2014.10.28 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
SPECIAL MEETING
OCTOBER 28, 2014
6:45 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
1.(10 Minutes)
AM-7229
Meet with Architectural Design Board candidate Tom Walker for confirmation to
Position #4 - Landscape Architect of the Architectural Design Board
STUDY SESSION
OCTOBER 28, 2014
7:00 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-7231 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2014.
B.AM-7228 Approval of claim checks #211134 through #211230 dated October 23, 2014 for
$434,427.53.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61241 through #61251 & check 61258
for $471,609.49, benefit checks #61252 through #61257 and wire payments of
$440,543.26 for the period October 1, 2014 through October 15, 2014.
C.AM-7227 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Mariner Plaza Condominium
Owners Association ($6,675.87), John C. Stillian ($571.22), and Frontier (amount
undetermined).
D.AM-7230 Confirmation of Tom Walker to Position #4 - Landscape Architect of the Architectural
Packet Page 1 of 458
D.AM-7230 Confirmation of Tom Walker to Position #4 - Landscape Architect of the Architectural
Design Board
E.AM-7236 September 2014 Budgetary Financial Report
F.AM-7233 Authorization for change in health insurance coverage for City employees from United
Healthcare PPO plan to the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Regence
Healthfirst PPO plan.
5.(5 Minutes)
AM-7232
October is National Sudden Cardiac Arrest Awareness Month and in honor of that
Mayor Earling will read a proclamation for 'The Heart of Edmonds School District &
Community Heart Safe Project'.
6.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings
7.(15 Minutes)
AM-7155
Annual Report on Edmonds School District #15 by Superintendent Brossoit
8.(10 Minutes)
AM-7240
Public hearing on an ordinance designating the Schumacher Building located at 316
Main Street, Edmonds, Washington for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic
Places, and directing the Development Services Director or his designee to designate the
site on the official zoning map with an “HR” designation. (File No. PLN20140037).
9.(45 Minutes)
AM-7237
Presentation and Discussion of the Proposed 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital
Improvement Program.
10.(10 Minutes)
AM-7235
Public Works Quarterly Project Report
11.(30 Minutes)
AM-7234
Presentation on the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) Implementation
12.(20 Minutes)
AM-7239
Presentation of Edmonds Housing Profile
13.(75 Minutes)
AM-7238
Staff Presentations on the 2015 Proposed City Budget.
14.(20 Minutes)
AM-7223
Continued Discussions on the Study Sessions
15.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
16.(15 Minutes)Council Comments
17.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
18.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 458
AM-7229 1.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/28/2014
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Meet with Architectural Design Board candidate Tom Walker for confirmation to Position #4 - Landscape
Architect of the Architectural Design Board
Recommendation
The Mayor is recommending appointment of Tom Walker to Position #4 of the ADB.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Mayor Earling has interviewed Mr. Walker and is recommending his appointment to Position #4 of the
ADB. Position #4 is the Landscape Architect position. This position was vacated in 2013 by Mr. Walker
when he returned to school for his Masters Degree. Mr. Walker holds a Bachelor of Landscape
Architecture from the UW and a Masters from London School of Economics.
Attachments
Walker_ADB_app
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/23/2014 10:57 AM
Mayor 10/23/2014 01:37 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/23/2014 01:40 PM
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 10/23/2014 09:33 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/23/2014
Packet Page 3 of 458
City of Edmonds
Citizen Board and Commission Application
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE) NOTE: This form is a public record and may be subject to disclosure upon request
(Board or Commission)
Name: Date:
Address:
Day Ph
Evening
Cell:
E-mail:
Occupational status and background:
Organizational affiliations:
Why are you seeking this appointment?
What skills and knowledge do you have to meet the selection criteria?
Please list any other Board, Commission, Committee, or official positions you currently hold with the City of Edmonds:
Additional comments:
Signature
Revised 4/30/14
Please return this completed form to:
Edmonds City Hall
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
carolyn.lafave@edmondswa.gov
Phone: 425.771.0247 | Fax: 425.771.0252
Packet Page 4 of 458
AM-7231 4. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/28/2014
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 21, 2014.
Recommendation
Review and approve meeting minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The draft minutes are attached.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - 10-21-14 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Form Review
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 10/23/2014 10:41 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/23/2014
Packet Page 5 of 458
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
October 21, 2014
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 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
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Noushyal Eslami, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Doug Fair, Municipal Court Judge
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr.
Brian Tuley, IT Supervisor
Deb Sharp, Accountant
Rob English, City Engineer
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 A REAL ESTATE MATTER PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(c)AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PER RCW 42.30.140(1)(a)…
At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c) and collective bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(1)(a). 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 and Bloom. Others present
were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Finance Director Scott James, Parks & Recreation/Human Resources
Reporting Director Carrie Hite and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 6:30 p.m.
2. MEET WITH PLANNING BOARD ALTERNATE CANDIDATE MICHAEL NELSON FOR
CONFIRMATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD
At 6:30 p.m., the City Council met with Planning Board Alternate candidate Michael Nelson. The
meeting took place in the Council Chambers, located in the Public Safety Complex. All City
Councilmembers were present for the meeting with Mr. Nelson and 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.
Packet Page 6 of 458
3. MEET WITH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD CANDIDATE TOM WALKER FOR
CONFIRMATION TO POSITION #4 OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Mr. Walker was unable to attend the meeting.
4. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmember Mesaros.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
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
Councilmember Petso requested Item I be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Bloom
requested Item A be removed so that she could abstain from the vote due to her absence from the October
14, 2014 Council meeting.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #211018 THROUGH #211133 DATED OCTOBER 16,
2014 FOR $645,141.91 (REISSUED CHECK #211078 $118.31)
C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DYLIS G. WILEY-
CHASE (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED)
D. FISHING PIER REHABILITATION DESIGN
E. UNSCHEDULED IT EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
F. CIGNA LIFE, LONG TERM DISABILITY (LTD) AND ACCIDENTAL DEATH &
DISMEMBERMENT (AD& D) INSURANCE PLAN(S)
G. APPROVAL OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE JOB DESCRIPTION &
CONFIRMATION OF POSITION SALARY AND BENEFITS INFORMATION
H. CONFIRMATION OF MICHAEL NELSON TO THE PLANNING BOARD ALTERNATE
POSITION
J. ACCEPTANCE OF STREET DEDICATION FOR SAFFOLD 3-LOT SHORT PLAT
LOCATED AT 19327 88TH AVE W (FILE PLN20100018)
K. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 2013 WATERLINE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT
Packet Page 7 of 458
L. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE LIFT STATION
REHABILITATION PROJECT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT
ITEM A: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2014
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ITEM A. MOTION CARRIED (5-0-1),COUNCILMEMBER
BLOOM ABSTAINED.
ITEM I: MAYOR EARLING RECOMMENDS TOM WALKER'S CONFIRMATION TO
POSITION #4 OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Mayor Earling advised that Mr. Walker was unable to attend tonight’s meeting. The meeting with Council
and Council confirmation will be rescheduled.
7. NATIONAL ARTS & HUMANITIES MONTH PROCLAMATION
Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring October as National Art & Humanities Month in Edmonds.
He presented the proclamation to Edmonds Arts Commission Chair Suzy Maloney. On behalf of the Arts
Commission, Ms. Maloney thanked the City Council and Mayor for their continued support and this
acknowledgement.
8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Val Stewart, Edmonds, Planning Board Member speaking as a citizen, referred to Item 13, and
expressed her support for a 50-foot vegetative buffer within a 100-foot setback in the Urban Mixed Use
IV jurisdiction. A 150 foot setback is too much to impose on property owners and she has been unable to
find any documentation that confirms the need for a 150-foot buffer setback for salmon recovery grant
funding. Ecology agreed in a recent communication that the new federal laws initiated by the Native
Americans require a minimum of 100 feet. With regard to nonconforming status of existing buildings, she
suggested Mt. Vernon’s approach, retain the nonconforming status but allow a nonconforming building
damaged to 100% of replacement cost to be reconstructed in same footprint. This could alleviate
insurance and financing issues. She referred to information provided by a Tribal Biologist during the
October 4 marsh tour video available on My Edmonds News., that the City has an obligation to the Tribes
to honor the treaty of Pt. Elliott where Tulalip Tribes were granted rights to half the harvestable fish but
also to sustain the natives’ way of life which includes providing environment and habitat to support fish.
Best Available Sciences continues to change; the City’s baseline for BAS is a 2007 document. Tulalip
Tribes are doing cutting edge research tracking juvenile salmon go before they go into Puget Sound.
Daylighting Willow Creek will get Coho spawning again. There are multiple resources to help restore the
marsh including sustainable redevelopment or remodeling, state, federal and Tribal funding, and private
dollars. She urged the Council to set an example for other municipalities and not just do the minimum to
meet no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said after reviewing the Capital Facilities Plan he was confused with how
funds are being allocated. He recommended the Council review each item to determine whether they
agreed with the projects and how funds are allocated. For example, $2 million is proposed for Sunset
Avenue, but it is a walkway, not a recreational pathway. He suggested the project could be scaled down
once it was realized bicycles and pedestrians do not mix. He referred to the mini roundabout or restriping
for 9th Avenue. With regard to the Woodway High School Playfields, he expressed concern the Edmonds
School District (ESD) was contributing very little to that project yet they will likely want a great deal for
the Civic Center Playfields. He suggested negotiating with ESD to share costs more equally as well as
provide space for a pool on the Woodway Playfields site.
Packet Page 8 of 458
Rose Cantwell, Edmonds Senior Center (ESC) Board of Directors, a member of the ESC for 15 years,
explained the non-profit corporation that operates the Center has a tremendous volunteer workforce who
perform many necessary duties as a gift to the community. Volunteer service is an excellent way to hold
down property taxes. The ESC building is old and a new building is sorely needed. She is Co-Chair of the
newly formed Capital Campaign Committee formed to raise the funds needed for construction of a new
building at the current site which is owned by the City. The ESC’s Executive Director Farrell Fleming
will make presentation regarding the land lease with the City. The Capital Campaign Committee is
working diligently and is very positive about raising sufficient funds for a new joint senior and
community center, another gift to the community.
9. PRESENTATION OF THE EDMONDS SISTER CITY COMMISSION 2014 STUDENT
EXCHANGE PROGRAM HEKINAN, JAPAN TRIP
Karyn Heinekin and Phil Onishi, chaperones on the Hekinan, Japan trip, introduced three of the ten
student delegates Jason, Dee and Patrick. Ms. Heinekin explained the trip was an amazing experience for
her and a wonderful opportunity for the students who built lasting relationships and bonds with the
Japanese community during the two weeks students were in the Hekinan and two weeks the Hekinan
students were in Edmonds. She commented on the culture they experienced, Hekinan’s generosity and the
goodwill established between the two cities. They provided a slide show of their stay in Hekinan.
Mr. Onishi commented this was a fantastic opportunity to travel and see Hekinan and to enjoy their
hospitality and the opportunity to live in their culture. He appreciated the way the Edmonds Sister City
Commission (SCC) has embraced the opportunity to meet people from Hekinan. Hekinan has a great love
for Edmonds; he, Karyn and the ten students had a life-changing trip. He appreciated the support the City
has provided the SCC over the years and hoped it would continue.
Patrick said his favorite part of the trip was going to the city, visiting temples and exploring with his own
exchange student. Jason’s best memory was making new friends; the people in Hekinan were very nice
and the food was good and interesting. Dee’s favorite part was meeting all the people. She recalled
playing soccer at a BBQ and how easy it was to connect with the Japanese students even when they did
not speak the same language. Ms. Heinekin described a memorable trip they took to Kyoto, summarizing
the trip was an amazing experience for which she thanked the SCC and the City.
Mayor Earling recognized current and former members of the SCC in the audience and acknowledged the
efforts of Executive Assistant Carolyn LaFave.
10. EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER PRESENTATION ON AN “OPTION TO LEASE AND DRAFT
GROUND LEASE” REQUEST
Edmonds Senior Center Executive Director Farrell Fleming said the resolution the Council on March 18,
2014 established the foundation to proceed with the goal to build a new state of the art senior and
community center on the waterfront site. It will be a multigenerational activity center taking full
advantage of the magnificent views.
He described their model:
• Partnership between the City and the Nonprofit
• Senior Center, a 501(c)3 charitable organization, raises the money, builds, owns and maintains
the building
• City owns and maintains land ( regional park) and leases it to the senior center
• Monroe followed this model in 1994
He described progress since March 18, 2014:
Packet Page 9 of 458
• 3/18/2014: City Council resolution unanimously supporting new senior/community center.
o First critical piece of our feasibility study
• 6/3/2014: Snohomish County Joint resolution unanimously supporting new senior/community
center.
o Will assist with state and foundation funding
Mr. Fleming and Phil Lovell reviewed results achieved:
• Senior Center Board decision to proceed (May 2014)
• Established Capital Campaign Committee with Co-Chairs Rose Cantwell and Diane Buckshnis
• Community College Reports
• Task Force Subcommittee undertook architect selection process
• Conceptual drawings completed by two architects (Zervas Group – Bellingham and
Environmental Works – Seattle)
• Each architect created a design for a conceptual building placed in a different location on the site
• Cost estimates based on the two conceptual designs
• Two independent third-part cost estimators reviewed the designs
• Timeline schedule refinement
o Complete, refine program
o Use materials from architects to create brochures/graphics to accompany fundraising
o Successful fundraising efforts likely in two phases
o Establish milestones for moving ahead with selecting a designer, executing lease with the
City and ultimately entering into a building program
Mr. Fleming explained the ESC needs documentation of sufficient site control to pursue State funds. He
reviewed the Option to Lease and Ground lease:
• Requesting tonight that the City and Senior Center enter into a process of negotiation to come to
agreement on the terms and conditions of the Ground Lease. Ground lease takes effect at time
reach significant milestone, such as raising a significant amount of needed funds.
• Once that agreement is reached, the City and Senior Center will enter into an Option to Lease
Agreement
• The lease option specifies at what time and under what conditions the Ground Lease becomes
active. The major condition is the Senior Center reaching a certain fundraising goal that will
enable it to begin construction. The terms of the option are also to be negotiated.
• The present lease will remain in effect until the Ground Lease becomes the governing document.
Mr. Fleming commented on the timeline:
• Hope to complete negotiation by the end of 2014 or early 2015
• Important this is finished by the time the legislature gets to the capital budget process
o Seeking promise from the State of $2 million based on the ESC raising the remainder
• Suggestion for negotiation teams: two from each entity plus legal assistance
• Look forward to working with the City to complete this phase of making the new Edmonds
Senior and Community Center a reality.
Councilmember Petso asked when the conceptual designs will be made available to the public for
comment/input. Mr. Lovell answered it will be early in the design process. The first priority is to ensure
the ESC and the City agree on a matrix of uses for the building, the size, adjacencies, space allocation,
etc. Once that is completed and a fundraising milestone is reached, a design firm can be hired to proceed
with a conventional design process which will include design development, schematic design, and
construction documents. He expected to bring drawings and information to the City at the schematic
design phase, optimistically sometime next year. There has been some interface with City Planning
related to code issues and the Shoreline Management Plan.
Packet Page 10 of 458
Councilmember Petso commented it would easier for the Council to engage in negotiating a lease if the
public was aware of the existing concepts and had had an opportunity to comment. Mr. Lovell relayed his
understanding of Councilmember Petso’s comment that it would be best to have the public look at what
might become the permanent design before a lease is executed, relaying that could be done. Mr. Fleming
advised there could be a public process to look at the current conceptual design. Actual drawings are
prepared when sufficient funds have been raised to move the project forward. He anticipated this would
be an asset for the entire community and said “exciting” is the word often used to describe the project.
The ESC is tasked with turning that excitement into money; this is the first step.
Council President Buckshnis asked what direction was being sought from the Council. Parks &
Recreation Director Carrie Hite sought direction from Council whether they wanted staff including the
City Attorney to work with ESC on the request they made tonight. Council President Buckshnis asked
whether Ms. Hite had any objection to their suggestion of a team comprised of two members from each
entity and attorneys. Ms. Hite said she did not.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO PROCEED WITH NEGOTIATIONS.
Councilmember Peterson asked who will be on the City’s negotiating team. Ms. Hite recommended Parks
and Recreation take the lead with the City Attorney and the Mayor and possibly include Public Works at
some point because they maintain the current building. She suggested she be the City’s representative that
meets with the ESC and staff vet the terms and conditions internally before presenting it to Council for
approval.
Councilmember Johnson requested options include the South County Senior Center Restoration proposal
in the Shoreline Management Plan with regard to the existing parking lot and restoration. She asked who
would pay for that portion of the proposal. Mr. Fleming answered the negotiation for the ground lease
will consider that. The ESC has said they will pay for the building; the parking lot and grounds have not
yet been discussed. He commented one of the great thing about the partnership is there are grant and
processes the non-profit can pursue that the City cannot such as a capital campaign and there are things
like the shoreline and extension of the walkway to the south for which the City is in a unique position to
apply for state and federal grants. The initial negotiations likely will address the parking lot and grounds;
it could be a joint responsibility between the City and Senior Center or entirely the City but likely not
entirely the ESC because the City owns the land.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF REGIONAL IMPACTS FOR THE PROPOSED GATEWAY
PACIFIC TERMINAL AT CHERRY POINT
Shawn Ardussi, Senior Planner, Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), explained staff was asked by
the PSRC Executive Board in March 2014 to conduct an economic evaluation of the proposed Gateway
Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point. He displayed a map of the operational and proposed crude-by-rail
facilities and coal export facilities in Washington. He reviewed the project purpose and scope of the
study:
• Purpose: To provide an objective analysis of the economic effects of the Gateway Pacific
Terminal project proposal for the four-county region
• Scope of Study:
o Project background information and previous studies
o Regional rail profile
o Impacts of the Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal on the four-county region
Packet Page 11 of 458
o Opportunities for mitigation
• Topics outside scope of study
o Crude oil train safety
o Coal dust and public health
He provided an overview of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal:
• SSA Marine proposed the development of Gateway Pacific Terminal, a full-service dry bulk
commodity export-import facility at a naturally occurring deep-water location in Cherry, Point,
Washington, approximately 60 miles north of Snohomish County
• Current plans call for the project to be operational at full capacity by 2019
• Terminal’s total export capacity would be approximately 54 million metric tons of dry bulk
commodities per year
Full Build-Out
Annual Tonnage 54 million metric tons
Additional trains from baseline 18 (9 to terminal, 9 from terminal)
Train Length 1.6 miles
He described the environmental process, advising the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) processes are being done concurrently with drafts anticipated to
be available sometime in 2015, a major opportunity for comment for PSRC membership. He provided an
overview of the major findings:
• Development and operation of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal would lead to new jobs,
mostly during the construction phase and mostly in Whatcom County
• The proposed Terminal may have an impact on rail capacity in the central Puget Sound region –
depending on whether BNSF responds to the increase in demand for service by increasing
capacity
• Rail freight traffic is already projected to grow in Washington State and in the central Puget
Sound region – even without the proposed Terminal
• The most direct economic impacts on the central Puget Sound region will be due to increased rail
traffic through cities and counties
• Economic impacts directly related to gate down - time vary greatly from location to location
within the region
• Mitigation is possible in most if not all cases, but may be costly
Mr. Ardussi commented on projected freight rail growth
• Annual tons of freight moved by rail in Washington State (does not include proposed new
terminals):
o 64 tons in 1991
o 116 tons in 2010
o 238 tons projected in 2035
• Statewide rail freight is forecast to grow anyway
• State projections for increased rail freight volume do not include service to a series of proposed
new or expanded terminals in the Pacific Northwest, nor export of Bakken oil
He commented on other proposed coal terminals and provided a map of the locations:
• Multiple coal export terminal expansion or new construction proposals
• Energy companies with ready supplies of Powder River Basin coal
• Two active proposals in WA/OR
• Four active proposals in British Columbia
Packet Page 12 of 458
He provided a table of coal volume that could move through Central Puget Sound Region by rail if all
projects approved and operated at full capacity:
Terminal Annual Million
Metric Tons
Gateway Pacific Terminal 54.0
Fraser Surrey Docks 8.0
Ridley Terminal (current contract volume potential) 2.5
Westshore Terminal (current contract volume potential)* 0.75
Millennium Terminal (Longview) 0.0
Port of Morrow 0.0
Total 65.25
Without Gateway Pacific Terminal 11.25
*Assuming 25% of increased capacity
He reviewed regional impacts – domestic and international trade:
• Potential benefits:
o Rail capacity expansion could allow the region’s ports to move more goods and increase the
region’s economic activity.
o The region’s ports may become more economically attractive to shippers.
• Potential Risks
o Current rail traffic could be constrained, costs could increase, there could be delays in
shipments at the region’s ports
o Passenger rail service could be disrupted, cost more, or both
o Current commodities and passenger rail services could get “priced out,” “squeezed out,”
delayed, or face increased costs due to a lack of capacity.
He displayed a table of the the annual economic impact of increased gate downtown by community; the
following table illustrates the total impact on all communities and impact on only Edmonds, Marysville
and Stanwood:
City
Scenario 1
BNSF Mainline
Travel Only
Scenario 2
BNSF Mainline +
Stevens Pass for
Empty Trains
Scenario 3
BNSF Mainline +
Stampede Pass for
Empty Trains
Edmonds $138,000 $69,000 $138,000
Stanwood $45,000 $45,000 $45,000
Marysville $1,651,000 $1,651,000 $1,651,000
Total Impact $3,853,000 $3,260,500 $3,547,500
He described impacts on residential and commercial property values:
• Residential
Property Value Impacts
City Aggregate Property Value
in Buffer ($ million) 5% 7%
Edmonds $595 $30 $42
Stanwood $47 $2 $3
Marysville $433 $22 $30
• Commercial
City Aggregate Property Value
in Buffer ($ million)
Property Value Impacts (5%)
($ millions)
Edmonds $71 $4
Packet Page 13 of 458
Stanwood $15 $0.8
Marysville $254 $13
He provided the methodology for calculating the impact of increased gate downtime. He provided a map
of regional impacts on transportation:
• Study Area: 101 Mainline BNSF at-grade crossings in Puget Sound Region, 77 crossings in cities
and towns.
• Regional gate-downtime: Gate downtime in 2013 with Gateway Pacific Terminal trains would
increase on average by 65% compared to 2035 without the terminal
The study took a community-based approach, examining most highly impacted crossings in detailed
profiles for each community.
• 15 communities identified on or near potential freight route based on criteria.
o Stanwood, Marysville, Edmonds, Seattle, Kent, Auburn, Sumner, Puyallup, Steilacoom,
Tacoma, Everett, Monroe, Snohomish, Covington, Maple Valley
Other regional impacts include:
• Environmental Justice
o Study found in some locations, low income and minority population in Kent and Seattle
would have impacts from train operations. In some locations, low income and minority
populations in Everett, Auburn, Algona, Pacific and Fife would also be impacted by the
additional trains travelling to and from the proposed terminal.
• Emergency Response
o Study identified 21 crossings in the region where additional waits for trains could impact the
delivery of emergency response service due to close proximity to fire stations or emergency
medical facilities.
o There could be a 2 - 6 minute delay per crossing event for emergency response vehicles
• Transportation Access
o Access to transportation facilities (bus stops, park and rides) could also be delayed by 2 - 6
minutes per crossing event.
Mitigation options include:
• Grade separation of highly impacted crossings ($50m - $200m)
• Other mitigation measures could include
o Crossing consolidation
o Signal timing
o Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
o Crossing improvements
• Policy measures to assist in mitigation could include:
o Scheduling train traffic
o Use of different freight routing
o Work with state lawmakers and Congress to expand funding for grade crossing improvements
What PSRC has heard:
• Concerns about public safety
• Uncertainty about environmental effects
• Questions about who will pay if mitigation is necessary • Funding is needed for local mitigation
• Many potential impacts are local, but are driven by issues beyond local control
• Concern that rail service should continue to serve best economic interests of the state and region
• Tribal issues need to be considered
Packet Page 14 of 458
He reviewed next steps:
• Draft EIS is anticipated to be finished sometime in mid-2015
o Opportunity for public comment
• Continuously inform transportation planning (FAST, Regional Freight Mobility Roundtable,
Transportation 2040)
• Listening to feedback from PSRC boards and membership
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there was nothing about the human health impacts or
environmental impacts in the study. Mr. Ardussi advised this was an economic study. The Executive
Board asked for an economic study because the EIS which will be released next year will consider health
and environmental impacts; economic impacts will not be addressed by the EIS. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas commented the economic impact includes spills and/or health issues. Mr. Ardussi advised once
the EIS is available, the economic impacts of environmental impacts could be considered. There is no
way at this time to identify the environmental impacts.
Councilmember Petso observed unless the train trench idea is adopted, the solution to at-grade crossing
issues either places vehicles above the train or the train above vehicles. She asked whether the decrease in
property values from that view blockage had been considered in study. Mr. Ardussi advised this economic
study was related to new trains added by the Gateway Pacific Terminal and utilized research elsewhere in
the country on economic devaluation due to proximity to freight rail facilities. It did not consider the
incremental impact on views from properties in the proximity.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the at-grade crossing needed to be addressed and a grade separation
achieved as train traffic increased. Mr. Ardussi answered this information can help inform that discussion.
Councilmember Petso emphasized that unless the train trench idea is adopted, view blockage will be a
significant concern with regard to the two at-grade crossings in Edmonds. She inquired about PSRC’s
familiarity with the train trench proposal. Mr. Ardussi answered he had heard it was being discussed but
had not seen a specific project proposal.
Councilmember Peterson asked if studies were being conducted regarding how many trains would carry
either coal or back-in-crude if a facility is built at Cherry Point. Mr. Ardussi answered this study did not
consider back-in-crude. This study began in March 2014; crude oil shipments were just beginning at that
time. There are currently three coal trains per day north to Canada; this proposal would add nine trains
traveling north and up to nine traveling south. The direction the trains take southbound depends on
whether they go over Stevens Pass through Seattle or over Stampede Pass.
Councilmember Peterson relayed growing concern that commodities from Eastern Washington are not
being transported. He asked if there was any coordinated effort between PSRC and similar organizations
to discuss how nine new coal trains would affect capacity for shipping commodities from Eastern
Washington. Mr. Ardussi advised there is a lot of concern about rail capacity even under current
conditions. The railroads will say they are working to increase capacity and that they have a track record
of finding capacity to meet projects like this. Shippers and businesses are uncertain because their
businesses depend on access to rail. There is a lot of discussion but not necessarily agreement on an
approach.
Councilmember Peterson asked if there were organizations similar to PSRC looking at this issue. Mr.
Ardussi agreed there are including Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board and other metropolitan
planning organizations in the State.
Councilmember Johnson asked the current thinking about mitigation. Mr. Ardussi answered some
projects in the long range plan are already in the works. A study like this can look at opportunities for
mitigation if there is increased freight rail traffic through the State regardless of whether the terminal
Packet Page 15 of 458
built. He suggested City Councils begin to think about what they need in their community. PSRC is not
developing a project list but is beginning to have that conversation with communities.
Councilmember Johnson referred to his comment that rail is outside local control, noting cities have
control over land use. It would be in the Council’s best interest to have a better understanding about
future traffic, delays, number of tracks and impacts on emergency response time. Mr. Ardussi advised
each of the community identified would do well to have a more in-depth examination of the impacts of
this type of increase in freight volume.
Councilmember Petso asked whether there were any projects currently in the works or in the
Transportation Improvement Plan or other plans for Edmonds. Mr. Ardussi noted the trench has been
mentioned but it is not fully developed as a project in PSRC’s long range plan; at this time there is not a
mitigation project for the at-grade crossings in Edmonds. He distributed copies of the staff summary.
12. PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 2015 PROPOSED CITY BUDGET
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There was no one present
who wished to provide comment and Mayor Earling closed public participation. He advised another
public hearing is scheduled in two weeks.
Finance Director Scott James identified where the budget can be found on the City’s website (2015
Budgeting on the home page). He reviewed changes made to the budget since it was presented:
Budget
Book
Page #
Description Cash Increase (Decrease)
General Fund
39 Executive Assistant Schedule Salary Step Increase ($4,314)
43 Advertising Expense ($4,200)
Impacts to General Fund ($8,514)
Fund 112 Street Construction
163 Construction (DP #36) ($100,000)
163 Interfund Services (DP #36) ($6,000)
Impacts to Fund 112 Ending Cash ($106,000)
Fund 126 REET 1
166 Construction $200,000
166 Land ($200,000)
Impacts to Fund 126 Ending Cash $0
Fund 132 Parks Construction
168 Land $1,300,000
168 Construction ($1,300,000)
168 Construction $200,000
Impacts to Fund 132 Ending Cash ($200,000)
City Clerk
City Clerk Scott Passey explained the City Clerk’s Office is a small but effective division. The 4.5 FTE
(City Clerk, Deputy City Clerk, Business Licensing Clerk, Senior Office Specialist and part-time Public
Packet Page 16 of 458
Disclosure and Records Management Specialist) make up the bulk of the Clerk’s budget. He reviewed the
following:
• 2014 accomplishments
o New City Clerk transition
o New Senior Office Assistant recruited
o Public Record Requests
o New Liquor/Marijuana License Notice Review Process
o New incentive-based fee system to encourage timely business license renewal
o Other Efficiencies
• Challenges
o Staffing/leave issues
o Resources for Public Records Disclosure
o Email Management - Citywide
o Continued implementation of Laserfiche
o Management of Archive Centers
•
Expenditures 2013
Actual
2014
Budget
2015
Estimate Discussion
Total 588,355 537,273 588,956 2015 Estimate includes Decision
Packages #2 and #3
• Decision Packages:
o DP #2: Adds $16,625 to 2015 costs by increasing public disclosure/records management
specialist from 0.5 FTE to 0.75 FTE
o DP #3: Adds $3,675 to 2015 costs for agenda management software
Councilmember Peterson referred to DP #2, commenting Edmonds has been fortunate in avoiding any
legal fines from delayed public record requests that some other cities have encountered but the City is still
vulnerable. He was leaning toward a full-time FTE for that function, envisioning the extra funds might
keep the City out of harm’s way. Mr. Passey agreed a full-time FTE devoted to public disclosure and
records management was reasonable for most cities. Most cities have large archives and they continue to
build particularly with email. The current 0.5 FTE cannot handle all the requests so he and the deputy city
clerk assist with the various requests. It would be preferable to have that position handle more of the
workload and allow staff to focus on other priorities.
Council President Buckshnis observed there is an approximately $18,000 increase the salary budget. She
asked whether it reflected only the .25 increase in the public disclosure/records management specialist or
also step increases. Mr. Passey answered it includes step and COLA increases in addition to the .25
increase in FTE.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed there have been IT improvements in recent years to post more
information online. She asked whether that has helped reduce records requests. Mr. Passey answered
Laserfiche allows all permanent, essential documents such as ordinances, resolutions, minutes, etc. to be
scanned and posted online. Those are typically not the records that the public requests; they are asking for
the behinds the scenes work such as email, etc.
Councilmember Petso remarked she was not aware the City’s website offered the capability to search
minutes. Mr. Passey agreed it did not. There was $40,000 in the 2013 budget to acquire the Laserfiche
software and train staff to scan records. Staff began scanning ordinances, resolutions and minutes which
are now in the archive and ready to be made public in a searchable format. As staff has time, they will
continue to scan ordinances to continue building the archive. Those documents are currently not
searchable on the website. Councilmember Petso commented that would really save time.
Packet Page 17 of 458
Mayor’s Office
Mr. James reviewed the following:
• 2014 accomplishments
o Reinstated street paving program
o Maintained strong financial program
o Continued success in achieving major grants in Parks, Engineering and Public Works
o Expanded public communication program with Town Halls and regular media columns
o Progress made in economic development
• Challenges
o Continued vigilance of Edmonds long term financial health
o Access to and from waterfront
o Resolution of Fire District 1 contract
o Creating new revenue streams
o Strategy to maintain long term street repaving needs
•
Expenditures 2014
Budget
2014 YE
Estimate
2015
Recomm. Discussion
Total 251,085 250,100 257,312
Council President Buckshnis commented all departments’ benefits are up 15-17%. Mr. James advised all
departments’ budgets include a 15% increase for medical. PERS also increased a couple percentage
points. A 2% COLA was included in the budget although contracts have not been settled. Some
departments’ budgets also include step increases.
Human Resources
Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite reviewed the following:
• 2104 accomplishment
o Settled two union contracts - EPOA (Commissioned Officers) and Law Support (non-
Commissioned).
o Started negotiations for SEIU & Teamsters unions for 2015.
o Hired a new medical insurance broker and re-formed a Health Benefits Committee to review
insurance plan options for 2015.
o Completed the City’s Accident Prevention Program (APP) draft.
o Created and implemented the City-wide Wellness program.
o Completed City-wide Cultural Diversity training for all employees.
o Transitioned to a new L & I claims management process.
o Started ongoing internal HR audit process.
o Hired and trained the part-time HR Assistant
o Offered a City Health & Benefits Fair
o Had a successful MEBT audit
o Completed a recruitment and screening process for: Finance Director, Development Services
Director and Community Services/Economic Development Director.
o Started the recruitment process for RFQ/RFP for Public Defender and Municipal Court Judge
• Challenges
o Legislation/regulation considerations – Legal mandates, the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
implications, Department of Labor (DOL) audits.
o Labor relations issues- grievances/arbitration
o Applications (loss of data and applicant tracking system configuration).
o Ongoing Training costs and needs
• 2015 projects
o Completing SEIU & Teamsters Negotiations
o Completing the 2015 Non-Represented Salary Survey
Packet Page 18 of 458
o City-wide Anti-Harassment Training
o Working on training programs at the City
o Updating City Personnel Policies
o Implementing the Accident Prevention Program (APP)
o Working through ongoing internal HR Audit
•
Expenditures
2014
Modified
Budget
2014 YE
Estimate
2015
Recomm. Discussion
Human Resources 326,758 323,528 326,958 DP#1 Wellness Program
•
Savings
2014
Modified
Budget
2014 YE
Estimate
2015
Recomm. Discussion
Medical Benefits 150,000 150,000
LEOFF Benefits 106,189 137,345
L & I Claims 154,239 112,130 120,000
• Decision package
o DP #1: $3,000 for Wellness Program
Councilmember Petso observed there was an increase in professional services; she had hoped the need to
hire consultants/expert advice would be declining. Ms. Hite answered the $3,000 increase from $48,000
in 2014 to $51,000 in 2015 is for the Wellness Program.
Economic Development & Community Services
Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty reviewed the following:
• 2014 Accomplishments
Community Services
o Employed services of Cynthia Berne (Long Bay Enterprises) and established SAP Working
Group. Together achieved substantial completion of implementation plan for Strategic Action
Plan. Final product to be presented to Council First Quarter 2015.
o Drafted and presented to Council social media usage policies. Facebook page created and
ready to launch post Council approval.
o Employed services of Carolyn Douglas to assist with press relations, community outreach,
communications, social media oversight, etc.
Economic Development
o Employed services of Ellen Hiatt for arts/culture/tourism marketing and communications.
Results:
New tourism website (launch by December)
New arts/culture/events calendar (launch by December)
Refined/updated ads; creation of tourism strategic marketing plan
Arts/culture/tourism social media presence
o Provided input in refinement of Westgate Plan.
o Worked with BID on new initiatives, especially small grants program, marketing/outreach,
finances.
o Worked with BID on increased Holiday 2014 offerings/activities
• Challenges
Community Services
o Transition from planning to full-fledged implementation of Strategic Action Plan
o Substantially enhance/improve communication with public, stakeholders, press, et al
Economic Development
Packet Page 19 of 458
o Recruitment of new business/investment and retention/expansion of existing business
o Diversification of tax base
o Strengthening of Downtown and Waterfront
o Investment in Westgate, Highway 99 Corridor
•
Expenditures
2014
Modified
Budget
2014 YE
Estimate
2015
Recomm. Discussion
Comm. Services 397,654 362,090 391,785 Less professional services
Econ. Development 110,370 105,850 50,870 Less professional services
Total 508,024 467,940 442,655
• Decision Packages
o DP #14 - $30,000 for press relations/community relations/social media oversight professional
services
o DP #15 - $5,000 carry-forward for completion of SAP implementation plan
o DP #16 - $20,000 for Council-approved small matching grant program
o DP #48 - $2,500 for SAP project management software
• Proposed 2015 Tourism Promotion Program
o Lodging tax revenues are used to fund the City’s Tourism Promotion Program
o Only permissible use of these funds (RCW 67.28.1816)
o Revenues are up in 2014 (approximately $90,000) and 2015 is anticipated to yield the same
o City’s Tourism Promotion Program consists of:
o Support of arts, culture and other events that attract visitors
o Marketing and promotion (ads, website, rack cards, etc.)
o Use of Funds - Arts/Culture-related (25% of revenue)
$12,000 to grants for ECA tourism-promotion awards
- 2,000 Cascade Symphony
- $1,000 – Art Studio Tour
- $1,500 – Sno-King Chorale
- $2,000 – Demiero Jazz Fest
- $2,000 – Olympic Ballet Theater
- $2,000 – Driftwood Players
- $1,500 – Phoenix Theater
$7,200 – Promotion of “Write on the Sound” Writers’ Conference
$2,000 – Promotion of public art in Edmonds through printed brochure
o Use of Fund - General tourism promotion
$6,000 – Snohomish County Tourism Bureau’s Visitor Information Center
$2,500 – Edmonds Chamber of Commerce for the Edmonds Visitors Center
$12,500 – Edmonds two-page tourism ad in Edmonds Center for the Arts Season
Brochure
$6,000 – Printing/distribution of rack card
$500 – Miscellaneous ad design work as needed
$2,500 – Promotion/support of Bird Fest
$4,000 – Promotion of Edmonds arts/culture events in Snohomish County Visitors Guide,
CRAZE recreation guide and “Arts Access” (Snohomish Countywide)
$21,000 – General advertising/promotion program for Edmonds tourism (ads,
professional services, website, etc.)
Council President Buckshnis referred to DP #15, observing the $5,000 was carryover from the $40,000
budgeted in 2014. Mr. Dougherty agreed. Council President Buckshnis asked whether DP #14 was in last
year’s budget. Mr. Doherty explained the 2014 budget included an ambitious public outreach/social
Packet Page 20 of 458
media/tourism/arts/culture person. Ms. Hiatt started at the end June; at that time it became obvious with
the focus on the arts/culture/events calendar, tourism, the strategic marking plan, refining/updating ads,
the tourism website and social media, there was not enough time left for general government press
relations and social media. Only $23,000 of the $40,000 allocated for Ms. Hiatt’s work will be spent in
2014; some of the savings will be used in 2015 for a contract person who serves as a public information
officer to engage the community, provide press relations, oversee Facebook, etc.
Council President Buckshnis asked how the cost of $30,009 was determined. Mr. Doherty answered it is
$2500/month.
Finance and Information Services
Mr. James expressed his appreciation for staff’s professionalism and superior work ethic. He reviewed the
following.
• Accomplishment
o Received a clean 2013 audit
o Quality of the work done during the year is a reflection of the professionalism of the staff
o We started 2014 with $3.5 million in investments outside the State Pool. Today we have just
over $23 million
• Challenges
o A goal for 2015 will be to document operational procedures and guidelines within the
Finance Department and for our internal customers
o We will be upgrading our automated budgeting software to improve the efficiency of our
budget process
o We will also be working with upgraded financial statement generation software
• Expenditures
Expenditures 2014
Budget
2014 YE
Estimate
2015
Recomm. Discussion
Total 808,429 766,566 853,049
• Decision packages
o DP #5: $12,000 for Finance Intern
o DP #6: $7,500 for Finance Department Remodel
Information Services
IT Supervisor Brian Tuley reviewed the following:
• Accomplishments
o Removed Windows XP from City (35% of workstations)
o Replaced core network switches and server
o Implemented backup procedures
Systems/off site
o Upgraded telephone system ad VM
o Improved security by building network zones
o Thank City Council for approving expenditure. Once implementing, other equipment failing.
• Challenges
o Security and Compliance
o Physical security, training, awareness, policy & procedures
o Replacement policy
o Strategic Plan
o Disaster Recovery – Business Continuity
o Fiber Redundancy
o Fiber Review
o Continue to improve city communication with the public
Packet Page 21 of 458
• Expenditures:
Expenditures 2014
Budget
2014 YE
Estimate
2015
Recomm. Discussion
Fiber Budget 72,035 33,950 59,200 -18%
Information Services 893,756 923,988 765,513 -19%
Total 965,791 957,938 785,713
• Decision Packages
o DP #7: $14,020 for repairs & maintenance
o DP #8: $30,000 for afterhours support and IT supplement
Councilmember Johnson expressed her appreciation to Mr. Tuley for providing afterhours IT support this
year and the extra time and effort he provided to keep the system band aided through year.
For Council President Buckshnis, Mr. Tuley explained fiber and redundancy are two separate issues.
Redundancy is needed to ensure internet access is available for City business. During the decade
Edmonds has been discussing what to do with fiber, other technologies have emerged such as cable
modems and gigabit wireless. Consideration needs to be given to how much to invest in fiber when there
is new, emerging technology.
Non-Departmental
Mr. James reviewed the following
• Non-Departmental is used to segregate all costs not directly identifiable to departments and those
expenditures and services that are required by law or contract that are beneficial to all citizens.
• Finance Department provides oversight to the Non-Departmental budget. He:
•
Key Expenditures 2014
Budget
2014 YE
Estimate
2015
Recomm. Discussion
Liability & Prop Ins 379,784 383,900 423,600 WCIA Rates
Fire District Contract 6,500,000 7,022,800 8,067,700 Reviewed later
Prisoner Care 486,050 480,000 650,000 Booking and Housing
Debt Service 3,024,120 3,024,120 280,387 2014 Refunding
Interfund Transfers 5,137,373 3,401,723 3,012,785 Reviewed later
Other ND Expenditures 2,289,231 2,237,426 2,455,210 Contact with any questions
Total Expenditures 17,816,558 16,549,969 14,889,682
• Fire District 2014 Contract
o When we built the 2015 Proposed Budget, we estimated that we would pay the district a total
$7,022,800 in 2014
o This includes the scheduled payment of $6,222,700
o We added $800,000 for the first portion of the $1,667,000 “Retro” payment
• Fire District 2015 Contract
o The 2015 Proposed Budget includes a base payment of $6,222,700
o Plus Mayor’s “placeholder” of $978,000
o These two amounts bring our estimated new on-going FD1 contract to $7,200,700
o Lastly, we added $867,000 for the remaining “Retro” payment
o To pay for the “Retro” payment we are recommending we transfer the funds from
Contingency Reserve Fund
• Transfers within General Fund
Expenditures 2014
Budget
2014 YE
Estimate
2015
Recomm. Discussion
Low Enforcement
Medical (009 594,646 375,000 275,000 Target balance
Packet Page 22 of 458
Risk Mgmt (011) 903,798 636,000 -- Target balance
Contingency Reserve
(012) 522,313 -- -- Target balance
Historic Preservation
(014) 7,000 7,000 --
Building Maint (016) 589,800 379,800 266,600 $210,000 carryforward
Total 2,617,559 1,397,800 541,600
• Transfer to other funds
Expenditures 2014
Budget
2014 YE
Estimate
2015
Recomm Discussion
Firemen’s Pension
(617) 179 179 15,000 Continue Funding
LTGO Debt Serv (231) 214,163 214,272 169,875 Scheduled payment
2014 Debt Serv (232) 966,286 966,286 925,310 Scheduled payment
Cemetery Fund (130) 40,186 40,186 40,000 Operating transfer
Street Fund (111) 400,000 400,000 400,000 Operating transfer
Street Construction
(112) 679,000 363,000 706,000 $550,000 Streets and
$156,000 carryforward
Municipal Arts (117) 20,000 20,000 15,000 Per City policy
Parks construction 200,000 -- 200,000 Carryforward
Total 2,519,814 2,003,923 2,471,185
• Decision Packages
o DP #9: $250,000 – Reserves for Council Designated Projects
o DP #10: $2,500 – Economic Alliance of Snohomish County
o DP #11: $1,000 – Washington Aerospace Partnership
o DP #27: $200,000 – Carry Forward for Edmonds Marsh/Daylighting Willow Creek
o DP #33: $550,000 – Street Preservation Funding
o DP #34: $50,000 – Trackside Warning System
o DP #35: $210,000 – ESCO IV Funding
o DP #36: $106,000 – SR 104 Transportation Corridor Study
• Other Finance Managed funds
o LEOFF Medical
o Risk Management
o Contingency Reserve
o Employee Parking
o LID and Debt Service Funds
o Fireman’s Pension
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to DP #10 and asked whether the City had paid that in the past.
Mr. James responded the City has paid $7,500/year in the past; the Economic Alliance is asking the City
to contribute up to $10,000. DP #10 is the $2,500 difference. The Alliance has ongoing costs they must
meet and have not requested an increase in recent years.
Council President Buckshnis referred to DP #27 and suggested setting up a fund similar to the Flower
Program to allow tax-deductible donations and to avoid carrying forward the funds.
Council President Buckshnis commented she was not in favor of a 16% increase for Fire District 1 and
found that amount extremely disturbing and atrocious. Mr. James advised the numbers are placeholders
acknowledging the City received the bill and that there will be increases in the future.
Development Services
Packet Page 23 of 458
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained Development Services handles permitting,
provides information to the public about property, and does code enforcement and long range planning.
She reviewed the following:
• Accomplishments
o Permit & inspection activity continues to be at high level
o Positive feedback from most customers
o Permit valuation and revenue—significant increases in 2014
o GMA- Major Comp Plan Update—in progress (due mid-2015)
o Westgate Zoning proposal—prepared
o Development Code Update—products from legal consultant submitted; other work in
progress
o Tree Code Proposal –initial draft prepared (final by end of year)
o Critical Area Code—Consultant selected (project to be completed by mid-2015)
o Green Resource Center—design being finalized; major expenditures to be completed by end
of year
• Challenges
o Schedule for 2015 Comp Plan Update is tight
o Code Update project is proceeding
Legal consultant work completed
RFQ for remaining work issued
Approval of carryforward (DP # 17) will help reach project completion
o Permit activity per employee continuing at very high level
Limits ability to support longer range planning and code initiatives
o Department has huge inventory of paper files, maps, plans that need to be input into a well-
organized database
• Graph of building permits and revenue for January through September 2001 – 2014
• Graph of Building Permits per Development Services Employee
•
Expenditures 2014
Budget
2014 YE
Estimate
2015
Recomm Discussion
Salaries 1,273,306 1,143,200 1,312,415 No new FTEs
Benefits 465,402 416,300 459,602 No new FTEs
Total Department 2,219,366 1,958,802 2,261,629
•
Revenue 2014
Budget
2014 YE
Estimate Discussion
Building Permits 503,000 550,000 Healthy economy & interest in
Edmonds
Dev Services Surchg
(Technology) 38,500 38,500 Relates to DP #18
Other Permits/Approvals
(excl. Engineering) 439,790 494,200 Healthy economy & interest in
Edmonds
• Decision packages
o DP #17: Development Code Update Carryforward
For professional services to complete project - $85,000
o DP #19 – GMA Temporary Extra Help - for 2015 Comp Plan Update to meet state deadline
One-time only- $25,728
o DP #18 – Digitization & Archiving of files, maps, plans
$57,000 in 2015; $32,100 in 2016; $5100 annually thereafter
Packet Page 24 of 458
Councilmember Bloom asked whether $85,000 was sufficient to complete the development code rewrite.
