan/conditional use permit; retain fundraiser; organize campaign committee; create non-profit foundation or partnership; continue marketing and communication activities; continue property management of facility. Spring 2003: A/E work; continue permit process; prepare construction documents; obtain lead gift; continue marketing and communications activities; continue property management of facility. Summer 2003: Solicit construction bids; continue permit process; continue fundraising; continue marketing and communications activities; continue property management of facility; recruit Executive Director, plan opening season bookings. Fall 2003: Pre -construction permits; continue fundraising; continue marketing and communications activities; continue property management of facility; begin construction, including without limitation, commence construction by December 2003; hire Executive Director; plan opening season bookings. Winter 2004: Continue construction; continue fundraising; continue marketing and communications activities; continue property management of facility; Executive Director begins; plan opening season bookings and events. Spring 2004: Continue construction; continue fundraising; continue marketing and communications activities; continue property management of facility; plan opening season bookings and events. Summer 2004: Continue construction; continue fundraising; continue marketing and communications activities; continue property management of facility; plan opening season bookings and opening events. A-1 Packet Page 442 of 461 Fall 2004: Continue construction; continue fundraising; continue marketing and communications activities; continue property management of facility; plan opening season bookings and opening events; soft opening of facility in December to book holiday revenue. Winter 2005: Grand opening of facility. A-2 Packet Page 443 of 461 EXHIBIT B B-1 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT ALLOCATION OF SALES TAX TO THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT FOR THE EDMONDS CENTRE FOR THE ARTS: *NPV = Net Present Value The foregoing allocations are subject to adjustment pursuant to the provisions of Section C.5 of the Interlocal Aereement to which this Exhibit B-1 is attached. -41V 14 P"I" lat." locamiy.a "--;, 04 k`4 Aiwy -4-) B-1 Packet Page 444 of 461 B-2 CITY OF EDMONDS ALLOCATION TO THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT IN 2002: 11/15/02: $1,000,000 From Real Estate Excise Tax Cash Reserves 11/15/02: $7,315,000 (Estimated Proceeds From Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Issue)* * The Estimated Proceeds ** consist of $1,000,000 net present value of estimated future City Real Estate Excise Taxes and $6,315,000 net present value of estimated future City PFD and County PFD Sales and Use Taxes. The Estimated Grand Total From the City to the City PFD is $8,315,000. The estimated bond proceeds are based upon the projected payments set forth on Exhibit B-1 and B-3 to be applied by the City to bond debt service, together with City contributions to bond debt service from general City revenues in an amount sufficient to generate $1,000,000. of the bond proceeds at the time of issuance. **Actual proceeds may vary with market conditions (including interest rates) at the time the bonds are issued. i i mcnc I Q-.' 1 :i' :`,11 ,5. I XX I ......... _...... B-2 Packet Page 445 of 461 EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT EXPENDITURE OF SPECIAL SALES AND USE TAX TO EDMONDS CENTRE FOR THE ARTS DEVELOPMENT FINANCING COSTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONS COSTS Year Edmonds PFD 2002 - 2003 160,000 2004 161,600 2005 164,024 2006 166,484 2007 168,982 2008 171,516 2009 174,089 2010 176,700 2011 179,351 2012 192,041 2013 184,772 2014 187,543 2015 190,357 2016 193,212 2017 196,110 2018 199,052 2019 202,038 2020 205,068 2021 208,144. 