Loading...
2014.11.10 CC Agenda Packet              AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2014 STUDY SESSION             7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE   1.(5 Minutes)Roll Call   2.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda   3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items   A.AM-7271 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 3, 2014.   B.AM-7269 Approval of claim checks #211337 through #211468 dated November 6, 2014 for $1,747,604.72. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61259 through #61271 for $466,539.20, benefit checks #61272 through #61280 and wire payments of $398,232.21 for the pay period October 16, 2014 through October 31, 2014.   C.AM-7265 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Jostein E. Kalvoy ($383.00).   D.AM-7251 Authorization to Contract with James G. Murphy to Sell Surplus City Vehicles and Sell a Scrap Car to Pick-n-Pull    E.AM-7252 Authorization to Contract with James G. Murphy to Sell Surplus City Equipment   F.AM-7253 Authorization to Contract with James G. Murphy to Sell Surplus City Vehicles   4.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings       Packet Page 1 of 411   5.(30 Minutes) AM-7264 Presentation on the Proposed Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Work Program and Budget for Year 2015   6.(10 Minutes) AM-7241 Interlocal Agreement for Jail Services with Snohomish County   7.(10 Minutes) AM-7262 Renewal of Interlocal Agreement for Jail Services with Yakima County   8.(15 Minutes) AM-7263 Review & Potential Approval of Updated Right-of-Way Tree Management Policy   9.(15 Minutes) AM-7272 Development Code Major Update   10.(10 Minutes) AM-7259 Presentation regarding Lodging Tax Advisory Committee's Recommended 2015 Work Program and Budget   11.(45 Minutes) AM-7270 Discussion regarding the 2015 Proposed City Budget.   12.(30 Minutes) AM-7266 Discussion on the Proposed 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program.   13.(20 Minutes) AM-7249 Continued Discussions on the Study Sessions   14.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments   15.(15 Minutes)Council Comments   16.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).   17.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.   ADJOURN         Packet Page 2 of 411    AM-7271     3. A.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:11/10/2014 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 November 3, 2014. Recommendation Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The draft minutes are attached. Attachments Attachment 1 - 11-03-14 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 11/06/2014 11:16 AM Final Approval Date: 11/06/2014  Packet Page 3 of 411 SPECIAL MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES November 3, 2014 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:10 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 (arrived 6: 50 p.m.) Strom Peterson, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Noushyal Eslami, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Don Anderson, Assistant Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Scott James, Finance Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Deb Sharp, Accountant Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) At 6:10 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Bloom and Mesaros. At 6:40 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council Chambers that an additional 10 minutes would be required in executive session. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 6:50 p.m. 2. MEET WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION CANDIDATE KATIE BOJAKOWSKI FOR APPOINTMENT TO POSITION #2 - PROFESSIONAL OF THE HPC 3. MEET WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CANDIDATE ERIC LIVINGSTON FOR APPOINTMENT TO POSITION #10 OF THE HPC At 6:51 p.m., the City Council met with Katie Bojakowski, a candidate for appointment to Position #2, Professional of the HPC, and Eric Livingston, a candidate for appointment to Position #10 on the HPC. Packet Page 4 of 411 The meeting took place in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. All City Councilmembers were present. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:02 p.m. and led the flag salute. 4. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council President Buckshnis requested Item 13 be removed from the agenda and scheduled on the November 10 study session agenda due to a number of questions and amendments proposed by a Councilmember and to allow the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Board an opportunity to review the proposed amendments. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO REMOVE ITEM 13 FROM THE AGENDA AND SCHEDULE IT ON THE NOVEMBER 10 STUDY SESSION AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2014 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #211231 THROUGH #211336 DATED OCTOBER 30, 2014 FOR $338,869.68 (REISSUED CHECK #211317 $240.00) C. CONFIRMATION OF KATIE BOJAKOWSKI TO POSITION #2 - PROFESSIONAL OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION D. CONFIRMATION OF ERIC LIVINGSTON TO POSITION #10 OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION E. ADOPTION OF 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 HER DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN “HR” DESIGNATION. (FILE NO. PLN20140037) 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, relayed in studying the Police Department 2013 annual report and the 2013 budget, he learned, 1) the police responded to 21,789 dispatched calls for service in 2013 which includes calls to Woodway, 2) the Police Department 2013 budget was $8.9 million, 3) applying 100% of the department’s expenses to the 21,789 service calls equates to $408/service call, 4) $408 x 10 calls per month to Woodway equates to $4,080/month. He concluded the charge should be something less than that Packet Page 5 of 411 amount since Edmonds Police are not patrolling Woodway to do crime prevention, parking or traffic enforcement, etc. To those that say the Edmonds Police is excessively diluted by calls to Woodway, the annual report states there were 762 incidents for field service officers in 2013. Assuming the same now would be true, Woodway’s 120 calls are only 16% of one of those officers. To those that say Woodway is not paying enough; with an annual contract fee of $36,720, the 16% equates to an expense of $233,000 or approximately double the cost of one officer. His understanding was if the Council decides to give up the Woodway contract, the City would lose revenue but lose not any expenses. He urged the Council to retain the proposed three year contract term because two years, which some Councilmembers favor, passes too quickly. He urged the Council to make an unemotional and objective assessment of the issue and approve the proposed Woodway Police contract. Dave Page, Edmonds, relayed the study session seating arrangement looks terrible from the TV audience’s point of view; and there is a loss of decorum when the Council is televised seated at the table. With regard to Westgate, he recalled at the Town Hall meeting held by Councilmembers Bloom and Petso, most of the people were opposed to the proposal or had a lot of questions. The Town Hall meeting prompted him to do research that he had not done before. He recalled during the last election, people spoke about keeping the town small which felt was a selfish stance and would require doubling taxes. He agreed something needed to be done at Westgate and he applauded the planning that had gone into the Westgate plan. He recalled some residents at the Town Hall meeting who said they were hearing about the plan for the first time. He suggested residents stay informed about City business by reviewing meeting agendas on the City’s website. Carla Nichols, Mayor of Woodway, requested Council’s support of the proposed police contract for the following reasons, 1) Woodway has appreciated the partnership with Edmonds, and 2) Woodway receives excellent backup police service from Edmonds’ Police Department. When the Council last reviewed the contract about two years ago, the City wanted a higher dollar amount which was done, a 400% increase. The Council wanted an inflationary index to be included in the contract; the proposed contract includes a CPI indexed increase. Woodway wants to have its own Police Department and does not want a full contract with Edmonds. To the suggestion that the police contract be similar to the Fire District 1 contract, she explained FD1 provided all Woodway’s fire suppression and emergency medical services. The Police contract is for officers to respond only to Priority 1 and 2 calls; Edmonds officers do not patrol Woodway streets, do not do detective work, do not follow up after emergencies, and do not do traffic control. Those tasks are all done by Woodway officers. Essentially Edmonds is receiving approximately $40,000/year for mutual aid which usually is not a contract between municipalities. During the 21 months of the current contract, the base level of 10 calls/month was exceeded in 3 months, calls were under the base during 14 months and the most frequent call level was 7/month. She concluded the contract is working and she requested the Council approve it as proposed. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2015 PROPOSED CITY BUDGET Finance Director Scott James reviewed where budget documents can be found on the City’s website via a link on the home page to 2015 Budgeting. The link accesses the 2015 Proposed Budget, 2015 Decision Packages, 2015 Preliminary Budget Book Changes, Department Budget Presentations, 2015 LTAC Application, 2015 Council Allocation of $250,000 and 2012-2019 Forecast. He displayed two proposed Council allocations from the $250,000: Proposal # Description Cash Increase (Decrease) 1 Veterans Park Design ($10,000) 2 2 Train Trench Peer Reviews (Vancouver’s and Edmonds’) ($20,000) Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Packet Page 6 of 411 Catherine Gold, Edmonds, ceded her time to her husband. Charles Gold, Edmonds, referred to the Tetra Tech study released today regarding the cost to build a train trench along the Edmonds waterfront. He explained the real fight is to stop BNSF from double or triple tracking through Edmonds. He provided two pictures of the view of Main Street looking west (created in 2012 for the Mayor’s save the beach proposal), 1) existing or with a train trench, and 2) with a bridge, explaining if nothing is done and BNSF surface double or triple tracks, the result will be the view with the bridge which is unacceptable. The only thing the City has to offer BNSF that could be a better system and save Edmonds is a train trench. He noted the existing view from Main Street looking west does not change with a trench; if the waterfront is surface multi-tracked, the result will be bridges, overpasses and re-grading the approaches. He urged the City Council to vet the train trench proposal and have it presented to BNSF. He expressed concern the $10,000 non-transparent “quick and dirty” study that unnecessarily expands the scope to the south and does not check basic facts, is full of errors and omissions and has cost estimates the consultant characterized as inappropriate until a real design study is done. The study states due to the myriad costs no accurate cost estimates can be done until a full design study is completed. Mr. Gold referred to other projects in the CIP, explaining none them would be harmed by delaying until the following year to allocate $50,000 - $100,000 for a study by Jacobs Engineering, an international firm with a local office in Bellevue whose trenches cost less because of their experience which includes building the Reno trench or BergerABAM as an alternate. Whatever funding source is used must allow an immediate start because the opportunity to partner with BNSF is lost when they begin surface multi- tracking. He expressed concern with the City government that is unable to act due to a short term and narrowly focused political consideration. The result will be bridges unless the Council independently commissions a qualified proper design study of the train trench as outlined in EdmondsTrainTrench.net, preferably by Jacobs Engineering who built the Reno trench that has 12 bridges for $170 million 10 years ago. Tetra Tech estimated a train trench in Edmonds with two bridges and half the length would cost twice as much. Even allowing for soil conditions, he estimated the cost of a trench in Edmonds would be close to half of what Tetra Tech has provided. Kurt Greiner, Edmonds, expressed appreciation for the inclusion of funds for engineering wayside horns at the Main and Dayton Street railroad crossings in the Mayor’s proposed budget and hoped the Council would approve the $55,000 allocation. The installation of the horns will make crossings safer , reduce noise level from train horns approximately 98% in the affected area , improve property values near the railroad, help businesses such as the Best Western hotel and the marina, and make the community a better place to live although they will not help him due to his location. He cited an omission in the proposed budget: funds for engineering and planning of the train trench. A report on the potential costs was published by Tetra Tech today, a firm that specializes in coastal marine work but has never been involved in building a train trench. The train trench is essential tabled until 2019-2020 in the proposed CIP. BNSF has indicated they will install a second and perhaps third track through Edmonds and the Tetra Tech report states the rail bed has already been widened for the second track. If the second tracks are laid, in his opinion the trench was no longer a viable consideration. The train trench is an expensive project, will get more expensive in the future and competition for money will increase as more cities ask the state and federal government for money for similar work as train traffic increases. Edmonds Crossing does not decrease the number of trains passing through Edmonds; it only moves the ferry traffic. A trench has many benefits including trains no longer delaying ferry schedules and the large cost of moving ferries Edmonds Crossing would be avoided. Time is of essence and he asked the Council to allocate $100,000 in the 2015 budget for the development of a plan with a company that has experience with trench projects. Kevin O’Keefe, Edmonds, ceded his time to Mr. Gold. Mr. Gold continued his earlier comments, expressing concern City government had not seriously, professionally and transparently looked into the real design and cost of a train trench or compared the economic benefits of a trench versus an overpass. The poorly done, erroneous study primarily supports an alternatives analysis that has now been put off because it wasn’t honest to begin with. He asserted City government had done nothing to save the City from surface multi-tracking. The $10,000 devoted to the cursory investigation and the timing of its release Packet Page 7 of 411 along with changing the topic of the Town Hall from solving train crossing issues to a regional coal trains meeting instead shows what goes on behind the scenes. Only by the Council hiring Jacobs Engineering or BergerABAM can the City say they actually tried to preserve Edmonds’ signature value and quality of life. One of the many omissions and errors in Tetra Tech’s report is the fact that BNSF has not yet double tracked Edmonds and can use environmental mitigation funds toward the trench such as was done in Reno where the railroad paid the first $60 million of the $170 million cost, creating a private-public partnership. He thanked Councilmembers who care about Edmonds and their constituents to do the right thing. Dave Page, Edmonds, commended Mr. Scott and the Mayor for the bottom line in the 2015 budget, recalling the disastrous 2012 and 2013 preliminary budgets when many though a bond measure would be needed. He was proud of the City for coming out of that mess and urged the City not to squander money, noting possibly the City needed to spend money doing as the previous speakers suggested. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Council President Buckshnis relayed the Council will hold a study session on the budget next week. She suggested the public contact Councilmembers with any questions. 9. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Charles Gold, Edmonds, displayed two photographs of the view of Main Street looking west, 1) the existing/with a train trench, and 2) with a bridge. He suggested when considering a train trench, the future economic value of Edmonds as well as the quality of life needs to be taken into account. He noted photograph of a bridge would need to include a bridge over Dayton as well as Main as well as emergency access. Placing the train in a trench below preserves Edmonds; everything at surface stays the same and views are not blocked. The trench also protects the marsh by creating a tray to catch spills/drips from cars and protects the town in the event of an explosion on the tracks. When he proposed this to the former Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, who spent a great deal of time on the Edmonds Crossing project, Mr. Clifton said the trench would be worth twice what Edmonds Crossing was worth. The City is lucky BNSF has not yet double tracked; they could have any time since 2009. He summarized the train trench was more important than any other project in Edmonds; not allocating $50,000 - $100,000 for a genuine study with a firm that had experience was unconscionable. Catherine Gold, Edmonds, thank Councilmembers for everything they what do to make Edmonds a better place. Although the Tetra Tech study states a very high figure, she asked the Council to include funding in the CIP for a new and complete professional quality bid study by one of the two experienced international engineering firms that have built below water trenches, BergerABAM or Jacobs Engineering. These firms have successfully negotiated similar engineering challenges at a lower cost and have more knowledge and experience than Tetra Tech on building a below water trench. The potential benefits of a train trench are enormous; the impact of surface multi-tracking would be horrendous. Time is of the essence due to pressure from increasing commerce by rail requiring surface double or triple tracking in the near future. Approximately $50,000 - $100,000 is needed to present a credible and professional plan to the community and potential private-public funding partnerships with BNSF, Washington State Ferries and WSDOT. With the projected cost information and a visualized design, the City government, citizens and funding partners can evaluate the needed features to fit within a shared, achievable budget while providing the maximum benefits to Edmonds safety, prosperity, quality of life and value for the future of the waterfront as train traffic increases, no matter what cargo the railroad is carrying. There are a lot of projects but nothing that rises to level of importance of the train trench and it should be included in the CIP. Packet Page 8 of 411 Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. 10. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT FOR CG ZONES IN HIGHWAY 99 AREA AND POTENTIAL ACTION Planning Manager Rob Chave recalled during the Council’s previous discussion Councilmember Fraley- Monillas presented alternative proposals which the Council elected to take additional time to review. The packet includes two draft ordinances; the first ordinance, Exhibit 2, is the Council’s initial action which removes the 2-floor commercial requirement in the Highway 99 CG zones and substitutes the equivalent of 1 floor of commercial space arrayed as the proponent wishes on property. The second ordinance, Exhibit 5 restores part of the Planning Board’s original recommendation including a flat parking rate of 1 space per 400 square feet of commercial. He pointed out a typo on page 313, line 32 of the packet, should read: “Parking shall be provided as follows: (a) for non-residential uses, 1 space per 400 sq. ft. of leasable building space; and (b) for non-residential uses, as required for RM zones.” Mr. Chave relayed another amendment Councilmember Fraley-Monillas proposed, instead of the equivalent of the ground floor dedicated to commercial, the commercial requirement would be removed; any mix of residential and commercial uses would be allowed within building. A third amendment, found on page 312 of the packet, would replace the sunset date with a reporting requirement, the Development Services Director would report on development activity for the CG and CG2 on the anniversary of the ordinance He pointed out the parking amendment proposed by Councilmember Fraley-Monillas is more conservative than the Planning Board’s recommendation of 1 space per 600 square feet. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ amendment also omitted the Planning Board suggestion for a site specific parking study. Councilmember Petso observed page 304, the list of proposed amendments, contains language regarding a site-specific parking study. Mr. Chase assured that language is not in the draft code. Councilmember Petso commented the ordinance was initially unanimously adopted by Council in a different format than is proposed tonight. One of the issues that the Council previously supported was a sunset provision so that the ordinance automatically sunsets at the end of a year. She asked Council to consider retaining that provision. She referred to examples where reporting requirements were not met such as Fire District 1 was to provide quarterly reports, the Public Facilities District was to provide a quarterly financial report to the Council Finance Committee beginning in 2002; the first report occurred in August 2014. Although she could support retaining the reporting requirement, she also requested Council consider including the sunset requirement, envisioning that would ensure the reporting requirement was met. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO TAKE FROM THE TABLE THE MOTION FROM OCTOBER 7, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16.60 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained the three items she proposed returning to the ordinance were contained in the original ordinance considered by the Highway 99 Task Force, the Planning Board and citizens in the area. To her surprise the ordinance was approved when she was out of town, stripping it of several issues that are important for Highway 99 development. Highway 99 is very different than other areas of Edmonds with regard to its commercial areas, livability, walkability and transportation. Her proposal to remove the sunset provision was because development regulations are not typically sunseted. If the matter is not taken up by the sunset date, it automatically reverts to the previous language. She highly doubted much would occur on Highway 99 in a year. She was satisfied with a reporting requirement and assured that review would occur as soon as she was on Council. Packet Page 9 of 411 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained she proposed removing the requirement for commercial to allow flexible development on Highway 99. With that flexibility, she hoped to see more development occur and potentially the ability to create transit oriented living environments. She did not find it realistic to require first floor retail in all development and preferred to allow developers to determine whether to build commercial and/or residential. With regard to parking, she explained Highway 99 is different than other areas of Edmonds; there is Swift and Community Transit service every 15 minutes, a new hub will be constructed in Lynnwood, and there will be a connection to the Mountlake Terrace transit center. As a result people living and working on Highway 99 do not need cars as much as in other areas of Edmonds. She was interested in regulations that encourage development rather than deter it. The reason development has not occurred on Highway 99 is because the zoning requires two floors of commercial. Expansion in the hospital district also warrants changing development regulations on Highway 99. She urged the Council to accept her proposed revisions to the ordinance. Main Motion COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE REVISED ORDINANCE NO. 3981, CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT 5, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.60 TO AMEND USE REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFY PARKING STANDARDS WITHIN CG DEVELOPMENTS. Amendment #1 and Action COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND TO REMOVE “NON” ON LINE 32 ON PAGE 313. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Peterson commented one of intriguing changes Councilmember Fraley-Monillas proposed was removing the commercial requirement which would allow purely residential. A necessary element for businesses to succeed is a certain density of customers. He asked about striking a balance between commercial and residential. Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty responded mixed use is not just what happens in one building but what happens in an area. A mixed use building can achieve the mix but an area that is predominately commercial does not achieve the mix. Given that the provision will be reviewed after 1-2 buildings occur, there is opportunity for the development community to respond based on the market dynamics. Developers recognize when they build housing, there is always some demand for goods and services on site. Some commercial is likely to happen given the amount of development that is possible on some of the large lots on Highway 99. He envisioned the market’s initial response would be residential development with complimentary retail that may not necessarily equate to the full footprint of a large building. Councilmember Peterson supported Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ proposal to remove the commercial requirement as it would create flexibility. With the opportunities for transit and the move toward young people and retirees getting rid of their cars, this is a good opportunity for positive things to happen on Highway 99. With regard to the one-year sunset provision, he said no developer would begin developing a plan under that provision because they were unlikely to even get their architects in a room in one year. He opposed the sunset provision and preferred an annual report. He acknowledged there have been errors in the past related to reporting; those are lessons learned and it is up to the Council to work with staff to ensure reports are provided. There has been great success in recent years with regard to reporting such as the Public Works quarterly reports and he was confident staff would provide the reports. Amendment #2 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO ADD A SUNSET PROVISION. Packet Page 10 of 411 Councilmember Petso recalled a one-year sunset has been used in the past when experimental land use changes have been approved like the 8-foot setback that allowed Key Bank to be constructed on Edmonds Way. She preferred to include a sunset provision because it provides incentive for staff to remember to provide a review. With regard to Councilmember Peterson’s comment that developers could not get their architects in a room in a year, she assumed once an application was submitted, it would vest to the regulations in place as of the date the application was received by the City. Councilmember Johnson asked staff to comment on Councilmember Petso’s assumption that vesting would occur on the date an application was submitted. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered once a developer submits a completed building permit application, they are vested. Whether the Council wants to include a sunset provision relates not only to vesting but how much time it takes to reach the point of a completed application. Councilmember Peterson asked what is entailed in the submittal of a completed building permit application. Development Services Director Shane Hope explained a completed building permit application requires extensive work such as architectural plans; it is not just a preliminary site plan. A completed building permit application usually takes a few months to put together in the best of times. Councilmember Bloom expressed her support for the amendment, finding it reasonable to review a significant development change in a year. She agreed a sunset provision will jog staff to ensure it is reviewed in an appropriate and timely manner, particularly if there is an application in process to clarify the issues. Action on Amendment #2 UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented this is only the first phase of the development of Highway 99; it will be a long term project to create a more vibrant area. Another issue being discussed is the potential for affordable housing and low income housing along the Highway 99 corridor. Currently the affordable housing is motels/hotels and trailer parks on Highway 99, which she pointed out is not appropriate for families. Ms. Hope agreed it is a long term process; the intent was to do simple things first, review the progress and consider other options. She noted some of versions of the ordinance may have had another word missing; the sentence regarding the Development Services Director providing a report should have the word “working” at the end. Amendment #3 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO RETURN TO THE FLEXIBLE MIXED USE LANGUAGE ADOPTED BY COUNCIL LAST YEAR AND NOT THE RESIDENTIAL ONLY LANGUAGE THAT IS PRESENT IN EXHIBIT 5. Councilmember Petso commented under either version of the ordinance, the proposal is to eliminate the requirement for second floor commercial and only require first floor commercial along Highway 99. The other aspect was allowing flexibility, not the typical Puget Sound area first floor commercial with condominiums or apartments above. The concept was flexible mixed use that would allow a 2-story commercial pedestrian mall on the front portion of the property with residential behind. Without this amendment, residential only would be allowed on Highway 99. She was concerned that the ordinance being amended was a commercial ordinance and it seemed grossly inappropriate to amend it to allow residential only. She also felt this change was similar to a rezone and had the proper rezone procedure been followed, one of the criteria for Council to consider would be whether the rezone maintains the appropriate balance of land uses in the City. Edmonds is almost entirely residential now. Another of her Packet Page 11 of 411 concerns was budgetary; she feared that one or more of the car dealers on Highway 99 would decide they could cease selling cars and retire with the proceeds of developing their lot residential which would have an enormous sales tax hit to the City for little apparent purpose. She preferred to restore the flexible mixed use concept and not what is in essence a rezone to pure residential. Councilmember Peterson commented this amendment seemed to be in conflict with the motion; the Council was presented two ordinances, one with and one without the language Councilmember Petso proposes to include. Councilmember Petso assumed she was allowed to propose amendments. Mr. Taraday suggested Councilmembers consider amendments on their merits and vote them up or down. Councilmember Peterson commented this is a great opportunity to take advantage of what is already a mixed use zone by creating some much needed residential in an area that is lacking in residential properties. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the ordinance removes the ability for commercial development. Ms. Hope answered it does not. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas clarified commercial development would still be allowed and it was not just a residential ordinance. Ms. Hope agreed. Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding that any property two acres or more can have residential in a mixed use property. This is a commercial corridor and the commercial quality needs to be preserved and enhanced. She supported redevelopment near the Swift stations but she was uncertain she supported wholesale redevelopment of the corridor that could include residential as that would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Action on Amendment #3 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO. Action on Main Motion as amended UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, JOHNSON, MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING NO. 11. POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE: 1) AN AMENDMENT TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CREATING A NEW WESTGATE MIXED USE ZONE AND RELATED DESIGN STANDARDS; AND 2) AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP CHANGING THE BN, BC AND BC-EW ZONES IN THE WESTGATE COMMERCIAL AREA TO A NEW WESTGATE MIXED USE ZONE DESIGNATION Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the Planning Board’s recommendations are incorporated into the proposal. Approximately 95% of the proposal reflects the Planning Board’s concepts; approximately 5% has been refined since the Planning Board’s review to address issues raised by the Council or at the public hearing. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained: • Planning Board recommended two distinct actions: o Establishment of new zone (Westgate Mixed Use) o Rezoning of commercial properties in the Westgate area to WMU • Current draft reflects Council modifications and changes of detail but is still consistent with the Planning Board’s original recommendations. He relayed details of the Westgate code discussion: Packet Page 12 of 411 • Council public hearings on August 4 and October 7 • Draft ordinance provided in tonight’s packet • Attachments are the same as included for the October public hearing, with the same changes highlighted in ‘red’ in Exhibit 2 • One additional change was made in response to a Council question that addresses more specific standard for typical planting/sidewalk strip He relayed two questions to be resolved: 1. Are the sidewalk/planting strip standards helpful? • Intended to clarify the minimum standard, consistent with current Engineering ROW standards. • Complementary to the SR-104/100th Ave intersection requirements (3rd & 4th floor stepback, additional landscape/entry feature) 2. Does the Council want a 12-foot setback (recommended by Planning Board) or a 20-foot setback for buildings? • Council has yet to vote on a setback standard. • Testimony from Bartells indicating their support for a 12-foot setback. He displayed and described a diagram with a 5-foot planting strip, 7-foot sidewalk, 10-feet from the back of curb to the right-of-way line, and a 12-foot setback, explaining on the Walgreen’s site approximately 2 feet of the sidewalk was in an easement on the property. Under the current 12-foot setback requirement (10 feet of right-of-way plus 12-foot setback), there is approximately 22 feet from the back of the curb; the building must be constructed outside that 22 feet. He displayed and described a second diagram illustrating the 20-foot setback the Council has discussed: 5-foot planting strip, 7-foot sidewalk, 10-feet from the back of curb to the right-of-way line, and a 20-foot setback which provides a total of 30 feet from the back of the curb. With a 20-foot setback, it was likely more of the amenity space would occur in that area. Mr. Chave advised the sidewalk language was inadvertently duplicated on pages 414-415 in Section 22.10.025 and on page 389 in Section 16.110.025. He recommended the duplicate language be deleted from Section 22.10.025 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the map with the number of stories in the quadrants, relaying her understanding that the buildings in the Bartells quadrant along 100th Avenue were 3 stories. Mr. Chave answered they have always been 4 stories Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled 4 stories were not desirable on the corners of the quadrants to avoid a tunnel affect. Mr. Chave answered there are 2 provisions that address that, 1) the 30-foot stepback from the intersection for a 3rd or 4th story, and 2) all 4-story building that face toward 100th or SR-104 have a 10-foot stepback. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked whether there were amenities required to obtain a 4th story. Mr. Chave referred to the height bonus table to obtain a 4th story. The 4th story was not automatic; developers must do more than one thing from the height bonus table. Councilmember Johnson observed along the SR-104 corridor the current building setback is 20 feet. Mr. Chave agreed, noting a couple BC zoned properties at the north end do not have any setback. Most of Westgate is zone BN which currently has a 20-foot setback. Councilmember Johnson observed an interim ordinance in place a couple years ago had an 8-foot setback. Mr. Chave advised only 2 building were constructed under that interim ordinance, the bank on the corner which has an approximately 10-foot setback, and the empty pad between SR104 and Walgreens which is proposed to be a large Starbucks store. Councilmember Johnson observed in the Key Bank example the distance from the curb was not 30 feet, it was only 8, 10 or 12 feet. Mr. Chave explained the reason he cited 30 feet was the location of buildings also needs to consider what is in the right-of-way. There is approximately 9-10 feet to work Packet Page 13 of 411 with in the right-of-way and generally that is where the sidewalk and planting strip are located. The setback begins at the right-of-way and moves back. With a 12-foot building setback there is 21-22 feet to work with. With a 20-foot setback, there is approximately 30 feet to work with. Councilmember Johnson pointed out that was unknown until all the right-of-way information was available. It appears there was a 20-foot from the sidewalk building setback at Rosecourt and the other senior facility. Mr. Chave commented the amount of right-of-way varies outside the central Westgate area. It is generally about 80 feet; five 12-foot lanes leave approximately 9-10 feet of right-of-way. Councilmember Johnson commented right-of-way widths was one of the results she looked forward to from the transportation study. Her position has been that that information should be available before any changes are made. Councilmember Bloom referred to the 12 foot and 20 foot setbacks, relaying her understanding of Mr. Chave’s explanation that the setback is from the right-of-way. Mr. Chave reviewed the drawing with a 20- foot setback, identifying the right-of-way line, 10 feet within the right-of-way that is available for frontage improvements, 20-feet begins at that line which is assumed to be the property line; a building can be constructed outside that 20 feet. Under the proposed regulations, the building setback is 12 feet. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding the right-of-way location is not known on all properties. Mr. Chave answered most of the frontage along PCC, Walgreens and on the south side to the east is consistently 10 feet. Most of the 100th is 9-10 feet. Councilmember Bloom asked about the frontage on the southeast corner. Mr. Chave answered it varies as the paved surface wanders somewhat within the right-of-way. Generally the right-of-way is 80 feet wide with 60 feet of pavement. Determining the location of sidewalk relative to the right-of-way line in that location will arise during development. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Johnson’s position that the location of the right-of- way should be identified before determining the setback. Councilmember Petso observed the southwest corner, the one where the location of the right-of-way is unknown, is where Bartells wants to move their store. Mr. Chave answered he knows where the right-of- way is but cannot identify on a map exactly where it falls relative to the location of pavement. Councilmember Petso observed with a 12-foot setback in the Walgreen’s area, there would be construction that is 22-feet back from the current travel lanes. She asked the distance between the travel lane and the building at the southwest corner with a 12-foot setback. Mr. Chave could not say. Councilmember Petso asked if it would be less than 22 feet. Mr. Chave answered it entirely depends on where the right-of-way is relative to the pavement. Councilmember Petso asked about installing a deceleration lane or right turn lane with a 12-foot setback near Walgreen’s. Assuming the width necessary for a deceleration or right turn lane was between 10 and 12 feet, Mr. Chave envisioned the sidewalk would curve into the other reserved area. Councilmember Petso observed if there was a 10-12 foot deceleration/right lane, shifting the sidewalk over would place it against the building. Mr. Chave answered the building would still be setback 12 feet regardless of what occurred in the right-of-way. He assumed a pullout would be a short distance. Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding of Mr. Chave’s explanation that somehow the sidewalk could be moved into the 12 feet without being against the building. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Petso referred to the map illustrating the heights in the quadrants and asked where the 30- foot circle was measured from. Mr. Chave answered it was measured from the property line. Councilmember Petso remarked except at the southwest corner where it would be in a yet undetermined location. Mr. Chave said the only thing he did not know was where the pavement was relative to the right- of-way line. It is fairly consistently 10 feet but varies slightly at the southwest and northwest corners. Councilmember Petso referred to the northeast corner, assuming there is 10 feet of right-of-way outside of the pavement, she asked whether the 30 feet would be measured from there. Mr. Chave answered that is Packet Page 14 of 411 where the setback would be measured from. There is 10 feet available in the right-of-way for frontage improvements; then there is the building setback, 12 or 20 feet or something in between. The effective amount of space for sidewalk, planting strip, etc. varies from 22 to 30 feet depending on the setback that is selected. Councilmember Petso observed the 30 feet is not measured from the property line but from the existing pavement. Mr. Chave answered it is measured from the back of curb. Councilmember Mesaros asked Mr. Chave in his experience as a planner the real impact of 12 or 20 feet setback in terms of what the development looks like. Mr. Chave answered the biggest difference is how the space and the building is configured. The further back buildings are pushed, the more likely the amenity space will be in between the building and SR-104 rather than on the back side where the parking and most of the activities occur. Councilmember Mesaros observed it would behoove the City to have a 12-foot setback which is really 22 feet from the pavement so the developer has more space behind the building for amenities. Mr. Chave answered that was the hope; some of the pictures such as Orenco Station in Hillsboro where the buildings are along a major travel way, most of the landscaping, pedestrian walkways, etc. are behind the buildings. In Westgate, it was envisioned people would park behind the buildings and the goal was a friendly experience on the interior of the quadrant so people would park once and walk to businesses instead of driving. Generally the wider the street setback, the more likely it is the amenities will go there rather than on the back. Councilmember Peterson asked for a guess regarding the right-of-way on the southwest corner. Mr. Chave answered the right-of-way is 80 feet across; generally the pavement is 60 feet wide with a few odd configurations. There is 80 feet before the setback and the building; the general placement of building will closely resemble the other areas. He could not be definitive about where the right-of-way lines were in that area. Councilmember Peterson observed that had been discussion regarding 12 feet versus 20 feet and asked whether the Council could choose something in between. Mr. Chave answered yes. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the setback had to be consistent throughout. Due to concern expressed about crowding building at the corner, he asked whether the setback at the corner could be 15 feet which might also address concerns about a future turn lane. Mr. Chave agreed an enhanced setback at the already identified circle at the corner could be established. Councilmember Johnson said she wanted to avoid the situation that occurred at Key Bank where there is not a 5-foot planter strip or a 7-foot sidewalk for a total of 12 feet and the building setback is not 30 feet, it is approximately 12-15 feet. She asked how that could be avoided on the Bartells corner without the information from the transportation study. Mr. Chave answered the sidewalk on the southeast corner is probably more than 7 feet but lacks a planting strip. He noted a planting strip cannot be provided at the intersection; generally what is desirable is more sidewalk area. That is the goal with the upper stories stepped back further, etc. The sidewalk in front of Starbucks is in the right-of-way; he was not certain how much additional space was available. Councilmember Johnson referred to the circle concept with additional building step back for the 3rd or 4th story, recalling there was also a landscape emphasis at that key intersection. Mr. Chave answered language is included in code regarding signature artwork, water feature, etc. within the setback area. The additional step back for 3rd or 4th floors would result in lower buildings at the setback and additional step back for taller buildings to create an open feel. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what harm there would be in leaving the setback as it was while the traffic study was being completed. Mr. Chave answered the biggest problem for property owners is uncertainty. Bartells is in the process of purchasing property; they have a significant concern with a 20 foot setback. He was unsure how that would impact their decision to purchase property on that corner. Packet Page 15 of 411 The study will be completed in early 2015, if a 20-foot setback is established, changing it would require going back to the Planning Board, City Council, hearings, etc. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed concern the Council was putting the cart before the horse, noting the Council had allocated a lot of money for a traffic study. Mr. Chave clarified it is a corridor study. He suggested the Council set a reasonable setback; the corridor study may determine that is reasonable and no change is needed. Main Motion COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A 16-FOOT SETBACK INSTEAD OF A 20-FOOT SETBACK. Council President Buckshnis commented the materials in the packet are extremely well done and she thanked staff for talking with her. She commented on the circle at the intersection for art and development that did not occur as envisioned such as Key Bank and the Compass apartments. There are enough parameters in the document with regard to setback, height bonuses, green factor tools, etc. and a 16-foot setback is in the middle. Mr. Chave commented regardless of the setback that is selected, the Council can revisit it when the corridor study is complete. Amendment #1 COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO AMEND TO KEEP THE 16 FOOT SETBACK FOR BUILDINGS AROUND THE CIRCLE IN THE CENTER BUT REDUCE THE SETBACK TO THE EAST, WEST NORTH, AND SOUTH TO 12 FEET. Mr. Chave described how that would accomplished; the language printed on Figure 22.110.010.B, Building Height Limit and Setback Requirements, regarding the circle would be revised to include an additional setback as well as amend the corresponding text in the code. Councilmember Peterson said this will provide more space for something artistic at that corner as well as address concerns about a tunnel effect or crowding at the intersection. A 12-foot setback would also provide some of the very narrow lots due to the bluffs some flexibility. He concluded the additional setback as well as the 5-foot planter and 7-foot sidewalk would allow for better design. A 16-foot setback in the entire Westgate area would harm some of the outlying properties. Councilmember Petso did not support a 16-foot setback in only the circle area and preferred at least a 16- foot setback in the entire Westgate area. If a travel lane or a turn lane is added in the future, the buildings will be in the way. Councilmember Bloom did not support the amendment due to the feeling of a building that close as well as losing the potential for adding a lane in the future. She referred to the feeling at the Lynnwood Crossing where there are 12-foot sidewalks and at least a 30-foot setback. Councilmember Peterson acknowledged a corridor study was coming up. He was concerned nothing would be built if all planning decision were made based on traffic patterns 20 years and felt that was being very short sighted. In discussions with WSDOT, they have no concerns or plans for additional lanes or turn lanes in the future. Ideally the corridor study would have preceded the Westgate plan. He originally was satisfied with a 12-foot setback but was willing to provide a larger setback at the center. Although the focus has been on the center, there are some very important properties in the outlying parts of the zone that will be very detrimentally affected by a 16-foot setback all around. Packet Page 16 of 411 Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding the traffic study did not say there would not be problems in future. It said there would be an increase of approximately 400 vehicle and level of service D would be maintained at the intersection. Mr. Chave recalled the study projected some increase in traffic but found LOS in the area would not decline even if nothing was done such as turn lanes, widening, etc. WSDOT has no interest in widening SR-104. In most communities with a highway like this running through a key area such as Westgate, adding more pavement is detrimental because the result is not a better LOS but more cars. The setbacks are not intended for additional paving but rather pedestrian, bicycle, etc. amenities. He did not anticipate the corridor study would indicate a need for additional travel lanes. Councilmember Bloom reiterated the traffic study did not say everything would be fine in 20 years; it said there would be more traffic and the LOS D would be maintained. She noted in same areas of the City such as Perrinville, there are projects to raise LOS D to B. She questioned why maintaining a LOS D with increased traffic was considered positive. Mr. Chave explained LOS D is the established LOS for that intersection which is fairly typical for high volume, active intersections where a certain wait is expected. Councilmember Bloom noted the corridor study will address not only LOS but also ingress/egress, bike lanes, and other improvements to enhance the area. Under the current configuration it is difficult get into Bartells, etc. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed she visits Westgate almost daily. She was concerned a 12-foot setback would produce the tunnel feeling she experienced in Redmond. She could live with a 16-foot setback on all properties, noting a 20-foot setback was probably excessive. She asked Councilmember Johnson her feeling about a 16-foot setback on all properties. Councilmember Johnson commented it was a compromise but she still preferred to retain the current standards, wait 3-4 month to complete the corridor study and make modifications based on data rather than hypothetical. The consultant indicated they could complete the study within the first quarter next year. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the Council approve the rest of the plan and wait to change the setback based on information from the corridor study rather than picking numbers out of a hat. Councilmember Mesaros commented an argument can also be made to approve Councilmember Peterson’s amendment and then make changes as necessary when the corridor study is completed. Councilmember Mesaros called for the question. Action on Amendment #1 UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON AND MESAROS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS, JOHNSON AND PETSO VOTING NO. Amendment #2 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AMEND TO ADD A PROVISION THAT REQUIRED SETBACKS AREAS, WHETHER ON PROTECTED HILLSIDES OR NOT, MAY NOT BE USED TO SATISFY MORE THAN 50% OF THE AMENITY SPACE OR OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS. Councilmember Petso explained the purpose of this amendment was to help avoid covering an entire parcel with construction and to encourage some of amenity space to be set into the development and not located directly on SR104. She recalled discussion regarding the Compass building and the fact that sitting on a bench on SR-104 did not necessarily constitute an amenity for everyone. Having the setback only count as 50% of the amenity space will ensure some of the amenity space will be provided elsewhere on the site. Packet Page 17 of 411 For Councilmember Bloom, Councilmember Petso explained Council President Buckshnis’ motion was to adopt the entire plan with the exception of changing the setback from 12 to 16 feet. In the proposed plan, the entire setback area can be counted as amenity space. Under her amendment, the setback could only account for half the required amenity space. Councilmember Bloom expressed support for the amendment as it will resolve some of the concerns Mr. Chave relayed that the developer would provide all the amenity space in front. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Chave for his input regarding the proposed amendment. Mr. Chave referred to the discussion regarding amenity space on the McDonald’s property. Under existing code 8,000 square feet of the property is reserved for open space. That increases to 31,000 under the provisions as written. The required setback would not be sufficient to accommodate all the amenity space; some would need to be provided in the back or inside the property. His concern with the proposed amendment was taking away usable area for a building, parking, circulation, etc. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas provided an example using Councilmember Petso’s amendment; if 1,000 square feet of amenity space was required, only 500 could be in the setback and the other 500 would need to be provided elsewhere on the site. She asked whether it would simply be a wash if the property were required to provide 1,000 square feet of setback. Mr. Chave explained if there was 1,000 square feet of setback area but only 500 could be used for amenity space plus an additional 500 square feet of amenity space equated to 1,500 square feet instead of only 1,000 square feet. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether having all the amenity space in the setback would be desirable. Mr. Chave answered it was unlikely a development could provide all the amenity space in the setback but the bigger the setback area is, the more likely it will be used as amenity space. Using the McDonalds example, the required amenity space is 11,400 square feet. Even with a 20-foot setback, there is only 8,000 square feet in the setback for amenity space; another 3,400 square feet must be provided elsewhere on the site. If the area for building, parking, circulation is significantly reduced, no development will occur. Councilmember Mesaros appreciated Councilmember Petso’s concern about having amenity space on SR-104, relaying the best solution is a 12-foot setback so amenity space will be on the interior of the property. Mr. Chave commented on the interaction between the setback and the right-of-way. Sidewalks, planting strips, etc. can be located in the 10 feet of right-of-way; seating areas must be located on the property which means they will not be right on SR-104. Councilmember Petso asked whether the calculation regarding amenity and setback space done for the McDonald’s had been done for any of the corner sites. Mr. Chave answered it had not. On the McDonald’s site the open space can be provided on the slopes. The corner properties do not have slopes so a combination of open space and amenity space needs to be provided on the property. Councilmember Petso observed the Bartells corner would also has a wooded slope. Council President Buckshnis called for the question. Action on Amendment #2 AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING YES. Amendment #3 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AMEND THE COMMERCIAL PARKING TO REQUIRE 1 SPACE PER 350 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE, NOT 1 SPACE PER 500 SQUARE FEET. Councilmember Petso explained the purpose of the amendment was to help ensure viable commercial activity remains at Westgate. She recalled the effective parking presently available at QFC or PCC was Packet Page 18 of 411 approximately 1 space per 350 square feet. She preferred that ratio instead of 1 space per 500 square feet which is even less parking than was approved for Highway 99, an amount she felt utterly inappropriate for Westgate. Councilmember Bloom expressed support for the amendment, recalling not having enough parking was one of the concerns expressed by people who have issues with the Westgate plan. There are problems with parking now and many are concerned about what the parking will be like if less is required. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how 1 space per 500 square feet was determined. Mr. Chave answered that was the amount recommended by the UW Team based on their experience. The leaders of the UW Team included Julie Kreigh, an architect, and Jill Sterrett, a planner and private consultant. Those ratios make sense when the existing parking is considered. He emphasized the parking requirements are minimums; the fear with providing too much parking is areas are not utilized effectively. For example, there are areas in Westgate where parking is tucked behind building to meet parking requirements but it is not functional parking. The preference is for a blended rate to allow uses to share parking. The parking standards in the current code date from the 1960s and 70s where the peak parking demand was used to determine the parking standard. As a result, many legacy developments have large expanses of parking that are not used on a daily basis. The intent in the Westgate plan was to allow parking from a variety of businesses to overflow into other parking areas as parking demands ebb and flow. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed QFC has 1 space per 475 and PCC has 1 space per 486 square feet. Mr. Chave answered that is parking provided on their property; they also use parking elsewhere in the development which is why a blended rate makes sense. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed she has been told developments such as QFC will build as much parking as they need; they won’t under-build the parking because people won’t shop there. Mr. Chave noted one of the reasons PCC located on that site was the substantial amount of parking in the area and they likely have locked up the parking via lease agreements. He was not familiar with QFC’s lease arrangement but their parking clearly overflows into other areas. One of the differences is property ownership; QFC owns their property and will ensure whatever they do supports their business; the same is true for Bartells. Action on Amendment #3 UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO. Amendment #4 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT TO 1 SPACE PER 400 SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN 1 SPACE PER 500 SQUARE FEET. Councilmember Petso suggested Councilmembers who feel Westgate should have less parking than Highway 99 indicate why. Councilmember Peterson responded developers are smart when building and these are parking minimums not restrictions. Councilmember Mesaros said another reason is Westgate is much more walkable than Highway 99. He frequently walks from his home to shop at Westgate. Council President Buckshnis said many employees park in the Westgate parking lot; changing that would free up parking. In addition there will be less need for parking as lifestyles change and people walk and take the bus more. She referred to areas such as Charlotte where there is a blended parking rate. Packet Page 19 of 411 Councilmember Petso asked why it was presumed developers would be more clever at Westgate than on Highway 99. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for Councilmember Petso’s amendment, commenting commercial areas should have similar parking requirements. Councilmember Bloom expressed support for the amendment, commenting some developers may focus on residential and, as has happened in downtown, retail and commercial is an afterthought and there is not enough parking. Councilmember Peterson commented he would have supported a less restrictive parking ratio on Highway 99. Demographics have shown the younger generation and the retiring generation want to get out of their cars, use public transportation and live in walkable neighborhoods. The whole point of the Westgate plan was to create a walkable neighborhood. Forcing more cars, parking and asphalt into the development is not looking at what’s happening in the real world. With the type of housing proposed at Westgate, he was surprised Councilmembers were supporting this parking ratio. Action on Amendment #4 AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3). COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND MESAROS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. Amendment #5 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO AMEND TO REQUIRE THE FIRST 45 FEET OF BUILDING DEPTH FACING THE STREET, SIDEWALK, AMENITY SPACE OR OTHER PUBLIC AREA MAY NOT BE USED FOR PARKING. Councilmember Petso explained the purpose of this amendment was to avoid parking cars near public spaces and encourage the use of such spaces for viable and diverse commercial activity. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Chave to comment on the affect this would have. Mr. Chave answered the amendment would remove any parking on the ground floor as most buildings would have one of the items Councilmember Petso cited on the front of their building. The provision for 45 feet comes from downtown where there is a uniform frontage. In Westgate some of the pedestrian activity will be on the sidewalks on SR-104 or 100th; hopefully most of the activity would be on the backside. Providing a sidewalk to link SR-104 to the area in back would remove another area for parking. In essence the amendment would eliminate any parking on the ground floor which removes flexibility for tuck-under parking on one side of the building. His overall concern with the amendment was eliminating flexibility. Councilmember Bloom observed the amendment prohibits parking in the first 45 feet on the street side. Mr. Chave answered the amendment was not just the street; it was also sidewalk, amenity and other public area. Councilmember Bloom assumed the purpose was so ingress/egress to parking would not interfere with amenity space. Councilmember Petso envisioned amenity space configured as a plaza; surrounding the plaza with a Starbucks might be cool but surrounding it with underground parking for the residents would be less cool. She did not want to at a table next to tuck-under parking. Her intent was to ensure street frontage was used for commercial space that complements the amenity space. Action on Amendment #5 AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING YES. Amendment #6 Packet Page 20 of 411 COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO RETAIN THE CURRENT 20-FOOT SETBACK. Councilmember Peterson raised a point of order, stating Councilmember Johnson’s amendment changed the intent of the original motion. Mayor Earling ruled Councilmember Johnson’s motion changed the intent of main motion. Councilmember Petso appealed the ruling of the chair, stating the main motion combined adoption of the ordinance with a change to the setback from 20 feet to 16 feet which makes Councilmember Johnson’s amendment in order. It was the consensus of the Council that Councilmember Johnson’s motion was in order. Councilmember Johnson explained the Council has two choices, 1) retain the current standard, wait for the transportation analysis and then make a change, or 2) make a change now and when the transportation analysis is completed, make another change. She suggested staying the course, maintaining the current standards and changing it as necessary when the transportation analysis is complete. Action on Amendment #6 UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY- MONILLAS, JOHNSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not agree necessarily with the 20 foot setback but she felt the transportation study should be completed first and it will be done within the first quarter of 2015. Although making changes will require going back through the Planning Board process, that may be required anyway depending on the findings of the traffic study. Councilmember Peterson expressed concern if the Council approves a setback and the corridor study finds a different setback is appropriate, the Planning Board process will have to start again. Although it pained him to do so, he made the following motion: Motion to Table COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO TABLE DISCUSSION UNTIL THE CORRIDOR STUDY IS COMPLETE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. WOODWAY POLICE SERVICES CONTRACT Police Chief Al Compaan advised the current agreement between the City and Woodway for police services expires December 31, 2014. The draft contact adds a CIP escalator and changes the incremental 15 -minute billing rate the City charges Woodway for police services. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Chief Compaan had provided the rest of the statistics. Chief Compaan answered he sent statistics for the past two years to Council this morning. Councilmember Bloom observed the packet did not include information regarding the comparative percentage of tax allocated to police services in Woodway versus Edmonds. She recalled that was discussed when the Council last reviewed the contract and was part of the reason she voted against the contract. Chief Compaan said he did not provide that information; it was his understanding Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman was researching that for Council. Councilmember Petso referred to an email she received from Councilmember Mesaros that contained different terms than in the packet. She asked Councilmember Mesaros to comment on the status of his proposal. Councilmember Mesaros relayed he had a very productive discussion with Woodway Mayor Nichols last Friday but they were not able to reach agreement on the terms he suggested. He felt there was Packet Page 21 of 411 more research to be done to reach an agreement between the City and Woodway including the statistics and approach offered by Mr. Wambolt. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT AS PRESENTED BY CHIEF COMPAAN WITH A 6 MONTH TERM TO PROVIDE TIME TO REVIEW STATISTICS AND NEGOTIATE FURTHER WITH WOODWAY. Councilmember Bloom did not support the motion for the same reason she did not support the previous contract. She recalled the percentage of tax assessment for Woodway residents was much lower than Edmonds residents were assessed for police services. She pointed out the former $36,000/year contract and the current $40,000/year was not enough to cover an additional police officer. Minimally the contract should fund one more officer when Edmonds is providing 18 hours/day of service to Woodway. Assuming the motion passed, she was hopeful the issues she raised could be considered in the six month timeframe. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the City had not done a good job of determining the real cost of the contract such as vehicles, training, supplies, etc. Further, the issue of development at Pt. Wells and the potential for 5,000 more people is still up in air. She referred to her discussion with Chief Compaan regarding the amount of crime and traffic from a development with 5,000 residents. She suggested those issues be discussed with Woodway during the six month term of the contract. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. Council President Buckshnis recalled this same argument was made the last time the contract was renewed, attempting to charge Woodway for a full-time contract when Edmonds provides part-time services. She expressed concern with giving up the contract with Woodway when the revenue funds approximately half of one employee. She did not object to a six month term to allow further research and negotiation. She asked whether the Edmonds Police logged overtime when assisting in Woodway. Chief Compaan agreed there had been little overtime; if an officer is reaching the end of a shift, he/she is relieved with an oncoming officer. Under the terms of the contract, the City bills Woodway in 15-minute increments for officer responses beyond the base 10 calls/month. Council President Buckshnis relayed the City has been providing Woodway police services for 28-29 years; there is a great deal of social equity as Woodway residents shop, dine, etc. in Edmonds. Councilmember Peterson observed the contract states Edmonds responds to Priority 1 and 2 in-process calls. He asked whether Edmonds responds to Priority 1 and 2 calls under mutual aid agreements the City has with neighboring communities. Chief Compaan explained if Woodway has an officer on duty and they assist Edmonds on a call, Woodway does not bill them. If Edmonds assists when a Woodway officer is on duty, the City does not bill Woodway. Under the terms of the agreement, Edmonds bills Woodway when they do not have an officer on duty. Councilmember Peterson asked if the City discontinued the contract with Woodway and 911 received a call for a panic alarm which is a Priority 2 in-progress call, would Edmonds police respond to that call. Chief Compaan answered yes if it is a life and death situation; alarms are not typically life or death. He felt it best to have a written agreement for police and fire. Councilmember Peterson assumed the Police Department would respond to certain calls whether there was an agreement in place or not. Chief Compaan agreed. Councilmember Peterson was willing to research issues further during the six months but felt the contract has served Edmonds and Woodway well in the past. Packet Page 22 of 411 Councilmember Johnson expressed support for the Woodway contract, finding it fair and equitable. As Mr. Wambolt stated, the City would lose revenue by not approving the contract but would not lose anything by approving the contract. She asked what happened when the current contract expired. Chief Compaan said the Council could continue the existing contract for six months or adopt the proposed contract for a six month period. Councilmember Mesaros relayed the intent of his motion was to adopt the new contract with a six month term. He relayed his intent was not to discontinue the contract with Woodway but to reach consensus on a longer term agreement such as five years. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed in an emergency situation, Edmonds Police would respond to Shoreline, Lynnwood, Mukilteo, Brier, etc. Chief Compaan agreed, under mutual aid. He noted some of the smaller cities in northeast Snohomish County have contracts for police services with Snohomish County. The proposed contract between the City and Woodway provides a higher level of service than might be available under mutual aid. To the comment that the City has nothing to lose by approving the contract with Woodway, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out police officers could be doing other things such as crime prevention if they were not responding to Woodway. Chief Compaan agreed when officers are called to Woodway, they are not available to respond in Edmonds and it could cause a delayed response in the Edmonds. He assured more emergent calls take priority whether in Edmonds or Woodway. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested any information that is available on Pt. Wells. Councilmember Bloom expressed support for re-evaluating the contract in six months. Mayor Earling asked whether Woodway was agreeable to a six month term. Councilmember Mesaros answered he mentioned it in passing to Mayor Nichols but had not waited for a response. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO. 13. PRESENTATION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE PROPOSED EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET FOR YEAR 2015 This item rescheduled to November 10 via action taken under Agenda Item 5. 14. LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLCC AGREEMENT RENEWAL Council President Buckshnis explained the packet contains the old agreement and the new agreement. The new agreement contains a new Section 4 whereby Lighthouse would pursue an hourly rate structure if the City wanted to pursue litigation on small matters such as liens and utility bills. The Council can approve the agreement as written, remove Section 4, or have it reviewed by another attorney. City Attorney Jeff Taraday clarified what Paragraph 4 is intended to do. Under no circumstances would Lighthouse bill the City on an hourly basis; Lighthouse’s contract with City would still be a flat fee. Paragraph 4 would allow them to keep track of their time on hourly basis and bill/collect from a third party under certain circumstances. For example, Lighthouse is asked to initiate a lawsuit to foreclose on a $5,000 utility lien; if the court awarded attorney fees to the prevailing party, Lighthouse would receive the attorney fees. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP AGREEMENT RENEWAL. Packet Page 23 of 411 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented if the agreement is substantially same with the exception Paragraph 4, it was not necessary to have another attorney review it. Councilmember Petso said ordinary practice would suggest Mr. Taraday should not write his own contract. When she was asked if outside counsel should review the contract, she said of course. However, she would likely support the motion as the agreement had not been changed significantly and it was doubtful the Council would support having it reviewed by another attorney. Council President Buckshnis assured the only change was the addition of Paragraph 4. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 7 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. 15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reminded the Council was meeting on Monday, November 10 due to due to Veterans Day. He reporting having a great time during trick or treat on Halloween until the rain started; then many people discovered the awnings. He reported on last Saturday’s open house for Jacobsen’s Marine; a fabulous facility and a great addition to the community. In response to public comments, Mayor Earling explained the $10,000 analysis by Tetra Tech was nothing more than preliminary work because the City had no idea about the engineering challenges. He had not anticipated the analysis would provide hard costs but it provided some measure of what the pricing might be. Staff is in process of scheduling a meeting with BNSF. 16. COUNCIL COMMENTS Student Representative Eslami reported the Cross Country Team took the last spot for State. Councilmember Petso congratulated the Cross country Team, noting they performed extremely well to earn the last spot. She will work with staff to revise her proposed budget amendment regarding a peer review of the Tetra Tech study as it was clear from the Mayor’s and the public’s comments that an amendment funding a more in-depth study and peer review was necessary. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported on the Museum auction which Mayor Earling also attended. She relayed that thoughts and prayers are with the families and students at Marysville-Pilchuck High School. She has family that attends the school but they were not in the in cafeteria. She noted anyone with children could have been one of those parents. Councilmember Peterson reminded of the Veterans Day ceremony on November 11 at 11:11 at the Veterans Plaza in front of Public Safety Building. He reported handing out upwards of 2,000 treats on Halloween. He reminded tomorrow is Election Day and voters have until 8 p.m. tomorrow to drop off their ballots at the Edmonds Library. Councilmember Mesaros commented he was surprised at the number of people downtown on Halloween. Mayor Earling remarked it was a smaller crowd than usual. Council President Buckshnis reaffirmed her appointment of Nichol Hughes to the Economic Development Commission. She reminded of the Five Corners Roundabout ribbon cutting on Friday. Packet Page 24 of 411 17. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 18. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 19. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. Packet Page 25 of 411    AM-7269     3. B.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:11/10/2014 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 #211337 through #211468 dated November 6, 2014 for $1,747,604.72. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61259 through #61271 for $466,539.20, benefit checks #61272 through #61280 and wire payments of $398,232.21 for the pay period October 16, 2014 through October 31, 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:2,612,376.13 Fiscal Impact: Claims $1,747,604.72 Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $466,539.20 Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $398,232.21 Total Payroll $864,771.41 Attachments Claim cks 11-06-14 Project Numbers 11-06-14 Payroll Summary 10-31-14 Packet Page 26 of 411 Payroll Summary 10-31-14 Payroll Benefit 10-31-14 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 11/06/2014 11:14 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 11/06/2014 11:15 AM Mayor Dave Earling 11/06/2014 11:23 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/06/2014 02:44 PM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 11/06/2014 10:17 AM Final Approval Date: 11/06/2014  Packet Page 27 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211337 11/6/2014 072627 911 ETC INC 29863 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT Monthly 911 database maint 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 100.00 Total :100.00 211338 11/6/2014 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 14-18009 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 1,483.01 INTERPRETER FEEMAR-2014 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 1,685.92 Total :3,168.93 211339 11/6/2014 068657 ACCOUNTEMPS 41570204 TEMPORARY HELP FINANCE DEPT WEEK ENDING Temporary help week ending 10/24/14 - C 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 1,740.00 Total :1,740.00 211340 11/6/2014 000710 ALASKAN COPPER & BRASS 274528-1 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL angle aluminum and bar 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 223.78 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 35.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 24.58 Total :283.36 211341 11/6/2014 073391 ALL CLIMATE HEATING & AIR COND BLD20140929 Online permit - not in City. Online permit - not in City. 001.000.257.620 85.00 Total :85.00 211342 11/6/2014 065568 ALLWATER INC 103014029 WWTP - DRINKING WATER water 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 16.35 1Page: Packet Page 28 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :16.3521134211/6/2014 065568 065568 ALLWATER INC 211343 11/6/2014 074695 AMERICAN MESSAGING W4-101046 Water Watch Pager Water Watch Pager 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 4.46 Total :4.46 211344 11/6/2014 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987694880 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80 mats & towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 66.96 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 6.36 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1987694881 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 37.74 Total :115.22 211345 11/6/2014 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 77431 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 89.63 UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 89.63 UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 92.34 UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 326.09 UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 326.09 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 8.51 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 8.51 2Page: Packet Page 29 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211345 11/6/2014 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 8.78 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS77554 UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 22.94 UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 22.94 UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 23.64 UB Outsourcing area #700 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 105.60 UB Outsourcing area #700 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 105.60 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 2.18 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 2.18 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 2.24 Total :1,236.90 211346 11/6/2014 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 34858 BURIAL VAULT BROWN, MARY BURIAL VAULT BROWN, MARY 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 651.00 ROUGH BOX, SHEN34997 ROUGH BOX, SHEN 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 417.00 ROUGH BOX, MARTINIS35190 ROUGH BOX, MARTINIS 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 417.00 Total :1,485.00 211347 11/6/2014 074640 B2C PUBLISHING 1844 BLUE CITY MONTHLY PROMOTIONAL AD NOVEMBE Blue City Monthly promotional ad 001.000.61.558.70.44.00 625.00 3Page: Packet Page 30 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :625.0021134711/6/2014 074640 074640 B2C PUBLISHING 211348 11/6/2014 075073 BADGETT-YOUNG, SHARMAN WOTS CONTEST WOTS CONTEST NONFICTION FIRST PLACE AWAR WOTS CONTEST NONFICTION FIRST PLACE 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 100.00 Total :100.00 211349 11/6/2014 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 0796287-IN Fleet Auto Propane - 626.3 Gal Fleet Auto Propane - 626.3 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 1,006.20 Total :1,006.20 211350 11/6/2014 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 9100 TO 14-01 ENG20140441 EDMONDS PARK APTS P T.O.14-01.ENG20140441 Edmonds Park Apts 001.000.245.963 2,013.75 Total :2,013.75 211351 11/6/2014 065739 BOBBY WOLFORD TRUCKING &216 Storm - Dump Fees Storm - Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 920.00 Total :920.00 211352 11/6/2014 075013 BOS, JESSICA 19141 CHEER 19141 SUPERSQUAD CHEER INSTRUCTOR FEE 19141 SUPERSQUAD CHEER INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 185.26 Total :185.26 211353 11/6/2014 075046 BROOKHART, CHRISTY 9/1914 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211354 11/6/2014 075072 BUNKER, JAN MARIE 11/1/2014 11/1 ETIQUETTE INTERPRETIVE SERVICES 11/1 ETIQUETTE INTERPRETIVE SERVICES 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 90.00 Total :90.00 4Page: Packet Page 31 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211355 11/6/2014 064861 CAIN BOLT AND GASKET INC 130473 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL spiral wound graph 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 59.82 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 10.05 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 6.64 Total :76.51 211356 11/6/2014 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 14279974 CANNON CONTRACT CHARGES Cannon contract charges C5051 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 83.35 Cannon contract charges C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 83.35 Cannon contract charges C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 83.29 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 7.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 7.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 7.91 Total :273.74 211357 11/6/2014 075059 CAROLUS, SANDRA 91914 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211358 11/6/2014 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC PK85655 CISCO NETWORK SWITCH FOR HR DIRECTOR'S O Cisco 8PT SG 200-08 SLM2008T-NA switch 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 112.09 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 10.65 LOGITECH TRACKMAN MARBLE MOUSEPX76246 Logitech Trackman Marble Mouse 5Page: Packet Page 32 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211358 11/6/2014 (Continued)069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 31.76 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 3.02 BELKIN CAT5E KEYSTONE JACKSQK00279 Belkin Cat5e Keystone Jack - White - 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 69.73 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 6.62 SERVERS, HARD DRIVES, KITSQL04383 HP Proliant DL380p Gen 8 E5-2640 Server 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 3,900.00 HP SB 8GB 1RX4 PC3-12800R-11 Kit Part 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 260.00 HP SB 1TB 6G Hot Swap hard drive Part 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 1,600.00 HP 146GB 6G Hard drive Part #652605-S21 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 530.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 597.55 FIBER CABLESSE1400360 Fiber cables for server/switch upgrade 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 76.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 7.27 Total :7,205.21 211359 11/6/2014 068484 CEMEX LLC 9429560912 Roadway - Asphalt Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 425.