Loading...
2014.10.14 CC Agenda Packet              AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2014             6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER   1.(30 Minutes)Convene in Executive Session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)   STUDY SESSION OCTOBER 14, 2014     6:30 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE   2.(5 Minutes)Roll Call   3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda   4.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items   A.AM-7197 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2014.   B.AM-7193 Approval of claim checks #210891 through #211017 dated October 9, 2014 for $577,599.59.   C.AM-7199 Approval of Settlement Agreement with Tyroot and Sun SM related to the 228th Street SW Corridor Improvement Project   5.(5 Minutes) AM-7165 Proclamation for Domestic Violence Awareness Month ~ YWCA Week without Violence.   6.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings       Packet Page 1 of 342   7.(5 Minutes) AM-7129 Report on final construction costs for the 2013 Waterline Replacement Project and acceptance of project   8.(5 Minutes) AM-7109 Report on final construction costs for the Lift Station Rehabilitation Project and acceptance of project.   9.(10 Minutes) AM-7200 Acceptance of Street Dedication for Saffold 3-Lot Short Plat located at 19327 88th Ave W.   10.(5 Minutes) AM-7189  Approval of the Municipal Court Judge job description & confirmation of position salary and benefits information   11.(15 Minutes) AM-7187 Cigna Life, Long Term Disability (LTD) and Accidental Death & Dismemberment (AD & D) insurance plan(s).   12.(20 Minutes) AM-7149 Discussion regarding Study Session Format   13.(20 Minutes) AM-7191 Presentation Regarding Fire District 1   14.(20 Minutes) AM-7190 Presentation on the Sustainability Element of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update.   15.(30 Minutes) AM-7196 Presentation and Discussion of the Proposed 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program.   16.(15 Minutes) AM-7185 Presentation and Discussion of Proposed Social Media Policy   17.(10 Minutes) AM-7188 Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Design   18.(30 Minutes) AM-7198 Discussion regarding the 2015 Proposed City Budget.   19.(15 Minutes)Report on Outside Board and Committee Meetings   20.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments   21.(15 Minutes)Council Comments   22.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).   23.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.   ADJOURN         Packet Page 2 of 342    AM-7197     4. A.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/14/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2014. Recommendation Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The draft minutes are attached. Attachments Attachment1 - 10-07-14 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 10/09/2014 02:20 PM Final Approval Date: 10/09/2014  Packet Page 3 of 342 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES October 7, 2014 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:15 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Diane Buckshnis, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Noushyal Eslami, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Scott James, Finance Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Carolyn LaFave, Executive Assistant Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Gerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) At 6:15 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 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, Peterson, Petso, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Development Services Director Shane Hope, Public Works Director Phil Williams, Senior Planner Kernen Lien, and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 6:46 p.m. 2. MEET WITH SISTER CITY CANDIDATE KARYN HEINEKIN FOR CONFIRMATION TO THE ESCC At 6:47 p.m., the City Council met with Karyn Heinekin. The meeting took place in the Council Chambers, located in the Public Safety Complex. All City Council members were present. The meeting was open to the public. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Packet Page 4 of 342 COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #210630 THROUGH #210754 DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 2014 FOR $616,827.50 AND CLAIM CHECKS #210755 THROUGH #210890 DATED OCTOBER 2, 2014 FOR $873,848.64. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #61207 THROUGH #61231 FOR $484,386.53, BENEFIT CHECKS #61232 THROUGH #61240 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $411,475.61 FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM LARA L. DITTOE (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED) D. 2014 AUGUST MONTHLY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT E. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4.72 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATED TO BUSINESS LICENSE FEES AND PENALTIES F. ORDINANCE AMENDING ECC CHAPTERS 4.20 AND 4.26 RELATED TO THE PROCESSING OF NOTICES OF PENDING STATE-ISSUED LIQUOR AND MARIJUANA LICENSES G. CONFIRMATION OF KARYN HEINEKIN TO THE EDMONDS SISTER CITY COMMISSION H. REMOVAL OF RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 533 - 3RD AVENUE SOUTH FROM THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 6. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF RON CLYBORNE Mayor Earling read a proclamation recognizing Ron Clyborne for his impressive list of lifetime volunteerism and leadership and thanking him for his example of living and promoting advancement of the values of respect, honor and dignity in the community. Mr. Clyborne thanked the City Council, staff, and everyone he has been involved with throughout the years in assisting with the 4th of July. He chaired the 4th of July parade for 12 years; every year on July 3 he said it would be the last year. However, on the 4th of July, the smiles, happiness and joy he saw in on everyone’s faces made him return for another year. He thanked Carolyn LaFave for her support during the years he chaired the 4th of July. He summarized his volunteerism is a commitment of love to the community and all its citizens. 7. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF FRIENDS OF THE EDMONDS LIBRARY WEEK ~ OCTOBER 19 - 25, 2014 Packet Page 5 of 342 Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring October 19 - 25, 2014 Friends of the Library Week in Edmonds and urged all citizens to recognize and applaud their invaluable service. A member of the Friends of the Edmonds Library thanked the Mayor Earling and Council for appreciating what 150 volunteers do for the library by helping with the book sales and all the programs. She accepted the proclamation on behalf of all the Friends of Library which she noted includes some Councilmembers. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Charles Tuura, Edmonds, presented statistics related to the number of deaths annually from alcohol (1.8 million), tobacco (4.6 million), guns (32,000) and pharmaceutical overdose (22,000); no one has ever died from a marijuana overdose. In 1998, 59% of Washington voters approved medical marijuana. As a medical marijuana patient who has a difficult time getting round, it is a travesty that he has to leave the community to get his medicine because he does not want to take narcotics or other drugs that have side effects. The Council was elected to do the will of their constituents, not their personal beliefs, their pastor’s beliefs or their donor’s beliefs. Legalized marijuana is far safer than drugs, alcohol and guns. He pointed out there is a pharmacy across the street from Edmonds-Woodway High School and questioned why a marijuana store had to be 1,000 feet from a school when marijuana has never killed anyone. Kurt Greiner, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the train horn quiet zone. The initial discussions were about additional gates without horns which led to concerns about safety. A quiet zone proved to be too expensive and likely would have required a local improvement district so the discussion turned to wayside horns. The City tested wayside horns in 2010 and 2008; a wayside horn is located at the crossing and has the same decibel (dB) level as a train whistle but is sounded only at the crossing. A train sounds its whistle 10-15 seconds before it reaches the intersection. A wayside horn is also directional and one contractor calculated 98% of the affected area would experience a lower dB. The estimated cost provided by two contractors is $200,000 - $250,000. His group also supports the train trench; the study being conducted will determine whether it is feasible. The train trench would solve the sound problem because trains would not sound their horns but the wayside horns could address the problem in the years before a train trench is built. He provided petitions with signatures of 236 people. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 10 where the City Council will endorse I-594. He also referred to I-591 that takes an opposite stance. He explained passage of I-594 will possibly make what he does criminal, loaning his extra gun to his son or a friend when they go hunting without going to dealer to transfer the firearm. This treads on his rights as an individual to trade or transfer a firearm. Criminals’ guns are often stolen or traded for drugs and those transactions are not reported. Passage of I- 594 does not solve the problem as that type of transition will continue. He urged the Council to stick to the business of running the City and keep out of citizens’ business. 9. EDMONDS LIBRARY UPDATE Tim Healey, Chair, Edmonds Library Board, explained the Library Board is a five member advocate/advisory group appointed by Mayor Earling. The current members are Joyce Hudemann, Joanne Peterson, Susan Schalla, Wendy Hendall (Secretary) and himself. Board members serve five year terms and meet every month to review policies, rules and regulations related to the use of the library and its facilities, but most importantly, they are advocates for the library and its services and programs. He invited the Council to the Library’s open house on Sunday, October 19 at 1:00 p.m. which will include refreshments, free flu shots, bikes awarded by the Edmonds Masons for summer reading programs and other fun activities. Packet Page 6 of 342 Mr. Healey introduced Lesly Kaplan, Edmonds Library Manager. She displayed information about the library’s 2014-2016 values, purpose, strategic focus and services. She described Sno-Isle’s values: • Free and equal access to information, knowledge, literacy and learning • Freedom to seek, receive and share information • Power of community and culture • Literacy and learning • Stewardship of public resources • Respect for individuals The strategic focus over the three years will be achieving outcomes that will lead to the success of Sno- Isle communities and region. She invited everyone to visit the Edmonds Library, find opportunities for advancement, education, technology access, joy and discovery in an open and inviting community space. She provided 2013 statistics for the Edmonds Library: • Edmonds borrowers – 32,242 • Door count – 700/day/average • 352 programs presented attended by 9,681 people • Circulation – almost half million checkouts and renewals Edmonds Library’s strategic focus includes: • Provide access to information and communication technologies • Capable, trained customer service staff • Building literate communities o Baby Story Time o Adult resources She summarized a library is not a luxury but one of the necessities of life (Henry Ward Beecher). The library is open a large variety of hours, seven days a week and 24 hours a day online and programs and services are always free with a Sno-Isle library card. She looked forward to seeing the community at the library virtually or in person. Ms. Kaplan announced she will be retiring in December. She has been with the library for many years and it is a wonderful place to work and forge community relationships. She was grateful for the time she has had to work in Edmonds. Council President Buckshnis thanked her for the great job she has done. Councilmember Peterson thanked her for everything she has done for the library, commenting the Edmonds Library is a pillar in the community. He wished her joy in her retirement. 10. PUBLIC COMMENT AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING STATE INITIATIVE: INITIATIVE MEASURE NO. 594 CONCERNS BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR FIREARM SALES AND TRANSFERS. THIS MEASURE WOULD APPLY CURRENTLY USED CRIMINAL AND PUBLIC SAFETY BACKGROUND CHECKS BY LICENSED DEALERS TO ALL FIREARM SALES AND TRANSFERS, INCLUDING GUN SHOW AND ONLINE SALES, WITH SPECIFIC EXCEPTIONS. SHOULD THIS MEASURE BE ENACTED INTO LAW? [ ] YES [ ] NO Mayor Earling asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday whether this would satisfy the requirements under State law. Mr. Taraday explained this had to come back to the Council because, under State law, if the City Council wants to take action to support or oppose a ballot measure, a specific procedure needs to be followed which includes incorporating the ballot time in any required meeting notice. The only additional Packet Page 7 of 342 requirement is that equal opportunity be allowed for speakers for and against the initiative. It does not matter if there happen to more people speaking on one side that the other as long as the Council had provided equal opportunity to speak for or against. After the Council hears the public comment for and against, it can deliberate whether to adopt the resolution. Mayor Earling opened the opportunity for public comment. Ross Dimmick, Edmonds, former hunter, intercollegiate target shooter and US Olympic Team finalist, commented I-594 was a gun control law written by gun control advocacy groups whose ultimate goal is to outlaw gun ownership. Approximately $7.6 million has been raised, advertising I-594 as a way to close the gun show loophole. He questioned why 18 pages were necessary to close the gun show loophole when some states already have this requirement. I-594 would put in place the most onerous restrictions in the country on law-abiding gun owners, restrictions that have nothing to do with gun sales. I-594 is about transfers although transfers are not mentioned in the ads; the word transfer appears over 60 times in the 18 page initiative. According to the definitions in the initiative, a transfer is the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment. Under this broad definition, for every gun sale there can be hundreds of transfers over the time an individual owns a firearm, especially a hunting rifle or shotgun. For example, physical possession is transferred while loading gear for a trip, among friends shooting at cans, or a son leaving his bird gun with his parents while in college or military deployment. Under I-594 every transfer is illegal, punishable as a felony unless it falls within one of seven narrowly defined exceptions which are crafted to appear reasonable when they are actual traps for legal gun ownership. The most problematic of the exceptions is the family exemption; this exemption does not cover a son borrowing his father’s shotgun to go hunting. He questioned how I-594 would make the public safer and urged the Council vote not to support the initiative. Leah Burnstein, Edmonds, said I-594 is a public safety issue. There is FBI data and research that shows states with a universal background check system have 38% fewer women killed in abusive situations and 39% fewer police officers killed. I-594 opponents seem misinformed; the examples the previous speaker provided are addressed by provisions in the initiative. The 18 pages cover numerous exceptions for antique weapons, loaning a gun to a friend while hunting, gifting a firearm to a family member; all of those are allowable under I-594. A complete PDF of I-594 is available on the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility website. I-594 is an expansion of the current background system; it is designed to close the gun show and private sale loophole that allows criminals to evade a background check. To the argument that criminals will steal guns and/or get guns other ways, she pointed out stop signs are not removed because people don’t obey them, speed limits are not abolished because people exceed the speed limit, drunk driving laws are still enforced even though drunk driving still occurs and background checks are still conducted for people who work with children even though because predators still prey. I-594 is an opportunity to put in place a requirement that already exists and works in other states. She urged the Council to support the initiative. Kristen Meilicke, Edmonds, explained I-594 does not prevent law abiding citizens from buying or selling guns, it does not prevent the sale or purchase of guns through online sites, it simply requires that the exchange of the gun happen at a licensed gun dealer so that a background check can be performed. I- 594 does not move closer to outlawing guns. I-594 contains exceptions that cover everything the previous speaker mentioned, it does not apply to gifting a gun to a family member, to antiques or relics, to the temporary transfer of a weapon for self-defense or to loaning a gun for hunting or sport. The authors of I- 594 recognized that those things happen and should not be illegal or require an instant background check. I-594 will prevent someone from buying a gun at a garage sale. She did not object to a law-abiding citizen buying at gun at a garage sale, she did object to a convicted felon or someone convicted of domestic abuse or has a restraining order against them from buying a gun without a background check which I-594 will prevent. I-594 is not the final answer to gun crime and gun violence but it is part of the solution. Packet Page 8 of 342 Charles Tuura, Edmonds, stated guns kill people; 32,000 people were killed by guns in 2011. The Second Amendment refers to a well-regulated militia and he agreed guns need to be regulated well. The Second Amendment was written at a time when guns were needed on the frontier. He relayed our society loves guns; school shootings happen 2-3 times/year which never happened while he was in school 1969 - 1981. I-594 allows guns to be loaned or given away but will close the loophole that allows a felon or someone charged with domestic violence to purchase a gun at a gun show. He encouraged the Mayor and City Council to adopt the resolution supporting I-594, even though this is a voter driven issue. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Tuura’s concerns but said I-594 will not solve that problem. For example, people routinely ignore the law prohibiting the use of a cell phone while driving. People who should not possess guns, criminals and people in bad mental states, do it illegally today. I-594 places a limit on how families, hunters and gun owners must act with regard to their weapons. I-594 states no person shall sell or transfer a firearm unless it is done through a licenses dealer. I-594 allows temporary transfer between spouses or domestic partners if the temporary transfer occurs and the firearm is kept at all times at an established shooting range. He summarized under I-594 a transfer, loaning a gun to someone such as a friend or relative, is illegal unless it is done through a licensed dealer. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the opportunity for public comment. Councilmember Peterson explained he previously introduced this resolution after being contacted by a group of concerned Edmonds residents. Other cities in Washington have passed similar resolutions; the Edmonds City Council has supported initiatives in the past. I-594 is common sense legislation, very straight forward and does not create as many issues as have been implied. The Snohomish and King County Prosecutors support I-594 and there has been strong endorsement from law enforcement because this is a public safety issue. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO SUPPORT I-594. Council President Buckshnis thanked Councilmember Peterson for bringing this forward and Mr. Taraday for the very explanatory packet. She agreed the initiative was very explanatory and addressed transfer within family, etc. She summarized I-594 addresses a loophole that needs to be closed. Councilmember Mesaros was pleased to support I-594, commenting there are a number of opportunities for transfers that are not intended to happen. For example, currently an individual can put an ad in the paper to sell a firearm, not knowing whether the intent or qualifications of the buyer would be in question if a background check were conducted. I-594 is one way to stop the illegal sale of firearms. Councilmember Bloom referred to language in the initiative that excludes transfer to someone while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possess the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law. She commented that seems to be contrary to what some are people saying; it seemed to say that it was okay to loan a firearm to someone for hunting as long as they have the required licenses and are not prohibited from using a firearm. Mr. Taraday stated Councilmember Bloom’s reference was to page 227 of the packet, paragraph 4f, a lengthy list of exceptions. He was not an expert on I-594 but it clearly contains references to hunting, spouse or domestic partners; he was unclear whether the exemption Councilmember Bloom cited applied only to hunting with spouses or domestic partners. The first exemption applies to a transfer to immediate family member which the subsection limits to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, Packet Page 9 of 342 grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, etc. Any transfer to an immediate family member is exempt from I-594. Student Representative Eslami commented a year ago after the Sandy Hook shooting, there was a rumor at Edmonds-Woodway High School about a student possibly bringing a gun to school. Since then, students are not allowed to bring backpacks to assemblies. He summarized he likes to have his backpack during an assembly to get work done and does not want to have to worry about guns while at school. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINED. 11. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE: 1) AN AMENDMENT TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CREATING A NEW WESTGATE MIXED USE ZONE AND RELATED DESIGN STANDARDS; AND 2) AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP CHANGING THE BN, BC AND BC-EW ZONES IN THE WESTGATE COMMERCIAL AREA TO A NEW WESTGATE MIXED USE ZONE DESIGNATION. THE WESTGATE COMMERCIAL AREA CONSISTS OF THE BN, BC AND BC-EW ZONES NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF SR-104 (EDMONDS WAY) AND 100TH AVE W Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board’s proposal includes two distinct actions: 1. Establishment of new zone (Westgate Mixed Use) 2. Rezoning of commercial properties in the Westgate area to WMU He displayed maps showing the boundaries of the Westgate study area and the existing zoning (BN- Neighborhood Business, BC-Community Business and BC-EW-Community Business-Edmonds Way). The current building height limits are 25 feet in BN, 30 feet in BC and 45 feet in BC-EW. He displayed a drawing of the area covered by zoning map amendment and reviewed the proposal features: • No expansion of the existing commercial area • Additional intensity of development within the commercial area • “Hybrid zone” mixture of traditional regulations (uses, setback) and form-based elements not regulated in standard zones (requirements for amenities and open spaces, building types and locations) • Mix of building heights dependent on location and topography, 2 – 4 story maximum • “Green Factor” landscape system • Additional protection for surrounding slopes and trees/vegetation • Supporting traffic analysis – no reduction in level of service (LOS) (Note that analysis was done at higher level of development than currently proposed) In response to the question Why Westgate, Mr. Chave explained the proposal is a response to a number of issues and trends: • Growth. Growth and development is a fact of life in the Puget Sound region, including Edmonds. The choice made in Edmonds has been to focus growth in existing commercial/multifamily areas rather than expand those areas or rezone adjacent areas. • Demography. The population is aging and needs new housing opportunities (e.g. for different life stages and housing needs/desires). Current housing choices in Edmonds can be improved by offering more variety and styles. Different housing types also enable the younger generation to locate in the community instead of moving out. • Environment. Local communities have relatively constrained options for dealing with issues such as transportation and climate change. Land use such as encouraging transit-oriented development and increasing the mix of uses in compact, defined areas, can help transportation choices – the environment. This was a key point made by Forterra – a partner in the project, who also provided a letter of support. Encouraging low impact development techniques helps treat stormwater on site. Packet Page 10 of 342 He highlighted the Westgate Code discussion up to this point: • Council public hearing on August 4, 2014 • Process has included 50+ meetings with 3 Planning Board public hearing and several City Council meetings • Initial phases included broad advertising and public open houses/design charrettes • Extensive iterative review o Many changes and adjustment have been made to the original UW ideas during the Planning Board and Council review, and in response to public comments. He reviewed key changes: • The plan’s emphasis has been shifted for the adjoining streets/highway to the four quadrants that make up the Westgate commercial area • The overall proposal is a hybrid approach, combining traditional and form-based elements. Provides for opportunities while not mandating that new development conform rigidly to certain minimum building heights or requiring that all buildings be pushed up against the sidewalk lines. Significant amounts of open space and amenity space are required, as well as pedestrian and non- motorized circulation within each of the four quadrants of the Westgate commercial area. • Instead of development of up to 5 stories, buildings are now caped in many places to 2 or 3 stories with an opportunity to obtain 4 stories where the nearby slopes are higher, or where no residences are nearby • Street setback have been increased from the original 8 feet to 12 feet to provide a wider street interface and to assure that, if needed, turn pockets can be provided for traffic access. Council has had some discussion about increasing this setback to 20 feet. • The intersection of SR-104 and 100th Ave W has a significant step-back requirement and “entry” emphasis radiating from the intersection, to assure that a sense of place is provided at this intersection. He reviewed several photographs of buildings and uses and spaces created behind buildings a similar area in Hillsboro. With regard to building heights, he explained buildings vary in height depending on location and a protected slope line keeps buildings off slopes, retaining vegetative buffer from adjoining residences. He displayed a map identifying the height of the slopes as well as a map that was prepared to identify the protected slope lines. He referred to the Walgreen’s building which was built into the slope and required a high retaining wall; that could not occur under this proposal. The protected slope line is not expected to impact development because it reflects the existing slopes. He displayed a map that identifies parcels eligible for 2, 3 and 4 story heights. He clarified there is a point system to obtain four stories that requires a combination of things such as increased green building features, additional amenity or open space, larger retail area, etc. A stepback is required on the fourth story. With regard to traffic and setbacks: • A traffic study was completed for proposed changes at Westgate • Traffic study shows no overall impact on level of service. Any future development will be analyzed for detail traffic impacts (e.g. turning movements, access points) as actual development occurs • 12 foot setback preserves options; SR-104 study in late 2014/early 2015 will identify any additional recommendations for improvements. Council is considering increasing the street setback to 20 feet until the study is done (Bartells submitted letter expressing their concerns with 20 foot setback) • Setback requirements can be revisited if needed Packet Page 11 of 342 Mr. Chave relayed Bartell CEO’s indication that the 20-foot setback would have a significant impact on redevelopment of their property. Bartell is in the process of acquiring all the property around their store. They are interest in phasing redevelopment that would move their store to the intersection to make it more visible. Mr. Chave reviewed an aerial photograph of the existing QFC and PCC buildings on lot lines. The PCC property line splits the large parking area. QFC’s parking is largely in front but nearby parking areas are also used by people shopping at QFC. The proposed code includes the following with regard to parking: • Proposed overall blended parking rate for commercial space is 1/500 sf. Blended rate is for all commercial uses, rather than each use having a different parking standard • Residential parking is 1.2 for small units, 1.75 for units larger than 900 sf • Current usage assumes a shared parking area, not just provided on-site (e.g. QFC property has 1 space per 475 sf; PCC property has 1 space per 486 sf. • Comparisons with other cities show many employ blended parking rates; many at 1/500 (Mountlake Terrace, Bothell, Issaquah, Redmond, Kent), others at 1/400 (Bothell, Kent) or more. Some have no commercial requirement (Everett, Renton). Rates also vary by location within jurisdiction. • These are minimum parking standards. Example: McDonald’s provided 42 spaces on site, only 23 were required by code Mr. Chave provided drawings of Westgate and downtown to illustrate streetscape and scale: • Westgate o 80 feet of right-of-way on SR-104 o 10 feet set aside within the right-of-way for sidewalk, planting strip o 12-foot setback o Approximately 104 feet between buildings • Downtown Edmonds o 30 building heights o 60 foot right-of-way o Sidewalks, travel lanes and parking are within the right-of-way To address the comment that the proposal will produce a canyon effect, he scaled the SR-104 right-of- way to the size of downtown. Although the buildings are taller in Westgate, with the additional right-of- way width and setback, the scale of buildings to the right-of-way and overall feeling of the streetscape will not differ greatly from downtown. With regard to amenity vs. open space: • Clarified the intent to provide both amenity and open space within the area, with a 15% independent requirement for each • Amenity space must be public, while open space can be public or private. In either case, each has its own requirement • Note: No other zone in the City has anything like these requirements He displayed an aerial photograph of the McDonalds site and provided details to illustrate amenity/open space versus setbacks: • 190 feet deep • 400 feet wide • Approx. 50 foot old front setback (actual - which includes 5-foot landscaping strip) • Approx. 50 foot non-developed slope area Packet Page 12 of 342 • 76,000 total lot area • 11,400 - 15% amenity space required • 11,400 - 15% open space • 20,000 protected slope area 26.3% of total site • 4,800 front 12-foot setback 6.3% of total site • 8,000 front 20-foot setback 10.5% of total site • Development scenarios Existing Code New Code o Minimum landscape/open/amenity area 8,000 31,400 o Are available for building 62,000 44,600 o Total potential floor area 124,000 133,800 With regard to commercial requirements, the various building types were clarified to indicate commercial requirements, especially regarding the commercial mixed use types: Building Type Residential Office Uses Retail 1. Rowhouse Any floor Not allowed Not allowed 2. Courtyard Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 3. Stacked Dwellings Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 4. Live-Work Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 5. Loft Mixed Use Not ground floor Any floor Any floor 6. Side Court Mixed Use Not ground floor Any floor Ground floor only 7. Commercial Mixed Use Not ground floor Not ground floor Any floor Commercial buildings can be located anywhere in the Westgate area. The area around the intersection is reserved for commercial mixed use. Residential only buildings are on the periphery in areas that do not front on SR-104 and are either adjacent to residential areas or protected slopes. He displayed the original and a revised building type map, commented the building types have been updated to provide for more choices. With regard to building design, he explained: • A series of design standards have been added, addressing such things as massing and articulation, orientation to the street, ground level details, pedestrian facades, blank walls and ground floor ceiling heights. • Note that any 4th story “must be stepped back 10 feet from a building façade facing SR-104 or 100th Avenue West” (page 27) He displayed photographs of the features of typical commercial type buildings that have been integrated into the Westgate plan. With regard to large format retail, he explained: • Incentives have been added for large-format retail uses (e.g. groceries, drug stores) with the potential for an extra 4th floor plus an extra 5 feet of height granted if a large store is part of the building • Intent is for large format retail to be retained; note existing leases/ownership and Bartell’s interest in expanding their investment (QFC and Bartell own their properties; PCC and Walgreens have long term leases) • Bartells has expressed concern that a 20-foot setback may have a “significant impact on their ability to redevelop” Councilmember Petso referred to the aerial photograph of QFC parking lot and property line, recalling from an earlier presentation that the parking area owned by QFC only provides 1 space per 475 square feet but including the shared parking area to the north, their functional parking is 1 space per 350. Mr. Chave recalled the parking ratios for QFC and PCC were 1 for 350 and 1 for 370. Councilmember Petso observed the PCC parking area to the east is not on their property Mr. Chave agreed. Packet Page 13 of 342 Councilmember Petso asked whether the residents who spoke at the Planning Board regarding a 4-story building’s impact on their property were notified of the change to allow an additional 5 feet of height for large format retail. Mr. Chave advised no specific notice had been done. The only place that would be a factor would be the southeast quadrant. Councilmember Petso asked whether residents in that quadrant expressed concerns at the Planning Board. Mr. Chave explained the photographs residents displayed of views from their properties illustrated the dense vegetation. Although the buildings were a concern, their primary concern was the trees and landscaping on the protected slope. A large retail presence is required to obtain the additional 5 feet; that was unlikely to occur in the southeast quadrant because the properties are shallow especially along SR-104. There likely would not be much impact if that area were exempted from the additional 5 feet. Councilmember Petso observed on properties with narrow frontage such as Ivar’s, the curb cut and parking garage entrance would leave little room for street front commercial She asked whether a minimum frontage was required before a curb cut/parking garage entrance was allowed. Mr. Chave answered there was a 12-foot setback, amenity space, and open space; they would only be allowed what would fit on the property. Councilmember Petso provided an example she saw on Greenwood Avenue and 143rd in Seattle where the parking garage entrance was on 143rd; if that entrance had been on the Greenwood Avenue side, there would have been little space for commercial. Mr. Chave answered one of significant requirements in the code is that parking areas be connected. If one property is developing, they will have to make connections to the adjoining properties. That potentially means there will be less curb cuts, more internal circulation and avoids a line of garage entrances. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Stephen Clifton, Edmonds, responded to comments he has read online and statements made during a recent Town Hall meeting that this process is City staff and mayor driven which is factually incorrect. Those types of comments personalize the issue and take away from the real issue, making a decision on the merits of the proposal. The request to initiate neighborhood business center plans for the Westgate and Five Corners commercial areas came from the Planning Board and the Economic Development Commission (EDC) as seen on page 3 of the 2009 Annual Report presented to the City Council on January 19, 2010. On March 16, 2010, the City Council approved Resolution 1224 that stated the City Council shall act on the work of the EDC and its recommendations including but not limited to initiating neighborhood business center plans for Five Corners, Perrinville and Westgate. On August 3, 2010 following a presentation on the recommendation by the EDC, City Council authorized staff to initiate agreements with the UW to proceed on the study. The UW was intended to be a consultant to facilitate process. The City Council subsequently approved funding for a market feasibility analysis. On June 21, 2011 following a presentation by UW representatives, the City Council approved forwarding the Westgate plan to the Planning Board for further discussion. The role of City staff was to oversee the contract with the UW and to help facilitate the process. This process has never been a mayor and staff driven process; in fact Mayor Earling was not even in his position when this process began. Staff has checked in with the Council to obtain authorization to continue moving forward and this process has been discussed during City Council retreats. Charles Tuura, Edmonds, commented no matter how much lipstick is put on it, this idea is pig. He questioned the traffic study, recalling the backup last Friday caused by rerouting traffic on SR-104 to work on a gas line. A project such as this would require lane closures to accommodate trucks. He also questioned where the children in the planned 1600 units would play and go to school. His neighborhood is transitioning with younger families moving in to raise their families and unwind from the rat race that is being proposed. He feared adding businesses at Westgate would kill downtown businesses. He questioned the transparency of this process; he first heard about it in August and few in his neighborhood had heard about it. He suggested a vote of the people instead of a Council decision, allow residents to decide whether they wanted to have an Edmonds kind of day or a Kirkland kind of nightmare. He Packet Page 14 of 342 summarized growth was inevitable but needed to be managed. To the comment that this type of development was successful in DC, he suggested it was successful for the developers, the owners and the real estate lobby, not the residents. To grow economically the City needs to nurture existing businesses and stop the personal war on marijuana businesses. Councilmember Petso read comments from Trudy Abdo, Edmonds, who requested her comments be read into the record. As a Westgate resident, she was concerned about the development plans. First, the limited public notice to the area and the push to pass the plan with little public input raised her suspicions of the plan. Second, with regarding traffic and parking; getting to QFC and Bartells is frustrating; this plan proposes to decrease the required parking. She suggested one parking space for each bedroom, noting residents would need cars because they cannot walk to work or take the bus. She questioned an effort to make Westgate a walkable community when there was a highway through the middle. The traffic study should take place in the afternoon, 4:30 p.m. on a Friday would be best, not a Tuesday morning at 10:00 a.m. She will shop elsewhere if traffic and parking becomes more difficult. Third, she feared Edmonds Way would look like a canyon and/or wind tunnel if 4-story buildings are allowed to be built close to the highway. Quality apartments set back would be much nicer. She suggested more consideration, planning and public input were needed before the plan was approved. Mayor Earling advised received written comments had been received from Bob Throndsen, a resident a few blocks from Westgate, that listed 12 issues/questions/ concerns. Forterra also submitted a letter of support for the proposal. Tim Tuura, Edmonds, a Westgate resident, voiced his opposition to the proposed zoning change for the Westgate area. Mixed use means 1-2 levels of underground parking, 1 level of storefront retail with 2-3 stories of retail above, a concept he is familiar with as the company he works for builds this in Seattle. During construction it will be necessary to cone off one lane of SR-104 for truck to access the site. He has watched the traffic level of service in the Westgate intersection diminish significantly over the past five years due to hourly arrivals and departures of two ferries, often reaching near gridlock in the summer. He summarized coning off lanes was asking for trouble. Tom Crichide, Edmonds, was opposed to the proposed plan, commenting traffic in the area was already difficult; QFC’s parking lot is jammed on the weekend. He agreed access for construction vehicles, parking for the trades and providing space to work will create problems. As a driver for an electrical distributor he encounters these issues in similar type developments. He suggested the traffic survey be conducted over a year due to different traffic patterns in summer versus winter. Matt Waldron, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their work. Due to its great access to transportation, the Westgate corners are prime for development. They are slightly disjoined so a redo of the geography and the architecture would be a good thing for all. The desired result would be an urban-like hub that maximizes and monetizes as much space as possible. He favored a broad liberal discussion of how the Westgate area can be opened to development so all the big ideas can be considered including modernization, innovation and improving the space. Few great things have occurred from thinking small. There are good and talented people on staff who have the training to help the City grow and develop properly. He urged the Council to finish this process that has been going on for years, and then redirect their focus on the waterfront and train problem. He suggested watching the video on My Edmonds New TV. Maggie Fima, Edmonds, previously on the Shoreline and King County Councils, recalled in 1994 when GMA was being implemented, people would often say they did not want any more development. When asked why did they did not support development in the city when they supported GMA that directed infrastructure and development to the existing urban area to protect rural areas, the number one comment was often they did not want any more traffic. She summarized citizens were saying they did not want Packet Page 15 of 342 more growth because the existing growth was not being addressed. She spoke in favor of the Westgate plan, maybe not exactly as proposed, but directing growth to the existing urban areas. She appreciated the work done by the Council, Planning Board, staff and other members of the public; it is consistent with GMA, regional policies and the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Land use and transportation must be done together to avoid terrible sprawl, traffic and environmental degradation. Single use, single story development at prime intersections should be a thing of the past; it does not work. She was hopeful this plan or a close version will pass and as the City moves toward implementation, she encouraged the Council and staff to incentivize design that supports all age groups and family types especially children and teens, increased safety for pedestrians as well as identified and proven ways to decrease crime through design, and enhanced transit service with frequent all day and late hour bus service. She urged the Council to work to pass this legislation so that the GMA can be implemented. Neil Tibbott, Edmonds, a Planning Board Member, spoke in favor of the Westgate plan which has been vetted over nearly five years. The plan promotes accessibility and is sensible. During the vetting process, the Planning Board and staff listened carefully. For example, after residents expressed concern with the slopes below their houses, staff analyzed the slopes and topography and returned with suggestions. A lengthy discussion with the Planning Board followed that resulted in the current proposal. This plan promotes accessibility via the availability of public transportation and proximity to parks including the proposed playfields. This plan is sensible; it does not require immediate action by any landowner or developer and likely will evolve over a 20 year period. It is safe to assume little would occur in 3-7 years as property is acquired, plans developed and proposals presented to the City. Implementing this plan does not mean that this kind of mixed use development will be right for any other part of the City; this is not a one size fits all development. A great deal of work has been done to articulate a plan for this area. He urged the Council to support the Westgate plan and provide new opportunities for housing, employment and access to transportation. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed the Planning Board had done a lot of good work. He referred to concerns he expressed at previous meetings about traffic and congestion and the impact of increased density. Residents in the surrounding area want to maintain the two grocery stores. He suggested consideration be given to the reality of what currently exists and whether it was practical to be as enthusiastic about the change as Mr. Tibbott or better to look at what could be done to accomplish the neighborhood’s wishes. Careen Nordling-Rubenkonig, Edmonds, thanked Mr. Waldron for his comments and agreed with fellow Planning Board Member Tibbott’s comments. She has shopped at Westgate while living in 5 different neighbors during the 28 years she has lived in Edmonds. She described shopping at Westgate as a single person, as a family with young children and now as empty nesters. She has patronized multiple businesses in the four quadrants. Edmonds, like her, is at a different place in life. She would like Westgate to be healthy and to thrive in this day and age, to meet residents’ needs from cradle to grave, to guide growth and increase in value via this plan. She has great memories of shopping at Westgate and looked forward to new experiences and a new approach. Bob Rinehart, Edmonds, commented there is a lot of noise and fog in an issue like this and there is always an imbalance in the levels of knowledge and understanding. The key balance is the knowledge the City Council has. Public input is essential, critical and invaluable but it has its place. He lives near Westgate and frequently visits seven of the stores. He cautioned not to operate from a fear factor, relaying he found this an exciting opportunity. Although some communities have gone the wrong way due to growth, the core of an equal number of cities has been preserved. He did not view the plan as a leap/lurch into rampant urbanization or unfettered sprawl; it is a step in the right direction to address population and demographic changes and sources of revenue need to be identified to address the continued increase in the cost of city services. Councilmembers are elected/selected by a majority; he trusted the Council to make a good decision. Packet Page 16 of 342 John Dewhirst, Edmonds, a resident of the Westgate area, agreed with much of what’s been said. This an opportunity that will open the door to future development. Redevelopment has to start somewhere and he viewed this as a good start. He envisioned this would help preserve downtown from development pressure, much of which did not belong downtown. Areas like Westgate and Five Corners can syphon off that pressure by accommodating neighborhood commercial uses and preserve the specialty, tourist, restaurant, art gallery environment downtown. Areas outside the bowl deserve same the treatment that has been given to downtown; there need to be more walkability and more target areas to walk to. Most of the traffic on SR-104 is not Edmonds traffic but regional traffic; holding up development based on regional traffic is the wrong approach. He urged the Council to approve the plan. Rod Shipley, Edmonds, said he currently travels through Westgate ten times a day. He did not share the same views as many others regarding traffic concerns. As a young family, he would like to see higher quality places and more walkable spaces, not 1960s development with parking lots on the street front. He has been part of the process for long time; the most frequent request in the surveys and public engagement process has been walkability and more public spaces. This plan is a way to get there. He encouraged the Council to support the plan. Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, Chair of the EDC, but speaking as citizen, explained the EDC originally proposed initiating a neighborhood business/residential plan for Westgate in January 2010 and has been involved in each step of the process. More than 60 public meetings have been held during last 4½ years where Westgate has been discussed, including 8 City Council meetings since July 22, 2014. The Westgate process has been well documented on the City’s website. The record demonstrates there has been considerable community input regarding Westgate. The Council supported the Westgate redevelopment concept at its inception and in 2010 appropriated money for the UW Green Futures Lab to create a public process for the redevelopment of Westgate. Living near Westgate, his family has patronized Westgate businesses 2-3 times/week for the past 25 years. They have not had the same negative, fearful experiences of those who oppose redevelopment; they are not afraid to cross SR-104 or 100th or to walk on the sidewalks. Edmonds citizens living outside the bowl deserve amenities similar to those in the bowl, including a lifestyle center and a walkable community with easy access to restaurants, services, housing, transportation and open and amenity spaces. Westgate is the gateway to the downtown and waterfront; how the gateway portrays Edmonds needs to be improved and unplanned and haphazard development can no longer be tolerated. The proposed plan for redevelopment of Westgate is sound, and takes into consideration protection of the environment, creation of amenity and open space, green building standards, enhanced neighborhood walkability and improves one of the community’s important neighborhoods. He encouraged the Council to enact the proposed mixed use and zoning map changes to accommodate Westgate redevelopment. Tracy Bower, Edmonds, a resident who lives a few blocks from PCC, said she only learned about this process two days ago. She was uncertain where it had been advertised, she learned about from Edmonds moms on Facebook. She was unsure how she felt about the proposal but Westgate has been working fine as is and the businesses are not having problems. QFC and PCC are always crowded and she often has to circle the lot for parking. She was unsure how apartments and more housing would affect that area. She questioned where the children will go to school; there are already 30 children in classroom and schools have been closed due to finding. A lot of things are being swept under the rug so builders and planners can benefit financially. Redevelopment is not really needed; the storefronts and new buildings may look prettier but they unnecessary and will make the area more crowded. She remarked on changes in downtown Edmonds; going to the beach this past Sunday required parking blocks away. She summarized there were too many people coming into Edmonds, it is not a fun, quaint town anymore and is turning into a big city. Packet Page 17 of 342 Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to the previous speaker’s comment that QFC is always busy, explaining QFC has been endeavoring for years to get additional space to accommodate more business. He agreed QFC does have inadequate parking at times but he always manages to find a parking place when visiting QFC and Bartell twice a week. QFC could build underground parking but needs residential above to make that feasible. He has attended the School Superintendent monthly luncheon for the past eight years, not because his children or grandchildren are in school but because most of his property taxes go to the school district. To the comment about schools closing due to funding, school were closed due to insufficient enrollment in those areas, not due to funding. He emphasized the Westgate plan will not happen overnight and is likely a 20 year plan. The Bartell representative indicated their plans are several years off. He reiterated Councilmembers are elected to listen to the public; however, he estimated the comment at public hearings represents only .1% of population. He urged the Council to make a decision soon to approve the plan. Councilmember Petso read an email from Phil Lovell, Edmonds, Planning Board Member, expressing his support for the Planning Board’s study, report and recommendation and requesting that the Council approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan and accompanying zoning revision to the Westgate area. No member of the Council or public should be questioning the degree or depth of information, background and public input on Westgate; doing so demonstrates either complete disrespect for the process or complete ignorance of what is going on in the City. The subject of potential neighborhood zoning revisions including the Westgate area have been in discussion and development for the past five years. Council Resolution 1224 mandated this process. Both the Planning Board and EDC have been united in the study and publication of data comprising the current plan. Results of this work have been thoroughly summarized in the EDC’s 16-page white paper of July 16, 2014 which details the chronological history of governmental and public process on this matter. Ad hoc Town Hall meetings on Westgate are not needed to gather more input from the public and the Council has abundant material on which to base sound findings and action. He urged the Council to approve the Planning Board’s recommendation regarding the Westgate area. Mayor Earling closed the public participation of the public hearing. Council President Buckshnis expressed her appreciation for the work done by staff done answering questions. This item will return to the Council for action on November 3. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 12. MAYOR EARLING PRESENTS TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AND CITIZENS HIS 2015 RECOMMENDED CITY BUDGET Mayor Earling presented the following: Members of the City Council, staff and citizens of Edmonds: I am pleased to present to you the 2015 Edmonds City Budget. Every budget year provides a new adventure. 2015 is no exception. As you will recall in my first budget for 2013, with the then current trying economic conditions, we had to make dramatic budget reductions amounting to $1.5M from the General Fund. In turn, with an improving economy and careful budget management during 2013, we stabilized a bit and were able to make improvements for this year including; reviving a street repaving program, purchasing some one time equipment upgrades and adding a few new staff positions. Packet Page 18 of 342 The very good news for the region and nation this past year is the economy continues to improve. The same is true in Edmonds. Our sales tax receipts continue to grow, property values continue to stabilize and improve which creates additional revenue and, for Edmonds, we have strong increases in home construction as well as several commercial projects. The economic outlook is quite good. As I said in my opening comments, every budget year is a new adventure, and this year is no exception. As we let you know a few weeks ago, Fire District One advised us our rates would be going up because of their negotiated union agreement. We expected an increase and there were rumors of a number, but nothing definitive until we received an invoice on August 21 for two-years of retroactive collection (which is allowed in the contract) totaling $1.67M. In addition to the $1.67M, we will have cost increases for 2015 which will not be determined until 2015 union negotiations are completed. We have, however, added a placeholder of $978,000 for that cost in the budget. These changes dramatically alter our current year projections and, depending on the 2015 increase, will also have long- term financial implications for our community. This is our new yearly adventure! We have been meeting with FD 1 to better understand the increases and identify what other options are available to us. We are working to reduce the $1.67M and I am hopeful we will be successful. While our current FD 1 projections have altered our financial projections there is still much good news to share. As mentioned earlier, with the continued strong regional economy we will be able to absorb increased costs in health care, staff wage increases, Fire District costs and still make substantial increases from the dismal reductions forced by the "Great Recession" at the end of the last decade and the beginning of the current decade. Our projected 2014 revenues are 3.6% higher than the 2013 actual revenues. And 2015 projected revenues are 2.1% higher than 2014 revenues. The Snohomish County Assessor indicates expected home values will increase 10.8% in 2015. As mentioned earlier, sales tax revenue continues to grow, led by automotive sales and construction. Finally, our 2015 utilities revenue are projected to be 2.1% higher than 2014. With the increased obligation from FD 1, the one major and frustrating decision I have made is choosing not to add any newly-created staffing positions for 2015. There are a few positions we added during development of the 2014 Budget and I am recommending we continue these positions into 2015 and one position I am expanding from a ½ time position to a ¾ time position. I am not comfortable in adding new positions with the long-term financial implications that entails. While I acknowledge we do have some new staffing needs, especially in public safety, being cautious for a year is the prudent decision. The focus for 2015 will once again be on one-time improvements. So what progress can we expect? There are several important pieces of Public Works infrastructure as well as improvements in the way in which we can provide more and better information access for the public and staff. In addition, there will active work on many of our capital facility projects. As you know, this year for the first time in five years, we began repaving our streets with a budget of $1.2M. This next year I have increased that budget to $1.56M. We need to be as aggressive as possible with the repaving because streets not repaved will continue to deteriorate. We need to catch up. At some point, the community will need to grapple with how, in the long term, we maintain our ongoing resurfacing needs. One of the other ongoing issues for the community is how to quiet the train horn blasts from each train as they approach our at-grade crossings at Main and Dayton. For 2015, I have included $50,000 for the engineering and design of a Track Side Warning System. Such a system increases crossing safeguards Packet Page 19 of 342 and has only a localized horn signal. Ultimately construction and completion will cost several hundred thousand dollars. Our Public Works Capital Projects will continue. Our staff continues to be successful in gaining needed grant dollars. While water line, sewer line, lift stations and traffic safety modifications are not very glamorous, the ongoing replacements and upgrades are necessary to maintain infrastructure and the quality of life we expect. Also in the works for 2015 are significant improvements such as the major project at Highway 99 and 228th SW, important improvements for traffic flow in the intersection of 212th and 76th, and two crucial Safe Routes to School sidewalk projects. We will continue to improve public access to information by upgrading public information software which will make it easier for the public to follow Council meeting agendas and retrieve related data. In addition Development Services will digitize planning maps, plans and documents for easier access to historical files and to reduce the number of public records requests. We will also continue updating our City Code. The budget also includes monies to complete important work of the two consultants hired under the Community Development/Economic Development Department for the Strategic Action Plan and Communications. Next year our Parks Department will see several major projects move forward. Besides our continued success in obtaining grants, Edmonds has gained statewide recognition for the quality of our parks. Among the projects scheduled next year are; the completion of the City Park Spray Pad, which will be part of the major upgrade in the children’s play area; a complete overhaul and repair of the Fishing Pier; and opening the new Woodway Athletic Complex in coordination with the Edmonds School District. Council will recall I set aside $400K last year for projects they may be interested in which were not included in the budget. With the cautious approach to next year’s budget, I am including $250K for such projects. One cautionary note I must put before you is the anticipated, but unknown, yearly increase still to come from Fire District 1. Our Finance Director has expressed concern that the ongoing increase of, for instance, the $978,000 which we have a placeholder for in next year will have long-term consequences which could begin to drain the reserves we have so carefully built and desire to maintain. To counter-balance that drain we must very thoughtfully seek new revenues and look for cost efficiencies. Yes, of course the economy has improved. Yes, automobile sales are strong. Yes, we have made dramatic improvements in our sales tax income. Yes, real estate excise tax has been very good. And yes, residential and commercial construction has been vigorous. But we must remember, as the economy shifts, this revenue will also shift. In 2015, with the stronger economy, we can look forward to: important one-time expenditures to improve our city's infrastructure; upgrade our technology; create more effective channels to handle communications with the community; continue to maintain and improve parks and open spaces; and the preservation of the quality of life our citizens expect and deserve. In conclusion, I look forward to working with the Council and staff to bring the 2015 Budget to conclusion. I would be remiss if I did not mention the fine work our new Finance Director, his staff and our Director's had in formulating the budget put before you this evening. There has been compromise, hard work, and innovation on all of their parts. Packet Page 20 of 342 Mayor Earling advised his message and the budget will be available on the City’s website tomorrow; copies of the budget will be distributed to Council tonight. He looked forward to further discussions regarding the budget. 13. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2014 BUDGET Finance Director Scott James reviewed the third quarter budget amendment: • Six decision packages • Four decision packages have been previously discussed by Council • Two decision packages are new for Council consideration • $59,315 in new revenues to pay toward $105,942 in new expenditures • Ending fund balance decreases by $46,627 He displayed Exhibit D, Specific Accounts Amended for Decision Packages on pages 9 and 10. He reviewed Exhibit E, Balance Amendment Summary: Fund Number Revenue Expense Change in Ending Fund Balance 001 6,850 (6,850) 129 9,653 (9,653) 423 59,315 89,439 (30,124) Total Change 59,315 105,942 (46,627) He reviewed the budget amendments: • New Items o Police Officers contract settled o Temporary Finance employee to provide coverage during Accounting Supervisor’s maternity leave • Items previously discussed: o Add to funds allocated in 2014 for Police Department video security monitoring system to allow expansion of the system to the Court, Public Works yard and WWTP o Closeout on SR 99 International District Enhancements o Treatment plant outfall emergency repair o Equipment Maintenance overtime He displayed Exhibit A: Budget Amendment Summary, Exhibit B: Budget Amendments by Revenue, and Exhibit C: Budget Amendments by Expenditure. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY PETERSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3979, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3973 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 14. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT FOR CG ZONES IN HIGHWAY 99 AREA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO EXTEND FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Manager Rob Chave advised this ordinance was drafted following Council action. City Attorney Jeff Taraday distributed a revised version of the ordinance that adds a sunset provision in Section 2 that Packet Page 21 of 342 reads, “This ordinance shall be in effect for one year from the effective date described herein. On the one year anniversary of the effective date it shall cease to have effect.” COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3980, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.60 TO AMEND USE REQUIREMENTS TO REMOVE SECOND STORY COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS WITHIN CG DEVELOPMENTS. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised she was absent when this issue was discussed and was unable to participate. She has been working on issues related to Highway 99 for the past three years and has several amendments to propose that will address commercial and parking requirements in the code language. If the amendments are approved, she will propose corresponding changes to the ordinance title and whereas sections. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND 16.60.020 OF ATTACHMENT A BY DELETING SUBSECTION B, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADDING A NEW SECTION B, TO READ, “REPORTING. THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR SHALL PROVIDE A REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY FEBRUARY 1, 2016 TO SUMMARIZE THE 2015 DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FOR THE CG AND CG2 DISTRICTS IN THE HIGHWAY 99 AREA, ESPECIALLY RELATED TO THE LAND USES AND VEHICLE PARKING. THE REPORT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW LAND USE AND PARKING ASPECTS OF THIS CHAPTER ARE WORKING.” Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained she did not feel a sunset date was sufficient and recommended a more in-depth review. Further, if the sunset date was not monitored, the code would revert back to the old zoning code. She was uncertain why a sunset date was being imposed when most zoning changes did not have a sunset date. Councilmember Petso suggested tabling this matter and allowing Councilmember Fraley-Monillas to provide her proposed amendments in writing. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO TABLE THIS ITEM. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she will distribute her proposed amendments to the Council. 15. CONTRACT DISCUSSION (AND/OR RENEWAL) WITH LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC (LIGHTHOUSE) Council President Buckshnis recalled when this issue was discussed in June, the Council decided to draft procedures and a process to evaluate the City Attorney services. The evaluation was created, a process was agreed upon and the evaluation was provided to Councilmembers, the Mayor and Directors. Written evaluations were received from Councilmembers and the numeric evaluations very favorable. The administration did not follow the process and a verbal evaluation was conducted with Mayor Earling, Mr. Taraday, past Council President Councilmember Petso and herself. Since the process not followed correctly, it will have to be reevaluated. The evaluation is a separate issue to be addressed next year. The evaluations were very favorable; concerns expressed by the Mayor and Directors were addressed. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO RENEW THE CONTRACT WITH LIGHTHOUSE. Packet Page 22 of 342 Councilmember Peterson suggested Lighthouse provide a hierarchy of how Lighthouse prioritizes their time related to Council, Mayor and Staff requests. For the public’s knowledge, he explained the City Attorney is hired by the City Council, not the Mayor. Council President Buckshnis advised a study session is scheduled to discuss whether one Councilmember can make a request of the City Attorney, etc. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented although this discussion is good but it has nothing to do with renewal of the Lighthouse contract. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 16. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to future agenda. 17. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling remarked it had been a joy to work on the budget and the directors were glad it was over. 18. COUNCIL COMMENTS Student Representative Eslami said he was glad he an opportunity to comment tonight and looked forward to providing more comments in the future. Councilmember Peterson thanked Mayor Earling for holding the Train Town Hall last Thursday; there was a lively conversation among the at least 150 people who attended. He looked forward to the follow- up meeting regarding specific transportation issues. Councilmember Bloom reported on the exceptional transportation meeting she attended presented by 8-80 Cities’ Director, Gil Penalosa. The meeting’s focus was on people not cars. She relayed two important takeaways: 1. The name of the company is 8-80 Cities because he wants people to consider transportation and walkability in terms of an 8 year old and an 80 year old they care about. 2. There should be a physical barrier or grade level change between cars, sidewalks and bike lanes; in other words, sharrows don’t work. She suggested considering that when reviewing the Sunset Avenue Walkway Plan. Councilmember Mesaros reported Sean Ardussi will make a presentation to the Council on October 21 entitled, Economic Evaluation of the Regional Impacts for the Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point. He advised he will be on vacation the next two weeks. Council President Buckshnis thanked Mayor Earling and staff for the budget. A study session is scheduled on the budget as well as two public hearing. She suggested adding a COLA increase for Mayor Earling as a decision packet and invited Councilmembers to talk to her about it. The Council should consider the increase even if the City does not have a salary commission in place. Council President Buckshnis reminded of the scarecrow contest; her scarecrow is a NHL player. 19. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:16 p.m. Packet Page 23 of 342    AM-7193     4. B.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/14/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Nori Jacobson Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #210891 through #211017 dated October 9, 2014 for $577,599.59. 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:2014 Revenue: Expenditure:577,599.59 Fiscal Impact: Claims $577,599.59 Attachments claim cks 10-09-14 Project Numbers 10-09-14 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 10/09/2014 12:44 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 10/09/2014 01:34 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/09/2014 02:41 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/09/2014 02:45 PM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 10/09/2014 11:30 AM Packet Page 24 of 342 Final Approval Date: 10/09/2014  Packet Page 25 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210891 10/9/2014 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 339623 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROL MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROL 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 164.24 PARKS MAINT PEST SERVICE339707 PARKS MAINT PEST SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 105.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 9.98 Total :279.22 210892 10/9/2014 068657 ACCOUNTEMPS 41362350 TEMPORARY HELP WEEK ENDING 9/26/14 Temporary help week ending 9/26/14 - C 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 1,740.00 Total :1,740.00 210893 10/9/2014 063863 ADVANCED TRAFFIC PRODUCTS 0000010905 Traffic- Bulldog lll Black H Mounts Traffic- Bulldog lll Black H Mounts 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 896.50 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 85.17 Total :981.67 210894 10/9/2014 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 1020 WWTP- SEPTEMBER JANITORIAL September Janitorial 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 334.00 Total :334.00 210895 10/9/2014 065568 ALLWATER INC 092514039 WWTP - DRINKING WATER water only, no rental 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 38.15 Total :38.15 210896 10/9/2014 063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC TM-144060 Traffic - Yellow Traffic Paint Traffic - Yellow Traffic Paint 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 582.50 1Page: Packet Page 26 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210896 10/9/2014 (Continued)063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC White Traffic Paint 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 290.25 Glass Beads 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 175.00 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 109.32 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 109.92 Total :1,266.99 210897 10/9/2014 001528 AM TEST INC 82698 WWTP - MERCURY TEST sludge metals testing 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 75.00 Total :75.00 210898 10/9/2014 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987648798 WWTP - UNIFORM SERVICE wwtp uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 2.48 wwtp mats (replacement) & towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 163.45 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.24 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 15.52 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1987648799 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 63.11 Total :244.80 210899 10/9/2014 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 79905 Unit EQ93PO - Vehicle Graphics Unit EQ93PO - Vehicle Graphics 511.000.77.594.48.64.00 1,520.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.594.48.64.00 144.40 2Page: Packet Page 27 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,664.4021089910/9/2014 001795 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 210900 10/9/2014 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 83588 2014 FALL SOFTBALL AWARDS SOFTBALL DIAMOND AWARDS 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 144.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 13.68 Total :157.68 210901 10/9/2014 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE0914 Background checks Background checks 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 40.00 Total :40.00 210902 10/9/2014 070803 BITCO SOFTWARE LLC 595 Annual Maintenance Fee Permit Trax, Annual Maintenance Fee Permit Trax, 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 7,300.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 693.50 Total :7,993.50 210903 10/9/2014 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 0061726-IN Unit 454 - Propane Dispenser Repairs Unit 454 - Propane Dispenser Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 429.00 Regulatory Compliance Fees 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 5.25 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 40.76 Fleet Auto Propane 291.5 Gal0790343-IN Fleet Auto Propane 291.5 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 555.65 Fleet Auto Propane 483.3 Gal0791229-IN Fleet Auto Propane 483.3 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 939.82 Total :1,970.48 210904 10/9/2014 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 9180 SWEDISH HOSPITAL INSPECTION 3Page: Packet Page 28 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210904 10/9/2014 (Continued)073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC Swedish Hospital Inspection 001.000.67.532.20.41.00 6,319.00 E1GA/E3GA/E4JA.SERVICES THRU SEPTEMBER 29181 E1GA.Services thru September 2014 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 67.50 E3GA.Services thru September 2014 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 13,396.50 E4JA.Services thru September 2014 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 14,086.50 Total :33,869.50 210905 10/9/2014 071326 BROOKS, LARRY DEAN WOTS BROOKS WOTS BROOKS PRIMED FOR SUCCESS WOTS BROOKS PRIMED FOR SUCCESS 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 750.00 Total :750.00 210906 10/9/2014 067947 BROWNELLS INC 10502646.00 INV#10502646.00 ACCT#00557761 - EDMONDS MAGAZINE SPRING, EXTENDED 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 43.02 SHOTGUN MAG TUBE BRUSH 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 4.82 FIRING PIN RETRACTOR SPRING 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 19.20 Freight 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 15.95 12-16GA 3" SQ PATCHES 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 14.58 RT00557367 - CR RETURNED ITEMRT00557367 MAGAZINE BUTT PLATES RETURNED 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 -9.90 Total :87.67 210907 10/9/2014 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 14187377 WWTP - COPIER CHARGES wwtp - copier rental 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 85.80 4Page: Packet Page 29 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :85.8021090710/9/2014 073029 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 210908 10/9/2014 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 19090 ADVENTURES IN 19090 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING INSTRUCTOR F 19090 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING INSTRUCTOR 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 318.00 Total :318.00 210909 10/9/2014 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN09141008 HELIUM TANK RENTAL FOR GYMNASTICS HELIUM TANK RENTAL FOR GYMNASTICS 001.000.64.575.55.45.00 12.25 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.55.45.00 1.16 WWTP - CYLINDER RENTALRN09141009 cylinder rental 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 61.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 5.80 Total :80.21 210910 10/9/2014 064291 CENTURY LINK 206-Z02-0478 WWTP TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE WWTP TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 138.71 Total :138.71 210911 10/9/2014 070792 CH2O 226622 Fac Maint - Cleaning Compound Fac Maint - Cleaning Compound 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 439.06 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 104.69 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 51.66 Total :595.41 210912 10/9/2014 074166 CHILD ADVOCACY CTR OF SNO CO 0000000621 INV#0000000621 CUST#391 - EDMONDS PD CHILD INTERVIEW SPEC 3RD QTR '14 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 977.65 5Page: Packet Page 30 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :977.6521091210/9/2014 074166 074166 CHILD ADVOCACY CTR OF SNO CO 210913 10/9/2014 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 450901-1408 E9GA.SERVICES THRU AUGUST 2014 E9GA.Services thru August 2014 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 18,304.10 Total :18,304.10 210914 10/9/2014 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC 23K-046573 Fac Maint - Lock Supplies Fac Maint - Lock Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 412.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 39.23 Total :452.20 210915 10/9/2014 074319 CLASSICAL KING FM 98.1 IN-114093687 PROMOTIONAL AD KING FM 9/01-9/05/14 Promotional ad on King FM 9/01-9/05/14 001.000.61.558.70.44.00 345.00 Total :345.00 210916 10/9/2014 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2703051 Fac Maint - TT, Towels Fac Maint - TT, Towels 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 508.49 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 48.31 WWTP - OFFICE SUPPLIESW2704009 paper products 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 253.82 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 24.11 Total :834.73 210917 10/9/2014 070323 COMCAST 8498 31 030 0721433 CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES 130.000.64.536.20.42.00 119.79 Total :119.79 210918 10/9/2014 047450 CONSOLIDATED TECH SERVICES 2014090061 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 6Page: Packet Page 31 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210918 10/9/2014 (Continued)047450 CONSOLIDATED TECH SERVICES Scan Services for September 2014 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 940.00 Total :940.00 210919 10/9/2014 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING SEPT 2014 DRY CLEANING AUG/SEPT - EDMONDS PD CLEANING/LAUNDRY AUG/SEPT 2014 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 697.86 Total :697.86 210920 10/9/2014 063519 CUZ CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC 224509 Traffic - Concrete Parking Bumper Traffic - Concrete Parking Bumper 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 630.00 8.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 55.44 Total :685.44 210921 10/9/2014 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 368078 INV#368078 - EDMONDS PD CALIBRATE #SHD-02475 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00 FUEL SURCHARGE 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 7.13 INV#370185 - EDMONDS PD370185 CALIBRATE #SHD-01690 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00 FUEL SURCHARGE 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 7.13 Total :164.26 210922 10/9/2014 014430 DMH INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC INC 484270 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE Baldor motor 200 hp, 3570 RPM, repair 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 2,500.00 7Page: Packet Page 32 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210922 10/9/2014 (Continued)014430 DMH INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC INC 9.2% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 230.00 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE484286 Baldor, 40 hp, 1800 RPM, new motor 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 3,546.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 110.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 347.32 Total :6,733.32 210923 10/9/2014 075033 ED & GLORIA GINNEVER RES TRUST 2-32310 #4222-2271551 UTILITY REFUND #4222-2271551 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 193.30 Total :193.30 210924 10/9/2014 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 40846 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OIL AND PARTS CLEANER HD30 quart, Parts Cleaner 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 90.60 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 8.61 Total :99.21 210925 10/9/2014 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 000350 Traffic Control - Stain Traffic Control - Stain 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 3.79 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 0.36 Total :4.15 210926 10/9/2014 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 2014-10-01 10/14 RECREATION SERVICES CONTRACT FEE 10/14 Recreation Services Contract Fee 001.000.39.555.00.41.00 5,000.00 Total :5,000.00 8Page: Packet Page 33 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210927 10/9/2014 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL SW / METE LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.63 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD / METER 73-03575 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 265.10 16113 75TH PL W3-07490 16113 75TH PL W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 70.53 LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE W / METE3-07525 LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE W / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.65 LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST SW / METE3-07709 LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.63 LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD / METER 23-09350 LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 73.51 LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT RD / METER3-09800 LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT RD / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.65 LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / METER 63-29875 LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.63 18410 92ND AVE W3-38565 18410 92ND AVE W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.65 Total :625.98 210928 10/9/2014 069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL 203364 INV#203364 CLIENT #5118 - EDMONDS PD EXAM IMP #9109 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 -49.00 EXAM IMP #9110 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 -49.00 URINALYSIS DISCOUNT IMP#9110 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 -4.86 9Page: Packet Page 34 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210928 10/9/2014 (Continued)069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL INV#203364 CLIENT #5118 - EDMONDS PD203364 EXAM IMP #9109 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 49.00 EXAM IMP #9110 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 49.00 URINALYSIS IMP #9110 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 48.60 Total :43.74 210929 10/9/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 104054 1 P&R C5051 COPIER CHARGES P&R C5051 COPIER CHARGES 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 6.43 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 0.61 P&R PRINTER C1030104976 1 P&R PRINTER C1030 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 39.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 3.76 COPIER MAINT105097 COPIER MAINT 001.000.23.523.30.48.00 488.97 P&R COPIER C5051105104 1 P&R PRINTER C5051 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 287.14 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 27.28 CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 COPIER105105 Meter charges 08/30/14 - 09/30/14 B&W, 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 141.76 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 13.47 Total :1,009.03 210930 10/9/2014 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH590320 Jeff Vehrs/PLN20140039 legal notices. 10Page: Packet Page 35 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210930 10/9/2014 (Continued)009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD Jeff Vehrs/PLN20140039 legal notices. 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 70.52 Carol Nickisher/Tuson Residence~EDH590506 Carol Nickisher/Tuson Residence~ 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 61.92 Total :132.44 210931 10/9/2014 009327 EVERETT ENGINEERING INC 26182 WWTP - OFF-SITE REPAIR 1 each bored & sleeved bearing housing 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 854.41 9.2% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 78.61 Total :933.02 210932 10/9/2014 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU33555 Water/Sewer - Marking Paint and Supplies Water/Sewer - Marking Paint and Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 182.10 Water/Sewer - Marking Paint and Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 182.09 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 17.30 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 17.30 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIESWAMOU33577 5/8 - 18 SPP TAP, 5/8 - 18 HEX DIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 28.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.69 Total :429.78 210933 10/9/2014 009880 FEDEX 2-794-64317 E3DC.CONTRACT SHIPPING E3DC.Contract Shipping 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 28.25 Total :28.25 11Page: Packet Page 36 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210934 10/9/2014 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0435574 Water Meter Inventory #2025 Water Meter Inventory #2025 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 1,478.00 #2033 M-MTRECR/WP-01-010 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 2,264.00 #2034 M-METEROMNI-01.5-030 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 2,626.53 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 605.01 Water Inventory #0333 W-PIPECO-0.75-0110436144 Water Inventory #0333 W-PIPECO-0.75-011 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 1,910.24 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 181.47 Water - Meter Installed at SWEDISH CUP0437868 Water - Meter Installed at SWEDISH CUP 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,919.38 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 182.34 Water Meters Returns (obsolete)CM089718 Water Meters Returns (obsolete) 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 -65.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 -6.18 Total :11,095.79 210935 10/9/2014 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 10002200 Flex Plan check mailing fee Flex Plan check mailing fee 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 1.10 Flex plan monthly fee10004860 Flex plan monthly fee 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 75.00 Total :76.10 210936 10/9/2014 011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT 12Page: Packet Page 37 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210936 10/9/2014 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 29.02 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES253-012-9166 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 151.72 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 281.76 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GRADE253-012-9189 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GRADE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 41.08 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-014-8062 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 18.53 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 34.42 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-017-4360 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 43.86 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 81.46 WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRADE SPECIAL253-017-7256 WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRADE SPECIAL 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 217.18 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-712-8347 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 250 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 64.69 PRESCHOOL BUNDLED SERVICES425-745-5055 PRESCHOOL BUNDLED SERVICES 001.000.64.571.23.42.00 78.73 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES425-771-0158 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 126.64 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE425-771-5553 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 108.42 PARKS GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM425-776-5316 13Page: Packet Page 38 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210936 10/9/2014 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER PARKS GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM 001.000.64.571.23.42.00 84.79 CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH AVE N425-776-6829 CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 126.64 LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE509-022-0049 LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.02 Total :1,514.96 210937 10/9/2014 073821 GEODESIGN INC 0814-053 E4JA.SERVICES THRU 8/22/14 E4JA.Services thru 8/22/14 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 2,979.20 E4JA.SERVICES THRU 9/19/140914-184 E4JA.Services thru 9/19/14 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 2,038.80 Total :5,018.00 210938 10/9/2014 075036 GONZALES, IAN WOTS CONTEST FICTION WOTS CONTEST FICTION WOTS CONTEST FICTION 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 75.00 Total :75.00 210939 10/9/2014 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 119931 Unit 121 - 2 Tires Unit 121 - 2 Tires 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 265.00 State Tire Fees 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 2.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 25.18 Fleet Tire Inventory - 18 Tires119936 Fleet Tire Inventory - 18 Tires 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 1,959.30 State Tire Fees 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 18.00 14Page: Packet Page 39 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210939 10/9/2014 (Continued)063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 186.13 Total :2,455.61 210940 10/9/2014 012199 GRAINGER 9549333384 FS 17 - Safety Relief Belt FS 17 - Safety Relief Belt 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.37 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.65 Water Supplies9551758502 Water Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 256.54 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 24.37 Total :299.93 210941 10/9/2014 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 975019767 WWTP - SELECTA PRODUCTS electric supplies 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 49.28 9.5% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 4.68 Total :53.96 210942 10/9/2014 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 151761/1 Water Inventory - #0492 - Water Inventory - #0492 - 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 973.00 #0334 - W-PIPECO-01-011 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 1,792.80 Water Parts 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 569.64 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 316.87 Water Supplies151762/1 Water Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 258.16 15Page: Packet Page 40 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210942 10/9/2014 (Continued)069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 24.53 Total :3,935.00 210943 10/9/2014 012560 HACH COMPANY 2105340 WWTP - SUPPLIES chlorine sampler 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 -169.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 -16.06 WWTP - SERVICE AGREEMENT9040287 HACH395434 - service partnership 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 2,733.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 259.65 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE9045332 chlorine analyzer 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 3,501.83 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 79.47 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 340.23 WWTP - LAB SUPPLIES9047464 lab supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 940.30 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 52.77 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 94.34 Total :7,816.53 210944 10/9/2014 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 148335 Unit 449 - Switch housing, supplies Unit 449 - Switch housing, supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 54.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.18 16Page: Packet Page 41 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :59.6821094410/9/2014 012900 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 210945 10/9/2014 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 9021371 WWTP - SUPPLIES poly sheets 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 175.92 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 16.71 Total :192.63 210946 10/9/2014 072065 HOODSPORT'N DIVE 1571 INV#1571 - EDMONDS PD HYDROSTATIC TEST/INT VIP 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 85.00 8.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 7.23 Total :92.23 210947 10/9/2014 074895 HYDRO INTERNATIONAL 14-88481 E1FD.DOWNSTREAM DEFENDER E1FD.Downstream Defender, Stormwater630-00011 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 14,887.00 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 1,414.27 Total :16,301.27 210948 10/9/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2518646 WWTP - OFFICE FURNISHINGS office furnishings 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 3,659.44 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 200.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 366.66 INVISIBLE TAPE, PENTEL PENCILS, PILOT PE2518940 3M Scotch magic invisible tape, Pentel 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 70.05 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 6.66 COPY PAPER2520413 17Page: Packet Page 42 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210948 10/9/2014 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED Copy paper - 6 cases 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 239.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 22.79 SCHRODER.DESK2521467 Schroder.Desk 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 863.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 81.99 3 RING BINDERS FOR 2015 BUDGET2522890 3 ring binders for 2015 budget 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 104.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 9.96 Total :5,625.34 210949 10/9/2014 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 509312 Fleet Battery - after exchange Fleet Battery - after exchange 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 21.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 2.00 Fleet Batteries Exchanges512196 Fleet Batteries Exchanges 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 28.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.66 Unit EQ93PO - Batteries with exchanges61228624 Unit EQ93PO - Batteries with exchanges 511.000.77.594.48.64.00 217.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.594.48.64.00 20.71 Fleet Shop Supplies743321 Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 25.80 9.5% Sales Tax 18Page: Packet Page 43 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210949 10/9/2014 (Continued)014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 2.45 Fleet Shop Supplies744844 Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 11.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 1.08 Fleet Supplies745293 Fleet Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 33.75 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.21 Shop Supplies745942 Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 47.18 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 4.48 Fleet Shop Supplies746010 Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 15.48 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 1.47 Fleet Core Returns850811 Fleet Core Returns 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -249.40 Total :189.22 210950 10/9/2014 070019 JUDICIAL CONF REGISTRAR 111814 PRESIDING JUDGE CONFERENCE FAIR & PRESIDING JUDGE CONFERENCE FAIR & 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 440.00 Total :440.00 210951 10/9/2014 075037 JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION 31034 E7AC.TYROOT MEDIATION E7AC.Tyroot Mediation 112.200.68.595.20.61.00 2,555.00 19Page: Packet Page 44 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :2,555.0021095110/9/2014 075037 075037 JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION 210952 10/9/2014 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD 19144 DIGITAL PHOTO 19144 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY INSTRUCTOR FEE 19144 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 64.50 Total :64.50 210953 10/9/2014 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3842780 INV#3842780 ACCT#100828 - EDMONDS PD 10 CASES MULTI USE COPY PAPER 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 237.30 HANDLING FEE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 55.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 22.54 Total :315.04 210954 10/9/2014 073924 KEARNS, JESSIKA CHRISTINE 19099 TAEKWON-DO 19099 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 19099 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 123.00 19103 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE19103 TAEKWON-DO 19103 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 132.00 Total :255.00 210955 10/9/2014 068024 KRUCKEBERG BOTANIC GARD FOUND 19253 BOTANICAL 19253 BOTANICAL WATERCOLOR: MUSHROOMS IN 19253 BOTANICAL WATERCOLOR: MUSHROOMS 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 78.00 Total :78.00 210956 10/9/2014 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC INV-004823 INV#INV-004823 CUST#1005003 - EDMONDS PD TS06 LEICA TOTAL STATION 001.000.41.521.71.35.00 8,442.00 CIRCULAR PRISM STROBE PRIMS 001.000.41.521.71.35.00 195.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.71.35.00 820.52 20Page: Packet Page 45 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :9,457.5221095610/9/2014 016850 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 210957 10/9/2014 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 09082014-03 City Car Wash City Car Wash 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 5.03 Total :5.03 210958 10/9/2014 074417 LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIAN SMITH 118 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 200.00 Total :200.00 210959 10/9/2014 019582 MANOR HARDWARE 577106-00 Traffic - Rebar, Supplies Traffic - Rebar, Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 157.60 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 14.97 Traffic - Roto Hammer Drill577330-00 Traffic - Roto Hammer Drill 111.000.68.542.64.35.00 263.86 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.35.00 25.07 Fac Maint - Tool Replacement578956-00 Fac Maint - Tool Replacement 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 649.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 61.75 Total :1,173.20 210960 10/9/2014 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1392 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1395 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1398 21Page: Packet Page 46 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210960 10/9/2014 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 Total :264.96 210961 10/9/2014 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 13202909 WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES nuts, washer, and pvc tubing 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 218.48 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 20.08 WWTP - SUPPLIES13343230 galv. chackles w/ screw pin 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 30.80 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 6.61 WWTP - SUPPLIES AND REPAIR/MAINTENANCE13415818 submersible pumps 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 216.56 batteries 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 159.59 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 12.51 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE13522285 flexible shaft coupling 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 150.46 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 6.22 WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES13522286 batteries 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 144.27 cogged wedge v-belt 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 296.28 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 15.22 Total :1,277.08 22Page: Packet Page 47 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210962 10/9/2014 073602 MEDICAL IMAGING NORTHWEST LLP 10/8/14 pre-employment testing services pre-employment testing services 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 72.00 Total :72.00 210963 10/9/2014 063773 MICROFLEX 00022067 09-14 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM TAX AUDIT PROGRAM 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 81.24 Total :81.24 210964 10/9/2014 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 197803 PARKS MAINT FLOWER PROGRAM BASKET TAKE D PARKS MAINT FLOWER PROGRAM BASKET TAKE 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 300.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 28.59 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES198459 EDGER BLADE, AIR FILTER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 43.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.18 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES198745 GLOVES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 29.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.84 Total :410.47 210965 10/9/2014 064024 NAT'L ASSOC FOR COURT MNGMNT 12814 E-COURT TRAINING FEREBEE & CLIFTON E-COURT TRAINING FEREBEE & CLIFTON 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 950.00 Total :950.00 210966 10/9/2014 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0526952-IN Fleet Filter Inventory Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 29.41 9.5% Sales Tax 23Page: Packet Page 48 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210966 10/9/2014 (Continued)024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 2.79 Fleet FIlter Inventory0527871-IN Fleet FIlter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 40.21 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 3.82 Unit 31 - Oil Reel0530789-IN Unit 31 - Oil Reel 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 465.25 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 44.20 Total :585.68 210967 10/9/2014 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S6025977.001 WWTP - C412 PROJECTSUPPLIES controllogix, several 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 25,524.20 misc sales tax % 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 2,399.28 WWTP - ELECTRIC SUPPLIESS6049218.001 cable ties 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 115.56 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 9.25 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 11.86 WWTP - C412 PROJECT SUPPLIESS6057290.001 RSlogix 5000 P 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 7,600.00 Freight 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 35.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 725.33 WWTP - C412 SUPPLIESS6063409.001 controllogix 8 point 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 1,155.64 24Page: Packet Page 49 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210967 10/9/2014 (Continued)024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY 9.5% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 109.79 Total :37,685.91 210968 10/9/2014 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 55500 WWTP - SUPPLIES, SODIUM BISULFITE sodium bisulfite 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 1,591.20 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 151.16 Total :1,742.36 210969 10/9/2014 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1032272 EDMONDS MARSH HONEY BUCKET EDMONDS MARSH HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 145.00 Total :145.00 210970 10/9/2014 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 511 Planning Board Minutes 9/24/14. Planning Board Minutes 9/24/14. 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 462.00 Total :462.00 210971 10/9/2014 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 668254 P&R & ARTS OFFICE SUPPLIES CANARY PAPER 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 5.38 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 1.96 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 0.51 BATTERIES 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 20.58 P&R OFFICE SUPPLIES769434 COPY PAPER, EXPO MARKERS, POST IT NOTES 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 127.17 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 12.08 25Page: Packet Page 50 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :167.6821097110/9/2014 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 210972 10/9/2014 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER September 2014 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL Emergency Medical Services & Trauma 001.000.237.120 1,082.41 Building Code Fee Account 001.000.237.150 144.00 State Patrol Death Investigation 001.000.237.330 69.69 Judicial Information Systems Account 001.000.237.180 3,871.19 School Zone Safety Account 001.000.237.200 143.04 Washington Auto Theft Prevention 001.000.237.250 2,151.93 Traumatic Brain Injury 001.000.237.260 402.34 Accessible Communities Acct 001.000.237.290 42.76 Multi-Model Transportation 001.000.237.300 42.80 Hwy Safety Acct 001.000.237.320 110.61 Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis 001.000.237.170 118.07 WSP Hwy Acct 001.000.237.340 395.66 PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account 001.000.237.130 23,254.02 Total :31,828.52 210973 10/9/2014 074600 O'LOUGHLIN, STEPHANIE KAY WOTS CONTEST NONFICT WOTS CONTEST NONFICTION WOTS CONTEST NONFICTION 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 75.00 Total :75.00 26Page: Packet Page 51 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210974 10/9/2014 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0054671 HICKMAN PARK HICKMAN PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 3,282.25 HICKMAN PARK0060860 HICKMAN PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 88.87 Total :3,371.12 210975 10/9/2014 075030 OSBORNE, ELIZABETH WOTS CONTEST JUDGE WOTS CONTEST JUDGE WOTS CONTEST JUDGE 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 125.00 Total :125.00 210976 10/9/2014 074632 OVIVO USA LLC 8464071 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE hinged skimmer and collar 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 1,092.95 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 103.83 Total :1,196.78 210977 10/9/2014 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00073046 Unit 138 - Supplies Unit 138 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.06 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 16.37 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.89 Total :33.32 210978 10/9/2014 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 87524 PARKS MAINT TOPSOIL PARKS MAINT TOPSOIL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 325.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 30.88 Total :355.88 27Page: Packet Page 52 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210979 10/9/2014 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 18-82011 WWTP - DISINFECTION SYSTEM SERVICE phase 3, Task 1, disinfection system 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7,529.23 Total :7,529.23 210980 10/9/2014 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC F154540 Traffic - Splicing Kit Traffic - Splicing Kit 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 58.50 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 5.56 Unit 21 - SuppliesF155182 Unit 21 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 92.38 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.78 Traffic - Splicing KitsF160477 Traffic - Splicing Kits 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 292.50 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 27.79 FAC - SuppliesF162612 FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 20.93 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.99 WWTP - SUPPLIESF197888 heat shrink tubing 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 92.04 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 8.74 Fac Maint - SuppliesF198782 Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 54.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.19 28Page: Packet Page 53 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :669.0021098010/9/2014 028860 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 210981 10/9/2014 073231 POLYDYNE INC 915428 WWTP - SUPPLIES, POLYMER polymer clarifloc 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 4,092.00 Total :4,092.00 210982 10/9/2014 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 210319 WWTP - POSTAGE dept. of L&I, safety & health video 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 11.23 WWTP - POSTAGE213037 dept of commerce, olympia 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 24.98 Total :36.21 210983 10/9/2014 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 657.21 YOST POOL200002411383 YOST POOL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,428.20 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 0200007876143 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 43.87 FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW / MET200009595790 FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 107.40 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / METE200011439656 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 60.37 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER 00052200016558856 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 98.24 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 0200016815843 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 168.53 29Page: Packet Page 54 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210983 10/9/2014 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W /200017676343 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 59.94 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE R200019375639 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 69.09 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001200019895354 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 44.94 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE200020415911 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 5.07 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 19.27 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 19.27 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 19.27 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 19.27 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 19.28 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 000390395200021829581 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 000390395 423.000.76.535.80.47.63 418.88 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S / METER200024711901 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 41.74 Total :4,299.84 210984 10/9/2014 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 14-0763 COURT SECURITY COURT SECURITY 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 3,026.25 Total :3,026.25 30Page: Packet Page 55 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210985 10/9/2014 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000149104 SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION DECAMP SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION DECAMP 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 100.00 MARKER KIRKPATRICK00000149105 MARKER KIRKPATRICK 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 349.00 MARKER INSCRIPTION JANACEK00000149106 MARKER INSCRIPTION JANACEK 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 100.00 SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION MOEN00000149107 SHUTTER/NICHE INSCRIPTION MOEN 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 100.00 CEMETERY VASES00000149138 CEMETERY VASES 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 210.00 Total :859.00 210986 10/9/2014 073885 RANDOLPH, PAMELA 07-OCT-2014 WWTP - TRAINING AND TRAVEL, P. RANDOLPH WEFTEC Conference Cost 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 824.00 Travel, Shuttle, Taxi & Streetcar 423.000.76.535.80.43.00 316.75 9/27 per diem 423.000.76.535.80.43.00 35.97 9/28 per diem 423.000.76.535.80.43.00 10.80 9/29 per diem 423.000.76.535.80.43.00 27.62 9/30 per diem 423.000.76.535.80.43.00 46.19 10/1 per diem 423.000.76.535.80.43.00 32.23 106.8 miles @ $0.56/mile = 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 59.81 Total :1,353.37 31Page: Packet Page 56 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210987 10/9/2014 075031 REECE, CARLY 9/30 VOLLEYBALL ATT 9/30 VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT 9/30 VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 35.00 Total :35.00 210988 10/9/2014 069103 ROGERS, MAUREEN WOTS CONTEST WOTS CONTEST FICTION WOTS CONTEST FICTION 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 100.00 Total :100.00 210989 10/9/2014 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 8065 PUBLICE DEFENDER PUBLICE DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 800.00 Total :800.00 210990 10/9/2014 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY SEPT 2014 INVOICE 9/30/14 ACCT#70014 - EDMONDS PD #152071 6 NPC 09/18/14 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 68.88 Total :68.88 210991 10/9/2014 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC S3-344928 Unit 455POL - Trans Oil Unit 455POL - Trans Oil 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 57.60 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.47 Unit 681 - Master CylinderS3-346156 Unit 681 - Master Cylinder 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 126.37 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.00 Imot 36 - Spark PlugsS3-346486 Imot 36 - Spark Plugs 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 44.88 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.27 Unit 455 POL - Spark Plugs, Trans FluidS3-346518 32Page: Packet Page 57 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210991 10/9/2014 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC Unit 455 POL - Spark Plugs, Trans Fluid 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 144.