2022 211,266 2023 214,435 2024 217,652 2025 220,917 2026 - Total $4,335,353 4.8% - 1 $2,634,646 * *NPV = Net Present Value :r:x:.isc3i.WC:+— �;�r+;;�:►�i=i:+=;eR} Fr; :r =�c+i�;zrz r; i B-3 Packet Page 446 of 461 EXHIBIT C PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCHEDULE FOR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT A. Description The Edmonds Centre for the Arts will be a high quality regional center which includes a performing arts facility, meeting rooms, and gymnasium for the local and surrounding communities to be located at the former campus of the Puget Sound Christian College. The Puget Sound Christian College is the former Edmonds High School property. The City PFD's prime objectives are to provide a performing arts facility for community and regional arts groups and presenters, to preserve a well -regarded historic structure, and to enhance the cultural life of the community and region. The City PFD will carry out a two-phase project [Phases l (a) and l (b)]. Phase l (a) is to renovate the theater and to create on -site parking. The existing gymnasium and an existing music practice building will be retained in the development. Phase 1(b) will be the addition of new seating, modem lighting, and a modem sound system. Subject to feasibility and required Joint Board approval, the City PFD has a plan for a subsequent phase of development consisting of the addition of a meeting room large enough to seat 500 people in a dining configuration and a roof garden that will overlook Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains beyond. This new meeting room wing, if approved and constructed, would be located on top of a three-story parking -garage adjacent to the north wall of the theater. B. Recommended Program The PFD retained LMN Architects to develop a design concept, conceptual cost estimate, and phasing plan to accomplish the Centre for the Arts vision. LMN's work product is incorporated herein by reference and is available for review through the City, and/or the City PFD in two separate volumes: "Concept Design and Budget report" and "Appendices". Phase l(a) of the project will require major renovation work to the theater and demotion of unusable buildings on the north side of the theater to create space for on -site parking and additional lobby space. The theatre, built in 1939, will receive significant renovation in the front of house public areas, in the auditorium, and in the back of house areas as well. Both the front of house and backstage areas will be retrofitted to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The renovations will preserve the architectural integrity of the original auditorium while creating a first-class theater with 725-750 seat capacity and improving the stage. To improve acoustic characteristics and to vrovide acoustic flexibility, the sidewalls in the front part of the house will have elements added to improve sound diffusion and to incorporate acoustic draperies for use WSS539050.DOC; 11WW6i.90W00%' Packet Page 447 of 461 with amplified sound. Inadequate stage wing space will be remedied by demolishing the lower portion of the stage house wall and incorporating a girder to support the remaining portion. Theatrical system upgrades will be added. Dressing rooms, a greenroom, back -of -house support areas and a loading dock will be added to make the theatre fully functional. The gymnasium will be retained and used for long-term rentals and some special events. The music buildings will be retained for rehearsal use. The classrooms will continue to serve as meeting rooms for smaller groups To improve sight lines, a more steeply raked floor will be added at the orchestra level; however, new seats in some sections, modem sound, and lighting systems may be deferred to Phase l (b) due to funding limitations. On -site parking with landscaping will be added for 90 cars. The Centre is expected to host 110 events by its fifth year of operation, drawing about 45,000 attendees by 2010. To manage additional parking needs, the City PFD will work with the City to develop a parking management plan that will use nearby existing parking lots for additional parking. In addition, the City PFD will work with the City to consider establishing a residential parking zone for the benefit of nearby residents. The City PFD has already held preliminary discussion with the City of Edmonds to outline the permit process needed to accomplish this project. The City PFD will apply for all necessary permits including a conditional use permit and master plan. Permits will be needed for demolition, surface parking, and other site improvements. SEPA and traffic mitigation are expected to be required- C. Renovation Summary The renovation will include: seismic retrofit, ADA retrofit; increased lobby space; new toilets; improved site lines; acoustic improvements; back of house improvements; increased wing space on stage; theatrical systems and equipment upgrades; new HVAC system; new electrical power, including power for theatrical