Ms. Hope answered it would accomplish a significant amount of the rewrite but not the entire
development code. Councilmember Bloom asked how much would be needed to complete the entire
development code. Ms. Hope answered that would depend on which chapters are considered the entire
code. She estimated $300,000 in addition to the $85,000 to do the entire development code.
Councilmember Bloom asked for an update during the budget process of what has been done so far. She
felt it was time to deal with this and allocate additional funds to accomplish it. Council President
Buckshnis offered to schedule the update on progress to date at a study session.
Mayor Earling declared a 5 minute recess.
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite reviewed the following:
• Accomplishments
o Installation of new play area at Edmonds City Park with first community build
o Marsh Feasibility Study
o Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor, Stages of History
o PROS plan completion
o Community Cultural Plan completion
o Yost boiler replacement
o Begin Marina Beach Master Plan
o Received Conservation Futures grant for waterfront acquisition
o Begin Dayton Street Plaza
o Replaced Fitness Room equipment
o Concessions Agreements in parks
o YMCA Yost Partnership
o Petanque courts
o Pickleball courts
o Outdoor fitness equipment
o Health & Fitness Expo
o Puget Sound Bird Fest
o WOTS Conference
o Street Scramble
o Park Impact Fees
o Public art project for 5 Corners Roundabout
o Student Conservation Association
o 5,349 volunteer hours, or 2.5 FTE’s
• Challenges
o Staffing capacity, seasonals
o Yost Pool: YMCA
o Park projects
o Director’s time with HR
•
Expenditures
2014
Modified
Budget
2014 YE
Estimate
2015
Recomm Discussion
Administration 408,211 312,050 351,028 Decrease in professional services
Recreation 1,129,326 1,156,120 1,231,582
Increase in professional services due to
success of beach camp, has
corresponding revenue
Programs 591,832 511,836 540,907 2014: Aquatic savings w/ YMCA
partnership. Reorganized camp staffing.
Packet Page 25 of 458
Late tennis start. 2015: school-age day
camp eliminated
Parks Maintenance 1,647,336 1,510,501 1,637,054
2014: Delay in staff hiring. 2015: staff
at full capacity. Increase in seasonal
staff benefits, utilities and interfund
rental.
Flower Program 50,211 39,306 66,135 Increase to seasonal staff benefits and
interfund rental
Total Budget 3,826,916 3,529,813 3,826,706
•
Revenue 2014
Modified
Budget
2014 YE
Estimate
2015
Recomm
Discussion
Aquatics 134,250 133,238 134,010
Program Fees 877,000 878,750 935,000 2015: Maximums increasing in summer
camps and added camps
Rentals 153,200 98,565 120,000 Fewer shelter rentals at City Park due
to closure of playground (April – July)
Leases 159,335 161,156 166,772
Park Donations 10,400 12,200 12,200
Total 1,334,185 1,283,909 1,367,982
• Decision Packages/Changes
o Ballfield Groomer - $13,800
o Green House Seeding Machine - $4800
o Reorganization: Reclassification of Recreation Manager to Assistant Director, 5% increase
already in budget. No additional cost for this year.
Ms. Hite thanked the Parks & Recreation team and described the Day at the Beach scarecrows on display
in front of Frances Anderson Center.
Municipal Court
Municipal Court Judge Doug Fair reviewed:
• Accomplishments
o Restructured staff to add a lead clerk position.
o 2014 was a foundation year. We did not complete any new projects but built a base for the
following projects to occur in the next year or two
o Online payments slated to commence by late 2014 or early 2015 to coincide with the City’s
updated website
o New audio/visual upgrade to the court/council chambers
o Electronic filing. Staff members will be attending a conference on successful implementation
of electronic filing
• Challenges
o Caseload increase/decrease depending on police staffing and injuries.
o Can the court integrate with laserfiche software as the platform for an electronic file
management system?
o Integrating new public defender standards.
o New judge
•
Expenditures 2014
Modified
Budget
2014 YE
Estimate
2015
Recomm
Discussion
Packet Page 26 of 458
Interpreter Expense 18,000 10,000 14,000 Caseloads down for 2014, probably rise
in 2015
Miscellaneous 36,000 10,000 11,000 Electronic File Management System
(DP) was not implemented
•
Revenue 2014
Modified
Budget
2014 YE
Estimate
2015
Recomm Discussion
Public Defender
Recoupment 35,000 33,000 39,000
Public defender assessment went from
$130 to $200 during 2014 and will be
$200 during 2015
Infractions 310,000 273,000 293,000
Traffic infraction filings were down
significantly in 2014 and we anticipate
some increase in 2015
• Decision Package
o Electronic File Management System
City receives funds from “Washington State Court Improvements Account.” Funds are
restricted and must to be used only for improving the court's efficiency. Balance in this
account as of today is $59,851
Mayor Earling advised Item 14 would be delayed to next week’s study session. He announced the
Council would hold a 5 minute executive session at the end of the meeting regarding potential litigation
per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 25 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
13. INTENT TO APPROVE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP)
Senior Planner Kernen Lien reviewed the City approval process:
• Assemble complete draft SMP
• Complete SEPA review and documentation
• Provide Growth Management Act 60-day notice of intent to adopt
• Hold public hearing
• Prepare a responsiveness summary
• Approve SMP and submit to Ecology
• Demonstrate compliance with Guidelines
He explained Ecology’s approval process generally takes six months to complete. To prepare the final
SMP for submission to Ecology, Mr. Lien requested direction from the Council regarding:
• Urban Mixed Use IV setback
• Physically separated and functionally isolated provisions
The provisions for Urban Mixed Use IV in the current draft SMP are:
• No residential
• 150-foot setback
• 50-foot vegetative buffer
• Interim designation (2 years)
Packet Page 27 of 458
Mr. Lien explained both the buffer and setback are measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark
(OHWM) which basically is the edge of wetland around the Edmonds Marsh. The total setback is the
current draft SMP is 150 feet; within the 150 setback is a 50-foot vegetative buffer requirement for a total
of 150 feet from the edge of the marsh.
He reviewed staff recommendation for the Urban Mixed Use IV:
• 50-foot setback
o Consistent with BAS and no net loss requirement
o Department of Ecology supports
o Opportunity of enhancement
o 150 foot setback creates nonconforming situation
• Interim designation
Council President Buckshnis apologized for all the work Mr. Lien has done and the discussions they have
had; her intent has always been to have a 100 foot setback which she noted is part of the NOAA
Appendix L requirements. Mr. Lien displayed images of the 100-foot setback and the 150-foot setback
the 50-foot vegetative buffer within the setback.
Councilmember Petso asked about the Appendix L that Council President Buckshnis referred to. Mr. Lien
explained it is funding guidance for three water quality grant programs, Section 319 grants, Centennial
Clean Water Fund grants, and the Water Pollution Control State Revolving Fund loans. He read from
Appendix L, “In July 2011, Western Washington Treaty Tribes released the “Treaty Rights at Risk”
paper. The paper stated treaty-reserved rights to harvest salmon and steelhead are being impaired by
ongoing salmon habitat loss. To address concerns outlined in the paper, tribes approached federal
government agencies that fund environmental work to improve salmon habitat and restore sustainable
salmon fisheries to levels that meet treaty rights.” As a result of the Tribes approaching the federal
government, minimum buffer widths were established to obtain funds from those three grant programs;
the minimum for Willow Creek and Shellabarger Creek is 100 feet.
Councilmember Petso commented the discussion was about the marsh as well as stream buffers; she
asked whether the setback for federal funding for the marsh was a 100 feet or 150 feet. Mr. Lien answered
he was unsure how it would apply in this situation. He identified the locations of Willow and Shellabarger
Creeks, noting they are intricately intertwined with the marsh. He assumed the federal funding would
consider whether a 100-foot setback was provided. The minimum buffer width for intertidal and estuarine
streams and channels in Appendix L is 35-75 feet. A link in the appendix to specific stream buffers
identifies a 100 foot buffer for Shellabarger Creek channel outlet. He would need to conduct further
research to confirm the buffers.
Councilmember Petso asked how difficult it would be to correct the setback in the future if the Council
got it wrong tonight. Mr. Lien answered six months; Ecology’s approval process for a minor amendment
is the same as a complete SMP update.
Councilmember Johnson asked when the two year interim period would start; the day the SMP is
submitted to Ecology of the date it is approved by Ecology. Mr. Lien advised the SMP becomes effective
14 days after Ecology grants approval; the 2 year period would start from then.
Council President Buckshnis expressed support for the interim designation, noting it would provide time
for the City to have discussions with the Port, WSDOT and Unocal.
Mr. Lien provided information regarding physically separated/functionally isolated provisions:
24.40.020.F.2.g – Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated Buffers
g. Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated Buffers.
Packet Page 28 of 458
i. Areas which are both physically separated and functionally isolated from a wetland and do
not protect the wetland from adverse impacts due to preexisting public roads, structures, or
similar circumstances, shall be excluded from the buffers otherwise required by this
subsection.
ii. A critical area report prepared by a qualified professional is required to determine whether
the buffer is functionally isolated.
He displayed a lidar map and identified areas east of the railroad tracks. The marsh becoming a shoreline
of the state expanded the shoreline jurisdiction into Harbor Square and Unocal properties on the north and
south sides of the marsh as well as made other areas with shoreline jurisdiction. A buffer provides
protection to a critical area; it does not provide that function when it is physically separated and
functionally isolated. In this case, the railroad separates a portion of the Port property from the marsh and
does not provide any protection or function to the marsh.
Councilmember Petso recalled previous discussion about the application of physically separated and
functionally isolated to situations through the City such as a road in City Park separating the spray park
from a wetland. She asked whether there was a way to limit the SMP to only this one example. Mr. Lien
answered the SMP impacts shoreline jurisdictions; City Park is not in shoreline jurisdiction and none of
the other streams in the City are within shoreline jurisdiction. Councilmember Petso asked whether it
would apply to the path or tennis courts between the north end of the marsh and some areas of Harbor
Square. Mr. Lien advised that determination is made by a qualified professional. He displayed the map,
identifying the 50-foot vegetative buffer and the 100-foot setback. The physically separated and
functionally isolated provision is in the critical areas section of the SMP and applies specifically to
wetland buffers.
Mr. Lien advised the resolution in the packet was a draft and would be returned to Council for approval
on the Consent Agenda at a subsequent meeting.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE A 100 FOOT SETBACK, NO RESIDENTIAL AND AN INTERIM
DESIGNATION.
Councilmember Petso asked for clarification whether the motion included a 50-foot vegetative buffer. Mr.
Lien explained the draft SMP has a 150-foot setback with a 50 foot vegetative buffer; the motion would
change that to a 100-foot setback with a 50-foot vegetative buffer. Council President Buckshnis agreed
that was the intent of her motion.
For Councilmember Peterson, Mr. Lien advised the current draft SMP did not allow residential
development in the Urban Mixed Use IV. Councilmember Peterson said he was not completely
comfortable with excluding residential but likely could move forward.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Lien for his recommendation regarding physically separated
and functionally isolated. Mr. Lien recommended retaining it.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO RETAIN PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED.
Councilmember Johnson asked how that would have been interpreted for the American Brewing
Company silo and the Jacobsen’s Marine project. Mr. Lien displayed the image of a 100-foot setback and
50-foot buffer. He identified the location of silo, explaining under the SMP it would not have been
allowed because it added new structures within the setback area. The Jacobsen’s Marine project is
Packet Page 29 of 458
physically separated and functionally isolated from the marsh; that project was approved when the interim
CAO was in place and they were allowed to build under the physically separated and functionally isolated
provision.
Mr. Lien explained the interim CAO had a physically separated and functionally isolated provision and it
allowed development within the previously developed footprint. The American Brewery silo was
constructed within the impervious surface area defined as the previously developed footprint. Both the
American Brewery and Jacobsen’s Marine project were required to provide enhancement and some buffer
enhancement in the marsh is occurring as a result of those two projects.
Councilmember Petso asked how many other projects came in during period the interim ordinance was in
effect. Mr. Lien answered those two and the City Park spray pad.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO.
14. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES
PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
This item was delayed to a future meeting via action take at the conclusion of Item 12.
15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling thanked the Council for approving the judge’s job description and confirming the
position’s salary and benefits. The search will begin search tomorrow and he hoped to have a new judge
in place by mid -December.
Mayor Earling announced his reappointment of Darlene Stern and appointment of Jamie Reece to the
Economic Development Commission.
16. COUNCIL COMMENTS - None
17. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
At 10:25 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
potential litigation per RCW 42.30.140(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 and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Finance Director
Scott James and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 10:30 p.m.
18. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 10:30 p.m.
19. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:31 p.m.
Packet Page 30 of 458
AM-7228 4. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/28/2014
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 #211134 through #211230 dated October 23, 2014 for $434,427.53.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61241 through #61251 & check 61258 for $471,609.49,
benefit checks #61252 through #61257 and wire payments of $440,543.26 for the period October 1, 2014
through October 15, 2014.
Recommendation
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2014
Revenue:
Expenditure:1,346,580.28
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $434,427.53
Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $471,609.49
Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $440,543.26
Total Payroll $912,152.75
Attachments
Claim cks 10-23-14
Project Numbers 10-23-14
Payroll Summary 10-20-14
Packet Page 31 of 458
Payroll Summary 10-20-14
Payroll Benefit 10-20-14
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 10/23/2014 10:30 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/23/2014 10:39 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/23/2014 10:45 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/23/2014 01:11 PM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 10/23/2014 08:17 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/23/2014
Packet Page 32 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211134 10/23/2014 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 340884 WWTP - PEST CONTROL
October Service
423.000.76.535.80.41.23 73.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.23 6.94
Total :79.94
211135 10/23/2014 068657 ACCOUNTEMPS 41392797 TEMPORARY HELP FINANCE DEPT WEEK ENDING
Temporary help week ending 10/3/14 - C
001.000.31.514.23.41.00 1,740.00
Total :1,740.00
211136 10/23/2014 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 9580 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES
MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES
421.000.74.534.80.33.00 151,780.66
Total :151,780.66
211137 10/23/2014 065568 ALLWATER INC 101614049 WWTP - DRINKING WATER
cups and cooler
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 20.00
water
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 40.15
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1.90
Total :62.05
211138 10/23/2014 074840 AMERICAN FOREST MANAGEMENT 73876 ARBORIST SERVICES-HUTT PARK
ARBORIST SERVICES-HUTT PARK
001.000.64.576.80.41.00 4,250.00
Total :4,250.00
211139 10/23/2014 075064 ANNA SHER CUSTOM METALWORKS ART REPAIR-SHER WEATHERVANE WITH GLASS REPAIR
WEATHERVANE WITH GLASS REPAIR
117.200.64.575.50.41.00 1,150.00
9.5% Sales Tax
1Page:
Packet Page 33 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211139 10/23/2014 (Continued)075064 ANNA SHER CUSTOM METALWORKS
117.200.64.575.50.41.00 109.25
Total :1,259.25
211140 10/23/2014 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987671965 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS, & TOWELS
wwtp uniforms
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80
wwtp mats & towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 72.21
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.11 6.86
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1987671966
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00 37.74
Total :120.97
211141 10/23/2014 075061 ARTSITE LTD LLC 1031 ART MAINTENANCE
SCULPTURE MAINTENANCE FOR BEACH LAUNCH
117.200.64.575.50.41.00 592.49
9.5% Sales Tax
117.200.64.575.50.41.00 56.29
Total :648.78
211142 10/23/2014 074506 ATLAS SALES & RENTALS INC 93233-0014 COOLING SYSTEM RENTAL - SERVER ROOM CITY
Cooling system rental - 10/7/14 -
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 295.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 28.03
Total :323.03
211143 10/23/2014 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST Nov AWC 2014 NOV AWC 2014
Nov AWC 2014
811.000.231.510 62,790.39
Total :62,790.39
2Page:
Packet Page 34 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211144 10/23/2014 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 0791877-IN Fleet Auto Propane 463.1 Gal
Fleet Auto Propane 463.1 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12 900.89
Fleet Auto Propane 196.8 Gal0792273-IN
Fleet Auto Propane 196.8 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12 387.73
Fleet Auto Propane 575.6 Gal0793700-IN
Fleet Auto Propane 575.6 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12 1,071.06
Total :2,359.68
211145 10/23/2014 065341 BRIANS UPHOLSTERY 718308 Unit 28 - Rebuild & Recover Seat
Unit 28 - Rebuild & Recover Seat
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 325.00
8.6% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 27.95
Total :352.95
211146 10/23/2014 066914 BUSINESS TELECOM PRODUCTS INC 229868 Uniband & Ear Cushions for DSD
Uniband & Ear Cushions for DSD
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 28.42
Total :28.42
211147 10/23/2014 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 14258312 Council Office lease of printer/copier
Council Office lease of printer/copier
001.000.11.511.60.45.00 30.65
CANON CONTRACT CHARGES14258313
Canon contract charges C1030
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 9.33
Canon contract charges C1030
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 9.33
Canon contract charges C1030
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 9.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 0.89
9.5% Sales Tax
3Page:
Packet Page 35 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211147 10/23/2014 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.88
INV#14258316 CUST#572105 - EDMONDS PD14258316
B/W METER USE 8/31-9/30/14 (4)
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 123.44
COLOR METER USE 8/31-9/30/14 (2)
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 113.11
MONTHLY COPY RENTAL (4)
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 581.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00 77.72
CITY CLERK COPIER LEASE14258317
Lease City Clerk's Copier
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 466.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 44.36
RECEPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEASE14258319
Recept. desk copier lease
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 20.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.91
C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 001-0572105-00414264016
Finance dept copier contract charge
001.000.31.514.23.45.00 249.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.45.00 23.75
Total :1,764.26
211148 10/23/2014 070334 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS STORES 2523-234562 Unit EQ93PO - Supplies
Unit EQ93PO - Supplies
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 14.84
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 1.41
4Page:
Packet Page 36 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :16.2521114810/23/2014 070334 070334 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS STORES
211149 10/23/2014 068484 CEMEX LLC 9429481580 Storm Dump Fees
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 226.37
Street - Cement9429481581
Street - Cement
111.000.68.542.61.31.00 238.75
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.61.31.00 22.68
Roadway - Asphalt9429500106
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 212.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 20.15
Roadway - Asphalt9429511530
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 643.50
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 61.13
Roadway - Asphalt9429519555
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 478.50
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 45.46
Roadway - Asphalt9429526897
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 585.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00 55.58
Total :2,589.22
211150 10/23/2014 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY XC18588 WWTP - SUPPLIES, 80PPM, CABON MONOXIDE
80ppm carbon monoxide,
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1,044.79
9.5% Sales Tax
5Page:
Packet Page 37 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211150 10/23/2014 (Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 99.26
Total :1,144.05
211151 10/23/2014 065403 CHAPIN, FRANCES 10/17 REIMB EXP WOTS 10/17 REIMB EXP WOTS
COSTCO SUPPLIES FOR WOTS CONFERENCE
117.100.64.573.20.31.00 498.17
10/20/2014 REIMB10/20/2014 REIMB
MEALS FOR FRANCES AT NOWPAC CONFERENCE
001.000.64.571.22.43.00 14.63
MILEAGE TO NOWPAC CONFERENCE, RICHMOND
001.000.64.571.22.43.00 140.00
LODGING FOR NOWPAC CONFERENCE RICHMOND,
001.000.64.571.22.43.00 105.10
REGISTRATION FOR NOWPAC CONFERENCE CITY
001.000.64.571.22.49.00 10.67
Total :768.57
211152 10/23/2014 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 11058 MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
423.000.75.535.80.47.20 27,602.00
Total :27,602.00
211153 10/23/2014 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC 23K-046894 Fac Maint - Supplies
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.82
Total :21.03
211154 10/23/2014 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2708927-1 City Hall - Gasket Dome Extractors
City Hall - Gasket Dome Extractors
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 14.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.42
PARKS MAINT SUPPLIESW2711148
6Page:
Packet Page 38 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211154 10/23/2014 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS
NIFTY NABBER PRO
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 173.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 16.53
Total :206.89
211155 10/23/2014 004377 COLE INDUSTRIAL INC 274328 PS - Supplies
PS - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 31.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.99
Total :34.49
211156 10/23/2014 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 349352 E1AA.SERVICES THRU 9/27/14
E1AA.Services thru 9/27/14
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 3,152.09
Total :3,152.09
211157 10/23/2014 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 370614 Fleet Shop Supplies
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 51.00
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 10.23
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 5.82
Total :67.05
211158 10/23/2014 074303 DENT DESTROYER INC C0902140 Unit 449 POL - Repairs
Unit 449 POL - Repairs
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 150.00
Unit 123 - RepairsC1001141
Unit 123 - Repairs
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 125.00
Total :275.00
7Page:
Packet Page 39 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211159 10/23/2014 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY L1400002-01 WWTP - DEPT OF ECOLOGY - LOAN REPAYMENT
Principal
423.000.76.591.39.78.10 19,115.66
Agency Service Fees
423.000.76.592.35.89.00 1,169.31
Total :20,284.97
211160 10/23/2014 073757 DEX MEDIA WEST INC 651150804 CEMETERY DEX ADVERTISING
CEMETERY DEX ADVERTISING
130.000.64.536.20.44.00 64.32
Total :64.32
211161 10/23/2014 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 14-3485 INV#14-3485 - EDMONDS PD
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #14-2901
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 82.50
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #14-3441
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 105.60
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #14-1343
001.000.41.521.21.41.00 257.40
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #IA14-006
001.000.41.521.10.41.00 95.70
EDC MINUTETAKER JULY - SEPTEMBER 201414-3486
EDC minutetaker July - September 2014
001.000.61.558.70.41.00 381.30
MINUTE TAKING14-3489
Council Minutes 10/14
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 283.80
Total :1,206.30
211162 10/23/2014 069912 EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DIST WOTS - 702 WOTS KEYNOTE RENTAL
WOTS KEYNOTE RENTAL
117.100.64.573.20.45.00 1,598.80
Total :1,598.80
211163 10/23/2014 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 221740 INV#221740 CLIENT #308 - EDMONDS PD
TRIFEXIS #6 FOR HOBBS
8Page:
Packet Page 40 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211163 10/23/2014 (Continued)008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL
001.000.41.521.26.31.00 128.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.26.31.00 12.25
Total :141.19
211164 10/23/2014 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 45 W DAYTON ST
45 W DAYTON ST
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 694.30
90 RAILROAD AVE1-00825
90 RAILROAD AVE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,156.17
21 MAIN1-00875
21 MAIN
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 49.55
625 SUNSET AVE1-02125
625 SUNSET AVE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 67.42
290 MAIN ST1-03710
290 MAIN ST
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.65
290 DAYTON ST1-03900
290 DAYTON ST
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 147.87
101 2ND AVE N1-05125
101 2ND AVE N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.65
102 W DAYTON ST1-05285
102 W DAYTON ST
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.65
190 DAYTON ST1-05340
190 DAYTON ST
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 141.91
600 3RD AVE S1-05650
600 3RD AVE S
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.65
9Page:
Packet Page 41 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211164 10/23/2014 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
600 3RD AVE S1-05675
600 3RD AVE S
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 986.76
600 3RD AVE S1-05700
600 3RD AVE S
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 195.54
350 MAIN ST1-09650
350 MAIN ST
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 82.32
390 DAYTON ST1-09800
390 DAYTON ST
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 153.82
490 MAIN ST1-10778
490 MAIN ST
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 135.95
500 MAIN ST1-10780
500 MAIN ST
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 70.40
439 5TH AVE S1-16130
439 5TH AVE S
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 162.76
500 DAYTON ST1-16300
500 DAYTON ST
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 433.88
118 5TH AVE N1-16420
118 5TH AVE N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 52.53
150 5TH AVE N1-16450
150 5TH AVE N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 172.24
575 MAIN ST1-16630
575 MAIN ST
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 249.16
590 DAYTON ST1-17475
590 DAYTON ST
10Page:
Packet Page 42 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211164 10/23/2014 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 159.78
610 PINE ST1-19950
610 PINE ST
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 69.23
1141 9TH AVE S1-36255
1141 9TH AVE S
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.65
Total :5,354.84
211165 10/23/2014 068803 EJ USA INC 3775259 Storm - Storm Drain and Cover installed
Storm - Storm Drain and Cover installed
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 454.30
8.8% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 39.98
Total :494.28
211166 10/23/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 105715 ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTENANCE
Maintenance for printers 10/21/14 -
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 343.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 32.68
Total :376.66
211167 10/23/2014 047407 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 312 000 093 ES REF # 94513310 7
Q3-2014 Unemployment Insurance
001.000.39.517.78.23.00 552.48
Total :552.48
211168 10/23/2014 008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES 19138 FRIDAY NIGHT 19138 FRIDAY NIGHT DANCE INSTRUCTOR FEE
19138 FRIDAY NIGHT DANCE INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 348.00
19140 FRIDAY NIGHT DANCE INSTRUCTOR FEE19140 FRIDAY NIGHT
19140 FRIDAY NIGHT DANCE INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 290.00
Total :638.00
11Page:
Packet Page 43 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211169 10/23/2014 074098 ERGOSYNCH LLC EDM2101-02 WWTP - ON CALL PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
Task Order 1.14 - Switchgear
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 4,755.00
Task Order 2.14 - Emergency Response
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1,312.50
Task Order 9.14(2) Hach WiMS Historian
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 4,050.00
Task Order 9.14(3) Hypo Programming
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 300.00
Total :10,417.50
211170 10/23/2014 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH593507 NEWSPAPER ADS
Ord.3976 to 3979
001.000.25.514.30.44.00 61.92
Public HearingEDH594243
Public Hearing
001.000.25.514.30.44.00 46.44
Total :108.36
211171 10/23/2014 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU33654 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES
DOOR PULL, 4NONREMPNHNG, SFTHASP, FLNG
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 47.38
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.50
PARKS MAINT SUPPLIESWAMOU33657
MACH LIFT EYE 5/8
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 24.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.37
Fleet Shop SuppliesWAMOU33663
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 103.88
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 9.86
Fleet Shop Tool - OLP ReelWAMOU33676
Fleet Shop Tool - OLP Reel
12Page:
Packet Page 44 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211171 10/23/2014 (Continued)066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
511.000.77.548.68.35.00 366.41
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.35.00 34.81
Total :594.17
211172 10/23/2014 074631 FLEX SYSTEMS LLC 50886 WWTP - COMPUTER, SOFTWARE RENEWAL
Flex PDA Software Contract
423.000.76.535.80.49.00 286.00
Total :286.00
211173 10/23/2014 069469 FLINT TRADING INC 175744 Traffic - Street Letters, Arrows,
Traffic - Street Letters, Arrows,
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 6,648.32
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 631.60
Total :7,279.92
211174 10/23/2014 011900 FRONTIER 425-775-1344 RANGER STATION PHONE
RANGER STATION PHONE
001.000.64.571.23.42.00 63.04
Total :63.04
211175 10/23/2014 072594 GD OTS SIMUNITION OPERATIONS 50000941-5 INV 50000941-5 EDMONDS PD - H.K. CRYSTAL
SIMUNITION TRAINING COURSE 10/21-10/23
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 595.00
Total :595.00
211176 10/23/2014 012199 GRAINGER 9561189375 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES
V BELTS, B44 AND B45
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 64.42
9.2% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.93
PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES9563433078
PADLOCKS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 73.26
13Page:
Packet Page 45 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211176 10/23/2014 (Continued)012199 GRAINGER
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.96
Total :150.57
211177 10/23/2014 073880 HITE, CARRIE 10/22/14 EXP REIMB 10/22/14 EXP REIMB NRPA CONGRESS
AIRPORT TRANSPORTATION, CHARLOTTE NC
001.000.64.571.21.43.00 64.00
PER DIEM FOR TRAVEL TO NRPA CONGRESS,
001.000.64.571.21.43.00 337.00
Total :401.00
211178 10/23/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2526662 Office supplies
Office supplies
001.000.22.521.10.31.00 121.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.22.521.10.31.00 11.51
SCREEN CLEANING WIPES FOR IS2528775
CRT Screen Cleaning Wipes
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 11.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.31.00 1.09
LIQUID HAND SOAP FOR RESTROOMS2528789
Dove liquid hand for for restrooms
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 23.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 2.28
Total :171.54
211179 10/23/2014 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 12419416 C/A 768328
PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 950.55
Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929;
001.000.61.558.70.42.00 6.46
Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines
001.000.61.558.70.42.00 6.46
14Page:
Packet Page 46 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :963.4721117910/23/2014 071634 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM
211180 10/23/2014 070192 JA SEXAUER 320641095 FAC - MVP Actuator Repair Kit, Supplies
FAC - MVP Actuator Repair Kit, Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 80.64
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.66
PW - Regulator Kit321354201
PW - Regulator Kit
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 49.52
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.70
Total :142.52
211181 10/23/2014 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 3411 FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNECTION
Oct-14 Fiber Optics Internet Connection
001.000.31.518.87.42.00 468.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.87.42.00 44.46
Total :512.46
211182 10/23/2014 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 635082 WWTP - HYPOCHLORITE
hypochlorite solution
423.000.76.535.80.31.53 2,730.48
Total :2,730.48
211183 10/23/2014 062549 KSER FOUNDATION 4 WOTS KEYNOTE AD
WOTS KEYNOTE AD
117.100.64.573.20.44.00 200.00
Total :200.00
211184 10/23/2014 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 10072014-03 City Car Washes
City Car Washes
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 10.06
Total :10.06
211185 10/23/2014 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 4408534 SHREDDING SERVICES
15Page:
Packet Page 47 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211185 10/23/2014 (Continued)075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING
City Clerk Shred Console
001.000.25.514.30.41.00 8.40
Fin. Shred Console
001.000.31.514.23.41.00 8.40
Total :16.80
211186 10/23/2014 019582 MANOR HARDWARE 583714-00 Storm - Supplies
Storm - Supplies
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 25.29
9.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 2.40
Total :27.69
211187 10/23/2014 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 14586944 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL
open top canvas bag
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 172.14
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 7.90
Total :180.04
211188 10/23/2014 072010 MEISER, GARLAND 10/20 MONITOR 10/20 PICKLEBALL MONITOR
10/20 PICKLEBALL MONITOR
001.000.64.575.52.41.00 10.00
Total :10.00
211189 10/23/2014 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 199240 WWTP - PROPANE
propane for forklift
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 44.75
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00 4.25
Street - Brush Cutter199645
Street - Brush Cutter
111.000.68.542.71.35.00 479.96
Hand Held Blower
111.000.68.542.71.35.00 127.46
16Page:
Packet Page 48 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211189 10/23/2014 (Continued)020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
Supplies for Cutter
111.000.68.542.71.35.00 33.44
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.71.35.00 60.88
PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES199703
TUNE UP KIT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 19.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.90
PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES199704
TUNE UP KIT, FUEL LINE, FUEL LINE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 42.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.00
Total :818.74
211190 10/23/2014 072833 MVP 9/30/14 DEPT PHOTO 9/30/14 EDMONDS POLICE DEPT. PHOTO SHOOT
9/30 PD PHOTO SHOOT WITH PRINT& CD
001.000.41.521.10.41.00 425.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.41.00 40.38
Total :465.38
211191 10/23/2014 074306 NEBCO/NPRIT 3416095 LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums
LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums
617.000.51.522.20.23.00 1,283.53
LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums
009.000.39.517.20.23.00 9,101.67
Total :10,385.20
211192 10/23/2014 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 55925 WWTP - SUPPLIES, SODIUM BISULFITE
Sodium Bisulfite - 38%
423.000.76.535.80.31.54 773.50
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.54 73.48
17Page:
Packet Page 49 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :846.9821119210/23/2014 066391 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC
211193 10/23/2014 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1042900 SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65
EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET2-1043246
EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65
MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET2-1043247
MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65
MARINA BEACH PARK/DOG PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1044211
MARINA BEACH PARK/DOG PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 609.05
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1046009
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65
CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET2-1046408
CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY BUCKET2-1047364
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65
Total :1,302.95
211194 10/23/2014 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 508 HPC minute taker 9/18/14
HPC minute taker 9/18/14
001.000.62.558.60.41.00 66.00
HPC,minute taker000 00 514
HPC,minute taker
001.000.62.558.60.41.00 132.00
Total :198.00
211195 10/23/2014 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 099227 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office supplies returns
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 -82.06
18Page:
Packet Page 50 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211195 10/23/2014 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 -7.79
OFFICE SUPPLIES866689
Office Supplies
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 161.54
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 15.34
OFFICE SUPPLIES866852
Office Supplies
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 85.03
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00 8.09
P&R OFFICE SUPPLIES949423
LAMINATING POUCHES, TISSUES
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 45.53
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 4.33
Total :230.01
211196 10/23/2014 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 12066 PARKS MAINT YOST POOL SUPPLIES
YOST POOL SUPPLIES: HARBORLITE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 90.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.57
Total :98.77
211197 10/23/2014 072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 1649636 Unit 304 - Supplies
Unit 304 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 81.36
Unit 114 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.52
Total :98.88
211198 10/23/2014 071402 PACIFIC NW FLOAT TRIPS 19061 GOLD PANNING 19061 GOLD PANNING INSTRUCTOR FEE
19061 GOLD PANNING INSTRUCTOR FEE
19Page:
Packet Page 51 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211198 10/23/2014 (Continued)071402 PACIFIC NW FLOAT TRIPS
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 169.50
Total :169.50
211199 10/23/2014 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 181373 PARKS MAINT YARD WASTE
PARKS MAINT YARD WASTE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 292.50
PARKS MAINT YARD WASTE182101
PARKS MAINT YARD WASTE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 120.00
PARKS MAINT YARD WASTE182114
PARKS MAINT YARD WASTE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 120.00
PARKS MAINT YARD WASTE182128
PARKS MAINT YARD WASTE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 120.00
PARKS MAINT YARD WASTE182145
PARKS MAINT YARD WASTE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 120.00
Total :772.50
211200 10/23/2014 075065 PASSEY, SCOTT 102014 TRAVEL EXPENSES TO CONFERENCE
Mileage to conference
001.000.25.514.30.43.00 203.84
Total :203.84
211201 10/23/2014 073070 PERRINE, JULIE 19095 CLAY EXPLOR 19095 CLAY EXPLORATION INSTRUCTOR FEE
19095 CLAY EXPLORATION INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 217.00
Total :217.00
211202 10/23/2014 073871 PERSONNEL EVALUATION INC 10685 INV 10685 EDMONDS PD - SEPT 2014
PERSONNEL EVAL. PROFILE
001.000.41.521.10.41.00 20.00
Total :20.00
211203 10/23/2014 064552 PITNEY BOWES 9607730OT14 Lease 09/30 to 10/30
20Page:
Packet Page 52 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211203 10/23/2014 (Continued)064552 PITNEY BOWES
Lease 09/30 to 10/30
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 718.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00 68.26
Total :786.86
211204 10/23/2014 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC F267932 Fac Maint - Lamps
Fac Maint - Lamps
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 163.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.57
PW - SuppliesF295840
PW - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.00
Fac Maint - Drill bits
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 147.16
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.43
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 13.98
FAC - PartsF295890
FAC - Parts
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 20.93
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.99
Traffic - SuppliesF355867
Traffic - Supplies
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 99.77
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 9.48
Total :489.23
211205 10/23/2014 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 213243 Atsi Return Mail Fees
Atsi Return Mail Fees
111.000.68.542.90.49.00 138.43
21Page:
Packet Page 53 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211205 10/23/2014 (Continued)071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
Atsi Packaging for return ship fees213244
Atsi Packaging for return ship fees
111.000.68.542.90.49.00 18.49
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.49.00 1.81
Total :158.73
211206 10/23/2014 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 3870 PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY
PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY
422.000.72.531.90.51.00 2,966.52
Total :2,966.52
211207 10/23/2014 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET 19246 FELDENKRAIS 19246 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTOR FEE
19246 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTOR FEE
001.000.64.575.54.41.00 96.00
Total :96.00
211208 10/23/2014 066159 PUBLIC AGENCY TRAINING COUNCIL 183880 INV 183880 EDMONDS PD - FROLAND - HOSTAG
HOSTAGE NEGOTIATIONS PH 1 & 2 - FROLAND
001.000.41.521.40.49.00 525.00
Total :525.00
211209 10/23/2014 068697 PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING INC 2014-5729 Q3 Police Officer Testing
Q3 Police Officer Testing
001.000.22.518.10.41.00 700.00
Total :700.00
211210 10/23/2014 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000149579 CEMETERY VASES
CEMETERY VASES
130.000.64.536.20.34.00 540.00
Total :540.00
211211 10/23/2014 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 0000048001 Storm Dump Fees
Storm Dump Fees
422.000.72.531.10.49.00 365.84
22Page:
Packet Page 54 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :365.8421121110/23/2014 062657 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY
211212 10/23/2014 069593 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC 01804-406573 Unit 252 - Windshield Repair
Unit 252 - Windshield Repair
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 29.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00 2.85
Total :32.80
211213 10/23/2014 074799 SEATTLE HOME APPLICANCE LS00003244 Library - Electric Range and Cord
Library - Electric Range and Cord
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 496.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 47.12
Total :543.12
211214 10/23/2014 073690 SMILEY-FAIRBANKS, MONA ON THE FENCE ON THE FENCE ART INSTALLATION
ON THE FENCE ART INSTALLATION
117.200.64.575.50.41.00 300.00
Total :300.00
211215 10/23/2014 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 14-128 Q3-14 EMS BILLING & POSTAGE
Q3-14 Ambulance billings & postage
001.000.39.522.70.41.00 11,500.54
Total :11,500.54
211216 10/23/2014 066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS I000367044 E4CA/E4CB/SUNSET FOG SEAL THRU AUGUST 20
E4CA services thru August 2014
112.200.68.595.33.41.00 9,955.64
E4CB services thru August 2014
112.200.68.595.33.65.00 24,278.00
Sunset Fog Seal
111.000.68.542.31.49.00 2,787.27
Total :37,020.91
211217 10/23/2014 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-6027-1 YOST POOL
YOST POOL
23Page:
Packet Page 55 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211217 10/23/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,189.38
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION2025-4064-7
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 32.33
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 10001353812030-9778-7
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 1000135381
423.000.76.535.80.47.61 27,558.41
Total :29,780.12
211218 10/23/2014 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY I000367520 PARKS MAINT SOLID WASTE SEPT
PARKS MAINT SOLID WASTE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,532.00
Total :1,532.00
211219 10/23/2014 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 56133 INV#56133 - EDMONDS PD
LOCKER MAGNET - HAUGHAIN
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 4.50
MAGNETIC TAG - HAUGHAIN
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 6.00
LOCKER MAGNET - BORST
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 4.50
MAGNETIC TAG - BORST
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 6.00
Freight
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 2.75
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 2.26
Total :26.01
211220 10/23/2014 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 104757 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / ASH DISPOSAL
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / ASH DISPOSAL
423.000.76.535.80.47.65 3,134.75
Total :3,134.75
211221 10/23/2014 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 11415561 Fleet Shop Supplies
24Page:
Packet Page 56 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211221 10/23/2014 (Continued)040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 13.61
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 1.29
Fleet Shop Supplies11416707
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 240.82
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 22.88
Total :278.60
211222 10/23/2014 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 391096 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES
REPAIR KIT W/WHEEL HANDLE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 58.67
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.58
Total :64.25
211223 10/23/2014 068105 THORSON BARNETT & MCDONALD PC 69062 Legal services
Legal services
001.000.22.518.10.41.00 46.00
Legal Services69063
Legal Services
001.000.22.518.10.41.00 62.00
Total :108.00
211224 10/23/2014 061233 TOWN & COUNTRY CHRYSLER 373087 Unit 252 - Probe Air
Unit 252 - Probe Air
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 38.68
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 20.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.67
Unit 252 - Housing373100
Unit 252 - Housing
25Page:
Packet Page 57 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211224 10/23/2014 (Continued)061233 TOWN & COUNTRY CHRYSLER
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 86.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.21
Total :156.96
211225 10/23/2014 043935 UPS 00002T4T13384 UPS delivery services
UPS delivery services
001.000.62.524.20.41.00 4.21
Total :4.21
211226 10/23/2014 062693 US BANK 2985 WWTP - SEPTEMBER 2014 CC CHARGES
Heathman Lodge - Training, Les Krestel
423.000.76.535.80.43.00 423.30
Electronic Scan, blueprints
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 35.18
Cisco Catalyst Switch
423.100.76.594.39.65.00 1,016.00
WETRC - Activated Sludge Training,
423.000.76.535.80.49.71 840.00
small equipment, process scale
423.000.76.535.80.35.00 27.24
Total :2,341.72
211227 10/23/2014 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-9829 PARKS MAINT FISH HATCHERY TREE MAINT
PARKS MAINT FISH HATCHERY TREE MAINT
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 280.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 26.60
PARKS MAINT PINE RIDGE PARK TREE MAINT06-9830
PARKS MAINT PINE RIDGE PARK TREE MAINT
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 280.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 26.60
MINI PARK TREE MAINTENANCE06-9839
MINI PARK TREE MAINTENANCE
26Page:
Packet Page 58 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211227 10/23/2014 (Continued)067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 3,200.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00 304.00
Total :4,117.20
211228 10/23/2014 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6467 BUSINESS CARDS FOR DEV SERV AND FINANCE
Business Cards-Patrick Lawler250-00322
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 20.60
Henry Schroder250-00322
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 20.60
Shane Hope250-00322
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 20.60
Kernen Lien250-00322
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 20.60
Denise Kenyon250-00322
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 20.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 7.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00 1.96
Total :112.79
211229 10/23/2014 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 0000026188 Traffic Control - Pushbutton Housings
Traffic Control - Pushbutton Housings
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 916.63
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 87.08
Total :1,003.71
211230 10/23/2014 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0172402 Traffic - Caps and Crosspieces
Traffic - Caps and Crosspieces
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 785.00
Freight
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 40.96
9.5% Sales Tax
27Page:
Packet Page 59 of 458
10/23/2014
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
8:02:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
211230 10/23/2014 (Continued)051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 78.47
Total :904.43
Bank total :434,427.5397 Vouchers for bank code :usbank
434,427.53Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report97
28Page:
Packet Page 60 of 458
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 10/23/2014 Packet Page 61 of 458
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 10/23/2014 Packet Page 62 of 458
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 10/23/2014 Packet Page 63 of 458
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 10/23/2014 Packet Page 64 of 458
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 10/23/2014 Packet Page 65 of 458
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 10/23/2014 Packet Page 66 of 458
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 10/23/2014 Packet Page 67 of 458
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 10/23/2014 Packet Page 68 of 458
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 10/23/2014 Packet Page 69 of 458
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 10/23/2014 Packet Page 70 of 458
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 10/23/2014 Packet Page 71 of 458
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 10/23/2014 Packet Page 72 of 458
Packet Page 73 of 458
Packet Page 74 of 458
Packet Page 75 of 458
Packet Page 76 of 458
AM-7227 4. C.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/28/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Department:City Clerk's Office
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Mariner Plaza Condominium Owners Association
($6,675.87), John C. Stillian ($571.22), and Frontier (amount undetermined).
Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by minute entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
John C. Stillian
10 W. Austin Rd.
Spokane, WA 99208
($571.22)
Mariner Plaza Condominium Owners Association
114 Second Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
($6,675.87)
Frontier
CMR Claims Department
P.O. Box 60770
Oklahoma City, OK 73146-4066
(amount undetermined)
Attachments
Stillian Claim for Damages
Mariner Plaza Condo Claim for Damages
Frontier Claim for Damages
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Packet Page 77 of 458
Mayor Dave Earling 10/23/2014 10:45 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/23/2014 01:11 PM
Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 10/20/2014 04:06 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/23/2014
Packet Page 78 of 458
Packet Page 79 of 458
Packet Page 80 of 458
Packet Page 81 of 458
Packet Page 82 of 458
Packet Page 83 of 458
Packet Page 84 of 458
Packet Page 85 of 458
Packet Page 86 of 458
Packet Page 87 of 458
Packet Page 88 of 458
Packet Page 89 of 458
Packet Page 90 of 458
Packet Page 91 of 458
Packet Page 92 of 458
Packet Page 93 of 458
Packet Page 94 of 458
Packet Page 95 of 458
Packet Page 96 of 458
Packet Page 97 of 458
Packet Page 98 of 458
Packet Page 99 of 458
Packet Page 100 of 458
AM-7230 4. D.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/28/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Confirmation of Tom Walker to Position #4 - Landscape Architect of the Architectural Design Board
Recommendation
Mayor Earling recommends Tom Walker's confirmation to Position #4 of the Architectural Design Board
Previous Council Action
Narrative
After interviewing Mr. Walker Mayor Earling recommends his confirmation to Position #4 - Landscape
Architect of the ADB. Mr. Walker will fill the remainder of the term vacated by him in 2013 when he
resigned from the Board to complete his Masters degree abroad. This position has remained open since
Mr. Walker's resignation despite being advertised in press releases, on our website and through an active
recruitment by city staff of members of the Landscape Architecture field. This term will expire in
December 2014.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/23/2014 10:57 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/24/2014 11:41 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/24/2014 01:22 PM
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 10/23/2014 09:38 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/24/2014
Packet Page 101 of 458
AM-7236 4. E.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/28/2014
Time:
Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Scott James
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
September 2014 Budgetary Financial Report
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Attachments
September 2014 Budgary Financial Report
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 10/23/2014 01:08 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/23/2014 01:11 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/23/2014 01:31 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/23/2014 01:32 PM
Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 10/23/2014 01:04 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/23/2014
Packet Page 102 of 458
CITY OF EDMONDS
MONTHLY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2014
Packet Page 103 of 458
City of Edmonds Quarterly Financial Review: September 2014
On a quarterly basis, the Budgetary Financial Report includes a brief review of key financial
information included within the report or affecting the City’s finances.
This report includes a series of cash-basis reports, graphic General Fund trends for
individual department monthly expenditures and key General Fund and enterprise
revenues, and also current year-to-date changes in fund balances.
General Fund Revenues and Expenditures
Year to date, General Fund revenues are equal to 70% of budgeted revenues for the year.
Revenues year to date are 14% greater than 2013’s year to date revenues, however, 2014
revenues include $2.7 million in bond refunding revenues. Without the bond refunding
revenues, 2014 General Fund revenues are $661,213 or 3% greater than 2013 revenues.
Year-to-date Sales Tax revenues are $366,399 ahead of sales tax in 2013 and utility tax
revenues are $167,939 above 2013 receipts. Development related revenues are $409,465
ahead of 2013 revenues. Overall general fund revenues for the first half of 2014, show are
on track to meet anticipated budget amounts.
All General Fund department expenditures are on track to meet or come under budget
expectations.