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 40.38 Storm Dump Fees9429584316 Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 225.16 Roadway - Asphalt9429632075 6Page: Packet Page 33 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211359 11/6/2014 (Continued)068484 CEMEX LLC Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 215.60 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 20.48 Total :926.62 211360 11/6/2014 069534 CLINGINGSMITH, VERONA A 91914 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211361 11/6/2014 071389 COASTAL WEAR PRODUCTS INC 5174 Unit 66- Gutter Brooms and Tube Broom Unit 66- Gutter Brooms and Tube Broom 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1,850.00 Unit 138 ($1813.90) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1,627.20 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 25.00 Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 311.70 Total :3,813.90 211362 11/6/2014 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2708147-1 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES DOME TOPS FOR 55 GL BRUTE GY 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 535.73 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 50.89 Fac Maint - Seat Covers, TT, Towels,W2714270 Fac Maint - Seat Covers, TT, Towels, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 671.23 PW - Sanitizer Refills 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 21.69 PW - Sanitizer Refills 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 21.69 PW - Sanitizer Refills 7Page: Packet Page 34 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211362 11/6/2014 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 21.69 PW - Sanitizer Refills 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 21.69 PW - Sanitizer Refills 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 21.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 63.77 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 2.06 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 2.06 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.06 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2.06 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 2.06 Total :1,440.38 211363 11/6/2014 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC NOV-14 C/A CITYOFED00001 Nov-14 Fiber Optics Internet Connection 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 406.00 Total :406.00 211364 11/6/2014 073387 COLELLA, CAROL 10/30 GYM ATTENDANT 10/2 - 10/30/14 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT 10/2 - 10/30/14 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 175.00 Total :175.00 211365 11/6/2014 070323 COMCAST 8498 31 030 0721433 CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES 820 15TH ST SW CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES 820 15TH ST SW 130.000.64.536.20.42.00 122.82 Total :122.82 211366 11/6/2014 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING OCT 2014 DRY CLEANING SEPT/OCT - EDMONDS PD 8Page: Packet Page 35 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211366 11/6/2014 (Continued)065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING CLEANING/LAUNDRY SEPT/OCT 2014 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 787.35 Total :787.35 211367 11/6/2014 075042 COVERALL OF WASHINGTON 7100155193 WWTP - JANITORIAL upholstery cleaning 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 345.00 Total :345.00 211368 11/6/2014 069529 D & G BACKHOE INC E4FA/E2FB.Pmt 1 E4FA.E2FB.PMT 1 THRU 10/07/14 E4FA.Pmt 1 thru 10/07/14 422.000.72.594.31.65.20 100,244.70 E2FB.Pmt 1 thru 10/07/14 422.000.72.594.31.65.20 51,641.21 Total :151,885.91 211369 11/6/2014 075049 DAVIDSON, RUSELL 919*14 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211370 11/6/2014 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 14-3491 MINUTE TAKING Council Minutes 10/28 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 399.30 Total :399.30 211371 11/6/2014 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 10312014 STATE LOBBYIST OCTOBER 2014 State lobbyist for October 2014 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 2,600.00 Total :2,600.00 211372 11/6/2014 074389 DRAKE, BARB 11/1 PUPPETS 11/1 PUPPETS, LARGE AND SMALL PUPPETS, LARGE: PILEATED WOODPECKER, 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 46.40 Total :46.40 9Page: Packet Page 36 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211373 11/6/2014 074492 EARTHCORPS 4895 MARSH BUFFER ENHANCEMENTS TASK 3: INVASIVE VEGETATION REMOVAL 125.000.64.575.50.41.00 1,522.05 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJECT MANAGEMENT4896 TASK 1 GENERAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND 125.000.64.575.50.41.00 3,579.40 Total :5,101.45 211374 11/6/2014 074030 ECHELBARGER INVESTMENTS LLC PRE20140035 Originally taken in as a formal Pre-Ap Originally taken in as a formal Pre-Ap 001.000.257.620 655.00 Total :655.00 211375 11/6/2014 061580 ECKSTROM INDUSTRIES 00052879 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL fabricated aluminum 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 340.00 9.2% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 31.28 Total :371.28 211376 11/6/2014 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 000424 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES: ELBOW 90 S ABS, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.56 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.72 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES000427 MASONRY BIT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.79 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.27 Parks - Supplies000430 Fac Maint Parks - Supplies 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.53 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.29 10Page: Packet Page 37 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :26.1621137611/6/2014 074302 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 211377 11/6/2014 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 7-05276 CEMETERY SEWER & STORM 820 15TH ST SW / CEMETERY SEWER & STORM 820 15TH ST SW / 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 136.46 Total :136.46 211378 11/6/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 104055 CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 COPIER Excess meter charges 07/30/14 - 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 22.35 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 2.12 PM A7078 C1030 COPIER MAINT106109 1 PM A7078 C1030 COPIER MAINTENANCE 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 16.34 FLEET COPY USE106110 Fleet Copy Use 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.01 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.10 WATER SEWER COPY USE106129 Water Sewer Copy Use 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 37.36 Water Sewer Copy Use 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 37.35 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3.55 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 3.55 PW COPY USE106131 PW Copy Use 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 26.80 PW Copy Use 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 15.18 PW Copy Use 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 15.18 11Page: Packet Page 38 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211378 11/6/2014 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES PW Copy Use 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.72 PW Copy Use 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 10.72 PW Copy Use 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.72 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 2.55 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 1.44 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 1.44 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.02 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.02 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.02 WWTP - OFFICE MACHINE MAINTENANCE106215 office machine metered copies 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 13.66 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 1.30 P&R A7027 C5051 COPIER106230 1 P&R A7027 C5051 COPIER 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 223.15 CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 COPIER106231 Meter charges 09/30/14 - 10/30/14 B&W, 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 149.16 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 14.17 COPIER CHARGES C5051106232 Copier charges for C5051 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 88.34 12Page: Packet Page 39 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211378 11/6/2014 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES Copier charges for C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 88.34 Copier charges for C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 88.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 8.39 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 8.39 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 8.39 METER READING106240 10/30 to 11/30 Meter Reading 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 402.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 38.24 COPIER CHARGES C1030106396 Copier charges for C1030 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 9.56 Copier charges for C1030 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 9.56 Copier charges for C1030 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 9.55 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 0.91 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.91 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.90 Total :1,385.26 211379 11/6/2014 071108 ENVIROCARE INTERNATIONAL INC 11703 WWTP - MERCURY MODULE RETROFIT Venturipak INtegrated Mercury control 423.100.76.594.39.65.00 8,990.00 Total :8,990.00 13Page: Packet Page 40 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211380 11/6/2014 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH596420 Opal Govier/PLN20140058 legals. Opal Govier/PLN20140058 legals. 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 73.96 Total :73.96 211381 11/6/2014 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU33715 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES: 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 54.93 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.22 LS 7 - SuppliesWAMOU33790 LS 7 - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 76.76 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 7.29 LS7 - SuppliesWAMOU33796 LS7 - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 12.81 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.22 PARKS MAINT YOST SUPPLIESWAMOU33846 PARKS MAINT YOST SUPPLIES: HEVHXNUT, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 56.68 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.39 Fac Maint - SupplieWAMOU33857 Fac Maint - Supplie 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 55.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.29 Total :281.30 211382 11/6/2014 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 103114 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 20,000.00 14Page: Packet Page 41 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :20,000.0021138211/6/2014 009895 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 211383 11/6/2014 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0441620 Sewer - Supplies Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 17.04 Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.31 Total :18.35 211384 11/6/2014 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 10006604 Flex Plan monthly fee Flex Plan monthly fee 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 75.00 Total :75.00 211385 11/6/2014 011900 FRONTIER 253-003-6887 LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 41.67 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GRADE253-012-9189 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE GRADE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 41.08 WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRADE SPECIAL253-017-7256 WWTP TELEMETRY - 8 VOICEGRADE SPECIAL 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 217.18 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHONE425-745-5055 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHONE 001.000.64.575.56.42.00 78.93 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE425-771-5553 WWTP AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 108.63 CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH AVE N425-776-6829 CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 126.76 Total :614.25 211386 11/6/2014 073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA 19187 TAEKWON-DO 19187 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 19187 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 15Page: Packet Page 42 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211386 11/6/2014 (Continued)073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 421.54 Total :421.54 211387 11/6/2014 075075 GEORGE & KATHLEEN HAAB 2-25670 #500017855-KD UTILITY REFUND #500017855-KD Utility refund - received 411.000.233.000 178.22 Total :178.22 211388 11/6/2014 075054 GERLACH, DAVID 91914 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211389 11/6/2014 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA 19222 QIGONG 19222 QIGONG INSTRUCTOR FEE 19222 QIGONG INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 156.13 19224 QIGONG INSTRUCTOR FEE19224 QIGONG 19224 QIGONG INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 190.00 19226 TAI CHI INSTRUCTOR FEE19226 TAI CHI 19226 TAI CHI INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 216.00 19227 TAI CHI INSTRUCTOR FEE19227 TAI CHI 19227 TAI CHI INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 150.00 19229 TAI CHI INSTRUCTOR FEE19229 TAI CHI 19229 TAI CHI INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 169.71 19233 TAI CHI INSTRUCTOR FEE19233 TAI CHI 19233 TAI CHI INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 252.00 19235 MOVING FOR BETTER BALANCE INSTRUCT19235 MOVING FOR BET 19235 MOVING FOR BETTER BALANCE 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 53.76 Total :1,187.60 16Page: Packet Page 43 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211390 11/6/2014 072515 GOOGLE INC 10596422 C/A #396392 MESSAGE DISCOVERY BILLING Internet Anti-Virus & Spam Maint Fee - 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 420.00 Total :420.00 211391 11/6/2014 071759 GRANICH ENGINEERED PRODUCTS 13425 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL fairbank morse shaft 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 2,221.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 27.66 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 213.62 Total :2,462.28 211392 11/6/2014 075078 GREEN CITY HEATING & AIR BLD20141077 Entered into photocopies instead of the Entered into photocopies instead of the 001.000.341.81.000.00 18.26 Tax to be refunded also. 001.000.237.110 1.74 Total :20.00 211393 11/6/2014 073533 H2NATION PUBLISHING INC 1454 TOURISM WEBSITE CONFIGURATION 85% COMPLE Tourism website VisitEdmonds.com 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 3,120.00 Total :3,120.00 211394 11/6/2014 075074 HAGUE, RYAN BLD20141070 Homeowner decided to wait until summer Homeowner decided to wait until summer 001.000.257.620 115.00 Total :115.00 211395 11/6/2014 074804 HARLES, JANINE 197310 PHOTOGRAPHY FOR OCTOBER 2013 Photography for October 2014 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.00 Total :200.00 211396 11/6/2014 074638 HEALY, TERESA 19071 LITTLE FISHES 19071 LITTLE FISHES PRESCHOOL PREP INSTR 17Page: Packet Page 44 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211396 11/6/2014 (Continued)074638 HEALY, TERESA 19071 LITTLE FISHES PRESCHOOL PREP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 486.00 Total :486.00 211397 11/6/2014 071368 HEFFERAN, BRIGITTE 19232 CALLIGRAPHY 19232 CALLIGRAPHY INSTRUCTOR FEE 19232 CALLIGRAPHY INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 451.00 Total :451.00 211398 11/6/2014 073880 HITE, CARRIE 10/23/14 EXP REIMB NRPA CONGRESS EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT - TR TRAINING-NRPA CONGRESS NATURAL 001.000.64.571.21.49.00 50.00 Total :50.00 211399 11/6/2014 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 8280558 WWTP - SUPPLIES wedge anchors 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 253.98 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 24.13 Total :278.11 211400 11/6/2014 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 25465 E1FD.TO 14-01 SERVICES THRU 10/23/14 E1FD.TO 14-01 Services thru 10/23/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 2,764.88 Total :2,764.88 211401 11/6/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2527324 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 45.99 SUPPLIES2527772 SUPPLIES 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 -38.34 SUPPLIES2529540 SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 122.67 Misc. office supplies - hand sanitizer.2530172 18Page: Packet Page 45 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211401 11/6/2014 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED Misc. office supplies - hand sanitizer. 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 109.86 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 10.43 WWTP - SUPPLIES, FACILITIES2532617 office supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 162.73 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 15.46 Shared office supplies- copier paper2532628 Shared office supplies- copier paper 001.000.22.521.10.31.00 40.00 Shared office supplies- copier paper 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 40.00 Shared office supplies- copier paper 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 40.00 office supplies 001.000.22.521.10.31.00 34.77 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.521.10.31.00 7.10 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 3.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 3.80 SUPPLIES2532647 SUPPLIES 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 74.93 Misc. office supplies - green 8/12x142534273 Misc. office supplies - green 8/12x14 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 14.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 1.42 Misc. office supplies - wall calendar2534853 Misc. office supplies - wall calendar 19Page: Packet Page 46 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211401 11/6/2014 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 20.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 1.97 SHARPIE HIGHLIGHTERS2535011 Sharpie Major Accent Highlighters - 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 8.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 0.83 WWTP - OFFICE FURNISHINGS2535436 office furnishings 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 357.74 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 33.99 CALENDARS, APPOINTMENT BOOK, FILE FOLDER2535595 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 23.76 Calendars for Finance dept, Sparco 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 250.13 AVERY TABS, POST IT FILE TABS2535702 Avery Printable Self adhesive tabs, 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 12.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 1.22 Total :1,401.53 211402 11/6/2014 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 3432 FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNECTION Nov-14 Fiber Optics Internet Connection 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 500.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 47.50 Total :547.50 211403 11/6/2014 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 632931 WWTP - HYPOCHLORITE hypochlorite solution 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 2,562.45 20Page: Packet Page 47 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211403 11/6/2014 (Continued)015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC hazardous substance tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 17.94 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 243.43 WWTP - HYPOCHLORITE636594 hypochlorie solution, 4586 g 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 2,522.30 hazardous substance tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 17.66 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 239.62 Total :5,603.40 211404 11/6/2014 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD 19146 DIGITAL PHOTO 19146 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY INSTRUCTOR FEE 19146 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 64.50 Total :64.50 211405 11/6/2014 073924 KEARNS, JESSIKA CHRISTINE 19100 TAEKWON-DO 19100 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 19100 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 185.50 19104 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE19104 TAEKWON-DO 19104 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 224.00 Total :409.50 211406 11/6/2014 067877 KINGSTON LUMBER SUPPLY COMPANY 548863 Finance Fee for Invoice 312445 Finance Fee for Invoice 312445 111.000.68.542.31.49.00 25.45 Total :25.45 211407 11/6/2014 075051 KNIPE, LISA 91914 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 21Page: Packet Page 48 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211408 11/6/2014 075053 KUH, AMY 91914 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211409 11/6/2014 074135 LAFAVE, CAROLYN 11052014 NEGITA MEMORIAL FLOWERS Flowers for Mayor Negitas wife's funeral 138.200.21.557.21.49.00 221.56 Total :221.56 211410 11/6/2014 074848 LONG BAY ENTERPRISES INC 2012-212 SAP IMPLEMENTATION CONSULTANT OCTOBER 20 Strategic Action Plan consultant for 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 5,130.00 Total :5,130.00 211411 11/6/2014 075063 LYDD PROPERTIES BLD20140729 Charged as Single Family Residence Charged as Single Family Residence 001.000.257.620 787.78 Charged Park Impact fees as SingleBLD20140730 Charged Park Impact fees as Single 001.000.257.620 787.78 Total :1,575.56 211412 11/6/2014 075057 LYNCH, ROY 91914 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211413 11/6/2014 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 006006-00 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES: SER 5 P/F SS SAM, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 370.