productions; cosmetic improvements to existing meeting rooms on second floor of theatre, power and data upgrades to second floor meeting rooms; loading dock, and new landscaped surface parking lot for 90 cars. New seats in some sections, lighting and sound may be deferred to Phase 1(b) due to funding limitations. D. Phase One Capital Uses Phase one capital costs are detailed in the August 31, 2002 Business Plan for the Edmonds Centre for the Arts, updated October 3, 2002, submitted to the County PFD, which is incorporated herein by this reference. E. Phase One Capital Sources The City will sell bonds backed in part by the City PFD and County PFD sales tax revenue stream. To raise the balance of the required funds, the City PFD Board of Directors will launch a region - wide Capital Campaign to raise $4 million in private contributions, based on the WSS529050.DOC;1/00006.900000/)' Packet Page 448 of 461 recommendation of Netzel Associates, a professional fundraising firm that conducted a fundraising feasibility study for the PFD. Funds totaling $2.5 million will be sought from private foundations, federal and state government sources. Multi -year pledges will be encouraged. The City PFD may propose an admissions tax on performing arts events beginning in 2005 to ensure that patrons of events are also supporting the facility. These funds may be dedicated to ensure adequate cash reserves are maintained. The City PFD will earn income from rentals of the property; from interest earnings, and from surplus real estate that will be sold. E. Contingent Project Reductions In the event the proceeds of the bonds to be issued by the City are less than $7,315,000, then in that event, the City PFD will revise the project plans as necessary to accommodate required costs reductions, by implementing one or more of the following: • elimination of the balcony extension • elimination of the stage floor replacement • elimination of the dressing room accessories • reduction in the signage • reduction or elimination of landscaping • reduction by up to 10% in quality of seating. WSS529050.DOC;1/00006.900000/; Packet Page 449 of 461 CITY OF EDMONDS CITY HALL 121 5h AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS , WA 98020 425.771.0240 • FAX 425.771.0265 "VC. 13,40 FINANCE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEPARTMENT August 23, 2012 Joe McIalwain, Executive Director Edmonds Center for the Arts Edmonds Public Facilities District 410 4th Ave North Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Refinancing of City Bonds; Summary of Draws under Contingent Loan Agreement Dear Joe, This letter has several purposes relating to the City's outstanding Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2002 (the "2002 City Bonds"), which financed the initial phases of development of the Edmonds Center for the Arts ("BCA") and the PFD's Sales Tax Obligation and Refunding Bonds, 2008 (the "2008 PFD Bonds"), which financed subsequent phases of that development. -- First, as you may know, the City is in the process of refunding the outstanding 2002 City Bonds. This will reduce the amount that the City retains from the payments of sales tax revenue it receives from you and from the County PFD, and will increase the amount available to you for payment of your operating expenses and debt service on the 2008 PFD Bonds. The estimated debt service schedule for the portion of the City's 2012 Bonds that will refinance the 2002 City Bonds is attached to this letter as Attachment A. We will provide you with a finalized debt service schedule when the City's 2012 Bonds have closed. Second, this letter is intended to be a written summary of the draws made by the Edmonds Public Facilities District to date under the Contingent Loan Agreement that was entered into by the City and the PFD, dated as of July 14, 2008, with respect to the 2008 PFD Bonds. Our records indicate that the City has advanced funds to the PFD in the following amounts on the dates shown below. These amounts are considered loans made by the City to the PFD under the Contingent Loan Agreement: • Incotpoi-ated Atigliit 11, 1890 Sister City —Hekinan, Japan Packet Page 450 of 461 Date of Advance Amount Advanced 5/25/2011 $83,185 11/1/2011 310,177 5/1/2012 120,246 5/30/2012 80,645 TOTAL $594,253 The City also acknowledges the following payments made on the amount due under the Contingent Loan Agreement: Date of Payment Amount of Payment 1 /13/2012 $88,000 5/30/2012 154,645 