Non-General Fund Revenues and Expenditures
Non-General Fund revenues are ahead of 2013 levels. The increases are led by Water,
Storm and Sewer Utility Fund revenues, which are beneficiaries of rate increases that
became effective in January of this year.
Non-General Fund expenditures are on track with budgeted expectations.
REET Revenues
Real Estate Excise tax revenues continue to come in strong and are higher than a year
ago. Projected year end revenues should exceed the 2014 budget.
Economic Outlook
The regional economy continues to show strength. As of August, the Greater Seattle area
unemployment rate decreased to 5.3% from a rate of 6.0% a year earlier. This compares
to the State unemployment rate, which decreased from 7.0% in August of 2013 to 5.6%
and the national unemployment rate, which changed from 7.2% to 6.1%.
Packet Page 104 of 458
Page 1 of 1
Fund
No.Title
2014 Amended
Budget
9/30/2013
Revenues
9/30/2014
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
001 GENERAL FUND 39,027,697$ 23,743,923$ 27,168,450$ 11,859,247$ 70%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 594,946 175,237 298,415 296,531 50%
011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 903,858 482,029 682 903,176 0%
012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 527,115 65,334 15,913 511,202 3%
013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND - - 98 (98) 0%
014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 8,000 714 3 7,997 0%
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 589,800 28,457 187,650 402,150 32%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 20,075 17,281 19,866 209 99%
111 STREET FUND 1,712,100 1,084,216 1,343,435 368,665 78%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 9,231,407 1,248,814 2,454,768 6,776,639 27%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 102,823 48,401 57,860 44,963 56%
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 25 13 49 (24) 194%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 54,140 43,903 49,024 5,116 91%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 20,308 6,818 11,770 8,538 58%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 1,623 432 202 1,421 12%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 18,200 21,747 16,663 1,537 92%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 904,343 699,319 749,846 154,497 83%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 904,243 698,655 748,027 156,216 83%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 43,708 30,564 25,750 17,958 59%
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 4,000 291,992 48,608 (44,608) 1215%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 160,136 103,433 131,996 28,140 82%
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 1,552,517 297,361 322,212 1,230,305 21%
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 186 283 487 (301) 262%
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 12,970 11,849 16,359 (3,389) 126%
138 SIST ER CIT Y COMMISSION 4,519 8,909 4,127 392 91%
139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 645,000 507,934 515,737 129,263 80%
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 28,600 30,874 29,699 (1,099) 104%
213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 28,626 19 47 28,579 0%
231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,022,689 92,264 84,010 938,679 8%
232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 966,286 - 9,211 957,075 1%
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 174,073 217,029 (217,029) 0%
421 WATER UTILITY FUND 6,249,596 4,624,635 5,484,080 765,516 88%
422 STORM UTILITY FUND 3,630,158 2,684,619 2,918,598 711,560 80%
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 8,347,200 6,061,413 7,610,878 736,322 91%
424 BOND RESERVE FUND 840,816 - 340,408 500,408 40%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,478,108 1,083,372 1,130,693 347,415 76%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 45,379 49,638 50,257 (4,878) 111%
627 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 45,144 69,182 (69,182) 0%
79,681,197$ 44,463,670$ 52,132,089$ 27,549,108$ 65%
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Packet Page 105 of 458
Page 1 of 1
Fund
No.Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
9/30/2013
Expenditures
9/30/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
001 GENERAL FUND 41,200,664$ 24,406,731$ 28,291,461$ 12,909,203$ 69%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 503,361 232,806 219,335 284,026 44%
011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 300,000 555,907 - 300,000 0%
014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 8,000 5,280 - 8,000 0%
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 720,200 34,481 74,288 645,912 10%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 81,033 36,820 32,392 48,641 40%
111 STREET FUND 1,658,810 1,018,259 1,178,579 480,231 71%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 9,634,666 794,922 2,814,701 6,819,965 29%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 149,349 42,268 55,121 94,228 37%
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - - 0%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 54,000 52,181 33,660 20,340 62%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,786 14,740 - 26,786 0%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,600 3,121 1,551 2,049 43%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 7,940 6,346 12,654 33%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,582,712 175,686 118,496 1,464,216 7%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 1,199,841 32,108 40,893 1,158,948 3%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 18,200 28,162 3,429 14,771 19%
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND *4,000 156,192 17,469 (13,469) 437%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 175,435 94,723 108,248 67,187 62%
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,270,517 41,532 195,009 2,075,508 9%
136 PARKS TRUST FUND - - - - 0%
138 SIST ER CIT Y COMMISSION 4,500 369 4,992 (492) 111%
139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 645,000 507,934 515,737 129,263 80%
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 28,600 - - 28,600 0%
213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND - - - - 0%
231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,022,690 92,264 84,614 938,076 8%
232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 966,286 - 9,211 957,075 1%
421 WATER UTILITY FUND 10,145,476 4,912,508 4,623,781 5,521,695 46%
422 STORM UTILITY FUND 7,233,213 2,094,008 2,179,028 5,054,185 30%
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 14,746,399 8,754,654 7,605,860 7,140,539 52%
424 BOND RESERVE FUND 840,816 82,095 340,408 500,409 40%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,093,279 564,737 753,498 339,781 69%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 89,615 64,273 41,911 47,704 47%
627 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRCIT - 636 42,829 (42,829) 0%
96,426,048$ 44,807,337$ 49,392,848$ 47,076,030$ 51%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY
*A budget amendment will be completed for this expense
Packet Page 106 of 458
Page 1 of 3
Title
2014 Amended
Budget
9/30/2013
Revenues
9/30/2014
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
TAXES :
REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 1 9,857,161$ 5,733,027$ 5,269,589$ 4,587,572$ 53%
EMS PROPERTY TAX 2 3,105,938 1,776,431 1,635,787 1,470,151 53%
VOTED PROPERTY TAX 3 946,303 565,228 507,706 438,597 54%
LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 4 5,525,609 3,901,282 4,267,681 1,257,928 77%
NATURAL GAS USE TAX 8,793 7,564 8,343 450 95%
1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 590,174 424,010 450,293 139,881 76%
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,490,394 1,202,643 1,255,624 234,770 84%
GAS UTILITY TAX 819,286 552,442 551,417 267,869 67%
SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 297,972 226,200 229,850 68,122 77%
WATER UTILITY TAX 920,882 710,918 781,069 139,813 85%
SEWER UTILITY TAX 479,750 280,422 395,025 84,725 82%
STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 295,972 307,731 239,384 56,588 81%
T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 738,219 594,489 619,987 118,232 84%
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,544,793 1,051,571 1,022,001 522,792 66%
PULLTABS TAX 62,613 41,407 33,843 28,770 54%
AMUSEMENT GAMES 746 128 37 709 5%
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 232,528 164,041 174,867 57,661 75%
26,917,133 17,539,535 17,442,501 9,474,632 65%
LICENSES AND PERMITS:
FIRE PERMITS-SPECIAL USE 5,666 5,030 190 5,476 3%
PROF AND OCC LICENSE-TAXI 700 630 630 70 90%
AMUSEMENTS 4,500 4,350 4,675 (175) 104%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-COMCAST 659,488 497,805 517,702 141,786 79%
FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT - 21,859 32,639 (32,639) 0%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER 115,219 64,900 69,611 45,608 60%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-BLACKROCK 14,299 8,556 13,232 1,067 93%
FRANCHISE AGREMENT-ZAYO - 5,000 - - 0%
OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 233,162 176,782 184,576 48,586 79%
GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 107,360 104,991 103,859 3,502 97%
DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 38,500 19,320 33,595 4,905 87%
NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 53,963 38,400 39,050 14,913 72%
RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 9,000 9,773 - 9,000 0%
BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 5 503,000 351,230 539,803 (36,803) 107%
ANIMAL LICENSES 53,040 6,525 8,783 44,257 17%
STREET AND CURB PERMIT 151,045 28,779 74,158 76,887 49%
OTR NON-BUS LIC/PERMITS 18,467 8,051 11,761 6,706 64%
1,967,409 1,351,980 1,634,263 333,146 83%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL:
DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 3,176 5,119 794 2,382 25%
ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE GRANT - 34,000 - - 0%
WTSC X-52 DUI AND SPEEDING - 583 - - 0%
TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 7,500 5,949 3,615 3,885 48%
HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 3,000 4,721 3,560 (560) 119%
DOCKSIDE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE - - 1,834 (1,834) 0%
WA STATE ADMIN OFFICE COURTS GRANT - 4,019 - - 0%
WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT - 1,106 - - 0%
NORTHWEST SOLAR COMMUNITIES GRANT 22,000 - 7,000 15,000 32%
SMART COMMUTER PROJECT GRANT - 600 - - 0%
PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 187,033 188,570 - 187,033 0%
MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 8,916 7,067 7,646 1,270 86%
JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION-STATE 12,600 9,402 9,332 3,268 74%
CRIMINAL JUSTICE-SPECIAL PROGRAMS 34,300 26,360 28,360 5,940 83%
DUI - CITIES 7,900 5,364 5,414 2,486 69%
LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 64,675 - 55,499 9,176 86%
LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 360,879 268,323 266,319 94,560 74%
VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS 39,513 - 41,513 (2,000) 105%
751,492 561,183 430,886 320,606 57%
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
2 EMS Property Tax is down $140,644 from 2013
3 Voted Property Tax is down $57,522 from 2013
4 Local Retail Sales/Use Tax is up $366,399 from 2013
1 Real Personal/Property Tax is down $463,438 from 2013
5 Building Structure Permits are up $188,573 from 2013
Packet Page 107 of 458
Page 2 of 3
Title
2014 Amended
Budget
9/30/2013
Revenues
9/30/2014
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES:
RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,200 1,283 1,128 73 94%
COURT RECORD SERVICES 50 - - 50 0%
D/M COURT REC SER 50 47 27 23 53%
SHARED COURT COSTS 3,700 - - 3,700 0%
MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 200 180 484 (284) 242%
SALE MAPS & BOOKS 73 160 20 53 28%
CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKING PERMITS 25,086 - - 25,086 0%
PHOTOCOPIES 4,618 1,587 1,533 3,085 33%
POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 4,000 3,435 2,908 1,092 73%
ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 6 267,630 146,248 283,961 (16,331) 106%
ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES 1,036 1,460 - 1,036 0%
SNO-ISLE 58,667 58,636 42,991 15,676 73%
PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 11,000 9,225 14,925 (3,925) 136%
POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 27,797 29,775 (3,775) 115%
OCDETF OVERTIME - 4,640 9,060 (9,060) 0%
CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.12,300 2,146 3,011 9,289 24%
WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 36,000 21,295 30,750 5,250 85%
DRE REIMBURSEABLE - 709 - - 0%
MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 1,500 - 3,657 (2,157) 244%
POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 275 245 530 (255) 193%
DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES 700 502 165 535 24%
FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 28,503 40,768 42,733 (14,230) 150%
ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 64,000 55,042 52,212 11,788 82%
ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 590 - - 0%
BOOKING FEES 6,300 4,946 4,917 1,383 78%
FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 5,716 4,520 13,599 (7,883) 238%
EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 24,575 13,696 12,417 12,158 51%
EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 800,000 612,032 654,361 145,639 82%
CRIM CNV FEE DUI - 494 - - 0%
CRIM CONV FEE CT 5,700 3,405 2,326 3,374 41%
CRIM CONV FEE CN 2,000 1,368 823 1,177 41%
FIBER SERVICES 37,349 20,160 7,310 30,039 20%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES 7,454 5,400 5,400 2,054 72%
FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 218 863 1,170 (952) 537%
ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 6,616 4,710 2,840 3,776 43%
ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 95,950 56,660 44,853 51,097 47%
PLAN CHECKING FEES 310,000 188,629 399,375 (89,375) 129%
FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 2,984 1,450 6,665 (3,681) 223%
PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 1,630 966 1,171 459 72%
S.E.P.A. REVIEW 6,980 4,365 2,315 4,665 33%
CRITICAL AREA STUDY 16,530 16,120 19,360 (2,830) 117%
DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 8,600 8,304 6,513 2,087 76%
SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 61,000 63,530 59,372 1,628 97%
GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 5,500 3,953 4,123 1,377 75%
LOCKER FEES 350 439 424 (74) 121%
SWIM CLASS FEES 32,000 30,132 31,009 991 97%
PROGRAM FEES 757,000 613,831 679,834 77,166 90%
TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 120,000 107,033 100,398 19,602 84%
SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM 32,500 30,365 34,266 (1,766) 105%
BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 825 695 930 (105) 113%
INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT-CONTRACT SVCS7 1,902,614 1,299,101 1,522,396 380,218 80%
4,796,979 3,473,159 4,138,037 658,942 86%
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
7 Engineering has provided a larger amount of services to other departments from 2013 to 2014
6 Development Services has collected a larger amount of fees in 2014 versus 2013
Packet Page 108 of 458
Page 3 of 3
Title
2014 Amended
Budget
9/30/2013
Revenues
9/30/2014
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
FINES AND FORFEITURES:
PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 11,000 10,205 6,285 4,716 57%
TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 38,000 26,292 20,398 17,602 54%
NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 310,000 230,926 199,294 110,706 64%
CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA)25,000 19,972 16,114 8,886 64%
SPEEDING DOUBLE 330 297 - 330 0%
NON-TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 2,085 298 24,366 (22,281) 1169%
OTHER INFRACTIONS '04 2,300 1,281 661 1,639 29%
PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 52,000 38,045 41,230 10,770 79%
PARK/INDDISZONE - 2,314 606 (606) 0%
DWI PENALTIES 3,000 3,177 5,743 (2,743) 191%
DUI - DP ACCT 3,700 2,177 1,901 1,799 51%
CRIM CNV FEE DUI 700 - 509 191 73%
OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN - - 70 (70) 0%
CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 38,000 27,803 25,364 12,636 67%
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT - 622 1,435 (1,435) 0%
OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 100 61 28 72 28%
OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 - 1,446 5,289 (5,289) 0%
COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 1,900 1,468 1,088 812 57%
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN - 337 793 (793) 0%
CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 120,000 88,331 64,109 55,891 53%
PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 35,000 22,808 23,075 11,925 66%
COURT INTERPRETER COSTS 50 55 163 (113) 325%
BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 4,000 4,330 4,840 (840) 121%
MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 3,600 1,540 250 3,350 7%
650,765 483,786 443,610 207,155 68%
MISCELLANEOUS:
INVESTMENT INTEREST 88,200 1,837 13,332 74,868 15%
INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 1,281 1,163 387 894 30%
INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 4,000 3,215 5,201 (1,201) 130%
PARKING 12,804 7,447 8,952 3,852 70%
SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS 153,200 125,062 114,323 38,877 75%
BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 4,817 4,325 5,600 (783) 116%
LEASES LONG-TERM 159,335 124,024 126,182 33,153 79%
VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 5,500 6,354 9,735 (4,235) 177%
OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 8,400 8,906 8,168 232 97%
PARKS DONATIONS 9,100 9,100 11,066 (1,966) 122%
BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 1,300 1,448 1,652 (352) 127%
PARKS GRANTS - PRIVATE SOURCES - 1,235 - - 0%
SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 1,200 1 110 1,090 9%
SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 4,000 2,564 2,639 1,361 66%
CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY - 1,249 - - 0%
OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT - 6,367 2,867 (2,867) 0%
POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 477 95 984 (507) 206%
CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES 45 60 164 (119) 364%
OTHER MISC REVENUES 725,427 2,572 2,331 723,096 0%
SMALL OVERPAYMENT 68 39 29 39 43%
NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 150 210 120 30 80%
NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 1,300 649 440 860 34%
NSF FEES - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT - 150 - - -
FLEX-PLAN SERVICES FORFEITURES - 1,368 - - -
US BANK REBATE - - 1,557 (1,557) 0%
1,180,604 309,440 315,838 864,766 27%
TRANSFERS-IN:
PROCEEDS OF REFUNDING DEBT 2,763,315 - 2,763,314 1 100%
TRANSFER FROM FUND 121 - 12,543 - - 0%
TRANSFER FROM FUND 127 - 12,297 - - 0%
2,763,315 24,840 2,763,314 1 0%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 39,027,697$ 23,743,923$ 27,168,450$ 11,859,247$ 70%
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 109 of 458
Page 1 of 6
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
9/30/2013
Expenditures
9/30/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001)
SALARIES AND WAGES 13,018,152$ 8,923,642$ 9,137,235$ 3,880,917$ 70%
OVERT IME 425,123 313,226 309,226 115,897 73%
HOLIDAY BUY BACK 201,026 3,481 858 200,168 0%
BENEFITS 4,669,407 3,089,936 3,416,917 1,252,490 73%
UNIFORMS 65,210 35,365 40,094 25,116 61%
SUPPLIES 370,948 220,771 314,065 56,883 85%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 150,733 83,600 244,760 (94,027) 162%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,403,874 1,179,059 1,467,350 936,524 61%
COMMUNICATIONS 203,230 136,152 114,703 88,527 56%
T RAVEL 33,685 12,740 14,400 19,285 43%
ADVERTISING 57,375 16,677 18,710 38,665 33%
RENTAL/LEASE 933,815 622,412 700,944 232,871 75%
INSURANCE 379,784 397,566 383,906 (4,122) 101%
UTILITIES 457,800 340,207 336,274 121,526 73%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 348,835 172,921 235,886 112,949 68%
MISCELLANEOUS 354,066 224,460 213,054 141,012 60%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 8,316,935 7,651,420 7,703,373 613,562 93%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 180,000 - - 180,000 0%
EXCISE TAXES 6,452 4,037 4,530 1,922 70%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 5,137,373 762,056 650,145 4,487,228 13%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 262,721 22,735 128,401 134,320 49%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 2,874,066 - 2,720,000 154,066 95%
CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 64,654 64,014 64,654 0 100%
OTHER DEBT - 478 479 (479) 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 85,400 93,776 55,016 30,384 64%
DEBT ISSUE COST S - - 16,481 (16,481) 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 200,000 - - 200,000 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL - 36,000 - - 0%
41,200,664$ 24,406,731$ 28,291,461$ 12,909,203$ 69%
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE (009)
BENEFITS 312,774$ 148,974$ 155,375$ 157,399$ 50%
IN HOME LTC CLAIMS 183,337 77,501 63,685 119,652 35%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,000 6,081 - 7,000 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 250 250 275 (25) 110%
503,361$ 232,806$ 219,335$ 284,026$ 44%
RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011)
MISCELLANEOUS 300,000$ 555,907$ -$ 300,000$ 0%
300,000$ 555,907$ -$ 300,000$ 0%
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014)
SUPPLIES 100$ -$ -$ 100$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 100 - - 100 0%
ADVERTISING 100 - - 100 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 7,700 5,280 - 7,700 0%
8,000$ 5,280$ -$ 8,000$ 0%
BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016)
SUPPLIES -$ 919$ 914$ (914)$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20,000 15,382 11,721 8,279 59%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANENCE 668,200 16,316 61,653 606,547 9%
MISCELLANEOUS - 1,865 - - 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 32,000 - - 32,000 0%
720,200$ 34,481$ 74,288$ 645,912$ 10%
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND (104)
FUEL CONSUMED 3,000$ 3,262$ 4,839$ (1,839)$ 161%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,000 6,182 800 4,200 16%
COMMUNICATIONS 2,233 2,538 2,122 111 95%
REPAIR/MAINT 800 10 - 800 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 25%
INT ERGOVT L SVC 50,000 19,828 19,632 30,368 39%
81,033$ 36,820$ 32,392$ 48,641$ 40%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 110 of 458
Page 2 of 6
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
9/30/2013
Expenditures
9/30/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
S TREET FUND (111)
SALARIES AND WAGES 481,344$ 338,166$ 417,343$ 64,001$ 87%
OVERT IME 21,400 13,832 18,362 3,038 86%
BENEFITS 239,311 148,806 198,938 40,373 83%
UNIFORMS 6,000 3,724 4,019 1,981 67%
SUPPLIES 240,000 118,116 124,483 115,517 52%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 - 6,942 19,058 27%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 13,700 4,230 5,723 7,977 42%
COMMUNICATIONS 2,500 2,118 3,384 (884) 135%
T RAVEL 1,000 210 110 890 11%
ADVERTISING 350 - - 350 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 180,104 119,840 137,878 42,226 77%
INSURANCE 82,400 87,201 74,683 7,717 91%
UTILITIES 275,783 166,725 170,090 105,693 62%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 45,000 12,160 13,494 31,506 30%
MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 490 60 7,940 1%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,000 1,045 1,806 194 90%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 28,805 558 282 28,523 1%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 3,149 - - 3,149 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 1,964 1,037 982 982 50%
1,658,810$ 1,018,259$ 1,178,579$ 480,231$ 71%
C O MBINED S TREET C O NS T/IMPRO VE (112)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,022,300$ 482,685$ 463,681$ 1,558,619$ 23%
MISCELLANEOUS - 26,427 - - 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER OUT 387,043 41,498 41,301 345,742 11%
LAND 373,000 - 177,882 195,118 48%
CONST SURFACE CONST PROJECTS 6,274,297 75,590 1,812,745 4,461,552 29%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,203 72,201 72,201 2 100%
INTEREST ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 4,120 4,479 4,118 2 100%
INTERFUND SERVICES 501,703 92,041 242,773 258,930 48%
9,634,666$ 794,922$ 2,814,701$ 6,819,965$ 29%
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117)
SUPPLIES 4,200$ 3,065$ 629$ 3,571$ 15%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 141 130 870 13%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 130,950 23,758 47,874 83,076 37%
T RAVEL 75 54 11 65 14%
ADVERTISING 4,000 5,550 2,355 1,645 59%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 4,281 - 2,000 0%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300 - - 300 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 5,418 4,122 1,878 69%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 824 - - 824 0%
149,349$ 42,268$ 55,121$ 94,228$ 37%
HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16,000$ 16,123$ 7,912$ 8,088$ 49%
ADVERTISING 33,500 23,901 23,749 9,751 71%
MISCELLANEOUS 500 157 - 500 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 4,000 12,000 2,000 2,000 50%
54,000$ 52,181$ 33,660$ 20,340$ 62%
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121)
SUPPLIES 1,700$ 1,642$ -$ 1,700$ 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT - 555 - - 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS - 12,543 - - 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 25,086 - - 25,086 0%
26,786$ 14,740$ -$ 26,786$ 0%
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122)
MISCELLANEOUS 3,600$ 3,121$ 1,551$ 2,049$ 43%
3,600$ 3,121$ 1,551$ 2,049$ 43%
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS (123)
PROFESSIONAL SVC 10,500$ 4,347$ 800$ 9,700$ 8%
ADVERTISING 4,500 605 1,975 2,525 44%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 2,989 3,571 429 89%
19,000$ 7,940$ 6,346$ 12,654$ 33%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Packet Page 111 of 458
Page 3 of 6
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
9/30/2013
Expenditures
9/30/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 2 (125)
SUPPLIES 30,000$ 131,399$ 49,278$ (19,278)$ 164%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 400,000 21,116 20,109 379,891 5%
ADVERTISING - 148 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE - 3,399 11,492 (11,492) 0%
UTILITIES - - 2,358 (2,358) 0%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 152,712 19,622 34,980 117,732 23%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 800,000 - - 800,000 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 200,000 - 279 199,721 0%
1,582,712$ 175,686$ 118,496$ 1,464,216$ 7%
REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 1, PARKS AC Q (126)
MISCELLANEOUS 200,000$ -$ 2,500$ 197,500$ 1%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 959,528 26,071 22,204 937,324 2%
LAND 10,550 - 10,473 77 99%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 18,330 - - 18,330 0%
INTEREST 11,433 6,037 5,717 5,716 50%
1,199,841$ 32,108$ 40,893$ 1,158,948$ 3%
GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127)
SUPPLIES 11,700$ 9,312$ 929$ 10,771$ 8%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,000 6,553 - 4,000 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 2,500 12,297 2,500 - 100%
18,200$ 28,162$ 3,429$ 14,771$ 19%
SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (129) *
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000$ 15,959 -$ 2,000$ 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - 114,251 17,469 (17,469) 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 2,000 25,982 - 2,000 0%
4,000$ 156,192$ 17,469$ (13,469)$ 437%
C EMETERY MAINTENANC E/IMPRO VEMENT (130)
SALARIES AND WAGES 81,251$ 51,643$ 52,363$ 28,888$ 64%
OVERT IME 3,500 2,020 3,277 223 94%
BENEFITS 39,056 24,168 23,947 15,109 61%
UNIFORMS 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
SUPPLIES 7,000 479 1,974 5,026 28%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 20,000 8,056 13,861 6,139 69%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 200 200 800 20%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,412 1,061 1,137 275 81%
T RAVEL 500 - - 500 0%
ADVERTISING 3,200 1,068 1,652 1,548 52%
RENTAL/LEASE 9,216 3,942 6,912 2,304 75%
UTILITIES 3,800 - 417 3,383 11%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 2,088 2,508 1,492 63%
175,435$ 94,723$ 108,248$ 67,187$ 62%
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (132)
SUPPLIES -$ -$ 427$ (427)$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (188,483) 40,418 105,519 (294,002) 0%
LAND 700,000 - - 700,000 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,759,000 - 89,064 1,669,936 5%
INTERFUND SERVICES - 1,114 - - 0%
2,270,517$ 41,532$ 195,009$ 2,075,508$ 9%
SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138) *
SUPPLIES 500$ 222$ 99$ 401$ 20%
T RAVEL 3,000 - 3,256 (256) 109%
MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 147 1,637 (637) 164%
4,500$ 369$ 4,992$ (492)$ 111%
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT (139)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -$ 1,756$ -$ -$ 0%
INSURANCE 5,000 5,000 2,500 2,500 50%
INTERFUND TRANSFER - 501,179 - - 0%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES 640,000 - 513,237 126,763 80%
645,000$ 507,934$ 515,737$ 129,263$ 80%
*A budget amendment will be completed for this expense
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Packet Page 112 of 458
Page 4 of 6
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
9/30/2013
Expenditures
9/30/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
LID FUND CONTROL (211)
INTERFUND TRANSFER 28,600$ -$ -$ 28,600$ 0%
28,600$ -$ -$ 28,600$ 0%
2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231)
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 854,667$ -$ -$ 854,667$ 0%
INTEREST 168,023 92,264 84,010 84,013 50%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - - 604 (604) 0%
1,022,690$ 92,264$ 84,614$ 938,076$ 8%
2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND (232)
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 923,199$ -$ -$ 923,199$ 0%
INTEREST 23,105 - 9,211 13,894 40%
DEBT ISSUE COST S 19,982 - - 19,982 0%
966,286$ -$ 9,211$ 957,075$ 1%
WATER FUND (421)
SALARIES AND WAGES 677,172$ 541,175$ 548,950$ 128,222$ 81%
OVERT IME 24,180 16,286 11,281 12,899 47%
BENEFITS 326,137 226,668 249,412 76,725 76%
UNIFORMS 6,800 3,859 2,886 3,914 42%
SUPPLIES 151,838 70,170 97,046 54,792 64%
FUEL CONSUMED - - - - 0%
WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,600,000 1,060,443 1,032,068 567,932 65%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 130,816 66,772 95,942 34,874 73%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 25,161 6,467 15,167 9,994 60%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 575,468 212,348 150,626 424,842 26%
COMMUNICATIONS 35,000 23,210 21,048 13,952 60%
T RAVEL 2,600 - - 2,600 0%
ADVERTISING 500 - - 500 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 104,820 68,709 80,900 23,920 77%
INSURANCE 66,869 67,607 74,689 (7,820) 112%
UTILITIES 40,000 22,943 22,192 17,808 55%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 17,600 2,874 11,434 6,166 65%
MISCELLANEOUS 307,880 241,211 276,182 31,698 90%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 30,000 23,049 26,306 3,694 88%
INTERFUND TAXES 920,881 710,918 781,069 139,812 85%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 292,830 - 120,415 172,415 41%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 49,849 - - 49,849 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 3,614,973 1,033,393 470,034 3,144,939 13%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 2,115 - - 2,115 0%
REVENUE BONDS 306,140 - - 306,140 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 45,839 45,839 45,839 0 100%
INTEREST 275,912 140,928 138,667 137,245 50%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 175 327 (327) 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 514,096 327,419 351,304 162,792 68%
INTERFUND REPAIR/MAINT - 48 - - 0%
10,145,476$ 4,912,508$ 4,623,781$ 5,521,695$ 46%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 113 of 458
Page 5 of 6
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
9/30/2013
Expenditures
9/30/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
STORM FUND (422)
SALARIES AND WAGES 594,775$ 381,177$ 349,121$ 245,654$ 59%
OVERT IME 6,000 9,289 9,884 (3,884) 165%
BENEFITS 258,745 159,405 160,925 97,820 62%
UNIFORMS 6,500 5,026 4,471 2,029 69%
SUPPLIES 58,333 24,253 23,063 35,270 40%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,000 2,064 965 3,035 24%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,548,909 465,199 417,914 1,130,995 27%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 1,381 2,499 701 78%
T RAVEL 4,300 864 - 4,300 0%
ADVERTISING 500 - - 500 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 213,612 162,186 156,797 56,815 73%
INSURANCE 8,089 8,407 36,035 (27,946) 445%
UTILITES 10,500 6,534 6,710 3,790 64%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 13,000 5,962 7,301 5,699 56%
MISCELLANEOUS 112,100 71,834 73,397 38,703 65%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 75,000 22,068 101,089 (26,089) 135%
INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 295,973 229,038 239,384 56,589 81%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 54,291 - 20,354 33,937 37%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,881,712 - - 2,881,712 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 105,461 - - 105,461 0%
REVENUE BONDS 149,691 - - 149,691 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 32,063 32,063 32,063 1 100%
INTEREST 182,178 94,584 91,970 90,208 50%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 83 165 (165) 0%
INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 614,281 412,592 444,923 169,358 72%
7,233,213$ 2,094,008$ 2,179,028$ 5,054,185$ 30%
SEWER FUND (423)
SALARIES AND WAGES 1,650,330$ 1,144,302$ 1,220,460$ 429,870$ 74%
OVERT IME 73,000 68,931 63,320 9,680 87%
BENEFITS 760,694 480,050 559,883 200,811 74%
UNIFORMS 11,400 7,882 6,934 4,466 61%
SUPPLIES 399,333 192,741 168,942 230,391 42%
FUEL CONSUMED 90,000 109,801 70,638 19,362 78%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE - - 3,600 (3,600) 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 13,966 36,850 (10,850) 142%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,065,500 1,060,242 471,258 594,242 44%
COMMUNICATIONS 40,000 26,554 28,359 11,641 71%
T RAVEL 7,400 380 - 7,400 0%
ADVERTISING 2,500 - - 2,500 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 149,968 98,856 110,370 39,598 74%
INSURANCE 155,006 156,092 128,938 26,068 83%
UTILITIES 1,170,600 687,696 770,558 400,042 66%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 175,000 107,256 125,138 49,862 72%
MISCELLANEOUS 217,935 145,973 161,105 56,830 74%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 408,889 93,829 97,902 310,987 24%
INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 479,750 359,115 395,025 84,725 82%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 1,168,346 157,651 501,315 667,031 43%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 449,500 - 21,270 428,230 5%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 4,837,535 3,186,822 1,965,494 2,872,041 41%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 120,529 - - 120,529 0%
REVENUE BONDS 69,169 - - 69,169 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 203,621 143,620 143,620 60,001 71%
INTEREST 149,971 69,705 64,958 85,013 43%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 41 111 (111) 0%
INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 864,423 443,149 489,811 374,612 57%
14,746,399$ 8,754,654$ 7,605,860$ 7,140,539$ 52%
BOND RESERVE FUND (424)
REVENUE BONDS 160,000$ -$ -$ 160,000$ 0%
DEBT ISSUE COST S - 24,760 - - 0%
INTEREST 680,816 - 340,408 340,409 50%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 57,335 - - 0%
840,816$ 82,095$ 340,408$ 500,409$ 40%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 114 of 458
Page 6 of 6
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
9/30/2013
Expenditures
9/30/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511)
SALARIES AND WAGES 203,962$ 129,577$ 150,521$ 53,441$ 74%
OVERT IME 1,000 886 1,913 (913) 191%
BENEFITS 89,965 58,834 68,641 21,324 76%
UNIFORMS 1,000 547 868 132 87%
SUPPLIES 96,500 72,436 64,675 31,825 67%
FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 - 708 292 71%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 361,700 142,972 173,209 188,491 48%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 8,000 20,241 12,153 (4,153) 152%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 1,508 663 337 66%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 1,002 1,476 1,524 49%
RENTAL/LEASE 14,484 6,967 10,333 4,151 71%
INSURANCE 32,701 34,153 37,376 (4,675) 114%
UTILITIES 14,000 8,531 8,580 5,420 61%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 60,000 34,307 48,092 11,908 80%
MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 4,454 4,192 1,808 70%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 1,394 2,408 92 96%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 186,467 46,927 161,599 24,868 87%
INTERFUND RENTAL 10,000 - 6,089 3,911 61%
1,093,279$ 564,737$ 753,498$ 339,781$ 69%
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617)
BENEFITS 49,619$ 19,032$ 20,479$ 29,140$ 41%
PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 38,796 44,072 21,432 17,364 55%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,200 1,169 - 1,200 0%
89,615$ 64,273$ 41,911$ 47,704$ 47%
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND (627)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -$ 225$ 40,710$ (40,710)$ 0%
MISCELLANEOUS - 411 2,119 (2,119) 0%
-$ 636$ 42,829$ (42,829)$ 0%
TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS 96,426,048$ 44,807,337$ 49,392,848$ 47,033,200$ 51%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Packet Page 115 of 458
Page 1 of 1
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
9/30/2013
Expenditures
9/30/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
CITY COUNCIL 238,644$ 206,591$ 164,792$ 73,852$ 69%
OFFICE OF MAYOR 251,085 175,704 183,383 67,702 73%
HUMAN RESOURCES 349,938 189,163 251,736 98,202 72%
MUNICIPAL COURT 801,872 539,339 584,516 217,356 73%
CITY CLERK 537,273 409,740 380,235 157,038 71%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,774,220 1,012,437 1,278,908 495,312 72%
CITY ATTORNEY 557,900 360,467 421,910 135,990 76%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1 17,816,558 8,883,176 11,863,833 5,952,725 67%
POLICE SERVICES 8,824,364 6,439,813 6,303,649 2,520,715 71%
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEV.508,024 265,038 302,425 205,599 60%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2,219,366 1,155,902 1,347,782 871,584 61%
PARKS & RECREATION 3,826,916 2,534,360 2,688,571 1,138,345 70%
PUBLIC WORKS 2,088,677 1,259,054 1,459,005 629,672 70%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,405,827 975,946 1,060,716 345,111 75%
41,200,664$ 24,406,731$ 28,291,461$ 12,909,203$ 69%
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
9/30/2013
Expenditures
9/30/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
WATER UTILITY FUND 10,145,476$ 4,912,508$ 4,623,781$ 5,521,695$ 46%
STORM UTILITY FUND 7,233,213 2,094,008 2,179,028 5,054,185 30%
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 14,746,399 8,754,654 7,605,860 7,140,539 52%
BOND RESERVE FUND 840,816 82,095 340,408 500,409 40%
32,965,904$ 15,843,264$ 14,749,076$ 18,216,828$ 45%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY
CITY OF EDMONDS
CITY OF EDMONDS
1 Bond payment of $2.7 million was made in April of 2014
No Department is over budget and General Fund Expenses are tracking at 69% when 75% of the year is completed
Packet Page 116 of 458
Page 1 of 4
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
9/30/2013
Expenditures
9/30/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
CITY COUNCIL
SALARIES 117,615$ 88,278$ 93,585$ 24,030$ 80%
OVERT IME 2,000 400 124 1,876 6%
BENEFITS 72,271 52,474 56,217 16,054 78%
SUPPLIES 2,000 151 487 1,513 24%
SMALL EQUIPMENT - - 1,005 (1,005) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,000 49,958 521 9,479 5%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 2,081 2,118 882 71%
T RAVEL 2,500 486 1,256 1,244 50%
RENTAL/LEASE 490 344 377 113 77%
REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE 1,500 55 - 1,500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 27,268 12,366 9,101 18,167 33%
238,644$ 206,591$ 164,792$ 73,852$ 69%
OFFICE OF MAYOR
SALARIES 192,115$ 139,490$ 143,633$ 48,482$ 75%
BENEFITS 46,170 31,719 33,637 12,533 73%
SUPPLIES 2,000 997 451 1,549 23%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,500 59 1,088 412 73%
COMMUNICATION 1,400 680 525 875 38%
T RAVEL 2,000 594 438 1,562 22%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 1,466 1,754 646 73%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 700 1,857 1,143 62%
251,085$ 175,704$ 183,383$ 67,702$ 73%
HUMAN RESOURCES
SALARIES 194,389$ 122,522$ 144,508$ 49,881$ 74%
BENEFITS 59,339 36,782 49,168 10,171 83%
SUPPLIES 2,300 3,320 2,734 (434) 119%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 100 - 337 (237) 337%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 71,000 12,942 40,737 30,263 57%
COMMUNICATIONS 700 346 669 31 96%
T RAVEL 500 572 - 500 0%
ADVERTISING 5,000 2,632 3,300 1,700 66%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,200 1,467 1,755 445 80%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 6,000 5,349 6,119 (119) 102%
MISCELLANEOUS 8,410 3,232 2,411 5,999 29%
349,938$ 189,163$ 251,736$ 98,202$ 72%
MUNICIPAL COURT
SALARIES 500,048$ 350,558$ 387,454$ 112,594$ 77%
OVERT IME - 16 2,590 (2,590) 0%
BENEFITS 177,004 115,953 126,321 50,683 71%
SUPPLIES 9,400 10,634 9,478 (78) 101%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,500 1,357 240 2,260 10%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 69,000 49,706 44,428 24,572 64%
COMMUNICATIONS 2,600 1,625 2,211 389 85%
T RAVEL 2,390 1,652 768 1,622 32%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,070 753 961 109 90%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 610 409 2,753 (2,143) 451%
MISCELLANEOUS 37,250 6,676 7,311 29,939 20%
801,872$ 539,339$ 584,516$ 217,356$ 73%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 117 of 458
Page 2 of 4
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
9/30/2013
Expenditures
9/30/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
C ITY C LERK
SALARIES AND WAGES 307,596$ 234,429$ 226,781$ 80,815$ 74%
OVERT IME - - 977 (977) 0%
BENEFITS 101,833 71,938 77,945 23,888 77%
SUPPLIES 10,237 6,274 4,672 5,565 46%
SMALL EQUIPMENT - 1,010 - - 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 24,107 33,896 16,334 7,773 68%
COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 36,188 25,144 24,856 50%
T RAVEL 1,000 57 - 1,000 0%
ADVERTISING 4,200 2,805 1,176 3,024 28%
RENTAL/LEASE 20,000 12,006 13,914 6,086 70%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 14,300 8,210 10,426 3,874 73%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 2,928 2,864 1,136 72%
537,273$ 409,740$ 380,235$ 157,038$ 71%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SALARIES 771,709$ 508,200$ 552,075$ 219,634$ 72%
OVERT IME 6,667 6,205 5,370 1,297 81%
BENEFITS 255,363 161,067 192,756 62,607 75%
SUPPLIES 30,371 11,500 62,356 (31,985) 205%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 73,654 63,963 167,238 (93,584) 227%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 129,356 95,727 15,420 113,936 12%
COMMUNICATIONS 58,960 38,273 28,348 30,612 48%
T RAVEL 1,750 844 348 1,402 20%
RENTAL/LEASE 8,904 6,372 6,035 2,869 68%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 179,986 79,725 114,412 65,574 64%
MISCELLANEOUS 10,500 17,827 21,870 (11,370) 208%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 247,000 22,735 112,680 134,320 46%
1,774,220$ 1,012,437$ 1,278,908$ 495,312$ 72%
C ITY ATTO RNEY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 557,900$ 360,467$ 421,860$ 136,040$ 76%
MISC PROSECUTOR - - 50 (50) 0%
557,900$ 360,467$ 421,910$ 135,990$ 76%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
SALARIES 278,171$ -$ -$ 278,171$ 0%
BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT 25,000 16,680 11,858 13,142 47%
SUPPLIES 3,000 - 1,429 1,571 48%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 287,347 159,105 231,156 56,191 80%
RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 3,600 3,900 (300) 108%
INSURANCE 379,784 397,566 383,906 (4,122) 101%
MISCELLANEOUS 55,708 54,993 57,960 (2,252) 104%
INT ERGOVT SERVICES 8,236,003 7,326,870 7,662,320 573,683 93%
ECA LOAN PAYMENT 180,000 - - 180,000 0%
EXCISE TAXES 6,452 4,037 4,530 1,922 70%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 5,137,373 762,056 650,145 4,487,228 13%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 2,874,066 - 2,720,000 154,066 95%
INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 64,654 64,014 64,654 0 100%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 85,400 93,776 55,016 30,384 64%
DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS - - 16,481 (16,481) 0%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - 478 479 (479) 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 200,000 - - 200,000 0%
17,816,558$ 8,883,176$ 11,863,833$ 5,952,725$ 67%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 118 of 458
Page 3 of 4
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
9/30/2013
Expenditures
9/30/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
PO LIC E S ERVIC ES
SALARIES 5,263,948$ 3,825,496$ 3,841,876$ 1,422,072$ 73%
OVERT IME 402,456 299,180 280,482 121,974 70%
HOLIDAY BUYBACK 201,026 3,481 858 200,168 0%
BENEFITS 1,962,070 1,345,961 1,484,349 477,721 76%
UNIFORMS 56,910 31,391 32,663 24,247 57%
SUPPLIES 87,500 49,581 57,266 30,234 65%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 15,900 12,240 20,055 (4,155) 126%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 114,287 69,851 68,156 46,131 60%
COMMUNICATIONS 25,592 16,480 17,670 7,922 69%
T RAVEL 14,300 6,956 8,879 5,421 62%
ADVERTISING 375 73 40 335 11%
RENTAL/LEASE 608,688 401,404 454,985 153,703 75%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 16,115 5,775 4,682 11,433 29%
MISCELLANEOUS 44,960 16,394 26,569 18,391 59%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES 10,237 319,550 5,119 5,119 50%
INTERFUND RENTAL - 36,000 - - 0%
8,824,364$ 6,439,813$ 6,303,649$ 2,520,715$ 71%
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECON DEV.
SALARIES 216,742$ 160,196$ 172,262$ 44,480$ 79%
BENEFITS 68,668 47,871 43,430 25,238 63%
SUPPLIES 1,500 422 6,179 (4,679) 412%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 - - 800 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 145,824 45,558 69,448 76,376 48%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,490 1,119 537 953 36%
T RAVEL 2,000 17 6 1,994 0%
ADVERTISING 39,500 5,602 6,947 32,553 18%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 1,737 1,755 245 88%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 29,000 2,517 1,860 27,140 6%
508,024$ 265,038$ 302,425$ 205,599$ 60%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING
SALARIES 1,273,306$ 788,228$ 838,470$ 434,836$ 66%
OVERT IME 1,300 113 5,044 (3,744) 388%
BENEFITS 465,402 274,688 302,782 162,620 65%
UNIFORMS 100 - 120 (20) 120%
SUPPLIES 13,100 7,233 12,252 848 94%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 8,650 293 6,907 1,743 80%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 383,256 40,054 129,195 254,061 34%
COMMUNICATIONS 4,600 3,045 3,214 1,386 70%
T RAVEL 1,600 45 1,276 324 80%
ADVERTISING 4,000 3,084 4,075 (75) 102%
RENTAL/LEASE 38,152 24,658 28,372 9,780 74%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 112 620 (120) 124%
MISCELLANEOUS 25,400 14,348 15,455 9,945 61%
2,219,366$ 1,155,902$ 1,347,782$ 871,584$ 61%
ENGINEERING
SALARIES 1,203,904$ 723,770$ 816,974$ 386,930$ 68%
OVERT IME 5,000 1,199 270 4,730 5%
BENEFITS 423,053 265,757 322,767 100,286 76%
UNIFORMS 360 - 109 251 30%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,200 766 2,052 148 93%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 52,950 840 30,567 22,383 58%
COMMUNICATIONS 11,220 4,149 4,748 6,472 42%
T RAVEL 600 52 86 514 14%
ADVERTISING - 264 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 18,492 10,053 13,869 4,623 75%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,800 38 699 1,101 39%
MISCELLANEOUS 15,000 7,105 10,543 4,457 70%
1,734,579$ 1,013,993$ 1,202,684$ 531,895$ 69%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 119 of 458
Page 4 of 4
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
9/30/2013
Expenditures
9/30/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
PARKS & RECREATION
SALARIES 1,823,252$ 1,332,662$ 1,261,927$ 561,325$ 69%
OVERT IME 5,000 5,967 12,496 (7,496) 250%
BENEFITS 668,116 441,662 457,642 210,474 68%
UNIFORMS 5,340 2,890 4,746 594 89%
SUPPLIES 114,940 81,412 93,922 21,018 82%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 43,929 1,959 42,658 1,271 97%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 557,147 260,858 396,263 160,884 71%
COMMUNICATIONS 28,818 21,060 18,086 10,732 63%
T RAVEL 4,545 1,465 1,316 3,229 29%
ADVERTISING 4,300 2,218 3,172 1,128 74%
RENTAL/LEASE 170,019 121,316 131,416 38,603 77%
PUBLIC UTILITY 175,000 139,109 122,503 52,497 70%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 52,524 33,636 40,937 11,587 78%
MISCELLANEOUS 87,570 83,146 49,829 37,741 57%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 15,721 - 15,721 0 100%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES 70,695 5,000 35,934 34,761 51%
3,826,916$ 2,534,360$ 2,688,571$ 1,138,345$ 70%
PUBLIC WORKS
SALARIES 250,358$ 183,623$ 187,363$ 62,995$ 75%
OVERT IME 200 - - 200 0%
BENEFITS 78,450 50,562 56,229 22,221 72%
SUPPLIES 7,600 3,764 3,505 4,095 46%
SMALL EQUIPMENT - - 583 (583) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 39 150 50 75%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,350 1,099 590 760 44%
T RAVEL 500 - - 500 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 7,740 3,256 4,681 3,059 60%
PUBLIC UTILITY 2,800 1,719 1,766 1,034 63%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 3,900 999 1,456 2,444 37%
354,098$ 245,061$ 256,321$ 97,777$ 72%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
SALARIES 624,999$ 466,190$ 470,327$ 154,672$ 75%
OVERT IME 2,500 145 1,872 628 75%
BENEFITS 266,668 176,822 201,814 64,854 76%
UNIFORMS 2,500 1,084 2,455 45 98%
SUPPLIES 87,000 45,484 59,336 27,664 68%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 3,000 2,013 3,685 (685) 123%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - - 2,026 (2,026) 0%
COMMUNICATIONS 13,500 10,007 10,842 2,658 80%
T RAVEL - - 27 (27) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 50,060 33,980 37,170 12,890 74%
PUBLIC UTILITY 280,000 199,379 212,005 67,995 76%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 73,500 39,613 55,237 18,263 75%
MISCELLANEOUS 2,100 1,230 3,919 (1,819) 187%
1,405,827$ 975,946$ 1,060,716$ 345,111$ 75%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 41,200,664$ 24,406,731$ 28,291,461$ 12,909,203$ 69%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 120 of 458
General Fund
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 2,260,248$ 2,260,248$ 1,704,062$ -24.61%
February 4,719,535 2,459,287 6,617,557 40.22%
aarch 7,388,113 2,668,578 8,899,880 20.46%
April 11,317,506 3,929,393 12,575,092 11.11%
aay 21,381,416 10,063,909 19,617,376 -8.25%
June 23,629,132 2,247,716 21,270,138 -9.98%
July 26,245,782 2,616,650 23,438,395 -10.70%
August 28,535,127 2,289,345 25,327,825 -11.24%
September 30,778,805 2,243,678 27,168,450 -11.73%
October 34,468,988 3,690,183 30,425,774 -11.73%
November 43,532,261 9,063,272 38,425,924 -11.73%
December 45,862,077 2,329,816 40,482,453 -11.73%
*The difference between budget and actual shown is due to proceeds from refunding the 2003 UTGO Bonds. Proceeds were $2.8 million.