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.68 Unit 50 - Module KitS3-348917 Unit 50 - Module Kit 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 281.87 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 26.78 Unit 29 - Fuel FilterS3-350203 Unit 29 - Fuel Filter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.71 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.30 Unit 36 - Spark Plug Wire Kit, CoilS3-357837 Unit 36 - Spark Plug Wire Kit, Coil 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 96.21 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.13 Unit 102 - ResistorS3-357901 Unit 102 - Resistor 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.26 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.88 Unit 49 - Brake Lining Kit, RotorS3-359498 Unit 49 - Brake Lining Kit, Rotor 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 161.75 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.37 Unit 81 - Brake Pads, rotorS3-360050 Unit 81 - Brake Pads, rotor 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 167.37 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.90 33Page: Packet Page 58 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210991 10/9/2014 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC Unit 49 - Screen AssemblyS3-360908 Unit 49 - Screen Assembly 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 19.23 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.83 Unit 36 - CoilS3-361320 Unit 36 - Coil 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 66.86 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.36 Unit 36- M Port Fuel InjectorS3-364196 Unit 36- M Port Fuel Injector 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 89.79 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.53 Unit 81 - Brake PadsS3-364906 Unit 81 - Brake Pads 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 55.23 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.25 Fleet Brake InventoryS3-368682 Fleet Brake Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 115.54 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 10.98 Fleet Brake Shoe InventoryS3-368808 Fleet Brake Shoe Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 231.08 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 21.95 Unit 93 - SensorsS3-374260 Unit 93 - Sensors 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 106.44 9.5% Sales Tax 34Page: Packet Page 59 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210991 10/9/2014 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.12 Unit 450 - Trans OilS3-376309 Unit 450 - Trans Oil 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 58.92 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.60 Unit 35 - Brake LiningS3-378693 Unit 35 - Brake Lining 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 57.02 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.42 Unit 379 - SynchronizerS3-383097 Unit 379 - Synchronizer 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 115.05 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.93 Unit 90 - Fuel ModuleS3-385067 Unit 90 - Fuel Module 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 167.43 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.90 Unit 252 - Brake Pads, suppliesS3-385339 Unit 252 - Brake Pads, supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 58.34 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.54 Unit 135 - Spark Plugs, OE KitS3-393951 Unit 135 - Spark Plugs, OE Kit 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 67.23 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.39 Unit 304 - Fuel PumpS3-395949 Unit 304 - Fuel Pump 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 66.22 35Page: Packet Page 60 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210991 10/9/2014 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.29 Unit 121 - Brake Pads SuppliesS3-400034 Unit 121 - Brake Pads Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 134.57 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.79 Unit 681 - MotorS3-400161 Unit 681 - Motor 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 54.84 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.21 Unit 121 - Rotor, Dist Cap, Wires, PlugsS3-400824 Unit 121 - Rotor, Dist Cap, Wires, Plugs 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 68.94 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.55 Unit 304 - Return Fuel PumpS3-408597 Unit 304 - Return Fuel Pump 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -66.22 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -6.29 Unit 79 - ConnectorsS3-420639 Unit 79 - Connectors 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 18.37 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.74 Unit 28 - Spark PlugsS3-425052 Unit 28 - Spark Plugs 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 45.60 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.33 Unit 94 - PS FluidS5-354529 Unit 94 - PS Fluid 36Page: Packet Page 61 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210991 10/9/2014 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.53 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.62 Unit 90 - Return Fuel ModuleS5-422352 Unit 90 - Return Fuel Moduleg 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -167.43 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -15.90 Total :2,707.52 210992 10/9/2014 074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC 24499 14108-SUPPORT 14108-Support 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 2,527.50 Total :2,527.50 210993 10/9/2014 068132 SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION CO E3GA.Pmt 2 E3GA.PMT 2 THRU 8/29/14 E3GA.Pmt 2 thru 8/29/14 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 219,836.65 Total :219,836.65 210994 10/9/2014 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2001-2487-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W / METER 1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 61.19 HUMMINGBIRD PARK2003-2646-0 HUMMINGBIRD PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 32.33 CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD / METER 1002003-8645-6 CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 76.29 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME2004-2241-8 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,090.06 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVE / METER2011-0356-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVE / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 57.22 37Page: Packet Page 62 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210994 10/9/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W / METE2012-6598-0 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 299.11 PINE STREET PARK2013-2711-1 PINE STREET PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 32.33 LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W / M2013-7496-4 LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 35.04 CEMETERY BUILDING2015-5730-3 CEMETERY BUILDING 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 70.92 TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WAY / METER 102015-6343-4 TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WAY / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 46.05 LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW / METE2015-9448-8 LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.63 CEMETERY-OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING2016-1027-6 CEMETERY-OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 16.49 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN ST / METER2016-5690-7 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN ST / METER 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 208.69 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 100TH AVE W /2017-0375-8 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 100TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 46.87 STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 150W) / NO2017-1178-5 STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 150W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 1,114.48 415 5TH AVE S2017-6210-1 415 5TH AVE S 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 43.84 WWTP FLOW METER 23219 74TH AVE W / METER2019-2991-6 WWTP FLOW METER 23219 74TH AVE W / 38Page: Packet Page 63 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210994 10/9/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 31.27 WWTP FLOW METER 9805 EDMONDS WAY / METER2019-9517-2 WWTP FLOW METER 9805 EDMONDS WAY / 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 32.33 CEMETERY WELL PUMP2021-6153-5 CEMETERY-WELL PUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 302.70 9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED2022-5063-5 9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 32.33 LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTING 120 5TH2024-2158-2 LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTING 120 5TH 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 85.29 STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 200W) / NO2025-2918-6 STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 200W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 2,561.70 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT2025-2920-2 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 116.09 STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @ 100W) / N2025-7615-3 STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @ 100W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 14,654.05 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250W) / NOT2025-7948-8 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 337.50 WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICE / NOT MET2025-7952-0 WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICE / NOT 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 8.44 CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST / METER 102042-9221-3 CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 112.08 205 5TH AVE S2044-6743-5 205 5TH AVE S 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 70.77 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150W) / NOT M2047-1489-3 39Page: Packet Page 64 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210994 10/9/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 3.75 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200W) / NOT2047-1492-7 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 83.38 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT2047-1493-5 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 43.94 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100W) / NOT2047-1494-3 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 11.15 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250W) / NOT2047-1495-0 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 151.58 Total :22,903.89 210995 10/9/2014 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2014-2214 CREDITS ON #2014-2214 - SNO CO JAIL CR HOUSING DAYS FROM 06/14 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -1,998.90 CR HOUSING DAYS FROM 07/14 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -2,065.53 3 WORK RELEASE $26 FROM 08/14 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -78.00 17 WORK RELEASE $30 FROM 08/14 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -510.00 13 WORK RELEASE $44.77 08/14 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -582.01 INV#2014-2214 - EDMONDS PD2014-2214 38.17 BOOKINGS @ $95.94 - 08/14 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 3,662.03 419.67 HOUSING DAYS @ $66.63- 08/14 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 27,962.61 37 WORK RELEASE @ $30 - 08/14 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,656.49 40Page: Packet Page 65 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :28,046.6921099510/9/2014 063941 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 210996 10/9/2014 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 8/21/2014 Dinner Meeting attendance for Dinner Meeting attendance for 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 70.00 Dinner Meeting for attendance of9/18/14 Dinner Meeting for attendance of 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 105.00 Total :175.00 210997 10/9/2014 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER September 2014 Crime Victims Court Remittance Crime Victims Court Remittance 001.000.237.140 639.69 Total :639.69 210998 10/9/2014 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 550.68 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLING103584 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLING 423.000.76.535.80.47.66 29.95 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST103585 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 674.47 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST103586 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 555.23 PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RECYCLING103587 PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RECYCLING 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 820.89 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N103588 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 459.89 Total :3,091.11 210999 10/9/2014 046200 STATE OF WASHINGTON Q3-14 Leasehold Tax Q3-14 LEASEHOLD TAX LIABILITY 41Page: Packet Page 66 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 42 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 210999 10/9/2014 (Continued)046200 STATE OF WASHINGTON Q3-14 LEASEHOLD TAX LIABILITY 001.000.237.220 5,550.14 Total :5,550.14 211000 10/9/2014 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3002786248 INV#3002786248 CUST#6076358 - EDMONDS PD MINIMUM MONTHLY CHARGE 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 10.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 0.36 Total :10.36 211001 10/9/2014 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 11413313 Traffic - (12)White upside down paint, Traffic - (12)White upside down paint, 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 90.80 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 8.63 Traffic - Supplies11414420 Traffic - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 173.07 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 16.44 Traffic- Supplies11414421 Traffic- Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 51.02 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 4.85 Fac Maint - Supplies18053845 Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.18 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.25 Total :359.24 211002 10/9/2014 073970 TALLMAN, TYLER WOTS FACILITY ASST WOTS FACILITY ASST 10/4 AND 10/5 10/4 AND 10/5 FACILITY ASSIST 42Page: Packet Page 67 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 43 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211002 10/9/2014 (Continued)073970 TALLMAN, TYLER 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 100.00 Total :100.00 211003 10/9/2014 074921 TERRA FIRMA CONSULTING 14-18 Tree Ordinance Tree Ordinance 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 7,000.00 Total :7,000.00 211004 10/9/2014 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50837810 WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICE Task Order Number 5.14 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 885.08 Total :885.08 211005 10/9/2014 072469 THOMAS, KIM WOTS ASSIST WOTS ASSIST 10/3, 10/4, 10/5 WOTS ASSIST 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 541.50 Total :541.50 211006 10/9/2014 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA 0561122-WA WWTP - DRUG SCREEN urine drug screen 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 64.00 Total :64.00 211007 10/9/2014 072502 VAN HOLLEBEKE, MONDA WOTS CONTEST POETRY WOTS CONTEST POETRY WOTS CONTEST POETRY 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 100.00 Total :100.00 211008 10/9/2014 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9732520977 C/A 571242650-0001 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bld Dept 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 165.13 iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 55.99 iPad Cell Service Council 001.000.11.511.60.42.00 290.11 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court 43Page: Packet Page 68 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 44 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211008 10/9/2014 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 131.07 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Development 001.000.62.524.10.42.00 95.10 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning Dept 001.000.62.558.60.42.00 40.01 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Econ 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 75.12 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering 001.000.67.532.20.42.00 506.90 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 219.67 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 95.11 iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 95.10 iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 301.52 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 40.01 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Dept 001.000.64.571.21.42.00 55.09 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 917.80 Air cards Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 840.27 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 15.46 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 4.42 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 15.46 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 4.42 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 44Page: Packet Page 69 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 45 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211008 10/9/2014 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 4.41 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Street Dept 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 115.99 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Fleet 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 55.09 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 121.86 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 121.85 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer Dept 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 205.14 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 245.15 iPad Cell Service Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 120.03 iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 161.59 C/A 772540262-000019732644935 Lift Station access 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 90.54 Total :5,205.41 211009 10/9/2014 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 8059085573 WWTP - SAFETY & LAB SUPPLIES gloves 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 145.59 sample bottles 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 109.39 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 24.22 WWTP - SUPPLIES, LAB8059099674 desiccant cannister 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 31.08 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 2.95 45Page: Packet Page 70 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 46 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :313.2321100910/9/2014 069816 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 211010 10/9/2014 074901 WA FEDERAL %SHORELINE CONSTRUC E3GA.Ret 2 E3GA.316-400163-2.RET 2 THRU 8/29/14 E3GA.316-400163-2.RET 2 THRU 8/29/14 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 10,518.50 Total :10,518.50 211011 10/9/2014 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 51719 INV#51719 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2003 DODGE #ARH1975 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01 Total :173.01 211012 10/9/2014 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I15002385 INV#I15002385 EDM301 - EDMONDS PD BACKGROUND CHECKS - SEPT 2014 001.000.237.100 99.00 Total :99.00 211013 10/9/2014 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6453 OFFICE SUPPLIES Window envelopes 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 360.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 34.28 Total :395.08 211014 10/9/2014 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 0000025956 Traffic - Fan Assembly, Thermostat for Traffic - Fan Assembly, Thermostat for 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 70.73 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 6.72 Total :77.45 211015 10/9/2014 075032 WINBERG, RHEA 10/3 REFUND MONITOR 10/3 REFUND UNUSED MONITOR FEE 10/3 REFUND UNUSED MONITOR FEE 001.000.239.200 11.25 46Page: Packet Page 71 of 342 10/09/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 47 11:04:15AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :11.2521101510/9/2014 075032 075032 WINBERG, RHEA 211016 10/9/2014 063008 WSDOT RE-313-ATB40916126 E1AA.INSPECTION SERVICES E1AA.Inspection Services 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 44.53 Total :44.53 211017 10/9/2014 064213 WSSUA TREASURER 225 SOFTBALL OFFICIALS FOR FALL SOFTBALL GAM SOFTBALL OFFICIALS FOR FALL SOFTBALL 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 1,716.00 Total :1,716.00 Bank total :577,599.59127 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 577,599.59Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report127 47Page: Packet Page 72 of 342 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA 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 Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB 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 Revised 10/8/2014 Packet Page 73 of 342 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number 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 E0IA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN Revised 10/8/2014 Packet Page 74 of 342 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number 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 E1FD STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA Revised 10/8/2014 Packet Page 75 of 342 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program 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 E8MA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM c290 E8MB Marina Beach Additional Parking STR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR c298 E8GA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR c301 E8GD 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 E0IA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements STM c326 E0FC Stormwater GIS Support FAC c327 E0LA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project STR c329 E0AA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade FAC c332 E0LB Senior Center Roof Repairs WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program STM c339 E1FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program STM c341 E1FF 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 Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement STM c349 E1FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) Revised 10/8/2014 Packet Page 76 of 342 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title STR c354 E1DA Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR c363 E0JA 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 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update General c372 E1EA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM c374 E1FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain STM c376 E1FN 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 E3LA Frances Anderson Center Accessibility 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 Abandonment on Puget Drive PRK c417 E4MA City Spray Park WTR c418 E3JB 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC c419 E3LB ESCO III Project STR c420 E3AA School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant Revised 10/8/2014 Packet Page 77 of 342 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title STR c421 E3DA 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk 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 Transportation Study STM c428 E3FF 190th Pl SW Wall Construction STM c429 E3FG Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM c430 E3FH SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM c433 E4FA 2014 Drainage Improvements STM c434 E4FB LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM c435 E4FC 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM c436 E4FD 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STR c438 E4CA 2014 Overlay Program WTR c440 E4JB 2015 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c441 E4GA 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project FAC c443 E4MB Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab WWTP c446 E4HA Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STR c451 E4CB 2014 Chip Seals STR c452 E4CC 2014 Waterline Overlays STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM m013 E7FG NPDES Revised 10/8/2014 Packet Page 78 of 342 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STR E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement WTR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project STR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair STR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project PM E2DB c146 Interurban Trail STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System Revised 10/8/2014 Packet Page 79 of 342 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STM E3FA c406 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM E3FB c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM E3FD c409 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E3FF c428 190th Pl SW Wall Construction STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) FAC E3LA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals STR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects Revised 10/8/2014 Packet Page 80 of 342 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring WTR E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road STM E7FG m013 NPDES PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 10/8/2014 Packet Page 81 of 342 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB 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 E8MA PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE 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 Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM NPDES m013 E7FG Revised 10/8/2014 Packet Page 82 of 342 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number 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 STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA 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 Transportation 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 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC 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 Pl/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 Revised 10/8/2014 Packet Page 83 of 342 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA 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 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 E3JB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA Revised 10/8/2014 Packet Page 84 of 342    AM-7199     4. C.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/14/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Jeff Taraday Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Type:  Information Subject Title Approval of Settlement Agreement with Tyroot and Sun SM related to the 228th Street SW Corridor Improvement Project Recommendation Approve the CR2A Settlement Agreement with Tyroot, LLC and Sun SM, LLC. Previous Council Action Narrative Following a mediation conducted on October 3, 2014, in which Paris K. Kallas served as mediator, the City of Edmonds, Tyroot LLC, and Sun SM LLC, reached a settlement (Attachment 1) involving a property taking and temporary construction easement necessary for  the 228th Street SW Corridor Project. Attachments Attachment 1 - Tyroot Settlement Agreement Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 10/10/2014 07:20 AM Final Approval Date: 10/10/2014  Packet Page 85 of 342 Packet Page 86 of 342 Packet Page 87 of 342    AM-7165     5.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/14/2014 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title Proclamation for Domestic Violence Awareness Month ~ YWCA Week without Violence. Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative Since the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) nearly 20 years ago, our Nation's response to domestic violence has greatly improved. What was too often seen as a private matter best hidden behind closed doors is now an established issue of national concern. We have changed our laws, transformed our culture and improved support services for survivors. We have seen a significant drop in domestic violence homicides and improved training for police, prosecutors and advocates. Yet we must do more to provide protection and justice for survivors and to prevent violence from occurring. During National Domestic Violence Awareness Month we stand with domestic abuse survivors, celebrate our Nation's progress in combating these despicable crimes and resolve to carry on until domestic violence is no more. The YWCA Week without Violence is a signature initiative created by YWCA USA nearly 20 years ago to mobilize people in communities across the United States to take action against all forms of violence, wherever it occurs. This year YWCA Week without Violence is October 13-17. Mary Anne Dillon, YWCA Snohomish County Director, will be accepting the proclamation on behalf of the YWCA. Attachments DVAM_YWCA Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/01/2014 11:59 AM Mayor Dave Earling 10/02/2014 06:28 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/02/2014 07:59 AM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 09/24/2014 03:04 PM Final Approval Date: 10/02/2014  Packet Page 88 of 342 Final Approval Date: 10/02/2014  Packet Page 89 of 342 Packet Page 90 of 342    AM-7129     7.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/14/2014 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted For:Ed Sibrel Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Action  Information Subject Title Report on final construction costs for the 2013 Waterline Replacement Project and acceptance of project Recommendation Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the October 21, 2014 City Council meeting. Previous Council Action On April 23, 2013, Council voted to award the waterline replacement contract in the amount of $1,304,457.70 to D&G Backhoe, Inc. and authorize a 10% management reserve for changes during construction. Narrative On May 10, 2013, D&G Backhoe was given the Notice to Proceed with construction, stipulating 120 working days to complete the project. This project is part of the City's program to replace and upgrade existing waterlines at various locations around the City. Approximately 7,000 linear feet of waterline piping with associated meters, fire hydrants, and two pressure reducing stations were replaced. The contract award amount was $1,304,458 and Council approved a management reserve of $130,000. During the course of the contract there were zero added-cost change orders. The actual construction cost was 1.2% under the original contract amount. The final cost paid to D&G Backhoe was $1,289,200. Attachments Project Map Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Megan Luttrell 10/08/2014 04:45 PM Public Works Phil Williams 10/09/2014 02:04 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 10/09/2014 02:15 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/09/2014 04:41 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/10/2014 07:03 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 09/05/2014 03:38 PM Final Approval Date: 10/10/2014  Packet Page 91 of 342 Packet Page 92 of 342    AM-7109     8.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/14/2014 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Robert English Department:Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Action Information Subject Title Report on final construction costs for the Lift Station Rehabilitation Project and acceptance of project. Recommendation Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the October 21, 2014 City Council meeting.  Previous Council Action On November 3, 2008, Council authorized Staff to advertise a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for design services for the Sewer Lift Stations Rehabilitation Project. On July 21, 2009 Council authorized the Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with CHS Engineers, LLC for design services for the Sewer Lift Stations Rehabilitation Project. On May 17, 2011 Council authorized staff to advertise for construction bids for the Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Project. On November 15, 2011, Council approved Addendum No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with CHS Engineers, LLC. On June 19, 2012 Council authorized for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with CHS Engineers, LLC. On August 21, 2012, Council awarded a contract to Razz Construction in the amount of $3,872,095.20. Narrative Construction of the Lift Station Rehabilitation Project is complete and the project refurbished and improved nine existing sewer lift (pump) stations constructed in the 1960's and 1970's.  The improvements replaced obsolete mechanical and electrical equipment to prevent pump failures, reduce the risk of sewage overflows and reduce maintenance costs.  Existing piping, ventilation and structures were also upgraded or replaced to improve the overall operation and efficiency of each station.    The revised contract award amount was $3,862,240.20 and the City Council approved a management reserve of $387,000.  There were five change orders on the project that totaled $75,092 in extra costs.  The final cost paid to Razz Construction was $3,937,332.  Packet Page 93 of 342 Attachments Site Map Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 10/09/2014 12:23 PM Public Works Phil Williams 10/09/2014 02:04 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 10/09/2014 02:15 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/09/2014 04:41 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/10/2014 07:03 AM Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 09/03/2014 04:59 PM Final Approval Date: 10/10/2014  Packet Page 94 of 342 P a c k e t P a g e 9 5 o f 3 4 2    AM-7200     9.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/14/2014 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title Acceptance of Street Dedication for Saffold 3-Lot Short Plat located at 19327 88th Ave W. Recommendation Forward the item to the Consent Agenda for approval at the October 21, 2014 City Council meeting. Previous Council Action None Narrative On June 29, 2010, the Saffold 3-lot short plat located at 19327 88th Ave W, received preliminary short plat approval.  As a condition of approval a 10-foot street dedication is required along the 88th Ave W frontage of the property.  Please find attached a copy of that portion of the final short plat documents that shows the street dedication.  After receiving authorization from the City Council to accept the street dedication and for the Mayor to sign the face of the short plat documents, the 10-foot street dedication will be deeded to the City of Edmonds upon recording of the short plat with Snohomish County.  Please note, the decision the Council makes regarding acceptance of the dedication is for the street dedication only and does not include final approval of the short plat which is an administrative decision.  Attachments Attachment 1 - Saffold SP Dedication Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 10/10/2014 10:41 AM Final Approval Date: 10/10/2014  Packet Page 96 of 342 P a c k e t P a g e 9 7 o f 3 4 2    AM-7189     10.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/14/2014 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted By:Mary Ann Hardie Department:Human Resources Committee: Type: Action Information Subject Title  Approval of the Municipal Court Judge job description & confirmation of position salary and benefits information Recommendation Approval by Council for the Municipal Court Judge job description and confirmation of the position's salary & benefits. Previous Council Action The Judge's salary and benefits were recently approved by Council at the September 2014 Council Meeting. This position has not had a previous job description.  Having a job description sets clear, written expectations of performance and accountability for this position.  Narrative The City is in the process of preparing an RFQ for the Municipal Court Judge position as there will be an opening for the remainder of the Judge's term effective 1/1/15 - 12/31/17.  Included in the RFQ is the salary and benefits information for the position, which is confirmed by Council.  The current wage for the Judge was set at $106,078 as a .75 full-time employee equivalent effective 9/1/14 as approved by Council. Additionally, the Judge currently receives the following benefits: 1. 90% medical insurance premiums (employee, spouse and dependents) paid for by the City. 2. MEBT participation (includes a $75,000 life insurance policy).  3. Participation in state retirement PERS Judicial Benefit Multiplier program (JBM).  We are asking the Council to approve the job description and confirm this salary and benefits for this position before we advertise.  Attachments Municipal Court Judge Form Review Packet Page 98 of 342 Inbox Reviewed By Date Parks and Recreation Carrie Hite 10/08/2014 02:09 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 10/08/2014 02:10 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/08/2014 02:51 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/08/2014 03:03 PM Form Started By: Mary Ann Hardie Started On: 10/08/2014 01:40 PM Final Approval Date: 10/08/2014  Packet Page 99 of 342 City of EDMONDS Washington MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE Department: Municipal Court Pay Grade: Bargaining Unit: Non Represented FLSA Status: Exempt Revised Date: September 2014 Reports To: Mayor POSITION PURPOSE: Presides over and adjudicates a variety of hearings and trials related to criminal and civil cases in accordance with established legal procedures and as prescribed by the United States and the Washington State Constitutions, the Revised Code of Washington, and court rules; imposes appropriate sentences and penalties and communicates with City, County and State criminal justice agencies. The position is an elected position but will be filled by Mayoral A ppointment and confirmed by the City Council for the balance of a 4-year term as set by statute. This position is accountable for ensuring the operations and procedures of the court comply with the Washington State Administrative Office of the Court’s requirements and for the integrity and appropriateness of judgments made in the Court. This position is a .75 full-time employee (FTE) equivalent position. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all employees in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities. Incumbent(s) may not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional, position-specific duties. • Directs and controls the proceedings involved in court hearings, pre-trials and trials; presides over a variety of Municipal Court hearings and trials in criminal and civil cases in accordance with the State and Federal Constitution and with Washington State law. • Supervises recruitment and training of all judges pro-tem. • Responsible for training and supervision of court operations and staff including accountability in ensuring the operations and procedures of the court comply with the Washington State Administrative Office of the Court’s requirements. • Presides over and adjudicates court and jury trials, pre-trials, arraignments, post-conviction reviews, and other hearings. • Reviews and signs warrants and other documents; researches legal issues and maintains current knowledge of legislative changes impacting Municipal Court procedures. • Presides over a variety of causes related to misdemeanor crimes, traffic and parking violations, including mitigation and contested hearings. • Hears and weighs testimony and evidence presented to render appropriate verdict(s); imposes sentences and penalties as prescribed by law; utilizes alternatives to incarceration such Packet Page 100 of 342 as EHM, work crews, remedial and community service programs as appropriate. • Makes probable cause determinations on weekends and holidays as needed. • Directs the preparation and maintenance of court dockets and supporting documents; assuring proper collection, disbursement and accounting for fines and other monies paid to the City. • Communicates with a variety of City departments including the Mayor’s Office, the Attorney’s office, Finance Department, Public Safety Department and others regarding court cases, complaints and other issues. • Communicates with various community agencies and County offices regarding probation, specific referrals, driving records, domestic violence cases, common defendants and treatment programs available for mental health and alcohol problems. • Speaks to community groups and presides at ceremonial functions as requested; and administer oaths of office and other duties prescribed by law. • Performs other related duties as assigned. Required Knowledge of: • United States and Washington State Constitutions and judicial systems; Municipal Court rules, procedures, conduct and Rules of Evidence and laws of arrest; and State laws and City ordinances pertaining to civil, traffic, and criminal cases. • Experience in the trial of court cases and/or administrative proceedings. • Remedial and community service and treatment programs available. • City organization, operations, policies and objectives. Required Ability/Demonstrated Ability to: • Communicate effectively, orally, and in writing, to a diverse audience in a tactful, patient and courteous manner. • Establish and maintain cooperative and effective working relationships with others. • Understand and apply sound administrative and management techniques. • Hear and weigh testimony and evidence, and impose appropriate sentences and penalties in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and the City of Edmonds. • Read, interpret, apply, and explain codes, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. • Grasp complex factual data, draw appropriate conclusions and formulate sound legal decisions, applying a broad legal background to judgments made of the bench. • Be sensitive to diverse personalities, lifestyles and orientations. • Maintain an atmosphere of decorum and professionalism in the courtroom. • Analyze situations accurately and adopt an ethical and effective course of action. • Manage a large case load and work independently. • Make difficult decisions under stress and to be fair, open minded and committed to equal justice under the law. • Work with stressful situations, under strict deadlines. • Have punctual, regular and reliable attendance. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Education and Experience: • Must be U.S. and Washington State citizen and a resident of Snohomish County. • Must be an attorney on active or judicial status with the Washington State Bar Association. Must have been a practicing attorney for at least five (5) years. Packet Page 101 of 342 • Must have at least two (2) years criminal law experience, including participation as trial counsel or judge. • Experience as a judge or judge pro tem is preferred. • Must agree to a criminal background investigation including a credit check and educational reference check and review of his/her file with state bar association. • Must take an oath of office and be bondable. Required Licenses or Certifications: • Possess a valid license to practice law in the State of Washington. • State of Washington Driver’s License WORKING CONDITIONS: Environment: • Office and courtroom environment. • Constant interruptions. Physical Abilities: • Hearing, speaking or otherwise communicating to exchange information in person and on the telephone. • Operating a computer keyboard or other office equipment. • Reading and understanding a variety of materials. • Bending at the waist, kneeling, crouching, reaching above shoulders and horizontally or otherwise positioning oneself to accomplish tasks. • Sitting or otherwise remaining in a stationary position for extended periods of time. • Lifting/carrying or otherwise moving or transporting up to 10lbs. Hazards: • Contact with angry and/or dissatisfied members of the public and/or exposure to criminal behavior. • Possible exposure to communicable diseases and illness from defendants and others in the courtroom and court office. Packet Page 102 of 342    AM-7187     11.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/14/2014 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted By:Mary Ann Hardie Department:Human Resources Committee: Type: Action Information Subject Title Cigna Life, Long Term Disability (LTD) and Accidental Death & Dismemberment (AD & D) insurance plan(s). Recommendation The recommendation is for the City Council to approve this on consent 10/21/14, and it become effective 11/1/14.   Previous Council Action N/A  Narrative The City currently offers life, long term disability (LTD), and an accidental death and dismemberment policy (AD & D) insurance plans through the Standard as part of the benefits package and part of the required social security replacement program (MEBT) plan benefits.  HR has been in the process of continuing to review and identify areas (such as compliance) to minimize risk exposure and potentially create opportunities through better program design(s) that may also achieve potential cost savings for the City. As part of this due diligence, HR request that Alliant, our life, LTD and AD & D insurance broker sent out a request for proposal to the market to determine if there were any available alternative plan options. During this process, it was also discovered that the current insurance plan language was outdated in some areas and needed to be updated for compliance with state insurance changes.  As a result of this process, Cigna insurance was able to provide some additional benefits options at a lower rate than that our current plan does not include such as: 1. A partial disability benefit  2. Limitations on pre-existing conditions (3 months)  3. Paralysis benefits, speech and hearing disability benefits 4. Portability of the plan for employees  5. No suicide exclusions (state mandated benefit) 6. $25,000 increase to the total life insurance benefit under the MEBT life insurance plan. The cost savings to the City for switching to the plan is projected to be approximately $15,719.12 per Packet Page 103 of 342 year.  Keith Robertson, our Life insurance broker will be at the meeting to make a presentation.  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Parks and Recreation Carrie Hite 10/08/2014 02:07 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 10/08/2014 02:10 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/08/2014 03:01 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/08/2014 03:03 PM Form Started By: Mary Ann Hardie Started On: 10/08/2014 08:16 AM Final Approval Date: 10/08/2014  Packet Page 104 of 342    AM-7149     12.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/14/2014 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted For:Council President Buckshnis Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title Discussion regarding Study Session Format Recommendation Previous Council Action August 26, 2014 Council Meeting:  Minutes attached. September 2, 2014:  Minutes attached. Narrative At the City Council Meeting on September 23, 2014, a Study Session example format was tested. This discussion is to set a policy on the format of these types of meetings Attachments Attachment 1 - SPECIAL MEETING FORMAT TESTdb Attachment 2 - 8-26-14 Approved CM  Attachment 3 - 9-2-14 Approved CM Council Format Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/09/2014 09:07 AM Mayor Dave Earling 10/09/2014 09:30 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/09/2014 09:32 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 09/15/2014 10:08 AM Final Approval Date: 10/09/2014  Packet Page 105 of 342 SPECIAL MEETING FORMAT TEST Tonight is a testing of a popular format and we will discuss at the next Special Session, if this is sufficient or if changes need to occur. 1) Sit on floor in u-shape with presenters also sitting in top of u unless presenting 2) Presentation by staff 3) After presentation, round-robin scenario with each Council Member allowed three questions. 4) Round-robin continues until all questions have been answered 5) After all questions and answers and time permits, Council discussions can follow. Other Suggested Formats not being done tonight: • Round-robin with time limits. • No time limits but round-robin. • Regular question and answer with no round-robin formatting. Packet Page 106 of 342 9. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY COUNCIL MEETING FORMAT Development Services Director Hope explained at a Council retreat in May there was discussion about ways to make Council meetings more efficient and effective and allowing more dialogue between Councilmembers prior to voting on an item. One idea that was briefly discussed was the possibility of two study sessions per month alternating with two business meetings per month. At business meetings, the Council would take official action. Study sessions would be an opportunity for Councilmembers to have dialogue, ask questions, etc.; votes would not be taken at study sessions. Under the proposal both business meetings and study sessions would be recorded and televised. Typically at a study session the Council would be seated around a table instead of seated at the dais. Many other cities in this area have a similar format; it works well to get things done and provides an opportunity for conversation. Ms. Hope explained by including all Councilmembers in the conversation, separate community meetings would not be needed as all information can be presented to the Council in a transparent, public process. An exception could be made for the Finance Committee to address routine business as the Council may choose. She summarized alternating study sessions and business meetings would be a more efficient way for the Council to have dialogue. Although the exact details do not have to be included in the code, if the Council chooses this format, some minor amendments to the code will be necessary. If the Council is interested in this format, she suggested providing direction to the City Attorney to craft an ordinance for consideration at a future meeting. Councilmember Mesaros observed under this proposal, the Finance Committee would meet before one of the study sessions. He felt the committee meetings were quite efficient and typically lasted only an hour. He suggested holding the other two committee meetings at the same time as the Finance Committee meeting. For example, start at the committee meetings at 6:30 p.m. and begin the study session at 7:30 p.m. That would allow the committees to discuss some items that would be scheduled on the consent agenda. Ms. Hope agreed that was an option. One of the rationales behind not having committee meetings was it was difficult to be fully functional for another, longer meeting after a committee meeting. Secondly, committee meetings are often discussion on items that still need to be discussed by the full Council, resulting in repetition. Councilmember Mesaros commented that was an agenda management issues; items that require discussion by the full Council would not go to committee. The committees could review items that were typically scheduled on the consent agenda. If an item needed to be reviewed by the full Council, it could be discussed at a study session. He acknowledged sometimes the full Council will discuss an item that could have been on the Consent Agenda. Councilmembers can always request an item be moved from the Consent Agenda to the full agenda. Council President Buckshnis expressed support for the proposed format. She noted there are items that some Councilmembers want discussed by the full Council. To ensure transparency, she preferred to have the Council’s discussions televised. A determination can be made by the Council President, Council President Pro Tem and the Mayor regarding items to be placed on the Consent Agenda. She suggested trying this format; if it doesn’t work, the format can be changed back. She referred to last week’s agenda as an example of how many items ended up on the agenda, several that Councilmembers did not want moved to the Consent Agenda. She summarized eliminating committee meetings will minimize repetition. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she liked this idea because the Council was able to have a full discussion. Sometimes when things are discussed by a committee, by the time it comes to Council, the other Councilmembers may not know the reason the committee supported or did not support an item. Having two study sessions and two work sessions and eliminating two committees will make the Packet Page 107 of 342 Council’s job easier. She did not find the Public Safety & Personnel (PSP) or the Planning & Public Works (PPP) Committees very effective as often staff gives a full report to the committee and then give it again to the full Council. She was uncertain how items would be scheduled on the Consent Agenda as there are different opinions regarding what should be on the Consent Agenda and what should be presented to the full Council. Ms. Hope said the Q&A in the Council packet includes criteria for items that would be on the Consent Agenda although she understood that could differ between Councilmembers. Councilmember Petso agreed with Councilmember Mesaros, stating she found the committee structure incredibly efficient. If two committee members listen to a presentation such as regarding a lift station and determine it can be on the Consent Agenda, that saves the Council time and does not damage transparency. Councilmembers also have 10-12 days’ notice before an item appears on the Consent Agenda and can pull it for further questions if necessary. She was also very concerned with splitting the committees; if the motivation was to include all Councilmember to improve transparency, clearly the one committee that should no long exist is Finance. It is important Finance Committee items be done in the open and in the public and not by a small group of Councilmembers behind closed doors and placing items on the Consent Agenda. She recalled an example of that in the past with the contingent loan agreement with the Public Facilities District, a $4 million guarantee by the City, that was placed on the Consent Agenda and did not want to risk that again. If the Finance Committee morphs into a Long Range Financial Task Force she felt that needed to be done in the public. Long Range Financial Task Forces inevitably conclude a levy will be needed in the future and a levy requires the participation and endorsement of all seven Councilmembers. She preferred to retain the current committees or eliminate all of them. Her preference was study sessions and the current committees; the committees could regulate what needs a study session. Councilmember Johnson was an advocate of this proposal, advising she has seen work effectively in other jurisdictions. One of the big advantages is the format; having the Council seated at the table allows conversation amongst Councilmembers and staff presenting information and it will be easier to see the screen. This is an effective way to do business; change is difficult and there is a tendency to do things the way they have always been done. She supported having study sessions, acknowledging there will be a transition period to sort things out but in the end it was worth trying. Councilmember Peterson commented one of the most dangerous phrases in the English language is we’ve always done things that way. He supported the proposal, finding it an excellent idea. The proposed criteria will determine what is scheduled on the Consent Agenda. In his early years on the Council, many items were on the Consent Agenda that had not been reviewed by committee. That changed after some surprise items on the Consent Agenda; the proposal will address that without the unnecessary minutia in committee meetings. The Council can add additional guidelines and Councilmembers have the ability to pull items from the Consent Agenda. The proposed format allows Councilmembers to ask questions of staff, adds transparency and assists staff, the public and councilmembers. It will provide greater opportunity for the public to see more of what is going on and gives Councilmember a better understanding of the details. Councilmember Bloom said she emailed Councilmembers a proposed hybrid approach but was unable to find it now. She suggested Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman find the email with her suggested approach. Councilmember Bloom explained she averaged the number of committee items and found an average of 17.2 total items per month. The PSP Committee has a lot fewer agenda items, Finance and PPP Committees have the highest number of agenda items. Her analysis also considered public comments at committee meetings. She found that public comment at committees was more intimate and allowed conversation. Packet Page 108 of 342 Councilmember Bloom suggested holding committee meetings before meetings and two work sessions to discuss all the items the Council typically considers and are most likely not to be scheduled on Consent Agenda. She also suggested holding committee meetings following one Council meeting per month to discuss items that seem to be Consent Agenda items. This approach would cover all the bases. She was concerned with eliminating the PPP Committee as reviewing the volume of agenda items would be an enormous burden on the full Council. She preferred to have the PPP Committee screen those items. Councilmember Bloom was also concerned the proposal to continue the Finance Committee, comprised of the Council President and two other Councilmembers, places an additional responsibility on the Council President. An option would be to eliminate the PSP Committee since most of the items are on Consent and those that are not, require discussion by the full Council such as the ethics policy and code of conduct. If the PSP Committee were eliminated, Councilmembers with the exception of the Council President, could be divided among the two remaining committees. She requested the Council consider this hybrid approach and for the information in her email to be provided the next time the Council discusses this topic. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not support having committee meetings following Council meetings. Often the Council meets as early as 6 p.m. for an executive session; having a committee meeting following a Council meeting would be very difficult. She suggested dissolving the PSP and PPP Committees and holding the Finance Committee meeting prior to a Council meeting and filming it. Councilmember Mesaros clarified his proposal was also a hybrid; the committees would be retained and meet at the same time as the Finance Committee. To avoid repetition, the committees can consider items that will be scheduled on the Consent Agenda, items the full Council should discuss will not be reviewed by a committee. Councilmember Petso endorsed Councilmember Mesaros’ approach which would retain the committees. Another option is to shift park-related items to the PSP Committee to better distribute agenda items, noting Ms. Hite already attends the PSP meetings to present items related to personnel. Council President Buckshnis assured it was not her intent to have Finance Committee meetings that were secret or behind closed doors. She agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ suggestion to have Finance Committee meetings filmed. She suggested retaining the Finance Committee because of the four cities listed, three kept their Finance Committee. She felt it was more effective to discuss long range financing, budget forecasting and policy discussions in a smaller group setting and then forward it to the full Council. She included the Council President in the Finance Committee to add a third member. She supported trying the alternating study session with only the Finance Committee and if a Councilmember had an issue with a Consent Agenda item, it could be pulled. Council President Buckshnis said in Council Presidents, Councilmembers and Mayors in other cities agree this is a more efficient method; it avoids duplication of work and information and allows for better communication between Councilmembers and with the public. If the public is uncomfortable with being filmed during a Council during study sessions, their comments can be audio recorded rather than filmed. Councilmember Peterson said he was initially undecided about keeping the Finance Committee; it makes sense as it is the basis of a lot of decisions. With only the Finance Committee, it can be televised and additional Councilmembers can attend the Finance Committee meeting if they wish because the meetings are noticed as open public meeting. Televising the Finance Committee meetings also allows the public to see the steps in the process. If all three committees are retained, there is no way to televise all three. Packet Page 109 of 342 Councilmember Bloom asked how the Finance Committee meeting could be televised. Councilmember Peterson explained their meeting would be held before the work session. If all Councilmembers can attend the Finance Committee meeting and it is televised, Councilmember Bloom pointed out the items could just be discussed at a full Council meeting. She supported having two work sessions per month. However, during the budget process it was her understanding the Council President found it difficult to schedule agenda items and she anticipated it would be even more difficult if action would not be taken at two meetings per month. Councilmember Petso agreed with Councilmember Bloom’s comment regarding scheduling in the final quarter of year. She experienced that last year and recalled Councilmember Peterson chastising the Council with the phrase, “we’re running out of Tuesdays in this calendar year.” If the Council chooses to change the format, she suggested beginning in January. Council President Buckshnis recalled last year there was a closed record review that consumed a great deal of the Council’s time. She has worked with Mayor and Directors on the extended agenda and preferred to try the proposed process beginning in October. She reiterated her support for retaining the Finance Committee, pointing out three of four cities have a Finance Committee and it is important to have policy discussion and long term planning in a committee meeting. Mayor Earling advised the discussion will continue next week. Council President Buckshnis relayed the agenda item next week will include action. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 10. DISCUSSION OF PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES RELATED TO WESTGATE Planning Manager Rob Chave provided background on the Westgate code discussion: • Public hearing on August 4, 2014 • Staff has reviewed the hearing record and follow-up discussion on the draft code. As part of that review, staff suggested: o Make sure that the code is consistent with the expressed intent o Remove inconsistencies • Approximately a dozen issues were combined into seven discussion topics: 1. Commercial requirements • Clarifying the various building types to include commercial requirements, especially regarding the commercial mixed use types Building Type Residential Uses Office Uses Retail 1. Rowhouse Any floor Not allowed Not allowed 2. Courtyard Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 3. Stacked dwellings Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 4. Live-work Not ground floor Ground floor only Ground floor only 5. Loft mixed use Not ground floor Any floor Any floor 6. Side Court Mixed use Not ground floor Any floor Ground floor only 7. Commercial Mixed use Not ground floor Not ground floor Any floor 8. Assuring commercial space • Adjusted the building type location diagram (page 8) to be more consistent with the overall intended commercial mixed use chapter of Westgate. (The old diagram is included on page 9 for reference, but will be deleted if the new diagram on page 8 is preferable. Packet Page 110 of 342 is considering, it is the intensity of adjacent land uses. Ecology suggested the interim designation to allow the City and the Port to determine reach agreement on development in Urban Mixed Use IV environment. The Port has expressed support for a 50-foot buffer. Ecology’s letter recommends the Council consider changing the proposed marsh buffer to a 50-foot minimum width with an interim designation and add additional language that recognizes the final buffer and setback will be determined within the Harbor Square redevelopment process. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether the setback had to be 50 feet or 150 feet or could it be 75 feet. Mr. Lien answered it can be whatever the Council sets. The 50-foot setback recommended by the Planning Board was considered to be consistent with the no net loss requirement. The 150-foot setback originally came from Small Jurisdiction Wetlands Guidance where Category 1 wetlands such as the Edmonds Marsh have a 150-foot buffer. Ecology noted through their SMP handbook that a setback alone without a buffer requirement would meet the SMA requirement. Setting the setback at 50 feet is wider than the current 25-foot open space requirement in the current contract rezone. Councilmember Mesaros pointed out this proposal doubles the existing requirement. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Peterson expressed concern with the 150-foot setback particularly with the redevelopment that is occurring at the Antique Mall property. He asked whether the Port could do any stormwater mitigation in the Antique Mall parking lot with a 150-foot setback. Mr. Lien answered that would be considered a restoration project and would be allowed with the 150-foot setback. Councilmember Peterson commented if a restaurant moved in, a view of the marsh would be advantageous. He asked whether a deck could be constructed on the back of one of the buildings. Mr. Lien answered not within the 150-foot setback. Councilmember Peterson referred to one of the building where 3/4th of the buildings was in the setback and asked whether a roof penetration could be done to install a hood. Mr. Lien answered improvements can be made within the existing building footprint but the nonconformity cannot be expanded by adding anything in the setback area. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to language in the letter from Ecology that states within this designation the Council has approved a 50-foot buffer with a 100-foot setback. The purpose of the interim designation is to give the Port and the City time to negotiate development plans for the Harbor Square property. Ecology agrees with the concept of an interim designation for this property. Ecology is available to help reach agreement on this important decision. Mr. Lien responded that was the reason for his concern with the interim designation; Ecology suggested the interim designation assuming the City and the Port are working together. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the City and Port have not been working together. Ecology’s offer to help reach an agreement is an important step in determining the best setback and buffer. Mr. Lien agreed that could be worked on during the next two years. Council President Pro Tem Johnson raised an issue that was discussed at the Planning Board; an area of the 25-foot open space area between Harbor Square and the marsh that has been graveled and used for temporary parking. She asked what steps have been/will be taken to restore that to open space and remove the temporary parking. Mr. Lien answered no steps have been taken to remove the gravel parking next to Harbor Square Athletic Club. Councilmember Petso observed the letter from Ecology was dated spring 2014, the decision on the Port plan was fall 2013. Mr. Lien answered the decision on the Port Master Plan was the end of 2013; he acknowledged it has been awhile since this was discussed. Mr. Lien advised a public hearing is scheduled on September 16. 11. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY COUNCIL MEETING FORMAT Packet Page 111 of 342 Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled the Council’s discussion last week as a follow up to discussion at a retreat regarding ways for the Council to work together better and options for dialogue without voting. The proposal is to alternate study sessions and business meetings and not have committees other than a Finance Committee to address routine or designated business. Not having committee meetings would allow all Councilmembers to hear presentations and Q&A and not have it done twice, once at a committee meeting and again at a Council meeting. Councilmember Mesaros reiterated he was in favor of this format. However, if the Finance Committee continued to meet, he recommended the other two committees also continue to meet. If the purpose is to allow the full Council to discuss items, he recommended not having any committee meetings. If finance is such an important topic, the full Council should be provided the information at a study session that would have been provided at a Finance Committee meeting. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Mesaros’ suggestion. If the intent was for the Finance Committee to meet at 6 p.m. and have the regular Council meeting start at 7 p.m., the Council meeting could simply start early and all Councilmembers could attend. Her primary concern with eliminating all the committees is her research found an average of 17.2 committee meeting agenda items per month. The committees screen items that come to the Council on a regular basis and schedule them on the Consent Agenda which she felt was very efficient; Councilmembers have the option of pulling an item from Consent. Some items reviewed by committee should go to the Council such as the Public Works Quarterly Report. Rather than eliminating all the committees, she suggested the Council decide what items should regularly come to the Council to prevent them from being reviewed in committee and by the full Council. She was inclined not to change the Council meeting format unless all the committees were eliminated. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO CREATE AN ORDINANCE TO BRING BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE STUDY SESSIONS FOR THE COUNCIL’S FUTURE FORMAT SO THAT THERE WOULD BE TWO BUSINESS SESSIONS AND TWO STUDY SESSIONS PER MONTH. Councilmember Petso asked for clarification regarding what would happen with the committees under Council President Pro Tem Johnson’s motion. Council President Pro Tem Johnson answered time will tell what works best. She wanted the Council to have better dialogue with staff in the study session. She recalled Finance Director Scott James said the Finance Committee meeting does not necessarily have to be held Tuesday at 6 p.m.; it could be held at any time. Mr. James’ interest in retaining the Finance Committee was not to do the regular work the committee is doing now but to have a long term strategy. That could include all or some of the Council. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REMOVE ALL COMMITTEE MEETINGS. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested starting without committee meetings and add them if necessary. With regard to the Finance Committee, she felt it would be beneficial for all Councilmembers to hear what occurs in the Finance Committee meetings. She suggested 15-30 minutes could be spent during a study session to discuss Finance Committee meeting topics. She supported the study session/business meeting format because she liked to hear why items were scheduled on the Consent Agenda or the full agenda, noting it seemed to differ based on the Councilmembers on the committee or even staff assigned to the committee; there was no consistency. She anticipated the Council may be able to review agenda items more quickly with this format. Councilmember Peterson suggested the first half hour of the first study session of the month consider Finance Committee meeting topics. Packet Page 112 of 342 In response to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ concern with why some items are scheduled on the Consent Agenda and others are schedule for full Council, Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that items that would be scheduled on the Consent Agenda would not be presented to the full Council. The Council President would determine which items would be scheduled on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested that could be worked out, perhaps by a smaller subgroup; she supported abolishing the committees. Councilmember Bloom referred to the average of 17.2 items per month discussed by committee which equated to 8 items per study session in addition to regular agenda items. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis commented there are some routine things that are always scheduled on Consent. Each meeting will have an agenda that includes a Consent Agenda each meeting. Councilmembers can pull items from the Consent Agenda. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. For Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis, Mr. Taraday explained the motion directed him to prepare an ordinance. The Council did not need to wait until the effective date of the ordinance to implement the new process. Under the current code, the Council has four meetings per month; the Council can decide to the two of the meetings be study sessions and two be business meetings. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis suggested the first study session be held on October 14. 12. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 12, 2014 Public Safety & Personnel Committee Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported on items discussed by the committee and action taken: A. Liquor/Recreational Marijuana License Review Process – Full Council B. Lead Court Clerk job description – Full Council C. No public comment Finance Committee Council President Pro Tem Johnson reported on items discussed by the committee and action taken: A. 2014 June Quarterly Budgetary Financial Report – Consent Agenda B. Employee Expenses, Volunteer Recognition and Reimbursements Policy – Discussion only C. IT Update – Discussion only D. PFD Quarterly Report – Consent Agenda E. Business License Fees Discussion – Consent Agenda F. Public comment from Judge Fair regarding the salary which was discussed on tonight’s agenda, and from Port Commissioner David Preston regarding the Port’s tiered late fee Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee Councilmember Mesaros reported on items discussed by the committee and action taken: A. Public Works Quarterly Project Report – Full Council B. Report and Project Close Out for the WWTP Switchgear Upgrade Project – Full Council C. Phase 4 - Energy Improvement Project – Consent Agenda D. Proof-of-Concept Proposal for the Sunset Avenue Sidewalk Project – Full Council E. Authorization to Award a Construction Contract for the 2014 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvement Project to D&G Backhoe, Inc. in the Amount of $337,759.43 – Consent Agenda Packet Page 113 of 342    AM-7191     13.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/14/2014 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted By:John Westfall Department:Fire Committee: Public Safety, Personnel Type: Information Information Subject Title Presentation Regarding Fire District 1 Recommendation No actions recommended, for information only. Previous Council Action None Narrative Snohomish County Fire District 1 Fire Chief Ed Widdis will provide information and updates to fire and emergency services provided to City of Edmonds. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/09/2014 07:24 AM Mayor Dave Earling 10/10/2014 08:37 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/10/2014 08:39 AM Form Started By: John Westfall Started On: 10/08/2014 08:11 PM Final Approval Date: 10/10/2014  Packet Page 114 of 342    AM-7190     14.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/14/2014 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted For:Shane Hope Submitted By:Rob Chave Department:Planning Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title Presentation on the Sustainability Element of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update. Recommendation Concur that the Planning Board's recommended draft Sustainability Element update is acceptable at this time.  (Note:  Actual adoption of all updated elements together would be considered in mid-2015 as the final step for the major Comprehensive Plan update.) Previous Council Action The City Council discussed the 2014 and 2015 Comprehensive Plan update process at its July 1 meeting and provided consensus for staff to move forward with preparing a minor update for 2014 and a more significant update in 2015.  The Council reviewed the 2015 Plan update schedule at its July 22, 2014 meeting. Narrative Cities and counties are required to do a major review and update of their comprehensive plans periodically.  Our region's current deadline is mid-2015.  To meet the deadline, the City Council gave direction to proceed based on a schedule that allows a draft update for each element to be considered one-by-one, followed by final consideration to adopt the updated Plan in mid-2015.  The update focus is on: (a) refreshing the data in the plan, (b) adding a performance measure for each key element, and (c) considering minor changes as needed to reflect new information. This is one of a series of progress reports for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update. The report covers the Planning Board's proposal for updating the Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board has reviewed the Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan and proposed some minor wording updates, along with a new section that includes a proposed 'action' and 'performance measure.'  The Planning Board's review draft and minutes are attached as Exhibits 1 and 2. Please refer to the attached Exhibits for further background on the plan update process. Attachments Exhibit 1: Current update draft of the Sustainability Element Exhibit 2: Planning Board minutes Packet Page 115 of 342 Exhibit 2: Planning Board minutes Exhibit 3: Council agenda and minutes of 2014-07-22 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Development Services Shane Hope 10/08/2014 04:48 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 10/09/2014 07:24 AM Mayor Dave Earling 10/09/2014 08:18 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/09/2014 08:18 AM Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 10/08/2014 03:30 PM Final Approval Date: 10/09/2014  Packet Page 116 of 342 18 Community Sustainability Community Sustainability Element Background: Climate Change, Community Health, and Environmental Quality Introduction. A relatively recent term, “sustainability” has many definitions. A commonly cited definition is one put forward by the Brundtland Commission1 in a report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (December 11, 1987). The Commission defined sustainable development as development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Not focused solely on environmental sustainability, the Commission’s report emphasized the inter-related nature of environmental, economic, and social factors in sustainability. One of the keys to success in sustainability is recognizing that decision- making must be based on an integration of economic with environmental and social factors. The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan contains a number of different elements, some mandated by the Growth Management Act, and others included because they are important to the Edmonds community. A requirement of the Growth Management Act is that the various comprehensive plan elements be consistent with one another. This Community Sustainability Element is intended to provide a framework tying the other plan elements together, illustrating how the overall plan direction supports sustainability within the Edmonds community. A key aspect of this approach is also to provide more direct linkages between long term planning and shorter-term strategic planning and policy review which guide the use of city resources and programs, especially budgeting. For example, a new emphasis on life cycle efficiency may take precedence over simple least-cost analytical methods. The City of Edmonds is gifted with unique environmental assets, such as the shoreline on Puget Sound, the Edmonds Marsh, urban forests, diverse streams and wetlands, Lake Ballinger and a range of parks and open spaces. In addition, the city has the benefit of an established, walkable downtown served by transit, a framework of neighborhood commercial centers providing local access to business services, and the potential to see significant economic development in the Highway 99 activity center. Recently, the City has also experienced the beginnings of new economic initiatives, such as a new fiber-optic infrastructure and locally-based businesses and organizations supporting local sustainability and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction approaches. Combined with local government initiatives, such as the Mayor’s Citizens Committee on U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement and a series of resolutions adopted by the Edmonds City Council, there is a growing recognition and harnessing of the power of citizen knowledge to encourage and support changes in City policies and operations which are making the City a leader in environmental stewardship. Given this combination of assets and knowledge, the City of Edmonds has a compelling responsibility to utilize these capabilities to address the challenges of climate change, community health and environmental quality. Packet Page 117 of 342 Community Sustainability 19 Sustainability Framework This section describes the general goals and principles underlying the City’s approach to community sustainability. Three important guiding principles central to a successful approach are:  Flexible – In an environment where what we understand and can predict is still developing and will be uncertain for some time to come, providing ways to monitor, assess, adapt, and to be flexible in our responses will be critical. Climate change is but one example; the uncertainties acknowledged in that subject area should be instructive in helping us understand that a flexible approach is necessary when addressing all areas of sustainability.  Holistic – The components of sustainability – in terms of both its inputs and outputs –are complex and synergistic. No single action will result in a sustainable result, and sustainable initiatives taken in one area don’t necessarily lead to sustainability in another. For example, sustainable land use practices don’t necessarily result in a sustainable transportation or health system. A holistic approach is required that includes all levels of governance and encompasses planning, funding, evaluation, monitoring, and implementation.  Long-term – Focusing on short-term, expedient solutions will only make actions necessary to support sustainability more difficult to take in the future. For example, in the areas of environmental issues and climate change, deferred action now will only make the cumulative effects more difficult to resolve in the future. The familiar GMA-based 20-year planning timeframe will not be sufficient – planning for sustainability must take an even longer view. Sustainability Goal A. Develop land use policies, programs, and regulations designed to support and promote sustainability. Encourage a mix and location of land uses designed to increase accessibility of Edmonds residents to services, recreation, jobs, and housing. A.1 Adopt a system of codes, standards and incentives to promote development that achieves growth management goals while maintaining Edmonds’ community character and charm in a sustainable way. Holistic solutions should be developed that employ such techniques as Low Impact Development (LID), transit-oriented development, “complete streets” that support multiple modes of travel, and other techniques to assure that future development and redevelopment enhances Edmonds’ character and charm for future generations to enjoy. A.2 Include urban form and design as critical components of sustainable land use planning. New tools, such as form-based zoning and context-sensitive design standards should be used to support a flexible land use system which seeks to provide accessible, compatible and synergistic land use patterns which encourage economic and social interaction while retaining privacy and a unique community character. A.3 Integrate land use plans and implementation tools with transportation, housing, cultural and recreational, and economic development planning so as to form a cohesive and mutually-supporting whole. Packet Page 118 of 342 20 Community Sustainability A.4 Use both long-term and strategic planning tools to tie short term actions and land use decisions to long-term sustainability goals. City land use policies and decision criteria should reflect and support sustainability goals and priorities. Sustainability Goal B. Develop transportation policies, programs, and regulations designed to support and promote sustainability. Take actions to reduce the use of fuel and energy in transportation, and encourage various modes of transportation that reduce reliance on automobiles and are supported by transportation facilities and accessibility throughout the community. B.1 Undertake a multi-modal approach to transportation planning that promotes an integrated system of auto, transit, biking, walking and other forms of transportation designed to effectively support mobility and access. B.2 Actively work with transit providers to maximize and promote transit opportunities within the Edmonds community while providing links to other communities both within and outside the region. B.3 Explore and support the use of alternative fuels and transportation operations that reduce GHG emissions. B.4 When undertaking transportation planning and service decisions, evaluate and encourage land use patterns and policies that support a sustainable transportation system. B.5 Strategically plan and budget for transportation priorities that balances ongoing facility and service needs with long-term improvements that support a sustainable, multi-modal transportation system. B.6 Strategically design transportation options – including bike routes, pedestrian trails and other non-motorized solutions – to support and anticipate land use and economic development priorities. Sustainability Goal C. Promote seamless transportation linkages between the Edmonds community and the rest of the Puget Sound region. C.1 Take an active role in supporting and advocating regional solutions to transportation and land use challenges. C.2 Local transportation options should be designed to be coordinated with and support inter-city and regional transportation programs and solutions. C.3 Advocate for local priorities and connections and the promotion of system-wide flexibility and ease of use in regional transportation decisions. Sustainability Goal D. Develop utility policies, programs, and maintenance measures designed to support and promote sustainability and energy efficiency. Maintain existing utility systems while seeking to expand the use of alternative energy and sustainable maintenance and building practices in city facilities. Packet Page 119 of 342 Community Sustainability 21 D.1 Balance and prioritize strategic and short-term priorities for maintenance and ongoing infrastructure needs with long-term economic development and sustainability goals. D.2 Strategically program utility and infrastructure improvements to support and anticipate land use and economic development priorities. D.3 Explore and employ alternative systems and techniques, such as life-cycle cost analysis, designed to maximize investments, minimize waste, and/or reduce ongoing maintenance and facilities costs. D.4 Include sustainability considerations, such as environmental impact, green infrastructure (emphasizing natural systems and processes), and GHG reduction, in the design and maintenance of facilities and infrastructure. Sustainability Goal E. Develop economic development policies and programs designed to support and promote sustainability and energy efficiency. Encourage the co-location of jobs with housing in the community, seeking to expand residents’ ability to work in close proximity to their homes. Encourage and support infrastructure initiatives and land use policies that encourage and support home-based work and business activities that supplement traditional business and employment concentrations. E.1 Economic development should support and encourage the expansion of locally- based business and employment opportunities. E.2 Land use policies and implementation tools should be designed to provide for mixed use development and local access to jobs, housing, and services. E.3 Regulatory and economic initiatives should emphasize flexibility and the ability to anticipate and meet evolving employment, technological, and economic patterns. E.4 Land use and regulatory schemes should be designed to encourage and support the ability of local residents to work, shop, and obtain services locally. E.5 Land use and economic development programs should provide for appropriate scale and design integration of economic activities with neighborhoods while promoting patterns that provide accessibility and efficient transportation options. Sustainability Goal F. Develop cultural and recreational programs designed to support and promote sustainability. Networks of parks, walkways, public art and cultural facilities and events should be woven into the community’s fabric to encourage sense of place and the overall health and well being of the community. F.1 Cultural and arts programs should be supported and nourished as an essential part of the City’s social, economic, and health infrastructure. F.2 Recreational opportunities and programming should be integrated holistically into the City’s infrastructure and planning process. Packet Page 120 of 342 22 Community Sustainability F.3 Cultural, arts, and recreational programming should be an integral part of City design and facilities standards, and should be integrated into all planning, promotion, and economic development initiatives. Sustainability Goal G. Develop housing policies, programs, and regulations designed to support and promote sustainability. Support and encourage a mix of housing types and styles which provide people with affordable housing choices geared to changes in life style. Seek to form public and private partnerships to retain and promote affordable housing options. G.1 Land use and housing programs should be designed to provide for existing housing needs while providing flexibility to adapt to evolving housing needs and choices. G.2 Housing should be viewed as a community resource, providing opportunities for residents to choose to stay in the community as their needs and resources evolve and change over time. G.3 Support the development of housing tools, such as inclusionary zoning incentives and affordable housing programs, that promote a variety of housing types and affordability levels into all developments. 1 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, U.N. General Assembly Plenary Meeting, December 11, 1987. Packet Page 121 of 342 Community Sustainability 23 Climate Change Introduction. The quality of the environment we live in is a critical part of what people often describe as the “character” of Edmonds. Even if it is not something we overtly think about, it is an intrinsic part of our everyday experience, whether at work, at rest or at play. Until relatively recently, environmental quality has often been thought of in terms of obvious, easily observable characteristics – such as the visible landscape, the quality of the air, the presence and variety of wildlife, or the availability and character of water in its various forms. However, recent evidence on climate change2 points to the potential fragility of our assumptions about the environment and the need to integrate and heighten the awareness of environmental issues as they are inter-related with all community policies and activities. Recognizing the importance of addressing the issues surrounding the environment and climate change, in September 2006, the City of Edmonds formally expressed support for the Kyoto Protocol3 and adopted the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement4 by Resolution No. 1129, and joined the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)5 by Resolution No. 1130. Scientific evidence and consensus continues to strengthen the idea that climate change is an urgent threat to the environmental and economic health of our communities. Many cities, in this country and abroad, already have strong local policies and programs in place to reduce global warming pollution, but more action is needed at the local, state, and federal levels to meet the challenge. On February 16, 2005 the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to address climate change, became law for the 141 countries that have ratified it to date. On that day, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels launched an initiative to advance the goals of the Kyoto Protocol through leadership and action by at least 141 American cities. The State of Washington has also been taking steps to address the issues surrounding climate change. For example, in March, 2008, the state legislature passed ESSHB 2815, which included monitoring and reporting mandates for state agencies along with the following emission reduction targets: Sec. 3. (1)(a) The state shall limit emissions of greenhouse gases to achieve the following emission reductions for Washington state: (i) By 2020, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases in the state to 1990 levels; (ii) By 2035, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases in the state to twenty- five percent below 1990 levels; (iii) By 2050, the state will do its part to reach global climate stabilization levels by reducing overall emissions to fifty percent below 1990 levels, or seventy percent below the state's expected emissions that year. The City of Edmonds has formally approved the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement which was endorsed by the 73rd Annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting, Chicago, 2005. Under the Agreement, participating cities committed to take three sets of actions: Packet Page 122 of 342 24 Community Sustainability 1. Urge the federal government and state governments to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the target of reducing global warming pollution levels to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, including efforts to: reduce the United States’ dependence on fossil fuels and accelerate the development of clean, economical energy resources and fuel-efficient technologies such as conservation, methane recovery for energy generation, waste to energy, wind and solar energy, fuel cells, efficient motor vehicles, and biofuels. 2. Urge the U.S. Congress to pass bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation that 1) includes clear timetables and emissions limits and 2) a flexible, market-based system of tradable allowances among emitting industries 3. Strive to meet or exceed Kyoto Protocol targets for reducing global warming pollution by taking actions in our own operations and community. Given this background, the City of Edmonds recognizes that global climate change brings significant risks to our community as a shoreline city. At the same time, the City understands that we have a responsibility to play a leadership role both within our own community as well as the larger Puget Sound region. To that end, the City establishes the following goals and policies addressing climate change. Climate Change Goal A. Inventory and monitor community greenhouse gas emissions, establishing carbon footprint baselines and monitoring programs to measure future progress and program needs. A.1 Establish baselines for greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint for both Edmonds city government and the broader Edmonds community. A.2 Establish a monitoring program for consistently updating estimates on City and community greenhouse gas emissions. The monitoring program should be designed so as to enable a comparison between measurement periods. A.3 The monitoring program should include assessment measures which (1) measure progress toward greenhouse gas reduction goals and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of or need for programs to work toward these goals. Climate Change Goal B. Establish targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting sustainability for both city government and the Edmonds community. Regularly assess progress and program needs, identifying opportunities and obstacles for meeting greenhouse gas emission targets and sustainability. B.1 City government should take the lead in developing and promoting GHG emissions reduction for the Edmonds community. B.2 Establish and evaluate targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for both Edmonds city government and the broader Edmonds community. Targets should be set for both short- and long-range evaluation. B.2.a. By 2020, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels; Packet Page 123 of 342 Community Sustainability 25 B.2.b. By 2035, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases to twenty-five percent below 1990 levels; B.2.c. By 2050, Edmonds will do its part to reach global climate stabilization levels by reducing overall emissions to fifty percent below 1990 levels, or seventy percent below the expected emissions that year. B.3 Establish measures for evaluating the degree of sustainability of Edmonds city government and the broader Edmonds community. B.4 Annually assess the status and progress toward emissions reduction goals. Climate Change Goal C. Assess the risks and potential impacts on both city government operations and on the larger Edmonds community due to climate change. The assessment of risk and potential responses – both in terms of mitigation and adaptation – should evaluate the full range of issues, paying particular attention to those arising from the city’s location on Puget Sound. C.1 Develop a climate change risk assessment and impact analysis for city government facilities and operations. C.2 Develop a climate change risk assessment and impact analysis for the Edmonds community which considers the potential long-term impacts to economic, land use, and other community patterns as well as the risks associated with periodic weather or climate events. Climate Change Goal D. Work with public and private partners to develop strategies and programs to prepare for and mitigate the potential impacts of climate change, both on city government operations and on the general Edmonds community. D.1 Develop a strategic plan that will help guide and focus City resources and program initiatives to (1) reduce greenhouse gas production and the carbon footprint of City government and the Edmonds community, and, (2) reduce and minimize the potential risks of climate change. The strategic plan should be coordinated with and leverage state and regional goals and initiatives, but Edmonds should look for and take the lead where we see opportunities unique to the Edmonds community. D.2 Build on and expand the strategic action plan to include programs that can involve both public and private partners. D.3 Undertake a policy review of City comprehensive, strategic and specific plans to assure that City policies are appropriately targeted to prepare for and mitigate potential impacts of climate change. These reviews may be done to correspond with scheduled plan updates, or accelerated where either a higher priority is identified or the next update is not specifically scheduled. Packet Page 124 of 342 26 Community Sustainability Climate Change Goal E. Develop mitigation strategies that can be used by both the public and private sectors to help mitigate the potential impacts of new and ongoing development and operations. Develop programs and strategies that will encourage the retrofitting of existing development and infrastructure to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. E.1 Develop policies and strategies for land use and development that result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions for new development as well as redevelopment activities. E.2 Develop mitigation programs and incentives that both public and private development entities can use to reduce or offset potential greenhouse gas emissions associated with both new development and redevelopment. E.3 Develop programs and incentives that encourage existing land use, buildings, and infrastructure to reduce their carbon footprint. Demonstration programs and other cost-efficient efforts that do not rely on long-term government subsidies are preferred, unless dedicated funding sources can be found to sustain these efforts over time. 2 For example, see the Fourth Assessment Report; Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, February 2007. 3 The Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Kyoto, Japan, on 11, December 1997, and established potentially binding targets and timetables for cutting the greenhouse-gas emissions of industrialized countries. The Kyoto Protocol has not been ratified by the U.S. government. 4 The U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement is as amended by the 73rd Annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Chicago in 2005. 5 ICLEI was founded in 1990 as the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives following the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, held at the United Nations in New York. Packet Page 125 of 342 Community Sustainability 27 Community Health Introduction. Community health as it is used here means the overall aspects of public facilities and actions that can have an effect on the health and welfare of the community’s citizens. The focus here is on the public realm, understanding that public actions and policies can have an impact on the well- being of Edmonds citizens. The idea is that whenever possible, government should be an enabler, supporting the expansion of opportunities for people so that they can be as self-sustaining as possible, thereby reducing the potential need for intervention from government, community-based or privately- derived services – services which are becoming increasingly costly and difficult to provide. Community health is closely linked to land use, transportation, public service delivery, and environmental quality. Clean water and clean air are a basic necessity when seeking to keep people healthy. In addition, there are certain land use and other actions that Edmonds can take to help foster healthy lifestyles throughout the community. Government also has a role in providing basic services, such as police and fire protection, while encouraging access to affordable housing and opportunities to live, work, and shop close to home. Transportation systems, development patterns, community design, and planning decisions can have profound effects on health and wellbeing. All citizens should be able to live, work, and play in environments that facilitate physical activity and offer healthy choices. Community Health Goal A. Develop a reporting and monitoring system of indicators designed to assess Edmonds’ progress toward sustainable community health. A.1 Develop community indicators designed to measure the City’s progress toward a sustainable community. A.2 Use these community indicators to inform long-term, mid-term (strategic), and budgetary decision-making. Community Health Goal B. Develop and maintain ongoing City programs and infrastructure designed to support sustainable community health. B.1 Promote a healthy community by encouraging and supporting diversity in culture and the arts. B.2 Promote a healthy community by encouraging and supporting access to recreation and physical activity. B.3 Integrate land-use, transportation, community design, and economic development planning with public health planning to increase opportunities for recreation, physical activity and exposure to the natural environment. Promote a healthy community by pOne example is planning for and implementing a connected system of walkways and bikeways which will provide alternative forms of transportation while also encouraging recreation, and physical activity and exposure to the natural environment. Packet Page 126 of 342 28 Community Sustainability B.4 Promote a healthy community by seeking to protect and enhance the natural environment through a balanced program of education, regulation, and incentives. Environmental programs in Edmonds should be tailored to and reflect the unique opportunities and challenges embodied in a mature, sea-side community with a history of environmental protection and awareness. B.5 Develop and encourage volunteer opportunities in community projects that promote community health. Examples of such programs include beach clean-ups, walk-to-school groups, and helpers for the elderly or disabled. B.6 Increase access to health-promoting foods and beverages in the community. Form partnerships with organizations or worksites, such as health care facilities and schools, to encourage healthy foods and beverages. Community Health Goal C. Promote a healthy community by encouraging and supporting a diverse and creative education system, providing educational opportunities for people of all ages and all stages of personal development, including those with special needs or disabilities. C.1 City regulatory and planning activities should be supported by education programs which seek to explain and encourage progress toward desired outcomes rather then relying solely on rules and penalties. C.2 The City should partner with educational and governmental organizations to encourage community access to information and education. Examples include the Edmonds School District, Edmonds Community College, Sno-Isle Library, the State of Washington (including the Departments of Ecology and Fish and Wildlife), and the various private and public educational programs available to the Edmonds community. C.3 Encourage and support broad and flexible educational opportunities, including both traditional and new or emerging initiatives, such as technology-based solutions. Education should be flexible in both content and delivery. Community Health Goal D. Promote a healthy community through supporting and encouraging the development of economic opportunities for all Edmonds’ citizens. D.1 Sustainable economic health should be based on encouraging a broad range of economic activity, with an emphasis on locally-based businesses and economic initiatives which provide family-supporting wages and incomes. D.2 Encourage the provision of a variety of types and styles of housing that will support and accommodate different citizens’ needs and life styles. The diversity of people living in Edmonds should be supported by a diversity of housing so that all citizens can find suitable housing now and as they progress through changes in their households and life stages. D.3 Encourage the development and preservation of affordable housing. D.4 Develop programs and activities that promote and support a diverse population and culture, encouraging a mix of ages and backgrounds. Packet Page 127 of 342 Community Sustainability 29 Community Health Goal E. Support a healthy community by providing a full range of public services, infrastructure, and support systems. E.1 Recognize the importance of City services to local community character and sustainability by planning for and integrating public safety and health services into both short- and long-term planning and budgeting. Strategic planning should be a regular part of the decision-making process underlying the provision of these services to the community. E.2 Reduce energy consumption and maximize energy efficiency by promoting programs and educational initiatives aimed at a goal to “reduce, re-use, and recycle” at an individual and community-wide level. Reduce material consumption, waste generation, and resource depletion. E.3 Future planning and budgeting should be based on full life-cycle cost analysis and facility maintenance needs, as well as standards of service that best fit clearly articulated and supported community needs. Community Health Goal F. Support a healthy community by providing for community health care and disaster preparedness. F.1 Plan for and prepare disaster preparedness plans which can be implemented as necessary to respond effectively to the impacts of natural or man-induced disasters on Edmonds residents. F.2 Prepare and implement hazard mitigation plans to reduce and minimize, to the extent feasible, the exposure of Edmonds citizens to future disasters or hazards. F.3 Promote food security and public health by encouraging locally-based food production, distribution, and choice through the support of home and community gardens, farmers or public markets, and other small-scale, collaborative initiatives. F.4 Support food assistance programs and promote economic security for low income families and individuals. F.5 Promote and support community health by supporting national, state and local health programs and the local provision of health services. Packet Page 128 of 342 30 Community Sustainability Environmental Quality Introduction. The environmental quality and beauty of the City of Edmonds is largely reflected through its natural resources, and especially its location on the shores of Puget Sound. The city’s watersheds – including Lake Ballinger, a well-known landmark – and streams that flow into the Sound provide a rich and diverse water resource. The beaches, wetlands, and streams provide habitat for diverse wildlife including many species of migrating and resident birds which adds to the aesthetic and pleasing quality of the environment. As Edmonds has grown and developed, what were once abundant native forest and wetland habitats have now become increasingly scarce. Nonetheless, our parks, open spaces, and the landscaped areas of our neighborhoods integrate pleasing vistas and differentiation necessary to provide relief in a highly developed landscape. Throughout the city, woodlands, streams, wetlands and marine areas contain native vegetation that provide food and cover for a diverse population of fish and wildlife. Preserving and restoring these natural resources through environmental stewardship remains a high priority for the Edmonds community. Healthy ecosystems are the source of many less tangible benefits that humans derive from a relationship with nature such as providing a sense of well-being and sites for nature trails and other educational and recreational opportunities. Some ecological services that native plants and trees provide are stabilizing slopes and reducing erosion, replenishing the soil with nutrients and water, providing barriers to wind and sound, filtering pollutants from the air and soil, and generating oxygen and absorbing carbon dioxide. Our city beaches and the near- shore environment also represent unique habitats for marine organisms. So interconnected are the benefits of a functioning ecosystem, that non-sustainable approaches to land development and management practices can have effects that ripple throughout the system. The combination of marine, estuarine, and upland environments should be seen as an integrated and inter- dependent ecosystem supporting a variety of wildlife valuable to the entire Edmonds community. Environmental Quality Goal A. Protect environmental quality within the Edmonds community through the enforcement of community-based environmental regulations that reinforce and are integrated with relevant regional, state and national environmental standards. A.1 Ensure that the city’s natural vegetation associated with its urban forests, wetlands, and other wildlife habitat areas are protected and enhanced for future generations. A.2 City regulations and incentives should be designed to support and require sustainable land use and development practices, including the retention of urban forest land, native vegetation, and wildlife habitat areas. Techniques such as tree retention and low impact development methods should be integrated into land use and development codes. A.3 Provide for clean air and water quality through the support of state and regional initiatives and regulations. A.4 Coordinate land use and transportation plans and implementation actions to support clean air an water. Packet Page 129 of 342 Community Sustainability 31 Environmental Quality Goal B. Promote the improvement of environmental quality within the Edmonds community by designing and implementing programs based on a system of incentives and public education. B.1 The City should promote and increase public awareness and pride in its natural areas and wildlife heritage. Special emphasis should be directed toward preserving natural areas and habitats (forests, wetlands, streams and beaches) that support a diversity of wildlife. B.2 Education and recreation programs should be designed and made available for all ages. B.3 Environmental education should be coordinated and integrated with other cultural, arts, and tourism programs. B.4 To encourage adherence to community values and goals, education programs should be designed to help promote understanding and explain the reasons behind environmental programs and regulations. Environmental Quality Goal C. Develop, monitor, and enforce critical areas regulations designed to enhance and protect environmentally sensitive areas within the city consistent with the best available science. C.1 Critical areas will be designated and protected using the best available science pursuant to RCW 36.70A.172. C.2 In addition to regulations, provide incentives that encourage environmental stewardship, resource conservation, and environmental enhancement during development activities. Environmental Quality Goal D. Develop, implement, and monitor a shoreline master program, consistent with state law, to enhance and protect the quality of the shoreline environment consistent with the best available science. D.1 Adopt a Shoreline Master Program that meets the requirements of state law and is consistent with community goals while being based on the best available science Packet Page 130 of 342 32 Community Sustainability Implementing Sustainability Introduction. One of the reasons for adopting this Community Sustainability Element as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is to provide a positive conceptual framework for coordinating and assessing the community’s progress toward sustainability. For that to happen, there must be a tie between long-range comprehensive planning, mid-range strategic planning, and short-term implementation decisions embodied in budgeting and operations. There are a number of important principles to keep in mind when linking these sets of plans and actions.  Engage and educate. Connect with the community and provide ways to access and share information and ideas.  Integrate. Be holistic in approach, recognizing linkages and seeking to expand problem- solving and solutions beyond traditional or institutional boundaries.  Innovate. Go beyond conventional approaches; be experimental.  Be adaptive. Be flexible, discarding or modifying approaches that don’t work and shifting resources where or when needed. Rigid rules will not always work or result in the most effective solution.  Be strategic. Target and prioritize actions to be effective and gain community support and momentum. Acknowledge limitations, but be creative and persistent in seeking solutions.  Be a leader. Lead by example, and by forming partnerships that effect decision-making while providing ways to address differing views and perspectives.  Measure and assess. Set benchmarks to monitor progress and provide feedback to policy development and decision-making. A key to being successful in applying these principles to sustainability will be the need to apply an adaptive management approach to planning and resource allocation. A passive approach can emphasize predictive modeling and feedback, with program adjustments made as more information is learned. A more active approach will emphasize experimentation – actively trying different ideas or strategies and evaluating which produces the best results. Important for both approaches is (a) basing plans and programs on multi-scenario uncertainty and feedback, and (b) integrating risk into the analysis. Either of these approaches can be used, as appropriate in the situation or problem being addressed. Implementation Goal A. Develop benchmarks and indicators that will provide for measurement of progress toward established sustainability goals. A.1 Benchmarks and indicators should be both understandable and obtainable so that they can be easily explained and used. Packet Page 131 of 342 Community Sustainability 33 A.2 Establish both short- and long-term benchmarks and indicators to tie long-term success to interim actions and decisions. A.3 Develop a reporting mechanism and assessment process so that information can be gathered and made available to the relevant decision process at the appropriate time. Implementation Goal B. Provide mechanisms to link long-range, strategic, and short-term planning and decision-making in making progress toward community sustainability. B.1 Schedule planning and budgeting decision processes to form a logical and linked progression so that each process builds on and informs related decisions. B.2 Long-range, strategic, and short-term planning should acknowledge the other time frames, decisions, and resources involved. For example, short-term budgetary and regulatory decisions should be designed to effect strategic and long-term goals. Figure 7: Example of Process Coordination Packet Page 132 of 342 34 Community Sustainability Implementation Actions and Performance Measures. Implementation actions are steps that are intended to be taken within a specified timeframe to address high priority sustainability goals. Performance measures are specific, meaningful, and easily obtainable items that can be reported on an annual basis. These are intended to help assess progress toward achieving the goals and policy direction of this element. The actions and measures identified here are specifically called out as being important, but are not intended to be the only actions or measures that may be used by the City. Action 1: By 2017, update the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan to reference emerging risks and hazards related to climate change, such as rising sea levels and ocean acidification. Performance Measure 1: Annually report on energy usage within the City, both by City government and by the larger Edmonds community. Packet Page 133 of 342 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2014 Page 2 CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT Mr. Chave referred the Board to the updated version of the Sustainability Element. He noted that, as discussed at the last meeting, a new section that incorporates an action and performance measure was inserted at the end of the element. In addition, recommended changes submitted by Board Member Stewart were inserted into the document and identified in red. Board Member Stewart reported that she attended a recent meeting of the Mayors Climate Protection Committee, and asked the members to review and comment on the current Sustainability Element. The comments she received were forwarded to staff. The Board reviewed the document as follows:  Background on Page 18. Board Member Robles observed that, currently, the term “sustainability’ is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” He questioned what is meant by the word “future.” He suggested the word opens the door to a very well- known concept called Pareto Efficiency, which is a state of allocation of resources in which it is impossible to make any one individual better off without making at least one individual worse off. He noted that a huge body of education is dedicated to this concept. He suggested a definition of sustainability could include an account of those who win and those who lose based on a decision the City makes. While he recognized it would be difficult, he felt the definition should be adjusted to lend itself to more main stream analysis. Board Member Stewart responded that the current definition is widely accepted throughout the world and refers to environmental, social and economic sustainability. While Board Member Robles’ recommendation has merit, she questioned if it would be appropriate to insert additional language at this point in time. Chair Cloutier suggested that the concept would be more appropriately discussed when the Board talks about methods for implementing the goals and policies contained in the Sustainability Element. Board Member Robles commented that climate change is very relevant to global sustainability. Sustainability at the micro level is also important. He questioned if changes are needed to address the City remaining sustainable if transportation is cut off for an extended period of time in the future. Other potential concerns are whether there would there be enough food and water to sustain citizens in an emergency and if it is possible to generate as much solar power as the City would need?  Last paragraph on Page 18. Board Member Stewart advised that Barbara Tipton, a member of the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee, felt strongly that the Edmonds Marsh is a significant asset that should be specifically mentioned in this paragraph. The Board Members agreed.  Sustainability Goal A on Page 19. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that the words “in a sustainable way” in Item A.1 should be removed from the first sentence. Chair Cloutier advised that using the term “sustainable” implies that the City will consider outside things when maintaining the City’s character and charm. The Board agreed to leave this paragraph as written.  Sustainability Goal F on Pages 21 and 22. Board Member Stewart advised that Barbara Tipton requested an additional item should be added to Sustainability Goal F that “all citizens should be within walking distance of a park.” Chair Cloutier explained that this would be more of a metric for measuring how well the City has implemented Sustainability Goals F.2 and F.3 or the specific goals called out in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Mr. Chave agreed that the Board could discuss this as a potential performance measure when reviewing the PROS Plan, which is a separate element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board agreed, particularly if it is already called out as a goal in the PROS Plan.  Sustainability Goal D on Page 20 and Climate Change Goal E on Page 26. The Board discussed that perhaps Sustainability Goal D could be expanded to place more emphasis on the need for energy-efficient development. Concern was expressed that including the word “in city facilities” might unnecessarily limit the goal’s application. The Board agreed that improving energy efficiency should be a citywide goal. Board Member Stewart pointed out that Ms. Tipton Packet Page 134 of 342 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2014 Page 3 also commented on the need to make energy efficiency a citywide goal. Mr. Chave pointed out that Climate Change Goal E calls for developing mitigation strategies that could be used by the both public and private sectors. He also noted that the word “city” is not capitalized, which means it is intended to apply to all facilities and not just those owned and operated by the City. The Board agreed not to eliminate the words “in city facilities.”  Climate Change Goal E on Page 26. While it is well known that multi-family housing is more energy efficient than single-family housing, Board Member Rubenkonig noted that the fact is not specifically called out in the Sustainability Element. Board Member Stewart pointed out that the issue is specifically called out in the Climate Protection Plan. Chair Cloutier agreed that, typically, multi-family housing is more energy efficient, but there are techniques for making single-family housing energy efficient, as well. Mr. Chave referred to Climate Change Goal E.3, which talks about developing programs and incentives that encourage existing land use, buildings and infrastructure to reduce their carbon footprint. While this is a general statement, the idea is that the entire City is included in the effort. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if it would be appropriate to include multi-family residential development as a specific example of energy efficient development. Mr. Chave cautioned against singling out a specific use, as it could be interpreted that energy efficiency is less important for other types of uses. Mr. Chave explained that, if the goal is to reduce green house gases, the best approach would be to start with the highest users and work backwards. Available data indicates that the treatment plant is the City’s highest user, followed by grocery stores and large commercial establishments. Chair Cloutier pointed out that data on energy use is available on the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee’s website. Vice Chair Tibbott asked how much solar energy is produced in the City, and Chair Cloutier said it is next to zero at this time. Vice Chair Tibbott said it is not clear to him that the language in Climate Change Goal E applies to buildings. Mr. Chave pointed out that Goal E.3 specifically calls out existing land use, buildings and infrastructure. To make it clearer, he suggested that the first sentence could be changed by adding “and increase energy efficiency.” The Board agreed that would be appropriate. Vice Chair Tibbott noted that the goal does not point to any specific type of use. Again, Mr. Chave said it is intended to apply to all types of land uses, buildings and infrastructure, and adding examples may limit its application. Chair Cloutier reminded the Board that the goal is to reduce the carbon footprint and not to change the land use. He cautioned that broad statements are more appropriate for the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan, which will be implemented by the more specific Development Code regulations. Vice Chair Tibbott said it is not clear that the term “development” applies to buildings. Mr. Chave explained that the term was carefully chosen and applies to the arrangement of buildings, pedestrian connections, bikeways and other things associated with the development such as retaining trees, clearing and grading, mitigation programs, reducing footprint and incentives for buildings that are energy efficient.  Climate Change Goal D on Page 20. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would still like “energy efficiency” to be addressed as a Sustainability Goal rather than a Climate Action Goal. The Board agreed that the second sentence should be changed to specifically call out the need to improve energy efficiency.  Climate Change Goal B on Pages 24 and 25. Board Member Stewart suggested that the language no longer reference the 1990 and 2012 pollution level numbers. Mr. Chave explained that this references an historic policy that the City agreed to when joining the United States Mayors’ Climate Protection Committee. It is not the City’s current policy, and that is why it is not stated as a goal. What the City has actually agreed to do is called out in Climate Change Goal B.  