TOTAL $242,645 Under Section 3.4 of the Agreement, each loan bears interest from the date of the loan until the date such loan is repaid at a variable rate, which resets on the first day of each month, equal to the monthly average rate of return on the State of Washington Local Government Investment Pool, determined on the last day of the preceding month. Interest is calculated on the basis of a 365/366-day year for the actual number of days elapsed. Our records indicate that the interest rates in effect during the period for which loans have been outstanding, and the total amount outstanding are as follows: Interest Rate Interest Rate Amount Total Period Period Interest Outstanding Interest Amount Beginning Ending Rate During Period Activity Accrued Outstanding 5/1/2011 5/31/2011 0.17% $ - $ 83,185.00 $ 11.78 $ 83,196.78 6/1/2011 6/30/2011 0.14% 83,196.78 9.71 83,206.49 7/1/2011 7/31/2011 0.16% 83,206.49 11.09 83,217.59 8/1/2011 8/31/2011 0.15% 83,217.59 10.40 83,227.99 9/1/2011 9/30/2011 0.17% 83,227.99 11.79 83,239.78 10/1/2011 10/31/2011 0.13% 83,239.78 9.02 83,248.80 11/1/2011 11/30/2011 0.11% 83,248.80 7.63 83,256.43 12/1/2011 12/31/2011 0.15% 83,256.43 310,177.00 49.18 393,482.61 1/1/2012 1/31/2012 0.13% 393,482.61 (88,000.00) 33.09 305,515.70 2/1/2012 2/29/2012 0.12% 305,515.70 30.55 305,546.25 3/1/2012 3/31/2012 0.14% 305,546.25 35.65 305,581.90 4/1/2012 4/30/2012 0.13% 305,581.90 33.10 305,615.00 5/1/2012 5/31/2012 0.15% 305,615.00 46,246.00 43.98 351,904.99 6/1/2012 6/30/2012 0.14% 351,904.99 41.06 351,946.04 All loans under the Contingent Loan Agreement mature on December 31, 2026 (or a later date on which the PFD's authority to impose a sales tax expires, if that date is extended by the Legislature). As provided in the Contingent Loan Agreement, if the PFD is unable • Incorporated Augu t 11, 1890 • Sister City — Hekinan, Japan Packet Page 451 of 461 to repay the amounts loaned on the maturity date, the City shall acquire an ownership interest in the ECA equal to the unpaid principal and interest. Finally, you should know that the City has uploaded certain documents to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB") website known as EMMA (Electronic Municipal Market Access) in order to comply with its continuing disclosure obligation under the Contingent Loan Agreement. In order to ensure that the PFD can take advantage of opportunities to refinance the 2008 PFD Bonds at some point in the future, I would encourage you to review the information on this website to ensure that the Edmonds PFD is also in compliance with its continuing disclosure undertaking with respect to the 2008 PFD Bonds. Nothing in this letter shall be interpreted as a waiver of any rights or remedies belonging to the City under the Contingent Loan Agreement. I trust that the foregoing is helpful to you in your recordkeeping. I would appreciate it if you would sign below in acknowledgement of receipt of this letter. Please contact me if you have any questions. Best regards, CITY OF EDMONDS Shawn Hunstock, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Acknowledged and Accepted by: EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT Ile I . 6 eph Mclalwain, Execut►ve Director • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City — Hekinan, Japan Packet Page 452 of 461 SAVINGS City of Edmonds, Washington Refund 2002 LTGO Preliminary Numbers Date PriorAccrued Interest Debt Service Contribution Prior Net Cash Flow Refunding Debt Service Unrefunded Debt Service Refunding Net Cash Flow Savings Present Value to 09/27/2012 @ 2.0799091% 12/01/2012 341,786.25 85,674.06 256,112.19 33,373.33 208,843.75 242,217.08 13,895.11 13,529.52 12/01/2013 495,885.00 495,885.00 414,500.00 414,500.00 81,385.00 79,965.46 12/01/2014 507,030.00 507,030.00 424,400.00 424,400.00 82,630.00 79,499.32 12/01/2015 521,905.00 521,905.00 439,000.00 439,000.00 82,905.00 78,105.74 12/01/2016 535,492.50 535,492.50 453,200.00 453,200.00 62,292.50 75,917.67 12/01/2017 552,742.50 552,742.50 467,000.00 467,000.00 85,742.50 77,431.83 12/01/2018 568,387.50 568,387.50 485,400.00 485,400.00 82,987.50 73,386.20 12/01/2019 582,367.50 582,367.50 499,750.00 499,750.00 82,617.50 71,540.32 12/01/2020 599,427.50 599,427.50 513,350.00 513,350.00 86,077.50 72,967.91 12/01/2021 619,665.00 619,665.00 538,162.50 538,162.50 81,S02.50 67,670.22 12/01/2022 637,810.00 637,810.00 551,475.00 551,475.00 86,335.00 70,177.44 12/01/2023 653,822.50 653,822.50 567,225.00 