Real Estate Excise Tax
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 74,651$ 74,651$ 92,868$ 24.40%
February 120,737 46,087 149,163 23.54%
aarch 181,397 60,660 204,533 12.75%
April 256,711 75,314 261,931 2.03%
aay 323,837 67,125 326,172 0.72%
June 398,387 74,550 410,270 2.98%
July 483,191 84,805 559,760 15.85%
August 578,011 94,819 666,423 15.30%
September 666,060 88,049 746,012 12.00%
October 768,001 101,941 860,190 12.00%
November 837,495 69,494 938,027 12.00%
December 902,243 64,748 1,010,547 12.00%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-General Fund
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Revenue Summary-Real Estate Excise Tax
0
8000000
16000000
24000000
32000000
40000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV D EC
General Fund
C urrent Year Budget Prior Year
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP O CT NOV D EC
Real Es tate Excise Tax
C urrent Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 121 of 458
($80,000)$0 $80,000 $160,000 $240,000 $320,000 $400,000
Amusement & Recreation
Clot hing and Accessories
Automot ive Repair
Health & Personal Care
Accommodation
Communications
Wholesale Trade
Business Services
Retail Food Stores
Misc Retail Trade
Retail Eat ing & Drinking
O thers
Contractors
Retail Automotive/Gas
Total
($73,512)
($8,708)
$1,910
$1,962
$3,169
$5,583
$16,907
$17,436
$28,268
$40,281
$46,420
$46,964
$61,002
$178,717
$366,399
Change in Sales Tax Revenue:
September 2014 compared to
September 2013
Re t ail Ea t ing & Drinking
536,469
Contractors 585,118
Wholesale Trade 190,325
Communica tions 161,178
Misc Retail Trade 513,406
Accommodation 28,232
Business Services 293,732
Health & Personal Care
70,594
Automotive Repair 117,898
Amusement & Recreation
53,935
Retail Food Stores 197,928
Others 223,791
Retail Automotive/Gas
1,141,259
Clothing and Accessories
153,811
Sales Tax Analysis By Category
Current Period: September 2014
Year-to-Date
Total $4,267,676
Packet Page 122 of 458
Sales and Use Tax
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 428,831$ 428,831$ 444,169$ 3.58%
February 963,323 534,493 998,510 3.65%
aarch 1,363,952 400,629 1,477,603 8.33%
April 1,763,418 399,466 1,870,619 6.08%
aay 2,251,403 487,985 2,371,435 5.33%
June 2,687,897 436,495 2,812,288 4.63%
July 3,127,170 439,272 3,276,565 4.78%
August 3,623,461 496,291 3,769,832 4.04%
September 4,086,398 462,937 4,267,681 4.44%
October 4,563,331 476,933 4,765,772 4.44%
November 5,078,747 515,416 5,304,053 4.44%
December 5,525,609 446,862 5,770,739 4.44%
Gas Utility Tax
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 113,876$ 113,876$ 103,199$ -9.38%
February 239,319 125,442 198,165 -17.20%
aarch 342,980 103,661 298,299 -13.03%
April 436,459 93,479 376,839 -13.66%
aay 512,262 75,803 435,966 -14.89%
June 565,759 53,498 474,528 -16.13%
July 607,696 41,937 504,520 -16.98%
August 638,725 31,029 528,960 -17.19%
September 666,716 27,990 551,417 -17.29%
October 696,005 29,289 575,641 -17.29%
November 746,459 50,453 617,369 -17.29%
December 819,286 72,827 677,602 -17.29%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Revenue Summary-Sales and Use Tax
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Revenue Summary-Gas Utility Tax
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP O CT NOV D EC
Sales and Use Tax
C urrent Year Budget Prior Year
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV D EC
Gas Utility Tax
C urrent Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 123 of 458
Telephone Utility Tax
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 126,925$ 126,925$ 120,158$ -5.33%
February 249,682 122,757 248,366 -0.53%
aarch 386,065 136,384 359,490 -6.88%
April 499,602 113,536 470,135 -5.90%
aay 645,057 145,456 581,203 -9.90%
June 768,223 123,165 692,449 -9.86%
July 895,235 127,013 803,786 -10.22%
August 1,037,189 141,953 912,478 -12.02%
September 1,143,101 105,912 1,022,001 -10.59%
October 1,286,698 143,597 1,150,386 -10.59%
November 1,381,314 94,616 1,234,978 -10.59%
December 1,544,793 163,479 1,381,138 -10.59%
Electric Utility Tax
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 158,918$ 158,918$ 175,072$ 10.16%
February 320,172 161,254 352,390 10.06%
aarch 475,954 155,782 534,485 12.30%
April 631,990 156,035 690,245 9.22%
aay 774,898 142,908 839,998 8.40%
June 885,438 110,541 948,700 7.14%
July 991,385 105,947 1,055,702 6.49%
August 1,087,004 95,619 1,156,363 6.38%
September 1,187,503 100,499 1,255,624 5.74%
October 1,274,792 87,289 1,347,920 5.74%
November 1,383,012 108,220 1,462,348 5.74%
December 1,490,394 107,382 1,575,890 5.74%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Revenue Summary-Telephone Utility Tax
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Revenue Summary-Electric Utility Tax
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Telephone Utility Tax
C urrent Year Budget Prior Year
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1800000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Electric Utility Tax
C urrent Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 124 of 458
Meter Water Sales
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 429,754$ 429,754$ 489,005$ 13.79%
February 729,586 299,832 828,145 13.51%
aarch 1,147,622 418,036 1,294,140 12.77%
April 1,435,683 288,061 1,607,107 11.94%
aay 1,858,183 422,500 2,073,689 11.60%
June 2,169,885 311,702 2,434,321 12.19%
July 2,657,881 487,996 3,003,419 13.00%
August 3,086,188 428,307 3,496,156 13.28%
September 3,680,575 594,387 4,176,682 13.48%
October 4,108,457 427,882 4,662,239 13.48%
November 4,610,786 502,330 5,232,278 13.48%
December 4,924,500 313,714 5,588,277 13.48%
Storm Water Sales
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 210,362$ 210,362$ 216,037$ 10.16%
February 663,443 453,081 680,744 10.06%
aarch 874,097 210,654 896,910 12.30%
April 1,061,161 187,064 1,089,565 9.22%
aay 1,272,188 211,026 1,305,756 8.40%
June 1,459,452 187,265 1,498,017 7.14%
July 1,671,872 212,419 1,716,475 2.67%
August 2,138,683 466,812 2,180,039 1.93%
September 2,356,833 218,149 2,395,835 1.65%
October 2,549,604 192,771 2,591,796 1.65%
November 2,766,495 216,890 2,812,276 1.65%
December 2,959,725 193,230 3,008,704 1.65%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Revenue Summary-aeter Water Sales
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Revenue Summary-Storm Water Sales
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP O CT NOV DEC
Meter Water Sales
C urrent Year Budget Prior Year
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP O CT NOV DEC
Storm Water Sales
C urrent Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 125 of 458
Unmeter Sewer Sales
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 434,795$ 434,795$ 479,087$ 10.19%
February 786,497 351,702 860,724 9.44%
aarch 1,218,216 431,719 1,335,216 9.60%
April 1,568,380 350,165 1,717,700 9.52%
aay 2,004,398 436,018 2,195,896 9.55%
June 2,358,600 354,202 2,584,030 9.56%
July 2,803,274 444,674 3,069,159 9.48%
August 3,161,173 357,899 3,458,097 9.39%
September 3,614,263 453,090 3,950,493 9.30%
October 3,973,096 358,833 4,342,708 9.30%
November 4,416,998 443,903 4,827,906 9.30%
December 4,773,750 356,752 5,217,846 9.30%
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales
2014
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Unmeter Sewer Sales
C urrent Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 126 of 458
General Fund
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 4,342,738$ 4,342,738$ 4,116,199$ -5.22%
February 7,273,314 2,930,576 5,980,774 -17.77%
aarch 10,373,710 3,100,396 9,514,450 -8.28%
April 14,046,348 3,672,638 14,163,986 0.84%
aay 16,394,689 2,348,341 16,009,991 -2.35%
June 20,180,422 3,785,734 18,147,195 -10.08%
July 23,897,639 3,717,217 20,853,841 -12.74%
August 26,837,435 2,939,796 24,534,694 -8.58%
September 30,675,167 3,837,732 28,291,461 -7.77%
October 33,407,197 2,732,030 30,811,191 -7.77%
November 36,447,336 3,040,139 33,615,086 -7.77%
December 41,200,664 4,753,328 37,999,043 -7.77%
Non-Departmental
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 3,068,401$ 3,068,401$ 2,396,214$ -21.91%
February 3,846,233 777,832 2,563,640 -33.35%
aarch 4,950,102 1,103,869 4,388,210 -11.35%
April 6,682,580 1,732,478 7,277,792 8.91%
aay 6,906,919 224,339 7,363,650 6.61%
June 9,057,540 2,150,621 7,709,624 -14.88%
July 10,731,894 1,674,353 8,424,155 -21.50%
August 11,362,211 630,317 10,027,805 -11.74%
September 13,308,539 1,946,329 11,863,833 -10.86%
October 13,878,772 570,233 12,372,165 -10.86%
November 14,484,996 606,224 12,912,580 -10.86%
December 17,816,558 3,331,562 15,882,485 -10.86%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Expenditure Report-General Fund
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Expenditure Report-Non-Departmental
0
5000000
10000000
15 000000
20000000
25 000000
30000000
35 000000
40000000
45 000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
General Fund
C urrent Year Budget Prior Year
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
14000000
16000000
18000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Non-Departmental
C urrent Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 127 of 458
City Council
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 17,436$ 17,436$ 14,710$ -15.64%
February 37,196 19,760 29,242 -21.38%
aarch 56,930 19,734 46,539 -18.25%
April 74,661 17,731 65,481 -12.29%
aay 91,717 17,056 85,284 -7.01%
June 111,368 19,651 110,659 -0.64%
July 133,849 22,481 129,296 -3.40%
August 154,203 20,355 145,411 -5.70%
September 171,728 17,524 164,792 -4.04%
October 193,996 22,268 186,160 -4.04%
November 214,250 20,254 205,596 -4.04%
December 238,644 24,394 229,005 -4.04%
Office of Mayor
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 21,493$ 21,493$ 19,866$ -7.57%
February 42,845$ 21,353$ 40,990 -4.33%
aarch 63,933$ 21,088$ 61,132 -4.38%
April 84,211$ 20,278$ 82,041 -2.58%
aay 104,565$ 20,354$ 102,277 -2.19%
June 125,279$ 20,714$ 122,235 -2.43%
July 146,686$ 21,408$ 143,210 -2.37%
August 167,273$ 20,586$ 163,387 -2.32%
September 187,312$ 20,039$ 183,383 -2.10%
October 209,955$ 22,643$ 205,551 -2.10%
November 231,093$ 21,138$ 226,246 -2.10%
December 251,085$ 19,992$ 245,818 -2.10%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Expenditure Report-City Council
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Expenditure Report-Office of aayor
0
50000
100000
15 0000
200000
25 0000
300000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Council
Current Ye ar Budget Prior Ye ar
0
50000
100000
15 0000
200000
25 0000
300000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Office of M ayor
Current Ye ar Budget Prior Ye ar
Packet Page 128 of 458
Human Resources
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 25,798$ 25,798$ 27,275$ 5.72%
February 52,555 26,756 60,853 15.79%
aarch 84,843 32,288 88,106 3.85%
April 114,019 29,176 112,767 -1.10%
aay 143,795 29,775 142,206 -1.10%
June 171,136 27,342 172,043 0.53%
July 199,812 28,676 199,033 -0.39%
August 225,905 26,093 228,816 1.29%
September 257,927 32,022 251,736 -2.40%
October 285,341 27,413 278,491 -2.40%
November 310,098 24,757 302,654 -2.40%
December 349,938 39,840 341,538 -2.40%
Municipal Court
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 59,240$ 59,240$ 58,367$ -1.47%
February 125,452 66,212 116,841 -6.86%
aarch 193,525 68,074 198,204 2.42%
April 262,436 68,911 257,767 -1.78%
aay 327,513 65,077 320,047 -2.28%
June 396,410 68,897 384,624 -2.97%
July 459,812 63,402 451,412 -1.83%
August 527,281 67,468 516,393 -2.06%
September 590,660 63,379 584,516 -1.04%
October 658,527 67,868 651,677 -1.04%
November 725,443 66,915 717,896 -1.04%
December 801,872 76,429 793,531 -1.04%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Expenditure Report-Human Resources
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Expenditure Report-aunicipal Court
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Human Resources
C urrent Year Budget Prior Year
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Municipal Court
C urrent Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 129 of 458
Community Services/Economic Development
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 31,471$ 31,471$ 24,299$ -22.79%
February 80,480 49,009 54,146 -32.72%
aarch 121,436 40,956 83,578 -31.18%
April 161,422 39,986 160,955 -0.29%
aay 203,742 42,320 177,081 -13.09%
June 240,317 36,574 200,183 -16.70%
July 291,509 51,193 227,071 -22.11%
August 327,786 36,277 262,287 -19.98%
September 366,394 38,607 302,425 -17.46%
October 408,391 41,998 337,091 -17.46%
November 444,482 36,090 366,880 -17.46%
December 508,024 63,542 419,328 -17.46%
City Clerk
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 39,751$ 39,751$ 40,227$ 1.20%
February 81,417 41,666 85,455 4.96%
aarch 128,867 47,450 127,044 -1.41%
April 170,636 41,769 164,667 -3.50%
aay 217,171 46,535 209,795 -3.40%
June 257,997 40,826 246,693 -4.38%
July 303,101 45,105 290,408 -4.19%
August 347,896 44,795 334,638 -3.81%
September 395,264 47,368 380,235 -3.80%
October 442,040 46,776 425,232 -3.80%
November 489,440 47,400 470,829 -3.80%
December 537,273 47,833 516,843 -3.80%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Expenditure Report-Community Services/Economic Development
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Expenditure Report-City Clerk
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Community Services/Economic Development
Current Ye ar Budget Prior Ye ar
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Clerk
Current Ye ar Budget Prior Ye ar
Packet Page 130 of 458
Information Services
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 74,247$ 74,247$ 58,589$ -21.09%
February 166,823 92,577 139,016 -16.67%
aarch 242,406 75,582 181,347 -25.19%
April 312,265 69,859 227,941 -27.00%
aay 382,435 70,170 256,132 -33.03%
June 445,798 63,363 291,238 -34.67%
July 502,085 56,287 443,744 -11.62%
August 553,875 51,790 623,612 12.59%
September 614,928 61,053 704,331 14.54%
October 688,034 73,106 788,066 14.54%
November 778,774 90,740 891,998 14.54%
December 965,791 187,017 1,106,205 14.54%
Finance
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 76,488$ 76,488$ 130,464$ 70.57%
February 146,752 70,263 153,899 4.87%
aarch 212,713 65,961 209,473 -1.52%
April 274,608 61,895 271,170 -1.25%
aay 335,512 60,905 332,822 -0.80%
June 406,136 70,624 392,246 -3.42%
July 470,869 64,733 452,362 -3.93%
August 528,622 57,753 511,477 -3.24%
September 592,790 64,168 574,577 -3.07%
October 665,109 72,319 644,674 -3.07%
November 735,415 70,306 712,820 -3.07%
December 808,429 73,014 783,591 -3.07%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Expenditure Report-Information Services
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Expenditure Report-Finance
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Information Services
C urrent Year Budget Prior Year
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Finance
C urrent Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 131 of 458
City Attorney
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 46,492$ 46,492$ 32,000$ -31.17%
February 92,983 46,492 91,366 -1.74%
aarch 139,475 46,492 123,381 -11.54%
April 185,967 46,492 186,128 0.09%
aay 232,458 46,492 231,890 -0.24%
June 278,950 46,492 279,764 0.29%
July 325,442 46,492 325,422 -0.01%
August 371,933 46,492 330,595 -11.11%
September 418,425 46,492 421,910 0.83%
October 464,916 46,492 468,789 0.83%
November 511,408 46,492 515,668 0.83%
December 557,900 46,492 562,547 0.83%
Police
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 694,934$ 694,934$ 681,573$ -1.92%
February 1,396,727 701,792 1,369,842 -1.92%
aarch 2,108,550 711,824 2,062,997 -2.16%
April 2,804,359 695,808 2,754,778 -1.77%
aay 3,483,663 679,305 3,458,116 -0.73%
June 4,223,782 740,119 4,215,558 -0.19%
July 4,932,717 708,934 4,897,465 -0.71%
August 5,641,058 708,341 5,599,938 -0.73%
September 6,384,074 743,016 6,303,649 -1.26%
October 7,087,171 703,097 6,997,889 -1.26%
November 8,045,281 958,110 7,943,929 -1.26%
December 8,824,364 779,083 8,713,197 -1.26%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Expenditure Report-City Attorney
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Expenditure Report-tolice
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Attorney
Current Ye ar Budget Prior Ye ar
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Police
Current Ye ar Budget Prior Ye ar
Packet Page 132 of 458
Development Services
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 182,478$ 182,478$ 126,887$ -30.46%
February 364,463 181,986 257,352 -29.39%
aarch 569,107 204,643 387,354 -31.94%
April 747,348 178,241 523,426 -29.96%
aay 923,916 176,568 678,695 -26.54%
June 1,094,697 170,781 826,994 -24.45%
July 1,273,462 178,765 997,833 -21.64%
August 1,462,616 189,154 1,193,410 -18.41%
September 1,646,105 183,489 1,347,782 -18.12%
October 1,844,010 197,905 1,509,821 -18.12%
November 2,028,039 184,029 1,660,498 -18.12%
December 2,219,366 191,327 1,817,151 -18.12%
Parks & Recre ation
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 244,774$ 244,774$ 237,608$ -2.93%
February 514,038 269,264 486,587 -5.34%
aarch 801,588 287,550 732,519 -8.62%
April 1,080,098 278,510 977,642 -9.49%
aay 1,372,430 292,332 1,271,826 -7.33%
June 1,717,333 344,903 1,534,299 -10.66%
July 2,157,762 440,430 1,921,487 -10.95%
August 2,594,645 436,883 2,368,651 -8.71%
September 2,924,625 329,980 2,688,571 -8.07%
October 3,213,467 288,842 2,954,099 -8.07%
November 3,478,070 264,603 3,197,346 -8.07%
December 3,826,916 348,846 3,518,036 -8.07%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Expenditure Report-Development Services
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Expenditure Report-tarks & Recreation
0
400000
800000
1200000
1600000
2000000
2400000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Development Services
C urrent Ye ar Budget Prior Ye ar
0
500000
1000000
15 00000
2000000
25 00000
3000000
35 00000
4000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Parks & Recre ation
C urrent Ye ar Budget Prior Ye ar
Packet Page 133 of 458
Public Works
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 29,205$ 29,205$ 27,811$ -4.77%
February 57,374 28,169 55,607 -3.08%
aarch 85,998 28,624 84,738 -1.47%
April 113,676 27,678 114,745 0.94%
aay 142,297 28,621 142,879 0.41%
June 171,373 29,077 171,032 -0.20%
July 210,538 39,164 199,315 -5.33%
August 238,755 28,217 227,438 -4.74%
September 266,891 28,136 256,321 -3.96%
October 296,178 29,287 284,449 -3.96%
November 322,670 26,492 309,891 -3.96%
December 354,098 31,428 340,075 -3.96%
Facilities Maintenance
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 109,761$ 109,761$ 118,162$ 7.65%
February 228,319 118,558 229,255 0.41%
aarch 356,501 128,182 363,708 2.02%
April 468,975 112,475 481,545 2.68%
aay 583,345 114,370 588,147 0.82%
June 696,280 112,934 696,472 0.03%
July 809,237 112,957 825,520 2.01%
August 918,038 108,802 940,041 2.40%
September 1,038,936 120,897 1,060,716 2.10%
October 1,145,093 106,158 1,169,099 2.10%
November 1,265,760 120,666 1,292,295 2.10%
December 1,405,827 140,067 1,435,298 2.10%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Expenditure Report-tublic Works
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Expenditure Report-Facilities aaintenance
0
50000
100000
15 0000
200000
25 0000
300000
35 0000
400000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Public Works
C urrent Ye ar Budget Prior Ye ar
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Fa cilities M aintena nce
C urrent Ye ar Budget Prior Ye ar
Packet Page 134 of 458
Engineering
Cumulative aonthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 145,346$ 145,346$ 122,149$ -15.96%
February 292,949 147,603 246,682 -15.79%
aarch 437,616 144,667 376,122 -14.05%
April 582,646 145,030 505,140 -13.30%
aay 725,109 142,463 649,144 -10.48%
June 866,319 141,210 793,532 -8.40%
July 1,007,948 141,630 926,107 -8.12%
August 1,150,544 142,595 1,060,795 -7.80%
September 1,298,303 147,759 1,202,684 -7.36%
October 1,452,811 154,508 1,345,812 -7.36%
November 1,596,130 143,319 1,478,575 -7.36%
December 1,734,579 138,449 1,606,828 -7.36%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
City of Edmonds, WA
aonthly Expenditure Report-Engineering
2014
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1800000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Engineering
C urrent Ye ar Budget Prior Ye ar
Packet Page 135 of 458
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
(a)
Term Purchase Purchase Maturity Yield to Weighted
Agency / Issuer Investment Type (months)Date Price Date Maturity Average
Washington State Local
Government Investment Pool
Investment Pool Various 21,125,966$ Various 0.09% 0.045%
Snohomish County
Investment Pool
Investment Pool Various 15,046,379$ Various 0.71% 0.241%
FHLMC Bonds 60 12/28/2012 1,000,000 12/28/2017 0.90% 0.020%
FHLMC Bonds 54 12/27/2012 1,000,000 6/27/2017 0.75% 0.017%
FFCB Bonds 45 12/19/2012 1,000,000 9/19/2016 0.54% 0.012%
FNMA Bonds 60 9/19/2014 1,000,000 9/19/2019 1.92% 0.043%
FFCB Bonds 60 9/23/2014 1,000,000 9/23/2019 2.03% 0.046%
FHLMC Bonds 51 9/26/2014 1,000,000 12/26/2018 1.76% 0.040%
FHLMC Bonds 42 9/19/2014 1,000,000 3/26/2018 1.41% 0.032%
FICO Bonds 33 9/19/2014 1,027,000 6/6/2017 0.96% 0.022%
TOTAL 44,199,345$ 0.52%0.519%
Investment Mix % of Total
State Investment Pool 47.8%Current 6-month treasury rate 0.05%
Bonds 18.2%Current State Pool rate 0.09%
Snohomish County
Investment Pool 34.0%Blended Edmonds rate 0.52%
100.0%
(a) To maturity.
Rate Comparison
City of Edmonds
Investment Portfolio Summary
As of September 30, 2014
Packet Page 136 of 458
GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW
12/31/2013 6/30/2014 9/30/2014 Q2 YTD
001-General Fund 6,834,380$ 9,957,323$ 5,711,368$ 4,245,954$ (1,123,011)$
009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 440,744 279,334 519,824 (240,490.60) 79,080
011-Risk Management Fund 387,195 387,503 387,877 (374.00) 682
012-Contingency Reserve Fund 5,376,796 5,387,471 5,392,709 (5,238.53) 15,913
013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD 55,859 55,903 55,957 (53.96) 98
014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 1,062 1,064 1,065 (1.02) 3
016-Building Maintenance 64,762 195,879 178,124 17,754.94 113,362
Total General Fund 13,160,798$ 16,264,476$ 12,246,925$ 4,017,551$ (913,873)$
GENERAL
FUND
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$13.16
$16.26
$12.25
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Dec 2013 June 2014 Sept 2014
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
General Fund
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 137 of 458
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2013 6/30/2014 9/30/2014 Q2 YTD
General Fund 13,160,798$ 16,264,476$ 12,246,925$ 4,017,551$ (913,873)$
Special Revenue 5,373,323 6,160,031 6,763,486 (444,397) 1,390,163
Debt Service 57,161 57,541 86,304 (28,762) 29,142
Total Governmental Funds 18,591,283$ 22,482,049$ 19,096,715$ 3,544,392$ 505,432$
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCESGOVERNMENTAL
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$13.16
$16.26
$12.25
$5.37 $6.16 $6.76
$0.06 $0.06 $0.09 -
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Dec 2013 June 2014 Sept 2014
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
General
Fund
Special
Revenue
Debt
Service
Governmenta l Fund Ba la nces -By Fund GroupGovernmentalFund Ba la nces -By Fund Group
$18.59
$22.48
$19.10
-
6
12
18
24
Dec 2013 June 2014 Sept 2014
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Governmenta l Fund Balances
-Combined
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 138 of 458
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2013 6/30/2014 9/30/2014 Q2 YTD
104 - Drug Enforcement Fund 91,432$ 96,001$ 78,906$ 17,095$ (12,526)$
111 - Street Fund 215,200 109,281 380,056 (270,775) 164,856
112 - Combined Street Const/Improve 481,154 569,751 121,221 448,530 (359,933)
117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 431,932 427,425 434,671 (7,246) 2,740
118 - Memorial Street Tree 17,703 17,734 17,751 (17) 49
120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 106,735 118,342 122,099 (3,756) 15,363
121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 61,719 71,944 73,489 (1,545) 11,770
122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 13,858 12,919 12,509 410 (1,349)
123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 70,429 77,709 80,747 (3,038) 10,318
125 - Real Estate Tax 2 1,101,453 1,450,052 1,732,803 (123,693) 631,350
126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 760,453 1,140,808 1,467,586 (326,779) 707,133
127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 225,677 247,909 247,999 (89) 22,322
129 - Special Projects Fund 15,289 46,392 46,428 (37) 31,139
130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 70,203 65,975 93,951 (27,975) 23,748
132 - Parks Construction Fund 718,446 707,475 845,649 (138,174) 127,203
136 - Parks Trust Fund 150,334 150,676 150,821 (145) 487
137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 839,292 847,898 855,651 (7,754) 16,359
138 - Sister City Commission 2,014 1,742 1,149 593 (865)
Total Special Revenue 5,373,323$ 6,160,031$ 6,763,486$ (444,397)$ 1,390,163$
GOVERNMENTAL
Special Revenue
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$5.37
$6.16 $6.76
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Dec 2013 June 2014 Sept 2014
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Special
Revenue
Special Revenue Funds
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 139 of 458
ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2013 6/30/2014 9/30/2014 Q2 YTD
421 - Water Utility Fund 15,244,015$ 15,591,456$ 16,104,314$ (512,858)$ 860,299$
422 - Storm Utility Fund 9,184,099 9,534,131 9,923,669 (389,538) 739,570
423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 43,359,087 42,916,883 43,364,105 (447,221) 5,018
424 - Bond Reserve Fund 787,224 446,817 787,225 (340,408) 1
411 - Combined Utility Operation - 132,280 217,029 (84,749) 217,029
Total Enterprise Funds 68,574,425$ 68,621,567$ 70,396,342$ (1,774,775)$ 1,821,917$
ENTERPRISE
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$217,029
$16,104,314
$9,923,669
$43,364,105
$787,225
$-
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
Combined Utility Water Utility Storm Utility Sewer/WWTP Utility Bond Reserve
Enterprise Fund Balances as of September 30, 2014
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycle
Packet Page 140 of 458
SUMMARY OVERVIEW
12/31/2013 6/30/2014 9/30/2014 Q2 YTD
Governmental Funds 18,591,283$ 22,482,049$ 19,096,715$ 3,544,392$ 505,432$
Enterprise Funds 68,574,425 68,621,567 70,396,342 (1,774,775) 1,821,917
Internal Services Fund 6,847,165 7,110,620 7,224,359 (113,739) 377,194
Agency Funds 247,178 296,620 281,876 14,744 34,698
Total City-wide Total 94,260,051$ 98,510,856$ 96,999,293$ 1,670,622$ 2,739,242$
CITY-WIDE
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
$82,517
$199,360
$7,224,359
$47,968
$38,443
$1,149
$855,651
$150,821
$845,649
$93,951
$46,428
$247,999
$1,467,586
$1,732,803
$80,747
$12,509
$73,489
$122,099
$17,751
$434,671
$121,221
$380,056
$78,906
$12,246,925
$1 $20,000,000
Business Improvement District
Firemen's Pension Fund
Equipment Rental Fund
2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund $(108)
L.I.D. Guaranty Fund
L.I.D. Fund Control
Sister City Commission
Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund
Parks Trust Fund
Parks Construction Fund
Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
Special Projects Fund
Gifts Catalog Fund
Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq
Real Estate Excise Tax 2
Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
Youth Scholarship Fund
Employee Parking Permit Fund
Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
Memorial Street Fund
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
Combined Street Const/Improve Fund
Street Fund
Drug Enforcement Fund
General Fund
Governmental Fund Balances as of September 30, 2014
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 141 of 458
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2013 6/30/2014 9/30/2014 Q2 YTD
511 - Equipment Rental Fund 6,847,165$ 7,110,620$ 7,224,359$ 2,827$ 377,194$
Total Internal Service Funds 6,847,165$ 7,110,620$ 7,224,359$ 2,827$ 377,194$
INTERNAL SERVICE
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$6.85 $7.11 $7.22
-
2
4
6
8
Dec 2013 June 2014 Sept 2014
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
511 - Equipment Rental Fund
Internal Service Fund Ba la nces
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 142 of 458
AM-7233 4. F.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/28/2014
Time:
Submitted By:Mary Ann Hardie
Department:Human Resources
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for change in health insurance coverage for City employees from United Healthcare PPO
plan to the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Regence Healthfirst PPO plan.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the entire Council approve this consent agenda item at the meeting on October
28, 2014 and thus authorize the mayor to sign the AWC Employee Benefit Trust Employer Master
Participation Agreement.
Previous Council Action
On October 21, 2014, representatives of the Health Benefits Committee recommended to the City
Council that the City enter into an agreement with AWC to participate in the AWC Regence Healthfirst
health insurance plan. The City Council has authorized this for full consent at the October 28, 2014
Council meeting.
Narrative
The Health Benefits Committee (HBC) which is comprised of all of the union groups at the City, as well
as the non-represented employees, has been meeting to discuss the City’s health insurance plan options
because the City’s health insurance coverage with United Healthcare (UHC) is ending on December 31,
2014. Based on the City’s claims utilization data as an individual risk pool for 2013 and 2014, and the
resulting potentially significant increase in costs if the City were to continue on the UHC plan, the City
looked into other viable health insurance options for 2015 and beyond.
At the last HBC meeting, after reviewing the current UHC plan and other plan options (Aetna and GHC
Access PPO) presented by the City’s insurance broker, Gallagher Benefit Services, as well as the plan
under which the City was previously insured (the Association of Washington Cities – Regence Healthfirst
plan), the Committee recommended the AWC Regence Healthfirst plan as the desired health insurance
plan option for 2015.
Not only does the HBC believe that the AWC Regence Healthfirst plan is an equivalent plan to the
current UHC medical insurance plan, but there are some plan benefits that are greater than the current
UHC plan. Additionally, the AWC Regence Healthfirst plan appears to be clearly the most cost-effective
and least expensive plan option for the City. For these reasons, the HBC and HR staff recommend that
the City move from the UHC preferred provider option (PPO) medical insurance plan to the AWC
Regence Healthfirst (PPO) medical insurance plan effective January 1, 2015.
Packet Page 143 of 458
Attachments
Employer Master Participation Agreement form (page 1)
Employer Master Participation Agreement form (page 2)
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Parks and Recreation Scott Passey 10/23/2014 01:35 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/23/2014 01:35 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/23/2014 01:38 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/23/2014 01:40 PM
Form Started By: Mary Ann Hardie Started On: 10/23/2014 10:55 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/23/2014
Packet Page 144 of 458
Employer:Date form completed:
Initial Employer Master Participation Agreement
Change to existing Employer Master Participation Agreement The effective date of the change is:
The change to the existing Employer Master Participation Agreement is:
Form completed by: (name, title)
Total number of full-time employees eligible for ANY employer sponsored health coverage:
Total number of full-time employees: Eligible Enrolled
AWC sponsored medical plans
AWC sponsored dental plans
AWC sponsored vision plans
Total number of LEoFF I actives: Fire dept:Police dept:
Total number of LEoFF I retirees: Fire dept:Police dept:
Do you provide health coverage for your elected officials?Yes No
Total number of elected officials:Eligible Enrolled
AWC sponsored medical plans
AWC sponsored dental plans
AWC sponsored vision plans
Do you provide health coverage for your part-time employees?Yes No
If yes, provide your definition of minimum hours worked per week in order for part-time
employees to be eligible for benefits. (Must be a minimum of 20 hours/week.)
Total number of part-time employees:Eligible Enrolled
AWC sponsored medical plans
AWC sponsored dental plans
AWC sponsored vision plans
AWC Employee Benefit Trust
Employer Master Participation Agreement
awcnet.org
The AWC Employee Benefit Trust is a plan sponsor for health coverage through the following insurance carriers:
EMPA-2 (1/14)
Medical
Group Health320 Westlake Ave N, Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98109-5233
528 E Spokane Falls Blvd, Suite 301 Spokane, WA 99202
1800 Ninth Ave Seattle, WA 98101
Vision
3333 Quality Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Life & LTD
Standard Insurance Company 1100 SW 6th AvePortland, oR 97204
EAP
NBC Tower 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive Chicago, IL 60611-5322
Dental
Willamette Dental of Washington, Inc. 6950 NE Campus Way Hillsboro, oR 97124
9706 Fourth Ave NE Seattle, WA 98115
Packet Page 145 of 458
Eligibility criteria:
EMPLoyEEs:
1. Employees are covered the first day of the month after date of hire. Yes No (If no, complete #2 & #3 below.)
2. Employees have a ____________________ probationary period and then are covered the first of the month following
the date probationary period is completed. Waiting period and enrollment cannot be longer than 90 days. (Written
employer policy must be submitted to AWC.)
3. If an employee’s hire date is the first day or first working day of the month – is your policy to (check one):
A. Start the employee’s insurance on the first of that month or
B. Start the employee’s insurance on the first of the month following date of hire
4. Employee’s insurance coverage terminates the first of the month following the date of termination/date of retirement.
Yes No
If no, please explain employer policy below. (Written employer policy must be submitted to AWC.)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
DEPEnDEnTs:
1. Dependents are eligible to be covered on the employer’s plan. Yes No
2. Eligible dependents are covered when the employee becomes eligible for coverage. Yes No
If no, please explain your policy below. (Written employer policy must be submitted to AWC.)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Domestic Partner health care coverage is required by state law. If you have a more generous domestic partner policy
than required by Washington state law (RCW 48.44.900), briefly describe this policy below & attach the policy.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Joining the Trust:
1. Newly enrolling cities/groups commit to a minimum of 3 years participation in the Trust.
Plan additions oR plan changes:
1. Written notification of change and/or addition of plan(s) should be sent to the AWC Trust office 30-days prior to the
change and/or addition. This will be accomplished by completing a new Master Participation Agreement.
2. AWC Combined Insurance Enrollment Forms and/or employee lists must be submitted a minimum of 30 days prior to the
change/addition. The Trust prefers the forms prior to this to ensure the smoothest transition.
Coverage termination:
1. Cities with 250 or more employees: Written notification of total city coverage termination must be sent to the AWC
Trust office 1 year prior to termination date. Effective date of termination is December 31 only, therefore notice must
be provided to the Trust by the January 1 prior to the December 31 termination date.
Cities with under 250 employees: Written notification of total city coverage termination must be sent to the AWC Trust
office 6 months prior to termination date. Effective date of termination is December 31 only, therefore notice must be
provided to the Trust by the July 1 prior to the December 31 termination date.
2. Cities of any size terminating a group or line of coverage must notify the Trust a minimum of 60 days prior to
termination in order to facilitate a smooth transition. Terminations are allowed the first of any month following the 60
day notification period.
3. Upon notification of plan termination, the AWC Trust will notify the member jurisdiction of impacted COBRA
beneficiaries and retirees.
4. Re-entry into the AWC Trust has no restrictions at this time.
5. Board of Trustees may terminate a participating employers participation in the Trust for cause; when required by law
for failure to pay premiums or at its discretion with 60 days written notice.
A listing of Trust-sponsored medical, dental, vision, life, LTD and EAP plans, rates and the AWC Trust’s participation
criteria is available in the annual employer Administrative Guide.
I have provided these answers as part of the procedure required by the AWC Employee Benefit Trust to provide or change
any AWC Trust-sponsored insurance coverage for our employees. I certify that all information completed on this form
is true, correct, and complete. I understand that the AWC Trust will rely on each answer to ensure underwriting rule
compliance. It is a crime to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading information to the Board of Trustees
for the purposes of defrauding the company. Penalties include imprisonment, fines, and denial of insurance benefits. In
addition, the Board of Trustees will have the right to collect any claims payments or other damages.
Signed Date Title Packet Page 146 of 458
Plan offerings
Complete one sheet for each work group or bargaining unit (i.e. public works, police guild, finance, etc.) If all
employees are on the same plans - write “all employees.”
Name of work/bargaining unit # employees eligible
other (non-AWC) plan offerings
AWC plan offerings
Life
1100 SW 6th Ave Portland, OR 97204
standard Insurance
Company
❏ Basic life
❏ Accidental Death &
Dismemberment
❏ Dependent life
❏ Plan option 1
❏ Plan option 2
❏ Employee additional
life
❏ Spouse additional life
Long-term Disability
1100 SW 6th Ave Portland, OR 97204
standard Insurance
Company
❏ 90-day: 60% benefit
❏ 90-day: 67% benefit
❏ 180-day: 60% benefit
❏ 180-day: 67% benefit
Medical
1800 Ninth Ave Seattle, WA 98101
❏ Regence Blueshield
❏ AWC HealthFirst®
❏ AWC HealthFirst® 250
❏ AWC HealthFirst® 500
❏ High Deductible Health Plan
❏ Plan A – LEOFF I only
❏ Medicare Advantage -
LEoFF I retiree only
528 E Spokane Falls Blvd, Suite 301 Spokane, WA 99202
❏ Asuris northwest Health
❏ AWC HealthFirst®
❏ AWC HealthFirst® 250
❏ AWC HealthFirst® 500
❏ High Deductible Health Plan
❏ Plan A – LEOFF I only
❏ Medicare Advantage -
LEoFF I retiree only
320 Westlake Ave N, Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98109-5233
❏ Group Health Cooperative
❏ $ I0 copay
❏ $20 copay,
$200 deductible plan
❏ High Deductible Health Plan
❏ No copay – LEOFF I only
❏ Group Health options, Inc.
❏ $250 deductible plan
Dental
9706 Fourth Ave NE Seattle, WA 98115
Delta Dental of
Washington
Basic (0177)
❏ Plan A
❏ Plan B
❏ Plan C
❏ Plan D
❏ Plan E
❏ Plan F
❏ Plan G
orthodontia
❏ option I
❏ Option 11
❏ Option 111
❏ option IV
❏ option V
6950 NE Campus Way Hillsboro, OR 97124
Willamette Dental of
Washington, Inc.
❏ $ I0 copay
❏ $ I5 copay
Vision
3333 Quality Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Vision service Plan
❏ No deductible (0001)
❏ $10 deductible (0002)
❏ $25 deductible (0005)
❏ Low option plan
❏ Second pair rider
Employee Assistance
Program
NBC Tower 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive Chicago, IL 60611-5322
ComPysch
❏ 1-3 sessions
❏ 1-5 sessions
❏ 1-8 sessions
Include coverage for:
❏ Group Health participants
❏ Not covered by AWC
medical plan
❏ other, describe:
_________________________
_________________________
# enrolled
# enrolled
# enrolled
Name of plan/sponsor # employees eligible # employees enrolled
Medical
Dental
Vision
EAP
Life
LTD
# enrolled# enrolled# enrolled
AWC EMPLoyER MAsTER PARTICIPATIon AGREEMEnT
Packet Page 147 of 458
Plan offerings
Complete one sheet for each work group or bargaining unit (i.e. public works, police guild, finance, etc.) If all
employees are on the same plans - write “all employees.”
Name of work/bargaining unit # employees eligible
other (non-AWC) plan offerings
AWC plan offerings
Life
1100 SW 6th Ave Portland, OR 97204
standard Insurance
Company
❏ Basic life
❏ Accidental Death &
Dismemberment
❏ Dependent life
❏ Plan option 1
❏ Plan option 2
❏ Employee additional
life
❏ Spouse additional life
Long-term Disability
1100 SW 6th Ave Portland, OR 97204
standard Insurance
Company
❏ 90-day: 60% benefit
❏ 90-day: 67% benefit
❏ 180-day: 60% benefit
❏ 180-day: 67% benefit
Medical
1800 Ninth Ave Seattle, WA 98101
❏ Regence Blueshield
❏ AWC HealthFirst®
❏ AWC HealthFirst® 250
❏ AWC HealthFirst® 500
❏ High Deductible Health Plan
❏ Plan A – LEOFF I only
❏ Medicare Advantage -
LEoFF I retiree only
528 E Spokane Falls Blvd, Suite 301 Spokane, WA 99202
❏ Asuris northwest Health
❏ AWC HealthFirst®
❏ AWC HealthFirst® 250
❏ AWC HealthFirst® 500
❏ High Deductible Health Plan
❏ Plan A – LEOFF I only
❏ Medicare Advantage -
LEoFF I retiree only
320 Westlake Ave N, Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98109-5233
❏ Group Health Cooperative
❏ $ I0 copay
❏ $20 copay,
$200 deductible plan
❏ High Deductible Health Plan
❏ No copay – LEOFF I only
❏ Group Health options, Inc.
❏ $250 deductible plan
Dental
9706 Fourth Ave NE Seattle, WA 98115
Delta Dental of
Washington
Basic (0177)
❏ Plan A
❏ Plan B
❏ Plan C
❏ Plan D
❏ Plan E
❏ Plan F
❏ Plan G
orthodontia
❏ option I
❏ Option 11
❏ Option 111
❏ option IV
❏ option V
6950 NE Campus Way Hillsboro, OR 97124
Willamette Dental of
Washington, Inc.
❏ $ I0 copay
❏ $ I5 copay
Vision
3333 Quality Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Vision service Plan
❏ No deductible (0001)
❏ $10 deductible (0002)
❏ $25 deductible (0005)
❏ Low option plan
❏ Second pair rider
Employee Assistance
Program
NBC Tower 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive Chicago, IL 60611-5322
ComPysch
❏ 1-3 sessions
❏ 1-5 sessions
❏ 1-8 sessions
Include coverage for:
❏ Group Health participants
❏ Not covered by AWC
medical plan
❏ other, describe:
_________________________
_________________________
# enrolled
# enrolled
# enrolled
Name of plan/sponsor # employees eligible # employees enrolled
Medical
Dental
Vision
EAP
Life
LTD
# enrolled# enrolled# enrolled
AWC EMPLoyER MAsTER PARTICIPATIon AGREEMEnT
Packet Page 148 of 458
AM-7232 5.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/28/2014
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
October is National Sudden Cardiac Arrest Awareness Month and in honor of that Mayor Earling will
read a proclamation for 'The Heart of Edmonds School District & Community Heart Safe Project'.
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The Heart of Edmonds School District & Community Heart Safe Project was established under the Nick
of Time Foundation with the help of Melinda Truax in memory of her 16 year old son Matthew Truax
who died from sudden cardiac arrest while at school. The project's goals are to educate the community on
heart health awareness, the safety and use of CPR and AEDs and to provide, through private funds, AEDs
in every public school and community field in the Edmonds School District as well as ongoing instruction
and maintenance program for those AEDs.
Attachments
HESD_CHSP
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/23/2014 12:05 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/23/2014 01:30 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/23/2014 01:31 PM
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 10/23/2014 10:44 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/23/2014
Packet Page 149 of 458
Packet Page 150 of 458
AM-7155 7.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/28/2014
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Buckshnis Submitted By:Jana
Spellman
Department:City Council
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Annual Report on Edmonds School District #15 by Superintendent Brossoit
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Annual Report on Edmonds School District #15 by Superintendent Brossoit
Attachments
2014-15 School Year Highlights - Edmonds S D #15
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/23/2014 10:16 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/23/2014 10:44 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/23/2014 01:11 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 09/18/2014 09:35 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/23/2014
Packet Page 151 of 458
Packet Page 152 of 458
AM-7240 8.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/28/2014
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted By:Kernen Lien
Department:Planning
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Forward to Consent
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on an ordinance designating the Schumacher Building located at 316 Main Street,
Edmonds, Washington for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, and directing
the Development Services Director or his designee to designate the site on the official zoning
map with an “HR” designation. (File No. PLN20140037).
Recommendation
Move approval of the ordinance (Exhibit 1) as recommended by the Edmonds Historic
Preservation Commission to consent agenda for the November 3, 2014 Council Meeting.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The current owners of the Schumacher Building, located at 316Main Street (site of Chanterelle
Restaurant), have nominated the residence for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places
and signed the property owners' written consent for listing the property (Exhibit 2). The Edmonds
Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the nomination to place the Schumacher Building on
the Edmonds Register at a public hearing on September 11, 2014 and concluded that the site is
eligible for listing pursuant to the designation criteria in ECDC 20.45.010 (Exhibit 4).
The Schumacher Building as constructed by William A. Schumacher who was the city treasurer
that founded the Bank of Edmonds. Schumacher also constructed the Bank of Edmonds building
at 326 Main Street which also is on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places.