Climate Change Goal E on Page 26. Board Member Stewart suggested that the words “and potential sea level rise,” should be added at the end of Climate Change Goal E. Mr. Chave pointed out that sea level rise is just one of the affects of climate change. Specifically calling it out could imply that it is the most important issue. Board Member Stewart commented that sea level rise must be addressed when planning for development and Best Available Science must be considered. The City should at least acknowledge sea level rise somewhere in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave noted that Page 34 of the Sustainability Element calls for the City updating its Hazard Mitigation Plan by 2017 to reference emerging risks and hazards related to climate change. This update will include a discussion about sea level Packet Page 135 of 342 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2014 Page 4 rise. Chair Cloutier added that sea level rise is called out in the broader term, “mitigating the affects of climate change.” The question is whether it should be called out as a particular concern for which the City is vulnerable. He cautioned that calling it out specifically could muddy the issue because people will narrow the policy to the example provided. Again, he reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan is not code; it is intended to be a high-level vision. He cautioned against adding details that will constrain future decisions. All code changes must be balanced against the sustainability element. If they keep it narrow, the results will be narrow. If it is kept broad, it will not be constrained to what the City thinks is important today. He urged the Board to keep the Sustainability Element as broad as possible. As an example, Mr. Chave said he views ocean acidification as a far more threatening problem than sea level rise. The impacts of this will be much more drastic in the near term before you ever see significant impacts from sea level rise. If the City focuses on just one specific thing, it may lose site of the other issues that might be more important. Board Member Stewart also suggested the green house gases and ocean acidification should be called out specifically in the Sustainability Element, but she is not sure the best place to do it. The Board agreed not to add “and potential sea level rise” to Climate Change Goal E. Board Member Robles cautioned that Edmonds cannot stop all sea level rise, but it can look at Edmonds as a sustainable unit for which sea level rise is a significant threat. He noted that there are documents that address both local and global sustainability, and he suggested it might be appropriate to add a new element that addresses sustainability for just Edmonds, as he discussed earlier.  Action 1 on Page 34. Chair Cloutier commented that no matter how much the City does to address rising sea levels and ocean acidification, they will not impact the overall situation. However, they can prepare to mitigate the impacts. The City must have a plan in place to adapt to all the impacts of climate change. The Board agreed that rising sea levels is a hazard that will impact Edmonds and it should be addressed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. They agreed to change Action 1 to read, “By 2017, update the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan to reference emerging risks and hazards related to climate change such as rising sea levels and ocean acidification.  Paragraph 3 on Page 27. Board Member Stewart referred to her proposed language and clarified that the 2nd sentence should read, “The percentage of young people who are overweight has more than doubled in the last twenty years, and childhood obesity is a potential precursor to obesity in adults.” While obesity is a current health problem, Board Member Ellis cautioned against calling it out as a specific example. He suggested that some of Board Member Stewart’s proposed language should be eliminated and the paragraph should read, “Transportation systems, development patterns, community design and planning decisions can have profound effects on health and well being. All citizens should be able to live, work and play in environments that facilitate physical activity and offer healthy choices.” This would allow the City to address all health problems, including obesity, aging population, safe pedestrian access, etc. Mr. Chave cautioned that the danger is that health concerns tend to go in cycles and various issues rise to the top. Board Member Stewart pointed out that obesity is a national trend that results in a number of other health issues such as diabetes and heart disease. The City should recognize this as an issue that needs to be addressed for the long term. Consistent with keeping the Sustainability Element broader, the Board agreed to incorporate only the last two sentences of Board Member Stewart’s recommended language.  Community Health Goal B on Page 28. Board Member Rubenkonig said she supports the first sentence in Item B.6, which talks about increasing access to health-promoting foods and beverages in the community. However, she questioned what incentives are in place to have locally-sourced produce available in the City. Chair Cloutier pointed out that encouraging locally-sourced food is a possible solution for implementing Community Health Goal B. Again, he reminded the Board that the goals in the Comprehensive Plan, including the Sustainability Element, are intended to guide the City’s future. They are intended to call out the problems, but not offer solutions. They are used as a guide when considering future Development Code amendments, which must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  Environmental Quality Goal A on Page 30. Board Member Stewart asked that the word “natural” be changed to “native” in Item A.1. She explained that native vegetation supports native wildlife and natural vegetation does not necessary do that. Mr. Chave commented that the term “native” has a very different meaning than “natural,” especially Packet Page 136 of 342 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2014 Page 5 as it relates to climate change. Board Member Stewart pointed out that certain species of native plants should be present in riparian areas along streams. Native plants have been bread in the community and support wildlife. If the City simply requires natural vegetation rather than native vegetation, the ecosystem could be altered. Mr. Chave agreed but pointed out that the concern is addressed in Item A.2, which calls for the retention and enhancement of wildlife habitat areas. Introducing native species might not accomplish this goal. He said he views “natural” as a much broader term that will allow the City to implement appropriate development codes to protect and enhance wildlife habitat areas. The Board agreed not to change “natural” to “native.” Board Member Ellis asked how the City would determine which species are native and which are not. Board Member Stewart answered that there are lists available to make this determination. Non-native species are usually invasive and compete against the native species. Board Member Ellis stressed the importance of educating property owners about the difference between non-native and native species. Mr. Chave said most people know the obvious invasive, non-native species, and there are lists available from various agencies.  Environmental Quality Goal A on Page 30. Board Member Stewart advised that Ms. Tipton suggested that Item A.1 be amended to include private residential properties as potential wildlife habitat in addition to urban forests, wetlands, etc. Board Member Stewart pointed out that wildlife habitat is not just in public spaces, but in private yards, too. The City’s goal should be to increase wildlife habitat. Once again, Mr. Chave pointed out that the word “city” is not capitalized, which means it is intended to apply to all wildlife habitat areas and not just those owned by the City. He advised that urban forests include more private lands than public lands, and the goal is intended to be very broad to encompass all wildlife habitat areas. The Board agreed that the goal was broad enough as written. DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Mr. Chave referred to the current Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit 1) and invited the Board members to share their comments and questions in preparation for their September 24th review and discussion on the draft Housing Element update. He reported that the Executive Director of the Housing Coalition of Snohomish County and Everett made a presentation (Exhibit 2) to the City Council on August 26th about countywide housing needs, especially related to affordability and the region’s growing population. The presentation also included important countywide data related to the need for affordable housing. Mr. Chave also reported that the City is partnering with other cities and Snohomish County in the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), a group formed from Snohomish County Tomorrow. Through this effort, an affordable housing profile has been created for each of the participating jurisdictions. A copy of the draft Edmonds Affordable Housing Profile was attached to the Staff Report as Exhibit 3. The final profile should be very similar and ready for the Board’s September 24th meeting, and Kristina Gallant from the AHA will be present at that time to walk the Board through the details. He explained that the profile contains extensive data on housing in Edmonds and looks at housing affordability mostly from the perspective of the entire metropolitan region, including Seattle. On the other hand, Exhibit 2 from the Housing Coalition looks at housing affordability based just on the Snohomish County area, not including Seattle. Both documents will be useful when updating the Housing Element. Board Member Stewart asked when the Board would discuss potential performance measures and action items. Mr. Chave said this topic would be part of the Board’s September 24th discussion. He encouraged Board Members to forward their thoughts and additional comments to him via email. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Chave reviewed that in addition to the Board’s continued discussion of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element, the September 24th meeting would include a public hearing on proposed updates to the Capital Facilities and Capital Improvement Plans for 2015-2020. The Development Services Director would also provide an overview of the development projects and activities that are currently taking place in the City, as well as data and statistics on how the City is doing in terms of valuation of construction. He said he anticipates the Board will need one more opportunity to discuss the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element on October 8th. The October 8th agenda would also include a discussion on the Packet Page 137 of 342 the screen during Planning Board meetings, and providing hyperlinks to other related sections of the code will save a significant amount of time. Mr. Chave said that staff primarily uses the digital version of the code now. Vice Chair Tibbott asked staff to share how having an up -to-date digital code that is available to the public on line will help with code enforcement. Ms. Hope said she does not know if there is any evidence or case study to indicate improved enforcement. However, a lot of people use the digital code. In addition to the digital code, another on-line feature the Development Services Department utilizes a lot is the request line where people can email questions and staff responds electronically. Mr. Chave added that since the City’s website was updated, there have been a lot more internet-generated questions. If people need more information, they can be routed to the appropriate department. Mr. Chave suggested that improving code enforcement many not be the right way to think about the update. It is more about information flow. To the extent people can better access the codes on line and they are easier to follow and understand, people will become less frustrated. However, there will always be a cadre of people who resist permitting and that will not likely change. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that some of the proposed amendments could be presented to the Planning Board via a consent agenda. If the Board wants more information, they could be pulled from the consent agenda for additional discussion. Chair Cloutier said the Planning Board has not traditionally utilized a consent agenda. Amendments are typically presented to the Board in groups. Some of the items will require extensive discussion, and some will not. However, the Board will conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation on the entire package of amendments. The Board indicated support for the list of priorities and the process outlined by staff. OVERVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT Mr. Chave referred the Board to the existing Sustainability Element, which was attached to the Staff Report. He advised that a recent analysis of the element by staff, using a checklist from the State, did not reveal the need to make any changes in order to be consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA) or other state laws. In addition, this element does not contain any data that needs to be replaced with newer data. However, the Board could discuss minor adjustments to the element, particularly adding a “performance measure” and one or more time-based “action items” as a special section to the element. He cautioned that it will be important to be fairly choosey about the action items because they will inform the agenda for the next few years, as some will require a significant amount of work. Chair Cloutier recalled that over the past year, the Board has reviewed a number of proposals related to the shoreline (i.e. Shoreline Master Program and Harbor Square Master Plan). This included land use discussions for properties that could potentially be in a threatened zone. He suggested it would be appropriate to update the Sustainability Element to clarify where the lines of concern should be related to sea level rise. Mr. Chave responded that some of this risk assessment could be covered in the City’s emergency plan, which does not currently address the evolving climate and issues related to rising sea level. He said it might be appropriate to update the emergency plan to make sure that information related to storm events and severity are adequately addressed. Board Member Ellis pointed out that climate change and rising sea levels have statewide implications. He asked what the State has done to identify and address these issues. Mr. Chave answered that a number of reports have been done at various times. The issue is particularly difficult given that each location within the state has unique characteristics and a one-size- fits-all approach will not adequately address all situations. A significant amount of data has come out over the past few years. While it continues to evolve, it can provide a good idea of what could happen. Board Member Ellis asked if a particular state agency has been tasked with addressing this issue on a statewide basis. Mr. Chave answered that there have been a variety of projects sponsored by the University of Washington, the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE), etc. Each group issues its own report at different points in time, and information in one report can become outdated by a later report. The efforts are beginning to coalesce, and the reports tend to focus on the two most likely scenarios for comparison purposes. This allows the work to be fairly consistent to provide benchmarks that will help local jurisdictions address the issue appropriately. Mr. Chave summarized that it is important to update the Sustainability Element to acknowledge what has been done to date, such as adoption of the Strategic Action Plan. Although staff does not foresee any significant changes in the goals and Packet Page 138 of 342 policies discussed in the element, it would be appropriate to identify at least one “performance measure,” as well as specific action items that will begin to set priorities. Board Member Stewart suggested that the Mayors Climate Action Committee be invited to review and comment on the Sustainability Element at their meeting in early September. She plans to attend the committee meeting and could report their findings to the Board. Board Member Stewart reported that she has participated in a series of courses, some of which relate to the topic of sea level rise. There is data available specific to each segment of the shoreline, which reflects the range of potential sea level rise. It boils down to an overlay that illustrates the buildings and lands that could be impacted by rising sea levels. Mr. Chave said there is also an interactive website that provides similar information. Chair Cloutier summarized that the idea is to implement a range of scenarios to build policy. It was noted that various groups are working on this effort. Board Member Lovell said that although there are several inferences and/or references to the concept of economic sustainability for the City in the Sustainability Element, he felt the language could be strengthened. He expressed concern about the direction that has been taken over the past five or six year, both politically and in the public arena, regarding what it takes to run a successful City. The City Council has struggled for a number of years to achieve a budget that recognizes what everyone believes to be the stature of the City related to conditions, and there is an information and awareness gap between the greater citizenry of the City about increased taxes. Sooner or later the City Council and citizens must recognize that taxes will have to go up if they want the City to stay the way it is. Mr. Chave suggested that economic sustainability would be better addressed in the Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan, which has not been updated for a number of years. While updating the Economic Development Element has been identified as a City priority, he is not sure of the timeline. Board Member Stewart said she would like to propose some changes to the language in the Sustainability Element, most of which relate to the “Environmental” and “Community Health” sections. In particularly, she would like to integrate language from the National Physical Activity Plan related to transportation, land use and community design. In addition, she would like to incorporate elements of the Washington State Nutrition and Physical Activity Plan. She said she will also propose other changes that she felt would strengthen the goals called out in both the “Environmental” and “Community Health” sections. Chair Cloutier encouraged Board Member Stewart to submit her proposed changes to staff so they could become part of the Board’s next discussion regarding the Sustainability Element. Board Member Lovell pointed out that numerous statements in the Sustainability Element use the word “shall,” which means “should” or “maybe.” Mr. Chave explained that the Comprehensive Plan is intended to be aspirational, and the Development Code lays out all of the requirements. It is very difficult to put directive “shalls” in a planning document when there are many different ways of implementing goals. Board Member Lovell reminded the Board of staff’s recommendation that at least one “performance measure” should be identified for each element of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave indicated that staff would have some recommendations for the Board to consider as part of their next discussion. Chair Cloutier referred to the Performance Measure Matrix the Board previously prepared and reminded them that there is already a performance measure in place to track green house gases. It is simple to do, and the Mayor’s Climate Action Committee already started informally tracking citywide electricity, natural gas, and water consumption. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Cloutier reviewed that the Board’s September 10th agenda will include a discussion of the Housing Element and continued discussion of the Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The September 24th agenda will include a presentation on the status of development projects and activities, continued discussion of the Housing Element, and a public hearing on proposed updates to the Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Packet Page 139 of 342 AM-7012 10. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/22/2014 Time: 20 Minutes Department: Development Services Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title Continued Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Update Recommendation Ask questions, discuss. No action is required. Previous Council Action The City Council discussed the 2014 and 2015 Comprehensive Plan update process at its July 1 meeting and provided consensus for staff to move forward with preparing a minor update for 2014 and a more significant update in 2015. At its July 16 meeting, the City Council approved a budget amendment to allow the hiring of a temporary part-time planner to assist with the 2015 update. Narrative The state's Growth Management Act requires most cities and counties to have comprehensive plans and development regulations and to implement them. Every few years, each jurisdiction must review and, as needed, update its comprehensive plan and development regulations so that the plans and regulations meet current state laws, as well as local needs. For cities in our region, the next due date for a major review and update is June 30, 2015. In the spring of 2014, the Development Services Department conducted a review of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, using a checklist created by the State Department of Commerce. The review indicated that the Plan's goals and policies were generally consistent with the Growth Management Act, but that: (a) a significant data update was needed, affecting almost every chapter; (b) the population and jobs forecast needed to reflect a new 20-year period (through 2035, rather than through 2025); and (c) some aspects of the Plan could benefit from new information since the last major update. An overview of the above information, along with options for the update process and a preliminary schedule, were presented to the Planning Board on June 25. On July 1, the City Council reviewed the information and provided general consensus that staff should move forward with a basic update 1Print Agenda Memo 10/8/2014http://agenda.ci.edmonds.wa.us/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=7012&rev=0&mode=External&r... Packet Page 140 of 342 of the Comprehensive Plan, aiming to complete it by the State's mid-2015 deadline. Council member Johnson asked for the discussion to be continued to another meeting. Currently, the Development Services Department is working on preliminary aspects of the update, including to obtain assistance from a part-time planner. The 2015 update is assumed to include: - Review and draft revision of each chapter, as needed, for: - Data updates - Relevant new information - References to regional guidance, such as from Snohomish County Tomorrow or Puget Sound Regional Council - Minor clean-up. In addition: - Some referenced plans, such as older drainage plans, may be proposed for elimination from the Comprehensive Plan. - Several performance measures may be proposed as an addition to track how key goals are being met. - One or two "action steps" may be proposed for some chapters (such as the Sustainability Element) to help implement the adopted objectives. Public process for the update will include: - Creation of a webpage with update information to be added on a regular basis (Note: creation of the webpage is likely to occur after some technology upgrades are completed for the City's network.) - Public meetings of the Planning Board - Public meetings of the City Council - One open house - Press releases - Feature in the City newsletter - Presentations to interested organizations - Notices to nearby jurisdictions, tribes, and state agencies - Public hearing by the Planning Board - Public hearing by the City Council. The preliminary schedule for the 2015 Update, which was previously shown at the City Council's July 1 meeting, has been slightly modified --for example, consolidating the timeframe for reviewing the Streetscape and Street Tree plans. See Attachment 1. A slideshow has been prepared to include the above information, along with some other details, such as which elements are required and which are optional under the Growth Management Act. See Attachment 2. Attachments Atchmt 1: Schedule Attchmt 2: Slide Show 2Print Agenda Memo 10/8/2014http://agenda.ci.edmonds.wa.us/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=7012&rev=0&mode=External&r... Packet Page 141 of 342 asked how a repeat of the Compass building would be avoided where the commercial space was vacant and property owner was satisfied with his profits on the residential. Mr. Chave responded parking is an interesting subject; parking standards are minimums. There is not much room for overflow in Westgate so there is a strong incentive for development to provide the necessary parking. Before providing funding, banks want to know the parking need and the parking provided. Historically parking standards have largely been a blunt instrument because they do not acknowledge different markets for individual properties or stores. For example, he noted the PCC parking lot is well used most of the day, whereas the previous Albertsons parking lot was vacant much of the day. Mr. Chave explained if parking is established by use, it inhibits different businesses from moving in/out of a space. For example, at one time there were different parking standards downtown for offices versus restaurant versus retail; when one use moved out it was difficult for a different use to provide additional parking. At one time there was an ability to pay into an in-lieu-of parking fund which ultimately provided no parking. A blended rate makes the most sense for a mixed use development; the exact parking ratios will depend on the development mix. Councilmember Petso commented on historic undesirable experiences that resulted in the existing requirements downtown such as a commercial height requirement to ensure the commercial space was usable, a percentage of usable retail space on the ground floor and requiring retail at the street level. She noted there were no requirements for first floor height or commercial percentages on the first floor. Mr. Chave advised the commercial building types determine what is allowed on each floor; for example, the ground floor of a commercial building must be commercial. The frontage types address the arrangement of floors to the street front. Sufficient height has been provided, 35 feet for 3 stories and 45 feet for 4 stories, to prevent a subterranean ground floor. Councilmember Petso asked whether there was enough height for a restaurant use or would a builder construct 8 foot commercial ceiling heights and 10-12 foot residential ceiling heights. Mr. Chave answered the number of floors paired with the height prevent that. The Council could impose a ground floor height for retail. Councilmember Petso displayed a photograph of a house adjacent to the Compass mixed use building. She asked whether the slope heights in the Westgate area have been carefully measured to avoid having the residential lot completely wrapped by a building. Mr. Chave displayed the map of height at the top of slopes prepared using the City’s lidar information. He was confident the situation Councilmember Petso described would not happen. Councilmember Petso asked whether height variances would be allowed. Mr. Chave answered it is essentially impossible to justify a height variance. 10. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Development Services Director Shane Hope provided background on the Comprehensive Plan: • Provides long term community planning and public process • Required under Growth Management Act (GMA) • Must be internally consistent • Cannot be amended more than once/year (with certain exceptions) • Must be implemented by local government through budget and other activities She reviewed Comprehensive Plan elements that are required and optional for cities under GMA: • Required: o Housing o Land Use o Transportation o Capital Facilities o Utilities Packet Page 142 of 342 o Economic Development* o Parks & Recreation* • Optional: o Conservation o Solar energy o Subarea plans o Any other topic relating to physical development within community *if budget allows She described Edmonds’ existing Comprehensive Plan: • Last amended in 2013 • Reviewed in spring 2014 for consistency with current state laws o Found to be mostly in compliance with need for some updating She identified Edmonds’ existing Comprehensive Plan elements (2013): • Community Sustainability • Land Use o Shoreline sensitive areas map o Stevens Memorial Hospital o Master Plan o Edmonds-Woodway HS Master Plan o City Park Master Plan o Pine Ridge Parks Master Plan o SW County Park Master Plan o Port of Edmonds Master Plan & Strategic Plan o Housing o Transportation (2009 Plan) o PROS Plan (2008) • Community Culture & Urban Design o Community Cultural Plan o Streetscape Plan o Economic Development Plan • Utilities o Sewer Plan o Water Plan (2010) o Storm & Surface Water Plan (2010) o Edmonds Drainage Basin Studies o Meadowdale & Perrinville Drainage Studies o SW Edmonds Basin Study She described the 2014 update process: • To be on separate track from 2015 update • Planning Board has held public hearing and recommended 2014 Comprehensive Plan updates: o Text revision for Westgate o Replacement of old PROS plan with new PROS plan approved by City Council in early 2014 o Replacement of old Community Cultural plan o Planning Board recommendation – scheduled for City Council public hearing and possible action on 8/4 She described the 2015 update: Packet Page 143 of 342 • Every few years cities and counties must do major review of Comprehensive Plan and development regulations as necessary, update them • Next major review and update is due June 30, 2015 • Development Services staff recently completed extensive checklist under GMA She described general direction for the City: • Planning Board held June 25 public hearing and recommended moving forward with basic update to include new data and general clean-up • City Council reviewed proposed recommendation for 2015 update and provided general direction to move forward with basic update, including new data and general cleanup and also approved budget amendment for temporary part-time planner assistance She identified update issues • Census data out of date (largely based on 2000 data) • New jobs and population forecasts to be incorporated (Snohomish County Tomorrow process) extending from year 2025 to 2035 • Transportation Plan needs major updating (process just getting started) • All other elements need updating (except any updated in 2014) to reflect newer data and information or streamlining o Possible exception: Sustainability element since its very general • Some outdated documents may need to be removed from reference • Performance measure and action steps (optional) may be considered for each major element The public process will include: • Creation of special webpage with information added on a regular basis (after technology upgrades are completed) • Numerous public meetings of Planning Board • Numerous public meetings of City Council • At least one open house • Press releases • Article(s) in City newsletter • Presentations to interested orgs • Notice to nearby jurisdictions, tribes, state agencies • Ongoing opportunities for comment • Public hearing by Planning Board • Public hearing by City Council Ms. Hope explained the Development Services Department is working on preliminary aspects of update including: • Obtain assistance from temporary part-time planner • Review SCT materials and countywide planning policies • Review bu8ildable land data • Obtain housing profile data from AHA • Review guidance from state agencies • Review guidance from PSRC • Coordinate with public works, on RFQ process for Transportation Master Plan and SR-104 Complete Streets Analysis She explained each element to be considered for updating, one by one based on schedule with any minor changes. No final decisions will be made until entire Comprehensive Plan is drafted and considered at Packet Page 144 of 342 public hearing. She reviewed the Estimated 2015 Comprehensive Plan Review and Update Schedule and likely updates to be drafted for discussion in 2014: • Sustainability element o Planning Board: August 27 or September 10 o City Council: September 23 • Housing Element o Planning Board: September 24 o City Council: October 14 • Land use Element o Planning Board: October 8 or 22 o City Council: December 2 • Streetscape/Street Tree Plan o Planning Board: December 10 o City Council: Early 2015 She concluded no major policy changes are expected. There is a lot of work ahead to include: • New transportation element consistent with land use element • Updated data and information throughout • General cleanup and refreshing • Streamlining (e.g. removal of outdated components) • Possible addition of performance measure and action steps. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about a Master Plan for Highway 99. Ms. Hope answered that is not proposed for this Comprehensive Plan update. She plans to propose development of a Highway 99 Master Plan as soon as the Comprehensive Plan update is complete. Council President Buckshnis referred to the old Stevens Hospital Master Plan and asked whether Swedish-Edmonds would be required to provide a new Master Plan or will it be incorporated into a Highway 99 Master Plan. Ms. Hope proposed removing the old Stevens Hospital Master Plan. 12. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JULY 8, 2014 Finance Committee Councilmember Petso reported on items discussed by the committee: • 2014 May Budgetary Financial Report – Approved on Consent Agenda • Discussion of Edmonds Public Facilities District and City of Edmonds Interlocal Agreement – Discussed by full Council • 2014 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment – Discussed by full Council • Sales Tax Reporting – Finance Director advised too detailed reporting may result in disclosing single taxpayers’ information which is prohibited by RCW • Two public comments Public Safety & Personnel Committee Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported on items discussed by the committee: • Renewal of Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force 2014-2015 – Approved on Consent Agenda • Discussion Regarding Code of Ethics – Full Council after editing and review by City Attorney • Two public comments Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee Packet Page 145 of 342 Councilmember Bloom reported on items discussed by the committee: • Authorization to Amend Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County for "Urban County" Requalification with HUD – Discussed by full Council • Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Murray, Smith & Associates for Design Services for the 2015 Sewer Replacement Project – Approved on Consent Agenda • Proposed Addition to Development Fee Schedule – Approved on Consent Agenda • One public comment 13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported Sound Transit will be making an important decision on Thursday regarding the siting of a second maintenance and operations base. Sites under consideration include the Edmonds School District property in Lynnwood and three sites in Bellevue. A third maintenance and operations facility will eventually be required. 14. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Johnson reported there will be no City Council meeting next Tuesday as it is the fifth Tuesday. The next City Council is Monday, August 4 which will allow everyone to attend the Northwest SEED solar workshop on Tuesday, August 5 from 6:30 – 8 p.m. in the Brackett Room and to vote. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reminded Tuesday, July 29 is Edmonds Night Out at Frances Anderson Center from 6 to 8 p.m. Councilmember Mesaros reported they are still moving forward with developing an evaluation procedure for the City Attorney services provided by Lighthouse Group. Review of the evaluation procedure is tentatively scheduled for the August 4 Council agenda. 15. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR SEVEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. At 10:02 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.140(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 5 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. 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, Peterson, Petso, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 10:05 p.m. 16. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 10:05 p.m. 17. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m. Packet Page 146 of 342    AM-7196     15.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/14/2014 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Review Committee: Committee Action: Cancel Type: Action  Information Subject Title Presentation and Discussion of the Proposed 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program. Recommendation Schedule a public hearing for both documents.   Previous Council Action On September 23, 2014, Council reviewed the process to approve the Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program.  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 2015-2020 CFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has three project sections comprised of General, Transportation and Stormwater. The proposed 2015-2020 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. The CFP and CIP were presented and a public hearing was held at the Planning Board meeting on Packet Page 147 of 342 September 24, 2014. 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. Staff recommends a public hearing be scheduled for both documents. Attachments Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP 2015-2020 Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP 2015-2020 Exhibit 3 - CFP/CIP Comparison (2014 to 2015) Exhibit 4 - Draft Planning Board Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 10/09/2014 04:06 PM Public Works Phil Williams 10/09/2014 04:23 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 10/10/2014 07:03 AM Mayor Dave Earling 10/10/2014 08:37 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/10/2014 08:39 AM Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 10/09/2014 01:27 PM Final Approval Date: 10/10/2014  Packet Page 148 of 342 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2015-2020 DRAFT Packet Page 149 of 342 Packet Page 150 of 342 CFP GENERAL Packet Page 151 of 342 Packet Page 152 of 342 $0 Public Vote Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds $0 $0 Total $5-$23 M $0 Community Unknown Conceptual $0 Partnerships $0 REET $0 Total $5 M $0 Capital Campaign Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds $0 $0 Total $5 M $0 Public Vote RCO Land Acquisitio Conceptual $2,100,000 REET 1 / Grants $1,000,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000 G.O. Bonds $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $6,100,000 Total $3,000,000 $100,000 $3,000,000 Unknown $0 Library / Unknown Conceptual $0 City G.O. Bonds $0 $0 Total Unknown $0 Capital Campaign Unknown Conceptual $1,330,000 REET 2 $0 $40,000 $440,000 $400,000 $450,000 $1,000,000 School District $500,000 $500,000 $5,800,000 Foundation $2,500,000 $1,750,000 $1,550,000 $2,750,000 Grants $750,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $10,880,000 Total $3,750,000 $40,000 $3,690,000 $400,000 $3,000,000 10-12M $0 Public Vote Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds $0 $0 Total $3 - $4M $0 Public Vote / Grants Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds $0 Private Partnership $0 Total $4 - 10M EIS $0 Federal (Unsecured) US DOT Completed $0 State Funds $0 Total Unknown Unknown Conceptual $0 Grants $0 Total Unknown Conceptual $0 Grants $0 Total $0 $300,000 Total CFP $16,980,000 Annual CFP Totals $6,750,000 $140,000 $6,690,000 $400,000 $3,000,000 $0 PurposeProject Name Aquatic Facility Meet citizen needs for an Aquatics Center (Feasibility study complete August 2009). Establish a new center for the Art's Community. Edmonds School District (City has lease until 2021). Replace / Renovate (Currently subleased on Civic Playfield until 2021). Boys & Girls Club Building Civic Playfield Acquisition and/or development 2021-20252020201920182017 Art Center / Art Museum 20162015Revenue Source (2015-2020) Total Cost Current Project Phase Grant Opportunity Downtown Public Restroom Locate, construct, and maintain a public restroom downtown. Parks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations Building Edmonds / Sno-Isle Library Expand building for additional programs (Sno-Isle Capital Facilities Plan). Public Market (Downtown Waterfront)Acquire and develop property for a year round public market. Community Park / Athletic Complex - Old Woodway High School In cooperation with ESD#15 develop a community park and athletic complex. Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry / Mutimodal Facility Relocate ferry terminal to Marina Beach. Replace / Renovate deteriorating building in City Park. Senior Center Building Replace and expand deteriorating building on the waterfront. P a c k e t P a g e 1 5 3 o f 3 4 2 P a c k e t P a g e 1 5 4 o f 3 4 2 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 155 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Art Center / Art Museum ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A new Art Center/Museum facility will provide and promote Cultural / Arts facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008 update process. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority creates the need to determine feasibility for and potentially construct new visual arts related facilities. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $5,000,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 156 of 342 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 157 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition and/or Development ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6.3M 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: 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 Acquisition $20,000 $3M Planning/Study 100,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction $3M 1% for Art TOTAL $20,000 $3M $100,000 $3M * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 158 of 342 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 159 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic Complex at the Former Woodway High School ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $11,535,000 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/Study $655000 300,000 40000 150,000 Engineering & Administration 175,000 150,000 175,000 Construction $3,930,000 3,390,000 400,000 2,700,000 1% for Art 125,000 TOTAL $655000 $3,750,000 40000 $3,690,000 $400,000 $3,000,000 $10m - $12m * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 160 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million 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 161 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4 – 10 mil. * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 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 Packet Page 162 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry / Multimodal Facility ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown 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 Right of Way Construction 1% for Art TOTAL Unknown * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 163 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown Waterfront) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 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 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL Packet Page 164 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Downtown Restroom ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $300,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to locate, construct and maintain a downtown public restroom. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project satisfies goals in the Strategic Action Plan and the PROS plan. It is being supported by the Economic Development Commission and Planning Board. This will help to provide a much needed downtown amenity, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a valuable asset to Edmonds. SCHEDULE: This project depends on the ability of funds. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL 300,000 Packet Page 165 of 342 Packet Page 166 of 342 CFP TRANSPORTATION Packet Page 167 of 342 Packet Page 168 of 342 Safety / Capacity Analysis $251,046 (Federal or State secured)$251,046 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Construction $0 (Unsecured) $43,954 (Local Funds)$43,954 $295,000 Total $295,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $1,115,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$100,000 $163,000 $852,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $1,115,000 Total $100,000 $163,000 $852,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $10,000 (Local Funds)$10,000 $10,000 Total $10,000 $3,588,077 (Federal or State secured)$481,447 $3,106,630 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Possible Grant Design / ROW $0 (Unsecured) $2,134,510 (Local Funds)$230,140 $1,904,370 $5,722,587 Total $711,587 $5,011,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $4,964,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$500,000 $836,000 $3,628,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $4,964,000 Total $500,000 $836,000 $3,628,000 $5,375,000 (Federal or State secured)$3,431,500 $1,943,500 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Design / ROW $0 (Unsecured) $518,500 (Local Funds)$518,500 $5,893,500 Total $3,950,000 $1,943,500 $0 (Federal or State secured) 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 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,431,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,431,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$10,211,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $10,211,000 Intersection improvements to decrease intersection delay and improve level of service (LOS). Installation of a traffic signal to reduce the intersection delay and improve Level of Service (LOS). Install gateway elements and safety improvements along SR-99 Corridor. 2021-2025 Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements 212th St SW @ 84th Ave W (5corners) Intersection Improvements 76th Av. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements Reduce intersection delay by converting 9th Ave. to (2) lanes for both the southbound and northbound movements. SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave W Intersection Improvements Main St. and 9th Ave S (Interim Solution) 2018 2019 2020 Improve safety at the intersection by stop controller intersection for NB and SB to a signalized intersection. Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source Project Phase Realign highly skewed intersection to address safety and improve operations; create new east-west corridor between SR-99 and I-5. 220th St. SW @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements Reconfigure EB lane and add protected/permissive for the NB and SB LT to improve the intersection delay. 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th St. SW) Project Name 228th St. SW Corridor Safety Improvements Intersection improvements to decrease intersection delay and improve level of service. Install two-way left turn lanes to improve capacity and install sidewalk along this stretch to increase pedestrian safety (50 / 50 split with Snohomish County; total cost: ~20 Million). Highway 99 Gateway / Revitalization P a c k e t P a g e 1 6 9 o f 3 4 2 2021-2025201820192020 Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source Project PhaseProject Name $0 (Federal or State secured) $3,722,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $3,722,000 Total $341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $5,046,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $5,046,000 Total $484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $5,235,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $5,235,000 Total $502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$906,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $906,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,093,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,093,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,093,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,093,000 Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvement Widen 220th St. SW and Hwy 99 to add a westbound right turn lane (for 325' storage length) and a soutbound left turn lane (for 275' storage length). Install traffic signal to improve the Level of Service (LOS) and reduce intersection delay. Walnut St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements Convert all-way controlled intersection into signalized intersection. Olympic View Dr. @ 174th Ave. W Intersection Improvements Main St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvement Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements Widen 212th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200' storage length and an eastbound left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements. Convert all-way controlled intersection into signalized intersection. Widen 216th St. SW to add a left turn lane for eastbound and westbound lanes. P a c k e t P a g e 1 7 0 o f 3 4 2 2021-2025201820192020 Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source Project PhaseProject Name $0 (Federal or State secured) $1,520,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $1,520,000 Total $125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000 $392,109 (Federal or State secured)$392,109 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Design $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $392,109 Total $392,109 $0 (Federal or State secured) $65,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$65,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $65,000 Total $65,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $65,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$65,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $65,000 Total $65,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $82,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$82,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $82,000 Total $82,000 $8,650 (Federal or State secured)$8,650 Possible $1,816,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$1,816,000 RCO / TIB Grant Design $283,000 (Unsecured)$283,000 $1,350 (Local Funds)$1,350 $2,109,000 Total $10,000 $2,099,000 Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link. Non-motorized Pedestrian / Bicycle Projects 2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway Dayton St. between 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link. Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St. Provide sidewalk on west side of the street, facing waterfront. 236th St SW from Edmonds Way (SR- 104) to Madrona Elementary Improve pedestrian safety along 236th St. SW, creating a safe pedestrian connection between SR- 104 and Madrona Elementary Provide safe and desirable route to Seview Elementary and nearby parks. 80th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to Olympic View Dr Walkway and sight distance improvements Maple St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link. P a c k e t P a g e 1 7 1 o f 3 4 2 2021-2025201820192020 Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source Project PhaseProject Name $0 (Federal or State secured) Grant for Design $2,306,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$349,000 $1,957,000 funding currently Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) under review $0 (Local Funds) $2,306,000 Total $349,000 $1,957,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $189,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$189,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $29,000 (Local Funds)$29,000 $218,000 Total $218,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $325,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$325,000 $760,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$0 $0 (Local Funds) $325,000 Total $325,000 $760,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $190,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$190,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $190,000 Total $190,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $380,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$380,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $380,000 Total $380,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $3,900,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$1,000,000 $2,900,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $425,000 (Local Funds)$425,000 $4,325,000 Total $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $519,041 (Federal or State secured)$519,041 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Design $0 (Unsecured) $1,038,893 (Local Funds)$1,038,893 $1,557,934 Total $1,557,934 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,249,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,249,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$189,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $189,000 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W Provide sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W (completing missing link) Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along missing link. Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th St. SW Provide safe sidewalk, connecting to ex. sidewalk along 200th St. SW (Maplewood Elementary School). Walnut St from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. S Walkway Provide short missing link. Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S Walkway Provide short missing link. 189th Pl. SW from 80th Ave. W to 78th Ave. W Walkway Provide short missing link. Olympic Ave from Main St to SR-524 / 196th St. SW Walkway Reconstruct sidewalk (ex. conditions: rolled curb / unsafe conditions) along a stretch with high pedestrian activity and elementary school. 4th Ave. Corridor Enhancement Create more attractive and safer corridor along 4th Ave. 238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W Walkway and Stormwater Improvements Provide safe walking route between minor arterial and collector. P a c k e t P a g e 1 7 2 o f 3 4 2 2021-2025201820192020 Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source Project PhaseProject Name $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$175,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $175,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,050,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,050,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $60,000 (Local Funds)$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000 Total $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $6,000 (Federal or State secured)$6,000 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Construction $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $6,000 Total $6,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $350,000 (Local Funds)$50,000 $300,000 $350,000 Total $50,000 $300,000 Total CFP $50,749,130 Annual CFP Totals $6,976,630 $7,274,500 $10,000 $6,418,000 $11,942,000 $18,128,000 $18,157,000 Totals Source 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2025 $10,133,923 Total Federal & State (Secured)$5,083,793 $5,050,130 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,920,000 Total Federal & State (Unsecured)$0 $0 $0 $6,308,000 $12,669,000 $21,943,000 $760,000 $283,000 Unsecured $0 $0 $0 $283,000 $0 $0 $17,397,000 $4,582,207 Local Funds $1,892,837 $2,224,370 $10,000 $435,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 Revenue Summary by Year 84th Ave. W between 188th St. SW and 186th St. SW Walkway Provide safe walking route between those (2) local streets. 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W Walkway Provide safe walking route between principal arterial and minor arterial. Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming To assist residents and City staff in responding to neighborhood traffic issues related to speeding, cut- through traffic and safety. Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone @ Dayton and Main St. Crossings Install Trackside Warning System and Quiet Zone @ Dayton and Main St. Railroad Crossings in order to reduce noise level within Downtown Edmonds. 15th St SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S Provide safe walking route between minor arterial and collector. P a c k e t P a g e 1 7 3 o f 3 4 2 P a c k e t P a g e 1 7 4 o f 3 4 2 PROJECT NAME: 212th St. SW @ 84th Ave. W (5-Corners) Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,305,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The intersection of 84th Ave and 212th 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. The project also includes various utility upgrades and conversion of overhead utilities to underground. (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 documentation will be completed in 2015. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW Construction $295,000 1% for Art TOTAL $295,000 Packet Page 175 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,722,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 216th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for and an eastbound left turn lane. Provide protected-permissive left turn phases for eastbound and westbound movements. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2018 and 2020. (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & ROW & Administration $341,000 $686,000 Construction $2,695,000 1% for Art TOTAL $341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000 Packet Page 176 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,046,000 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 existing intersection delay from 72 seconds (w/o improvement) to 62 seconds (w/ improvement) in 2025. SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2018 and 2020 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $484,000 $737,000 Construction $3,825,000 1% for Art TOTAL $484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000 Packet Page 177 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,235,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 212th 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: All phases are scheduled between 2018 and 2020. (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering, ROW, & Administration $502,000 $765,000 Construction $3,968,000 1% for Art TOTAL $502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000 Packet Page 178 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 174th Ave. W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $906,000 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 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $180,000 Construction $726,000 1% for Art TOTAL $906,000 Packet Page 179 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Main St. @ 9th Ave Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000 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 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $220,000 Construction $873,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,093,000 Packet Page 180 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000 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 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $220,000 Construction $873,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,093,000 Packet Page 181 of 342 PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave W from 188th St SW to Olympic View Dr. Walkway and sight distance improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,520,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct ~ 3,000’ sidewalk on 80th Ave West between 188th 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 2018 and 2020 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $125,000 $125,000 Construction $1,270,000 1% for Art TOTAL $125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000 Packet Page 182 of 342 PROJECT NAME: 236th St. SW from Edmonds Way to Madrona Elementary School ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $420,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct an ~ 800’ sidewalk on the south side of 236th 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 236th St. SW. SCHEDULE: Construction is scheduled to take place in 2015. The project is funded through the Safe Routes to School Grant program. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW Construction $392,109 1% for Art TOTAL $392,109 Packet Page 183 of 342 PROJECT NAME: 2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $65,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 100’) on 2nd 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: 2018 (Unsecured Funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $65,000 Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $65,000 Packet Page 184 of 342 PROJECT NAME: SR-524 (196th St. SW)/ 88th Ave. W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,115,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196th St. SW @ 88th 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 196th St. SW. SCHEDULE: The intersection LOS must meet MUTCD traffic signal warrants and be approved by WSDOT since 196th St. SW is a State Route (SR524). No funding is currently allocated to this project (pending grant funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $100,000 $163,000 Construction $852,000 1% for Art TOTAL $100,000 $163,000 $852,000 Packet Page 185 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Maple St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $65,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 250’) on Maple St. between 7th Ave. S and 8th 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 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $65,000 1% for Art TOTAL $65,000 Packet Page 186 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Dayton St between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $82,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 250’) on Dayton St. between 7th Ave. S and 8th 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 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $82,000 1% for Art TOTAL $82,000 Packet Page 187 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St to Caspers St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,350,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a multi-use path on the west side of the street, facing waterfront (~ 1/2 mile / more recent project, not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Temporary improvements have been installed to evaluate the alignment of the proposed multi-use path. The final design phase is on-hold until the evaluation period is completed. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study $10,000 Engineering & Administration Construction $2,099,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 $2,099,000 Packet Page 188 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,306,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct sidewalk on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW (~ 2,700’). A sidewalk currently exists on 200th St. SW from Main St. to 76th 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 200th 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 (grant application recently submitted to fund design phase / from Pedestrian and Bicycle Program). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $349,000 Construction $1,957,000 1% for Art TOTAL $349,000 $1,957,000 Packet Page 189 of 342 PROJECT NAME: 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $218,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 150’ sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W (completing a missing link on north side of stretch). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $41,000 Construction $177,000 1% for Art TOTAL $218,000 Packet Page 190 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,085,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a sidewalk 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 2020 (unsecured funding) and construction between 2021 and 2026. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 - 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $325,000 $760,000 1% for Art TOTAL $325,000 $760,000 Packet Page 191 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. S Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $190,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 350’) on Walnut St. between 3rd Ave. S and 4th 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 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $190,000 1% for Art TOTAL $190,000 Packet Page 192 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $380,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (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 2020 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $380,000 1% for Art TOTAL $380,000 Packet Page 193 of 342 PROJECT NAME: 4th Ave Corridor Enhancement ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,700,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Corridor improvements along 4th 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 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 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: Work on identifying grants for engineering services and construction is scheduled for 2018 and 2019 (pending additional grant funding and local match). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $1,425,000 $2,900,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,425,000 $2,900,000 Packet Page 194 of 342 PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W Walkway and Stormwater Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,657,681 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of ~ 1,200’ of sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W. as well as sharrows. Stormwater improvements will also be incorporated into the project (ranked #8 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and create a safe pedestrian connection between 100th Ave. W and 104th Ave. W. SCHEDULE Engineering and construction are scheduled between 2014 and 2015. Funding was secured for the completion of the design and construction phases (through Safe Routes to School program). Stormwater improvements will be funded by the Stormwater Utility Fund 422. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $1,557,934 1% for Art TOTAL $1,557,934 Packet Page 195 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Olympic Ave. from Main St. to SR-524 / 196th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,249,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #3 in Long Walkway project list in 2009 Transportation Plan. Install new sidewalk on the east side of the street. Ex. sidewalk is unsafe because of rolled curb (~ 0.75 mile / 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 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $200,000 Construction $1,049,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,249,000 Packet Page 196 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9th Ave. S (interim solution) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a mini-roundabout or re-striping of 9th 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 9th Ave. would improve the intersection delay to LOS C or LOS B with the installation of a mini-roundabout. SCHEDULE: 2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $1,000 Construction $9,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 Packet Page 197 of 342 PROJECT NAME: 189th Pl. W from 80th Ave. W to 78th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $189,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked # 7 in Short Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5’ sidewalk on either side of the street (approximately 750’). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and create connection to ex. sidewalk on 189th Pl. W. This missing link will create a pedestrian connection from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $35,000 Construction $154,000 1% for Art TOTAL $189,000 Packet Page 198 of 342 PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W between 188th St. SW and 186th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $35,000 Construction $140,000 1% for Art TOTAL $175,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #9 in Short Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5’ sidewalk on the east side of the street (approximately 750’). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and access for school kids walking to Seaview Elementary. Packet Page 199 of 342 PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,050,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #9 in Long Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5’ sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW (approximately ½ mile). 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 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $210,000 Construction $840,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,050,000 Packet Page 200 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Varies * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 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 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Packet Page 201 of 342 PROJECT NAME: 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way (SR-104) to 8th Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $374,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 600’) on 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave. S. (new project, not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route for kids attending Sherwood Elementary. SCHEDULE: Construction documentation will be completed in 2015. The project is 100% grant funded (through Safe Routes to School program). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $6,000 1% for Art TOTAL $6,000 Packet Page 202 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone @ Dayton and Main St. RR Crossing ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $350,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone @ Dayton and Main St. Railroad Crossings. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce noise level throughout the Downtown Edmonds area during all railroad crossings (@ both intersections). SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled for 2015 and 2016. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration 50,000 Construction $300,000 1% for Art TOTAL $50,000 $300,000 Packet Page 203 of 342 PROJECT NAME: 76th Ave W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,191,000 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. The project also consists of various utility upgrades and conversion of overhead utilities to underground (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: Federal grants have been secured for all project phases. Design started in 2012 and is scheduled for completion in Fall 2015. Right-of-way acquisition is anticipated to be completed in Fall 2015. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2016. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $711,587 Construction $5,011,000 1% for Art TOTAL $711,587 $5,011,000 Packet Page 204 of 342 PROJECT NAME: 220th St SW @ 76th Ave W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,964,000 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 between 2018 and 2020 (unsecured funding). * All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $500,000 $836,000 Construction $3,628,000 1% for Art TOTAL $500,000 $836,000 $3,628,000 Packet Page 205 of 342 PROJECT NAME: 228th St. SW Corridor Safety Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7,300,000 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 I-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. 228th St. SW is being overlaid from 80th Pl. W to ~ 1,000 LF east of 72nd Ave. W. as well as 76th Ave. W from 228th St. SW to Hwy. 99. The project consists of various utility upgrades. SCHEDULE: Construction scheduled to begin in 2015 and be completed in 2016. Federal and State grants were secured for the construction phase. This project is combined into one construction contract with the Hwy. 99 (Phase 3) Lighting project. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering, Administration, and ROW Construction $3,950,400 $1,943,500 1% for Art TOTAL $3,950,400 $1,943,500 * All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts Packet Page 206 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 Gateway / Revitalization ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000,000 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 2018. The construction phase is scheduled for 2019 and 2020 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $500,000 Construction $4,500,000 $5,000,000 1% for Art TOTAL $500,000 4,500,000 $5,000,000 Packet Page 207 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,431,000 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 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $286,000 Construction $1,145,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,431,000 Packet Page 208 of 342 PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th St. SW) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $20,422,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 84th 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 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). The project cost is split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since half the project is in Esperance. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $2,042,000 Construction $8,169,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,211,000 Packet Page 209 of 342 Packet Page 210 of 342 CFP STORMWATER Packet Page 211 of 342 Packet Page 212 of 342 $0 (Federal or State secured) Design $465,318 (Federal or State unsecured)$125,000 $327,818 $12,500 $1,495,954 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$100,000 $375,000 $983,454 $37,500 $1,961,272 Total $100,000 $500,000 $1,311,272 $50,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) Possible Grant/TBD Study $5,312,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$160,000 $562,500 $825,000 $1,800,000 $1,950,000 $15,000 $1,920,500 (Debt/Stormwater)$203,000 $187,500 $275,000 $600,000 $650,000 $5,000 $7,233,000 Total $363,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) Possible Grant/TBD Design $1,672,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$135,000 $375,000 $375,000 $637,500 $112,500 $37,500 $597,500 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$85,000 $125,000 $125,000 $212,500 $37,500 $12,500 $2,270,000 Total $220,000 $500,000 $500,000 $850,000 $150,000 $50,000 Total CFP $11,464,272 Annual CFP Totals $683,000 $1,750,000 $2,911,272 $3,300,000 $2,750,000 $70,000 Totals Source 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $0 Total Federal & State (Secured)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,450,318 Total Federal & State (Unsecured)$295,000 $1,062,500 $1,527,818 $2,450,000 $2,062,500 $52,500 $4,013,954 Debt / Stormwater Fees $388,000 $687,500 $1,383,454 $850,000 $687,500 $17,500 Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements. Add lift station and other new infrastructure to reduce intersection flooding. Revenue Summary by Year Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Creek/Day lighting/Restoration Daylight channel and remove sediment to allow better connnectivity with the Puget Sound to benefit fish and reduce flooding. Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction/Management Project Find solution to high peak stream flows caused by excessive stormwater runoff that erodes the stream, causes flooding and has negative impacts on aquatic habitat. Project Name Purpose Grant Opportunity Grant/Date Current Project Phase (2015-2020) Total Cost 2020Revenue Source 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 P a c k e t P a g e 2 1 3 o f 3 4 2 P a c k e t P a g e 2 1 4 o f 3 4 2 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr – Daylighting ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7,233,000 Edmonds Marsh as seen from the viewing platform. Previously restored section of Willow Creek. Source: www.unocaledmonds.info/clean-up/gallery.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: 2015-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $363,000 $750,000 $20,000 Construction $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 1% for Art TOTAL $363,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000 Packet Page 215 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction/Management Project ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,270,000 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: 2015-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $20,000 $50,000 $50,000 $85,000 $20,000 $50,000 Construction $200,000 $450,000 $450,000 $765,000 $130,000 1% for Art TOTAL $220,000 $500,000 $500,000 $850,000 $150,000 $50,000 Perrinville Creek Packet Page 216 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,961,272 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add lift station and other new infrastructure. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To reduce flooding at the intersection of Dayton St and Hwy 104. SCHEDULE: 2015-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study $100,000 Eng. & Admin. $500,000 $50,000 Construction $1,311,272 1% for Art TOTAL $100,000 $500,000 $1,311,272 $50,000 Packet Page 217 of 342 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2015-2020 DRAFT Packet Page 218 of 342 Packet Page 219 of 342 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2015-2020) Table of Contents FUND DESCRIPTION DEPARTMENT PAGE GENERAL 112 Transportation Public Works 7 113 Multimodal Transportation Community Services 10 116 Building Maintenance Public Works 11 125 Capital Projects Fund Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 13 126 Special Capital / Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 15 129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation 16 132 Parks Construction (Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 17 421 Water Projects Public Works 18 422 Storm Projects Public Works 19 423 Sewer Projects Public Works 21 423.76 Waste Water Treatment Plant Public Works 23 PARKS – PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS 125 Capital Projects Fund Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 27 126 Special Capital / Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 54 132 Parks Construction (Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 57 Packet Page 220 of 342 Packet Page 221 of 342 CIP GENERAL Packet Page 222 of 342 Packet Page 223 of 342 Capital Improvements Program Fund 112 - Transportation Projects PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) Preservation / Maintenance Projects Annual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc.)$940,000 $1,300,000 $1,650,000 $2,500,000 $2,800,000 $2,900,000 $3,000,000 $14,150,000 5th Ave S Overlay from Elm Way to Walnut St $15,799 $0 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave W to 84th Ave W $1,040,000 $1,040,000 Citywide - Signal Improvements $258,000 $3,000 $325,000 $325,000 $653,000 Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave @ 238th St. SW $750,000 $750,000 Safety / Capacity Analysis 212th St. SW / 84th Ave (Five Corners) Roundabout X $3,426,637 $295,000 $295,000 228th St. SW Corridor Safety Improvements X $308,501 $3,950,400 $1,943,500 $5,893,900 76th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements X $146,125 $711,587 $5,011,000 $5,722,587 SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave. W - Guardrail $50,000 $50,000 SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave. W - Intersection Improvements X $100,000 $163,000 $852,000 $1,115,000 Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000 $375,000 Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000 $375,000 Main St. @ 9th Ave. S (Interim solution)X $10,000 $10,000 220th St. SW @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements X $500,000 $836,000 $3,628,000 $4,964,000 Arterial Street Signal Coordination Improvements $50,000 $50,000 Hwy 99 @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000 $5,235,000 Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000 $3,722,000 Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000 $5,046,000 Citywide Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion $20,000 $20,000 SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization X $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 Non-motorized transportation projects Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St.X $40,203 $10,000 $2,099,000 $2,109,000 238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W X $99,747 $1,557,934 $1,557,934 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S X $323,196 $6,000 $6,000 236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona Elementary X $27,931 $392,109 $392,109 Hwy 99 Enhancement (Phase 3) $29,407 $305,000 $349,593 $654,593 ADA Curb Ramps along 3rd Ave S from Main St to Pine St $128,222 $10,000 $10,000 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 $125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000 $1,520,000 2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway X $65,000 $65,000 Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW Walkway X $349,000 $1,957,000 $2,306,000 Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway X $325,000 $325,000 Walnut St. from 3rd Ave. to 4th Ave. Walkway X $190,000 $190,000 Walnut St. from 6th Ave. to 7th Ave. Walkway X $380,000 $380,000 Audible Pedestrian Signals $25,000 $25,000 Maple St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway X $65,000 $65,000 Dayton St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway X $82,000 $82,000 216th ST. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W X $218,000 $218,000 Re-Striping of 76th Ave W from 220th St. SW to OVD $140,000 $650,000 $790,000 Citywide Bicycle Connections (additional bike lanes, sharrows & signage)$120,000 $120,000 $240,000 Traffic Calming Projects Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming (Sunset Ave, other stretches)X $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000 Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 2 2 4 o f 3 4 2 Traffic Planning Projects Transportation Plan Update $40,000 $140,000 $140,000 SR104 Transportation Corridor Study $44,000 $106,000 $106,000 Trackside Warning Sys or Quiet Zone @ Dayton/Main St. RR Crossings X $50,000 $300,000 $350,000 Alternatives Analysis to Study, 1) Waterfront Access Issues Emphasizing and Prioritizing Near Term Solutions to Providing Emergency Access, Also Including, But Not Limited to, 2) At Grade Conflicts Where Main and Dayton Streets Intersection BNSF Rail Lines, 3) Pedestrian/Bicycle Access, and 4) Options to the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal Project (Identified as Modified Alternative 2) within the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 Total Projects $5,837,768 $10,147,030 $10,044,093 $2,510,000 $9,875,000 $14,529,000 $26,403,000 $73,508,123 Transfers Transfer to Fund 117 (212th St SW / 84th Ave W (Five Corners) Roundabout)$2,122 Debt Service Debt Service on Loan (1) 220th St Design $18,959 $18,869 $18,778 $18,687 $18,596 $19,506 $18,415 Debt Service on Loan (2) 220th St Construction $22,341 $22,235 $22,129 $22,023 $21,917 $21,811 $21,706 Debt Service on Loan (3) 100th Ave Road Stabilization $35,018 $34,854 $34,690 $34,525 $34,361 $34,196 $34,032 Total Debt & Transfers $78,440 $75,958 $75,597 $75,235 $74,874 $75,513 $74,153 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance $481,154 $293,232 $246,479 $39,919 $300,684 $253,810 $523,297 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax $140,000 $140,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 Transfer in - Fund 125 - REET 2 - Annual Street Preservation Program $300,000 $750,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Transfer in - Fund 126 - REET 1 - Annual Street Preservation Program $321,000 $260,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 Transfer in - General Fund for Annual Street Preservation Program $319,000 $550,000 $1,050,000 $650,000 $2,200,000 $850,000 $2,400,000 Transfer in - General Fund for Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone $50,000 $300,000 Transfer in - Fund 421 for 212th @ 84th (Five Corners) Roundabout $665,000 Transfer in - Fund 422 for 212th @ 84th (Five Corners) Roundabout $762,000 Transfer in - Fund 421 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement $200,000 Transfer in - Fund 422 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement $68,500 Transfer in - Fund 423 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement $250,000 Transfer in - Mountlake Terrace for 228th St. SW Improvements (Overlay)$4,000 Transfer in - Fund 421 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $30,000 $70,000 $645,000 Transfer in - Fund 422 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $15,000 $15,000 $106,000 Transfer in - Fund 423 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $30,000 $70,000 $774,000 Transfer in - Fund 422 for 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W $29,909 $1,038,893 Transfer in - General Fund for SR-104 Transportation Corridor Study $44,000 $106,000 Transfer in- Fund 422 (STORMWATER)$103,000 $106,000 $109,000 $116,000 $120,000 $125,000 $130,000 Traffic Impact Fees $100,000 $74,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Total Revenues $3,340,063 $4,045,625 $4,060,479 $1,635,919 $3,450,684 $2,058,810 $3,883,297 P a c k e t P a g e 2 2 5 o f 3 4 2 Grants 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 (Federal) for 5th Ave S Overlay $13,667 (Federal) for 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave to 84th Ave $780,000 (Federal) - for Citywide - Cabinet Improvements / Ped. Countdown Display $258,000 $3,000 (Federal) for 212th @ 84th (Five Corners) Roundabout $1,674,451 $251,046 (Federal) for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements $286,588 $3,431,900 $1,943,500 (Federal) for 76th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $61,523 $467,096 $3,106,630 (Federal) Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St.$34,776 $8,650 (State) 238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W $69,838 $519,041 (State) 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S $323,196 $6,000 (Federal) 236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona Elementary $27,931 $392,109 (Federal) Hwy 99 Enhancement (Phase 3)$29,407 $305,000 $279,000 (Federal) ADA Curb Ramps along 3rd Ave. S from Main St. to Pine St.$90,000 (Verdantl) for Re-striping of 76th Ave from 220th St. SW to OVD $140,000 $650,000 (Verdant) for Citywide Bicycle Connections (bike lanes, sharrows & signage)$120,000 $120,000 Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $2,869,377 $6,423,842 $6,099,130 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grants 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Grants/ Loans Sought / Funding (not Secured) Annual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc)$1,250,000 $1,450,000 Citywide Safety Improvements - Signal Cabinet $325,000 $325,000 Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave W @ 238th St SW $750,000 76th @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements 196th St SW @ 88th Ave W - Guardrail $50,000 196th St SW @ 88th Ave W - Intersection Improvements $100,000 $163,000 $852,000 Main St @ 3rd Ave Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000 Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000 220th St SW @ 76th Ave W Intersection Improvements $500,000 $836,000 $3,625,000 Arterial Street Signal Coordination Improvements $50,000 Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000 Hwy 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements $341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000 Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements $484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000 SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 Citywide Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion $20,000 Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St to Caspers St $1,816,000 ADA Curb Ramps Improvements (as part of Transition Plan)$150,000 $150,000 $150,000 80th Ave / 188th St SW / Olympic View Dr Walkway & Sight Distance Improvements $125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000 2nd Ave From Main St to James St $65,000 Maplewood Dr. Walkway $349,000 $1,957,000 Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway $325,000 Walnut from 3rd to 4th Ave. Walkway $190,000 Walnut St. from 6th to 7th Ave. Walkway $380,000 Audible Pedestrian Signals $25,000 Maple St. from 7th to 8th Ave. Walkway $65,000 Dayton St. from 7th to 8th Ave. Walkway $82,000 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 72nd Ave W $189,000 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) $0 $0 $0 $1,250,000 $6,753,000 $13,069,000 $23,390,000 Grant / Not Secured Funding Subtotal $2,869,377 $6,423,842 $6,099,130 $1,250,000 $6,753,000 $13,069,000 $23,390,000 Total Revenues & Grants $6,209,440 $10,469,467 $10,159,609 $2,885,919 $10,203,684 $15,127,810 $27,273,297 Total Projects ($5,837,768)($10,147,030)($10,044,093)($2,510,000)($9,875,000)($14,529,000)($26,403,000) Total Debt ($78,440)($75,958)($75,597)($75,235)($74,874)($75,513)($74,153) Ending Cash Balance $293,232 $246,479 $39,919 $300,684 $253,810 $523,297 $796,144 P a c k e t P a g e 2 2 6 o f 3 4 2 Capital Improvements Program Fund 113 - Multimodal Transportation PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry/Multimodal Facility X Unknown Total Project $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 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 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 Total Project $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ending Cash Balance $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 2 2 7 o f 3 4 2 Capital Improvements Program Fund 116 - Building Maintenance PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) ADA Improvements- City Wide $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $30,000 Anderson Center Accessibility $17,874 $50,000 $50,000 Anderson Center Interior Painting $20,000 $20,000 $40,000 Anderson Center Exterior Painting $30,000 $30,000 Anderson Center Radiator Replacement $25,000 $85,000 $110,000 Anderson Center Exterior Repairs $75,000 $75,000 Anderson Center Blinds $10,000 $10,000 Anderson Center Asbestos Abatement $75,000 $75,000 Anderson Center Flooring/Gym $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 $65,000 Anderson Center Countertop Replacement $10,000 $10,000 Anderson Center Oil Tank Decommissioning $30,000 $30,000 Anderson Center Elevator Replacement $150,000 $150,000 Anderson Center Roof Replacement $300,000 $25,000 $325,000 Cemetery Building Gutter Replacement $10,000 $10,000 City Hall Carpet Replacement $50,000 $50,000 City Hall Elevator Replacement $150,000 $150,000 City Hall Exterior Cleaning and Repainting $25,000 $20,000 $45,000 City Hall Security Measures $25,000 $25,000 City Park Maint. Bldg. Roof $25,000 $25,000 ESCO III Project $367,600 $0 ESCO IV Project $300,000 $300,000 Fishing Pier Rehab $190,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Fire Station #16 Painting $5,000 $5,000 Fire Station #16 Carpet $30,000 $30,000 Fire Station #16 HVAC Replacement $30,000 $30,000 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 $40,000 $40,000 Grandstand Exterior and Roof Repairs $35,000 $50,000 $85,000 Library Plaza Appliance Replacement $4,000 $4,000 Library Plaza Brick Façade Addition $21,000 $21,000 Library Wood Trim $5,000 $5,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Roof Replacement $20,000 $20,000 Meadowdale Flooring Replacement $25,000 $25,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Gutter Replacement $20,000 $10,000 $30,000 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 $4,000 $4,000 Public Safety Exterior Painting $20,000 $20,000 Public Safety Council Chamber Carpet $10,000 $10,000 Public Safety HVAC Repairs & Maintenance $43,000 $0 Public Works Decant Improvements $60,000 $0 Senior Center Misc Repairs & Maintenance $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000 Senior Center Siding/ Sealing (CDBG)$0 Total Projects $678,474 $1,755,000 $294,000 $215,000 $310,000 $232,000 $265,000 $3,071,000 Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 2 2 8 o f 3 4 2 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)-$96,490 $96,149 $72,749 $28,749 $63,749 $3,749 $21,749 Interest Earnings $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfer from Gen Fund #001 and other $421,047 $591,600 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Commerce Grants $187,566 $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CDBG Grant (Unsecured)$0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WA Dept. of Ecology Grant $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WDFW Grant (Secured)$190,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WDFW Grant (Unsecured)$0 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Utility Grant Funding (Estimated)$12,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WA State HCPF Grant Funding (Secured)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenues $774,623 $1,827,749 $322,749 $278,749 $313,749 $253,749 $271,749 Total Revenue $774,623 $1,827,749 $322,749 $278,749 $313,749 $253,749 $271,749 Total Project ($678,474)($1,755,000)($294,000)($215,000)($310,000)($232,000)($265,000) Ending Cash Balance $96,149 $72,749 $28,749 $63,749 $3,749 $21,749 $6,749 P a c k e t P a g e 2 2 9 o f 3 4 2 Capital Improvements Program Fund 125 - Capital Projects Fund PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) Park Development Projects* Anderson Center Field / Court / Stage $20,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $125,000 Brackett's Landing Improvements $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $125,000 City Park Revitalization $5,000 $100,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $175,000 Civic Center Improvements X $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000 Sunset Avenue Walkway $200,000 $200,000 Fishing Pier & Restrooms $10,000 $100,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $150,000 Former Woodway HS Improvements (with successful capital campaign)X see below $0 $40,000 $440,000 $400,000 $450,000 $0 $1,330,000 Maplewood Park Improvements $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 Marina Beach Park Improvements $0 $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $130,000 Mathay Ballinger Park $0 $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 $30,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Grounds $0 $75,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $90,000 Meadowdale Playfields $250,000 $250,000 Pine Ridge Park Improvements $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 Seaview Park Improvements $0 $20,000 $5,000 $10,000 $35,000 Sierra Park Improvements $40,000 $70,000 $110,000 Yost Park / Pool Improvements $120,000 $120,000 $100,000 $25,000 $20,000 $120,000 $100,000 $485,000 Citywide Park Improvements* Citywide Beautification $30,000 $21,000 $22,000 Not Eligible Not Eligible Not Eligible N/A $43,000 Misc Paving $1,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 Citywide Park Improvements/Misc Small Projects $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $360,000 Sports Fields Upgrade / Playground Partnership $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $75,000 Specialized Projects* Aquatic Center Facility (dependent upon successful capital campaign)X $0 Trail Development* Misc Unpaved Trail / Bike Path Improvements $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 Planning Cultural Arts Facility Needs Study X $0 Edmonds Marsh / Hatchery Improvements X $60,000 $70,000 $60,000 $75,000 $10,000 $20,000 $235,000 Edmonds Cemetery Mapping Project $100,000 $100,000 Civic Center Master Plan $100,000 Pine Ridge Park Forest Management Study $50,000 $50,000 Total Project $323,000 $1,056,000 $842,000 $750,000 $945,000 $750,000 $255,000 $4,598,000 Transfers Transfer to Park Fund 132 (4th Ave Cultural Corridor)$25,000 Transfer to Park Fund 132 (Cultural Heritage Tour) Transfer to Park Fund 132 (Dayton St Plaza) Transfer to Park Fund 132 (City Park Revitalization) Transfer to Park Fund 132 (Former Woodway HS Improvements)X $655,000 Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Pavement Preservation Program)$300,000 $750,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Total Transfers $325,000 $1,405,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Total Project &Transfers $648,000 $2,461,000 $992,000 $900,000 $1,095,000 $900,000 $405,000 Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 0 o f 3 4 2 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$1,508,584 $1,865,184 $308,184 $216,184 $216,184 $21,184 $21,184 Real Estate Tax 1/4% $1,000,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 Donations (Milltown, unsecured) Interest Earnings $4,600 $4,000 Total Revenues $2,513,184 $2,769,184 $1,208,184 $1,116,184 $1,116,184 $921,184 $921,184 Total Revenue $2,513,184 $2,769,184 $1,208,184 $1,116,184 $1,116,184 $921,184 $921,184 Total Project & Transfers ($648,000)($2,461,000)($992,000)($900,000)($1,095,000)($900,000)($405,000) Ending Cash Balance $1,865,184 $308,184 $216,184 $216,184 $21,184 $21,184 $516,184 *Projects in all categories may be eligible for 1% for art with the exception of planning projects. P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 1 o f 3 4 2 Capital Improvements Program Fund 126 - Special Capital/Parks Acquisition PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) Debt Service on City Hall $300,003 $0 Debt Service Marina Bch/Library Roof $80,528 $84,428 $83,228 $82,028 $80,828 $79,628 $83,428 $493,568 Debt Service on PSCC Purchase $57,998 $57,098 $56,198 $60,298 $54,298 $53,398 $52,498 $333,788 Debt Service on FAC Seismic retrofit $29,763 $29,874 $29,957 $29,621 $29,640 $29,630 $29,981 $178,703 Estimated Debt Payment on Civic Playfield Acquisition $0 $100,000 $153,750 $153,750 $153,750 $153,750 $153,750 $868,750 Total Debt $468,292 $271,400 $323,133 $325,697 $318,516 $316,406 $319,657 $1,874,809 Project Name Acquistion of Civic Field Misc. Open Space/Land $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,200,000 Transfers Transfer to 132 for Waterfront / Tidelands Acquisition $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfer to Fund 112 for Annual Street Preservation Program $321,000 $260,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $2,510,000 Total Project & Transfers $521,000 $460,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $3,710,000 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$464,855 $477,893 $648,493 $577,360 $503,663 $437,147 $372,741 Real estate Tax 1/4%/1st Qtr % $1,000,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 Interest Earnings $2,330 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Total Revenues $1,467,185 $1,379,893 $1,550,493 $1,479,360 $1,405,663 $1,339,147 $1,274,741 Grants 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Grants/ Loans Sought (not Secured) Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenue & Grants & Subsidy $1,467,185 $1,379,893 $1,550,493 $1,479,360 $1,405,663 $1,339,147 $1,274,741 Total Debt ($468,292)($271,400)($323,133)($325,697)($318,516)($316,406)($319,657) Total Project & Transfers ($521,000)($460,000)($650,000)($650,000)($650,000)($650,000)($650,000) Ending Cash Balance $477,893 $648,493 $577,360 $503,663 $437,147 $372,741 $305,084 Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 2 o f 3 4 2 Capital Improvements Program Fund 129 - Special Projects PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) State Route (SR) 99 International District Enhancements $13,653 $0 Total Projects $13,653 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Balance (January 1st)$6,894 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 Investment Interest Total Revenues $6,894 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 Grants 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2106 2017 2018 2019 2020 PSRC Transportation Enhancement Grant (Secured) $22,681 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Grants $22,681 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenues & Grants $29,575 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 Total Construction Projects ($13,653)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ending Cash Balance $15,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 3 o f 3 4 2 Capital Improvements Program Fund 132 - Parks Construction PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) 4th Ave Corridor Enhancement $0 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $4,325,000 Cultural Heritage Tour and Way-Finding Signage $7,015 $0 Dayton Street Plaza $60,000 $108,000 $108,000 Civic Center Acquisition $3,000,000 $100,000 $3,000,000 $6,100,000 Senior Center Parking Lot / Drainage $0 City Park Revitalization $372,100 $854,900 $854,900 Former Woodway HS Improvements $0 $655,000 $655,000 Waterfront Acquisition, demo, rehab $900,000 $0 Wetland Mitigation $12,517 Edmonds Marsh/Daylighting Willow Creek $200,000 Fishing Pier Rehab $1,300,000 Public Market (Downtown Waterfront)$0 Total Projects $1,351,632 $6,117,900 $100,000 $3,000,000 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $0 $13,542,900 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$823,000 $1,396,902 $92,011 -$7,989 -$3,007,989 -$3,007,989 $282,912 Beginning Cash Balance Milltown Beginning Cash Balance Cultural Heritage Tour $2,500 Transfer in from Fund 117-200 for Cultural Heritage Tour 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 $2,500 Transfer in from Fund 120 for Way-Finding Signage Grant Match Transfer in from Fund 125 for 4th Ave Corridor Enhancement Transfer in from Fund 125 for Dayton St. Plaza Transfer in from Fund 125 for City Park Revitalization Transfer in from Fund 125 for Former Woodway HS Improvements $500,000 Transfer in from Fund 125 for Senior Center Parking Lot Transfer in from Fund 126 for Waterfront Acquisition $200,000 $200,000 Transfer in from 01 for Edmonds Marsh $200,000 Transfer in from Fund 125 for Fishing Pier $100,000 Total Revenues $1,728,000 $1,696,902 $92,011 -$7,989 -$3,007,989 -$3,007,989 $282,912 Grants 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Grants/ Loans (Secured) 4th Ave / Cultural Heritage Tour (Preserve America/National Park Service)$2,500 Dayton Street Plaza (Arts Fest. Found./Hubbard Trust/Ed in Bloom) Interurban Trail (Federal CMAQ) Interurban Trail (State RCO) City Park Snohomish County Grant $80,000 City Park Spray Park (donations)$270,000 RCO State grant / City Park Revitalization $155,517 $313,009 Snohomish County Tourism for Way-Finding Conservation Futures/Waterfront Acquisition $500,000 Wetland Mitigation $12,517 Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $1,020,534 $313,009 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grants/ Loans Sought (not Secured) 4th Ave Corridor Enhancement (state, federal, other)$1,425,000 $2,900,000 RCO land acquisition grant $1,000,000 Bond funding $2,000,000 Grants/RCO Fishing Pier $1,200,000 Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought (not secured) $0 $4,200,000 $0 $0 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $0 Grants Subtotal $1,020,534 $4,513,009 $0 $0 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $0 Total Revenues & Cash Balances & Grants $2,748,534 $6,209,911 $92,011 -$7,989 -$1,582,989 -$107,989 $282,912 Total Construction Projects (1,351,632.00)($6,117,900)(100,000)(3,000,000)($1,425,000)(2,900,000)$0 Ending Cash Balance $1,396,902 $92,011 -$7,989 -$3,007,989 -$3,007,989 -$3,007,989 $282,912 *Projects may be partially eligible for 1% for Art Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 4 o f 3 4 2 Capital Improvements Program Fund 421 - Water Projects PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 Total (2015-2020) 2013 Replacement Program $53,000 $0 2014 Replacement Program $1,860,784 $45,000 $45,000 2014 Waterline Overlays $190,000 $0 2015 Replacement Program $175,541 $2,737,151 $2,737,151 2015 Waterline Overlays $124,000 $124,000 2016 Replacement Program $391,788 $2,044,722 $2,436,510 2017 Replacement Program $302,948 $2,678,999 $2,981,947 2018 Replacement Program $400,000 $2,786,159 $3,186,159 2019 Replacement Program $416,000 $2,897,605 $3,313,605 2020 Replacement Program $432,640 $3,013,510 $3,446,150 2021 Replacement Program $449,946 $449,946 Five Corners Reservoir Recoating $110,000 $1,090,100 $1,200,100 76th Ave Waterline Replacement (includes PRV Impr)$87,870 $2,000 $2,000 Telemetry System Improvements $20,000 $71,100 $11,900 $12,400 $12,900 $13,400 $13,900 $135,600 2016 Water System Plan Update $86,100 $89,500 $175,600 Total Projects $2,387,195 $3,567,139 $3,539,170 $3,091,399 $3,215,059 $3,343,645 $3,477,356 $20,233,768 Transfers & Reinbursements Reinbursement to Sewer Utility Fund 423 (Ph1 SS Repl.)$380,000 $0 Reinbursement to Sewer Utility Fund 423 (Ph2 SS Repl.)$325,000 Reinbursement to Street Fund 112 (Five Corners)$665,000 $0 Reinbursement to Street Fund 112 (228th Project)$200,000 $200,000 Reinbursement to Street Fund 112 (212th & 76th Improvements)$30,000 $70,000 $70,000 Transfer to Fund 117 1% Arts (2014 Watermain)$833 $0 Transfer to Fund 117 1% Arts (2015 Watermain)$2,000 $2,000 Total Transfers $1,400,833 $272,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $272,000 Total Water Projects $3,788,028 $3,839,139 $3,539,170 $3,091,399 $3,215,059 $3,343,645 $3,477,356 $20,505,768 Revenues & Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 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 Fund 423 Reinbursement for 2014 WL Overlay $50,000 General Fund Fire Hydrant Improvements $180,000 $150,000 $114,600 $119,184 $123,900 $128,856 $134,010 2013 Bond Total Secured Revenue (Utility Funds, Grants Loans, misc) $255,000 $175,000 $139,600 $144,184 $148,900 $153,856 $159,010 Unsecured Revenue 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers $5,400,000 $1,200,000 Total Unsecured Revenue $0 $0 $5,400,000 $0 $1,200,000 $0 $0 Total Revenues Total Projects & Transfers Ending Cash Balance Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 5 o f 3 4 2 CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 1 - Replace Infiltration Pipe (near 107th Pl W) + infiltration system for 102nd Ave W. (See Note 1)X $369,614 $2,000 $2,000 105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project. (See Note 2)$73,000 $517,255 $517,255 Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements X $17,500 $100,000 $500,000 $1,311,272 $50,000 $1,961,272 Willow Creek Pipe Rehabilitation $550,607 $10,000 $560,607 Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Dr/Willow Cr - Final Feasibility Study / Marsh Restoration (See Note 2 & 4)X $274,000 $363,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000 $7,233,000 Northstream Culvert Abandonment South of Puget Dr - Assessment / Stabilization $28,000 $433,356 $433,356 Rehabilitation of Northstream Culvert under Puget Dr $50,000 $25,000 $75,000 Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction and Retrofit Study (See Note 2) $300,809 $1,000 $1,000 Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects (See Note 2)X $50,000 $220,000 $500,000 $500,000 $850,000 $150,000 $50,000 $2,270,000 Vactor Waste handling (Decant) facility upgrade (See Note 2)$152,681 $2,000 $2,000 88th Ave W and 194th St SW $25,000 $253,400 $253,400 Improvements Dayton St. between 3rd & 9th $0 $108,809 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $2,308,809 City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects $236,000 $224,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,300,000 $1,500,000 $5,724,000 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects $20,000 $62,000 $64,000 $66,000 $68,000 $68,000 $70,000 $398,000 Storm System Video Assessment $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $50,000 $50,000 $1,100,000 Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan (including asset management plan)$128,750 $132,613 $261,363 $1,546,604 $2,586,820 $4,368,357 $5,469,885 $4,818,000 $4,168,000 $1,690,000 $23,101,062 Perrinville Creek Basin Projects Total Project Capital Improvements Program PROJECT NAME SW Edmonds Basin Study Implementation Projects Edmonds Marsh Related Projects Projects for 2015-2020Fund 422 Storm Northstream Projects Annually Funded Projects 5 Year Cycle Projects Public Works Yard Water Quality Upgrades Storm Drainage Improvement Projects P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 6 o f 3 4 2 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Drainage portion of 238th SW Sidewalk project (connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System)$25,909 $709,180 $709,180 Five Corners Roundabout $762,000 $100,000 $100,000 228th SW Corridor Improvements $0 $68,500 $68,500 76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $15,000 $30,000 $30,000 Stormwater Utility - Transportation Projects $103,000 $106,000 $109,000 $112,000 $116,000 $19,000 $123,000 $585,000 Total Transfer to 112 Fund $905,909 $913,680 $109,000 $212,000 $116,000 $19,000 $123,000 $1,492,680 SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 1 - Replace infiltration pipe (near 107th Pl W) + infiltration system for 102nd Ave W.$3,546 $0 SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Drainage portion of 238th SW Sidewalk project (connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park infiltration system)$0 $5,904 $5,904 Five Corners Roundabout $7,620 $0 228th SW Corridor improvements $0 $685 $685 76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $0 $0 $0 Total Transfer to 117 Fund $11,166 $6,589 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,589 $917,075 $920,269 $109,000 $212,000 $116,000 $19,000 $123,000 $1,499,269 $2,463,679 $3,507,089 $4,477,357 $5,681,885 $4,934,000 $4,187,000 $1,813,000 $24,600,331 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $200,000 $70,000 $168,852 X $50,000 $115,000 $623,852 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $3,500,000 $258,628 X $160,000 $562,500 $825,000 $1,800,000 $1,950,000 $15,000 X $135,000 $375,000 $375,000 $637,500 $112,500 $37,500 X $0 $125,000 $327,818 $12,500 $0 $0 $0 $553,628 $4,562,500 $1,527,818 $2,450,000 $2,062,500 $52,500 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. Assumed 50% grant funded in 2015 4. Assumes grant funding is 75% of total project costs per year beginning 2016 5. Assumes grant funding is 25% of total project costs per year beginning 2016 Grants (Unsecured) - Dayton St & Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements (See Note 4) Total Secured Revenues Total Project & Transfers Ending Cash Balance Unsecured Revenue 2014-2020 Proceeds of Long-term debt (Bonds) Total Unsecured Revenues Grants (Unsecured) - Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects (See Note 3 & 4) Notes: Estimated Connection Fees (capital facilities charge) Beginning Balance (January 1st) Total Revenue Grants (Secured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr - Feasibility Study/Marsh Restoration Grants (Secured) - Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction & Retrofit Study Grants (Secured) - Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects Grants (Secured) - Waste handling facility upgrade Grants (Unsecured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr - Feasibility Study/Marsh Restoration (See Note 4) Grant (Secured) - 105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project Grant (Unsecured) - 105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project (Seet Note 3) Projects for 2014-2019 Proceeds of Long-term debt (Bonds) Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 Total Project & Transfers Total Transfers To 117 - Arts Transfers To 112 - Street Fund P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 7 o f 3 4 2 CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) Lift Stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, & 15 $245,000 $3,000 $3,000 Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer Replacement $1,530,799 $22,500 $22,500 Phase 2 Sanitary Sewer Replacement $2,149,970 $55,000 $55,000 2015 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $184,961 $2,051,073 $2,051,073 2015 Sewerline Overlays $117,600 $117,600 2016 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $411,622 $1,506,704 $1,918,326 2017 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $278,750 $1,551,905 $1,830,655 2018 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $287,113 $1,598,462 $1,885,575 2019 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $295,726 $1,646,416 $1,942,142 2020 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $304,598 $1,695,809 $2,000,406 2021 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $313,736 $313,736 2013 CIPP Rehabilitation $58,706 $0 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $5,000 $524,600 $400,000 $412,000 $424,360 $437,091 $450,204 $2,648,254 224th Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project $30,895 $0 Lift Station 1 Metering & Flow Study $100,000 $100,000 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study $100,000 $100,000 $4,205,331 $3,385,395 $2,185,454 $2,251,018 $2,318,548 $2,388,105 $2,459,748 $14,988,267 Reinbursement to Fund 421 (2014 WL Overlay)$50,000 $0 Reinbursement to Fund 112 (228th Project)$250,000 $250,000 Reinbursement to Fund 112 (212th & 76th Improvements)$30,000 $70,000 $70,000 $80,000 $320,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $320,000 $4,285,331 $3,705,395 $2,185,454 $2,251,018 $2,318,548 $2,388,105 $2,459,748 $15,308,267 Capital Improvements Program Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitations Sewer Main Replacement and CIPP Infiltration & Inflow Study & Projects Total Projects, Transfers & Reinbursements Transfers & Reinbursements Total Transfers Projects for 2015-2020 PROJECT NAME Fund 423 - Sewer Projects Total Projects P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 8 o f 3 4 2 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $380,000 $325,000 $733,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $0 $0 $5,800,000 $900,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,800,000 $0 $900,000 $0 $0 Reinbursement in Fund 421 (Phase 2 Sewer Replacement) Reinbursement in Fund 421 (Phase 1 Sewer Replacement) Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 Beginning Balance (January 1st) Sewer Connection Fees Ending Cash Balance Total Secured Revenue (Utility Funds, Grants Loans, misc) Unsecured Revenue 2014-2020 New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers Total Unsecured Revenue Total Revenues Total Projects & Transfers P a c k e t P a g e 2 3 9 o f 3 4 2 Capital Improvements Program Fund 423.76 - WWTP PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) Repair and Replacement $18,000 $200,000 $300,000 $100,000 $125,000 $725,000 Construction Projects - In House $133,000 $20,000 $50,000 $70,000 Construction Projects Contracted $955,728 $1,482,247 $2,691,424 $2,000,000 $5,350,000 $875,000 $875,000 $13,273,671 Debt Service - Principle and Interest $255,385 $256,166 $256,296 $255,117 $254,499 $255,231 $255,848 $1,533,157 Total Project $1,362,113 $1,758,413 $2,997,720 $2,455,117 $5,904,499 $1,230,231 $1,255,848 Projects less revenue from outside partnership $1,290,913 $1,459,713 $2,984,520 $2,441,917 $5,891,299 $1,217,031 $1,255,848 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Intergovernmental $1,290,913 $1,459,713 $2,984,520 $2,441,917 $5,891,299 $1,217,031 $1,255,848 Interest Earnings $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 Miscellaneous (biosolids, Lynnwood, etc)$13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 Grants, Incentives and Rebate for Engergy Eff. Projects $58,000 $285,500 Subtotal $1,562,113 $1,958,413 $3,197,720 $2,655,117 $6,104,499 $1,430,231 $1,455,848 Total Revenue $1,562,113 $1,958,413 $3,197,720 $2,655,117 $6,104,499 $1,430,231 $1,455,848 Total Project ($1,362,113)($1,758,413)($2,997,720)($2,455,117)($5,904,499)($1,230,231)($1,255,848) Ending Cash Balance $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Interest earned estimated at 0.75% per year Contribution breakdown by agency 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Edmonds 50.79%$655,616 $741,344 $1,515,748 $1,240,176 $2,992,014 $618,094 $637,808 Mountlake Terrace 23.17%$299,156 $338,274 $691,633 $565,890 $1,365,250 $282,035 $291,030 Olympic View Water & Sewer District 16.55%$213,659 $241,597 $493,968 $404,162 $975,069 $201,431 $207,855 Ronald Sewer District 9.49%$122,482 $138,498 $283,171 $231,689 $558,966 $115,472 $119,155 TOTALS 100.00%$1,290,913 $1,459,713 $2,984,520 $2,441,917 $5,891,299 $1,217,031 $1,255,848 Projects for 2014-2019 P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 0 o f 3 4 2 P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 1 o f 3 4 2 CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Packet Page 242 of 342 Packet Page 243 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Anderson Center Field/Court/Stage ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $145,000 700 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 2015 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $20,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL $20,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 244 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Brackett’s Landing Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $125,000 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 245 of 342 PROJECT NAME: City Park Revitalization ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,530,000 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $5,000 $100,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 1% for Art TOTAL $5,000 $100,000 $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 246 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Complex Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $700,000 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. Landscape and site furnishing improvements. Master Plan in 2016, development improvements based on Master Plan in 2020. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for Civic Center Field. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 $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 247 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Sunset Avenue Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,876,000 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 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $200,000 1% for Art TOTAL $200,000 Packet Page 248 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms ESTIMATED COST: $1,350,000 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $10,000 $1,300,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 $1,300,000 $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 249 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic Complex at the Former Woodway High School ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,830,000 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 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $500,000 $40,000 $440,000 $400,000 $450,000 1% for Art TOTAL $500,000 $ $40,000 $440,000 $400,000 $450,000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 250 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park Improvements ESTIMATED COST: $15,000 89th Place West and 197th 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 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $5,000 $5,000 $5000 1% for Art TOTAL $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 251 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park Improvements ESTIMATED COST: $130,000 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 252 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000 78th Place W. & 241st. 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 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 253 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Clubhouse Grounds ESTIMATED COST: $90,000 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $75,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL $75,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 254 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Playfields ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with City of Lynnwood and Edmonds School District to renovate Meadowdale Playfields, installation of synthetic turf for year around play. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Partnership to leverage funds and increase field use for Edmonds citizens. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Engineering & Administration Construction 250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 1% for Art TOTAL $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 Packet Page 255 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $15,000 83rd Avenue West and 204th 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 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 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 256 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park Improvements ESTIMATED COST: $35,000 80th Street West and 186th 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $20,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $20,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $10,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 257 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Sierra Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $110,000 80th Street West and 191th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improve pathways and interpretive braille signs. Field renovation to include field drainage for turf repair. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, portable restroom facilities, basketball hoops, parking and Braille interpretive trail for the blind. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 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 258 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Yost Park/Pool Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $605,000 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $120,000 $120,000 $100,000 $25,000 $20,000 $120,000 $100,000 1% for Art TOTAL $120,000 $120,000 $100,000 $25,000 $20,000 $120,000 $100,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 259 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $73,000 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: 2014-2020 After 2016, this expense will no longer be eligible out of REET. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $30,000 $21,000 $22,000 1% for Art TOTAL $30,000 $21,000 $22,000 Not Eligible Packet Page 260 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Paving ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $31,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Includes miscellaneous small paving and park walkway improvements citywide. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvement needs citywide in park system. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $1,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 * all or a portion of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 261 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park Improvements / Misc Small Projects ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $400,000 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 4th 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering / Administration Construction $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 1% for Art TOTAL $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 70000 Packet Page 262 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Sports Field Upgrade / Playground Partnerships ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $100,000 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Engineering & Administration Construction $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 1% for Art TOTAL $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 Packet Page 263 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Center at Yost Park 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: COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 264 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Unpaved Trail/Bike Path/Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 30,000 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction 0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL 0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 * all or part of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 265 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Cultural Arts Facility Needs Study ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $unk 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 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 266 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Hatchery Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $295,000 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. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park. 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2018 2020 Planning/Study 35,000 $45,000 Engin. & Admin. Construction $25,000 $25,000 $60,000 $75,000 $10,000 $20,000 1% for Art TOTAL $60,000 $70,000 $60,000 $75,000 $10,000 $20,000 Packet Page 267 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Cemetery Mapping ESTIMATED COST:$ 100,000 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study $100,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $100,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 268 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Complex Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $700,000 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. Landscape and site furnishing improvements. Master Plan in 2016, development improvements based on Master Plan in 2020. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for Civic Center Field. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 $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 269 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park Forest Management Study ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hire consultant to develop a plan for best forest management practices in Pine Ridge Park. 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study $50,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $50,000 Packet Page 270 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved Capital Projects and Acquisitions ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,006,059 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on: City Hall: Debt retired end of 2014 Marina Beach / Library Roof: $ $82,261 PSCC (Edmonds Center for the Arts): $55,631 Anderson Center Seismic Retrofit: $29,784 PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $592,564 $171,400 $169,383 $171,947 $164,766 $162,656 165,907 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 271 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Open Space/Land ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,000,000 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $0 0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 200,000 200,000 Packet Page 272 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Waterfront/Tidelands Acquisition ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,400,000 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Packet Page 273 of 342 PROJECT NAME: 4th Avenue Corridor Enhancement ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,325,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin 4th 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $1,425,000 $2,900,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,425,000 $2,900,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 274 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Cultural Heritage Tour and Way-Finding Signage ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7015 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $7015 1% for Art TOTAL $7015 Packet Page 275 of 342 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $60,000 $108,000 1% for Art TOTAL $60,000 $108,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 276 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition and/or Development ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6.1M 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: 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 Acquisition $20,000 $3M Planning/Study 100,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction $3M 1% for Art TOTAL $20,000 $3M $100,000 $3M * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 277 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Parking Lot/Drainage ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $500,000 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. This project is grant dependent. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain capital assets and provide safety and better accessibility for Seniors. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 278 of 342 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $372,100 $854,900 1% for Art TOTAL $372,100 $854,900 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts Packet Page 279 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic Complex at the Former Woodway High School ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $11,535,000 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/Study $655,000 Engineering & Administration Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $655,000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 280 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation of land ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $900,000 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL 900,000 Packet Page 281 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Wetland Mitigation ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $12,517 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. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park. 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $12,517 1% for Art TOTAL $12,517 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 282 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Willow Creek Daylighting ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $200,000 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. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park. 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: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $200,000 1% for Art TOTAL $200,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 283 of 342 PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown Waterfront) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 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 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL Packet Page 284 of 342 FUND PROJECT NAME CFP DESCRIPTION 112 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave to 84th Ave.2" pavement grind and overlay with ADA curb ramp upgrades 112 Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements X Widen 216th St. SW to add a WB and EB left turn lane. Provide protective / permissive left turn phasing for both movements. 112 Re-striping of 76th Ave. W from 220th to OVD Re-striping of 76th with addition of bike lanes on both sides of the street 112 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W X Installation of 150' of sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW. 112 Trackside Warning System / Quiet Zone (Dayton and Main RR crossings)X Installation of trackside warning system or Quiet Zone system at (2) railroad crossings (Main St. and Dayton St.) 116 Anderson Center Roofing Project Subject of a DP for 2015 funding 116 Anderson Center Accessibility CDBG Grant application coming in 2014 for wheelchair lift. 116 City Hall Security Measures Subject of a DP for 2015 funding. 116 Grandstand Exterior and Roof Repairs If deemed necessary per on-going investigation. 125 Sunset Avenue Walkway X Alignment with Fund 112 CIP. 125 Fishing Pier Rehab In partnership with WDFW, contingent upon grant funds. 125 Pavement Preservation Program 125 REET Parks and 125 REET Transportation combined into one spreadsheet titled 125 Capital Projects Fund. Added transfer to the 112 Street Fund. 125 Meadowdale Playfields Intalling turf fields, in partnership with Lynnwood and Edmonds School District, and contingent upon grant funds. 132 Civic Center Acquisitoin X Purchase of Civic Center from the School District 421 2021 Replacement Program Estimated future costs for waterline replacements. 421 2015 Waterline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to waterline replacements. 422 105th/106 Ave SW Drianage Improvements This project was in 2012-2017 CIP but removed the following year. Advanced maintenance by the Public Worls Crews worked for a few years, but now the system needs to be replaced. 423 2021 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Imprvmnts Estimated future costs for sewerline replacements/rehab/impr. 423 2015 Sewerline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to sewerline repl/rehab/impr. 423 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study Estimated cost for Study to determine how to replace/rehab/improve trunk sewerline located directly west of Lake Ballinger. Preliminary costs for this project will be generated under this task. CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2014 TO 2015) ADDED PROJECTS Packet Page 285 of 342 FUND PROJECT NAME CFP DESCRIPTION 112 Type 2 Raised Pavement Markers Project removed from list to accommodate higher priorities. 112 Main St. from 5th to 6th X Completed in 2013. 112 School zone flashing beacons Completed in 2013. 116 Anderson Center Countertop Replacement Delayed until 2016. 116 Anderson Center Radiator Replacement Delayed until 2017. 116 City Hall Exterior Cleaning/Repainting Delayed another year. 116 Meadowdale Clubhouse Roof Delayed another year. 116 Cemetery Building Gutter Replacement Delayed another year. 125 Haines Wharf Park & Walkway Project Completed in 2013. 421 2011 Replacement Program Completed in 2013. 421 2012 Replacement Program Completed in 2013. 421 2012 Waterline Overlays Completed in 2013. 421 224th Waterline Replacement Completed in 2013. 422 Southwest Edmonds Basin Study Project 2 - Connect Sumps near Robin Hood Lane X Project not needed at this point due to upstream improvements by Public Works Crews. 422 Goodhope Pond Basin Study/Projects New system with detention installed as part of 5 Corners Roundabout project. Future need for this project will be assessed. 423 Meter Installations Basin Edmonds Zone Deleted. Discussions with operations and engineering staff were done to prioritize metering needs. It was determined that the metering in the Lift Station 1 zone and the Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study are more pressing in their need to be completed. 423 Smoke Test in Basin Edmonds Zone Deleted. Discussions with operations and engineering staff were done to prioritize smoke testing. It was determined that the Lift Station 1 study and the Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study are more pressing in their need to be completed. CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2014 TO 2015) DELETED PROJECTS Packet Page 286 of 342 FUND PROJECT NAME CFP CHANGE 112 Citywide - Signal Improvements Combined w/ Citywide Safety Impr.- Signal Cabinet / Ped. Countdown Displ. 112 Citywide Bicycle Connections Combined with Bicycle Route Signing 116 ESCO IV To be done in 2015. No streetlights. FAC steam system component. 421 Five Corners 3.0 MG Reservoir Recoating Project merged into one project called Five Corners Reservoir Recoating. 421 Five Corners 1.5 MG Reservoir Recoating Project merged into one project called Five Corners Reservoir Recoating. 422 Storm Drainage Improvement Project: Dayton St. Between 6th & 8th Now called: Dayton St. between 3rd & 9th. More extensive improvements are needed to reduce the frequency of flooding. 422 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects X Removed from CFP. Culvert/Bridge projects constructed by City of Mountlake Terrace. No additional capital projects currently planned. Project will remain in the CIP to work with neighboring jursidictions on policy and other issues. 423 2012 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Impr Renamed to Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer Replacement 423 2013 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Impr Renamed to Phase 2 Sanitary Sewer Replacement 423 Meter Installation Basin LS-01 Project merged into one project called Lift Station 1 metering and flow study 423 Smoke Test Basin LS-01 Project merged into one project called Lift Station 1 metering and flow study CHANGED PROJECTS CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2014 TO 2015) Packet Page 287 of 342 423.76 Repair and Replacement Repairs to the Pagoda, Secondary Clarifier #3 and coating projects will be focussed on in late 2014 anf early 2015. 423.76 Upgrades Offsite Flow Telemetry: This project will modify the offsite monitoring stations to solar power in an effort to significantly lower our energy bills. One station was completed in 2014, the remaininig station will be completed in 2015. Control System Upgrade: Replace aging control system equipment, provide for redundancy and upgrade the operating platform. In 2014 PLC 100 will be replaced. In 2015 PLC 500 and PLC 300 will be replaced. This project will be completed in 2016. SSI rpoject: In late 2014 we will purchaes the mercury absortion modules and install them late 2015 or early 2016. Phase 4 energy improvements: in late 2014 we will replace the plant air compressors and in 2015 we will retrofit A basin 2 with fine bubble diffusers and install a new blower. 423.76 Studies and Consulting We will continue to evaluate UV vs. Hypo for disinfection, begin the design for solids sytem enhancements and look at gasification as a future alternative to the SSI. Much of this work will be accomplished under the ESCO model and focuss on energy improvements. Packet Page 288 of 342 DRAFT Subject to October 8th Approval CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 24, 2014 Chair Cloutier 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 Todd Cloutier, Chair Neil Tibbott, Vice Chair Philip Lovell Daniel Robles Careen Rubenkonig Valerie Stewart BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Ellis (excused) STAFF PRESENT Shane Holt, Development Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Rob English, City Engineer Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR TIBBOTT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. CHAIR CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH 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. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Ms. Hope referred the Board to the written Director’s Report. In addition to the items outlined on the report, she announced that the public has invited to a free program that asks the question, “What Does a Vibrant City of the Future Look Like?” The event is being sponsored by Community Transit, Puget Sound Regional Council, and 8-80 Cities and will take place on September 25th at the Lynnwood Convention Center starting at 6:30 p.m. Gil Penalosa, Executive Director of the Canadian non-profit organization 8-80 Cities will speak about how to create vibrant cities and healthy communities for everyone. She encouraged Board Member to attend. Board Member Lovell requested a status report on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). He recalled that the Council is currently considering a modification to the Board’s recommendation that would increase the setback area for development to 150 feet and the buffer area to 50 feet. Ms. Hope emphasized that the City Council has not taken final action on the SMP yet, but the majority appear to be leaning towards a greater setback. Board Member Lovell advised that the Port of Edmonds has Packet Page 289 of 342 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 2 gone on record in opposition to the increased setback and indicated they would likely take legal action if the greater setbacks are adopted. Ms. Hope said staff indicated support for the 50-foot buffer, as recommended by the Planning Board and supported by Best Available Science. Board Member Stewart clarified that the City Council is proposing the increased setback requirement on a 2-year interim basis. At the end of the two years, the setback could be renegotiated. Chair Cloutier noted that the City Council is also considering significant modifications to the Board’s recommendation related to Highway 99 zoning. Ms. Hope acknowledged that the Council conducted a public hearing and voted to amend the recommendation, but they will not take formal action until a revised ordinance is presented to them at a future meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) (FILE NUMBER AMD20150006 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 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 announced that, this year, the 125 funds were combined to include both transportation and parks projects to be consistent with the City’s budget. Mr. English noted that a description of each project was included in the draft CIP. He reviewed some of the projects identified in the CIP and CFP, as well as the progress that was made over the past year as follows:  The 5 Corners Roundabout Project is nearing completion. This significant project is intended to improve the level of service (LOS) of the intersection and improve air quality by moving traffic more efficiently through the intersection.  The City Council approved a $1.6 million budget for a Street Preservation Program in 2014. This has enabled staff to overlay two streets and apply chip seal applications to three streets. Staff is proposing a budget of $1.56 million for the Street Preservation Program in 2015.  The 228th Street Corridor Improvement Project will start in 2015. As proposed, 228th Street Southwest will be extended across the unopened right-of-way to 76th Avenue West, and the intersections at Highway 99 and 76th Avenue West will be signalized. 228th Street Southwest will be overlaid from 80th Place West to 2,000 feet east of 72nd Avenue West, and 76th Avenue West will be overlaid from 228th Street Southwest to Highway 99. Chair Cloutier questioned if the proposed improvements would extend all the way to the border of Mountlake Terrace. Mr. English answered affirmatively and noted that Mountlake Terrace is also planning improvements for its portion of 228th Street Southwest.  Intersection improvements at 76th Avenue West and 212th Street Southwest are currently under design and the City is in the process of acquiring additional right-of-way. Construction is planned to start in 2016.  76th Avenue West will be restriped between 220th Street Southwest and Olympic View Drive. The section that is currently four lanes will be reduced to three lanes, with a bike lane. Pre-design work for this project will start in 2015, with construction in 2016.  Design money has been identified to start the process of looking at the potential of creating a quiet zone or a trackside warning system at the Dayton and Main Street railroad crossings. A consultant contract was recently approved, and a kick-off meeting is scheduled for next week.  The Sunset Avenue Walkway Project has received a lot of discussion at the Council level in recent months. The Council recently approved a temporary alignment for the walkway as a trail and these improvements will likely be finished within the next week or two. Packet Page 290 of 342 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 3  A sidewalk will be installed on 15th Street between SR-104 and 8th Avenue utilizing grant funding from the Safe Routes To School Program. The project should be completed by November of 2014.  Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) curb ramps will be installed on 3rd Avenue, and the project will be advertised this week.  A sidewalk will be installed on the north side of 238th Street Southwest from 100th Avenue West to 104th Avenue West. Stormwater improvements will also be included with this project, which will be funded via a Safe Routes To School Grant and Utilities Fund 422.  A walkway will be constructed on the south side of 236th Street Southwest from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary School. Sharrows will also be added along this stretch. This project is also being funded through the Safe Routes to School Program.  10,000 feet of water main was replaced in 2014, and two pressure reducing valves were replaced. The City just completed 2,000 feet of street overlay where water mains were previously replaced. In 2015, they plan to replace 7,000 feet of water main, as well as some pressure reducing valves.  The 4th Avenue Stormwater Project is in progress and is intended to address flooding issues in the downtown caused by heavy rains. This project should be completed within the next month.  The vactor waste handling facility was completed this year, and they are working to replace the filtration pipes.  The City will build on the study completed in 2013 that assessed the feasibility of daylighting the Willow Creek channel as part the Edmonds Marsh Project. Daylighting the creek will help reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and the Edmond Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped.  A lift station and other new infrastructure will be installed at Dayton Street and SR-104 to improve drainage and reduce flooding at the intersection.  A flow reduction study has been completed for the Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction/Management Project, and the project is currently at the pre-design phase.  Sewer main on Railroad Avenue was replaced in July, and more work is scheduled in 2015. By the end of 2014, the City will have replaced over 6,000 feet of sewer main in several locations. In 2015, staff is proposing 1,500 feet of cured-in- place pipe application, 4,000 feet of sewer main replacement, and improvements at the Wastewater Treatment Plan. Board Member Lovell noted that Meadowdale Beach Road is in poor condition, and it does not make sense to install a sidewalk before the roadway has been repaved. Mr. English pointed out that repaving Meadowdale Beach Road is identified as a project in the Roadway Preservation Program. If funding is available, it will move forward in 2015. He cautioned that the street may need more than an overlay to address the problems. Vice Chair Tibbott asked Mr. English to describe the differences between the cured-in-place pipe application and replacing sewer mains. Mr. English said that the cured-in-place application is a trenchless technology that the City has used on a few projects in the last several years. If a pipeline is cracked but has not lost its grade, you can apply a new interior coating. This can be done by accessing the manholes within the pipe without having to excavate or cut the street. Staff has spent a significant amount of time this year collecting data on the existing condition of the pipes to identify those in which the cured- in-place option would be appropriate. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the cured-in-place application would address root problems. Mr. English answered that the application is a good way to take care of roots. Depending on the age of the pipes, they are most likely to connect at the joints, which provide a pathway for roots. The cured-in-place application would be a continuous inner lining for the pipe so the potential for roots to find gaps or cracks goes away once it is installed. Packet Page 291 of 342 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 4 Vice Chair Tibbott asked Mr. English to describe how the Dayton Street Lift Station would work. Mr. English explained that there are a lot of different inputs into the stormwater issues in this location such as the Edmonds Marsh, Shellebarger Creek, and stormwater runoff. In this particular case, when the tide elevation is high, the water cannot drain into the Sound and flooding occurs at the intersection of Dayton Street and SR-104. The marsh does not drain as well, either. The proposed project will re-establish the flow through the marsh, and install a lift station that will mechanically lift the water during high tide so it can be discharged to Puget Sound. Board Member Stewart referred to the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project and asked about the definition for “multi-use pathways.” Mr. English answered that there is not really a definition for multi-use pathways. The concept is based more on width. Ten feet is the standard width for a multi-use pathway, but some are as narrow as 8 feet or as wide as 12 feet. The goal is to have walkers and bikers use the route together. Board Member Stewart asked if it would be possible to allow some wheeled access on the pathway, while bikes are routed to the sharrows on the roadway. Mr. English agreed that would be possible. He noted that while the sharrows for north bound bikers are not in place, bikers going south can use the trail that is striped. Board Member Stewart asked if the City would consider green infrastructure as a method of stormwater improvement such as rain gardens, bioswales, and pervious pavement. Mr. English said they are considering a few green options for stormwater. For example, the Shellebarger Creek High Flow Reduction Study recommends building bio-retention facilities within the residential areas. These projects are about 90% designed, and the City plans to apply for grants to build them in 2015. There is also an infiltration facility at Sea View Park to take some of the high flow off Perrinville Creek. Two previously mentioned projects utilize infiltration methods versus collection and putting the water into the Sound. Board Member Stewart suggested that these efforts should be noted in the plans. Board Member Rubenkonig said she enjoyed the project descriptions. She particularly found the history to be helpful in understanding how each project originated. She would also like each project description to reference the plan that supports it and explained why it was proposed. She noted that some of the descriptions provide details about the size of the projects (i.e. length, square footage, acreage, etc.) She found this helpful to make a connection between a project’s size and its anticipated cost. She suggested that this information should be provided for each of the project descriptions. Mr. English agreed that more information could be provided in the project descriptions related to size, but the City does not yet have this detailed information for some of the projects in the CIP. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that walkway projects are referred to as both sidewalks and walkways. She asked if there is a reason to make this distinction. Mr. English agreed that the terms could be more consistent. The City secured grant funding for three sidewalk projects from the Safe Routes to School Program. His guess is that throughout the application process, the projects were probably identified as walkways as opposed to sidewalks. Ms. Hite advised that approximately $120,000 is set aside each year in the CIP for park maintenance items. She explained that although it is not common for cities to use Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) funds strictly for parks operations and maintenance, the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) allows it. However, this provision will sunset at the end of 2016. Unless it is extended for an additional time period, the City will have to be creative in 2017 to fill the funding gap. Ms. Hite provided a brief overview of the accomplishments in 2014 related to parks, as well as projects anticipated for 2015:  A new play area was installed at City Park. However, because of issues with drainage and the existing water table, the spray pad had to be redesigned. Permits for the project were submitted earlier in the week, and the goal is to obtain the permits and get the project out to bid before the end of the year so construction can start in February or March. It is anticipated the spray pad will open by Memorial Day 2015. She briefly described some of the features of the new play area and spray pad.  The Dayton Street Plaza Project has been on the City’s plan for the past few years, and demolition work started this month. She provided a schematic design of the project for the Board’s information.  Some historic preservation plaques were installed on the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor, as well as other locations throughout the downtown. In addition, the Arts Commission has been working on a temporary installation on 4th Packet Page 292 of 342 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 5 Avenue to bring visibility to the corridor. They are holding public meetings regarding the project at this time. However, the City does not currently have funding to create permanent features along the corridor.  The City has set aside $655,000 in the CIP and the School District has agreed to contribute $500,000 for redevelopment of the Woodway High School Athletic Field. In 2013, the City received a $750,000 state appropriation from local representatives, as well as a capital grant of $2.5 million from Verdant Health Care. They now have a total of $4.2 million for the project. In addition to a sports field for soccer, softball, lacrosse and ultimate Frisbee, the play area will be upgraded and a new walking path will be provided to connect to the oval track around the football field. The project is currently in the design phase. The district will construct the project and the City will maintain it and have operational control of the fields. The redeveloped facility is set to open in September of 2015.  The Yost Pool boiler was replaced in 2014. In addition, new plaster was applied to the bottom of the pool, and a new hot water tank was installed. They just recently discovered that the spa has a leak that will cost about $100,000 to fix, and this money was built into the 2015 budget.  The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department is working in partnership with the Stormwater Division on the Marina Beach Master Plan, which will include daylighting of Willow Creek. Burlington Northern Santa Fe installed a culvert that can be used for this purpose, and they are currently considering two different alignment options, both of which will have impacts to Marina Beach Park and/or the dog park. Staff will work with the design team and the public to come up with the best solution, and they are hoping the work can be completed by next September.  The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and Community Cultural Plan were updated this year.  The Anderson Field Amphitheater and Meadowdale Club House Playfield will be replaced in 2015.  The City is working in partnership with the City of Lynnwood and the Edmonds School District to further develop and maintain the Meadowdale Playfields. They are looking at installing turf on the fields so they can be used year round. The School District has allotted $1 million for the project, and the Cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood have agreed to contribute, as well. They have applied for a grant to help fund the project, and they are hoping to have enough money put together to start within the next three years.  The City has an aggressive goal to acquire waterfront property and has set aside about $900,000 from a Conservations Future Grant and REET dollars for this purpose. The City has been negotiating with a property owner, and she is optimistic that an agreement can be reached.  Rehabilitation of the Fishing Pier has been on the City’s radar since 2009. The facility is located on property owned by the Port of Edmonds, but the facility is owned by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WSDFW). The City maintains the facility. While the pier looks nice on the outside and is safe, it was constructed 35 years ago and the salt water environment has caused significant deterioration. WSDFW has offered to give the pier to the City, but the City would like the rehabilitation work to be completed before ownership is transferred. The City is working in partnership with the WSDFW to obtain the needed funds, which is estimated to cost about $1.5 million. About $200,000 has been allocated to the project, and the WSDFW has submitted a grant request to the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) for $1.3 million. The grant scored well, and they are hoping it will be funded so the project can move forward in 2015.  The City has been working with the Edmonds School District to acquire the Civic Center Playfield. An appraiser was hired to come up with an appraisal that is acceptable to both parties, and third-party appraiser was also hired to confirm the findings. The City submitted a grant request for $1 million to the RCO, and the project scored within the range of projects that were funded last year. However, if there are cuts in the RCO’s budget, the grant may not be funded. If the City is able to complete the acquisition in 2015, some money will be set aside in 2016 to do a master plan. Packet Page 293 of 342 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 6 Board Member Lovell asked if the City would continue to maintain the Civic Center Playfield in its current state until such time as it is acquired and redeveloped. Ms. Hite answered that short-term goal is to acquire the property and maintain it as is until a master plan has been completed and the park is redeveloped. Board Member Lovell asked if the senior center was identified on the CFP as a placeholder or if the City will dedicate funding for the project. Ms. Hite said this project will require a partnership with other entities. The City will support the project as much as possible, but it will not be a City project. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the City will partner with the Edmonds School District to redevelop the Civic Center Playfield. Ms. Hite answered that the City is now pursuing a complete acquisition of the site. The district has indicated it does not have a developer. Ms. Hite agreed that is possible, but the current lease, which runs through 2020, gives the City the first right to purchase. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the new sports field at the Old Woodway High School would be turf. Ms. Hite answered affirmatively. She explained that this is something that is desperately needed in the area. Because the City does not have any turf fields at this time, the season is limited to just over four months each year. The City will continue to maintain its grass fields, but having an amenity that allows year-round play is important to the parks system. Vice Chair Tibbott noted that some parks in the City are underutilized. When it comes to thinking of bigger projects like an aquatics center or acquiring property, he asked if the City has considered selling some of the underutilized park land to provide funding for new parks and/or needed improvements. Ms. Hite answered that the City currently has a good balance of neighborhood, community and regional parks, and there are still some deficiencies near Highway 99. They have not considered the option of selling park land because they do not feel there are surplus parks in the system. All of the parks are utilized, and even those that just provide green space are desirable to the community. Board Member Robles referred to Ms. Hite’s report that the City obtained the services of a third-party appraiser to study the Civic Center Playfield. He asked if the City also uses third-party consultants to conduct condition assessments and feasibility studies or is the work done in house. Ms. Hite answered that this work is contracted out, and the various grant guidelines have very rigid rules for assessments and appraisals for parkland acquisition. Board Member Stewart noted that rest room repairs are identified for Brackett’s Landing. She asked if the City has considered turning the restrooms over to a concessionaire. Ms. Hite said the City has a program for encouraging concessionaires in parks, but none have located at Brackett’s Landing to date. Every January, the City sends out a Request for Proposals, inviting vendors who might want to operate a concession stand in a City-owned park. In total, concessions brought in $10,000 last year to help with parks. She expressed her belief that the program is a win-win. It provides additional amenities in parks, as well as funds for park improvements. Board Member Stewart asked if the City has considered meters in parking areas that serve City parks. Ms. Hite said this option has been discussed, but it has not received a lot of support from the City Council. If the Board is interested in pursuing the option, she can facilitate the discussion. Board Member Stewart noted that the project description for the Sunset Walkway Project indicates that a sidewalk will be provided on the west side. She asked if this is the same project identified in the CFP. Ms. Hite answered affirmatively, noting that the $200,000 identified for the project in 2018 will come from the Parks Fund. However, most of the funding for the project will come from grants and the City’s street improvement fund. Board Member Stewart referred to the Fishing Pier and Restroom Project and noted that no funding has been set aside for the Beach Ranger Station, which is old and very small. Ms. Hite agreed that there has been no discussion about replacing the station, and it was not included as a project in the PROS Plan. However, staff could explore this option further as directed by the Board. Board Member Stewart referred to Page 48 of the draft CIP, which talks about Miscelleneous Unpaved Trail/Bike Path Improvements. He asked if the City’s website provides a map showing where the bike paths are located within parks. Ms. Packet Page 294 of 342 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 7 Hite said there are not a lot of bicycle trails through parks, but the City’s goal is to provide exterior connections. These are not currently listed on the City’s website, but they could be added. Board Member Stewart observed that, although the draft CIP identifies $1.4 million for waterfront acquisition, the allocations would be spread out over a seven year period. She suggested the City look for opportunities to partner with non-profits and apply for grants to obtain additional funding. When land becomes available, the City must move quickly. Developers have ready cash and the City doesn’t, and that can result in missed opportunities. Ms. Hite agreed that the City needs to create new funding sources so they are ready to move forward when opportunities come up. The goal is to continue to add money to the fund each year, but there are also competing priorities for the available park dollars. She emphasized that waterfront acquisition is identified as a high priority in the PROS Plan, and maintaining a separate fund for this purpose should also be a priority. Once again, Board Member Rubenkonig asked that each project description reference the plan/plans that support it and explain why it was proposed. This allows the community to have a clear understanding of why the project is identified as a priority for funding. She also asked that the descriptions provide details about the size of the project. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the 4th Avenue arts walk, which starts at Main Street, extends all the way to 3rd Avenue. Ms. Hite answered that it ends at the Performing Arts Center. Ms. Hite said that in addition to the projects identified in the CFP, members of the Economic Development Commission have requested that the City study the option of installing a restroom in the downtown area. She suggested that the concept could be identified in the CFP as a potential project for the City Council’s future consideration. She acknowledged that there is no money available for a restroom right now, but including it on the CFP allows the City to explore funding opportunities. She noted that the community has also indicated support for a public restroom in the downtown. The Board indicated support for the concept, as well. Mr. English reviewed the schedule for moving the CIP and CFP forward to the City Council for final review and approval. He noted that the plans were introduced to the City Council on September 23rd. Both documents, along with the Board’s recommendation, will be presented to the City Council for a study session on October 14th. From that point, the City Council will conduct a public hearing and take final action. Once approved, the CFP will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. English thanked the Board for providing comments. The documents are large and he appreciates the Board’s thorough review and thoughtful comments. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that impact fees were not identified in either plan as a potential funding source for transportation and walkway improvements. Mr. English said this revenue stream is identified in the CIP under Fund 112. He explained that the City has both transportation and park impact fee programs, and funds are collected when development occurs within the City. However, it is important to understand that the money can only be used for certain projects. For example, transportation impact fee dollars can only be used to address concurrency or LOS. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if some of the funding for the 5 Corners Roundabout Project will be used to study how well the roundabout is working to determine if it meets its LOS expectation. Mr. English explained that projects of this magnitude that are funded with federal dollars take quite some time to close out. The money identified in 2015 will be used for this purpose. Chair Cloutier opened the public hearing. As there was no one in the audience, the hearing was closed. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE 2015 – 2020 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND SUBSEQUENT ADOPTION, AS WRITTEN, WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL TAKE UP THE MATTER OF A POTENTIAL PUBLIC RESTROOM IN THE DOWNTOWN. VICE CHAIR TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION. Packet Page 295 of 342 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 8 Board Member Rubenkonig said she supports the motion, but questioned if it would be appropriate to also include the changes she requested earlier regarding the project descriptions. Mr. English indicated that staff would add additional information to the project descriptions wherever possible, recognizing that some of the details are not yet available. The Board agreed that the issue did not need to be addressed in the motion. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Ms. Hope said the purpose of tonight’s discussion is to talk more about the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update, and specifically the Housing Element. She recalled that, at the Board’s last meeting, staff reported that the City is partnering with other cities and Snohomish County in the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), a group formed from Snohomish County Tomorrow. Through this effort, an affordable housing profile has been created for each of the participating jurisdictions. She introduced Kristina Gallant, Analyst, Alliance for Housing Affordability, who was present to walk the Board through the findings of the Edmonds’ Affordable Housing Profile. Kristina Gallant, Analyst, Alliance for Housing Affordability, provided a brief overview of the AHA, which consists of 13 cities in Snohomish County, Snohomish County, and the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. She reminded the Board that there is a Growth Management Act (GMA) mandate for cities to plan for housing to accommodate all segments of the population. The purpose of the AHA is to allow participating cities to share resources and get the help they need in a cost- effective way. The AHA was formed in November of 2013, and since that time she has been working to assess existing conditions and prepare profiles for each of the participating cities. Ms. Gallant explained that, when talking about affordable housing, people typically think about heavily subsidized housing, which is an important element, but not everything. If housing is affordable, but not appropriate for the community, it does not work. It is important to address the different needs and preferences of each community such as adequacy of safety, proximity to transportation, jobs, and affordability. Ms. Gallant provided an overview of the Edmonds Housing Profile, particularly emphasizing the following key elements:  There are currently 39,950 residents living in the City, and Edmonds is projected to accommodate nearly 5,000 new residents by 2035. This is a dramatic change over the stable population levels the City has seen over the past 20 years. The increase would require 2,790 additional housing units, which is near the City’s estimated capacity of 2,646 units.  The 2012 population includes 17,396 households with an average household size of 2.3 people compared to 2.6 for the County. The average family size in Edmonds is 2.8 compared to 3.12 for the County.  Housing in Edmonds is mostly comprised of single-family homes, but most growth will need to be accommodated in multi-family development. About 31% of Edmonds residents and 33% of County residents currently live in rented homes, and the proportion of homeowners remained relatively constant between 2000 and 2010, increasing slightly from 68% to 69%. About 36% of Edmonds population lives in multi-family homes compared with 31% across the County.  The City’s median income ($73,072) is relative high compared to other cities in the region, and home values are general higher, as well.  A significant number of the homes in Edmonds were built between 1950 and 1959 compared to the County overall.  Currently, 38% of Edmonds households are estimated to be cost burdened, which means they spend more than 30% of their monthly income on rent or home ownership costs.  According to 2013 Dupre and Scott data, Edmonds rental housing market is generally affordable to households earning at least 80% Average Median Income (AMI). Households earning between 50% and 80% AMI will find the majority of homes smaller than five bedrooms affordable, as well.  A limited supply of small units is affordable to those earning between 30 and 50% AMI, but market rents are not affordable to extremely low-income households. Packet Page 296 of 342 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 9  A lack of affordable rental housing for extremely low and very low-income households is very common. Some kind of financial assistance is typically required in order to operate a property and keep rents low enough in today’s housing market.  Assistance can be ongoing to make up the difference between 30% of tenants’ income and market rents. Other options include capital funding that reduces the overall project costs (considered workforce housing), making it possible to keep rent levels down.  Edmonds currently has 303 units of subsidized housing with a range of rental assistance sources. It also has 201 units of workforce housing distributed across three properties. These units received some form of one-time subsidy (i.e. low-income tax credit, grants, etc.) in exchange for rent restrictions, but they do not involve rental assistance and rents are not tailored to individual household incomes. In addition, the City has 16 units of transitional housing. However, with 5,322 households earning less than 50% AMI, there is still a need to increase the supply.  In 2012, the median sale price for a single-family home in Edmonds was $339,975. This would require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City’s median income ($73,072).  Affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated at this time, but average assessed values suggest that home prices are rising as the housing market continues to recover following the recession, and affordability is retreating.  Edmonds has the third highest average assessed 2014 home values in Snohomish County ($351,100), which represents a 10.7% increase over 2013.  Edmonds has one of the highest percentages of elderly residents among Snohomish County cities; 25% of the households have individuals 65 years or older. In addition to having generally lower incomes, seniors will require different types of housing and services if they desire to age in place. Ms. Gallant advised that the City has already taken a number of steps to promote affordable housing, and there is a range of options it can consider to respond to the continuing needs of the community. In addition to promoting, adjusting and providing incentives for housing policies where appropriate, the City should continue to monitor and evaluate its policies to make sure there are no unnecessary regulatory barriers to affordable housing. The Housing Profile is meant to be a resource for the City as it moves through its Comprehensive Plan update. The AHA’s goal is to continue to work with participating cities from a technical advisory standpoint, researching what is needed to help establish goals for housing, identifying potential methods for implementation, and identifying funding sources that are available to support infrastructure related to housing. Board Member Robles asked what can be done to promote house-sharing opportunities in Edmonds. He suggested that this opportunity is not always about making money; it is about people trying to hang on to their homes. Ms. Gallant replied that many cities have ordinances in place that allow accessory dwelling units, but they vary significantly. It is important for cities to review their provisions for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) to make sure they are easy to understand and that the requirements and processes are not so onerous as to be cost prohibitive. The AHA’s goal is to work with participating cities to develop better policies and make sure there are no unnecessary barriers. At the same time, they must be cognizant to balance the new policies with the other needs of the City. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that ADUs were not addressed in the AHA’s report. Ms. Gallant agreed that data related to accessory dwelling units was not included in her report, and she would definitely like to research this opportunity more. Board Member Stewart complimented Ms. Gallant for a great report and a good start for metrics. However, she agreed with Board Member Rubenkonig that, at some point, the City must include ADUs in the metrics. She also suggested the City consider expanding its ADU provisions as a type of housing option to help the City meet its growth targets. She expressed concern that the numbers provided in the report is based on the number of bedrooms and size is not factored into the variables. Ms. Gallant agreed that the data is not as detailed as it could be, but it is intended to start the conversation. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the AHA has studied whether or not it is less costly to develop high-density residential versus low-density residential units. He said it would be helpful to have information about the average cost of producing the various types of affordable housing compared to the outcome. Ms. Gallant said she would like to study per unit development costs at some point in the future. In general, the housing costs are reflected through the rent and home sales, and there is a lot of debate about whether high density produces more affordable units. Increasing the supply over the long term is what needs to happen. When there is a choke point in the supply, housing prices will rise. Packet Page 297 of 342 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 10 Vice Chair Tibbott recalled the Board’s previous discussion point to the fact that just building small units does not mean they will be affordable. He noted that using lower cost finishes is one approach that can reduce the cost of the units, but he questioned if it would be possible to produce enough of these units in Edmonds to make a difference. He asked if any thought has been given to lowering development costs or allowing different types of development so developers can produce more affordable units. For example, the City could consider reduced permit fees or tax incentives. Ms. Gallant said the AHA is interested in researching this issue. Ms. Hope explained that the next step is for staff to review the current Housing Element and come back to the Board with a revised version that incorporates the new information contained in the Housing Profile and other census data. She explained that one aspect of updating each Comprehensive Plan element is to identify a performance measure that will be meaningful, yet easy for the City to replicate with data annually. In addition, an action (implementation) step may be identified to help achieve progress on certain issues. Staff is recommending that the performance measure for the Housing Element be a set number of residential units permitted each year. The exact number could be filled in later in the year when data is ready. This information would enable the City track its progress in allowing housing that will accommodate expected growth. Staff is also proposing that the action item for the Housing Element be to develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. She explained that there are many different ways to address affordability and several tools can be utilized to encourage affordable housing while looking at the overall housing needs. The proposed performance measure can get at the overall supply of housing units in Edmonds, but it is more difficult to measure affordability. Chair Cloutier expressed his belief that counting the number of bedrooms is the appropriate approach since the goal is to provide “beds for the heads.” The City could easily collect data for this metric. However, the affordability aspect is more market driven than the City can control and it would be very difficult to measure. Board Member Robles suggested that one option would be to offer a micro-tax incentive to encourage developers to report correctly. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the Growth Management Act deals with affordable housing as more population based. However, population translates into housing, and that is why it is a good proxy for population. You have to have housing for people to live in. The Growth Management does not define affordable housing, and it does not provide specific policies on how to encourage more affordable housing. Board Member Robles asked if the City can track ADUs. Ms. Hope answered affirmatively, as long as they have a valid permit. However, it would be very difficult to track rooms for rent. Board Member Stewart asked if a three-bedroom unit would be considered three units. Ms. Hope answered that it would only count as one unit. Board Member Stewart pointed out that household size has decreased in Edmonds in recent years, but the size of the units has increased. Board Member Lovell recalled that the City has fairly stringent building restrictions with respect to ADUs. If they are serious about meeting the Growth Management Act (GMA) targets and accommodating an increased population, this issue will have to be addressed. He noted that the Board has been talking about the growth targets and opportunities for affordable housing for a number of years, but the City Council has a history of not taking action to accommodate mixed-use development with higher densities. While it is fine for the Board to discuss the issue again and put forth plans, he is not convinced anything will change in the near future unless the makeup of the City Council changes dramatically. Mr. Chave clarified that ADUs are not considered multi-family apartments or second dwellings. The definition remains single-family. Extended family members and/or parents could live in a permitted ADU, as long as all the occupants in both units are related. It gets more complicated when unrelated people live in the units. The definition of "family" says that up to five unrelated people can live on a single-family property. For example, a family of four could rent to a single person or a family of three could rent to two people. In addition, ADUs must be attached to the main unit, and there are size limitations. There has been a steady uptick of ADUs in the City, particularly involving large, older homes. He noted that no permit would be required to rent a room to someone. The key distinction is whether or not there are separate living units. Packet Page 298 of 342 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 11 Ms. Hope added that the City has made the choice not to count ADUs as separate housing units. She suggested this is a lesser issue compared to the policies that guide the use. Mr. Chave explained that if ADUs are counted as separate units, requirements such as impact fees would come into plan. Chair Cloutier suggested that ADUs could be counted differently for the metrics versus the code. The Board expressed general support for the proposed Housing Element performance measure and action step. However, they expressed a desire to forward with developing a strategy for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs sooner than 2019 if resources are available. Board Member Rubenkonig said she likes the term “housing options” rather than “lower-income housing.” She wants to know that people can remain in the community of Edmonds at different stages of their lives. Although sometimes they can afford larger houses, they need smaller units. Board Member Stewart expressed concern that the older homes in Edmonds are being torn down and redeveloped into units that are three times more costly than the prior home. She would like the City to offer incentives to property owners to retain their existing homes. The City must offer a variety of housing options to serve the citizens. Ms. Hope agreed and said the issue would be addressed as part of the strategy. Board Member Lovell referred to an article in THE SEATTLE TIMES titled, “Builders Say Land in Short Supply.” This article applies directly to the Board’s current discussion. Until cities find ways to accommodate more multi-family housing, the demand will remain high in the future, and the prices will continue to increase. Right now, the City does not have a great track record for accommodating this kind of development. The City is already built out, and the only way to accommodate more people is to allow more density. PRESENTATION ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Ms. Hope and Mr. Chave made a brief presentation on development projects and activities. Ms. Hope noted that the same presentation was made to the City Council on September 23rd. The purpose of the presentation is to recreate the story of everything that has happened related to development in the City over the past several years, particularly highlighting the present activity. She advised that the Development Services Department is comprised of the Engineering Division, the Building Division and the Planning Division. Its goal is to provide assistance to people interested in improving or developing their property via discussions, data, handouts, permitting and inspections. She reported that she has received number compliments on the quality of service that staff provides. While not everyone is always happy, staff tries hard to be courteous, respectful and helpful. Staff members work in different ways to serve the community. For example:  Field inspections are performed by building inspectors, engineering inspectors and planning staff. Not counting site visits, more than 6,000 inspections have been performed over the last year.  Staff members meet together in teams to coordinate on different projects and activities.  Staff also meets with applicants and developers to provide pre-application assistance for development projects that are being planned. Ms. Hope advised that the Planning Division is responsible for a number of different types of permits, including short plats, variances, and other permits related to planning and land-use codes. A number of different planning permits were approved over the past seven months. She provided a graph to illustrate the number of permits and revenue generated from January through August in 2001 through 2014. She noted that the data reflects the economic climate over the last several years. There as a big jump in development permits in 2006 through 2008, but permitting dropped off quickly after that. As the economy improves, the City is once again seeing an increase in the number of permits. Ms. Hope said the Building Division is responsible for certain types of permits, as well, some of which are reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Divisions, as well. These projects added $38,000 to the City of Edmonds in terms of values and buildings. It is anticipated that upcoming key projects will double that number in just a few months. Mr. Chave noted that Swedish Edmonds Hospital’s project was not factored into those numbers yet, and it should add $28,000 in value. Packet Page 299 of 342 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 12 Ms. Hope reported that the City issued significantly more solar panel permits in 2014 compared to 2012 and 2013, and most of those permits were applied for on line. Mr. Chave advised that the City’s Building Official has been working with other cities, including Seattle, Bellevue and Ellensburg, on a program to encourage solar installations using grant funding from the State Department of Commerce. The program has been implemented in a few cities as a pilot to figure out how to streamline and reduce the costs of solar permitting. A few incentive programs were rolled out recently in Edmonds. He summarized that it is through a combination of programs that the City is seeing a significant increase in the number of solar permits. This speaks directly to the work they have done to improve the process and provide more information. The City will continue to work hard to encourage solar in the community, and he anticipates the numbers will continue to increase. Ms. Hope reported that for the period between September 1, 2013 and August 31, 2104, the Engineering Division issued 591 engineering permits, for total permit fees of $93,285.44. They also performed 1094 inspections, for total inspection fees of $124,815.82. In addition, they completed an estimated 1,200 reviews of plans. Ms. Hope provided a map identifying the location of key development projects in Edmonds. Mr. Chave explained that the Development Services Department currently has a total of 544 active issued building permits. These building permits are typically issued early in the year and take time to progress through. There is still a tremendous amount of work to be done on most of them. Mr. Chave specifically noted the following:  There are currently 52 active new single-family residence permits. This is a significant increase, and one particularly large project is a 27-lot subdivision in the southwest part of the City that is starting to develop.  