567,225.00 86,597.50 68,908.39 12/01/2024 672,662.50 672,662.50 587,075.00 587,075.00 85,587.50 66,667.68 12/01/2025 693,900.00 693,900.00 610,875.00 610,875.00 83,025.00 63,301.71 12/01/2026 482,540.00 4B2,540.00 398,475.00 398,475.00 84,065.00 62,726.80 8,465,423.75 85,674.06 8,379,749.69 6,983,260.83 208,843.75 7,192,104.58 1,187,645.11 1,021,796.21 PV of savings from cash flow 1,021,796.21 Plus: Refunding funds on hand-1,459.39 Net PV Savings 1,020,336.82 Aug 3, 2012 11:02 am Prepared by A. Dashen & Associates (Finance 7.002 Edmonds City:2012LTRE) Page 11 � HY#DEN L�E T' �.c.c� n T T 0 R H E Y S h T L A w MEMORANDUM DATE: November 19, 2010 TO: Diane Buckshnis, City Councilmember Members, Edmonds City Council City of Edmonds cc: Mayor Mike Cooper Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney RE: Your Inquiry RE Inaccurate Financial Statements - City Liability and Risk At the November 16, 2010 City Council meeting, Councilmember Buckshnis asked the following question: Is there a legal risk if we misstate our financial statements, and having inaccurate financial statements that have been intentionally created, are we at legal risk as a city for misstated financials? For the purpose of this memo, I will assume that a City financial record is inaccurate.' This memo addresses the risk from criminal, civil and practical perspectives. Potential Criminal Liability: RCW 35A.33 establishes the budgeting process for code cities. Budget and reporting duties are set forth in the chapter. As Ms. Buckshnis' discussion indicates, her focus was on RCW 35A.33.140 which requires quarterly reports. That statute states: At such intervals as may be required by City charter or ordinance, however, being not less than quarterly, the City Council shall submit to the City's legislative body and chief administrative officer a report showing the expenditures and liabilities against each separate budget appropriation incurred during the preceding reporting period and like information for the whole of the current t I am not qualified to evaluate the financial statements. {WSS836516.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 00 Seattle, WA 98101-1686 cc 206.447.7000 00 Fax: 206.447.0215 Web: www.omwlaw.com Packet Page 454 of 461 Diane Buckshnis, City Councilmember November 19, 2010 Page 2 fiscal year to the first day of the current reporting period together with the unexpended balance of each appropriation. The report shall also show the receipts from all sources. RCW 35A.33.160 makes it a misdemeanor for ... [A]ny city official, department head or other city employee of knowingly failing, or refusing, without just cause, to perform any duty opposed upon such officer or employee by this chapter, or city ordinance ... in connection with the giving of notice, the preparing and filing of estimates of revenues and expenditures or other information required for preparing a budget report in the time and manner required ... ". If a public official is convicted of "knowingly failing" to fulfill his duties, he may be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $500 for each separate violation. Civil Liability I consulted with Hugh Spitzer, the City's Bond Counsel, regarding the potential risks to the City under SEC rules. As you are aware, at the request of an individual Councilmember, I will provide up to one hour of review on an issue. If the Council requires further detailed information in this regard, you should contact Mr. Spitzer. The primary civil liability which the City could incur relates to bond holder suits for reliance in a future bond offering on the City's annual financial statements. These statements can be audited or unaudited. Because municipal bonds are public offerings, Security and Exchange Commission rules may apply. A bondholder, in the event of default, has a basis for suit if "knowingly false" or material misstatements of fact are made in the City's annual financial statement, or the annual financial statement, taken as a whole, omits material information and a bondholder relies on that information. If any public official, as recently occurred in the city of San Diego, provides knowingly false information, he or she can also be in violation of federal law. Were a City official to be convicted under RCW 35A.33.160 for a "knowing failure, without just cause," the City would be required to report that fact in future offerings. Practical Considerations Pursuant to public initiative, the state of Washington has a performance audit process. A citizen may make a request to the state auditor to conduct a performance audit of any community. In the {WSS836516.