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 35.15 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES006054-00 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES: 20 OZ RED/ORANGE, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 65.71 22Page: Packet Page 49 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211413 11/6/2014 (Continued)074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.24 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES006055-00 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES: BODY RUBBER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 186.07 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 17.68 Total :680.85 211414 11/6/2014 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1365 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1366 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1367 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1368 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1377 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1396 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1397 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 Total :618.24 211415 11/6/2014 068670 MARSHBANK CONSTRUCTION INC E1AA.Pmt 5 E1AA.PMT 5 THRU 10/31/14 E1AA.Pmt 5 thru 10/31/14 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 782,008.53 23Page: Packet Page 50 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :782,008.5321141511/6/2014 068670 068670 MARSHBANK CONSTRUCTION INC 211416 11/6/2014 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 15779616 WWTP - SUPPLIES & REPAIR work gloves 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 181.54 strut channel & stud anchor 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 438.22 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 19.21 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL15796046 diesel pump process 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 1,037.74 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 7.77 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, MECHANICAL16011271 cogged v-belt 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 82.32 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 6.61 Total :1,773.41 211417 11/6/2014 074831 MILLER PAINT COMPANY 28408809 Traffic - Black Marking Paint Traffic - Black Marking Paint 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 84.80 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 8.05 Traffic - Black Marking Paint28411253 Traffic - Black Marking Paint 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 84.80 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 8.05 Total :185.70 211418 11/6/2014 072223 MILLER, DOUG 10/29/14 GYM MONITOR 10/1-10/29/14 GYM MONITOR 10/1-10/29/14 GYM MONITOR 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 175.00 24Page: Packet Page 51 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :175.0021141811/6/2014 072223 072223 MILLER, DOUG 211419 11/6/2014 075056 MILLER, KATHLEEN 91914 JUROR FEES JUROR FEES 001.000.23.523.30.49.20 15.60 Total :15.60 211420 11/6/2014 075076 N ERIC & STACY HEATH 3-11550 #4245-2244102 UTILITY REFUND #4245-2244102 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 97.90 Total :97.90 211421 11/6/2014 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0389609-IN Storm - Supplies Storm - Supplies 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 346.80 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 32.94 Total :379.74 211422 11/6/2014 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0534603-IN Fleet Shop Coolant Fleet Shop Coolant 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 520.30 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 49.43 Total :569.73 211423 11/6/2014 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 56453 WWTP - SODIUM BISULFITE - 38% sodium bisulfite 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 994.50 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 94.48 Total :1,088.98 211424 11/6/2014 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1051377 HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 220.77 WILLOW CREEK PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1051764 25Page: Packet Page 52 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211424 11/6/2014 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC WILLOW CREEK PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 EDMONDS MARSH BOARDWALK HONEY BUCKET2-1054255 EDMONDS MARSH BOARDWALK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 145.00 YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET2-1054396 YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 310.99 Total :792.41 211425 11/6/2014 068117 NPELRA Hardie33679 National Public Employer Labor National Public Employer Labor 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 200.00 Total :200.00 211426 11/6/2014 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 054029 INV#054029 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD DVD+R DISCS 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 64.40 LEGAL PADS - SMALL 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 6.46 LEGAL PADS - 8.5 X 11 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 12.08 POST IT NOTES 3X5 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 34.80 POST IT NOTES 3X3 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 25.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 6.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 7.52 OFFICE SUPPLIES072239 Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 172.05 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 16.34 26Page: Packet Page 53 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211426 11/6/2014 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC INV#073698 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD073698 CDR RECORDABLE DISCS 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 16.57 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 1.58 INV#131882 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD131882 MONTHLY MINDER (COMPAAN) 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 7.15 DESK CALENDAR (EAGER/SCHLICK) 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 20.30 DESK CALENDAR (MARSH) 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 6.65 DESK PAD CALENDAR 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 12.00 3 MO WALL CALENDAR 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 13.45 DESK PAD CALENDAR 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 2.50 YEARLY WALL CALENDAR (CLERKS) 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 9.20 CALENDARS FOR PATROL DESKS 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 20.00 DESK CALENDAR (ROTH) 001.000.41.521.71.31.00 8.30 DESK CALENDAR (MACK) 001.000.41.521.71.31.00 10.15 DESK CALENDAR (DAWSON) 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 6.65 DESK CALENDAR (SHOEMAKE) 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 10.15 DESK CALENDAR (MCINTYRE) 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 10.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 3.24 27Page: Packet Page 54 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211426 11/6/2014 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 2.66 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 0.87 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 1.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.71.31.00 1.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 1.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 0.96 520437 PARKS & REC OFFICE SUPPLIES156395 OFFICE SUPPLIES: LEGAL PADS, TAPE 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 12.51 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 1.18 Total :527.18 211427 11/6/2014 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0000130 PLANTER IRRIGATION 220TH ST SW & 84TH AV PLANTER IRRIGATION 220TH ST SW & 84TH 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 13.89 CEMETERY 820 15TH ST SW0001520 CEMETERY 820 15TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 35.28 CEMETERY SPRINKLER 820 15TH ST SW0001530 CEMETERY SPRINKLER 820 15TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 129.03 SPRINKLER @ 5TH AVE S & SR1040002930 SPRINKLER @ 5TH AVE S & SR104 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.48 FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / METER R1300021400 FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 189.28 PLANTER IRRIGATION 10415 226TH PL SW0026390 28Page: Packet Page 55 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211427 11/6/2014 (Continued)026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT PLANTER IRRIGATION 10415 226TH PL SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.48 Total :398.44 211428 11/6/2014 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 12289 YOST POOL WINTER SUPPLIES YOST POOL WINTER SUPPLIES: ACID MAGIC, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 445.35 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 42.31 Total :487.66 211429 11/6/2014 063588 PACIFIC POWER PRODUCTS CO 6402060-00 Unit 98 - Cover Plates Unit 98 - Cover Plates 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 56.40 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 36.13 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.79 Total :101.32 211430 11/6/2014 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 18-82048 E1FD.SERVICES THRU 9/26/14 E1FD.Services thru 9/26/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 1,571.48 WWTP - DISINFECTION SYSTEM SERVICE18-82052 phase 3, task order 9.14 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 6,399.23 Total :7,970.71 211431 11/6/2014 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 105413 INV#105413 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2003 ACURA #BLR0164 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.77 Total :181.77 29Page: Packet Page 56 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211432 11/6/2014 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC F300598 Traffic - Signal Loop Wire Traffic - Signal Loop Wire 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 590.00 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 69.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 62.61 YOST POOL SUPPLIESF396408 YOST POOL SUPPLIES: SIE 02020 BRKR 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 27.86 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.65 Fac Maint - SuppliesF415959 Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 81.93 City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 43.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.94 City Hall - FanF423936 City Hall - Fan 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 295.32 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.06 WWTP - SUPPLIES, ELECTRICF433679 500 ft 12, white 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 83.54 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 7.94 WWTP - SUPPLIES, ELECTRICF436359 120V, 16 amp coils 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 236.25 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 22.44 WWTP - SUPPLIES, ELECTRICF436446 30Page: Packet Page 57 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211432 11/6/2014 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC electric supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 -217.49 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 -20.66 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, REPAIRF445809 steel covers, wallplates & wire 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 55.51 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 5.27 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICF454504 1/2 steel cover 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 31.65 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 3.01 Total :1,420.54 211433 11/6/2014 073231 POLYDYNE INC 921857 WWTP - SUPPLIES, POLYMER polymer clarifloc 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 4,092.00 WWTP - SUPPLIES, POLYMER923199 polymer clarifloc 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 8,184.00 Total :12,276.00 211434 11/6/2014 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 94703 INV#94703 - EDMONDS PD TOW 1999 HONDA CIVIC #ADZ3341 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.77 Total :181.77 211435 11/6/2014 075031 REECE, CARLY 10/28/14 GYM MONITOR 10/7-10/28/14 VOLLEYBALL GYM MONITOR 10/7-10/28/14 VOLLEYBALL GYM MONITOR 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 140.00 31Page: Packet Page 58 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :140.0021143511/6/2014 075031 075031 REECE, CARLY 211436 11/6/2014 066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SOUND & DATA 21660 WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, FACILITIES multi port manager, main door 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 386.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 36.67 Total :422.67 211437 11/6/2014 074335 SAVAGE, LINDA 19143 ETIQUETTE 19143 ETIQUETTE INSTRUCTOR FEE 19143 ETIQUETTE INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 150.00 Total :150.00 211438 11/6/2014 073486 SEATTLE KING CO CONVENTION &82001 MEMBERSHIP VISITSEATTLE.ORG 2014 Membership in Seattle Convention and 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 390.00 Total :390.00 211439 11/6/2014 070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC 91163 E4FC.SERVICES THRU 10/11/14 E4FC.Services thru 10/11/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 38,777.77 Total :38,777.77 211440 11/6/2014 068132 SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION CO E3GA.Pmt 3 E3GA.PMT 3 THRU 9/26/14 E3GA.Pmt 3 thru 9/26/14 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 231,842.01 Total :231,842.01 211441 11/6/2014 068177 SHRM 9005924260 Society for Human Resource Management Society for Human Resource Management 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 185.00 Total :185.00 211442 11/6/2014 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC 1141969 BUSINESS LICENSE RENEWAL Business License Renewals. 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 359.65 32Page: Packet Page 59 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211442 11/6/2014 (Continued)036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC Composing 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 20.00 Shipping & Handling 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 24.54 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 38.40 Total :442.59 211443 11/6/2014 068816 SIMPLEX GRINNELL 77350494 WWTP - FIRE EXT. SERVICE sprinkler test & inspection 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 320.99 Total :320.99 211444 11/6/2014 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-295319 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 113.56 9.2% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 10.45 Total :124.01 211445 11/6/2014 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 19154 FIRST AID/CPR 19154 FIRST AID/CPR INSTRUCTOR FEE 19154 FIRST AID/CPR INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 400.00 Total :400.00 211446 11/6/2014 066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS I000367935 E4CA/E4CB/E4CC.SERVICES THRU SEPTEMBER 2 E4CA.Services thru September 2014 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 11,184.20 E4CA.Services thru September 2014 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 250,417.06 E4CB.Services thru September 2014 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 2,162.95 E4CC.Services thru September 2014 112.200.68.595.33.65.00 59,227.52 33Page: Packet Page 60 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :322,991.7321144611/6/2014 066754 066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS 211447 11/6/2014 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0291-9 LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AVE / METER LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AVE / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 111.49 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W / METER 12002-7495-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 31.27 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W / METER 12004-9315-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 51.13 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W / METER 12005-9488-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 30.50 ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / METER 1000252006-6395-3 ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / METER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 195.58 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW / METER 12007-4860-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.33 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND AVE S / METE2009-1385-3 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND AVE S / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 39.14 BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 RAILROAD AVE2010-5432-7 BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 RAILROAD 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 99.41 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W / METER 12011-8789-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 36.06 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W / METER 12011-9222-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.33 LIFT STATION 7403 BALLINGER WAY / METER2014-2731-7 LIFT STATION 7403 BALLINGER WAY / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 32.33 LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH PL SW /2015-0127-7 34Page: Packet Page 61 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211447 11/6/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH PL SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.85 LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON ST / METER2015-3292-6 LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON ST / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 284.97 WWTP FLOW METER 23219 74TH AVE W / METER2019-2991-6 WWTP FLOW METER 23219 74TH AVE W / 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 42.33 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 RAILROAD AV2021-3965-5 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 RAILROAD 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212TH ST SW /2021-9128-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212TH ST SW / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 32.33 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8909-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 107.56 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W / METER 12023-5673-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 42.40 LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST / METER 12024-9953-9 LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 769.01 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT2025-2920-2 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 116.09 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250W) / NOT2025-7948-8 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 337.50 WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICE / NOT MET2025-7952-0 WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICE / NOT 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 8.77 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150W) / NOT M2047-1489-3 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 3.75 35Page: Packet Page 62 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211447 11/6/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200W) / NOT2047-1492-7 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 83.38 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT2047-1493-5 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 43.94 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100W) / NOT2047-1494-3 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 11.15 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250W) / NOT2047-1495-0 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 151.58 DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING 226122053-0758-0 DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING 22612 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 330.91 Total :3,129.86 211448 11/6/2014 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2014-2278 INV#2014-2278 - EDMONDS PD 49.67 BOOKINGS @$95.94 - 09/14 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 4,765.34 13 HOME DET @ $17.06 - 09/14 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 221.78 335.33 HOUSING DAYS @$66.63-09/14 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 22,343.04 7 HOUSING @$66.63-07/14 (BERN) 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 466.41 1 HOUSING @$66.63-06/14 (BERN) 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 66.63 41 WORK RELEASE @$44.77-09/14 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,835.57 CREDITS ON #2014-2278 SNO CO JAIL2014-2278 28 WORK RELEASE $30 - LOUKAS 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -840.00 Total :28,858.77 36Page: Packet Page 63 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211449 11/6/2014 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE I000367774 INV#I000367774 CUST#SSH00095 EDMONDS PD SCSO RANGE USAGE 9 HRS 10/8/14 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 450.00 SCSO RANGE USAGE 9 HRS 10/9/14 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 450.00 INV#I000367911 CUST#SSH00095 EDMONDS PDI000367911 SCSO RANGE USAGE 10 HRS 10/20/14 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 500.00 INV#I000367977 CUST#SSH00095 EDMONDS PDI000367977 SCSO RANGE USAGE 10.5 HRS 10/21/14 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 525.00 Total :1,925.00 211450 11/6/2014 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER October 2014 Crime Victims Court Remittance Crime Victims Court Remittance 001.000.237.140 691.00 Total :691.00 211451 11/6/2014 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 550.68 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLING103584 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / RECYCLING 423.000.76.535.80.47.66 29.95 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST103585 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 674.47 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST103586 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 555.23 PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RECYCLING103587 PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RECYCLING 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 785.08 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N103588 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 459.89 37Page: Packet Page 64 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :3,055.3021145111/6/2014 038300 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 211452 11/6/2014 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4241355-01 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES: CL WP/B BIB 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 142.