Swedish Edmonds Hospital recently completed its three-story parking garage. This was an $8.4 million project with over 108,000 square feet of space. They are currently working on an expansion that will add a 94,000 square foot, state-of-the-art facility valued at about $28 million. This project was not reflected in the numbers provided earlier.  Clearing and excavating work is currently taking place for a new mixed-use building in the downtown that will include a somewhat down-sized post office. The project will provide 94,256 square feet of space, with 43 residential units, the post office, and retail space. The project is valued at $7.2 million.  The Community Health Clinic is a new 24,750 facility that houses a medical and dental clinic. The project was completed in July of 2014 and is valued at $2.6 million.  The Salish Crossing Project will be a complete remodel of the “old Safeway site” into five new tenant spaces and a museum within the existing building. Parking lot and pedestrian improvements are also proposed as part of the project.  The Jacobsen’s Marine Project will create a new 10,120 square foot marine service building valued at $810,000 on Port of Edmonds property. This will be a big deal in terms of retail sales, as the company is a significant seller of boats and marine supplies.  Prestige Care is developing a new 48,782 square foot skilled nursing facility on 76th Avenue West. The project is valued at $6.9 million. The new building will replace the existing facility.  Excavation work is going on now for the 5th Avenue Animal Hospital, which will be a 10,562 square foot veterinary clinic that is valued at $891,000. The new building will help fill the gap between the strong retail uses on the south end of 5th Avenue and the downtown retail area.  The City is transitioning to new technology, particularly on-line permit applications and digital permit reviews. Chair Cloutier thanked Ms. Holt and Mr. Chave for the report, which he found to be enlightening and helped him understand the big projects that are occurring in the City. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA The Board did not review their extended agenda. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cloutier thanked the Board Members for enduring a long meeting. There was a lot on their plate and the issues are important. He also thanked Vice Chair Tibbott for presenting the Planning Board’s quarterly report to the City Council. Packet Page 300 of 342 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 13 PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Rubenkonig said she enjoyed being able to download the meeting packet. Mr. Chave explained that he will work with the City Clerk to learn how to in bed page numbers into the documents so they are easier for the Board to use. Board Member Stewart referred to the two links to videos that were forwarded to Board Members by Ms. Hope. The first video is general about the value of comprehensive plans and important issues to consider when updating them. The second video is called “Planning Roles and Citizen Participation.” She said she reviewed both videos, and she encouraged the other Board Members, as well as City Council Members, to do the same. She particularly recommended the second video, which shows some striking parallels to not only the Planning Board’s role, but how they interact with the City Council. Board Member Stewart reminded the Board of the tour of the marsh and Shoreline that is scheduled for October 4th from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. The tour will be led by Keeley O’Connell and a representative from the Tribes. Participants should meet in front of the Harbor Square Athletic Club. She explained that the tour is part of her citizen project called “Students Saving Salmon.” In addition to the students, members of the Planning Board, City Council and Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee are invited to attend. Vice Chair Tibbott pointed out that if the City is expected to accommodate an additional 5,000 residents before 2035, this equates to about 250 addition people per year. If this number is divided by the average household size of just over two, the number of new units needed each year is 125. This year the City added just 33 new single-family residential homes and no duplexes or multi-family units. Mr. Chave clarified that the post office project will provide an additional 43 multi-family residential units for a total of about 76 new residential units. It is likely the number will grow before the end of the year. The best report to look at will be the year-end report that captures all the projects that were completed in 2014. He suspects the final number will be about 100, which is a good year for the City. Vice Chair Tibbott provided a brief review of the quarterly report he presented to the City Council on behalf of the Board. He reported that several City Council Members said they read the Board’s comments and recommendations and they appreciated their work. One City Council Member was somewhat critical of the one meeting the Board held when there was not a quorum of members, yet they reported information that was put together that evening. He didn’t go into the details about the nature of the meeting, but the City Council Member expressed concern that it seemed like the Board was pushing forward an agenda that neither the City Council nor the City staff was ready for. Mr. Chave clarified that there was some confusion about the timeline. The City Council had actually talked about the Highway 99 stuff at their retreat before the Board met with the Highway 99 Task Force. The Board’s discussion was a follow up to the points made by the City Council. He did not feel the Board was out in front of the City Council in this situation. Board Member Lovell asked if any progress has been made to fill the vacant Planning Board position. Mr. Chave answered that Mayor Earling is in the process of interviewing four candidates. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Packet Page 301 of 342    AM-7185     16.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/14/2014 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted By:Patrick Doherty Department:Community Services Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title Presentation and Discussion of Proposed Social Media Policy Recommendation Mayor and staff recommend that the proposed Social Media Usage Policy and supporting documents be forwarded to a City Council Business Meeting for approval. Previous Council Action Narrative Communication with and engagement of the public via a diverse array of methods (website, newsletter, town halls, local media, social media, etc.) is vitally important to create and maintain an efficient, effective and productive civic relationship between the city government and its citizens and stakeholders.  As a natural response to the pervasive use of social media, over the past few years municipalities have added Facebook pages, Twitter feeds and YouTube videos to their Internet presence. A quick review identified that the following nearby cities have Facebook pages: Lynnwood, Shoreline, Everett, Mukilteo, Bellevue, Redmond and Renton, among others. In many cases the Police Departments of these cities have their own, separate Facebook pages as well.  Media and public relations experts believe that the use of social media is an increasingly effective way for municipalities to engage and involve the local community. Social media can provide real-time updates regarding important community events and accomplishments, encourage dialogue and response, as well as allow for rapid and pervasive propagation of the information via “liking,” “sharing” and reposting.  For these reasons, we propose to begin usage of Facebook, more general use of Twitter (Public Works Department already uses Twitter occasionally), and potentially use of Flickr, YouTube, etc., for the purpose of achieving greater public outreach, engagement and involvement.  In order to do so, however, it is important to put in place a social media usage policy to guide the use of these media by staff, elected and appointed officials and the public.  Attached you will find a “Social Media Usage Policy” that is supplemented by “Social Media Use Guidelines,” a “Social Media Style Guide” and “Social Media Usage Application” form.  The Social Media Usage Policy provides the basic framework of a policy for the use and implementation Packet Page 302 of 342 of social media by staff, officials and the public. It lays out procedures for staff use and contribution to social media, identifies parameters for appropriate and inappropriate content, and spells out requirements for retention and production of archived information.  It should be noted that this Policy also includes a section regarding the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) and its applicability to elected and appointed officials’ use of social media. Since use (be that commenting or posting) by a quorum of any elected or appointed body would constitute a “meeting” as defined by the OPMA, the Policy discourages commenting or posting on the City’s official social media tools by elected or appointed officials. In this way not only is an inadvertent “meeting” avoided, but so too are the associated, untenable complexities that would be involved in attempting to determine if a quorum of officials were accessing the site at any one time.  The supporting documents mentioned above simply provide more detailed information regarding content, links, and style. In addition, the Social Media Usage Application form is simply a one-time form to be filled out and reviewed for each Department’s appointed Social Media Content Coordinator in order to ensure that such Coordinators have been appropriately oriented to these guidelines and are competent to contribute on behalf of their respective departments.  Attachments Social Media Usage Policy Social Media Use Guidelines Social Media Style Guide Social Media Usage Application Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/09/2014 02:33 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/09/2014 02:41 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/09/2014 02:45 PM Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Started On: 10/06/2014 03:44 PM Final Approval Date: 10/09/2014  Packet Page 303 of 342 SOCIAL MEDIA USAGE POLICY Section Index: 1.0 Purpose 2.0 Policy 3.0 Related Documents 4.0 Definitions 5.0 Guidelines and Procedures 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 Recognizing that Internet-based social media tools can provide opportunities for enhanced commu- nication with residents, the City of Edmonds departments may consider using these tools to reach a broader audience. This policy establishes guidelines for the use of such social media tools and sites. 1.2 This policy supplements Appendix A, Information Services Acceptable Use Policy, of the City’s Per- sonnel policy. 1.3 This policy shall apply to all employees, officers, volunteers and contractors creating social media on behalf of the City, as defined herein. 1.4 This policy is initiated by City Administration. 1.5 The City electronic communications and technology resources are provided for the purpose of con- ducting City business. 2.0 POLICY 2.1 It is the policy of the City of Edmonds to allow use of social media in a manner that is consistent with the policies governing the use of the City’s other communications and technological resources. City employees and officers are accountable for the form and substance of all the information they post or otherwise relay for City purposes using these forms of media. All employees and officers using social media for City purposes must maintain the highest standards of propriety and professionalism in their postings. 3.0 RELATED DOCUMENTS 3.1 Social Media Comments and Use Guidelines: Standards for public comments and usage of City social media sites. 3.2 Social Media Style Guide: Standards for the writing and design of social media. Packet Page 304 of 342 City of Edmonds Social Media Usage Policy Page Page 2 of 5 3.3 Social Media Usage Application Form: Mandatory form a department must use to authorize the de- partment’s Social Media Content Coordinator to use social media. 4.0 DEFINITIONS 4.1 For the purpose of this policy, the following definitions apply: A. Social Media: Social media and Web 2.0 are umbrella terms that define the various activities that integrate technology, social interaction, and content creation. As used in this Policy, it co- vers usage of the Internet, Facebook, Twitter, Nixel, blogs, My Space, YouTube, Flickr and oth- er web tools as approved in the Social Media Style Guide. B. Content: Any text, metadata, QR codes, digital recordings, videos, graphics, photos and links on approved sites. C. PIO: Public Information Officer, either City employee or contracted professional, who manag- es the Social Media Style Guide, approves Social Media Usage Applications submitted by the departments’ Social Media Content Coordinators, and monitors public comments on social media in accordance with these policies. D. Social Media Content Coordinator: Department representative responsible for managing the content of the social media sites used by any department. The Social Media Content Coordina- tor shall maintain, manage and post all content to Social Media, as well as monitor comments, in accordance with these policies. 5.0 GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES 5.1 General This Policy has been drafted to facilitate a process by which City staff can disseminate information to the public in an efficient and effective manner. This policy shall work in conjunction with the related documents set forth in Section 3 above. Social media shall not be used by City staff other than the manner described herein. 5.2 Requests to Use Social Media A. Prior to requesting social media usage, departments should consider the time and effort needed to manage and maintain social media. Sites lose interest of their audiences when not updated regularly. As a rule of thumb social media sites should be monitored daily and updated at least once a week. B. The Role of the Social Media Content Coordinator. 1) If a department chooses to utilize social media, the department Director must ap- point a Social Media Content Coordinator to maintain and monitor social media con- tent originating and developed from within their department. 2) In compliance with sections 5.4 and 5.8, a department’s Social Media Content Coor- dinator is responsible for regularly posting information, monitoring comments and saving content required under the Public Records Act. No other City employee with- Packet Page 305 of 342 City of Edmonds Social Media Usage Policy Page Page 3 of 5 in a department shall have access to post content on social media on behalf of the City. 3) In order to ensure compliance with their obligations, the Social Media Content Co- ordinator must complete Social Media Usage Training, as described in the Social Media Usage Policy, or receive a waiver from the PIO, prior to assuming this role. Directors are responsible for ensuring their Social Media Content Coordinator follow the procedures set forth in this Social Media Policy and the Social Media Style Guide. 4) In order to utilize social media on behalf of their department, the Social Media Con- tent Coordinator must complete a one-time Social Media Usage Application Form, or otherwise receive approval from the PIO. The application shall include (1) how the department intends to utilize the social media site; (2) a brief outline of antici- pated content; and (3) how the department will comply with retention and public disclosure obligations. C. Approved Social Media. Currently, the City has approved for potential use: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr and Google+. The PIO shall provide a list of additional approved social media sites in the Social Media Style Guide. D. Retention of Passwords and log-ins. The PIO shall maintain a list of all City social media sites that are operating and the log-ins and passwords for those sites. Departments must inform the PIO if they intend to stop operating their social media sites. 5.3 Approval of social media sites and revocation of approval A. Before social media are created or used, the City Attorney or designee shall review the “Terms of Service” for each site. City Council approval of these Terms of Service may be required. B. Approval for use may be revoked if a Social Media Content Coordinator (1) fails to keep the site current; (2) fails to comply with posting approval process; (3) fails to comply with other requirements specified in the Social Media Style Guide; or (4) violates the City’s standards of propriety or professionalism as determined by the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee. 5.4 Obligations of Social Media Content Coordinator when Posting Content A. All content posted on social media sites by a Social Media Content Coordinator must conform with the procedures adopted by the PIO in the Social Media Style Guide or otherwise author- ized by the PIO. Generally, once the Social Media Content Coordinator submits a Social Media Usage Application to the PIO for approval on behalf of its department, the Social Media Con- tent Coordinator is authorized to manage content pursuant to the policies herein. B. A link to the Social Media Comments and Use Guidelines must be prominently displayed on any City-approved social media site. C. Social Media Content Coordinators shall not post or link to content that: 1. Violates copyright license agreements 2. Promotes or advertises any political campaign or ballot proposition 3. Can be used for or to promote any illegal activity Packet Page 306 of 342 City of Edmonds Social Media Usage Policy Page Page 4 of 5 4. Promotes or solicits for an outside organization or group unless authorized by the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee 5. Promotes any non-City, commercial enterprise unless authorized by the Mayor or the PIO 6. Contains libelous or slanderous material 7. Violates an individual’s right to privacy 8. Is unrelated to the mission of the City 9. Is unrelated to purposes specified in department’s application for use of social media or amendments to that application 10. Violates the City’s standards of propriety or professionalism as determined by the Mayor or the Mayor’s designee. D. The most appropriate uses of City social media sites are: (1) for time-sensitive and emergency information; and (2) as a communications/promotional/marketing tool which increases the City’s ability to broadcast its message to the widest possible audience. E. Each Department’s Social Media Content Coordinator must maintain accurate City information on social media sites by frequently reviewing and updating it as necessary and appropriate. F. A link to the City’s website must be included on all social media sites, directing users back to the City of Edmonds website for in-depth information on the posted content unless a waiver is provided by the PIO. 5.5 Open Public Meetings Act Considerations A. Councilmembers, Commissioners and other officials and appointed volunteers (e.g., members of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, Tree Board and ad hoc appointed public advisory committees) should not comment or otherwise communicate on the City’s social media sites since participating in online discussions may constitute a meeting under the State Open Public Meetings Act. 5.6 Content Posted by the Public A. For all City social media sites that allow the public to post content, those sites shall be deemed limited public forums, moderated by the PIO to ensure content posted by outsides users is appropriate. B. Posted content (including comments, photos and links) must be related to the topic(s) posted by the City to be considered appropriate. C. Inappropriate and prohibited content subject to immediate removal from the site, includes content that: 1. Is not topically related to the particular City-posted content. 2. Promotes or advertises commercial services, entities or products. 3. Supports or opposes political candidates or ballot propositions. 4. Is obscene. 5. Discusses or encourages illegal activity. Packet Page 307 of 342 City of Edmonds Social Media Usage Policy Page Page 5 of 5 6. Promotes, fosters or perpetuates discrimination on the basis of creed, color, age, reli- gion, gender, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, national origin, physical or mental disability or sexual orientation. 7. Provides information that may tend to compromise the safety or security of the public or public systems. 8. Violates legal ownership rights or copyrights. 9. Is libelous or slanderous. 10. Violates an individual’s right to privacy. D. Inappropriate content may be removed immediately by the PIO and retained as required un- der the Public Records Act. 5.7 Records Retention and Disclosure A. Information posted on the City’s social media sites is subject to the Public Records Act and as- sociated retention schedule. In order to ensure appropriate retention of public records, in general content posted by the Social Media Content Coordinator on City social media sites should not be original source con- tent (content that has not been created anywhere else; i.e., only exists on the social media site), but rather a secondary copy of information that has been posted either on the City web- site or is contained in an electronic record or a hard copy. As an exception, however, the So- cial Media Content Coordinator may post original source content when necessary to provide information, a comment or blog on social media in compliance with the Social Media Usage Policy. B. Original source content posted on social media sites must be retained pursuant to State reten- tion requirements. C. Comments Posted by Outside Users: All comments posted by outside users on City social me- dia sites, including those that are inappropriate and removed by the PIO, must be retained. D. In addition, when the Social Media Content Coordinator removes inappropriate content, he/she must include his/her name and the date and time the content was removed and re- tained a record of such removal. E. City staff may retain content, comments and/or removal of content either via hard copy and/or electronic copy or the City may contract with social media archiving services to comply with these retention requirements. 5.8 Monitoring A. Social Media Content Coordinators will monitor City authorized social media sites that allows public interaction to facilitate accurate information on behalf of the City. Monitoring respon- sibilities are defined in the City of Edmonds Social Media Style Guide. Packet Page 308 of 342 CITY OF EDMONDS SOCIAL MEDIA USE GUIDELINES The following constitute the guidelines regarding the use of City of Edmonds social media tools and posting of comments. A. Privacy Policy and Disclaimer Any individual accessing, browsing and using a City of Edmonds social media site accepts without limitation or qualification these Social Media Use Guidelines (hereafter “Guidelines”). These terms and conditions apply only to the social media sites that are managed by the City of Edmonds. The City of Edmonds maintains the right to modify these Guidelines without notice. Any modification is effective immediately upon posting the modification on the Social Media Policy page, unless otherwise stated. Continued use of a City of Edmonds social media site following the posting of any modification signifies acceptance of such modification. All users of a City of Edmonds social media site are also subject to the site’s own Privacy Policy. The City of Edmonds has no control over a site’s privacy policy or their modifications to it. The City of Edmonds likewise has no control over content, commercial advertisements, or other postings produced by the social media site that appear on the City of Edmonds social media site as part of the site’s environment. The City of Edmonds operates and maintains its social media sites as a public service to provide information about City programs, services, projects, issues, events and activities. The City of Edmonds assumes no liability for any inaccuracies these social media sites may contain and does not guarantee that the social media sites will be uninterrupted or error-free. B. Comments Policy Although we encourage posts and comments on social media sites managed by the City of Edmonds, the City’s social media sites and other sites are limited public forums and are moderated by City staff. All posted content (comments, photos, links, etc.) must be related to the topic at hand. The following types of posts and comments are prohibited: • Not topically related to the particular article being commented upon; • Promoting or advertising commercial services, entities or products; • Supporting or opposing political candidates or ballot propositions; • Obscene content; • Related to illegal activity or encouraging or discussing illegal activity; Packet Page 309 of 342 City of Edmonds Social Media Use Guidelines Page 2 of 3 • Promoting, fostering or perpetuating discrimination on the basis of creed, color, age, religion, gender, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, national origin, physical or mental disability, or sexual orientation; • Information that may tend to compromise the safety or security of the public or public systems; • Content that violates legal ownership rights or copyrights; • Content that violates an individual’s right to privacy. The City of Edmonds reserves the right to remove posted content that does not comply with these Guidelines. All posts and comments downloaded to the City of Edmonds social media sites will be periodically reviewed. All posts and comments are public records subject to public disclosure under the Washington State Public Records Act. C. Links Policy A. Links to other social media sites and external websites provided on City of Edmonds social media sites. The City of Edmonds may select links to other social media sites and outside websites that offer helpful resources for users. Once an individual links to another page or site, the City’s Guidelines no longer apply and one becomes subject to the policies of that page or site. The City of Edmonds’ social media sites are intended specifically to share information about City programs, events and services. The City of Edmonds is not responsible for the content that appears on these outside links and provides these links as a convenience only. Users should be aware that these external pages and sites and the information found on those pages and sites are not controlled by, provided by or endorsed by the City of Edmonds. The City reserves the right to delete at any time without notice links posted by outside individuals that violate the City’s Links Policy. B. Links by other entities to City of Edmonds social media sites. It is not necessary to get advance permission to link to City of Edmonds social media sites; however, entities and individuals linking to City of Edmonds social media sites may not capture any of the City’s social media sites within frames, present City of Edmonds content as their own or otherwise misrepresent any of the City’s social media site content. Furthermore, they shall not misinform third parties about the origin or ownership of City of Edmonds social media site content. Links to City of Edmonds social media sites should not in any way suggest that the City has any relationship or affiliation with an organization or that the City endorses, sponsors or recommends the information, products or services of another site. D. Copyright Policy All information and materials generated by the City of Edmonds and provided on City of Edmonds social media sites are the property of the City of Edmonds. The City retains copyright on all text, graphic images and other content that was produced by the City of Edmonds and found on the page. Users may print copies of information and material for your own noncommercial use, provided that they retain the Packet Page 310 of 342 City of Edmonds Social Media Use Guidelines Page 3 of 3 copyright symbol or other such proprietary notice intact on any copyrighted materials you copy. Users must include a credit line reading: “Credit: City of Edmonds Facebook (or Twitter) page” or “Courtesy of the City of Edmonds.” Commercial use of text, City logos, photos and other graphics is prohibited without the express written permission of the City of Edmonds. Use of the City logo is prohibited for any nongovernmental purposes. Any person reproducing or redistributing a third-party copyright must adhere to the terms and conditions of the third-party copyright holder. A copyright holder who believes that the City of Edmonds has not used an appropriate credit line, he/she may notify the City Public Information Officer with detailed information about the circumstances so that the copyright information may be added or the material in question may be removed. E. Contact If a user has any questions or concerns about the City of Edmonds Social Media Policy or its implementation, or finds incorrect information or is interested in seeking permissions that fall outside the Guidelines above, he/she contact the City’s Public Information Officer. Packet Page 311 of 342 CITY OF EDMONDS SOCIAL MEDIA STYLE GUIDE Introduction: Social media have changed communications throughout the public and private sectors. Social media markets are growing at an incredible pace. That’s why we need to use social media to reach out to our audiences. Social media are dynamic – they are changing all the time, with new services, tools and functionalities. We approach social media very differently from traditional marketing. Social media allow us to create real-time relationships with the people we serve in a very public environment. If we develop these relationships correctly, our social media community network will support us in a variety of ways. Social media are the best of word-of-mouth marketing and will allow us to develop a positive social reputation. This Social Media Style Guide provides our management plan and strategy through the dos and don’ts of social media marketing. Facebook and Twitter are essential components of any social media marketing plan. To be successful, we must maintain all of the social media sites we create. You must comply with these three rules of thumb: 1. Post 2. Monitor 3. Reply To make your social media ventures successful, here’s a more in-depth look into how you will need to manage your City social media accounts: Facebook • Use all the components of your Facebook page. These include (and are always expanding): your wall, events section, pictures. Packet Page 312 of 342 City of Edmonds Social Media Style Guide Page 2 of 2 • Monitor each business day and update a few times per week. • Reply to comments as needed or appropriate, but when doing so, without delay. • Your content should generally be a replica of information you have posted or shared with the public elsewhere (City’s website, articles, publications, etc.) • Retain all posts on your site for the public record. • If you have questions about a post or interaction with a user, contact the Public Information Officer. Twitter • Give a brief description to tease the information to a link. Think of the brief description as an advertisement or movie trailer of what we are about to see. Never just post a link without teasing it. • Understand the information you are sharing so you can summarize it creatively and to fit your audience needs. • Use appropriate letter case in sentences. Typing in all lower case does not gain character space. Unless you are fighting for space, find a way to use proper grammar. • Do not retweet someone else’s Tweet. • Use hashtags (#) appropriately and sparingly. A hashtag is a keyword with a pound sign in front of it that people can include in their Tweets. Hashtags make it easy to search for topics, but too many in one tweet causes clutter. • Be sure to engage in live Tweets at the events you have promoted via Tweets. YouTube • Due to the nature of this Social Media Tool, the City will operate only one YouTube account. If you would like to know more about how you may be able to benefit from the use of this tool, please contact the City’s Public Information Officer. Packet Page 313 of 342 CITY OF EDMONDS SOCIAL MEDIA USAGE APPLICATION Social Media Management: A department’s use of social media is governed by the City’s Social Media Usage Policy. Department Directors should review that policy before filling out this application. Department Directors and Social Media Content Coordinators should also review the Social Media Use Guidelines and Social Media Style Guide. Department Directors and the City Public Information Officer will oversee social media content. The Department Director will designate a Social Media Content Coordinator who will be responsible for content and updates in a timely manner. The Social Media Content Coordinator will update information in a clear and effective way at least once each week and must comply with the Social Media Style Guide. Content will be removed if it violates the criteria listed in sections 5.4(c) and 5.6(c) of the Social Media Usage Policy. Social Media Content: 1. What social media tool would you like to use? □ Facebook □ Twitter □ YouTube □ Flickr □ Other Packet Page 314 of 342 City of Edmonds Social Media Usage Application Page 2 of 3 2. Provide rationale for your proposed use of this social media tool: 3. Provide an outline of anticipated content: 4. If you do not intend to use the City’s standard social media archiving service, explain how you will retain content, including user comments, and how you will produce content if requested in a Public Records Request: 5. Describe how you will monitor the site/medium and keep its content up to date: User Agreement: • I will comply with the City’s Social Media Usage Policy, Social Media Use Guidelines and Social Media Style Guide; • I will comply with all user agreements set forth in this Social Media Usage Application as well as the agreements of the social media tool; • I will not use the social media tools to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, disrespectful, unprofessional or discriminatory; • I will not post content that is derogatory, threatening, pornographic, or that contains nudity, graphic or gratuitous violence or offensive language; • I will adhere to all intellectual property rights, to include all media content and forms. If I have a question about content rights, I will verify with Department Director and/or City Public Information Officer; • I will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user; • I will report in a timely manner to department management and the City Public Information Officer offensive, vulgar or pornographic content received. Packet Page 315 of 342 City of Edmonds Social Media Usage Application Page 3 of 3 I, _____________________________________________, have read and understand the City of Edmonds Social Media Usage Application and agree to all policies outlined above. ________________________________________ ________________________ Signature Date ________________________________________ Department Packet Page 316 of 342    AM-7188     17.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/14/2014 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Jim Stevens Department:Public Works Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Information Information Subject Title Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Design Recommendation Staff recommends that the item move to the consent agenda for the entire Council to approve at the meeting on October 21, 2014. Previous Council Action On February 18, 2014, the Council approved the mayor to sign an interlocal agreement with the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).  The intent of this agreement is to provide up to $190,000 to execute design and permitting services for a project to rehabilitate the Edmonds Fishing Pier. Narrative The Edmonds Fishing Pier, per an agreement made upon its construction in the late 1970s, has been owned by the WDFW and operated by the City of Edmonds.  During this time nothing comprehensive has been undertaken to address the structural deterioration that would reasonably accrue to any facility constructed directly in a marine environment. Earlier this year, agreement was reached between the City and the WDFW to provide up to $190,000 to fund design and permit services for a project whose ultimate intention was to bring the pier back up to snuff.  A copy of the signed grant contract is attached to this agenda item.  The further goal of this project is to ensure the pier will remain available as a valuable waterfront amenity for several decades to come. In July of this year, the City released an RFQ for consultants to address its need for a firm to provide design and permitting services for the Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project.  As a result of the evaluation of the statements of qualification received, three firms were chosen to be interviewed by a team consisting of Carrie Hite, Rich Lindsay, and Jim Stevens.  Of those three interviewed, BergerABAM was selected as the best suited to prepare a proposal for services to the City for this work The first step in this process of rehabilitation is the design and permitting work itself.  The proposal for these services is attached to the agenda and amounts to $128,600.  As the construction work is envisioned, this amounts to roughly 10% of the value of such a construction cost.  Currently City staff members are working to acquire the grant funding to perform this contract work, so the intention is that the entire cost of the rehabilitation project, from design to completion, will be from grant awards. Packet Page 317 of 342 Attachments Grant Contract Consultant Proposal Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Parks and Recreation Carrie Hite 10/08/2014 02:50 PM Public Works Phil Williams 10/09/2014 02:04 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 10/09/2014 02:15 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/09/2014 04:42 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/10/2014 07:03 AM Form Started By: Jim Stevens Started On: 10/08/2014 01:11 PM Final Approval Date: 10/10/2014  Packet Page 318 of 342 Packet Page 319 of 342 Packet Page 320 of 342 Packet Page 321 of 342 Packet Page 322 of 342 Packet Page 323 of 342 Packet Page 324 of 342 Packet Page 325 of 342 Packet Page 326 of 342 Packet Page 327 of 342 Packet Page 328 of 342 Packet Page 329 of 342 Packet Page 330 of 342     3 October 2014        Mr. Jim Stevens  Project Manager  City of Edmonds  121 Fifth Avenue North  Edmonds, WA 98020    Re:  Fishing Pier Rehabilitation  Fee Proposal for Engineering Services    Dear Mr. Stevens:  BergerABAM Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal to the City of Edmonds to provide final  design and bid support services for rehabilitation of the fishing pier. We have based this  proposal on our knowledge of the facility, which includes our December 2006 and May 2014  reports and our meeting on 23 September 2014.  SCOPE OF WORK We will develop contract documents for the fishing pier rehabilitation, with submittals at four  stages of design; 30 percent, 60 percent, 90 percent, and final. Our efforts will be based on items  identified in our May 2014 report titled “City of Edmonds Fishing Pier Cost Estimate Update”  (excluding navigation aids) and will include the following components.  Structural Repairs We will develop plans of the pier and walkway decks and pile caps, and identify areas that  include deck panel flange repairs, deck panel web repairs, pile cap spall repairs, and distress at  drains for the fish cleaning stations. We have included one site visit by a two‐person team to  confirm measurements of the repair areas.  Repairs and Upgrades to Architectural Features As discussed in our meeting on 23 September, a positive perception by the public of this  rehabilitation work is essential. Approximately 75 percent of the work is structure‐related and  essentially “out of sight”; what remains is work that has a direct daily impact on the public. Our  landscape architects will review site photographs, visit the site, and assess alternatives for  improving the facility’s appearance. This will be combined with work required to replace the  windbreak partitions, replace roofs on fish cleaning stations, repair and repaint windbreak  partitions, upgrade benches, and repair the handrails (including replacement of the top rail).  Packet Page 331 of 342 Mr. Jim Stevens  3 October 2014  Page 2  We have included one meeting with the City to review the alternatives developed. Please refer  to Attachment A, where we describe our approach to this portion of the work in more detail.  Utility Repairs – Water Line We will include replacement of the water line that provides service to the fish cleaning stations.  The work will consider how to protect the line from impact by crab pots and similar items  lowered and raised from the deck into and out of the water.  Utility Repairs – Electrical On the pier, our efforts will include replacement of, and adding bird spikes to, the pole lights;  repairs to concrete pole bases; replacing lights at the fish cleaning station; and minor demolition  of utilities that are no longer used. At the restroom, our efforts will include replacement of  existing heaters, adding head trace, and removing electrical equipment no longer in use.  Permitting Support For this effort, we will develop permit figures for the permit application and a project  description of the proposed work. We have not included completing the JARPA application; we  assume that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will complete this effort.  Additional Scope Items During our meeting on 23 September, we briefly discussed a question brought up during our  interview regarding possible degradation in the prestressed concrete piles supporting the  fishing pier. The piles were fabricated in 1977/1978, during which a local fabricator cured piles  at too high of a temperature, resulting in delayed‐ettringite formation—a reaction that is  delayed by th e high temperature and then restarts in the piles later when in service after  prolonged exposure to water. We did not observe that degradation in 2006 when we inspected  the piles underwater, but have included an optional one‐day dive inspection in our proposal to  check the piles for that distress.  Deliverables Submittal at the four stages of design will consist of plans, technical specifications (special  provisions), and a construction cost estimate. Not all plans will be developed at the 30 percent  stage, and the special provisions will consist of a list of only those items we will develop. We  assume the City will develop the general provisions and requirements for the contract  documents.  We will also provide the City with a summary of the architectural alternatives and minutes  from our proposed meeting.  Packet Page 332 of 342 Mr. Jim Stevens  3 October 2014  Page 3  SCHEDULE We propose to commence work within one week after receipt of the notice to proceed.  Assuming we start work by 1 November 2014, we would expect to have contract documents  ready by early to mid‐March 2015, assuming one‐week review periods by the City and the  Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Our milestones for submittals would be as  follows.   Meeting with the City to discuss architectural features – mid‐November 2014   30 Percent Contract Documents – mid‐December 2014   60 Percent Contract Documents – late January 2015   90 Percent Contract Documents – mid to late February 2015   Final Contract Documents – early to mid‐March 2015  FEE We propose to perform this work on a time‐and‐materials basis using the rates defined in the  attached fee estimate worksheet. Our efforts will be as follows.  Project management, quality control (4 submittals) and bid period  support for all disciplines  $30,700 Structural and civil design and contract documents $54,600 Landscape architectural design and contract documents $19,600 Permitting support $6,300 Electrical design and contract documents $11,900 Mileage – meetings (6 total) $300 Day rate for inspection boat (2 days assumed) $300 Diving (optional, 1 day, all‐inclusive) $4,900 Total Fee: $128,600 We assume the basis for the contract will be a standard City of Edmonds Professional Services  Agreement, similar to the agreement executed for our 2014 inspection work. The basis for our  fee is shown in the two attached worksheets. We will not exceed this amount without your  authorization.  CLOSING If you agree with this proposal, please return one executed (signed) copy of this letter along  with a Notice to Proceed.  Packet Page 333 of 342 Mr. Jim Stevens  3 October 2014  Page 4  We appreciate that you have considered BergerABAM for this project. We look forward to  working with you again.  Sincerely,        Elmer W. Ozolin, PE  Vice President    EWO:CSB:keh  Attachments  Attachment A – Recreation Design Approach  Attachment B – BergerABAM Fee Estimate Worksheet  Attachment C – BergerABAM Underwater Inspection Fee Estimate Worksheet    ACCEPTED BY CITY OF EDMONDS   _______________________________________  Signature    _______________________________________  Name (Printed)    _______________________________________  Title    _______________________________________  Date    Packet Page 334 of 342 City of Edmonds BergerABAM, Fee Proposal for Engineering Services Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Attachment A 3 October 2014 Edmonds, WA Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT A RECREATION DESIGN APPROACH This project will also develop conceptual designs and prepare architectural details to renovate the recreational and urban design amenities at the Edmonds Fishing Pier. We expect high public interest in the construction of the pier repairs. We believe that enhancing the recreational amenities at this facility will improve usability, safety, and public enjoyment. During the conceptual design phase, we will evaluate a range of potential design enhancements and amenities for the pier, including the following.  Enhanced entry, educational, and regulatory signs  Site furnishings including repaired and new benches and trash receptacles  New wind breaks and sun/rain shelters  Upgraded fish cleaning stations including new roofs, surrounds, lighting, and utilities  Improved Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) fishing accessibility  Repaired guardrails including new metal coatings and top rails; and  Potential public art features including sculpture, murals, or other interpretive features We will work with the City to review various design options and associated costs. We will refine the project program based on City preferences and budget. We believe that including innovative recreation amenities will ensure this project is inviting, dynamic, and inspiring. 30 Percent Recreation Design BergerABAM will attend a site visit to review the condition of the existing fishing pier amenities and use patterns. We will research precedence of potential design enhancements for the fishing pier design, and will include materials, furnishings, structures, railings, and public art and educational elements. We will develop design alternatives for potential amenities and will prepare illustrative site plan drawings, sketches, and other concept graphics to convey design intent. We will format and include the various design alternatives in the 30 percent drawing submittal. BergerABAM will prepare rough order of magnitude cost estimates for the various design options and a list of specification amendments to be provided during final design. We will meet with the City discuss the design alternatives and associated costs. 60 Percent Recreation Design Based on 30 percent review comments, we will update the recreation designs and prepare the 60 percent submittal. This submittal will include a materials and layout plan indicating the location and condition of the recreation amenities. BergerABAM will prepare design details and Packet Page 335 of 342 City of Edmonds BergerABAM, Fee Proposal for Engineering Services Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Attachment A 3 October 2014 Edmonds, WA Page 2 of 2 plan enlargement drawings as needed, and coordinate with structural and electrical designers. We will update the cost estimates and prepare draft specifications. 90 Percent Recreation Design Based on 60 percent review comments, we will update the recreation designs and prepare the 90 percent submittal. This submittal will include a materials and layout plan indicating the location and condition of the recreation amenities. BergerABAM will prepare design details and plan enlargement drawings, as needed, and coordinate with structural and electrical designers. We will update the cost estimates and draft specifications. Final Design Based on 90 percent review comments, we will finalize the recreation designs and prepare the final PS&E submittal. This submittal will include a materials and layout plan indicating the location and conditions of the recreation amenities. BergerABAM will prepare design details and plan enlargement drawings, as needed and coordinate with structural and electrical designers. We will update the cost estimates, unit quantities and final specifications. Packet Page 336 of 342 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Fi s h i n g P i e r R e h a b i l i t a t i o n B e r g e r A B A M La b o r Sr P r o j e c t P r o j e c t S e n i o r Q A / Q C L a n d s c a p e L a n d s c a p e C A D W o r d P r o j e c t S u b t o t a l s B A DS C = D i r e c t S a l a r y C o s t M a n a g e r M a n a g e r E n g i n e e r S p e c i a l i s t A r c h M g r D e s i g n e r O p e r a t o r P r o c e s s i n g C o o r d i n a t o r T a s k O/ H = O v e r h e a d B r a n l u n d ( b l e n d e d ) ( b l e n d e d ) E n g l i s h S a c a m a n o C h r i s t i a n M e n d e n h a l l B r e t a n a G r a m l i n g Sub-totals Ra t e = D S C + O / H + P r o f i t * ( D C S + O / H ) $2 2 9 . 4 3 $ 1 8 4 . 9 4 $ 1 0 5 . 0 1 $ 1 8 1 . 6 2 $ 1 6 6 . 0 1 $ 9 6 . 4 8 $ 1 0 5 . 0 1 $ 9 4 . 3 5 $ 8 5 . 1 5 T a s k 0 - P r o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t Bu d g e t m o n i t o r i n g , d o c u m e n t c o n t r o l 8 8 $2,517 Co m m u n i c a t i o n s w i t h C i t y s t a f f 4 8 $1,758 De v e l o p q u a l i t y a s s u r a n c e p l a n 2 $363 Su b t o t a l : 1 2 8 2 8 $4,638 T a s k 1 - L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e C o n c e p t D e v e l o p m e n t a n d P e r m i t t i n g S u p p o r t Si t e v i s i t 6 6 $ 1 , 6 2 6 De v e l o p a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o n c e p t s 6 1 6 $ 2 , 5 4 0 6 $996 D ev e l op p e r m it fi gu r e s (us e 30 % d ra w i ng s as b a s i s ) 1 1 1 2 1 6 $ 3 , 3 5 5 De v e l o p p r o j e c t d e s c r i p t i o n 16 $2,959 Su b t o t a l : 1 1 7 1 8 1 8 1 6 1 6 $ 1 1 , 4 7 5 T a s k 2 - 3 0 % P S & E D o c u m e n t s De v e l o p s t r u c t u r a l d r a w i n g s 4 2 0 3 6 $ 6 , 7 9 8 De v e l o p c i v i l d r a w i n g s 10 1 2 2 4 $ 5 , 6 3 0 De v e l o p l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t u r a l d r a w i n g s ba s e d o n a p p r o v e d c o n c e p t s 4 2 0 $ 2 , 5 9 4 De v e l o p s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n l i s t 11 1 1 $685 Up d a t e c o s t e s t i m a t e 1 8 1 4 $ 1 , 6 2 1 P re p a r e a n d s u b m it d oc u m e n t s f or r e i ve w by C i t y a n d W D F W 1 1 1 $ 2 8 7 Ad d re s s a n d i nc o r p o r a t e Ci t y a n d WD F W co m m e n t s 2 8 2 4 1 2 $ 3 , 2 7 7 Su b t o t a l : 8 1 1 5 0 8 2 9 7 2 1 $ 2 0 , 8 9 2 AT T A C H M E N T B - F E E E S T I M A T E - D E S I G N , P E R M I T T I N G S U P P O R T , B I D S U P P O R T Me e t w i t h C i t y s t a f f - r e v i e w a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o n c e p t s Da t e : 1 0 / 3 / 2 0 1 4 Page 1 of 3 Packet Page 337 of 342 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Fi s h i n g P i e r R e h a b i l i t a t i o n B e r g e r A B A M La b o r Sr P r o j e c t P r o j e c t S e n i o r Q A / Q C L a n d s c a p e L a n d s c a p e C A D W o r d P r o j e c t S u b t o t a l s B A DS C = D i r e c t S a l a r y C o s t M a n a g e r M a n a g e r E n g i n e e r S p e c i a l i s t A r c h M g r D e s i g n e r O p e r a t o r P r o c e s s i n g C o o r d i n a t o r T a s k O/ H = O v e r h e a d B r a n l u n d ( b l e n d e d ) ( b l e n d e d ) E n g l i s h S a c a m a n o C h r i s t i a n M e n d e n h a l l B r e t a n a G r a m l i n g Sub-totals Ra t e = D S C + O / H + P r o f i t * ( D C S + O / H ) $2 2 9 . 4 3 $ 1 8 4 . 9 4 $ 1 0 5 . 0 1 $ 1 8 1 . 6 2 $ 1 6 6 . 0 1 $ 9 6 . 4 8 $ 1 0 5 . 0 1 $ 9 4 . 3 5 $ 8 5 . 1 5 AT T A C H M E N T B - F E E E S T I M A T E - D E S I G N , P E R M I T T I N G S U P P O R T , B I D S U P P O R T T a s k 3 - 6 0 % P S & E D o c u m e n t s a n d S t r u c t u r a l R e p a i r Q u a n t i t y V e r i f i c a t i o n Co n t i n u e s t r u c t u r a l d r a w i n g d e v e l o p m e n t 4 3 2 3 6 $ 8 , 0 5 8 Si t e v i s t t o v e r i f y r e p a i r q u a n t i t i e s 32 $3,360 Co n t i n u e c i v i l d r a w i n g d e v e l o p m e n t 16 2 0 3 0 $ 8 , 2 0 9 C on ti nu e l an d sc a p e a r c hi t ec t ur a l d ra w i ng de v e l o p m e n t 4 3 0 $ 3 , 5 5 8 De v e l o p s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n s 4 2 1 6 8 $ 4 , 2 9 6 Up d a t e c o s t e s t i m a t e 1 4 1 4 $ 1 , 2 0 1 Qu a l i t y c o n t r o l r e v i e w 48 $1,873 P re p a r e a n d s u b m it d oc u m e n t s f or r e i ve w by C i t y a n d W D F W 1 1 1 $ 2 8 7 Ad d re s s a n d i nc o r p o r a t e Ci t y a n d WD F W co m m e n t s 2 4 2 4 8 $ 2 , 4 3 7 Su b t o t a l : 1 1 1 8 1 1 3 8 1 5 3 9 7 4 1 $ 3 3 , 2 8 0 Ta s k 4 - 9 0 % P S & E D o c u m e n t s Co n t i n u e s t r u c t u r a l d r a w i n g d e v e l o p m e n t 4 1 6 1 6 $ 4 , 2 7 8 Co n t i n u e c i v i l d r a w i n g d e v e l o p m e n t 8 1 2 1 6 $ 4 , 4 2 0 C on ti nu e l an d sc a p e a r c hi t ec t ur a l d ra w i ng de v e l o p m e n t 4 2 0 $ 2 , 5 9 4 De v e l o p s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n s 2 2 1 6 6 $ 3 , 5 0 5 Up d a t e c o s t e s t i m a t e 1 4 1 2 $ 1 , 0 0 8 Qu a l i t y c o n t r o l r e v i e w 28 1 6 $4,205 P re p a r e a n d s u b m it d oc u m e n t s f or r e i ve w by C i t y a n d W D F W 1 1 1 $ 2 8 7 Ad d re s s a n d i nc o r p o r a t e Ci t y a n d WD F W co m m e n t s 2 4 2 4 8 $ 2 , 4 3 7 Su b t o t a l : 1 1 1 0 6 1 1 6 1 3 2 7 4 0 1 $ 2 2 , 7 3 3 Da t e : 1 0 / 3 / 2 0 1 4 Page 2 of 3 Packet Page 338 of 342 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Fi s h i n g P i e r R e h a b i l i t a t i o n B e r g e r A B A M La b o r Sr P r o j e c t P r o j e c t S e n i o r Q A / Q C L a n d s c a p e L a n d s c a p e C A D W o r d P r o j e c t S u b t o t a l s B A DS C = D i r e c t S a l a r y C o s t M a n a g e r M a n a g e r E n g i n e e r S p e c i a l i s t A r c h M g r D e s i g n e r O p e r a t o r P r o c e s s i n g C o o r d i n a t o r T a s k O/ H = O v e r h e a d B r a n l u n d ( b l e n d e d ) ( b l e n d e d ) E n g l i s h S a c a m a n o C h r i s t i a n M e n d e n h a l l B r e t a n a G r a m l i n g Sub-totals Ra t e = D S C + O / H + P r o f i t * ( D C S + O / H ) $2 2 9 . 4 3 $ 1 8 4 . 9 4 $ 1 0 5 . 0 1 $ 1 8 1 . 6 2 $ 1 6 6 . 0 1 $ 9 6 . 4 8 $ 1 0 5 . 0 1 $ 9 4 . 3 5 $ 8 5 . 1 5 AT T A C H M E N T B - F E E E S T I M A T E - D E S I G N , P E R M I T T I N G S U P P O R T , B I D S U P P O R T T a s k 5 - F i n a l P S & E D o c u m e n t s Co m p l e t e s t r u c t u r a l d r a w i n g d e v e l o p m e n t 4 8 8 $ 2 , 5 9 8 Co m p l e t e c i v i l d r a w i n g d e v e l o p m e n t 8 8 1 2 $ 3 , 5 8 0 C oo m p l e t e l an d sc a p e a r c hi t ec t ur a l d ra w i ng de v e l o p m e n t 2 8 $ 1 , 1 0 4 Co m p l e t e s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n s 2 2 8 2 8 $ 2 , 7 5 6 Co m p l e t e c o s t e s t i m a t e 1 4 1 2 $ 1 , 0 0 8 Qu a l i t y c o n t r o l r e v i e w 14 8 $2,102 P re p a r e a n d s u b m it d oc u m e n t s f or r e i ve w by C i t y a n d W D F W 1 1 1 $ 2 8 7 Su b t o t a l : 8 1 0 3 3 8 5 1 1 2 0 8 1 $ 1 3 , 4 3 5 Ta s k 6 - B i d P e r i o d S u p p o r t At t e n d p r e - b i d m e e t i n g 4 6 $1,548 Re p l y t o b i d d e r s q u e s t i o n s ( f r o m C i t y ) 2 4 2 2 $1,315 As s i s t i n b i d r e v i e w 4 $918 Su b t o t a l : 8 2 10 2 2 $3,780 To t a l H o u r s - B e r g e r A B A M : 5 9 68 29 3 34 61 12 4 2 2 2 8 12 $1 3 , 5 3 7 $ 1 2 , 5 7 6 $ 3 0 , 7 6 7 $ 6 , 1 7 5 $ 1 0 , 1 2 7 $ 1 1 , 9 6 3 $ 2 3 , 3 1 2 $ 7 5 5 $ 1 , 0 2 2 $ 1 1 0 , 2 3 3 Su b c o n s u l t a n t s Cr o s s E n g i n e e r s I n c . (f i n a l d e s i g n , s e e a t t a c h e d f e e p r o p o s a l ) $11,900 Cr o s s E n g i n e e r s I n c . (b i d p e r i o d s u p p o r t ) $1,000 Su b t o t a l S u b c o n s u l t a n t s : 12,900 $ BA E x p e n s e s a n d D i v i n g Me e t i n g s 6 t r i p ( s ) @ 90 0. 5 6 $ p e r m i l e = 302.40 $ In s p e c t i o n B o a t 2 d a y ( s ) @ 15 0 . 0 0 $ p e r d a y = 300.00 $ Di v i n g ( s e e A t t a c h m e n t B , a l l - i n c l u s i v e d a y r a t e ) 1 d a y ( s ) @ 4 , 9 0 0 . 0 0 $ p e r d a y = 4,900.00 $ Su b t o t a l B A E x p e n s e s : 5,502 $ $128,635 Su b t o t a l - B A L a b o r : T O T A L F E E P R O P O S A L ml e s p e r r o u n d t r i p @ Da t e : 1 0 / 3 / 2 0 1 4 Page 3 of 3 Packet Page 339 of 342 ATTACHMENT C - UNDERWATER INSPECTION Location: City of Edmonds Facility: Fishing Pier Date:FY2015 Dive Days:1 Contingency Days:0 Labor Costs - Underwater Inspection Name Burdened Report & Administration Rate Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Scott Branlund, SE -$ -$ -$ -$ Lee Marsh, PE, PhD -$ -$ -$ -$ Mike Wray, SE -$ -$ -$ -$ Louis Klusmeyer, SE -$ -$ -$ -$ Brett Ozolin, PE -$ -$ -$ -$ Ben Pesicka, PE -$ -$ -$ -$ Nick Colson, PE $102 -$ 6 612$ 5 510.00$ -$ Garth Nelson, PE $98 -$ 6 588$ 5 490.00$ -$ Phil Olson, PE -$ -$ -$ -$ Matt Bollinger -$ -$ -$ -$ Matt Perry $98 1 98$ 6 588$ 5 490.00$ 4 392$ Joe Stockwell, PE -$ -$ -$ -$ Eric Neal, PE -$ -$ -$ -$ Frank Yang, PE -$ -$ -$ -$ Mike Dodson, PE -$ -$ -$ -$ Diana Gramling $84 -$ -$ -$ 1 84$ Subtotals:1 98$ 18 1,788$ 15 1,490$ 5 476$ Subtotal Labor Costs:3,852$ Expenses - Underwater Inspection Dive Pay:300$ Vehicle Mileage:39.55$ Lodging:-$ Rate: diver/day 100.00$ Rate: 0.565$ Rate:105.00$ # of divers 3 # of miles:70 # of people:3 # of days 1 Boat Launch:10.00$ # of days:0 Dive Tanks:48.00$ Rate:10.000$ Meals & Misc. Expenses: 75$ Rate per tank 6.00$ # of days:1 Rate:25.00$ # of tanks 8 U/W Camera - Still 150.00$ # of people:3 # of days 1 Rate:150.00$ # of days:1 Dive Boat:400$ # of days:1 Airfare:-$ Rate:400.00$ U/W Camera - Video -$ Rate:-$ # of days:1 Rate:175.00$ # of people:0 Dive Trailer:-$ # of days:0 Excess Baggage:-$ Rate:-$ Thickness Gage:-$ Rate:-$ # of days:0 Rate:150.00$ # of bags:0 # of days:0 SD Cards:-$ Rate:20.00$ #0 Subtotal Expenses:1,023$ Flow Through at 5.00%51$ Subtotal Expenses:1,074$ Total - Labor Costs + Expenses =4,926$ Say,4,900$ Diving & TendingPlanning & Preparation Mob & Demob & Travel 2014 BergerABAM - Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehabilitation - Fee Proposal - Underwater Inspection - 2014-10-03.xlsPacket Page 340 of 342    AM-7198     18.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/14/2014 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted By:Scott James Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title Discussion regarding the 2015 Proposed City Budget. Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative Mayor Earling presented the Proposed 2015 Budget to City Council during their October 7th City Council meeting.  During tonight's Study Session, staff will provide Council a brief overview of the 2015 Proposed Budget with some economic highlights. Council is schedule to conduct two Public Hearings with the 1st hearing held on October 21st and the 2nd hearing on November 3rd. Tentative Department Budget Presentations are scheduled as follows: October 21st: 1. Municipal Court; 2. City Clerk; 3. Mayor's Office; 4. Human Resources; 5. Economic Development; 6. Finance & Information Services; 7. Nondepartmental (Presented by Finance); 8. Development Services; and 9. Parks. November 3rd: 1. Police; 2. Public Works Utilities; 3. Public Works Roads; and 4. Public Works Administration, Facilities Maintenance, ER&R & Engineering. Council could move to adopted the 2015 Budget during their November 3rd Council meeting. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 10/09/2014 03:16 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 10/09/2014 03:16 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/09/2014 04:40 PM Packet Page 341 of 342 Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/10/2014 07:03 AM Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 10/09/2014 02:40 PM Final Approval Date: 10/10/2014  Packet Page 342 of 342