The building is an example of Western False Front building. In the late nineteenth and early
twentieth-century, false front commercial buildings were typically wood frame, one to two
stories in height with a rectangular floor plan and a front gabbled roof.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Draft Ordinance
Packet Page 153 of 458
Exhibit 2 - Nomination Form
Exhibit 3 - Historic Preservation Staff Report
Exhibit 4 - September 11, 2014 HPC Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 5 - Edmonds Patch article on William Schumacher
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/23/2014 03:06 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/23/2014 03:41 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/23/2014 03:43 PM
Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 10/23/2014 02:25 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/23/2014
Packet Page 154 of 458
- 1 -
kpl
2014/10/23
ORDINANCE NO. ___
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF THE
SCHUMACHER BUILDING LOCATED AT 316 MAIN
STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON
THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND
DIRECTING THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
OR DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION.,
AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the building known as the Schumacher Building located at 316 Main
Street, Edmonds, Washington, is included on the Historic Survey of Downtown Edmonds
prepared by BOLA Architecture in conjunction with the Washington State Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation in October, 2004, as a property that is potentially eligible
for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission held a public
hearing on September 11, 2014, to consider the eligibility of the Schumacher Building for listing
on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the staff recommendation the Commission
unanimously voted to recommend to the City Council that the Schumacher Building be listed on
the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and
WHEREAS, the owner(s) have given their written consent for such designation;
and
Packet Page 155 of 458
- 2 -
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Historic
Preservation Commission regarding the features of the site which contribute to its designation
and finds that the application meets the criteria of the ordinance as contained in Chapter 20.45 of
the ECDC; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on October 28, 2014, to
consider the Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendation; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The building located at 316 Main Street Edmonds, Washington
98020, known as the Schumacher Builder, is hereby approved for designation to the Edmonds
Historic Register. The exterior of the building is hereby designated as significant.
Section 2. The Development Services Director, or her designee, is hereby
authorized to designate the listed site on the Edmonds zoning map with an “HR” designation.
This designation does not change or modify the underlying zone classification.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Packet Page 156 of 458
- 3 -
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY ______
JEFFREY B. TARADAY, CITY ATTORNEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: ________
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ________
PUBLISHED: ________
EFFECTIVE DATE: ________
ORDINANCE NO. _____
Packet Page 157 of 458
- 4 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 3rd day of November, 2014, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. ____. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title,
provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF THE SCHUMACHER BUILDING
LOCATED AT 316 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON
THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON
THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION., AND FIXING A TIME
WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this ___ day of November, 2014.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Page 158 of 458
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
9
o
f
4
5
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
0
o
f
4
5
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
1
o
f
4
5
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
2
o
f
4
5
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
3
o
f
4
5
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
4
o
f
4
5
8
Meeting Date: September 11, 2014
Agenda Subject: Application for designation of Schumacher Building at 316 Main Street as
eligible for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Property Information
Site Name/Location: Schumacher Building (Chanterelle Restaurant)
316 Main Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Tax Account #: 00434401600503
Township 27 Range 03E Section 24 ¼ Sec SW ¼-¼ Sec
Construction date: 1900
Owner/Applicant Information
Person(s) Nominating Site: Dena Blatt and Gerry Tays
Property Owner: Dena Blatt
Report Summary
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission finds that the
Schumacher Building meets the criteria for designation on the
Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The exterior of the
structure contains the significant architectural features.
City of Edmonds
Historic Preservation Commission
Designation Staff Report
Packet Page 165 of 458
Designation
Criteria
Meets
Criteria
Staff
Comments
1. Significantly associated with the
history, architecture, archaeology,
engineering or cultural heritage of
Edmonds…
This commercial building is associated
with the early commercial development of
Edmonds.
2. Has integrity… The BOLA report notes that the building
is a largely intact example of Western
False Front storefront building. A photo
that appears to be from the 1970’s show a
different false front from the historic
period of significance and what current
exists. A review of the permit system
indicates that the building was restored in
1999 or 2000. The restoration appears to
have been consistent with the Department
of the Interior’s guidelines for restoration
and the building as it appears today
matches the appearance of the building
during its period of significance.
3. Age at least 50 years old, or has
exceptional importance if less than 50
years old…
The building was constructed in 1900 and
thus is 114 years old.
4. Falls into at least one of the following
designation categories:
Designation Category
a. Associated with events that have
made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of national, state or
local history.
b. Embodies the distinctive architectural
characteristics of a type, period, style
or method of design or construction,
or represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual
distinction.
The Schumacher Building is an example
of Western False Front building. In the
late nineteenth and early twentieth-
century, false front commercial buildings
were typically wood frame, one to two
stories in height with a rectangular floor
plan and a front gabbled roof.
c. Is an outstanding work of a designer,
builder or architect who has made a
substantial contribution to the art.
Packet Page 166 of 458
Designation
Criteria
Meets
Criteria
Staff
Comments
d. Exemplifies or reflects special
elements of the City’s cultural, social,
economic, political, aesthetic,
engineering or architectural history.
The Schumacher Building is associated
with the early commercial development of
Edmonds. This building was the home of
Heberein’s Hardware Store for years and
in the 1940’s its occupant was the
Furniture Exchange.
e. Is associated with the lives of persons
significant in national, state or local
history.
The building was constructed by William
A. Schumacher who was the city treasurer
that founded the Bank of Edmonds.
Schumacher also constructed the Bank of
Edmonds building at 326 Main Street
which also is on the Edmonds Register of
Historic Places.
f. Has yielded or may be likely to yield
important archaeological information
related to history or prehistory.
g. Is a building or structure removed
from its original location but which is
significant primarily for architectural
value, or which is the only surviving
structure significantly associated with
a historic person or event.
h. Is a birthplace or grave of a historical
figure of outstanding importance and
is the only surviving structure or site
associated with that person.
i. Is a cemetery which derives its
primary significance from age, from
distinctive design features, or from
association with historic events or
cultural patterns.
j. Is a reconstructed building that has
been executed in a historically
accurate manner on the original site.
k. Is a creative and unique example of
folk architecture and design created
by persons not formally trained in the
architectural or design professions,
and which does not fit into formal
architectural or historical, the
designation shall include description
of the boundaries of categories.
Packet Page 167 of 458
Significant Features
1. Shape: The building is a two-story rectangular building with a false front making
the building appear taller on the front than on the exposed south side.
2. Roof and Roof
Features:
A front gabled roof is hidden behind the false front.
3. Openings
(entries, etc.):
At the first floor, the north primary facade contains glazed storefront with a
recessed entry with double doors, wood framed windows and band of
transom windows. At the second floor there are five evenly spaced double-
hung windows, notable for their vertical proportions and simple two over
two subdivision. The secondary west facade is similar, but features non-
original windows and coated aluminum display windows set within painted
wood sash. A central recessed entrance accesses two separate retail spaces
and upper floor offices. Entry doors to the second floor are located at the
northeast and southwest corners. The west facade features single and pairs
of double-hung wood windows on the first floor and five, evenly spaced
paired double- hung windows at the second floor, each with planter boxes
4. Projections: N/A
5. Trim & secondary
features
Above the band of transom windows there is a continuous projecting
classical detailed trim, supported by small brackets, that acts as an
intermediate cornice band between the first and second floors. A similar
trim lines the top of the false front.
6. Materials: The building has V-grooved siding that extends nearly to grade with
screened openings exposing the crawl space.
7. Setting: The building is located on a block with, and connected to, structures of a
similar age. The building directly to the east was the site of the Kingdon’s
General Store and was constructed in 1910. Just east of Kingdon’s General
Store is the Bank of Edmonds which was constructed in 1907 and is
currently on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. William A.
Schumacher constructed the building as well as the Bank of Edmonds
building. Further to the east across 4th Ave is the Beeson Building, which
was constructed in 1909. All these buildings maintain much of their historic
character and add greatly to the ambiance of downtown Edmonds.
8. Materials at close
range
N/A
9. Craft details: N/A
10. Individual
rooms/spaces:
N/A. Interior features are not considered for nomination.
11. Related spaces or
sequences:
N/A
12. Interior features: N/A. Interior features are not considered for nomination
Packet Page 168 of 458
13. Surface finishes &
materials:
N/A
14. Exposed structure: N/A
Schumacher Building, no date identified (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical Museum)
Packet Page 169 of 458
Schumacher Building circa 1909 (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical Museum)
Schumacher Building between 1939 – 1945 (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical Museum)
Packet Page 170 of 458
Schumacher Building in the 1970’s? (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical Museum)
Schumacher Building 2004 (Photo from Bola Report)
Packet Page 171 of 458
Rear of Schumacher Building 2004 (Photo from Bola Report)
Notes on historic register nominations:
Chapter 20.45.020 ECDC* states that if the Commission finds that the nominated property is eligible
for placement on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, the Commission shall make a
recommendation to the City Council that the property be listed on the register with owner’s consent.
According to Chapter 20.45.040 ECDC, listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places is an
honorary designation denoting significant association with the historic, archaeological, engineering or
cultural heritage of the community. Properties are listed individually or as contributing properties to a
historic district. No property may be listed without the owner’s permission.
Prior to the commencement of any work on a register property, excluding ordinary repair and
maintenance and emergency measures defined in Section 20.45.000(H), the owner must request and
receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission for the proposed work. Violation of this
rule shall be grounds for the Commission to review the property for removal from the register.
Prior to whole or partial demolition of a register property, the owner must request and receive a waiver
of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Because Edmonds is a Certified Local Government (CLG), all properties listed on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places may be eligible for a special tax valuation on their rehabilitation.
* Edmonds Community Development Code
Packet Page 172 of 458
APPROVED
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014 Page 2
Register of Historic Places, and specifically history of the Schumacher Building. The article could also invite others to place
their properties on the Register and encourage interested citizens to join the Commission.
The Commission discussed that their web page has not been consistently updated when new properties are added to the
Register. Mr. Lien advised that Mr. Chave typically updates the Commission’s web page as directed by the Commission.
The Commission agreed to add, “Updates to the Historic Preservation Commission’s Web Page” as a monthly agenda item.
Preservation Planning Committee
The Preservation Planning Committee did not have any items to report.
South Snohomish County Historical Society
Commissioner Allbery announced that Scarecrow Festival is gearing up, and many people have signed up to participate,
including the Historic Preservation Commission. Winners will be announced at a separate function at the Edmonds Museum
on November 3rd. The Edmonds Museum is also in the process of interviewing candidates for the position of Director. In
addition, the Society is moving forward with plans for the Heritage Days Benefit Dinner on October 24 th, and the main focus
will be funding to remodel the front of the Edmonds Museum. Council Member Petso agreed to make an announcement
about the dinner, including how to donate and/or purchase tickets, at the next City Council meeting.
OTHER REPORTS
There were no other reports scheduled on the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
Public Hearing to Determine the Eligibility of the Schumacher Building located at 316 Main Street for listing on the
Edmonds Register of Historic Places (File Number PLN20140037)
Mr. Lien provided a brief history of the building and reviewed how the property meets the designation criteria required to be
considered eligible for the Register:
Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or cultural heritage of Edmonds.
The building is associated with the early commercial development of Edmonds.
Has integrity. The BOLA Report noted that the building is a largely intact example of a Western False Front
building. A photo from the 1970’s shows a different false front from the historic period of significance and what
currently exists. However, a review of the permit system indicates that the building was restored in 1999 or 2000 in
a manner consistent with the Department of the Interior’s guidelines for restoration, and the current building
matches the appearance of the building during its period of significance.
Age at least 50 years old, or has exception importance if less than 50 years old. The building was constructed in
1900, making it 114 years old.
In addition to the three criteria, Mr. Lien advised that the property must be consistent with at least one of the other
designation categories. He suggested that the property is consistent with the following designation categories:
Embodies the distinctive architectural characteristics of a type, period, style or method of design or construction, or
represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. The
Schumacher building is an example of late 19 th and early 20th Century Western False Front Buildings, which were
typically wood frame and one to two stories in height, with a rectangular floor plan and a front gabled roof.
Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or
architectural history. The building is associated with the early commercial development of Edmonds. It was home
to the Heberein’s Hardware Store for years, and was occupied by the Furniture Exchange in the 1940’s.
Packet Page 173 of 458
APPROVED
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014 Page 3
Associated with the lives of persons significant in national, state or local history. The building was constructed by
William A. Schumacher, who was the City Treasurer and founder of the Bank of Edmonds. He also constructed the
Bank of Edmonds Building at 326 Main Street, which is also on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Lien reviewed the significant features of the building as listed in the Staff Report. He summarized staff’s finding that the
building meets the criteria to be eligible for designation on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places and that the exterior of
the structure contains the significant architectural features. He recommended the Commission approve the nomination as
presented.
Questions were raised about the date the building was constructed. Mr. Lien said both the BOLA Report and information
from the County Assessor identify the year of construction as 1900.
Commissioner Waite pointed out the rooftop equipment that was added to the building by the current owner, and perhaps it
should be specifically excluded. It was noted that the roof top equipment is not prominent from the street front, and the
character defining aspect of the building is its western false front, which is intact.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION FIND THAT THE SCHUMACHER BUILDING
MEETS THE CRITERIA AND RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE IT FOR DESIGNATION
ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. COMMISSIONER VOGEL SECONDED THE
MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Certificate of Appropriateness for Stouli Residence at 533- 3rd Avenue South (File Number PLN20090035)
Mr. Lien announced that the owner of the residence at 533 – 3rd Avenue South has applied for a building permit for a rather
large addition to the structure. He reviewed that when the property was placed on the Register, the owner indicated he was
planning to do some additions. The Commission assured him that the property could be taken off the Register if the proposed
changes do not meet the requirements for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mr. Lien provided a diagram to illustrate the current structure and the proposed addition, which would more than double the
size of the house. Staff does not believe the proposal would meet the criteria for a Certificate of Appropriateness, and a
building permit cannot be issued until the owner either obtains a Certificate of Appropriateness or the building is taken off
the Register. He briefly reviewed the process for taking a property off the Register, which includes both a public meeting
before the Commission and final action by the City Council.
The Commission agreed that the proposed addition would alter the character and setting of the house. They discussed the
option of allowing the original part of the house to remain on the Register. Mr. Lien explained that a Certificate of
Appropriateness would still be required. In order to be consistent with previous Commission decisions, the Commission
agreed that the structure should be removed from the Register.
Commissioner Waite emphasized that the Commission is not opposed to owners making changes or additions to properties
on the Register if they are done correctly. As per the criteria, alterations and additions should reflect the period in which they
are done. The proposed addition would be a complete falsification of history that does nothing to enhance the property. He
said he would have been pleased to support an addition that respects and compliments the patterns of the existing structure.
The Commission agreed it is important to be responsive to the proper ty owner’s request. If the process is too onerous, people
will be reluctant to place their properties on the Register.
COMMISSIONER VOGEL MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION SCHEDULE A SPECIAL MEETING ON
SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 AT 5:30 P.M. TO DISCUSS A PROPOSAL TO REMOVE THE PROPERTY AT 533 – 3RD
AVENUE SOUTH FROM THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. COMMISSIONER WAITE
SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Packet Page 174 of 458
William H. Schumacher, Edmonds
Renaissance Man
William H. Schumacher, a man of diverse talents, many interests, and boundless
energy, was a major player in Edmonds' formative years.
By Larry Vogel (Open Post) (/users/larry-vogel)
Updated August 10, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Best remembered today for the historic downtown building bearing his name,
William H. Schumacher was a major player in the cast of characters who shaped
the young city of Edmonds in the late 19 and early 20 centuries.
He and his brother, Roy W. Schumacher, first appear in the historic records of
Edmonds as the builders and owners of Edmonds first commercial building. Built
in 1890 on the south side of Main Street between Third and Fourth Avenues, the
Schumacher Building originally housed the Schumacher general store. (see the
th th
Page 1 of 5William H. Schumacher, Edmonds Renaissance Man | Edmonds, WA Patch
10/23/2014http://patch.com/washington/edmonds/william-h-schumacher-edmonds-renaissance-man
Packet Page 175 of 458
July 2010 Preservationist
(http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/HPC/HPC_docs/Preservationist_Jul_2010_final.pdf)
from the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission
(http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/hpc.stm)).
His first involvement in the public sector came in 1894. William Schumacher was
particularly adept at finance and accounting, and that year the city council
appointed him Edmonds City Treasurer. He held this position for several years
while continuing to run the general store with his brother. But Edmonds was
growing rapidly, and this created new opportunities for a man of Schumacher's
talents.
By 1904, Edmonds was home to a number of businesses, with more opening
every month. The logging and shingle industries were booming, new mills were
opening, and existing ones were expanding and adding equipment. The town's
population was increasing, home construction was soaring, and payrolls were
growing. All this meant increased financial activity, and the need for a local bank
was clear.
That year, two Seattle lawyers and a Port Angeles businessman joined forces to
open the first bank in Edmonds. They actively recruited participants from the local
community, and City Treasurer Schumacher was high on their short list. He was
approached, and agreed to have his name listed as a director of the new bank,
which opened in December 1904. In order to devote his full energies to this new
position, he and his brother Roy sold their general store in late 1904.
Schumacher was a scrupulous accountant, and it didn’t take long for him to
discover some fatal problems with the new bank’s finances. Specifically, the three
principals had invested no cash in the project, leaving the bank operating as a
shell with no capital backing. Taking matters into his own hands, Schumacher
used the list of contacts he’d developed over a decade as City Treasurer to find
Page 2 of 5William H. Schumacher, Edmonds Renaissance Man | Edmonds, WA Patch
10/23/2014http://patch.com/washington/edmonds/william-h-schumacher-edmonds-renaissance-man
Packet Page 176 of 458
backers and raise capital. In short order he raised the necessary money, bought
out the original three principals, and set the bank on a solid financial basis with
$12,000 cash capital.
In 1907, the bank moved to its newly constructed quarters on the corner of Fourth
and Main, two doors east of the Schumacher Building, and became the State Bank
of Edmonds. William Schumacher was listed as cashier, and his brother Roy W.
Schumacher as assistant cashier. The Edmonds Bank Building still stands today,
and is listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places (see the press release
(http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/HPC/HPC_docs/BankBuildingPressRel.pdf)).
Restless by nature, William Schumacher was always seeking new horizons. On
October 1, 1908, he plunged into the newspaper business when he purchased the
Edmonds Tribune from T.A.A. Seigfiedt, Edmonds lawyer and real estate
developer. Siegfriedt was the second owner of the Tribune, having bought it the
year before from Will Taylor, who had established it in 1907 (see Patch article ). At
that time, the Tribune was housed at Fourth and Main in a building owned by .
A month after taking over the paper, Schumacher inadvertently set off a firestorm
by publishing a letter from former Tribune owner Siegfriedt. Siegfriedt was a
member of the Edmonds Law and Order League, a group of citizens opposed to
what they saw as corruption and cronyism in Edmonds local government.
Seigfriedt’s letter blasted a “citizen’s committee,” whose membership included
Mayor James Brady, accusing it of being a front for Edmonds political insiders.
The morning after his letter ran, an effigy of Siegfriedt appeared suspended over
Main Street. For several days the “hanging” was the talk of the town, providing
amusement to many and consternation to some. The town marshall allowed it to
remain (allegedly at Mayor Brady’s order), and it was finally cut down by
Seigfriedt’s supporters.
Page 3 of 5William H. Schumacher, Edmonds Renaissance Man | Edmonds, WA Patch
10/23/2014http://patch.com/washington/edmonds/william-h-schumacher-edmonds-renaissance-man
Packet Page 177 of 458
But the story doesn’t end there. With Siegfriedt’s effigy still twisting in the wind, a
messenger served Tribune publisher William Schumacher with a legal document
from his landlord, Mayor James Brady. Upon reading it, Schumacher was shocked
to learn that the Tribune was being summarily evicted from the building. He was
given three days to move everything out or pay a drastically increased rent. Take-
home lesson in Edmonds Politics 101: Don’t cross Big Jim Brady.
Undaunted, Schumacher obtained a building site across the street adjacent to the
Schumacher Building and enlisted several friends to build a new home for the
Tribune. The press was moved to the back of Heberlein’s Hardware Store (current
tenant of the Schumacher Building), and after a frenzied week of sawing and
hammering, the new building was ready. The Tribune never missed an issue.
Under Schumacher’s leadership, the Tribune merged with the Edmonds Review,
published by , and in 1910 became The Edmonds Tribune-Review. But by then
Schumacher had had enough. After two contentious years at the helm, he leased
the entire operation to George and Alice Boomer.
Never content to sit in one place, in July 1909 he joined Allen Yost and two other
local entrepreneurs to form the Automatic Broom Sprinkler Manufacturing
Company, becoming company secretary. In October 1910, he helped form the
Edmonds Choral Society and became its first president.
After two years of singing in the chorus and using his accounting skills at
Automatic Broom, he was ready once again to stick his toe in the local political
waters. He was elected to the city council in 1912, one of a large group of
freshman council members swept into office by an electorate ready for change.
Mayor Brady’s murder earlier that year had radically altered the local political
landscape, and for the first time voters elected a council dominated by socialists.
Debate on even small issues was often heated and steeped in ideology, and
Schumacher, accustomed to the precise world of accounting and balance sheets,
Page 4 of 5William H. Schumacher, Edmonds Renaissance Man | Edmonds, WA Patch
10/23/2014http://patch.com/washington/edmonds/william-h-schumacher-edmonds-renaissance-man
Packet Page 178 of 458
had no stomach or inclination for such protracted debate and governmental
process. He resigned that same year and returned to the bank as assistant
cashier.
But within a few months, Schumacher’s restless nature again came to the surface.
He and his brother Roy left Edmonds in 1913 and moved to the newly
incorporated city of Sequim, where William had been offered the position of city
clerk. He was elected mayor of Sequim in 1915, and in 1923 was named Sequim
town treasurer. He died in Sequim on April 17, 1931.
His brother, Roy W. Schumacher, remained in Sequim and stayed active in the
community. He was appointed to fill the term of a deceased city councilmember in
1934. In 1938, he took over his brother’s former role as town treasurer. He was
also appointed police judge in 1944. He served as treasurer until 1949, stepping
down due to ill health. He died shortly thereafter.
The Schumacher brothers were lifetime companions and partners in business and
the affairs of the community. Their lasting legacy in Edmonds, the historic
Schumacher Building, has housed an array of businesses over the years from
hardware stores to restaurants. Today it is home to the landmark , which first
opened in 1986 and has had three separate owners. Since 1997, it's been owned
and operated by the husband-wife team of Randy and Brooke Baker.
Page 5 of 5William H. Schumacher, Edmonds Renaissance Man | Edmonds, WA Patch
10/23/2014http://patch.com/washington/edmonds/william-h-schumacher-edmonds-renaissance-man
Packet Page 179 of 458
AM-7237 9.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/28/2014
Time:45 Minutes
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Megan
Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Review Committee: Committee Action: Cancel
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Presentation and Discussion of the Proposed 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement
Program.
Recommendation
Review the proposed Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program and provide comments
and feedback.
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.
Packet Page 180 of 458
The CFP and CIP were presented and a public hearing was held at the Planning Board meeting on
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.
A public hearing is scheduled for the November 3, 2014 City Council meeting.
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 10/23/2014 03:03 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 10/23/2014 04:16 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/23/2014 04:27 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/24/2014 07:08 AM
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 10/23/2014 01:07 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/24/2014
Packet Page 181 of 458
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2015-2020
DRAFT
Packet Page 182 of 458
Packet Page 183 of 458
CFP
GENERAL
Packet Page 184 of 458
Packet Page 185 of 458
$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
8
6
o
f
4
5
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
7
o
f
4
5
8
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 188 of 458
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 189 of 458
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 190 of 458
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 191 of 458
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 192 of 458
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 193 of 458
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 194 of 458
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 195 of 458
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 196 of 458
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 197 of 458
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 198 of 458
Packet Page 199 of 458
CFP
TRANSPORTATION
Packet Page 200 of 458
Packet Page 201 of 458
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
2
0
2
o
f
4
5
8
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
2
0
3
o
f
4
5
8
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
2
0
4
o
f
4
5
8
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
2
0
5
o
f
4
5
8
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
2
0
6
o
f
4
5
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
7
o
f
4
5
8
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 208 of 458
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 209 of 458
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 210 of 458
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 211 of 458
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 212 of 458
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 213 of 458
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 214 of 458
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 215 of 458
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 216 of 458
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 217 of 458
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 218 of 458
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 219 of 458
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 220 of 458
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 221 of 458
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 222 of 458
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 223 of 458
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 224 of 458
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 225 of 458
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 226 of 458
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 227 of 458
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 228 of 458
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 229 of 458
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 230 of 458
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 231 of 458
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 232 of 458
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 233 of 458
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 234 of 458
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 235 of 458
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 236 of 458
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 237 of 458
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 238 of 458
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 239 of 458
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 240 of 458
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 241 of 458
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 242 of 458
Packet Page 243 of 458
CFP
STORMWATER
Packet Page 244 of 458
Packet Page 245 of 458
$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
4
6
o
f
4
5
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
4
7
o
f
4
5
8
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 248 of 458
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 249 of 458
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 250 of 458
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2015-2020
DRAFT
Packet Page 251 of 458
Packet Page 252 of 458
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 253 of 458
Packet Page 254 of 458
CIP
GENERAL
Packet Page 255 of 458
Packet Page 256 of 458
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
5
7
o
f
4
5
8
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
5
8
o
f
4
5
8
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
5
9
o
f
4
5
8
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
6
0
o
f
4
5
8
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
6
1
o
f
4
5
8
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
6
2
o
f
4
5
8
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
6
3
o
f
4
5
8
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
6
4
o
f
4
5
8
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
6
5
o
f
4
5
8
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
6
6
o
f
4
5
8
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
6
7
o
f
4
5
8
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
6
8
o
f
4
5
8
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
6
9
o
f
4
5
8
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
7
0
o
f
4
5
8
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
7
1
o
f
4
5
8
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
7
2
o
f
4
5
8
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
7
3
o
f
4
5
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
7
4
o
f
4
5
8
CIP
PARKS
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Packet Page 275 of 458
Packet Page 276 of 458
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 277 of 458
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 278 of 458
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 279 of 458
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 280 of 458
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 281 of 458
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 282 of 458
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 283 of 458
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 284 of 458
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 285 of 458
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 286 of 458
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 287 of 458
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 288 of 458
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 289 of 458
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 290 of 458
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 291 of 458
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 292 of 458
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 293 of 458
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 294 of 458
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 295 of 458
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 296 of 458
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 297 of 458
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 298 of 458
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 299 of 458
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 $20,000
Packet Page 300 of 458
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Cemetery
Mapping
ESTIMATED COST:$ 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 301 of 458
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 302 of 458
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 303 of 458
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 304 of 458
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 305 of 458
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 306 of 458
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 307 of 458
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 308 of 458
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 309 of 458
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 310 of 458
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 311 of 458
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 312 of 458
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 313 of 458
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 314 of 458
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 315 of 458
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 316 of 458
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 317 of 458
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 318 of 458
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 319 of 458
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 320 of 458
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 321 of 458
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 322 of 458
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 323 of 458
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 324 of 458
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 325 of 458
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 326 of 458
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 327 of 458
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 328 of 458
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 329 of 458
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 330 of 458
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 331 of 458
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 332 of 458
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 333 of 458
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 334 of 458
AM-7235 10.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/28/2014
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Public Works Quarterly Project Report
Recommendation
For information only.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Attached is the quarterly report for capital improvement projects managed by the Public Works
Department. The third quarter report for 2014 contains information on the estimated project budget, 2014
budget, change orders, funding sources and schedule.
Attachments
Public Works Quarterly Project Report
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering (Originator)Megan Luttrell 10/23/2014 04:37 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 10/23/2014 04:54 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/24/2014 07:08 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/24/2014 11:41 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/24/2014 01:22 PM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 10/23/2014 12:31 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/24/2014
Packet Page 335 of 458
Capital Improvement Program Status
City or Total 2014 Change City Complete **Active
Project Description Type Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s) #Advertise Const Phase Comments
Fishing Pier Rehab Design/Permit Facilities Consultant $200,000 Budget Amendment
Pending
_WDFW
Contract
#132156
016 TBD TBD Des ●Design and permitting funded through WDFW grant.
●Additional grant funding will be sought for construction project.
●RFQ to seek qualified design firms closed in August and
consultant selection team chose BergerABAM from the group to
negotiate a design contract.
●Design contract anticipated being fully signed in late October.
Design work will proceed from there.
ESCO III Facilities Ameresco $758,683 $758,683 $60,000 _016 _Dec-14 Con ●ESCO Contract through WA DES process.
●Edmonds Senior Center rooftop HVAC units have been
replacedy.
●Additional control capacity has been added for the Council
Chambers and downstairs PD HVAC systems.
●The City has received all $187,566 funding as committed by
the Dept. of Commerce. This is in addition to the $43,000
already received from the Sno Co PUD. There is still more
utility rebate funding expected, ROM $20,000.
Public Works Yard Water Quality
Upgrade (Waste Facility Upgrade)
Facilities Consultant $115,000 $154,000 _$170,000 422 Jul-14 Sep-14 Con ● Construction to be completed by the end of Octoter 2014,
weather permitting (75% grant funded).
City Park Spray Park Parks Site
Workshop
$1,585,000 $1,126,000 _$500,000 125, 132 Dec-14 Jun-15 Des ●Site Workshop hired in March 2014 by City to Complete
design.
●Playground Structures installed June, 2014.
●Spray Park Design 90% Complete.
Dayton Street Plaza Parks Barker $168,000 $168,000 __132 TBD TBD On-Hold ●Coordinating with Parks Dept to possibly go to construction in
2015
●$168,000 - 2013 Budget Amend (Feb)
2015 Sanitrary Sewer
Replacement
Sewer MSA $2,121,800 $125,000 __423 Dec-14 Dec-15 Des ●Survey Completed October 2014.
●Design in progress.
Annual Sewer Replacement
Project Phase 1
Sewer MSA $2,105,941 $1,471,023 __423 Mar-14 Sep-14 Cl-out ●$417,000 - 2014 Budget Amendment (Mar)
●Shoreline Constr awarded $1,224,607.49 contract in April
2014.
●Substantial Completion granted August 15, 2014
●Closeout in progress.
Annual Sewer Replacement
Project Phase 2
Sewer CHS $3,284,488 $2,349,589 __423 May-14 Dec-14 Con ●$838,000 - 2014 Budget Amendment (Mar)
●Shoreline Constr awarded $1,778,837 contract in May 2014.
●Construction in progress, 55% Complete.
Citywide Sewer CIPP Sewer City $529,600 $529,600 __423 Apr-15 Sep-15 Pre ●Site selection to begin 9/14. With design to commence once
sites are finalized.
●-$500,000 -2014 Budget Amendment (Mar)
Lift Stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12,
14 & 15
Sewer CHS $4,602,121 $245,000 $75,095 _423 Aug-12 Oct-13 Cl-Out ● Construction 100% Complete.
● Contractor currently working on completing punch list.
●Change Order No.1, $47,087.35
●Change Order No.2, $17,258.72
●Change Order No.3, $18,641.10
●Change Order No.4, $21,190.78
●Change Order No.5, ($29,086.49)
●Substantial Completion 10/25/13
●Physical Completion 7/25/14
●Final Acceptance 10/21/14
238th St Drainage to Hickman
Park - Phase I
Storm City $373,160 $89,290 __422 Aug-14 Dec-14 Des ● Project broken into two phases due to grant for sidewalks.
● Phase I to be constructed in 2014 (Alley infiltration system
upgrade south of 107th PL W. and 102nd AVE W. infiltration
system upgrade - behind church).
● Phase II stormwater improvements on 238th St SW with
sidewalk in 2015 (connect to Hickman Park infiltration).
● $283,870 - 2014 Budget Amendment (March)
ScheduleProject Budget
Packet Page 336 of 458
Capital Improvement Program Status
City or Total 2014 Change City Complete **Active
Project Description Type Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s) #Advertise Const Phase Comments
ScheduleProject Budget
City-Wide Drainage Improv.Storm CHS
Leidos
$172,772 $154,000 __422 Aug-14 Dec-14 Con ● 4th Ave S improvements advertised, contractor selected, and
constuction begain mid-September 2014; to be completed by
mid-October 2014 (weather permitting)
● Design of Northstream inlet replacement ongoing
● $82,000 - 2014 Budget Amendment (March)
Dayton St & SR 104 Drainage
Improvement Study
Storm Leidos $288,941 $98,000 __422 __Study ● Consultant to begin pre-design on new pump station 4th
Quarter 2014.
● Scope of Work for next phase completed (Pre-Design).
● Alternatives Analysis Report completed 2013.
Dayton St. Storm Improvements
(6th to 8th)
Storm TBD TBD $365,000 __422 __On-Hold ● Project to start up again in 2015
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects Storm City $55,000 $55,000 __422 __Study ● McAleer Creek culvert replacement construction will
commence again 7/14 and complete by 10/14. Project managed
by City of Mountlake Terrace.
● Edmonds continues to work with the Lake Ballinger/McAleer
Creek Watershed Forum on technical, lobbying, and
administrative issues.
● City of Edmonds Web-based lake level indicator continues to
provide residents with useful information.
Northstream Pipe Abandonment Storm Consultant $55,000 $55,000 __422 __Study ● Evaluation of options to abandon old 24 and 30 inch storm
line underway.
● Construction planned for 2015
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction
Retrofit Study
Storm Tetra Tech $388,772 $172,772 _$188,722 422 __Study ● Project ongoing with Consultant
● $188,772 grant secured from Department of Ecology to
supplement budget.
● $128,037- 2014 Budget Amendment (March)
● Council update given 6/21/14
● Public Meeting on Draft Plan held August 14, 2014
● Final Reports by 10/31/14
● Final Council Report 12/2/14
Perrinville High Flow Management
Projects
Storm Tetra Tech $50,000 $100,000 _$50,000 422 __Des ● Grant received for Ecology for Low Impact Development
Retrofits ($50,000) to cover the cost of a 90% of design.
● 90% Design completed and approved by Ecology
Storm Drainage Improvements -
88th & 194th
Storm CHS $159,000 $165,000 _422 Mar-15 _Des ● Design underway to line an old 8 inch storm line
● Construction now scheduled for 2015
SW Edmonds #4-106/105 Storm City $85,000 $0 _$70,000 422 Mar-15 _Des ● Grant received for Ecology for Low Impact Development
Retrofits ($70,000) to cover 82% of design costs.
● 2014 Budget Amendment (March)
● 90% Design completed and approved by Ecology
Video Assessment of Stormwater
Lines
Storm TBD $0 $250,000 __422 __On-Hold ● Project on hold until staff is availble
Willow Creek Daylight/Edmonds
Marsh Final Feasibility Study
Storm Shannon &
Wilson
$150,000 $500,000 _$200,000 422 __Study ● $200,000 grant secured from RCO-SRF Board
● Project On-going estimated completion November 2014
● Meeting w/Unocal-Chevron completed June 2014.
● Meetings w/Dept. of Ecology & WS Ferries July 2014.
15th St. SW Walkway Street KPG $374,000 $354,000 _$374,000 112 Aug-14 Dec-14 Con ● The project was advertised in September '14 and Kamins
Construction was selected as the contractor with the lowest bid.
Packet Page 337 of 458
Capital Improvement Program Status
City or Total 2014 Change City Complete **Active
Project Description Type Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s) #Advertise Const Phase Comments
ScheduleProject Budget
2014 Pavement Preservation
Program
Street Snoh. County $1,200,000 $1,200,000 __112 Mar-14 Dec-14 Con ● City signed an agreement with Snohomish County to
complete pavement preservation (short overlay stretches, long
overlay stretches, and chip seal), as part of their 2014
Snohomish County Preservation Program.
● 100th Ave. W from SR-104 to 238th ST. SW, as well as
Olympic View Dr. from 76th Ave. W to 85th Pl. W. will be the
long overlay stretches.
● Smaller stretches will be overlaid (as part of Water Line
project) and (3) stretches will be chip sealed.
● $260,000 out of the $1,200,000 budgeted for a local match
for a Federal grant (programmed for 2015).
228th St. SW Corridor Safety
Improvements
Street Perteet $6,843,000 $2,710,000 _$6,491,000 112
421
422
Jan-15 Jun-16 Des /
ROW
● Design 95% complete.
● Right of Way acquisition (8 out of 10 property owners have
signed the ROW documents) and (2) Possession & Use have
been agreed upon.
● Grant funding is included in all project phases.
● A TIB grant in the amount of $1.7M was recently secured for
additional construction funding (for total of $5,234,000 in
construction funding when combined with HSIP grant secured
in 2012).
236th St. SW Walkway Street KPG $494,000 $474,000 _$494,000 112 April-15 Dec-15 Des ● Design 0% complete.
● The project proposes the addition of sidewalk on 236th St.
SW from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary, on one side of the
street.
238th St. SW Walkway Street KPG $1,391,000 $1,364,600 _$591,000 112 April-15 Dec-15 Des ● Design 0% complete.
● The project proposes the addition of sidewalk on 238th St.
SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W, on one side of the
street.
5th Avenue Overlay Project Street Otak, Inc.$1,002,532 $14,800 _$551,000 112, 422 &
421
Jul-13 Feb-14 Cl-Out ●Contract in Closeout
76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
Street Dave Evans $6,221,753 $657,000 _$940,397 112
421
422
423
TBD TBD Des ● Design 60% complete.
● Grant funds are funding the design and ROW phases.
● A $3,200,000 Federal construction grant is scheduled to be
awarded by December 2014.
ADA curb ramp upgrades along
3rd Ave. S
Street City $129,000 $75,000 _$90,000 112 Oct - 14 Dec-14 Des ● Project has been advertised. Bids are due 10/28/14.
Citywide Pedestrian Countdown
Display & Cabinet Upgrades
Street Harris / DKS $324,980 $266,000 $43,967 $300,000 112 Oct-13 Oct-14 Cl-Out ● Construction 100% complete.
● CO #1: $14,616
● CO #2: ($6,716)
● CO #3: $36,067
● Change order #3 is funded by remaining grant funds and the
Street Operations Fund.
Five Corners Roundabout (212th
St. SW @ 84th Av. W)
Street Dave Evans $3,809,386 $2,894,880 -$4,211 $2,399,500 112
421
422
Mar-14 Dec-14 Con ● $731,800 Budget Amendmet (April, 2014)
● Construction 98% complete.
● CO #1: No Cost Change Order
● CO #2: $1,740
● CO #3: No Cost Change Order
● CO #4: ($9,240.00)
● CO #5: $3,288.90 ●
CO #6: No Cost Change Order
Main St. @ 9th Ave.(interim
solution)
Street City $10,000 $10,000 __112 __On-Hold ● On-Hold
Residential Neighborhood Traffic
Calming
Street City $10,000 $10,000 __112 __Study ● The 2014 funds for this program have been carried forward to
2015.
SR-104 Complete Street Corridor
Analysis
Street TBD $150,000 $75,000 __112 __Study ● The project began in September 2014 when the kick-off
meeting occurred.
Packet Page 338 of 458
Capital Improvement Program Status
City or Total 2014 Change City Complete **Active
Project Description Type Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s) #Advertise Const Phase Comments
ScheduleProject Budget
State Route (SR) 99 International
District Enhancements (Phase 3)
Street KPG $684,000 $592,000 _$684,000 112 Jan-15 Jun-16 Des ● Design 95% complete.
● The construction of this project will be combined with the
228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project since both are
within proximity of each other, have a similar construction
timeline, and funded from same grant source.
Sunset Walkway Improvements Street MacLeod
Reckord
$1,878,000 $221,000 _$249,000 112 TBD TBD Des ● A proof-of-concept layout of the project currently envisioned is
being applied to the existing roadway to gather empirical data
on the proposed design.
Transportation Plan Update Street TBD $180,000 $90,000 __112 __Study ● The project began in September 2014 when the kick-off
meeting took place.
2013 Replacement Program -
Waterline
Water City $1,577,720 $3,000 $3,509 _421 Mar-13 Nov-13 Cl-out ●Construction at 100%.
●D&G Backhoe awarded $1,304,457.70 contract in April 2013.
●Substantial Completion Awarded Oct 31, 2013 for 2013 WL
Replacement.
●Conflict with Sewer for 224th & 76th Project required
replacement of watermain to allow for sewerline replacement.
This project bid separately from watermains since that project is
already in progress. 224th Replacement complete.
●224th Project awarded Aug 2013 to Earthwork Enterprises.
Constr completed Oct 2013.
●1 change order for $3,509.10 issued.
●-$100,000 - 2013 Budget Amendment (Aug)
● $50,000 - 2014 Budget Amendment (Mar)
● On council agenda for final acceptance Oct 21, 2014.
2014 Replacement Program -
Waterline
Water MSA $1,905,784 $1,709,639 __421 May-14 Jan-15 Con ●Survey complete 1/14.
●MSA Engineers design complete 5/2014
●Earthworks Enterprises awarded $1,474,496.90 contract in
June 2014.
●$197,000 - 2014 Budget Amendment (Jun)
●Construction began August 2014.
●Construction 40% complete.
2015 Waterline Replacement Water Stantec $2,792,692 $95,181 __421 Jan-15 Sep-15 Des ●$320,000 - 2014 Budget Amendment (Jun)
●Design services contract awarded to Stantec 6/2014.
●Survey Completed September 2014.
●Design in progress.
Packet Page 339 of 458
Capital Improvement Program Status
City or Total 2014 Change City Complete **Active
Project Description Type Consultant Budget Budget Orders Grants Fund(s) #Advertise Const Phase Comments
ScheduleProject Budget
76th Ave W Waterline Extension
with Lynnwood
Water Roth Hill $940,300 $3,000 $48,153 _421 Oct-12 Aug-14 Cl-out ●Change order for unsuitable soils processed Sept 2013 for
$48,153.
●Emergency Declared in Nov 2013 to complete project
because Lynnwood dismissed contractor due to various issues.
●Earthwork Enterprises hired to complete waterline work. Work
completed by December 20, 2013.
●Lakeside Industries hired to place temporary pavement along
road alignment. Work Completed by December 20, 2013.
●COE & Lynnwood discussing final paving for roadway
currently scheduled for summer 2014.
●$175,000-2013 Budget Amendment (Feb).
●$100,000 - 2013 Budget Amendment (Aug)
●$140,300 - 2013 Budget Amendment (Nov)
●$26,294 - 2014 Budget Amendment (Mar)
●Lynnwood settled claim with Santana on 5/14.
●$60,000 - 2014 Budget Amendment (June)
●Project complete Aug. 2014
●Closeout in Progress.
Coating Project WWTP TBD $636,000 $20,000 __423 __Pre ●This project will begin in 2014. Clarifier #3 was first to be
coated. During the yearly PM it was discovered that the
topping has failed. This may have to repaired before coating
work can continue.
Control system upgrade WWTP Parametrix $1,700,000 $434,728 __423 Jan-14 Dec-18 Con ●Reliability -replace aging control system equipment and
provide for redundancy
●The project is progressing on schedule and within budget.
System Platform and the new historian have been installed and
we are beginning the PLC 100 replacement.
Facility repair and improvement
project
WWTP Tetra Tech $350,000 $350,000 $20,185 _423 Feb-14 Sep-14 Con ●Reliability - repair men's locker room, floor damage and
reallocate space based on need.
●The work is progressing on schedule however there was
considerably more work and cost to demoslish the concrete
floor than anticipated. There will be 2 change orders submitted
in the coming week. The additional work was tracked on a
force account.
Incinerator regulatory compliance
& improvement
WWTP CH2M Hill &
Coal Creek
Environmental
$1,040,000 $55,000 __423 _Dec-14 Con ●Regulatory - Design is complete and installation of the
mercury removal modules will occur in 2014.
● The Title 5 Air Operating permit was accepted by PSCA. This
brings us into compliance with new regulations.
Offsite Telemetry WWTP City $0 $22,000 __423 _Mar-15 _●Staff are installing solar panels to power the 5 offsite metering
stations and installing local PLC 's to totalize, save and send
data across radio vs. phone lines.. This is an energy, and
costs savings measure and will ensure the quality of our data.
Pagoda Repairs WWTP City $32,000 $32,000 __423 _Dec-14 _●We are in the process of getting bids for this repair work at the
Pagoda. The external tiles are damaged wear and vandalism
and may pose a significant risk to WW equipment.
Switchgear replacement WWTP HDR $1,400,000 $20,000 $27,453 _423 Apr-13 Dec-14 Cl-Out ●Reliability - This project is completed and in project close-out.
Variable frequency drive
installation
WWTP City $100,000 $0 __423 _Jul-14 Con ●Reliability - VFD's are on site. 1 is completely installed - The
installation is being pushed out to late 2014 - we will try to
install with plant staff
Ad Advertising
Pre
Des
ROW
Ad
Con
Cl-Out
Study Study
Right-of-Way Acquisition
Advertise for Construction Bids
**Active Phase
Preliminary Design
Design
Construction
Close-out Construction Contract
Packet Page 340 of 458
AM-7234 11.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/28/2014
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Patrick Doherty
Department:Community Services
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Presentation on the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) Implementation
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The City Council approved the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) on April 2, 2103. This year Cynthia Berne
of Long Bay Enterprises Inc., was contracted to provide the City with an implementation plan for
the SAP, along with a technical review and update. Ms. Berne will present a status update on her work at
the 10/28/14 City Council Study Session meeting. It is anticipated that her work will conclude in the first
quarter of 2015, for which a $5,000 carry-forward request of the original City Council-approved $40,000
budget for this work is in the currently proposed 2015 budget.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/23/2014 01:36 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/23/2014 01:37 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/23/2014 01:40 PM
Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Started On: 10/23/2014 11:25 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/23/2014
Packet Page 341 of 458
AM-7239 12.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/28/2014
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted By:Shane Hope
Department:Development Services
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Presentation of Edmonds Housing Profile
Recommendation
Consider the information and ask any questions
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
CURRENT ISSUE
New housing data for Edmonds will be presented at the October 28 public meeting. The data has been
prepared--and will be presented--by the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) in anticipation of the
City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update. See the attached Housing Profile (Exhibit 1), which contains
general housing data, as well as data on affordability.
AHA is the organization of local governments in Snohomish County, including the City of Edmonds, that
focuses on housing-related information and support for local governments to meet housing needs,
especially related to affordability. AHA recognizes that affordability includes a variety of meanings--not
only subsidized housing for low-income families, but market-rate housing that meets the needs of
moderate-to-middle income families and persons, as well as "special needs" housing (for example for the
elderly or disabled).
This year, AHA's main focus has been to compile sets of housing data into "housing profiles" for all
participating local governments. This especially helps cities and the county in updating the Housing
Element of their Comprehensive Plans. The entire Comprehensive Plan update is due
by mid-2015. Edmonds is reviewing its Comprehensive Plan and drafting updates for it on an
element-by-element basis. This is consistent with the process previously recommended by the Planning
Board and approved by the City Council. (For more information on the Comprehensive Plan Update
process, see the "Background" section below.) Note:"Sustainability" was the first element reviewed in
public meetings and "Housing" is the next.
The Edmonds Housing Profile is quite detailed. Not all of the data in it will be copied into a draft
Housing Element for the 2015 Comp Plan Update process. However, significant components are likely
to be incorporated into the upcoming draft Housing Element. Furthermore, all of the data will remain
available and useful for other policies or programs that the City of Edmonds may consider over the next
Packet Page 342 of 458
few years.
BACKGROUND
A major review and update of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is due to the state by mid-2015.