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.49 Total :155.49 211453 11/6/2014 075019 STATE PERMITS INC BLD20140679 Applicant withdrew application. Applicant withdrew application. 001.000.257.620 478.50 Total :478.50 211454 11/6/2014 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 11419128 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 42.06 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 4.00 Fleet Shop Supplies30592789 Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 14.58 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 1.39 Total :62.03 211455 11/6/2014 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 68686 Fac Maint - TShirts Fac Maint - TShirts 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 220.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 20.90 Total :240.90 211456 11/6/2014 063796 TECHNOLOGY UNLIMITED INC 288588 INV#288588 ACCT#11386 - EDMONDS PD ANN MAIN AGMT CANON MS400 001.000.41.521.11.41.00 350.00 38Page: Packet Page 65 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211456 11/6/2014 (Continued)063796 TECHNOLOGY UNLIMITED INC 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.41.00 33.25 Total :383.25 211457 11/6/2014 074921 TERRA FIRMA CONSULTING 14-20 Tree Ordinance. Tree Ordinance. 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 5,425.00 Total :5,425.00 211458 11/6/2014 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 392689 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES THERMOMETER DIAL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 30.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.94 Total :33.92 211459 11/6/2014 074249 THORNQUIST, LINDA LINDA THORNQUIST Travel to WSAPT Fall Conference in Travel to WSAPT Fall Conference in 001.000.62.524.20.43.00 516.20 Registration for WSAPT Fall Conference. 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 150.00 Total :666.20 211460 11/6/2014 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9734220645 C/A 571242650-0001 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bld Dept 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 165.14 iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 55.99 iPad Cell Service Council 001.000.11.511.60.42.00 290.11 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 131.08 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Development 001.000.62.524.10.42.00 95.11 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Econ 39Page: Packet Page 66 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211460 11/6/2014 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 75.12 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering 001.000.67.532.20.42.00 531.29 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering 001.000.67.532.20.35.00 370.84 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 110.20 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 95.11 iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 95.11 iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 283.13 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 40.01 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Dept 001.000.64.571.21.42.00 55.10 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 920.04 Air cards Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 840.25 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning Dept 001.000.62.558.60.42.00 40.01 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 26.59 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 7.60 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 26.59 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 7.60 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 7.60 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Street Dept 40Page: Packet Page 67 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211460 11/6/2014 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 115.99 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Fleet 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 55.10 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 80.55 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 80.55 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer Dept 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 205.15 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 245.16 iPad Cell Service Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 120.03 iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 161.10 C/A 772540262-000019734345896 Lift Station access 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 90.57 Total :5,423.82 211461 11/6/2014 074901 WA FEDERAL %SHORELINE CONSTRUC E3GA.Ret 3 E3GA.RET 3 THRU 9/26/14 WAF 316-400163-2 E3GA.RET 3 thru 9/26/14 WAF 316-400163-2 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 11,128.80 Total :11,128.80 211462 11/6/2014 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 51930 INV#51930 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2014 PORSCHE #AQB6813 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 332.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 31.54 Total :363.54 211463 11/6/2014 071424 WASHINGTON ENERGY SERVICES BLD20141032 Applicant made incorrect charges when Applicant made incorrect charges when 001.000.257.620 70.00 41Page: Packet Page 68 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 42 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :70.0021146311/6/2014 071424 071424 WASHINGTON ENERGY SERVICES 211464 11/6/2014 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 0000026278 Traffic - 1' Pigtail Connector Traffic - 1' Pigtail Connector 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 63.91 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 6.07 Total :69.98 211465 11/6/2014 065980 WONDERWARE PACWEST 404768 WWTP - SERVICE RENEWAL, OPERATIONS Customer First - Standard Level Renewal 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 12,700.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 1,206.50 Total :13,906.50 211466 11/6/2014 073479 WU, THOMAS 1039 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 148.39 Total :148.39 211467 11/6/2014 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1034 OCT-14 RETAINER Monthly Retainer 001.000.36.515.33.41.00 13,657.80 Total :13,657.80 211468 11/6/2014 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0172777 Traffic - Sign Posts Traffic - Sign Posts 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 606.00 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 75.23 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 64.72 Total :745.95 Bank total : 1,747,604.72132 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 42Page: Packet Page 69 of 411 11/06/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 43 9:43:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 1,747,604.72Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report132 43Page: Packet Page 70 of 411 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 11/6/2014 Packet Page 71 of 411 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 11/6/2014 Packet Page 72 of 411 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 11/6/2014 Packet Page 73 of 411 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 11/6/2014 Packet Page 74 of 411 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 11/6/2014 Packet Page 75 of 411 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 11/6/2014 Packet Page 76 of 411 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 11/6/2014 Packet Page 77 of 411 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 11/6/2014 Packet Page 78 of 411 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 11/6/2014 Packet Page 79 of 411 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 11/6/2014 Packet Page 80 of 411 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 11/6/2014 Packet Page 81 of 411 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 11/6/2014 Packet Page 82 of 411 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 676 (10/16/2014 to 10/31/2014) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description Educational Pay CorrectionREGULAR HOURS-ed2 0.00 -156.28 10% OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUS00c1 0.00 256.35 NO PAY LEAVEABSENT111 16.00 0.00 NO PAY NON HIREDABSENT112 28.00 0.00 SICK LEAVESICK121 445.75 13,072.93 VACATIONVACATION122 1,127.25 36,627.80 HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY123 77.00 2,370.10 FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY124 9.00 251.03 COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125 215.00 6,432.63 Holiday Compensation UsedCOMP HOURS130 5.50 151.04 MILITARY LEAVEMILITARY131 34.00 982.69 JURY DUTYJURY DUTY132 8.00 366.79 Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150 96.00 3,440.45 COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155 102.51 4,237.57 MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION160 15.00 868.69 COUNCIL BASE PAYREGULAR HOURS170 700.00 7,000.00 COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAYREGULAR HOURS174 0.00 200.00 COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICALREGULAR HOURS175 0.00 694.93 REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 17,289.25 556,801.36 FIRE PENSION PAYMENTSREGULAR HOURS191 4.00 2,267.58 LIGHT DUTYREGULAR HOURS193 27.00 554.71 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVEREGULAR HOURS195 96.00 2,841.50 LIGHT DUTYREGULAR HOURS196 89.50 2,917.70 OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS210 1.00 30.19 WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 60.00 2,738.86 STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS216 16.00 1,425.68 OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 228.75 13,727.06 OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS225 1.25 84.55 SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL411 0.00 864.03 RETROACTIVE PAYRETROACTIVE PAY600 0.00 610.90 ACCRUED COMPCOMP HOURS602 74.25 0.00 ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS604 120.25 0.00 ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS606 7.30 0.00 ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc 0.00 24.22 11/06/2014 Page 1 of 3 Packet Page 83 of 411 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 676 (10/16/2014 to 10/31/2014) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description Accreditation 1% Part TimeMISCELLANEOUSacp 0.00 0.00 ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs 0.00 166.65 BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc 0.00 81.17 Repayment AgreementREGULAR HOURScell 0.00 -60.96 Collision ReconstructionistMISCELLANEOUScolre 0.00 135.29 TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl 0.00 140.18 CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt 0.00 516.16 DETECTIVE PAYMISCELLANEOUSdet 0.00 97.80 Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUSdet4 0.00 942.14 EDUCATION PAY 2%EDUCATION PAYed1 0.00 761.21 EDUCATION PAY 4%EDUCATION PAYed2 0.00 700.90 EDUCATION PAY 6%EDUCATION PAYed3 0.00 4,360.95 HOLIDAYHOLIDAYhol 1.00 29.60 K-9 PAYMISCELLANEOUSk9 0.00 198.25 LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITYlg1 0.00 1,639.04 LONGEVITY 5.5%LONGEVITYlg10 0.00 399.81 LONGEVITY PAY 4%LONGEVITY PAYlg2 0.00 801.96 LONGEVITY 6%LONGEVITY PAYlg3 0.00 5,379.00 Longevity 1%LONGEVITYlg4 0.00 261.77 Longevity .5%LONGEVITYlg6 0.00 315.09 Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg7 0.00 794.67 Longevity 3.5%LONGEVITYlg9 0.00 84.77 Medical Leave Absent (unpaid)ABSENTmela 64.00 0.00 Medical leave CompCOMP HOURSmelc 5.25 179.62 Medical Leave SickSICKmels 75.00 2,566.01 Medical Leave VacationVACATIONmelv 22.75 778.36 MOTORCYCLE PAYMISCELLANEOUSmtc 0.00 195.60 Public Disclosure SpecialistMISCELLANEOUSpds 0.00 45.74 PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUSphy 0.00 1,447.23 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SERGEANMISCELLANEOUSprof 0.00 149.96 SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5%MISCELLANEOUSsdp 0.00 494.56 ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANTMISCELLANEOUSsgt 0.00 149.96 TRAFFICMISCELLANEOUStraf 0.00 308.07 11/06/2014 Page 2 of 3 Packet Page 84 of 411 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 676 (10/16/2014 to 10/31/2014) Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description Total Net Pay:$466,539.20 $685,745.62 21,061.56 11/06/2014 Page 3 of 3 Packet Page 85 of 411 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 676 - 10/16/2014 to 10/31/2014 Bank: usbank - US Bank Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck # 61272 11/05/2014 mebt AST TTEE 80,185.37 0.00 61273 11/05/2014 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 1,127.00 0.00 61274 11/05/2014 epoa4 EPOA-4 POLICE SUPPORT 117.00 0.00 61275 11/05/2014 flex FLEX-PLAN SERVICES, INC 625.76 0.00 61276 11/05/2014 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 894.86 0.00 61277 11/05/2014 cope SEIU COPE 87.00 0.00 61278 11/05/2014 seiu SEIU LOCAL 925 3,425.62 0.00 61279 11/05/2014 uw UNITED WAY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 504.00 0.00 61280 11/05/2014 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 1,885.81 0.00 88,852.42 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck # 2127 11/05/2014 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 144.00 0.00 2139 11/05/2014 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 187,061.29 0.00 2142 11/05/2014 aflac AFLAC 5,250.94 0.00 2145 11/05/2014 us US BANK 92,487.96 0.00 2146 11/05/2014 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 19,292.00 0.00 2148 11/05/2014 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 5,143.60 0.00 309,379.79 0.00 398,232.21 0.00Grand Totals: Page 1 of 111/6/2014 Packet Page 86 of 411    AM-7265     3. C.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:11/10/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Linda Hynd Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Action  Information Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Jostein E. Kalvoy ($383.00). Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Jostein E. Kalvoy 10209 244th Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 ($383.00) Attachments Kalvoy Claim for Damages Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 11/06/2014 10:52 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/06/2014 10:54 AM Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 11/04/2014 12:22 PM Final Approval Date: 11/06/2014  Packet Page 87 of 411 Packet Page 88 of 411 Packet Page 89 of 411 Packet Page 90 of 411 Packet Page 91 of 411 Packet Page 92 of 411    AM-7251     3. D.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:11/10/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Kody McConnell Department:Public Works Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Authorization to Contract with James G. Murphy to Sell Surplus City Vehicles and Sell a Scrap Car to Pick-n-Pull  Recommendation It is recommended that authorization be given to Public Works to contract with James G. Murphy Auctioneers and Pick-N Pull to sell and scrap surplus city vehicles. Previous Council Action N/A  Narrative Previously, the city has utilized the services of James G. Murphy Auctioneers and Pick-N-Pull to sell and scrap surplus city vehicles and equipment. This has proven to be a cost effective method to manage surplus items. The following vehicles are to be disposed of: Unit # 253-POL 2002 Dodge Stratus Vin# 1B3AL36R62N231253 (Total) Unit # 776-POL 2009 Ford Crown Victoria Vin # 2FAHP71V49X142776 Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2014 Revenue:1,500 Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: Monies will be deposited into B-Fund Replacement Account  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/29/2014 01:36 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/29/2014 02:00 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/30/2014 10:18 AM Packet Page 93 of 411 Form Started By: Kody McConnell Started On: 10/29/2014 01:18 PM Final Approval Date: 10/30/2014  Packet Page 94 of 411    AM-7252     3. E.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:11/10/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Kody McConnell Department:Public Works Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Authorization to Contract with James G. Murphy to Sell Surplus City Equipment Recommendation It is recommended that authorization be given to Public Works to contract with James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus city equipment. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Previously, the city has utilized the services of James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus city vehicles and equipment. This has proven to be a cost effective method to manage surplus items.  The following equipment: 1: 1966 Onan 15KW generator  2: 1969 Onan 30KW generator 3: 1969 Generac 45KW generator 4: 1969 Allis-Chalmers 75KW generator 5: Three old sewer camera spool/winch assemblies Items 1-4 were from the latest sewer lift station rehabs, and they include transfer switches for each. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2014 Revenue:2000 Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: Monies will be deposited into wastewater utility fund.  BARS 423.000.369.90.500.00 Form Review Packet Page 95 of 411 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/29/2014 01:36 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/29/2014 02:00 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/30/2014 10:18 AM Form Started By: Kody McConnell Started On: 10/29/2014 01:28 PM Final Approval Date: 10/30/2014  Packet Page 96 of 411    AM-7253     3. F.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:11/10/2014 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Kody McConnell Department:Public Works Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Authorization to Contract with James G. Murphy to Sell Surplus City Vehicles Recommendation It is recommended that authorization be given to Public Works to contract with James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell a surplus vehicle obtained through a seizure by the Edmonds Police Department. Previous Council Action N/A  Narrative Previously, the city has utilized the services of James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus city vehicles and equipment. This has proven to be a cost effective method to manage surplus items.  The following vehicle was obtained through seizure by the Edmonds Police Department and can be divested as surplus. 2000 Nissan Maxima VIN# JNICA31D3YT502544 WA# ACX1433 Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2014 Revenue:1000 Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: Monies will be deposited into the General Fund. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/29/2014 01:45 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/29/2014 01:59 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/30/2014 10:18 AM Form Started By: Kody McConnell Started On: 10/29/2014 01:35 PM Final Approval Date: 10/30/2014  Packet Page 97 of 411 Packet Page 98 of 411    AM-7264     5.