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Packet Page 455 of 461 Diane Buckshnis, City Councilmember November 19, 2010 Page 3 event of a complaint, and in response to that complaint, the City could incur significant costs and the use of already precious staff time. Conclusion Individual criminal liability could be based upon "knowing" failures to provide information in response to the requirements of Chapter 35A.33. The City can incur civil liability on behalf of the City for providing either "knowingly false" or "materially misleading" financial statements or "omitting material facts" which make the City's financial statements, taken as a whole, inaccurate. The latter issues can give to either risk of a bondholder's lawsuit against the City or criminal liability if a public official acted "knowingly." This is a high standard of proof but serious consequences can follow. WSS/gjz/nkr {WSS836516.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Packet Page 456 of 461 AM-6248 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 11/04/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted For: Councilmembers Bloom and Peterson Department: City Council Committee. - Submitted By: Type: Information Subject Title Discussion regarding Council attendance via speaker phone. Recommendation Jana Spellman Information 13. Council to provide direction for City attorney to draft a proposed resolution for full Council consideration. Previous Council Action September 10, 2013 PS/P Committee Meeting: This item was discussed (minutes attached). October 8, 2013 PS/P Committee Meeting: The PS/P Committee took the following action: D. Discussion regarding Council attendance via speaker phone. The committee decided to use the Spokane policy as a framework and to discuss in full Council the following: (1) Definition of extraordinary circumstances such as: travel complications Medical/family emergencies. (2) Whether or not we should allow call ins to items associated with public hearings. (3) Confirm call in to quasi-judicial hearings not allowed. Action: Forward for full Council discussion to finalize policy. 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 Packet Page 457 of 461 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 This agenda item has been forwarded to the full Council for discussion to finalize the policy. Attachments Attach 1: Spokane City Council Rules 03-04-2013 Attach 2: 09-10-13 Public Safety and Personnel Committee Minutes Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Scott Passey Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 10/31/2013 Form Review Date 10/30/2013 02:09 PM 10/30/2013 04:08 PM 10/31/2013 04:33 PM Started On: 10/23/2013 11:08 AM Packet Page 458 of 461 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 Packet Page 459 of 461 end: "In the event that a Board member is unable to abide by the Code of Conduct policies, the Board, with a super majority vote, can recommend removal of the board member to the CO Rty F=XeG tiVe Mayor, for action by the City Council." With regard to the Bellevue Code: • Retain numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 (eliminating 7, 8, 9 and 11). With regard to the Kirkland Code of Conduct: • It was agreed to also retain the first two paragraphs with the following change: remove the first sentence that states "The Code of Conduct is supplemental to the Kirkland Municipal Code and the Code of Ethics." B. Consideration of Council Comments Regarding Code of Ethics. Councilmember Bloom recalled comments previously received from Councilmembers related to disclosure of financial information. Councilmembers did not want board and commission members to have to disclose financial information. Councilmember Bloom also recalled that Councilmember Johnson did not want the policy to go "backwards." Councilmember Peterson stated that he would not want an Ethics Policy to affect previous Councilmembers who did not have an opportunity to vote on it. He would not want it to be retroactive. Councilmember Bloom referred to the Bellevue Code of Ethics under 1.E. where it states 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. Councilmember Peterson stated he reads this to mean moving forward; not retroactive. It was agreed by Councilmembers to ask the City Attorney to look