Previously, the City conducted an analysis, based on state guidance, and found that the City’s existing
Comprehensive Plan was mostly in compliance with Growth Management requirements. The biggest
need is to substitute current data for the old data (some of which is 10-15 years old). Because of the short
timeline, the Planning Board and City Council have concurred that the update can be basic in nature,
focusing primarily on: (a) refreshing the data and supporting materials; (b) considering modest changes to
reflect new information and state guidance; and (c) adding performance measures and, as appropriate,
action steps--generally one of each for each major Plan element. (Note: The new information will need to
include updated population and job forecasts through the year 2035.)
Each major element is being considered for updating on a schedule previously reviewed by the Planning
Board and City Council. While preliminary direction can be provided by the Board and Council after
reviewing each draft element, a final decision on the entire Comprehensive Plan update is expected in
mid-2015. Public hearings and other public information will be part of the process.
“Housing” comprises a major element of the Comprehensive Plan. (See attached Housing Element from
the existing Comprehensive Plan—Exhibit 2). The existing Housing Element features data from the 2000
Census and makes some comparisons to 1990. It also includes goals and policies. The Planning Board
considered Housing Element information at its public meetings on September 10, September 24, and
October 21. The Board's recommendation on a draft Housing Element update is expected November 12.
COMPARISON OF TWO HOUSING PRESENTATIONS
On August 26, the Executive Director of the Housing Coalition of Snohomish County and Everett made a
presentation to the City Council about countywide housing needs, especially related to affordability and
our region’s growing population. (See the attached slide presentation—Exhibit 3.) It provided a broad
view of city and county needs for affordable housing.
A presentation will be made to the City Council on October 28 by the Housing Policy Analyst from
AHA--the Alliance for Housing Affordability. (See Exhibit 4.) The presentation will feature highlights
from the attached Housing Profile, as well as an overview of AHA.
The key take-away from both reports is that Edmonds--like other cities in our region--needs more housing
units over the next 20 years AND more affordable housing that will serve a broad spectrum of future
needs.
ANTICIPATED NEXT STEPS
-A housing data presentation (Exhibit 4) will be made October 28. No action is required.
-The Planning Board is working on a draft Housing Element (update) to recommend to the City Council.
It will include data from the Housing Profile.
-The City Council will hold a public hearing on the Planning Board's recommended draft Housing
Element and then have further discussion at a Study Session. The meetings are likely to be in December.
-No final decision on the Housing Element will be made until after public hearings on the entire 2015
Comprehensive Plan Update in mid-2015.
Attachments
Packet Page 343 of 458
Exhibit 1: Housing Profile
Exhibit 2: Existing Housing Element
Exhibit 3: Housing Coalition Presentation (August)
AHA Presentation on Housing Profile Info
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/24/2014 07:08 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/24/2014 11:40 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/24/2014 01:22 PM
Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 10/23/2014 02:21 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/24/2014
Packet Page 344 of 458
Housing Profile: City of Edmonds
Prepared for the City of Edmonds by the Alliance for Housing
Affordability
September 2014
Packet Page 345 of 458
ii
Special thanks to all those who helped prepare this profile.
City Staff
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Alliance for Housing Affordability
Kristina Gallant, Analyst
Will Hallett, Intern
Acknowledgements
Packet Page 346 of 458
iii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................iv
Maps, Figures, & Tables .................................................vi
Introduction .............................................................................1
Population and Community ............................................3
Household Profiles ..................................................................................................................8
Existing Housing Stock .................................................10
Subsidized Housing Units: Permanent and Transitional .............................................12
Market Rate Rental Units ....................................................................................................13
Shared Rental Housing ........................................................................................................19
Current Challenges and Opportunities ..........................20
Maps ........................................................................................22
Appendices ....................................................................40
Appendix A: Multifamily Rent Comparables by Property, City of Edmonds ..........A1
Appendix B: Assisted Units by Property, City of Edmonds ...........................................B1
Appendix C: Single Family Home Sales, 2008-2012 ......................................................C1
Appendix D: Affordable Housing Glossary ....................................................................D1
Appendix E: Methodology .....................................................................................................1
Packet Page 347 of 458
iv
Executive Summary
The City of Edmonds, currently home to 39,950 people, is projected to accommodate nearly
6,000 new residents by 2035, a dramatic change over the stable population levels the City has
seen over the past 20 years. Housing in Edmonds is currently mostly comprised of single family
homes, though most growth will have to be accommodated in multifamily development. The
City’s median income is relatively high compared to other cities in the region, and home values
are generally higher as well. Homes are diverse in age, with a significant concentration of units
built between 1950 and 1969 compared to the County overall.
Currently 38% of Edmonds households are estimated to be cost burdened, meaning they
spend more than 30% of their monthly income on rent or home ownership costs. Cost burden
is most challenging for those with low incomes, who may have to sacrifice other essential
needs in order to afford housing. Other summary statistics are provided below.
A Summary of Edmonds by the Numbers
Population 39,9501
Total Households 17,3962
Family Households with Minor Children 4,054
Cost-Burdened Households 6,672
Households Earning Less than 50% AMI3 5,322
2012 Median Household Income $73,072
Minimum Income to Afford 2012 Median Home $75,796
Total Homes 17,396
Single Family Homes, Detached or Attached 12,047
Multifamily Homes 6,471
Manufactured Homes 126
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers 195
Other Dedicated Subsidized Housing 125
Transitional Units 16
Workforce Housing 201
Total Renter-Occupied Housing Units 5,000
Total Owner-Occupied Housing Units 12,396
Total Vacant Housing Units 1,248
According to 2013 Dupre and Scott data, Edmonds’ rental housing market is generally
affordable to households earning at least 80% 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 (Area
Median Income for the Seattle-Bellevue metropolitan area). Market rents are not affordable to
Packet Page 348 of 458
v
extremely low income households, though this is expected in almost all communities, due to the costs
of construction and maintenance in today’s market. Shared rental housing is a market rate option for
these households, though it will not work for all households, particularly families.
A lack of affordable rental housing for extremely low and very low income households is very
common, as, in order to operate a property and keep rents low enough in today’s housing market,
some kind of financial assistance is typically required. Assistance can be ongoing, to make up the
difference between 30% of tenants’ income and market rents (such units are considered ‘subsidized’
in this report), or be provided as capital funding, reducing overall project costs and making it possible
to keep rent levels down (considered ‘workforce’ units). Edmonds currently has 320 units of subsidized
housing and 201 units of workforce housing. 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 this supply.
The City is pursuing a number of strategies to address this challenge.
In 2012, the median sale price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. The estimated
monthly payment for this home would be $1,895, including debt service, insurance, taxes, and utilities.
For a family to afford this payment without being cost burdened, they would require an annual income
of at least $75,796, which is just above the City’s median income.1 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 value in Snohomish County behind Woodway and Mukilteo
respectively, at $351,100, which represented a 10.7% increase over 2013. 2
1 Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
2 Snohomish County Assessor, “Snohomish County Assessor’s Annual Report for 2014 Taxes”, 2014.
Packet Page 349 of 458
vi
Maps, Figures, & Tables
Figure 1.1. Total Population, City of Edmonds, 1990-2013 .................................................................................3
Figure 1.2. Population Share by Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County ....................4
Table 1.1. Cost Burden by Income and Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County .......5
Figure 1.3. Household Share by Income Level, City of Edmonds and Snohomish County ....................5
Figure 1.4. Estimated Housing & Transportation Costs as a Share of Income, City of Edmonds &
Snohomish County ....................................................................................................................................................................6
Figure 1.5. Population Pyramid, 2000-2010, City of Edmonds ..........................................................................7
Figure 2.1. Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County ......................10
Figure 2.2. Units in Structure by Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds ............................................................10
Figure 2.3. Net Newly-Permitted Units, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County .....................................11
Figure 2.4. Newly Permitted Units by Type, City of Edmonds ........................................................................11
Table 2.1. Assisted Units by Income Level Served, City of Edmonds ...........................................................12
Table 2.2. Permanent Subsidized Units by Funding Source, City of Edmonds ........................................12
Table 2.3. Workforce Units by Funding Source, City of Edmonds .................................................................13
Table 2.4. Renter-Occupied Units by Rent and Unit Size, City of Edmonds (Without Utilities) ..........14
Table 2.5. Average Rent and Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds (Including Utilities) ....................14
Table 2.6. Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds .......................................................15
Table 2.7. Average Rents by Size, SIngle- and Multifamily, City of Edmonds ...........................................15
Table 2.8. Affordable Home Sales by Size, City of Edmonds, 2012 ...............................................................16
Figure 2.5. Home Sale Affordability Gap, 2012, City of Edmonds .................................................................17
Figure 2.6. Home Sale Affordability, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds ...............................................................17
Table 2.9. 2012 Affordable Home Sales by Type, City of Edmonds
Table 2.10. Size of Homes Sold by Type, 2012, City of Edmonds...................................................................19
Figure 3.1. Income allocation of projected new housing units, City of Edmonds ..................................20
Map 1.1. Total Population (Block Groups) .............................................................................................................23
Map 1.2. Average Family Size (Block Groups) ......................................................................................................24
Map 1.3. Average Household Size (Block Groups)..............................................................................................25
Map 1.4. Renter-Occupied Housing Units .............................................................................................................26
Map 1.5. Vacant Housing Units (Block Groups) ...................................................................................................27
Map 1.6. Homeowners with Mortgages ................................................................................................................28
Map 1.7. Very Low-Income Households .................................................................................................................29
Map 1.8. Cost-Burdened Renters ..............................................................................................................................30
Map 1.9. Cost-Burdened Owners ..............................................................................................................................31
Map 1.10. Housing & Transportation, Percent of Low HH Income ...............................................................32
Map 2.1. Voucher Location and Transit Access ....................................................................................................33
Map 2.2. Age of Housing Stock .................................................................................................................................34
Map 2.3. Condition of Housing Stock .....................................................................................................................35
Map 2.4. Housing Density ...........................................................................................................................................36
Map 2.7. New Single Family Permits by Census Tract, 2011 ...........................................................................37
Map 2.8. New Multifamily Permits by Census Tract, 2011 ...............................................................................38
Map 2.9. Average Renter Household Size..............................................................................................................39
Table E.1. Maximum Monthly Housing Expense by Household Size, Seattle-Bellevue HMFA 2012 ...1
Packet Page 350 of 458
1
Introduction
In Snohomish County’s Countywide Planning Policies, Housing Goal 5 states that “the cities
and the county shall collaborate to report housing characteristics and needs in a timely
manner for jurisdictions to conduct major comprehensive plan updates and to assess
progress toward achieving CPPs on housing”. Building on the County’s efforts in preparing
the countywide HO-5 Report, this profile furthers this goal by providing detailed, local
information on existing conditions for housing in Edmonds so the City can plan more
effectively to promote affordable housing and collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions. This
profile will present the full spectrum of its subsidized and market rate housing stock.
Permanent settlement in present day Edmonds dates back to 1890, making Edmonds the
oldest incorporated city in Snohomish County. Edmonds was born out of homesteading and
logging operations in the late 1800’s and, through the years, built economic foundations on
a host of platforms including milling, shingle splitting, and manufacturing, among others.
Today, Edmonds has almost 40,000 residents and over 17,000 households. Edmonds’ growth
has been modest in recent years (less than 1% annually), and this trend is expected to
continue. The majority of the City’s neighborhoods are composed of single family homes,
though future growth is likely to follow recent trends emphasizing more multifamily
development. Existing multifamily residential developments are focused on major arterials,
downtown, and near Highway 99. The Downtown/Waterfront and Highway 99 corridor areas
are considered the primary commercial centers of Edmonds, with one smaller but significant
center at Westgate (located at the intersection of Edmonds Way and 100th Avenue West).
Smaller neighborhood commercial centers are located in several neighborhoods, such as Five
Corners, Firdale, and Perrinville.
Several affordable housing-specific terms and concepts will be used throughout the profile.
Income levels will be defined by their share of “Area Median Income”, or AMI. For this report,
median income for the Seattle-Bellevue HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA) will be used
for AMI because it is the measure HUD uses to administer its programs. Housing agencies
typically define income levels as they relate to AMI. These are:
•Extremely Low Income - up to 30% AMI
•Very Low Income - up to 50% AMI
•Low Income - up to 80% AMI
•Moderate Income - up to 95% AMI
•Middle Income - up to 120% AMI
When a household spends more than 30% of their income on housing, it is considered to be
“cost burdened”, and, if lower income, will likely have to sacrifice spending on other essentials
like food and medical care. “Costvburden” is used as a benchmark to evaluate housing
affordability.
Packet Page 351 of 458
2
Packet Page 352 of 458
3
Population and Community
In 2013, Edmonds was home to an estimated 39,950 people, only slightly higher than its 2000
population of 39,544.3 The City’s population has been stable since the mid-1990s, when there
were several large jumps due to annexations in south and southwest Edmonds. The City is
projected to grow at a modest rate moving forward, accommodating an estimated 5,841
additional residents by 2035. This increase would require 2,790 additional housing units,
which is near its estimated capacity of 2,646 additional units. Of the current capacity, the vast
majority is in multifamily properties, with a high portion through redevelopment.4
Figure 1.1. Total Population, City of Edmonds, 1990-2013
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
19
9
0
19
9
1
19
9
2
19
9
3
19
9
4
19
9
5
19
9
6
19
9
7
19
9
8
19
9
9
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
20
0
7
20
0
8
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2013
The 20125 population includes 17,396 households with an average household size of 2.3
people, compared to 2.6 for the County. Of these, 10,997, or 63%, are family6 households.
Overall, 23.3% of households have children. In Snohomish County overall, 68% of households
are families, and 32.5% of households have children. The average family size in Edmonds is 2.8,
compared to 3.12 for the county. The average Edmonds renter household is smaller than the
average owner household – 2 people per renter household versus 2.4 per owner household.7
The share of foreign born residents in Edmonds is similar to the County overall - 13.9%
3 Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2013
4 Snohomish County Tomorrow Planning Advisory Committee, “Housing Characteristics and Needs in
Snohomish County”, 2014
5 2012 data is used as, at time of writing, it is the most recent ACS 5-year data available
6 Based on the US Census Bureau’s definition of family, which “consists of two or more people (one of whom
is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption residing in the same housing unit.”
7 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
Packet Page 353 of 458
4
versus 14.1% for the County. The population of foreign born residents who are not U.S. citizens
is lower in Edmonds than the County - 44% of foreign born residents versus 51% of foreign born
County residents. Residents born in Asia constitute 47% of the foreign born Edmonds population
while European residents make up 20% of foreign born residents. 16% of Edmonds residents speak a
language other than English in the home and 6% of residents speak English “less than very well”, both
proportions are lower than the County’s numbers.8
The share of the population living in rented homes is similar to the share Countywide. 31% of
Edmonds residents and 33% of Snohomish County residents currently live in rented homes. As shown
in Figure 1.2, the proportion of homeowners remained relatively constant between 2000 and 2010,
increasing slightly from 68% to about 69%.9 36% of Edmonds’ population lives in multifamily homes,
compared to 31% across the County (renters and owners combined). The City’s vacancy rate is 6.7%
compared to 6.4% for the County as a whole.10
Figure 1.2. Population Share by Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000; US Census Bureau, 2010
The 2012 HMFA AMI for Seattle-Bellevue, which is referenced in this report as a standard for AMI, is
$88,000, higher than the County’s overall 2012 median income of $68,338. Edmonds 2012 median
income is higher than the County AMI at $73,072. However, some economic segments of the City’s
population could be at risk of being housing burdened. Compared to HUD HMFA AMI and based on
2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates:
•2,638 households, or 15% of Edmonds’ total, are considered to be extremely low income, earning
less than 30% of area median income (AMI),
•2,684, or 15%, are considered very low income, earning between 30 and 50% of AMI,
•2,604, or 15%, are considered low income, earning between 50 and 80% of AMI, and
•1,773, or 10%, are considered moderate income, earning between 80 and 90% of AMI
8 Ibid.
9 US Census Bureau, 2000; US Census Bureau, 2010
10 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
Packet Page 354 of 458
5
A comparison of income distribution in the City and County is presented graphically in Figure 1.3. As
shown, Edmonds has a higher percentage of very low income households and households earning
higher than middle income than the County as a whole, but lower percentages of every other
income group. The combined percentage of extremely low, very low, and low income households is
approximately 46%, compared to about 21% moderate and middle income and 33% above middle
income. Note that these percentages are not adjusted for household size due to data constraints. Here,
a household consisting of two adults with an income level equal to another household consisting
of two adults and three children would
both be placed at the same percentage of
AMI, even though the larger family would
likely be more constrained financially.
HUD’s AMI calculations include ranges for
households sized 1-8 people, and, in this
report, sensitivity for household size is used
wherever possible, as detailed in Appendix
E.
Maps 1.8 and 1.9 show the percentages
of renter and owner households in each
census tract that are cost burdened,
meaning that they spend more than 30%
of their income on housing. Overall, 38% of
households in Edmonds are cost burdened,
renters and owners combined.
Table 1.1 shows the percentage of each
income group that is cost burdened in
Edmonds and Snohomish County by
housing tenure. According to this data,
the City’s renters are all less likely to be cost burdened compared to renters Countywide, except
low income renters. While owners earning less than 50% AMI in the City are more likely to be cost
burdened, this relationship reverses above that income level. For both renters and owners, there is
a significant drop in cost burden above 50% AMI. This table does not address differences in degrees
of cost burden – for example, a household that spends 31% of its income on housing would be
considered cost burdened along with a household that spends 80% of its income on housing.11
Table 1.1. Cost Burden by Income and Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County
Income
Level
Renters Owners All
Edmonds Snohomish
County Edmonds Snohomish
County Edmonds Snohomish
County
Extremely
Low 79%80%82%73%82%78%
Very Low 81%85%86%80%63%64%
Low 29%28%46%72%47%65%
Moderate 13%18%43%48%38%40%
11 Ibid
Figure 1.3. Household Share by Income Level, City of
Edmonds and Snohomish County
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008-2012
Packet Page 355 of 458
6
Middle 7%5%26%32%22%25%
Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 – 2012
HUD’s Location Affordability Index uses a number of variables to estimate the affordability of a
location including both housing and transportation costs. According to the index, a “regional typical
household12” could expect to spend 49% of its income on housing and transportation if renting or
owning in Edmonds. 45% is proposed as a targeted maximum percentage of income to be spent on
housing and transportation combined to be affordable according to HUD standards. A low income
household,13 however, could expend to spend 71% of their income on housing and transportation.
A regional moderate family may have to devote up to 57% of their income on housing and
transportation.14
Housing and transportation affordability estimates for a number of different household types are
presented in Figure 1.4. In general, estimates for Edmonds residents are very close to those for the
County overall. In either case, it is estimated that owners will generally spend more on housing and
transportation than renters, regardless of jurisdiction or household type.
The 2012 unemployment rate was 4.2% in Edmonds, compared to 5.9% for the County. For employed
Edmonds residents, the mean commute time is 27 minutes, compared with 29 for the County. 71%
of City residents drive to work alone compared with 74% of all County workers. The most common
occupations for Edmonds residents are in management, business, science and arts occupations, at
12 Defined as a household with average household size, median income, and average number of commuters in
Seattle-Bellevue HUD HMFA
13 Defined as a household with 3 individuals, one commuter, and income equal to 50% AMI
14 US Department of Housing & Urban Development; Location Affordability Portal, 2013
Figure 1.4. Estimated Housing & Transportation Costs as a Share of Income, City of Edmonds &
Snohomish County
Source: US Dept. of Housing & Urban Development; Location Affordability Portal, 2013
Packet Page 356 of 458
7
49% of the employed population, followed by sales and office occupations, with 25% of the employed
population. The two most dominant industry groups employing City residents are educational
services, healthcare and assistance industries with 23% of workers, and the professional, scientific,
management, administrative and waste industries, with 13% of workers.15
According to the Puget Sound Regional Council, Edmonds is home to 12,449 jobs. The majority of
these jobs are in the services sector, with 8,540 jobs. 4,918 of those jobs are in health care and social
assistance and 1,369 jobs are in the accommodation and food service fields.16
Edmonds has 0.7 jobs for every occupied home compared to 1.2 employed people per home. Even
assuming all of these people only have one job and only local people are employed locally, this means
that a significant portion of the population must commute to work. In actuality, 80% of employed
Edmonds residents work outside the City. More than half of these commuters work outside Snohomish
County, most likely in King County. Across Snohomish County, there are only .9 jobs per occupied
home compared to 1.3 employed people per home.17
The shape of the City’s population pyramid, shown in Figure 1.5, offers additional insight into its
housing needs and how they may be changing. As shown, between 2000 and 2010 the population of
older residents grew and the population of younger residents shrank. As the baby boomer generation
continues to retire, every community will see an increase in the share of elderly people, but in
Edmonds the effects may be particularly strong – the City’s 2012 median age was 46, compared to
15 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
16 Puget Sound Regional Council; Covered Employment Estimates, 2012
17 US Census; American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Puget Sound Regional Council; Covered Employment
Estimates, 2012
Figure 1.5. Population Pyramid, 2000-2010, City of Edmonds
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000; US Census Bureau, 2010
Packet Page 357 of 458
8
37 across the County. Out of all age groups, the greatest increases from 2000-2010 was in residents
between the ages of 55 and 65, while the greatest decrease was in residents between 35 and 40. The
number of young children is also decreasing.
Household Profiles
These are the stories of several actual Edmonds households who receive some kind of housing
assistance from the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. All names and many nonessential details
have been changed to respect their privacy.
Beth
Beth lives in a two bedroom apartment in Edmonds with her two children. She works full time at a
grocery store and makes a total annual income of $21,079, or about $1,757 per month. This translates
to an hourly wage just under $11 per hour.
With Assistance
With her voucher administered through the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO), Beth
pays $462 in rent and $163 in utilities for her two bedroom apartment. After rent and utilities are paid,
Beth has $1,132 left over per month to support her family.
Without Assistance
Without a voucher, Beth’s monthly rent obligation would be $1,088, including utilities, more than
60% of her total monthly income. The average rent for a two bedroom unit in Edmonds is $1,066, so
finding a significantly more affordable unit could be challenging. Beth could look for a shared living
arrangement as a cheaper alternative, however, it would be difficult to find a living situation that
would accommodate her and her children. Having two children, downsizing from a two bedroom unit
is not a feasible option either. In order to afford her current apartment, Beth would need to find a job
that pays more than double her current income—about $43,520 a year, or $21 per hour.
Jamie
Jamie is an elderly disabled woman living in a one bedroom apartment in Edmonds. Jamie’s sole
source of income is Social Security payments that provide $8,672 a year, or about $723 a month.
With Assistance
Jamie receives a voucher through HASCO for $550 toward her monthly rent. The market rent for
her one bedroom apartment is $705 per month plus $62 in utilities. After her voucher is applied to
her rent, Jamie pays $155 plus $62 in utilities per month. This leaves Jamie with $506 per month to
support herself.
Without Assistance
The market rent for Jamie’s home is $767 including utilities, more than her monthly income. If
Jamie had to look for an apartment she could afford without a voucher, the most affordable studio
apartment she could expect to find would rent for around $550, including utilities, which would still
be 76% of her income. Without the means to acquire a job or family or friends who could help, Jamie
would have few options without a housing voucher.
Dave
Packet Page 358 of 458
9
Dave and his wife live in a two bedroom apartment in Edmonds. Dave works in a local warehouse
and his wife receives income from Social Security payments due to a disability. Together, they receive
employment and Social Security income totaling $18,044 per year, or $1,504 per month.
With Assistance
With his voucher, Dave and his wife pay $581 in rent plus $193 in utilities per month. This leaves Dave
and his wife with $730 left over for the month.
Without Assistance
If Dave did not receive a Section 8 Voucher, he would have to pay $1,068 per month for rent and
utilities. This would leave the couple with only $436 per month to spend on food and other essentials.
At this rate, Dave would be spending about 70% of his family’s income on rent alone. The average rent
for a two bedroom unit in Edmonds is $1,097, so finding a market rate apartment of the same size but
at a cheaper price than his current apartment could be challenging. At the time of this report, two
bedroom apartments for rent in the area range from $777 to $1,916 per month. If Dave were able to
rent the cheapest two bedroom apartment in Edmonds, without a voucher he and his wife would still
be paying 52% of their monthly income on rent, making them significantly cost burdened. As the most
they could afford with their current income would be $450, there are not even any studio units that
would be affordable.
Packet Page 359 of 458
10
Existing Housing Stock
The City of Edmonds is located in southwest Snohomish County, bounded to the west by the
Puget Sound, east by the cities of Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood, south by King County, and
north by Mukilteo. Edmonds’ primary commercial centers are the Highway 99 corridor and the
Downtown/Waterfront area. The southern portion of the Waterfront area houses a concentration
of businesses as well as the Port of Edmonds, where the Washington State Ferry provides service
to the Kitsap Peninsula. The City’s neighborhoods are mostly composed of single family homes,
which make up 66% of the total housing stock. Multifamily residential developments are
located just south and north of the downtown area. As shown in Figure 2.1, the City has a high
concentration of homes constructed between 1950 and 1969 compared to the County, and
fewer constructed after 1990. 18 The number of units projected to accommodate population
growth over the next 20 years is just over the City’s current capacity. The majority of this potential
will be in multifamily properties, and nearly half of all potential is in redevelopable parcels.19
Figure 2.2 shows the distribution of renters and owners among different types of housing,
with owners in the inner ring and renters in the outer ring. As shown, 85% of homeowners
live in single family homes. While 24% of renters also live in single family homes, the
next largest group of renters, 22% of the total, live in properties with 20 to 49 units.20
Figures 2.3 and 2.4 provide information on newly permitted units in the City in recent years.
Figure 2.3 shows the total number of net newly permitted residential units per year from 2001
to 2012 for both the City and County, with the City on the left axis and the County on the right.
Figure 2.4 shows the share of the City’s new units composed of single- and multifamily units.
18 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
19 Snohomish County Tomorrow Planning Advisory Committee, “Housing Characteristics and Needs in
Snohomish County”, 2014
20 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
Figure 2.1. Age Distribution of Housing Stock,
City of Edmonds & Snohomish County
Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey
2008-2012
Figure 2.2. Units in Structure by
Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds
Source: US Census Bureau; American
Community Survey 2008-2012
Packet Page 360 of 458
11
As shown, newly permitted units peaked in 2004
in the City, just before the County did, and crashed during the recession. While newly-permitted units
began to recover across the County in 2010, as of 2012 Edmonds had not yet begun to recover at
the same pace. As shown in Figure 2.4, newly permitted units in Edmonds since 2001 have primarily
consisted of multifamily units.21
For the purposes of this report, Edmonds’ housing stock is divided into subsidized rental units, workforce
rental units, market rate rental units (both single- and multi-family), and home ownership.
Subsidized rental units are targeted toward households with the lowest incomes, typically less than
30% AMI. Populations targeted for subsidized rental units often include the disabled, elderly, and other
populations living on fixed incomes with special needs. A subsidized property is one that receives
funding, perhaps rental assistance or an operating subsidy, to insure that its residents pay rents that
are affordable for their income level. Some properties only apply their subsidy to select units. It is also
common for subsidized units to be restricted to certain groups like families, the elderly, or homeless.
A subsidized property may have also benefited from workforce-type housing subsidies, and it is also
common for just a portion of a property’s units to receive an ongoing subsidy.
Workforce rental units are targeted to working households that still cannot afford market rents.
Workforce rental units and subsidized rental units are both considered “assisted”, but differ in several
areas. The key difference between subsidized and workforce units is that workforce units have a subsidy
“built in” through the use of special financing methods and other tools, allowing (and typically requiring)
the landlord to charge less for rent. An example of this would be when a private investor benefits from
low income housing tax credits when building a new residential development. In exchange for the tax
credit savings, the property owner would have to restrict a certain number of units to a certain income
level for a certain period of time. When the owner is a for-profit entity, this often means that rents on
restricted units will become market rate units when the period of restriction has ended. While nonprofit
owners may also utilize workforce tools for capital funding, they are more likely to preserve restrictions
21 Puget Sound Regional Council, Residential Building Permit Summaries 2012
Figure 2.4. Newly Permitted Units by Type, City
of Edmonds
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2012
Figure 2.3. Net Newly-Permitted Units, City of
Edmonds & Snohomish County
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council
Packet Page 361 of 458
12
on units longer than required. The distribution of Edmonds’ assisted units by income level served, both
subsidized and workforce, is presented in Table 2.1.
Market rate rental units are the stock of all housing units
available for rent in the open market. These are units that are
privately owned and whose rents are determined by market
supply and demand pressures. A market rate rental unit can
also be a subsidized rental unit, as is the case with the Federal
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. Section 8
vouchers can be used to rent any unit, as detailed below.
Home ownership units include all single family homes for sale
– detached and attached single family homes, condominiums,
and manufactured homes.
Subsidized Housing Units: Permanent and Transitional
Edmonds has 303 units of subsidized housing with a range of rental assistance sources including
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs), HUD Supportive Housing Program, Section 8 Project-
Based Vouchers, and the Sound Families Initiative. As of July 2014, there were 195 HCVs in use in
Edmonds administered by the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) and the Everett
Housing Authority (EHA).22 All assisted units and buildings are listed in Appendix B. Table 2.2 shows the
distribution of permanent subsidized units by funding source.
Families making up to 50% of AMI are eligible for Section
8 housing vouchers; however, 75% of these vouchers are
limited to those making no more than 30% of AMI. Public
Housing Authorities (PHAs) receive federal funds from
the US Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) to administer the HCV program. HUD sets Fair Market
Rents (FMRs) annually and PHAs determine their individual
payment standards (a percentage of FMR) by unit bedroom
size. The tenant identifies a unit, then the PHA inspects the
unit to make sure it meets federal Housing Quality Standards
and determines if the asked rent is reasonable. If the unit
is approved, the tenant pays rent equal to 30-40% of their
income, and the PHA pays the difference directly to the
landlord. While the voucher amount is set up so that a family does not need to spend more than 30%
of their income on housing, including an allowance for utilities, a family may choose to spend up to
40% of their income on housing. This happens most often when the family chooses a home that is
larger than the size approved for their voucher. The two PHAs that administer the HCV program in
Snohomish County are HASCO and the Everett Housing Authority (EHA). Vouchers issued by both
PHAs can be used in Edmonds.
Because the number of vouchers a PHA can distribute is limited by the amount of federal funding
they receive, the wait for a new applicant to receive an HCV can be extremely long and is usually
22 Housing Authority of Snohomish County, 2014; Everett Housing Authority, 2014
Table 2.1. Assisted Units by Income
Level Served, City of Edmonds
Extremely Low 233
Very Low 79
Low 194
Moderate 2
Total 508
Sources: HASCO, 2014; EHA, 2014
Table 2.2. Permanent Subsidized Units
by Funding Source, City of Edmonds
Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher 195
Section 8 Project-Based
Voucher 98
HUD Supportive Housing
Program 10
Sound Families Initiative 12
Source: HASCO, 2014
Packet Page 362 of 458
13
dependent on existing voucher holders leaving the program. Until recently, the wait to receive an HCV
from HASCO had been about 6 years. Federal funding for the HCV program was frozen during the 2013
budget sequester, at which time HASCO had to close its waitlist.
Workforce Housing
Edmonds is home to 201 units of workforce housing distributed across 3 properties, all listed in
Appendix B. Assisted workforce housing units are defined by the fact that they received some form of
one-time subsidy in exchange for rent restrictions. Workforce funding types do not involve ongoing
rental assistance, and rents are not tailored to individual household incomes. These subsidies can
include:
•Capital Financing - Low-interest-rate mortgages,
mortgage insurance, tax-exempt bond financing,
loan guarantees, and pre-development cost
reduction financing.
•Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) – Tax credits
provided to developers that can be sold for the
purposes of up front debt reduction.
•Federal, State, and County Grant Programs – Grants provided to local governments from the
federal government for construction or renovation of below-market-rate units. Community
Development Block Grants and HOME grants are two popular examples
Workforce housing in Edmonds has been funded through a variety of sources, including low-income
housing tax credits (LIHTC), tax-exempt bonds, and State and County Housing Trust Fund dollars. While
the name may suggest otherwise, it is common for developers to use workforce funding sources to
funding housing for populations like seniors. Table 2.3 shows the number of workforce units funded
per major source in Edmonds, with full information provided in Appendix B. Table 2.3 only includes
units that do not have additional rental assistance (Considered ‘subsidized’ in this report), which often
also use workforce subsidies as part of their financing. As most workforce properties use more than
one funding source, there are units counted multiple times in the different funding categories listed
in Table 2.3. Financing for any affordable housing project is often very complicated and can involve an
array of public, nonprofit, and private entities.
While not currently the case in Edmonds’ workforce properties, many workforce housing properties
only dedicate a portion of their units for lower income tenants. This is typical of properties developed
or rehabilitated by private entities using tax credits or tax-exempt bond financing in exchange for
income restrictions on the properties. In those cases, affordable housing requirements are limited to a
certain period of time, typically 20 to 30 years, after which time the property owners can increase rents
to market rates. Some properties feature both subsidized and workforce units.
Market Rate Rental Units
There are an estimated 5,000 rental units in Edmonds of every type, from single family homes to large
Table 2.3. Workforce Units by Funding
Source, City of Edmonds
Tax Credit 92
Bond 200
Housing Trust Fund
(State and County)1
Source: HASCO, 2014
Packet Page 363 of 458
14
apartment buildings. According to American Community Survey estimates, 3,739 out of 5,000 renter-
occupied housing units are in multifamily properties. This compares to 1,904 multifamily units out of
12,396 owner-occupied homes.23
Table 2.4 summarizes ACS data on the number of units available at certain rent levels by bedroom
size in Edmonds. No evidence was found of any market rents below $500, despite ACS data to the
contrary. This could be because the ACS Sample may include subsidized units and less formal rent
arrangements, such as renting rooms or mother-in-law suites in single family homes or renting from
family members that could be more affordable. ACS rent data also does not include utility allowances.
To provide a better idea of what a household looking for a home today could expect to pay in rent and
utilities in Edmonds, rent data was obtained from Dupre and Scott. This data, which includes both
multifamily and single family rental units, is summarized in Table 2.5 and presented in full in Appendix
A. Table 2.5 lists the minimum full time wage to afford each average rent in hourly and annual terms as
well as the number of hours one would have to work per week earning Washington State’s minimum
wage to afford the unit.
Table 2.6, on the following page, shows the affordability distribution of average rents in Edmonds by
size. In this table, “Yes” means that the average rent is affordable to a household at that income level,
adjusting for household size, “Limited” means that the average rent is not affordable but there are
lower end affordable units, and “No” means that the entire rent range is not affordable. As shown, the
City’s rental housing is generally affordable to households earning at least 80% AMI – the moderate
23 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
Table 2.4. Renter-Occupied Units by Rent and Unit Size, City of Edmonds (Without Utilities)
No Bedrooms
1 Bedroom
Units
2 Bedroom
Units
3+ Bedroom
UnitsLess than $200 0 18 0 0$200 to $299 0 52 10 0$300 to $499 0 104 0 27$500 to $749 101 237 110 79$750 to $999 103 786 652 45$1,000 or more 0 186 1486 853
Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
Table 2.5. Average Rent and Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds (Including Utilities)
Average Rent (w/
Utilities)
Minimum Income Required Lowest
Rent
Highest
RentPer Hour Annual
Studio $833 $ 16.02 $33,320 $ 546 $ 1,187
1 Bedroom $887 $ 17.06 $35,480 $ 662 $ 1,521
2 Bedroom $1,097 $ 21.10 $43,880 $ 777 $ 1,916
3 Bedroom $1,679 $ 32.29 $67,160 $ 1,094 $ 4,215
4 Bedroom $2,545 $ 48.94 $101,800 $ 1,947 $ 4,347
5 Bedroom $ 2,844 $ 54.69 $113,760 $ 2,276 $ 3,771
Source: Dupre & Scott, 2013; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2014
Packet Page 364 of 458
15
income level and above. Average units two bedrooms or less in size are also affordable to low income
renters, with a limited supply affordable to very low income renters. There is also a limited supply of
three bedroom units affordable to this group.
The difference in minimum required income by size between single- and multifamily units is shown in
Table 2.7. As shown, multifamily units tend to be more affordable than single family homes. As
multifamily units also tend to be smaller than single family homes, there is a lack of larger affordable
units.
Even after accounting for the fact that utility allowances are not included in ACS data, the range of
rents available in the conventional market is generally higher than that reported in the ACS. Again, this
could be explained by the ACS sample including subsidized units and informal rent arrangements.
While ACS data is important as it shows what Edmonds renters are actually paying, it does not give an
accurate indication of what a typical renter searching for a market rate unit can expect to pay.
Home Ownership
Between 2008 and 2012, 61% of single family homes sold in Edmonds were three bedrooms in size.
24% of homes sold were four bedrooms in size, meaning that three and four bedroom homes together
represented 85% of sales. 9% were two bedrooms and 6% were five bedrooms or larger. This includes
freestanding single family homes, common wall single family homes (townhouses), manufactured
homes, and condominiums24.
24 Snohomish County property use codes 111, 112, 116, 117, 118, 119, 141, 142, 143
Table 2.7. Average Rents by Size, SIngle- and Multifamily, City of Edmonds
Multifamily Ave.
Rent
Minimum
Income
Single Family
Ave. Rent
Minimum
Income
Studio $833 Low n/a n/a
1 Bedroom $887 Low $1,521 Moderate
2 Bedroom $1,070 Low $1,548 Moderate
3 Bedroom $1,336 Low $1,992 Moderate
4 Bedroom n/a n/a $2,545 Middle
5 Bedroom n/a n/a $2,844 Middle
Source: Dupre and Scott, 2013
Table 2.6. Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds
Number of Bedrooms
Income Level Studio 1 2 3 4+
Extremely Low No No No No No
Very Low Limited Limited Limited Limited No
Low Yes Yes Yes Limited No
Moderate Yes Yes Yes Yes Limited
Middle Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Source: Dupre and Scott, 2013
Packet Page 365 of 458
16
In 2012, the median sale price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. Assuming a 20%
down payment and using average rates of interest, property taxes, utilities and insurance as
determined by the Federal Housing Funding Board, the monthly payment for this home would be
$1,895. For a family to afford this payment without being cost burdened, they would require an annual
income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City’s median income.25
Appendix C provides statistics on sales of single family homes from 2008-2012, as well the minimum
income necessary to afford the median sale home by year. During that time period, median home
sales prices declined by 17%. In 2012 dollars this translates to a difference of more than $33,000 in
minimum income required to afford the median home.26 The housing market across the region has
since begun to recover from the recession. While home sale affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated
at this time, Edmonds currently has the County’s third highest average assessed residential value. The
2014 average assessed value of $351,100 represented a 10.7% increase over 2013.27
Table 2.8 lists the percentage of 2012 sales of homes of different sizes that are affordable to each
income level by home size. “Not affordable” means that the minimum income required is higher than
the middle income upper cutoff. All of the percentages specify the portion of homes of that size that
someone in the particular income group could afford, adjusting for household size as detailed in
Appendix E. As shown, there is decreasing affordability as size increases, though moderate and middle
income households could theoretically afford the monthly cost of most of the homes sold in 2012.
Moderate income is recommended as the minimum ideal household income for home ownership to
be a reasonable option.
Table 2.8. Affordable Home Sales by Size, City of Edmonds, 2012
Bedrooms Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate Middle Not
Affordable
Total
Sales
1-2 12%17%57%73%85%15%60
2 0%7%46%74%87%13%405
3 0%4%21%54%78%22%165
5+0%3%23%49%69%31%35
Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
The “affordability gap” describes situations where there are more households at a given income level
than there are housing options affordable to those households. Figure 2.5 displays the percentage
of households in Edmonds at each income level compared with the percentage of all home sales in
2012 that each income level could afford. As Figure 2.5 compares the overall income distribution of
the City with the affordability distribution of one year, this is a rough approximation, and other factors
should be considered in examining home ownership affordability. As shown, there were plenty of
sales theoretically affordable for households earning at least 80% AMI in 2012, which is the minimum
income required for home ownership. (Moderate income and above) This analysis does not consider
25 Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
26 Ibid
27 Snohomish County Assessor, “Snohomish County Assessor’s Annual Report for 2014 Taxes”, 2014
Packet Page 366 of 458
17
whether or not these income
groups are able to access
financing, including a down
payment, or other barriers
to home ownership. There is
also sufficient supply for the
City’s low income households,
though home ownership
may only be a good choice
for certain households in this
group. Further, this does not
include competition from
households above middle
income, which comprise 33% of
the City’s total.
Figure 2.6 shows how the
percentage of sales affordable
to each income level has changed from 2008 to 2012. As shown, affordability improved dramatically
for moderate income households during this period, and all other income groups as well. As the
housing market continues
to improve following the
recession, affordability for this
group may retreat again. While
there are affordable options
for low income households,
and ownership may be a good
option for certain low income
households (those earning
between 50 and 80% AMI), these
households are considered the
exception rather than the rule.
Many of the most affordable
sales were likely only so
affordable because they were
foreclosed homes sold by banks.
517 Paradise Lane, for example,
is a three bedroom home that Wells Fargo Bank sold for $240,000 in 2012. At that price, a household
with a minimum income of $46,216 could afford the monthly debt service of around $1,155. This same
home sold for $378,000 in 2004, which is well out of reach to the household with the minimum income
necessary to afford it in 2012. While low priced foreclosed homes can put home ownership within
reach for more households, this is accomplished at the expense of previously displaced homeowners.
Additionally, these sales contribute to ongoing uncertainty about market home values. Low income
home buyers could also become cost burdened by higher property taxes on these “bargain” homes.
Figure 2.7, on the following page, shows how sales have been divided between single family homes,
condominiums, and manufactured homes between 2008 and 2012. In Edmonds, condominiums
Figure 2.5. Home Sale Affordability Gap, 2012, City of Edmonds
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008-2012;
Figure 2.6. Home Sale Affordability, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds
Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
Packet Page 367 of 458
18
represent a larger portion of the market than in other cities in Snohomish County.
Table 2.9 shows how many sales of each of these three types were affordable to each income
level in 2012. Manufactured homes were most likely to be affordable to lower income
households, with a dramatically lower median sale price, though there was still a significant
number of single family and condominium sales affordable to very low and low income
households. The median home sale prices for single family homes and condominiums were also
very close to each other in 2012. Table 2.10 shows how many homes were sold in 2012 by type
and number of bedrooms.
Table 2.9. 2012 Affordable Home Sales by Type, City of Edmonds
Single
Family
Manufactured
Home Condo
Extremely
Low 1 6 0
Very Low 37 0 2
Low 208 0 9
Moderate 171 0 17
Middle 104 0 3
Not
Affordable 108 0 0
Median Sale
Price $ 339,975 $8,150 $341,705
Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
Figure 2.7. Home Sales by Type, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds
Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
Packet Page 368 of 458
19
Table 2.10. Size of Homes Sold by Type, 2012, City of Edmonds
Bedrooms Single
Family
Mobile
Home
Condo
1-2 54 6 0
3 381 0 24
4 158 0 7
5+35 0 0
Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
Shared Rental Housing
A popular market rate affordable housing option is to split housing costs with other roommates. These
arrangements include renting a room, suite, or accessory dwelling unit (ADU) from a homeowner
living on site. For 8 shared rooms advertised on Craigslist in the City, the monthly cost ranged from
$500 to $650, including utilities. While they were more rooms advertised, they did not include an
address or cross streets, so it could not be verified that they were actually located within the City. Their
rents were generally not outside this range, however.
Rents in this range are easily within reach for very low income single individuals, and possibly even
extremely low income couples. Individuals seeking roommates are able to discriminate in who they
choose to share their housing, however, and often stipulate a preferred gender or bar couples from
sharing a room. It may be difficult for families with children and households with disabilities or other
special needs to find a suitable shared housing situation. In these cases, a household’s ability to find
shared housing will likely depend on whether or not they have local connections to help them find
understanding roommates.
Packet Page 369 of 458
20
Current Challenges and Opportunities
The City of Edmonds is faced with the challenge of accommodating greater growth
over the next 20 years than it has seen in the past, requiring an additional 2,790
additional housing units, when the current capacity is only 2,646 additional units. Of
the current capacity, the vast majority is in multifamily properties, with a high portion
to come through redevelopment.28 In general, the City will see a shift toward more
multifamily housing if growth continues as predicted.
Edmonds enjoys a higher median income compared to other areas in the County. All
the same, assuming that the City’s income mix stays constant, it is estimated that 1,257
units, or 55% of the total projected increase, will serve households at or below 50%
AMI. The share of projected units by income level is shown in Figure 3.1.
According to 2013 Dupre and
Scott data, Edmonds’ rental
housing market is generally
affordable to households
earning at least 80% AMI.
Households earning between
50 and 80% AMI will find the
majority of homes smaller than
five bedrooms affordable as
well. There is a limited supply
of small units affordable to
those earning between 30 and
50% AMI. Market rents are not
affordable to extremely low
income households, though
this is expected in almost all
communities, due to the costs of
construction and maintenance in
today’s market. Cost burden data
supports these conclusions, with
a significant reduction in cost burden for both renters and owners at income levels
above 50% AMI. Overall, 38% of Edmonds households are cost burdened. Renters
and owners earning less than middle income are all less likely to be cost burdened in
Edmonds when compared to the County, with the exception of homeowners below
50% AMI who are more likely to be cost burdened.29
In 2012, the median sale price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. The
estimated monthly payment for this home would be $1,895, including debt service,
insurance, taxes, and utilities. For a family to afford this payment without being cost
burdened, they would require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is just
28 Snohomish County Tomorrow Planning Advisory Committee, “Housing Characteristics and
Needs in Snohomish County”, 2014
29 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
Figure 3.1. Income allocation of projected new housing
units, City of Edmonds
Packet Page 370 of 458
21
above the City’s median income.30 Affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated at this time, but average
assessed values suggest that home prices are rising and affordability is retreating. At $351,100,
Edmonds has the third highest average assessed 2014 home value in Snohomish County after
Woodway and Mukilteo, and it represented a 10.7% increase over 2013. 31
The age of units in Edmonds is a possible contributing factor to affordability, as the City features a
significant stock of homes constructed between 1950 and 1969. As properties are redeveloped to
build the denser housing the City needs to accommodate growth, it is likely that a portion of these
naturally affordable older units will be replaced with higher priced new units. While preservation of
older housing is an effective strategy for affordability, preservation must be balanced with the need to
accommodate growth. In addition, the higher priced new units of today will be the quality affordable
older units of tomorrow.
Edmonds has one of the highest percentages of elderly residents among all Snohomish County cities.
According to the ACS estimates, almost 25% of households in Edmonds have individuals 65 years or
older.32 In addition to having generally lower incomes, seniors will require different types of housing
and services if they desire to age in place. Additionally, as the “baby boomer” generation continues to
move into retirement, there will be an increase in the number of people with disabilities as well.
To respond to the continuing need to provide affordable housing for the community, the City has
undertaken a series of measures and strategies to promote affordable housing including:
• Land Use Strategies: upzoning from single family to multifamily zoning, offering density bonuses
for low income and senior housing provision, clustering subdivisions, planned residential
developments to protect the environment, encouraging infill developments, and promoting
conversion/adaptive reuse programs.
• Administrative Procedures: streamlined approval processes, updated use-by-right policies, and
updated impact mitigation payment deferral.
• Development Standards: installed front and side yard setback requirements, zero lot line
development, improved street design and construction, off-street parking requirements, and
innovative sanitary, sewer, water and storm water systems.
• Low-Cost Housing Types: encourage the use of accessory dwellings, cottage houses, mixed-use
developments and mobile/manufactured housing.
In addition to promoting, adjusting, and providing incentives for these policies where appropriate,
the City should continue to monitor their use and evaluate policies to make sure there are not
unnecessary regulatory barriers to affordable housing. Additionally, the City could consider adopting a
multifamily tax abatement program for certain locations and, when opportunities arise, the City could
partner with nonprofit organizations developing housing for households earning below 30% AMI, the
income group generally not served by the traditional housing market.
30 Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
31 Snohomish County Assessor, “Snohomish County Assessor’s Annual Report for 2014 Taxes”, 2014
32 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
Packet Page 371 of 458
22
Maps
Packet Page 372 of 458
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
Population (Block Groups)
MUGA
City Limits
0 - 464
465 - 958
959 - 1284
1285 - 1553
1554 - 2040 ¡
0 0.750.375 1.5 Miles
Map 1.1. Total Population (Block Groups)
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
Packet Page 373 of 458
24
196th St SW 196th St SW9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
Puget Drive
¡
0 0.750.375 1.5 Miles
Family Size
0.00
0.01 - 2.15
2.16 - 2.95
2.96 - 3.34
3.35 - 4.12
City Limits
MUGA
Map 1.2. Average Family Size (Block Groups)
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Household Size
0.00 - 1.70
1.71 - 2.30
2.31 - 2.77
2.78 - 3.42
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 374 of 458
25
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Household Size
0.00 - 1.70
1.71 - 2.30
2.31 - 2.77
2.78 - 3.42
City Limits
MUGA
Map 1.3. Average Household Size (Block Groups)
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
Packet Page 375 of 458
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Renter-Occupied Homes
(By Block Group)
0% - 7%
8% - 17%
18% - 27%
28% - 41%
42% - 72%
City Limits
MUGA
26
Map 1.4. Renter-Occupied Housing Units
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
Packet Page 376 of 458
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Vacant Homes
(By Block Group)
0% - 2%
3% - 7%
8% - 10%
11% - 19%
20% - 25%
City Limits
MUGA
27
Map 1.5. Vacant Housing Units (Block Groups)
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
Packet Page 377 of 458
28
Map 1.6. Homeowners with Mortgages
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Mortgaged Homes
0%
1% - 64%
65% - 73%
74% - 79%
80% - 95%
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 378 of 458
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.750.375 1.5 Miles
Households
<50%AMI
0% - 12%
13% - 20%
21% - 33%
34% - 46%
47% - 68%
City Limits
MUGA
29
Map 1.7. Very Low-Income Households
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
Packet Page 379 of 458
30
Map 1.8. Cost-Burdened Renters
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Cost-Burdened
Renters
0%
1% - 35%
36% - 52%
53% - 78%
79% - 100%
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 380 of 458
31
Map 1.9. Cost-Burdened Owners
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Cost-Burdened
Owners
0% - 10%
11% - 28%
29% - 36%
37% - 48%
49% - 65%
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 381 of 458
32
Map 1.10. Housing & Transportation, Percent of Low HH Income
Sources: US Housing & Urban Developme nt, 2013; Snohomish County Information Services, 2012
196th St SW 196th St SW9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
Puget Drive
¡
0 0.750.375 1.5 Miles
Percent of Income
51% - 58%
59% - 65%
66% - 73%
74% - 81%
82% - 100%
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 382 of 458
33
Map 2.1. Voucher Location and Transit Access
Sources: HASCO 2014; Snohomish County Community Transit, 2014; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Year Built
Voucher
Bus Stop Range
(1/4 mile walk)
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 383 of 458
34
Map 2.2. Age of Housing Stock
Sources: Snohomish County Assessor, 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2012
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Year Built
1872 - 1904
1905 - 1918
1919 - 1934
1935 - 1948
1949 - 1957
1958 - 1964
1965 - 1972
1973 - 1983
1984 - 1997
1998 - 2013
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 384 of 458
35
Map 2.3. Condition of Housing Stock
Sources: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
196th St SW 196th St SW9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
Puget Drive
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Condition (For Age)
Excellent
Very Good
Above Normal
Normal
Below Normal
Poor
Very Poor
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 385 of 458
36
Map 2.4. Housing Density
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Housing
Units/Acre (By
Block Group)
0.0 - 1.4
1.5 - 3.0
3.1 - 4.3
4.4 - 6.6
6.7 - 11.7
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 386 of 458
37
Map 2.7. New Single Family Permits by Census Tract, 2011
Sources: Snohomish County Information Services, 2012; PSRC, 2011
37
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Net Newly-
Permitted Units by
-6
-5 - 0
1 - 2
3 - 4
5 - 8
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 387 of 458
38
Map 2.8. New Multifamily Permits by Census Tract, 2011
Sources: Snohomish County Information Services, 2012; PSRC, 2011
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Net Newly-
Permitted Units by
Tract
-4
-3 - 0
1
2 - 8
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 388 of 458
39
Map 2.9. Average Renter Household Size
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
196th St SW 196th St SW
196th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
9t
h
A
v
e
S
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Main Street
Pac
i
f
i
c
H
w
y
¡
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
Average HH Size -
Renters
0.00 - 1.65
1.66 - 2.18
2.19 - 2.68
2.69 - 3.73
3.74 - 7.42
City Limits
MUGA
Packet Page 389 of 458
40
Appendices
Packet Page 390 of 458
Units in
Building Age Studio Rent Utilities Total Minimum
Income
Units in
Building Age 1Bd-Rent Utilities Total Minimum
Income
Units in
Building Age 2/1-Rent Utilities Total Minimum
Income
Units in
Building Age 2/2-Rent Utilities Total Minimum
Income
Units in
Building Age 3/1-Rent Utilities Total Minimum
Income
Units in
Building Age 3/2-Rent Utilities Total Minimum
Income
Units in
Building Age 4Bed-Rent Utilities Total Minimum
Income
Units in
Building Age 5Bed-Rent Utilities Total Minimum
Income
4:20+ 1945 $500 46$ $546 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $725 171$ $896 Low 4:20+ 1965 $830 191$ $1,021 Low 3:4-19 1975 $866 $77 $943 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $953 220$ $1,173 Low 4:20+ 1965 $1,200 220$ $1,420 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,895 247$ $2,142 Moderate 1:SF 1945 $2,400 276$ $2,676 Middle
4:20+ 2010 $1,035 152$ $1,187 Low 4:20+ 1965 $689 171$ $860 Low 4:20+ 1965 $770 191$ $961 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $870 $191 $1,061 Low 4:20+ 1965 $985 220$ $1,205 Low 4:20+ 1965 $1,066 220$ $1,286 Low 1:SF 1945 $2,200 247$ $2,447 Middle 1:SF 1945 $2,000 276$ $2,276 Moderate
4:20+ 1975 $682 152$ $834 Low 4:20+ 1965 $850 62$ $912 Low 4:20+ 1965 $950 77$ $1,027 Low 4:20+ 1965 $875 $77 $952 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $1,050 94$ $1,144 Low 4:20+ 1965 $1,050 94$ $1,144 Low 1:SF 1965 $1,700 247$ $1,947 Moderate 1:SF 2000 $3,495 276$ $3,771 Not Affordable
4:20+ 1975 $690 152$ $842 Low 4:20+ 1965 $785 171$ $956 Low 4:20+ 1965 $1,050 191$ $1,241 Low 3:4-19 1985 $1,015 $77 $1,092 Low 4:20+ 1945 $1,000 94$ $1,094 Very Low 4:20+ 1985 $1,200 220$ $1,420 Low 1:SF 2000 $2,100 247$ $2,347 Moderate 1:SF 1975 $2,395 276$ $2,671 Middle
4:20+ 1975 $685 152$ $837 Low 4:20+ 1945 $810 171$ $981 Low 4:20+ 1945 $795 191$ $986 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $925 $77 $1,002 Low 4:20+ 1975 $976 220$ $1,196 Low 3:4-19 1985 $1,100 94$ $1,194 Low 1:SF 1975 $1,995 247$ $2,242 Moderate 1:SF 2000 $2,550 276$ $2,826 Middle
4:20+ 1965 $425 152$ $577 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $775 62$ $837 Low 4:20+ 1945 $725 77$ $802 Very Low 4:20+ 1985 $1,025 $191 $1,216 Low 4:20+ 1965 $875 220$ $1,095 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $910 220$ $1,130 Very Low 1:SF 1975 $2,295 247$ $2,542 Middle
4:20+ 1985 $793 152$ $945 Low 4:20+ 1945 $650 62$ $712 Very Low 4:20+ 1945 $845 77$ $922 Very Low 4:20+ 2010 $1,431 $191 $1,622 Moderate 1:SF 1945 $1,400 220$ $1,620 Low 4:20+ 1985 $1,293 220$ $1,513 Low 1:SF 1975 $2,000 247$ $2,247 Moderate
3:4-19 1975 $850 46$ $896 Low 4:20+ 1945 $619 62$ $681 Very Low 3:4-19 1975 $810 77$ $887 Very Low 3:4-19 1965 $895 $77 $972 Very Low 1:SF 1945 $1,895 220$ $2,115 Moderate 1:SF 1945 $2,200 220$ $2,420 Middle 1:SF 1990 $1,895 247$ $2,142 Moderate
4:20+ 1965 $670 62$ $732 Very Low 4:20+ 1985 $955 191$ $1,146 Low 4:20+ 1985 $1,050 $191 $1,241 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,595 220$ $1,815 Moderate 1:SF 1965 $1,695 220$ $1,915 Moderate 1:SF 2000 $4,100 247$ $4,347 Not Affordable
4:20+ 1985 $800 171$ $971 Low 3:4-19 1975 $925 77$ $1,002 Low 4:20+ 1985 $925 $77 $1,002 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,650 220$ $1,870 Moderate 1:SF 1965 $1,800 220$ $2,020 Moderate 1:SF 1975 $2,800 247$ $3,047 Middle
3:4-19 1985 $725 62$ $787 Very Low 4:20+ 1975 $820 191$ $1,011 Low 4:20+ 1985 $875 $77 $952 Very Low 1:SF 1965 $1,375 220$ $1,595 Low 1:SF 1945 $3,995 220$ $4,215 Not Affordable
4:20+ 1975 $760 171$ $931 Low 4:20+ 2010 $1,325 191$ $1,516 Moderate 4:20+ 1975 $950 $77 $1,027 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,250 220$ $1,470 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,495 220$ $1,715 Moderate
4:20+ 2010 $1,207 171$ $1,378 Moderate 4:20+ 1985 $770 191$ $961 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $880 $77 $957 Very Low 1:SF 1945 $1,395 220$ $1,615 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,395 220$ $1,615 Low
4:20+ 1985 $710 171$ $881 Low 4:20+ 1975 $932 191$ $1,123 Low 4:20+ 1975 $992 $191 $1,183 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,250 220$ $1,470 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,595 220$ $1,815 Moderate
4:20+ 1985 $825 62$ $887 Low 4:20+ 1975 $891 191$ $1,082 Low 4:20+ 1975 $975 $191 $1,166 Low 3:4-19 1945 $1,400 94$ $1,494 Low 1:SF 1945 $2,400 220$ $2,620 Middle
4:20+ 1975 $744 171$ $915 Low 4:20+ 1975 $750 191$ $941 Very Low 4:20+ 1975 $840 $191 $1,031 Low 3:4-19 1945 $1,100 94$ $1,194 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,395 220$ $1,615 Low
4:20+ 1965 $695 62$ $757 Very Low 4:20+ 1975 $795 191$ $986 Very Low 4:20+ 1975 $850 $77 $927 Very Low 3:4-19 1975 $1,000 94$ $1,094 Very Low
4:20+ 1975 $786 171$ $957 Low 4:20+ 1975 $885 77$ $962 Very Low 4:20+ 1985 $1,028 $191 $1,219 Low 3:4-19 1975 $2,195 94$ $2,289 Middle
4:20+ 1975 $700 171$ $871 Low 4:20+ 1965 $795 191$ $986 Very Low 1:SF 1945 $1,725 $191 $1,916 Middle 3:4-19 1965 $1,200 94$ $1,294 Low
4:20+ 1975 $715 171$ $886 Low 4:20+ 1985 $957 191$ $1,148 Low 3:4-19 1975 $700 $77 $777 Very Low 2:2-3 2000 $1,425 220$ $1,645 Low
4:20+ 1975 $705 171$ $876 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,150 191$ $1,341 Low 1:SF 1900 $1,195 $191 $1,386 Low 2:2-3 2000 $1,425 220$ $1,645 Low
4:20+ 1975 $735 62$ $797 Very Low 3:4-19 1945 $850 77$ $927 Very Low 3:4-19 1975 $850 $77 $927 Very Low 2:2-3 1945 $1,295 94$ $1,389 Low
4:20+ 1965 $710 171$ $881 Low 3:4-19 1965 $840 77$ $917 Very Low 2:2-3 1965 $1,475 $77 $1,552 Moderate 1:SF 2000 $2,250 220$ $2,470 Middle
4:20+ 1985 $860 171$ $1,031 Low 3:4-19 1945 $985 77$ $1,062 Low 2:2-3 1945 $1,495 $191 $1,686 Moderate 1:SF 1975 $1,675 220$ $1,895 Moderate
1:SF 1900 $1,350 171$ $1,521 Moderate 3:4-19 1945 $900 77$ $977 Very Low 2:2-3 1945 $1,200 $191 $1,391 Low 1:SF 1975 $1,975 220$ $2,195 Middle
3:4-19 1975 $755 62$ $817 Very Low 3:4-19 1945 $839 77$ $916 Very Low 1:SF 1975 $1,995 220$ $2,215 Middle
3:4-19 1945 $750 62$ $812 Very Low 2:2-3 1945 $925 77$ $1,002 Low 1:SF 1985 $1,400 220$ $1,620 Low
3:4-19 1965 $710 62$ $772 Very Low 1:SF 1985 $1,670 220$ $1,890 Moderate
3:4-19 1945 $800 62$ $862 Low
3:4-19 1945 $631 62$ $693 Very Low
3:4-19 1945 $600 62$ $662 Very Low
4 Bedroom 5 BedroomStudio1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom, 1 Bath 2 Bedroom, 2 Bath 3 Bedroom, 1 Bath 3 Bedroom, 2 Bath
A1
Appendix A: Multifamily Rent Comparables by Property, City of Edmonds
Packet Page 391 of 458
B1
PROPERTY NAME STREET ADDRESS PARCEL ID Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate SUBSIDIZED UNITS WORKFORCE UNITS TRANSITIONAL UNITS OWNER POPULATION SERVED FUNDING SOURCES
Section 8 Housing Choice
Vouchers (HASCO)Various Various 122 33 21 2 178 Public (HASCO)Vaious HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
Section 8 Housing Choice
Vouchers (EHA)Various Various 14 2 1 17 Public (EHA)Various HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
Aurora House 20903 70th Ave W 27042000302700 16 16 Public (HASCO)Mentally Ill Bond
Ballinger Court Apts.22707 76th Ave. W 27042900308400 28 64 92 Private Nonprofit (SHAG)Seniors Tax Credit, Bond
Edmonds Highlands 23326 Edmonds Way 00555300100300 108 12 108 Public (HASCO)Family Section 8 Project-Based Vouchers, Bond, Sound
Families
McKinney House 19515 73rd Ave W 27041700303300 5 5 Private Nonprofit (Compass
Health)Mentally Ill HUD Supportive Housing Program
Olympic View Apartments 303 Howell Way 27032600100300 43 43 Public (HASCO)Seniors
Section 8 Project-Based Voucher, Tax Credit,
Bond, County Housing Trust Fund, State Housing
Trust Fund
Sound View Apartments 417 Third Ave S 27032600100500 43 43 Public (HASCO)Seniors
Section 8 Project-Based Voucher, Tax Credit,
Bond, County Housing Trust Fund, State Housing
Trust Fund
Tri-level House 8629 196th St SW 27041800309900 5 5 Private Nonprofit (Compass
Health)Mentally Ill HUD Supportive Housing Program
Zeigen House 20208 73rd Ave W 00400600001400 1 1 Private Nonprofit (Compass
Health)Mentally Ill State Housing Trust Fund, County Housing Trust
Fund
ASSISTED UNITS BY INCOME LEVEL
Appendix B: Assisted Units by Property, City of Edmonds
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Number of Sales 416 517 577 586 666
Average Sale Price 465,736$ 409,870$ 404,634$ 359,465$ 383,157$
Median Sale Price 411,000$ 355,000$ 346,500$ 315,000$ 339,975$
Median Sale Price Home Affordability
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mortgage Amount 328,800$ 284,000$ 277,200$ 252,000$ 271,980$
Interest Rate 6.09% 5.06% 4.83% 4.58% 3.66%
Monthly PITI
Principal + Interest 1,990$ 1,535$ 1,459$ 1,289$ 1,246$
Property Taxes 343$ 296$ 289$ 263$ 283$
Insurance 130$ 112$ 110$ 100$ 108$
Utilities 269$ 269$ 276$ 281$ 258$
TOTAL 2,463$ 1,943$ 1,858$ 1,651$ 1,637$
Minimum Annual Income 98,522$ 77,730$ 74,315$ 66,044$ 65,468$
in 2012 Dollars 105,061$ 83,186$ 78,247$ 67,411$
First Quartile Sale Price Home Affordability
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mortgage Amount 264,000$ 240,000$ 218,305$ 192,000$ 200,000$
Interest Rate 6.09% 5.06% 4.83% 4.58% 3.66%
Monthly PITI
Principal + Interest 1,598$ 1,297$ 1,149$ 982$ 916$
Property Taxes 275$ 250$ 227$ 200$ 208$
Insurance 105$ 95$ 86$ 76$ 79$
Utilities 269$ 269$ 276$ 281$ 258$
TOTAL 2,247$ 1,911$ 1,739$ 1,539$ 1,462$
Minimum Annual Income 89,867$ 76,444$ 69,566$ 61,557$ 58,470$
in 2012 Dollars 95,832$ 81,810$ 73,247$ 62,831$
Packet Page 392 of 458
C1
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Number of Sales 416 517 577 586 666
Average Sale Price 465,736$ 409,870$ 404,634$ 359,465$ 383,157$
Median Sale Price 411,000$ 355,000$ 346,500$ 315,000$ 339,975$
Median Sale Price Home Affordability
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mortgage Amount 328,800$ 284,000$ 277,200$ 252,000$ 271,980$
Interest Rate 6.09% 5.06% 4.83% 4.58% 3.66%
Monthly PITI
Principal + Interest 1,990$ 1,535$ 1,459$ 1,289$ 1,246$
Property Taxes 343$ 296$ 289$ 263$ 283$
Insurance 130$ 112$ 110$ 100$ 108$
Utilities 269$ 269$ 276$ 281$ 258$
TOTAL 2,463$ 1,943$ 1,858$ 1,651$ 1,637$
Minimum Annual Income 98,522$ 77,730$ 74,315$ 66,044$ 65,468$
in 2012 Dollars 105,061$ 83,186$ 78,247$ 67,411$
First Quartile Sale Price Home Affordability
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mortgage Amount 264,000$ 240,000$ 218,305$ 192,000$ 200,000$
Interest Rate 6.09% 5.06% 4.83% 4.58% 3.66%
Monthly PITI
Principal + Interest 1,598$ 1,297$ 1,149$ 982$ 916$
Property Taxes 275$ 250$ 227$ 200$ 208$
Insurance 105$ 95$ 86$ 76$ 79$
Utilities 269$ 269$ 276$ 281$ 258$
TOTAL 2,247$ 1,911$ 1,739$ 1,539$ 1,462$
Minimum Annual Income 89,867$ 76,444$ 69,566$ 61,557$ 58,470$
in 2012 Dollars 95,832$ 81,810$ 73,247$ 62,831$
Appendix C: Single Family Home Sales, 2008-2012
Packet Page 393 of 458
D1
Appendix D: Affordable Housing Glossary
Affordable Housing: For housing to be considered affordable, a household should not pay
more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing. This includes all costs related to housing
- rent, mortgage payments, utilities, etc.
AMI: Area Median Income. The measure of median income used in this report is that of the
Seattle-Bellevue HMFA. This measure is used in administering the Section 8 voucher program in
Snohomish County.
Cost-Burdened: Households that spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing.
Extremely Low Income: Households that make up to 30 percent of AMI.
Fair Market Rent: HUD determines what a reasonable rent level should be for a geographic
area, and sets this as the area’s fair market rent. Section 8 voucher holders are limited to selecting
units that do not rent for more than fair market rent.
HMFA: HUD Metro FMR Area
Low Income: Households that make up to 80 percent of AMI.
Median Income: The median income for a community is the annual income at which half the
households earn less and half earn more.
Middle Income: Households that make up to 120 percent of AMI.
Moderate Income: Households that make up to 95 percent of AMI.
PHA: Public Housing Agency
Section 8: HUD’s Section 8 Housing Choice voucher program. Qualifying households can take
their voucher to any housing unit which meets HUD safety and market rent standards. HUD
funds are administered by PHAs.
Severely Cost-Burdened: Households that spend more than 50 percent of their income on
housing.
Subsidized Rental Unit: A unit which benefits from a direct, monthly rent subsidy. This subsidy
will vary to ensure that a household does not spend more than 30% of their income on housing.
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers are an example of a direct rent subsidy.
Very Low Income: Households that make up to 50 percent of AMI.
Workforce Rental Housing: Workforce rental units have rents which are set in order to be
affordable to households at certain income levels. While a household may need to have income
below a certain level to apply for a workforce rental unit, the rent level does not adjust to their
actual income. A property may feature units with rents affordable to households with 50% AMI,
Packet Page 394 of 458
D2
but a household earning 30% AMI would still have to pay the same rent
Packet Page 395 of 458
1
Appendix E: Methodology
Affordability - Adjustment for Household Size
Where it is indicated that housing cost affordability is assessed adjusting for household size,
several factors are considered. First, using HUD standards, the appropriate size range that
could inhabit the housing unit in question is determined. For example, the appropriate range
for a 2 bedroom unit would be 2-4 people. Next, the cutoff income levels are averaged across
the household size range, and this average is used for comparison.
To assess whether or not a 2 bedroom unit is affordable to extremely low income households
using this method, one would first average the extremely low cutoff levels for 2-, 3-, and 4-person
households. For 2012, these levels were $21,150, $23,800, and $26,400. Their average is $23,783.
A household with this income can afford to spend no more than $595 per month on housing.
If the unit in question rents for less than this amount, then one can say that, on average, it is
affordable to extremely low income households, adjusting for household size.
Table E.1, below, shows the maximum a household at each income level can afford to
spend on housing per month by household size.
Home ownership affordability
Home ownership affordability was calculated using similar techniques to the California
Association of Realtor’s Housing Affordability Index. First, property sale data was acquired from
the Snohomish County Assessor, and single family home sales in Everett were separated. Next,
the monthly payment for these homes was calculated using several assumptions:
• Assuming a 20% down payment, the loan amount is then 80% of the total sale price
• Mortgage term is 30 years
• Interest rate is the national average effective composite rate for previously occupied
homes as reported by the Federal Housing Finance Board
• Monthly property taxes are assumed to be 1% of the sale price divided by 12
• Monthly insurance payments are assumed to be 0.38% of the sale price divided by 12
Table E.1. Maximum Monthly Housing Expense by Household Size, Seattle-Bellevue HMFA 2012
Number of Persons Per Household HMFA Overall
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Extremely
Low $455 $520 $585 $650 $703 $755 $806 $859 $650
Very Low $759 $868 $976 $1,084 $1,171 $1,258 $1,345 $1,431 $1,084
Low $1,128 $1,289 $1,450 $1,610 $1,740 $1,869 $1,998 $2,126 $1,734
Moderate $1,442 $1,648 $1,855 $2,059 $2,225 $2,389 $2,556 $2,719 $2,059
Middle $1,821 $2,082 $2,343 $2,601 $2,811 $3,018 $3,228 $3,435 $2,601
Source: US Department of Housing & Urban Development, 2012
Packet Page 396 of 458
2
Using all of these assumptions, the monthly payment is t he sum of principal and interest; taxes; and
insurance.
Household Income Levels
Area Median Income, or AMI, is an important part of many housing affordability calculations. In
Snohomish County, HUD uses the Seattle-Bellevue HMFA median income as AMI. This is recalculated
every year, both as an overall average and by household size up to 8 individuals. Standard income
levels are as follows:
•Extremely low income: <30% AMI
•Very low income: between 30 and 50% AMI
•Low income: between 50 and 80% AMI
•Moderate income: between 80 and 95% AMI
•Middle income: between 95 and 120% AMI
Household Profiles
Information on households was gathered from Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher data from both the
Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) and Everett Housing Authority (EHA). All names
have been changed as well as many other nonessential details to protect privacy.
Packet Page 397 of 458
166 Housing
Housing Element
A. General Background
Housing Stock and Type
According to the Office of Financial Management (OFM), there were an estimated 13,054 housing
units within the City of Edmonds in 1994. This represents an increase of less than one percent in the
city's housing stock since 1990, when there were 12,945 dwelling units (1990 US Census). In
comparison, over the period 1980-1990, the city's housing stock grew 21 percent, or approximately
1.9 percent per year. Housing stock declined (less than 1%) between 1990 and 1992, but grew
(approximately 1%) between 1992 and 1994. Table 9 summarizes recent growth trends and forecasts
for the City of Edmonds.
Of the total stock of housing in 1994, 8,675 (66 percent) were single family units, 4,229 (32 percent)
were multi-family units, and 150 (2 percent) were mobile homes or trailers. Compared with
Snohomish County as a whole, Edmonds has a higher percentage of single-family homes and a lower
proportion of multi-family and mobile homes/trailers.
Between 1990 and 1994, the City annexed three parcels of land totaling approximately .059 square
miles. The parcels included 64 housing units and 146 residents. These units accounted for most of
the growth (57%) in the city's housing stock since 1990.
Household Characteristics
In 2000, there were 17,508 housing units in Edmonds. This was an increase of over 35% in the
number of housing units in the city compared to 1990 (12,945). As noted earlier, this increase can
largely be explained by annexations. Over the same period, the average number of persons per
housing unit declined from 2.59 persons in 1980 to 2.37 persons in 1990, with a further decline to
2.26 persons in 2000 (US Census). The average household size showed a similar trend, falling to 2.32
persons per household by 2000. Compared with Snohomish County as a whole, Edmonds had fewer
people per household in 1990 (2.37 vs. 2.68, respectively) and in 2000 (2.32 vs. 2.65). Average
Table 8
City of Edmonds Housing Growth
Housing
Units
Increase Percentage
Increase
Average
Annual
Increase
Census: 1980 10,702
1990 12,945 2,243 21.0% 1.9%
2000 17,508 4,563 35.2% 3.1%
Growth Target: 2025 20,587 3,079 17.6% 0.7%
Source: US Census; OFM, Snohomish County Tomorrow.
Packet Page 398 of 458
Housing 167
household size within the city is expected to decrease to approximately 2.26 people by 2025 (City of
Edmonds, 2004).
Based on Census data, residents of Edmonds are older than those of Snohomish County, taken as a
whole. In 1990, the median age of Edmonds residents was 38.3 years, compared with 32.2 years
countywide. By 2000, the median age in Edmonds had increased to 42.0 years. Within the city, a
large percentage of retired and elderly persons 62-years old and over reside in the downtown area
(census tracts 504 and 505).
Household Income: In general, residents of Edmonds earn relatively more income than residents of
Snohomish County as a whole. Median 1990 household income in Edmonds was $40,515, nearly 10
percent higher than the county's median level of $36,847 for the same period (1990 US Census). By
the 2000 census, Edmonds’ median household income had increased to $53,552, but this was nearly
equivalent to the County median of $53,060 (Edmonds was less than 1% higher). This is in contrast
to per capita income, which is substantially higher in Edmonds compared to Snohomish County
($30,076 vs. $23,417, respectively). These figures reflect Edmonds’ relatively smaller household
sizes.
Housing Ownership: According to the 1990 Census, 65.3 percent of the housing units within the city
were owner-occupied and 32.1 percent were renter-occupied. This represented a decline in owner-
occupancy from the 67.1 percent reported in the 1980 Census. By 2000, this trend had reversed, with
68.1 percent of the City’s housing occupied by owners. The direction of the trend in housing
occupancy is similar for Snohomish County as a whole, although ownership rates countywide were
slightly higher in 1990, at 66 percent. Within Edmonds, ownership patterns vary significantly
between neighborhoods; between 85 and 92 percent of homes along the waterfront were owner-
occupied in 1990, compared with just over 50 percent east of Highway 99.
Housing Values: According to the 1990 Census, housing values are considerably higher in the City
of Edmonds than in Snohomish County as a whole. In 1990, the median value of owner-occupied
units in Edmonds was $160,100, approximately 26 percent higher than the countywide median of
$127,200. By 2000, the median value of owner-occupied housing had increased to $238,200 in
Edmonds and $196,500 in Snohomish County, with Edmonds approximately 21 percent higher than
the countywide median. Within Edmonds, median housing values vary considerably between
neighborhoods; the highest valued homes are found along the waterfront, while the lowest values are
found within interior neighborhoods and east of Highway 99.
Housing Affordability: State Housing Policy Act – In 1993, Washington State enacted a Housing
Policy Act (SB 5584) which is directed toward developing an adequate and affordable supply of
housing for all economic segments of the population. The Act establishes an affordable housing
advisory board that, together with the State Department of Community Trade and Economic
Development (DCTED), is required to prepare a five-year housing advisory plan. The plan must
document the need for affordable housing in the state; identify the extent to which the needs are being
met through public and private programs; facilitate development of plans to meet affordable housing
needs; and develop strategies and programs for affordable housing. DCTED is directed to provide
technical assistance and information to local governments to assist in the identification and removal
of regulatory barriers to the development of affordable housing. The Act also requires that by
December 31, 1994, all local governments of communities with populations over 20,000 must adopt
regulations that permit accessory units in residential zones. The Act also requires that communities
treat special needs populations in the same manner as other households living in single family units.
Edmonds has updated its development regulations to comply with both of these requirements.
Packet Page 399 of 458
168 Housing
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy – Jurisdictions receiving financial assistance from the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are required to prepare a Consolidated
Housing and Community Development Plan. The plan must identify the community’s housing, social
service and community development needs for the next five years. The plan describes how HUD
funds will be used to address the identified needs. In addition, the plan must be updated annually to
include the most recent spending program and demonstrate that funding decisions respond to the
strategies and objectives cited in the five-year plan. The Snohomish County Consortium, which
includes Edmonds and 18 other cities and towns along with unincorporated Snohomish County, is
responsible for the plan, and through Snohomish County’s Department of Housing and Community
Development, also prepares a yearly report called the Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation
Report (CAPER). This catalogs and analyzes the status of Consolidated Plan goals and is published
for public review on a yearly basis. Key goals of the consolidated housing plan include:
1) Provide decent housing, including
assisting homeless persons to obtain affordable housing;
retaining affordable housing stock;
increasing the availability of permanent housing that is affordable and available
without discrimination; and
increasing supportive housing that includes structural features and services to enable
persons with special needs to live in dignity.
2) Provide a suitable living environment, including
improving the safety and livability of neighborhoods;
increasing access to quality facilities and services;
reducing the isolation of income groups within areas by deconcentrating housing
opportunities and revitalizing deteriorating neighborhoods;
restoring and preserving natural and physical features of special value for historic,
architectural, or aesthetic reasons; and
conserving energy resources.
3) Expand economic opportunities, including
creating jobs for low income persons;
providing access to credit for community development that promotes long-term
economic an social viability; and
assisting residents of federally assisted and public housing achieve self-sufficiency.
Packet Page 400 of 458
Housing 169
The main purpose of the Consolidated Plan is to develop strategies to meet the identified housing
needs. These strategies are implemented through funding decisions which distribute HUD funds to
local housing programs. Strategies to achieve the goals and needs identified in the Consolidated Plan
include:
Increase the number of subsidized rental apartments affordable to households with
incomes of up to 50% of area median income through (1) new construction, (2)
acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing units, (3) provision of rent subsidies, and
(4) preservation of HUD Section 8 or similar subsidized housing in non-profit
ownership where there is the risk of converting these units to market-rate housing.
Provide support for operation of existing homeless shelters and construction of
needed shelters in under-served areas and for under-served populations. Increase the
inventory of transitional housing for households needing assistance to move from
homelessness to self-sufficiency.
Provide support for the operation and development of transitional and permanent
housing and service programs for people with special needs.
Help low-income people to stay in their homes and maintain current housing stock
through home repair, rehabilitation, and weatherization services.
Increase the incidence of home ownership using self-help construction, manufactured
housing, homebuyer education, and mortgage assistance programs.
Improve the processes for utilizing grant funds allocated to the county.
Enhance the resources that can be used for housing production.
Utilized the expertise of housing providers who will create a stable and well-
maintained low-income housing stock to expand the subsidized housing inventory in
the community.
Address the unmet public facility needs of low-income households and
neighborhoods.
Address the unmet basic infrastructure needs of low-income households and
neighborhoods.
Support programs that provide for the well-being of youth by providing services such
as case management, life-skills training, health care and recreation.
Support programs that assist low-income elderly citizens, where appropriate and cost-
effective, to remain in their homes by providing housing repairs and reasonable
modifications to accommodate disabilities and by supporting provision of supportive
services.
Support services which address the most urgent needs of low-income and moderate-
income populations and neighborhoods.
Packet Page 401 of 458
170 Housing
Support eligible local planning and administration costs incident to operation of
HUD grant programs.
Housing Needs: Snohomish County calculates housing needs based on households earning less than
95 percent of the county median income and paying more than 30 percent of their incomes for gross
housing costs. Gross housing costs include rent and utility costs for renters and principal, interest,
taxes, insurance, and any homeowner-fees for owners. Countywide, in 1990, 36,888 households
countywide met the criteria for households in need; by 2000, this had increased to 55,361 households.
There are expected to be an additional 28,557 low- and moderate-income households with housing
needs by 2025 throughout the County. There were 2,601 households with need in Edmonds in 1990,
and this had increased to 3,951 by 2000. It is anticipated that this will increase to 4,395 by 2025.
The following chart shows how segments of the household population – and the relative cost burden
of housing – are changing over time. Low- and moderate-income households have increased in
number, and are a slightly higher proportion of Edmonds’ households compared to 1990. The
implication is that affordable housing will continue to be an important issue throughout the planning
horizon.
Source: 2004 Supplement to Technical Report Fair Share Housing Allocation, Snohomish County Tomorrow
Snohomish County and its cities, through countywide planning policies, has used an allocation model
to elaborate on the indicated level of need for affordable housing in the county. The county applies
two factors to the number of households in need to give areas credit for their existing stock of low-
cost housing and assign them responsibility to house a portion of low-wage employees in the
Packet Page 402 of 458
Housing 171
jurisdiction. The purpose of these factors is to provide indicators of the relative housing need for
jurisdictions based on the model’s assumptions. In 2000, Edmonds' adjusted number of households in
need was 5,322 households; this is projected to increase to 5,885 by 2025 – an increase of 564
households. Therefore, Edmonds has a continuing need to provide affordable, low-cost housing
within the city.
Assisted Housing Availability: In 1995 there were two HUD-assisted developments providing a total
of 87 units for low-income, elderly residents within the City of Edmonds. This was more than
doubled by a new development approved in 2004 for an additional 94 units. Since 1995, 167 assisted
care living units have been built in the downtown area, specifically targeting senior housing needs.
Although the Housing Authority of Snohomish County did not operate any public housing units
within Edmonds prior to 1995, it purchased an existing housing complex totaling 131 units in 2002.
The Housing Authority continues to administer 124 Section 8 rent supplement certificates and
vouchers within the city. In addition, there are currently 36 adult family homes providing shelter for
187 residents. This is a substantial increase from the 13 adult family homes providing shelter for 66
residents in 1995.
Growth Management goals and policies contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan encourage
availability of resources to insure basic community services and ample provisions made for necessary
open space, parks and other recreation facilities; preservation of light (including direct sunlight),
privacy, views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, and freedom from air, water, noise
and visual pollution; and a balanced mixture of income and age groups. Land Use policies
encourage strategic planning for development and redevelopment that achieve a balanced and
coordinated approach to economic development, housing and cultural goals; and encourage a more
active and vital setting for new businesses supported by nearby residents, downtown commercial
activity and visitors throughout the area. Policies encourage identification and maintenance of
significant public and private social areas, cultural facilities, and scenic areas; and maintenance and
preservation of historical sites. Commercial Land Use policies encourage identification and
reservation of sufficient sites suited for a variety of commercial uses.
Housing goals are directed toward providing housing opportunities for all segments of the city's
households; supporting existing neighborhoods and preserving/rehabilitating the housing stock;
maintaining high quality residential environments; and providing assistance to developing housing
for elderly, disabled and low-income households. These goals are supported by policies which
include review of regulatory impediments to control of housing costs and affirmative measures to
support construction of housing for protected groups; encouraging expansion of the types of housing
available, including accessory dwelling units, mixed use, and multi-family housing; flexible
development standards; and review and revision of development regulations, including assessing the
feasibility of establishing time limits for permitting; consolidating permitting; implementing
administrative permitting procedures and instituting preapplication hearings.
Other measures to mitigate potential housing impacts include determining whether any public land is
available which could be used to help meet affordable housing targets; development of a strategy
plan, including target number of units and development timeline; technical assistance programs or
information to encourage housing rehabilitation and development of accessory units; and a strong
monitoring program with mid-course correction features (see the discussion below).
B. Strategies to Promote Affordable Housing.
Packet Page 403 of 458
172 Housing
In order to respond to the continuing need to provide affordable housing for the community, the City
has undertaken a series of reasonable measures to accomplish this goal, consistent with the policy
direction indicated by Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Countywide Planning Policies. These
reasonable measures or strategies to promote affordable housing include:
Land Use Strategies
Upzoning. The City has upzoned a substantial area of previously large lot (12,000+
square foot lots) zoning to ensure that densities can be obtained of at least 4.0 dwelling
units per acre. The City has also approved changes from single family to multi family
zoning in designated corridor areas to provide more housing units at reduced cost to
consumers.
Density Bonus. A targeted density bonus is offered for the provision of low income
senior housing in the City. Parking requirements are also reduced for this housing type,
making the density obtainable at lower site development cost.
Cluster Subdivisions. This is accomplished in the city through the use of PRDs. In
Edmonds, a PRD is defined as an alternate form of subdivision, thereby encouraging its
use as a normal form of development. In addition, PRDs follow essentially the same
approval process as that of a subdivision.
Planned Residential Development (PRD). The City has refined and broadened the
applicability of its PRD regulations. PRDs can still be used to encourage the protection of
environmentally sensitive lands; however, PRDs can also now be used to encourage infill
development and flexible housing types.
Infill Development. The City’s principal policy direction is aimed at encouraging infill
development consistent with its neighborhoods and community character. This overall
plan direction has been termed “designed infill” and can be seen in the City’s emphasis
and continued work on streamlining permitting, revising codes to provide more flexible
standards, and improving its design guidelines.
Conversion/Adaptive Reuse. The City has established a new historic preservation
program intended to support the preservation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings,
especially in the historic downtown center. Part of the direction of the updated plans and
regulations for the Downtown Waterfront area is to provide more flexible standards that
can help businesses move into older buildings and adapt old homes to commercial or
mixed use spaces. An example is the ability of buildings on the Edmonds Register of
Historic Places to get an exception for parking for projects that retain the historic
character of the site.
Administrative Procedures
Streamlined approval processing. The City generally uses either a Hearing Examiner or
staff to review and issue discretionary land use decisions, thereby reducing permitting
timelines and providing some degree of certainty to the process. The City continues to
provide and improve on an extensive array of information forms and handouts explaining
its permitting processes and standards. The City has also established standards for permit
Packet Page 404 of 458
Housing 173
review times, tailored to the type and complexity of the project. For example, the mean
processing time for processing land use permits in 2003 was 39 days, less than one-third
of the 120-day standard encouraged by the State’s Regulatory Reform act.
Use-by-Right. The City has been actively reviewing its schedule of uses and how they are
divided between uses that are permitted outright vs. permitted by some form of
conditional use. The City has expanded this effort to include providing clearer standards,
potentially allowing more approvals to be referred to staff instead of the Hearing
Examiner hearing process.
Impact mitigation payment deferral. The City’s traffic mitigation impact fees are assessed
at the time of development permit application, but are not collected until just prior to
occupancy. This provides predictability while also minimizing “carrying costs” of
financing.
Development Standards
Front yard or side yard setback requirements. Some of the City’s zones have no front or
side yard setback requirements, such as in the downtown mixed use zones. In single
family zones, average front setbacks can be used to reduce otherwise required front yard
setbacks.
Zero lot line. This type of development pattern can be achieved using the City’s PRD
process, which is implemented as an alternative form of subdivision.
Street design and construction. Street standards are reviewed and updated on a consistent
basis, taking advantage of new technologies whenever possible.
Alleys. The City has an extensive system of alleys in the downtown area and makes use
of these in both mixed use and residential developments.
Off-street parking requirements. The City has substantially revised its off-street parking
standards, reducing the parking ratios required for multi family development. The City
also simplified and streamlined its parking requirements for the downtown mixed use
area, thereby encouraging housing downtown.
Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Stormwater systems. Innovative techniques are explored and
utilized in both new systems and in the maintenance of existing infrastructure.
Low-Cost Housing Types
Accessory dwellings. The City substantially revised its accessory dwelling regulations,
providing clearer standards and streamlining their approval as a standard option for any
single family lot.
Cottage housing developments. The City is exploring this option, although it would be
expected to have limited application.
Packet Page 405 of 458
174 Housing
Mixed-use development. The City has strengthened and expanded its mixed use
development approach. Downtown mixed use development no longer has a density cap,
and this – combined other regulatory changes – has resulted in residential floor space
drawing even with commercial floor space in new developments in the downtown area.
Mixed use zoning was applied in the Westgate Corridor, and revised mixed use
development regulations are being prepared for application in the Hospital/Highway 99
Activity Center as well as along Highway 99.
Mobile/manufactured housing. The City’s regulation of manufactured homes has been
revised to more broadly permit this type of housing in single family zones.
Housing Production & Preservation Programs
Housing preservation. The City provides strict enforcement of its building codes,
intended to protect the quality and safety of housing. The City has also instituted a
historic preservation program intended to provide incentives to rehabilitate and restore
commercial, mixed use, and residential buildings in the community.
Public housing authority / Public and nonprofit housing developers. The City supports
the Housing Authority of Snohomish County, as evidenced by its approval of the
conversion of housing units to Housing Authority ownership.
For-profit housing builders and developers. Many of the strategies outlined above are
aimed at the for-profit building market. The City’s budget restrictions limit its ability to
directly participate in the construction or provision of affordable housing, so it has
chosen instead to affect the cost of housing by reducing government regulation, providing
flexible development standards, and otherwise minimize housing costs that can be passed
on to prospective owners or renters.
Housing Financing Strategies
State / Federal resources. The City supports the use of State and Federal resources to
promote affordable housing through its participation in the Snohomish County
Consortium and the Community Development Block Grant program. These are important
inter-jurisdictional efforts to address countywide needs.
There will be difficulty meeting affordability goals or significantly reducing the current affordable
housing deficit. The city is nearly fully developed and has limited powers and resources to produce
subsidized housing. However, participation in joint funding projects (such as non-profit
organizations funded by the cities of Kirkland, Redmond and Bellevue) would help to mitigate these
impacts.
C. Goal - Housing I - Discrimination and Fair Housing - Goal 1. There should be adequate
housing opportunities for all families and individuals in the community regardless of
their race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances.
Packet Page 406 of 458
Housing 175
D. Goal - Housing I - Discrimination and Fair Housing - Goal 2. Insure that past attitudes do
not establish a precedent for future decisions pertaining to public accommodation and fair
housing in accordance with the following policy:
E. Goal - Housing II - Low Income, Elderly and Disabled Housing. A decent home in a
suitable living environment for each household in accordance with the following policies:
E.1. Encourage the utilization of the housing resources of the federal government to
assist in providing adequate housing opportunities for the low income, elderly
and disabled citizens.
E.2. The City should work with the Washington Housing Service and other agencies
to:
E.2.a. Provide current information on housing resources;
E.2.b. Determine the programs which will work best for the community.
E.2.c. Conduct periodic assessments of the housing requirements of special
needs populations to ensure that reasonable opportunities exist for all
forms of individual and group housing within the community.
F. Goal - Housing III - Housing Rehabilitation. Preserve and rehabilitate the stock of older
housing in the community in order to maintain a valuable housing resource in accordance
with the following policies:
F.1. Program should be developed which offers free or low cost minor home
maintenance service to low income, elderly or handicapped persons.
F.2. Building code enforcement should be utilized to conserve healthy neighborhoods
and encourage rehabilitation of those that show signs of deterioration.
F.3. Ensure that an adequate supply of housing exists to accommodate all households
that are displaced as a result of any community action.
F.4. Evaluate City ordinances and programs to determine if they prevent rehabilitation
of older buildings.
G. Goal. Provide affordable (subsidized housing, if need be) for elderly, disadvantaged,
disabled and low income in proportion to the population of Edmonds in accordance with
the following policies:
G.1. The City should aggressively pursue funds to construct housing for elderly,
disabled and low income. Units should blend into the neighborhood and be
designed to be an asset to area and pride for inhabitants. [Ord. 2527 §3, 1985.]
Packet Page 407 of 458
176 Housing
G.2. City zoning regulations should expand, not limit, housing opportunities for all
special needs populations.
H. Goal: Provide a variety of housing for all segments of the city that is consistent and
compatible with the established character of the community.
H.1. Expand and promote a variety of housing opportunities by establishing land use
patterns that provide a mixture of housing types and densities.
H.1.a. Provide for mixed use, multi family and single family housing that is
targeted and located according to the land use patterns established in
the land use element.
H.2. Encourage infill development consistent with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood.
H.2.a. Within single family neighborhoods, encourage infill development by
considering innovative single family development patterns such as
Planned Residential Developments (PRDs).
H.2.b. Provide for accessory housing in single family neighborhoods that
addresses the needs of extended families and encourages housing
affordability.
H.2.c. Provide flexible development standards for infill development, such as
non-conforming lots, when development in these situations will be
consistent with the character of the neighborhood and with the goal to
provide affordable single family housing.
I. Goal: Provide housing opportunities within Activity Centers consistent with the land use,
transportation, and economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
I.1. Promote development within Activity Centers supports the centers’ economic
activities and transit service.
I.1.a. Provide for mixed use development within Activity Centers.
I.1.b. Plan for housing that is located with easy access to transit and economic
activities that provide jobs and shopping opportunities.