at this. Councilmembers next discussed the complaint procedure. It was noted that Bellevue has an Ethics Officer and Kirkland uses a Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Peterson commented that he likes the idea of having an Ethics Officer, noting the Hearing Examiner deals mostly with land use issues. Councilmember Bloom commented that given the issues related to staff availability and Hearing Examiner availability, she believes the Code should be modeled after Bellevue (versus Kirkland). Councilmember Peterson agreed. Councilmembers agreed to use the Bellevue Code of Ethics (eliminate Section B that begins on page 5 — except for number 9. Number 9 deals with "Nepotism" and the committee would like this included in the Code of Ethics.) C. Discussion regarding Council attendance via speaker phone. Councilmember Peterson stated that in reviewing the sample procedures included in the packet, he thought the procedures from Spokane was the simplest and gives some latitude to the Council President and the council member who would be calling in. The other procedures seemed to be more detailed and included limiting the participation by phone to only one item. Public Safety & Personnel Committee September 10, 2013 Page 2 of 4 Packet Page 460 of 461 Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with limiting participation to one item noting that the Councilmember who is calling in needs to be able to hear such things as "Audience Comments" that may include comments that would be important to hear for the topic of interest. Councilmember Peterson agreed that the meeting should be attended as a whole, but pointed out in reality it may not be possible. Councilmember Peterson suggested under "Code of Conduct" to add "attendance for entire meetings; expected to show up on time and be available for the entire meeting." Councilmember Bloom commented that she prefers the Bothell policy. Councilmember Peterson agreed except recommended removing the limit to one agenda item. It was the recommendation of the Councilmembers to adopt the Bothell policy with the major change of not limiting to one agenda item and change the language that refers to City Manager form of government. Councilmember Bloom noted that the Bothell policy refers to "rare occasion." She suggested this be defined and would like it to be limited as much as possible. She suggested putting a cap on how many times it can happen. Councilmembers recommended converting the Bothell policy to an Edmonds policy; consider what "rare occasion" means to see if it would be desired to limit how many times someone can call in; if there is a public hearing associated, being able to listen to the entire public hearing is mandatory. D. Public Comments Ken Reidy, Edmonds, commented that he believes it is important that City Council members hear public comment before a vote is taken. He wanted to thank the committee for looking at the Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct issues. As a citizen, he believes these issues need to be looked at more broadly than only boards, commissions and council. He believes it should apply to staff, Mayor and City Attorney. He has a hard time seeing how the Mayor can enforce a Code of Conduct because of his relationship with the staff. Mr. Reidy provided examples of why a Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics is important. He referred to an email from the City Attorney replying to an email from Jeannie McConnell telling her that there is no rush to respond to Mr. Reidy's request in the email. He read an email that was sent by Mayor Haakenson to Michael Plunkett dated October 29, 2009. The email was sent from a private email account by Gary Haakenson. A summary of the email includes: The email states that the Hearing Examiner was set to hear the Reidy/Thuesen case on November 4. The email references an executive session that was scheduled related to the case and also states a full discussion agenda item was scheduled by DJ to talk about the Reidy/Thuesen issue. The email includes the statements "If he persists and puts it on the agenda, you may want to rally three other votes to remove it from the agenda on Tuesday night if you think its wise. Just trying to keep you in the loop as to what he is doing. Why he is doing it is beyond me but if he's working with Reidy .... it must be to get at you somehow." Public Safety & Personnel Committee September 10, 2013 Page 3 of 4 Packet Page 461 of 461