I.1.c. Consider adjusting parking standards for housing within Activity
Centers to provide incentives for lower-cost housing when justified by
available transit service.
J. Goal: Government should review and monitor its permitting processes and regulatory
structures to assure that they promote housing opportunities and avoid, to the extent
possible, adding to the cost of housing.
J.1. Provide the maximum amount of certainty and predictability in government
permitting processes.
Packet Page 408 of 458
Housing 177
J.1.a. Consider a wide variety of measures to achieve this objective, including
such ideas as:
..establishing time limits for permitting processes;
..developing consolidated permitting and appeals processes;
..implementing administrative permitting procedures;
..using pre-application processes to highlight problems early.
J.2. Establish monitoring programs for permitting and regulatory processes.
J.2.a. Monitoring programs should be established to review the types and
effectiveness of government regulations and incentives, in order to assess
whether they are meeting their intended purpose or need to be adjusted
to meet new challenges.
K. Goal: Opportunities for increasing the affordability of housing have the best chance for
success if they are coordinated with programs that seek to achieve other community goals
as well. Housing affordability should be researched and programs developed that address
multiple Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives.
K.1. Develop housing programs to encourage housing opportunities that build on
linkages between housing and other, complementary Comprehensive Plan goals.
K.1.a. New programs that address housing affordability should be coordinated
with programs that address development of the arts, encourage historic
preservation, promote the continued development of Activity Centers and
transit-friendly development, and that encourage economic development.
L. Goal: In addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is an important aspect of
housing and determines, in many cases, whether or not it is compatible with its
surroundings. Design guidelines for housing should be integrated, as appropriate, into the
policies and regulations governing the location and design of housing.
L.1. Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types while
ensuring compatibility of housing with the surrounding neighborhood.
L.1.a. Incentives and programs for historic preservation and neighborhood
conservation should be researched and established to continue the
character of Edmonds’ residential and mixed use neighborhoods.
L.1.b. Design guidelines for housing should be developed to ensure
compatibility of housing with adjacent land uses.
Packet Page 409 of 458
22,000 by 2035
Affordable Housing in Snohomish
County
Presentation to Edmonds City Council
August 26, 2014
Packet Page 410 of 458
What is “Affordable”
No more that 30% of income goes to the cost of
housing, including utilities.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: In general, housing for which the occupant(s)
is/are paying no more than 30 percent of his or her income for gross
housing costs, including utilities. Please note that some jurisdictions
may define affordable housing based on other, locally determined
criteria, and that this definition is intended solely as an approximate
guideline or general rule of thumb.1
1http://www.huduser.org/portal/glossary/glossary_a.html
Packet Page 411 of 458
Calculations for Affordable Housing
Snohomish County Area Median Income for all households = $67,777 (2011)1
Affordable housing for households at 100 percent AMI
$67,777 x 100 percent = $67,777 / 12 months = $5648/mo. x 30 percent =
$1694/mo. max. housing cost
Affordable housing for households at 80 percent AMI
$67,777 x 80 percent = $54,221 / 12 months = $4518/mo. x 30 percent =
$1356/mo. max. housing cost
Affordable Housing for households at 50 percent AMI:
$67,777 x 50 percent = $33,888 / 12 months = $2824/mo. x 30 percent =
$847/mo. max. housing cost
Affordable Housing for households at 30 percent AMI:
$67,777 x 30 percent = $20,333 / 12 months = $1694/mo. x 30 percent =
$508/mo. max. housing cost
1 Source: American Communities Survey, 2011 5-year estimate
Packet Page 412 of 458
Income in Snohomish County
Income Levels1 Income Ranges Percent of Total
Households
30% and below AMI (extremely low income) $20,333 and less 11%
30-50% of AMI (very low income) $20,334 - $33,888 11%
50-80% of AMI (low income) $33,889 - $54,221 17%
Snohomish County Household Area Median Income (AMI) = $67,777
Estimate Percent
Total households 17,396 100.00%
Less than $10,000 671 3.90%
$10,000 to $14,999 488 2.80%
$15,000 to $24,999 1,326 7.60%
$25,000 to $34,999 1,419 8.20%
Total 3,904 22.50%
Subject Edmonds, Washington 2
INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2012 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)
1 Source: ACS, 2011 5-year estimates
2 Source: ACS, 2012 5-year estimates
Packet Page 413 of 458
22,000 by 2035
Housing needed by 2035 to accommodate
projected population growth
Jurisdiction Total Housing
Need (Units)
30% and less AMI
Housing Need
(11% of Total)
30-50% AMI
Housing Need
(11% of Total)
51-80% AMI
Housing Need
(17% of Total)
Sno Co1 97,128 10,684 10,684 16,512
Edmonds1 2,790 307 307 474
1 Source: 2013 Housing Characteristics & Needs in Snohomish County Report, p59
Packet Page 414 of 458
22,000 by 2035
How Do We Get There?
Reduce Poverty
•Better Education Outcomes for More Students
•Job Training
•Address Income Inequality
Packet Page 415 of 458
22,000 by 2035
How Do We Get There
Create More Affordable Housing (New/Acquisition & Rehab)
•2015 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Updates
- Strategies, goals & policies to meet housing need at
30% AMI, 30-50% AMI & 50-80% AMI
•Incentivize Affordable Housing
- Density bonuses, multi-family tax exemption, fee
waivers, reduced parking requirements, etc
•Support Policies that Increase Public Funding
- WA State Housing Trust Fund
- Local Housing Levy
Packet Page 416 of 458
22,000 by 2035
Why?
•Quality of Life in Our Communities
- Our communities and neighborhoods are better when our people are
housed
- Higher density, attractive and affordable housing promotes community
•Economic Advantages
- Each dollar of public funds invested in affordable housing generally
attracts/leverages an additional 5 dollars of private equity
- People who are in housing they can afford have more disposable
income to spend in the community
- Safe, stable, affordable housing for special needs populations
significantly reduces contact with and cost to cities public safety
services and emergency medical services
•Common Humanity
Packet Page 417 of 458
Pay Attention to Design!
Packet Page 418 of 458
Pay Attention to Design
Mercy Housing’s Eliza McCabe Townhomes, Tacoma, WA
Packet Page 419 of 458
Pay Attention to Design
King County Housing Authority, Greenbridge Apts, Seattle
Artspace Everett Lofts, Everett, WA
Packet Page 420 of 458
Resources
•Alliance for Housing Affordability Kristina Gallant, kgallant@hasco.org, 425-293-
0601
•Municipal Research Services Council,
http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/planning/housing/ords.aspx#waivers
•Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County Report,
http://snohomishcountywa.gov/1585/Housing-Characteristics-Needs-Report
•Snohomish County Demographic Trends & Initial Growth Targets,
http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/PDS/Planning_Commis
ion/DemogTrends_PlngCommission_Feb-25-2014.pdf
•Housing Consortium of Everett & Snohomish County
Mark Smith, Executive Director
425-339-1015
mark@housingsnohomish.org
Packet Page 421 of 458
ALLIANCE FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
UPDATE
Edmonds City Council
October 28, 2012
Packet Page 422 of 458
WHAT’S THE ALLIANCE FOR HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY?
•Background and purpose of the Alliance
•Work to date
•Where we’re headed
Packet Page 423 of 458
HOUSING
CONSIDERATIONS
•Diverse needs and preferences
•Adequacy and safety
•Proximity to transportation, jobs, and
services
•Affordability
Packet Page 424 of 458
HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVELS
•2013 HUD regional median household
income: $86,700
•Extremely Low: <30% AMI
•Very Low: 30-50% AMI
•Low: 50-80% AMI
•Moderate: 80-95% AMI
•Middle: 95-120% AMI
Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Extremely
Low
Very Low Low Moderate Middle Above
Middle
Share of Population by HUD Income Level, City of
Edmonds and Snohomish County
Edmonds Snohomish County
Packet Page 425 of 458
INCOME LEVELS IN CONTEXT
Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Middle
Food Service Employees -
Line Cooks, Servers,
Dishwashers, Baristas
Teachers Social Workers Accountants Engineers
Medical & Dental Assistants,
Home Health Aides
Real Estate Agents &
Brokers
Police Officers &
Firefighters Veterinarians
Security Guards Graphic Designers Architects Web Developers
Manicurists Hairdressers EMTs & Paramedics Electricians Construction Managers
Childcare Workers Receptionists Paralegals Registered Nurses Physical Therapists
Minimum Wage Workers Construction Workers Car Mechanics Loan Officers Financial Advisors
Edmonds households in these income brackets:
82% cost burdened 63% cost burdened 47% cost burdened 38% cost burdened 22% cost burdened
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013; US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013
Income-Based Rent Below-Market Rent Home Ownership
Packet Page 426 of 458
WHAT’S IN THE PROFILE?
•Project status
•Intended use and audience
•Content and presentation
•Data sources
Packet Page 427 of 458
POPULATION AND COMMUNITY
•Stable population with modest growth
•Accommodating growth may still be a
challenge
•Median income - $73,072
•Smaller households compared to
County overall
•69% of households 1-2 people vs. 58% across
County
•48% of renters and 34% of
homeowners are cost burdened
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000, 2010
2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
0 - 4
5 - 9
10 - 14
15 - 19
20 - 24
25 - 29
30 - 34
35 - 39
40 - 44
45 - 49
50 - 54
55 - 59
60 - 64
65 - 69
70 - 74
75 - 79
80 - 84
85 - 89
90 +
Population Pyramid, City of Edmonds, 2000-2010
2010
2000
Male Female
Packet Page 428 of 458
COST BURDEN BY INCOME LEVEL AND HOUSING TENURE,
CITY OF EDMONDS
Renters Owners All
Extremely Low 79% 82% 82%
Very Low 81% 86% 63%
Low 29% 46% 47%
Moderate 13% 43% 38%
Middle 7% 26% 22%
Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
Packet Page 429 of 458
EXISTING HOUSING STOCK
•Construction concentrated between
1950 and 1989
•67% single family homes
•29% renter-occupied
•42% of homes two bedrooms or less
in size, 69% of households one to two
people
•2012 median home sale - $339,975
•Third highest average assessed value
in 2014 - $351,100
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Before 1949 1950-1969 1970-1989 1990 or Later
Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds
& Snohomish County
Edmonds Snohomish County
Packet Page 430 of 458
ASSISTED HOUSING
•Subsidized Units:
•178 Section 8 Vouchers
•125 other units in 6 properties
•Workforce Units:
•201 units in 3 properties
Assisted Units by Income Level
Served
Extremely Low 233
Very Low 79
Low 194
Moderate 2
Total 508
Packet Page 431 of 458
MARKET RENTAL HOUSING
Source: Dupre and Scott, 2013
Average Rent
(With Utilities)
Minimum Income Required
Minimum
Hourly Wage
Minimum
Annual Wage
1 Bed $887 $17.06 $35,480
2 Bed $1,097 $21.10 $43,880
3 Bed $1,679 $32.29 $67,160
4 Bed $2,545 $48.94 $101,800
5 Bed $2,844 $54.69 $113,760
1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4+ Bed
Extremely
Low No No No No
Very Low Limited Limited Limited No
Low Yes Yes Limited No
Moderate Yes Yes Yes Limited
Middle Yes Yes Yes Yes
Packet Page 432 of 458
WHAT CAN WE DO?
•How the planning process can support affordability
•Working with community partners
•Exploring new opportunities with AHA
Packet Page 433 of 458
THANK YOU
Packet Page 434 of 458
AM-7238 13.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/28/2014
Time:75 Minutes
Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Scott James
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Staff Presentations on 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.
On October 21, the following departments presented their 2015 budget requests to Council:
1. City Clerk; 2. Mayor's Office; 3. Human Resources; 4. Economic Development; 5. Finance &
Information Services; 6. Nondepartmental (Presented by Finance); 7. Development Services; and 8,
Parks, and 9. Municipal Court.
For the October 28th Council Meeting, the following departments will present their 2015 budget requests
to Council:
1. Police; 2. Public Works Utilities; 3. Public Works Roads; and 4. Public Works Administration,
Facilities Maintenance, ER&R & Engineering.
Subsequent Council Meetings on the Proposed 2015 Budget are scheduled as scheduled as follows:
November 3rd: Public Hearing on Proposed 2015 Budget,
November 10th 2015 Budget Study Session, and
November 18th 2015 Budget Adoption.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 10/23/2014 01:24 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/23/2014 01:25 PM
Packet Page 435 of 458
Mayor Dave Earling 10/23/2014 01:31 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/23/2014 01:31 PM
Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 10/23/2014 01:09 PM
Final Approval Date: 10/23/2014
Packet Page 436 of 458
AM-7223 14.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/28/2014
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Buckshnis Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Continued Discussions on the Study Sessions
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
August 26, 2014 Council Meeting: Minutes attached.
September 2, 2014 Council Meeting: Minutes attached.
September 23, 2014 Council Meeting: Minutes Attached
Council held its first study session on October 14, 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. Items to consider now will be:
1) Start time of meetings – consistent with Business Meetings or change meeting time altogether? Study
Meeting dates set at 6PM unless executive session and if executive session, meeting will start after 6PM
executive session. Regular Meetings to start at 7PM. Compromise? Does Council want all meetings to
start at 6:30?
2) Configuration of tables, some Council Members do not want their back to the audience and others want
to have an informal set-up where discussion can easily occur which means having Council Members face
each other.
3) SPEAKING into the microphone. This needs to happen. Many complaints as some Council Members
were not heard.
4) All presentations need to be available for the public to see. As an example, the insurance switch was
handled at the table with Council but no overhead was shown for the public.
5) Round-robin – Doesn’t have to be round robin per se but Council Members are allowed one or two
questions and then another Council Member is allowed to answer questions.
6) Timing for discussions – with Westgate, there was maybe 15 minutes afforded for questions; do we
want to have at least one-half hour set aside for discussions?
7) Understood that all items that are moved, are moved onto Consent for the next week, unless specified.
Packet Page 437 of 458
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Special Meeting Format Test
Attachment 2 - 8-26-14 Approved CM
Attachment 3 - 9-2-14 Approved CM
Attachment 4 - 9-23-14 Approved CM
Attachment 5 - Oct 14 2014 Approved CM
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 10/23/2014 10:16 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 10/23/2014 10:45 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/23/2014 01:11 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 10/17/2014 08:29 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/23/2014
Packet Page 438 of 458
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 439 of 458
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 440 of 458
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 441 of 458
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 442 of 458
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 443 of 458
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 444 of 458
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 445 of 458
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 446 of 458
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 23, 2014
Page 10
For Council President Buckshnis, Mr. Taraday explained there is a difference between applying for and
accepting a grant. The City is not under any obligation to accept grant funds once it a grant is awarded
although the City would look bad to the granting agencies and potentially lose credibility if it rejected
grants on a regular basis. He has noticed the Council and administration may not be on the same page
about how to pursue grant funds and that a great deal of the frustration and tension regarding projects
often stems from a grant application. It is a chicken and egg problem, what authority if any should the
administration have to pursue grants; whether a project needs to be on a particular list in order to pursue a
grant. There is legitimate policy debate the Council needs to have regarding these questions.
Mr. Taraday commented another issue is prioritization of projects and who should prioritize projects, the
Council or administration, and can the administration pursue a grant for any project in the CFP. In reality,
administration has a better handle on what projects they can obtain funds for. The Council may have its
prioritized list but there needs to be better dialogue between the Council and the administration regarding
projects administration thinks funding can be obtained for which may not necessarily match the Council’s
prioritized list.
Council President Buckshnis commented using $10,000 to leverage $320,000 was a no brainer. She
agreed there may need to be a policy because this issue keeps coming up.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to Council President Buckshnis’ question and asked about the current
policy with regard to this set of facts. Mr. Taraday answered the Council currently adopts the budget at
the fund level which gives the administration the authority to reallocate funds as long as it does not
overspend the appropriation for a given fund. For example, the crosswalk, he supposed the fund language
was lenient to enough allow for some reallocation within the fund.
Councilmember Mesaros relayed his understanding that the City did not receive a grant from the State for
the crosswalk. Mr. Williams agreed, adding the City did not apply for a grant. Councilmember Mesaros
summarized therefore the project did not have to be on the CFP or CIP because it was not a City project.
Councilmember Petso said she understood that staff can reallocate within the fund but she was not aware
that staff could reallocate money to projects that are not on CFP, CIP or TIP. Mr. Taraday answered it
depends on how the documents are drafted; he has not been asked to analyze whether the way the current
budget is adopted gives the administration flexibility to reallocate funds to projects that are not otherwise
on the list.
If the Council approves a project such as a walkway and realistically funding is easier to obtain if the
project is converted into a multiuse pathway, Councilmember Petso asked whether that decision should
come back to Council or does approval of a walkway also approve a change in a project to cater to a grant
opportunity. Mr. Taraday answered there was a policy question and a legal question. Legally it depends
on how detailed the description of the project is. For example if the capital budget says in 2014 the City
will spend money on these and only these capital projects and those capital projects are very carefully
detailed in a manner that do not allow a change such as from a walkway to a multiuse path, it could not be
done without a budget amendment. He did not know if that had been done in the past.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. Council President Buckshnis distributed a suggested format for the
study session.
10. STUDY SESSION REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION FOR
PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES TO WESTGATE
Council President Buckshnis relayed tonight is a trial run; there will be a format in place for the next
study session on October 14. She described tonight’s format: a presentation from staff, followed by a
Packet Page 447 of 458
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 23, 2014
Page 11
round robin of questions where each Councilmember is allowed three questions, and continuing until all
questions have been answered. If time permits after all the questions have been answered, the Council can
have a global discussion.
Planning Manager Rob Chave commented on the process to date including a Council public hearing on
August 4, 2014. He provided examples of recent changes/adjustments:
• Clarified standards for amenity space and open space, for example clarified 15% minimum for
each, clarified where these can be located
• Additional design standards for buildings
• Incentives for large retail spaces
With regard to traffic and setbacks:
• Traffic study shows no overall impact on level of service. Any future development will be
analyzed for detailed traffic impacts (e.g. turning movements, access points)
• 12-foot setback preserves options; SR-104 study in last 2014/early 2015 will identify any
additional recommendations for ROW improvements
• Setback requirements can be revised if needed
With regard to parking:
• Parking standards are minimums
• Added an increased parking standard (1.75 spaces per unit) for residential units that exceed 900
square feet. Achieves two goals:
o More residential parking for larger units (that may accommodate more residents per unit)
o Provides an added incentive for smaller units
• Proposed overall blended parking rate for commercial space is 1/500 square foot
• Existing grocery stores have a range 1 space per 350-370 square feet. Peak use is PM peak hour;
much less during other parts of day
• Current usage assumes a shared parking area, not just provided onsite (e.g. QFC property has 1
space per 475 square foot)
• Comparisons with other cities show blended parking rates vary widely 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 jurisdictions
• Residential parking generally varies from 0.75 or 1.0 per unit to sometimes more for larger units
Regarding lots and setbacks:
• Commercial areas provide street and residential setbacks, but not other setbacks
• Provides flexibility for locating and linking businesses
Mr. Chave displayed and described an aerial photograph of the existing QFC and PCC buildings on lot
lines. He explained commercial areas provide setback in two ways, 1) from residential areas, and 2) from
streets. There are no side setbacks or minimum lot sizes in commercial areas. He noted the QFC and PCC
buildings were set on several of their lot lines. QFC owns their property; PCC leases their property.
He displayed an aerial photograph of the McDonalds site and described the amenity/open space versus
setbacks. He provided details regarding the McDonald’s property:
• 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
• 76,000 total lot area
Packet Page 448 of 458
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 23, 2014
Page 12
• 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 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
With regard to commercial requirements:
• Clarified the various building types 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
He displayed the original and a revised building type map. 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)
Mr. Chave displayed illustrations in the plan, largely taken from the commercial building standards for
downtown. With regard to large format retail, he explained:
• Incentives have been added for large-format retail uses (e.g. groceries, drug stores)
1) Adding bonus points for large-format retail in the height bonus table (p. 38)
2) A potential for 5 more feet of building height to accommodate the need for higher ceiling
space in a large format retailers (the extra 5 feet is only available when a large format retail
space is provided in building (page 6/7)
• Intent is for large format retail to be retained; note existing leases/ownership and Bartell’s interest
in expanding their investment
Mr. Chave displayed a Height Bonus Score Sheet that identified amenities already required and items that
qualified for height bonus.
Packet Page 449 of 458
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 23, 2014
Page 13
Councilmember Peterson referred to Mr. Chave’s statement that parking requirements are minimums. In
the example of Bartell’s, if they feel they need more parking to redevelop they will provide it to enhance
their business. Mr. Chave identified a lot behind Bartells that was provided in anticipation of a new
building. Bartells provided more parking than they needed in anticipation of that additional development
which did not occur due to the economy.
Councilmember Peterson commented there is a certain point in development where the developer makes
their decision; if the City does not overly restrict, the market will dictate what is required. Mr. Chave
answered one aspect of the market is the developer’s experience or the store’s experience with the type of
parking they need. A second factor is the bank/investor looks closely at the market, access and parking.
The final phase is ensuring the proposal meets the City’s parking standards. If the parking standards are
too tight, it can halt the process at the beginning particularly with infill in existing areas. In Bartell’s case,
they have a well-defined site and parking; they have a strong interest in providing sufficient parking for
their store.
Mr. Chase commented another significant issue is the existing investments and ownership patterns.
Bartells is in the process acquiring the entire corner; they currently only own store. QFC owns their
property and have a strong interest in providing sufficient parking. QFC did a significant interior remodel
approximately five years ago and is a very successful store even with PCC across the street. He did not
fore see any of the main anchors, PCC, QFC or Bartells, moving out any time soon because they very
successful.
Councilmember Petso asked if there was any requirement that the entire first floor of the Type 7 buildings
be commercial versus tuck-under or semi-underground parking. Mr. Chave did not recall any specific
numbers.
Councilmember Petso asked why amenity space was allowed to be in the setback area or six feet
underground or six feet above ground. If the amenity space was in the setback area, she feared it may be
close to the road. If the amenity space is underground or above ground, it may be nearly inaccessible and
potentially invisible to passersby. She asked why that type of the amenity would be desired. Mr. Chave
answered the reason for the six-foot requirement was to bring it down, close to the ground. In areas that
have this type of amenity space such as plazas, there are frequently multiple levels, integrated seating, or
a multi-functional plaza that serves as an outdoor amphitheater. The intent of the six feet was to make it
pedestrian scale but also provide flexibility with regard to how the space was arranged. A requirement for
ground floor would not provide for that type of varied areas.
With regard to the setback, in the McDonald’s example, Mr. Chave explained if there is a 12-foot front
setback there is already a reserved area behind near the slope; adding the amenity space leaves very little
site area. The area cannot be used for parking and a McDonald’s is not going to have parking under the
building which may rule out a use like a McDonald’s. Many sites will be hard pressed to satisfy the
amenity space requirement even if the amenity space is in the front. If a walkway is provided near the
right-of-way, for example the new landscaping/walkway area in front of Walgreens, the walkway is wider
than the usual 4-5 feet. Near Walgreens there is a 5-foot planting area and a 7-foot wide walkway. The
right-of-way was only 10 feet; in order to construct the additional walkway, an easement was obtained
from the property owner to expand the walkway. The sidewalk does not count as amenity space; they still
have to provide the 15%.
Councilmember Petso asked why language was added during this latest update that the buildings may not
stand in isolation (page 193), noting it would seem to contribute to the side-lot to side-lot corridor effect
down SR-104 and along 100th. Mr. Chave recalled that language was added to clarify that buildings need
to be connected to the other buildings, sidewalks and walkways and not standing in isolation. Mr. Taraday
Packet Page 450 of 458
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 23, 2014
Page 14
recalled that was added to clarify other language. Councilmember Petso asked why that was desirable, to
have buildings connected along the stretch. Mr. Chave clarified it was not buildings physically connected
wall to wall, the intent was connectivity between the buildings such as walkways, pathways, connected
drives, etc. He suggested clarifying the language if that was not clear.
Council President Buckshnis said having the amenity space stratified is great, referring to downtown Lake
Oswego. She asked whether there was an art aspect to the amenity space. Mr. Chave answered language
could be included that encourages art as part of the amenity space or added to the score sheet.
Council President Buckshnis relayed she understood the concept of not having buildings stand in
isolation. Mr. Chave commented the concept will fail if there is a building in a large parking and no way
to get to from that building to buildings nearby. Council President Buckshnis commented PCC was very
successful, they have a 30 year lease but their building is isolated. Mr. Chave agreed it was somewhat
isolated but they have areas in front. The intent with redevelopment is things like changes in the paving
and trees planted along walkways to identify the location of the walkway. Businesses like PCC may be
willing to partner with the City.
Council President Buckshnis referred to the old fashioned sidewalks along SR-104. She asked whether
the plan includes streetscapes with trees between the roadway and sidewalk to separate pedestrians from
the traffic. Mr. Chave agreed yes, referring to the newer scheme in front of Walgreens and the
multifamily development near Compass that separates pedestrians from the roadway.
Councilmember Johnson commented last week the Council authorized the SR-104 which has a Westgate
emphasis. She asked how the results of the Westgate Transportation Study will be incorporated into the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the SR-104 study will
occur late 2014/early 2015. By that time she assumed the code would be adopted along with the minor
changes to the 2014 Comprehensive Plan. The analysis will then come back for review by the Planning
Board, Transportation Committee and City Council and elements will be incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan via the Transportation Element or other plans such as the Streetscape Plan. Any
potential code changes could also be adopted at that time. Councilmember Johnson commented it was
important for the public to understand the two will eventually be connected.
Councilmember Johnson commented the purpose and intent of the Westgate code calls for designing a
landscape emphasis at the primary intersection of SR-104 & 100th/9th. Regardless of whether the existing
20-foot setback is retained or the proposed 12-foot setback adopted, she asked how the landscape
emphasis will be achieved at the intersection. Mr. Chave commented the additional stepback which will
result in the buildings being quite low. It may be worthwhile to add language regarding signature plaza
spaces and water features in addition to landscaping. He agreed that was an important concept, visitors
should have a feeling that they have arrived somewhere.
Councilmember Johnson observed SR-104 has a natural environment notable for tall stands of evergreen
trees. She asked how the green factors score sheet could be modified if there was a desire for greater
emphasis on native trees. Mr. Chave responded one of the reasons for the protected slopes was due to the
location of the large evergreens. An option would be to increase the points in the table for native
vegetation. There is a significant bonus for protecting existing trees. Councilmember Johnson observed
the bonus is 1 for bio-retention, .8 for protecting large existing trees and .1 for native. She suggested
increasing the bonus for native trees. Mr. Chave commented on the interaction between the protected
slopes and the emphasis on protecting trees in general; the bonus could be increased for protecting native
species.
Packet Page 451 of 458
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 23, 2014
Page 15
Councilmember Bloom observed the proposal was to allow 4 stories on the Bartell property with a 12-
foot setback and an additional 5 feet in height would be allowed for 15,000 square feet. Mr. Chave
agreed. Councilmember Bloom observed the building could not subdivided below 15,000 square feet of
retail space for the life of building. She asked how that would be enforced. Mr. Chave said it would need
to be provided upfront and the City sees all tenant improvements; any tenant improvement that would
divide the space below 15,000 square feet would be denied. Mr. Taraday advised there would likely be
something recorded against the title of any property taking advantage of the 15,000 square foot height
bonus to create a permanent record on the title that so all future permit applications would be reviewed in
light of that restriction.
Councilmember Bloom observed commercial mixed use was allowed on all properties, other uses are
sprinkled throughout and some quadrants only allow a portion of commercial mixed use for example
QFC. There was concern expressed at her Town Hall meeting about a tunnel effect if every property were
developed commercial mixed use and located 12 feet from the road. Mr. Chave said the idea of tunnel
was the vertical space relative to the horizontal space. He referred to downtown where there is a 60-foot
right-of-way, an average of 30 foot building on both sides with no setbacks. At Westgate there is an 80-
foot right-of-way, 12-foot setback and 35 foot buildings with the potential of an additional l0-15 feet of
height. He summarized in terms of scale to the right-of-way, the buildings in Westgate were similar to the
overall proportion of downtown. He did not see that as having a tunnel effect.
Councilmember Bloom asked if there was a reason for allowing commercial mixed use on every property
when QFC and PCC were not likely to redevelop. Mr. Chave commented there was a misconception
about what that means, pointing out QFC, PCC, McDonalds are commercial buildings although they are
different shapes and sizes and if they had residential, they would be commercial mixed use. The idea is
not one size fits all; commercial mixed use buildings will each look different, especially at the
intersection where a stepback is required on a 4-story building. That combined with the design standards
that require differentiating the ground floor from the upper floors, the appearance of separate sections
even in a larger building, etc. that will interact to mitigate the fear of a tunnel look to the development.
Councilmember Bloom commented Mr. Barber, who owns Bartells, was at the Town Hall meeting and
was very concerned about the parking. Recalling a conversation she and Councilmember Petso had with
Mr. Doherty, Ms. Hope and Mr. Chave, she asked whether the plan could start with the Bartells quadrant,
work on that quadrant with Bartells, and do the other quadrants later once the SR-104 transportation study
is completed since they are unlikely to redevelop. Ms. Hope responded anything is possible. Her
understanding was there has been a deliberative process over 3-4 years to look at all 4 quadrants and how
they affect each other. Although each quadrant could be considered separately, there is value in having a
plan that works reasonably for all four quadrants and fine-tune it based on development that occurs in one
of the quadrants.
Councilmember Bloom relayed concerns expressed at the Town Hall meeting included traffic patterns,
crossing SR-104 and 100th, parking, ingress and egress, existing parking difficulties at QFC, and driving
from QFC to PCC. She summarized pedestrian crossing is not convenient and that is something the SR-
104 study will consider. Ms. Hope responded some of the traffic issues have been studied and it may be
that perception is not the same as what is actually proposed. The SR-104 analysis will be done within a
few months and a lot of the concerns will be addressed.
Councilmember Mesaros observed QFC’s existing parking is 1/475 square feet. He inquired about PCC’s
parking ratio. Mr. Chave answered it is approximately 1/350 square feet in the area immediately in front.
Most commercial areas have blended/spill over parking. Councilmember Mesaros inquired about
Goodwill’s parking ratio. Mr. Chave answered it is shared parking.
Packet Page 452 of 458
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 23, 2014
Page 16
Councilmember Mesaros said he has heard canyon-effect mentioned and appreciated Mr. Chave’s
comparison of the right-of-way and buildings in Westgate to downtown. He asked whether the proposed
zoning allow would allow 4-story buildings all along the corridor. Mr. Chave identified areas where 4, 3,
and 2 story buildings would be allowed, noting it is not a uniform 4 stories.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed heights up to 4 stories would be allowed at the cross of the
quadrants at Edmonds Way and 100th/9th. Mr. Chave identified 2 sides where 4-story buildings would be
allowed and 2 sides where 3-story buildings would be allowed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed
it could potentially feel like canyon or tunnel in the center. Mr. Chave did not think so, particularly with
the stepback at the intersection.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she liked the walkability of University Village, recalling the
series of roads through University Village in the past. She asked the timeframe for making a decision on
this plan. Mr. Chave envisioned Thanksgiving. He feared if a decision was delayed too long, it would take
a backseat to the budget.
Councilmember Peterson agreed it is not comfortable walk on the sidewalk on SR-104 but the concept via
redevelopment in 20-30 years is to create internal walkability and a pedestrian friendly shopping and
living experience. Mr. Chave agreed, noting the raised sidewalks in U-Village clearly identify the
pedestrian areas.
To Councilmember Bloom suggestion to do one quadrant at a time, Councilmember Peterson asked
whether that would be a radical change to the Planning Board’s recommendation and require restarting
the public process and holding another public hearing. Mr. Taraday answered worst case scenario another
public hearing would need to be held to ensure the GMA requirement for public participation was met. As
a practical matter, because the other properties are unlikely to redevelop it may not matter whether a plan
for the entire area is adopted and tweaked later or only a plan for the quadrant that is likely to develop
sooner. Mr. Chave explained it was within the Council discretion to do a phased approach; however, it is
unknown what the property owners outside the SR-104 & 100th/9th intersection are considering. The City
is limited in what it can do to improve the flow and access until some redevelopment occurs.
Council President Buckshnis asked whether there were grant funds available for overpasses between the
quadrants. She referred to overpasses in Charlotte. Ms. Hope answered there are no grants available in
Washington for that at this time. She agreed connectivity between the quadrants was an important
element. Mr. Taraday suggested an overpass could be added to the amenity score sheet for a height bonus;
it was more likely to occur that way rather than via grant funding. Council President Buckshnis asked if
there was a percentage of residential in the plan. Ms. Hope answered for example residential cannot be on
the first floor. Some property owners may prefer office space to commercial.
Council President Buckshnis asked how Councilmembers should inform staff of additional incentives.
Ms. Hope suggested sending information to staff to allow further research. Council President Buckshnis
suggested adding art.
Councilmember Johnson observed properties in the Westgate area have varied height limits depending on
the location and topography. She asked the Planning Board’s rationale for four stories in the QFC
quadrant where there is flat topography. Mr. Chave displayed the height map, explaining there are no
slopes in the QFC area but the cemetery separates the site from the surrounding area. Four stories were
not allowed in the northeast due to its small size.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the intersection analysis done by Jennifer Barnes in June 2013 for the
SR-104/100th intersection. She asked Mr. Chave to contrast that analysis with the new transportation
Packet Page 453 of 458
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 23, 2014
Page 17
study of Westgate with regard to the forecast years, land use assumptions and the scope of work. Mr.
Chave answered Ms. Barnes supplemented the analysis in the Transportation Plan where the planning
horizon is 2025, analyzing overall volumes, turning movements, levels of service, signalization, etc. The
2015 update will expand the horizon to 2035. The UW’s analysis assumed 4-5 stories; the impact of the
current 2-4 story plan will be substantially less.
Councilmember Johnson observed Ms. Barnes’ analysis was of the intersection; the transportation study
will consider other components. Mr. Chave agreed, especially the SR-104 study.
Councilmember Bloom referred page 7c regarding building not standing in isolation, specifically the last
sentence that states, will achieve these connectivity and space-shaping goals more effectively by allowing
such an exception in light of the established building and circulation pattern, provided that vehicle
parking shall not be located between the building and the public street in any instance. She asked whether
the eventual goal was no parking in front of QFC or PCC and for buildings to be located up to the street.
Mr. Chave answered the intent is to form the spaces for parking and pedestrian circulation in the area
internal to the quadrant by the placement of the buildings. The old strip mall model is parking lot in front
with buildings set back with a sign identifying the tenants. When buildings are closer to the sidewalk,
they provide a presence at the street front.
Councilmember Bloom observed the goal of the plan was for all buildings to be close to the street. Mr.
Chave answered all the buildings would not be at the street because the property configuration of some
would not allow the buildings to be placed at the street. The general principle is to have the buildings at
the street. If the buildings are not at the street, there will be limited ability to create interconnected spaces,
aisles and driveways behind the buildings.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether there was any accommodation made for bike trails. Mr. Chave
answered they are not precluded, they could be provided as part of the connections but would be limited
by space. The emphasis is along 9th because it is a challenge to provide a bike trail to the east. The north
and east connectors in the City’s existing bike plans are further north. The language regarding internal
circulation could be expanded to emphasize bikes.
Councilmember Bloom referred to language in the plan regarding units less than 900 square feet, a
percentage allowed to be over 1600 square and encouraging affordable housing. She emphasize that was
not affordable housing; affordable housing was when a person paid no more than 1/3 of their income for
housing. As it appeared there was interest in providing affordable housing at Westgate, she asked why
actual affordable housing was not included in the plan. Mr. Chave explained the City did not have an
affordable housing program; there was no zoning regulation to require affordable housing in a
development. He and Ms. Hope have discussed developing that type of program but it would take a
couple years including working with the Housing Authority and the new Affordable Housing Alliance
(AHA) of Snohomish County. If such a program were developed, it could be added to the Westgate plan;
another potential location is nodes on Hwy 99 that are close to transit.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the proposal to maintain 15,000 square feet for the life of a building
and observed that would preclude the old Albertsons from being dividing to provide space for a pet store
as well as prohibit the former Safeway from being developed as Salish Crossing. She questioned whether
that was a good idea. Mr. Chave answered the developer would have to be seeking the fourth story for
that requirement to be imposed. Second, it would only require 15,000 square feet; for example if the old
Albertsons had 20,000 square feet, they could designate 15,000 for PCC and the remainder for other
stores. Mayor Earling suggested for future study session discussions, staff be seated at the table.
Packet Page 454 of 458
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 23, 2014
Page 18
Councilmember Petso advised she would email staff with a number of requests for future presentations.
She suggested deleting the provision that allow using a portion of the sidewalk in the public right-of-way
for outdoor seating, temporary displays, etc. Although currently allowed downtown, it would not make
sense on SR-104. Council President Buckshnis commented it may not be appropriate on SR-104 but it
could be appropriate in other areas in Westgate.
Councilmember Petso suggested a requirement that the first floor be devoted to retail and not parking. As
examples she referred to the Compass Apartments where parking is provided in back under the units and
a building in Shoreline near Costco where there most of the ground floor is parking. She feared turning a
vibrant business district into parking holding up residential. Council President Buckshnis referred to the
parking configuration allowed downtown. Councilmember Petso answered there is already a walkable
pedestrian area downtown. She relayed comments about why the City wants to create a second walkable
pedestrian area. She wanted to ensure Westgate retained legitimate commercial uses on the first floor.
Councilmember Johnson inquired about parking on 9th in front of the cemetery, assuming it was employee
parking. She asked whether consideration had been given to offsite parking for employees to better
accommodate customer parking. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented it is also commuter parking
for people taking the bus because there are no time limits on the parking in that area.
Council President Buckshnis clarified smaller units can be affordable housing. She envisioned a walkable
neighborhood with residential away from SR-104. Councilmember Bloom pointed out affordable housing
has a specific definition, there is no guarantee a 900 square foot unit is affordable. She agreed with
Council President Buckshnis’ suggestion to have residential setback from SR-104 but that was not what
this plan proposed. The plan allows commercial mixed use everywhere and only one of the residential
uses, rowhouses, was strictly residential; everything else is mixed use including the live-work. She
preferred to designate where residential is allowed and that it be setback and private. This plan allows
buildings up to 4 stories of mixed use at the Bartell and QFC mixed use with 3 stories of residential and 1
floor of commercial and parking to accommodate the uses. Council President Buckshnis did not support
designating where specific building types could be located.
Councilmember Peterson referred to the presentation by Mark Smith, AHA, who pointed out there are a
number of striations to affordable housing including what the private sector provides and what the City
could provide via an affordable housing program. Mr. Smith indicated Edmonds is woefully inadequate in
both regards; the affordable housing the private sector provides is typically smaller units. Encouraging
smaller units in Westgate and throughout the City is an excellent way for the private sector to provide
affordable housing. If housing was restricted to specific areas such as rowhouses that are private, it
automatically increases the footprint and the price and would eliminate the sector of affordable housing
that can be provided by the private sector. The more the location of housing is restricted, the worse the
opportunity for providing any type of affordable housing. This type of development is needed throughout
the City; there are opportunities in Westgate, downtown, Hwy 99 and Five Corners.
Councilmember Petso agreed small units are not affordable housing and recalled Mr. Smith saying that.
There may be less construction costs but the smaller size does not make them affordable housing
particularly for families who cannot live in a small unit. She relayed the public wants to identify the
places at Westgate where they are willing to accept taller building and residential units and not interfere
with other areas at Westgate; that is not what this plan does.
11. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
Packet Page 455 of 458
He provided the following comparison:
Benefit Standard Cigna
Life and AD&D $0.195 and $0.045 $0.18 and $0.022 Cigna matching rate of $0.29
per unit for dependents
MEBT Life $13.50 ($75k benefit) $13.94 (100k benefit) Cigna matching rate of $0.54
for disabled lives
Long Term Disability $0.595 $0.49
Total Cost
Differential
-11.9% ($15,713)
Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding that the Cigna plan provides greater benefits, less cost
and a three year rate guarantee; there are no hidden fees or fine print. Mr. Robertson agreed it seemed too
good to be true. Typically when a firm has a monopoly and no competition, their fees are higher. The
person who designed and programmed the policy that most municipalities in Washington participate in at
Standard, left Standard and went to Cigna.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO FORWARD THE ITEM TO THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL.
MOTION CARRIED (4-0). (Councilmember Johnson was not present for the vote.)
5. PROCLAMATION FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH ~ YWCA WEEK
WITHOUT VIOLENCE
Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring October 2014 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month and
the third week of October as YWCA Week Without Violence.
Mary Ann Dillon, Senior Regional Director, YWCA Snohomish County, on behalf of the YWCA,
thanked the City Council and Mayor Earling for raising awareness about domestic violence via the
proclamation. She noted there were several members of the YWCA in the audience as well as Dr.
Suzanne Poppema, President, Zonta Club of Everett. Zonta is a women’s organization that works on
many women’s issues including eliminating human trafficking locally, nationally and internationally.
Ms. Dillon explained recent incidents involving NFL players and domestic violence has put the spotlight
on the problem and has men and women participating in important dialogue about domestic violence.
There are great opportunities to keep the conversation going and make systemic changes. She commented
a week without violence would be 7 days, 168 hours, 10,080 minutes free of domestic violence, sexual
assault, early childhood enforced marriages, etc. She thanked the Council and Mayor for their
commitment to ending violence and the making community safer for all.
12. DISCUSSION REGARDING STUDY SESSION FORMAT
Council President Buckshnis recalled in a test of the study session format a couple weeks ago the Council
used a round robin, three question format. She asked for Councilmembers’ input regarding how study
sessions should be run, the configuration, whether to have a time limit on questions, a round robin with a
limit on the number of questions, etc., noting the microphones needed to be improved.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested Councilmembers take turns asking questions to ensure
everyone is able to participate. She noted typically the first person asks multiple questions. She preferred
Councilmembers ask one question at a time unless there was a follow-up or clarification question.
Councilmember Petso disagreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. Her understanding of a study
session format was to promote interactive discussions in a less structured atmosphere. At the study
Packet Page 456 of 458
session regarding Westgate, the meeting included questions in a much more structured format than when
Councilmembers are seated at the dais and there no discussion. She envisioned a less formal study session
would provide opportunity for more dialogue and discussion.
Council President Buckshnis commented there was discussion at the end of the study session regarding
Westgate. The length of the agenda that evening also limited the amount of discussion regarding
Westgate. She favored the round robin format because it allowed each person to speak.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she liked the more informal setting with Councilmembers
seated at the table; her preference was to allow all Councilmembers to ask questions and participate in the
process versus one Councilmember with a lot of questions monopolizing the subject matter.
Councilmember Peterson said he also likes the informal nature of sitting at a table but he has heard from
citizens who watch the Council meetings that they are not able to engage due to the poor sound quality
and the camera angles. The Council needs to balance what makes them comfortable with the public’s
ability to engage in the discussion. The technology is not currently set up to accommodate the format with
Councilmembers seated at the table. He suggested gathering feedback from people who watch the
Council meetings.
Councilmember Johnson said it was beneficial to have rules for study sessions; the Council can make
them up as they go or rely on Roberts Rules of Order although Roberts Rules may be too restrictive. She
suggested either establishing a time limit or a number of questions. She suggested playing with the table
layout, recalling the original configuration did not have Councilmembers in a line and allowed them to
see each other. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the problem with the current configuration is
some Councilmembers have their backs to the audience.
Councilmember Johnson said she can see the screen better from the table; it is nearly impossible to see
the screen when seated at the dais. She noted it would be helpful to provide Councilmembers with
presentation materials. Councilmember Petso noted she could see the screen better from the dais than
from the table.
Council President Buckshnis summarized for future study sessions:
• Work on a different table configuration
• Round robin with 1-2 questions each
Council President Buckshnis asked whether Councilmembers wanted discussion after each question.
Councilmember Petso commented it depends on the issue. For Westgate, it may have been more
productive to allow discussion after each question was raised. For items on tonight’s agenda that
previously would have been handled by committee, few questions arose. She summarized less formality
would be preferable.
Councilmember Johnson asked whether Councilmembers wanted to start meetings at 6:00 or 7:00 p.m.
She preferred all the meetings start at 7:00 p.m.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said either 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. was acceptable. With regard to the number
of questions, she said to drive democracy the number of questions cannot be limited. She suggested a
Councilmember who had a number of questions could continue to ask questions after other
Councilmember’s questions had been answered.
Council President Buckshnis commented she was surprised by the 6:30 p.m. start time tonight. She
preferred to start meeting at 7:00 p.m. because that was what citizens are used to. Unless there were
Packet Page 457 of 458
objections, she will continue with a 7:00 p.m. start time and, when necessary, hold executive sessions
prior to Council meetings.
Mayor Earling commented staff’s understanding was study sessions would start at 6:00 p.m., if there was
an executive session, the meeting would start at 6:00 p.m., followed by the executive session and convene
the study session at the conclusion of the executive session. There may be an advantage to starting the
study session earlier; for example, tonight’s agenda was a 4-hour meeting.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested all Council meetings could start at 6:00 or 6:30 p.m. to avoid
confusion.
Mayor Earling summarized Council President Buckshnis will take the Council’s comments and present a
recommendation at the next study session.
13. PRESENTATION REGARDING FIRE DISTRICT 1
Mayor Earling explained the invoice was provided at an initial meeting with Fire District 1 (FD1) on
August 21. Several subsequent meetings have been held including a meeting with Brier’s Mayor,
Mountlake Terrace’s City Manager and himself where it was agreed the three cities’ Finance Directors
would meet to discuss concerns with the billing. Following that meeting the Finance Directors met with
FD1’s Finance Director. During these meetings, further information has been requested from FD1. He
met with Chief Widdis and Commissioner Chan last Friday where it was agreed the timing and the way
the information regarding the increase was presented was handled poorly by FD1. It was also agreed to
have further discussion on issues of concern to Edmonds and likely all three cities.
Following tonight’s presentation and discussion, there will be a follow-up meeting this week with the
three cities’ Finance Directors, Brier’s Mayor, Mountlake Terrace’s City Manager and him. He will be
seeking a meeting with the three cities and FD1 late this week or early next week. He summarized there
has been a good dialogue to this point.
Fire District 1 Chief Ed Widdis commented he provided this same presentation to Mountlake Terrace,
illustrating the benefits of contracting with FD1. The primary reasons Edmonds contracted with FD1
were:
• More efficiencies
o A 12-station fire department
o A larger group of employees to pool from
o More specialized equipment
o More resources for the community
o Re-classed the City fire service from a Class 4 to Class 3
• Save Money (He displayed the following spreadsheets):
o City Revenue – Edmonds Fire (2010-2016)
o Edmonds Fire Budget (2010-2016)
o Contract Cost
Edmonds Fire Revenue Loss (Woodway and Esperance Contracts)
Costs Transferred to District
o Estimated 5-year outlook (2010-2014)
Estimated savings via contracting : $5.8 million
Actual 5 year savings: $6 million
Packet Page 458 of 458