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:11/10/2014 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted By:Patrick Doherty Department:Community Services Type: Information  Information Subject Title Presentation on the Proposed Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Work Program and Budget for Year 2015 Recommendation The Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District Board is requesting that the City Council approve the attached proposed work program and budget for year 2015. Previous Council Action On January 15, 2013 the City Council approved Ordinance 3909 establishing a business improvement district within a portion of the City of Edmonds. Narrative Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are designed to aid general economic development in business districts and to facilitate merchant and service business cooperation.  A BID is a local self-help funding mechanism that allows businesses and/or property owners within a defined area to establish a special assessment district. In Washington State BIDs are authorized by statute, Revised Code of Washington 35.87A. The Edmonds City Council approved Ordinance 3909 on January 15, 2013 that established the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID).  Consequently Edmonds City Code Section 3.75 provides the City's regulations and requirements related to the EDBID.  Subsection 120 thereof requires that the EDBID recommend and submit annual work programs and budget to the City Council for review and consideration by October 1st of each year. The EDBID met this required deadline by submitting its Work Plan and Budget for Year 2015 (Attachment 1) on October 1, 2014. Attachments EDBID 2015 Work Plan & Budget August 6 2014 letter from Malgarin re BID Residential Exclusion August 7 2014 letter from Malgarin re BID assessments Mayor Earling response to Malgarin Issues and Proposals fromCouncilmember Bloom regarding BID BID response to Council comments 11-6-14 Packet Page 99 of 411 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 11/04/2014 11:33 AM Mayor Dave Earling 11/04/2014 11:40 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/04/2014 11:47 AM Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Started On: 11/04/2014 11:21 AM Final Approval Date: 11/04/2014  Packet Page 100 of 411 Approved by board for submittal to Council 9/25/14 EDMONDS DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE PROPOSED 2015 WORK PROGRAM & PLAN Edmonds, Washington Prepared pursuant to Edmonds City Ordinance 3909, Section 3.75.120 Packet Page 101 of 411 Approved by board for submittal to Council 9/25/14 The mission of the Edmonds Downtown Alliance is to encourage, promote and participate in activities enhancing the general economic conditions for the mutual benefit of businesses in the district and the city of Edmonds. Per Ordinance 3909, the scope of work includes: A. Marketing & Hospitality: may include maps/brochures/kiosks/directories, web site, social media, marketing/advertising campaigns, holiday decorations, street performers/artists, historic education/heritage advocacy, special public events B. Safety & Cleanliness: may include maintenance, security, pedestrian environment enhancements C. Appearance & Environment: may include design enhancements, neighborhood advocacy & communication, streetscapes/lighting/furniture D. Transportation: may include transportation alternatives, directional signage, parking management & mitigation E. Business Recruitment & Retention: may include education/seminars, market research, business recruitment F. Organization: may include contract staff & professional services, administration costs INTRODUCTION The Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District, now doing business as Ed! Edmonds Downtown Alliance (the “Alliance”), was approved on January 15, 2013 under Ordinance 3909. The following is the third year work program and plan for the district, effective from approval by Edmonds City Council through December 31, 2015. It includes a description of the Alliance, proposed services, sources of funding, annual budget and allocations. PROPOSED 2015 SERVICES The services to be provided in this plan include items required for the promotion and enhancement of the Alliance and to meet the needs identified by members of the Alliance. The services are not intended to take the place of, but add to or supplement those services provided by the City and/or other Edmonds based organizations. The services will be executed under the direction of the Alliance Members Advisory Board. A. Non-profit Organization The Members Advisory Board formed a non-profit organization incorporated under Washington law and received Section 501(c)(3) status with the Internal Revenue Service as a public charity. The Alliance will begin working with the City to discuss potential contracting arrangements between the City and the Nonprofit Corporation for executing Packet Page 102 of 411 Approved by board for submittal to Council 9/25/14 the responsibilities, including independent financial review. In addition, the Alliance may engage the services of a local attorney and/or tax specialist, pro bono and partially compensated, to assist with legal matters, including filing of taxes and reports for Section 501(c)(3) status with the Internal Revenue Service. B. Administration The Alliance Board may contract with an individual(s) to provide general administration regarding the operations and maintenance of the Alliance. Operating expenses will include, but are not limited to, supplies and insurance, post office box rental, mailings to members, and web domain and hosting fees. Legal, accounting and professional services will be contracted on an as-needed basis. When appropriate, pro-bono services will be used. C. Assessment and Evaluation The Alliance recognizes the important responsibility it has to its members to demonstrate effective and efficient use of Alliance resources. As such, the Alliance will include reasonable and appropriate program assessment and evaluation efforts within its work plans. This may include internal and external initiatives such as member surveys, market research, third party or independent impact analysis, etc. D. Member Engagement and Outreach Creating a collaborative and effective business district is a high priority for the Alliance. Communications to members will take place regularly and in a cost-effective manner. A member meeting will be held in April 2015 to elect board members and as a forum to seek input into the mission and activities of the Alliance. The Alliance has moved to electronic notifications, other than by request, the annual member meeting and ballot mailings, to save member resources. E. Friends of Ed! - Business and Civic Collaboration and Outreach Partnering with existing organizations in Edmonds will help to strengthen the mission of the Alliance and the shared objectives of our partner organizations. The Alliance will continue to maintain a comprehensive list of organizations, known as the Friends of Ed! and will coordinate a bi-annual meeting to discuss community priorities. F. Marketing Packet Page 103 of 411 Approved by board for submittal to Council 9/25/14 Currently, the Alliance is in the process of finalizing website design and branding and implementing our umbrella share program. In 2015, the Alliance anticipates continuing marketing outreach efforts internally and externally by exploring additional visual branding campaigns and products. Ideas include: newsletter template, new business welcome kit, print ads, window clings, tote bags, and a specific targeted marketing campaign for “local first” advertising. G. Professional Business Resources Being mindful of by-appointment members’ needs, the Alliance will offer services as determined to be beneficial to the members. Examples include, but are not limited to, business directories, professional services, seminars, and assistance with social media, search engine optimization, etc. In 2015, the Alliance will begin planning, research and implementation of an electronic physical downtown directory that includes all member businesses. H. Parking Members of the Alliance parking committee will continue working in concert with city efforts related to parking. Based on 2014 committee research, underutilized parking spaces and areas where parking is difficult have been identified. Potential solutions to be explored in 2015 include: better signage and visual identification for existing public parking and after hours parking lot availability. The committee will continue to identify solutions, including better walkability and education of business owners regarding employee permit parking areas. I. Appearance and Environment Research projects and costs related to enhancing the appearance of the Alliance District. Projects may include, but are not limited to, the umbrella program, adding additional garbage/recycling cans, identifying public restroom options, crosswalk safety and beautification, installation of new and fewer 3 hour parking signs, improved alley way appearance and walkability, programs to encourage building owners to think beyond beige color palates for buildings and enhancing vacant storefront appearance. Packet Page 104 of 411 Approved by board for submittal to Council 9/25/14 J. Small Grants Program The Alliance is working on creating a pilot Small Grants Program to help harness the power of our local business community. The program will utilize a grassroots approach to identifying projects and allocating funds for approved grants as long as they fall within the Alliance's mission and scope of work provided in Ordinance 3909. The Alliance board is working on finalizing the Grant criteria, eligibility, process, requirements and timeline in 2014. We anticipate opening the program to eligible applicants in 2015. K. Research of Potential Boundary Adjustment In coordination with the City and stakeholders, the Alliance Board will research the potential of boundary adjustments to include some businesses not currently included in the Alliance boundaries. The alliance will report its findings to the city council. L. 2016 Work Plan and Budget The Alliance Advisory Board will prepare a 2016 work program, plan and annual budget to present to Edmonds City Council in October 2015. II. PROPOSED SOURCES OF FUNDING A. Assessments Assessments will be collected in accordance with Ordinance 3909. B. Grants and Donations The 501(c)(3) organization formed by the Alliance may pursue and accept grants and donations from private institutions, the City, other public entities or individuals and other non-profit organizations, in accordance with State and Federal law. III. ANNUAL BUDGET A. Budgeted Revenue The projected assessments collected for 2015 will be approximately $89,000. B. Budgeted Expenditures In accordance with the scope of work as approved in Ordinance 3909, it is anticipated that the budgeted expenditures for the 2015 operating year of the Alliance will be as follows: Packet Page 105 of 411 Approved by board for submittal to Council 9/25/14 Administration $ 17,000 Marketing $ 22,000 Engagement and Outreach $ 5,000 Professional Business Resources $ 10,000 Small Grants Program $ 10,000 Appearance & Environment $ 20,000 TOTAL BUDGETED EXPENDITURES $ 84,000 C. Unallocated Funds An unallocated fund balance is projected. The Alliance reserves the right to use unallocated funds as necessary. D. Subsequent Budgets The Alliance shall establish for each fiscal year after the first year a proposed budget for expenditures. Such proposed budgets shall: i) reasonably itemize the purpose for which monies are proposed to be expended by the Alliance; and (ii) set forth the total amount proposed to be expended. A proposed budget, whether for the first year or for subsequent years, shall be referred to as the “Budget.” E. General Provisions i. The Alliance shall make no expenditures other than in accordance with and pursuant to a Budget for which a total Annual Budget amount has been approved by the City. ii. In the event that in any given fiscal year the sources of funding and/or reserves held over from the previous year do not equal the total annual budget amount, the Alliance may choose to eliminate some expenditures in order to balance the budget. iii. The Alliance, at the conclusion of the fiscal year, will provide a detailed financial report in accordance with Ordinance 3909, as amended. Packet Page 106 of 411 1 XÄxztÇà ZxÅá? _àwA Studio: 420 5th Ave. S., Suite 107, Edmonds, WA 98020 Brent Malgarin, G.G. (206) 355-5065 elegantgems@gmx.com Wednesday, August 06, 2014 To the Edmonds City Council, I am requesting the members of the Edmonds City Council (ECC) read and reply to the following legal issue regarding the exclusion of the “condo group” from the Edmonds BID. The law is specific and definitive: RCW 35.87A.010 (1) “To establish, after a petition submitted by the operators responsible for sixty percent of the assessments by businesses and multifamily residential or mixed-use projects within the area, parking and business improvement areas, hereafter referred to as area or areas, for the following purposes…” (highlighted emphasis added) Nowhere within the RCW’s is an exemption authority defined, or granted, to anyone under Washington State law. The law specifically states “and”, thus inclusive regarding multifamily residential or mixed-use projects. I am requesting in writing from the Edmonds City Attorney, to cite the RCW which grants this, and his perceived authority under Washington State law, specifically the legal right “to exclude”. This is a formal request from the City of Edmonds. RCW 35.87A.080 “the legislative authority may make a reasonable classification of businesses and multifamily residential or mixed use projects”. (highlighted emphasis added) It is puzzling how one could advise the ECC, or allow to be advised to the ECC that a “reasonable” assessment for the residential family units, within the BID area would be “zero”, when legal application of existing Washington State law, defines that the benefit received by any such class, need only be “indirect”. RCW 64.34.304, “O” “(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, and subject to the provisions of the declaration, the association may:….… (o) Join in a petition for the establishment of a parking and business improvement area, participate in the rate payers' board or other advisory body set up by the legislative authority for operation of a parking and business improvement area, and pay special assessments levied by the legislative authority on a parking and business improvement area encompassing the condominium property for activities and projects which benefit the condominium directly or indirectly;” (highlighted emphasis added) Packet Page 107 of 411 2 “Indirectly” is anything, measurable or non-measurable, identifiable, or non-identifiable. The City Council was apparently advised in direct violation of RCW35.87A.010, RCW35.87A.100 (4) and RCW64.34.304, to cite but a few State laws. Nothing within the law allows an exemption, or a “reasonable” assessment of zero, or, even close to zero. The right to determine a “reasonable classification” is defined within the body of RCW35.87A, an exclusion, under the law is not defined as a prerogative option. The RCW cited above regarding condo’s/multi-family, grants the power to join, start, or be assessed by a BID, even if the measure of benefit to them is “indirect”, which is undefinable. As such, it shall include anything “indirect”, such as property appreciation, enhancement of the environment, living next to a thriving business district, enjoyment of life in the district, visual appreciation, pride in the Edmonds business district, greater pride in Edmonds, anything… unmeasurable, intangible… “indirect”. To further illustrate failure to accurately follow State law: RCW35.87A.100 (4) ”A statement that the businesses and multifamily residential or mixed-use projects in the area established by the ordinance shall be subject to the provisions of the special assessments authorized by RCW 35.87A.010;” (highlighted & underlined emphasis added) “Shall”, grants no permissive interpretation of the RCW. The law is basic, the “condo group” was excluded, in violation of Washington State law. As I also have numerous Edmonds City documents which cite the “citizens” of Edmonds will benefit from the EDBID, as such, the “condo’s” will also benefit from the assessment, including a letter from the Mayor, and numerous EDBID documents to repudiate any claim to the contrary. Including the Edmonds BID website itself which cites: “RESIDENTIAL BENEFITS An attractive and thriving downtown is also a crucial element of a vibrant residential community. People want to live in neighborhoods where public areas are beautiful, streets are clean and where businesses prosper. A BID can provide services that will communicate to residents that Edmonds is where they want to shop, eat, find professional services and conduct business.” (typo’s from EDBID website corrected) Thank you for your reply. Respectfully, Brent Malgarin. Packet Page 108 of 411 1 XÄxztÇà ZxÅá? _àwAXÄxztÇà ZxÅá? _àwAXÄxztÇà ZxÅá? _àwAXÄxztÇà ZxÅá? _àwA Studio: 420 5th Ave. S., Suite 107, Edmonds, WA 98020 Brent Malgarin, G.G. (206) 355-5065 elegantgems@gmx.com Thursday, August 07, 2014 To the Edmonds City Council, Subject: Excessively high rate assessed on Edmonds BID “Members” The following are facts, not opinion. At the Edmonds City Council meeting January 15, 2013, page 6, “Ms. Stiller summarized the goal was to create an affordable rate structure. The most any business in downtown Edmonds would pay is $600/year. The proposed Edmonds assessments are about 10% of what the West Seattle and University District BIDs assesses businesses. The idea is if everyone pays a little, everyone will benefit a lot.” (highlight emphasis added) As a citizen I expect testimony presented at a City Council meeting to be factual, under Washington State Law RCW35.87A.060 it is classified as “evidence”. Since the “University BIA” was cited as an example of a BID (they call theirs a BIA), let us examine the facts, about the University BIA (UBIA). First, they are assessing their multi-family and residential units, businesses and hotel/motels just as the law mandates, RCW 63.34.304 “O”, which Edmonds did not do in violation of several RCW’s. The following is the University District BIA’s new 2014 application for the UBIA, their old UBIA, city ordinance # 122212, 120304 and 118412, dating back to 1996, have always included assessment(s) on all properties, businesses, and hotels/motels within their BIA area. The other fascinating fact is they understand that the BID/BIA statute was never intended to be a permanent cash generating machine, it has a term of length. “PETITION TO ESTABLISH: University District Business Improvement Area TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF SEATTLE: We, the owners and operators of the businesses, multi-family residential and mixed-use projects (collectively, "Ratepayers") located within the proposed District, hereby petition the City of Seattle to establish a five year Parking and Business Improvement Area (BIA) as authorized by the RCW Chapter 35.87A, within the boundaries described in Exhibit A for the purpose of providing programs and other services which improve the general economic climate and enhance the environment of the University District in Seattle. Packet Page 109 of 411 2 This proposal is intended to replace the existing BIA that was authorized by the Seattle City Council on November 25, 1996 with Ordinance Number 118412. The existing BIA has been doing business as the “University District BIA” since that time. This proposal has two parts: first, to adopt a new business plan for five years; and second, to expand the BIA’s boundaries to include the entirety of the district.” (highlighted emphasis added) The following is from the University BIA website (udistrictpartnership.org). “Business Improvement Areas (BIA) Legislation The UDistrictFund will be governed pursuant to the Revised Code of the State of Washington, Chapter on “Parking and Business Improvement Areas”, 35.87A." The law includes provisions that: •Allows BIAs to finance services ranging from security to cleaning, marketing to parking management, planning to special events. •Allows revenue for improvements and services to be raised from a special assessment based upon benefits received from improvements and services. •Requires petition support from property owners and/or businesses representing more than 60% of the assessments to be paid. •Once the BIA is adopted, the assessment is mandatory to all Ratepayers according to the BIA ordinance. A BIA is a private sector initiated mechanism to manage a downtown or neighborhood business district. It is Funded by an assessment on properties and/or businesses that is imposed by the City Council at the request of the Ratepayers. A BIA assessment is similar to the “Common Area Maintenance” fees found in suburban shopping malls, office parks, and planned residential communities. These funds are used to improve specific areas through increased maintenance, additional safety initiatives, design improvements, special events, transportation and parking, and other activities selected and managed by the local BIA Board to benefit the district.” (highlighted emphasis added) The following is the 2012 rate structure for the University BIA: From the Seattle City website, old pricing (( )) and 2012 CPI adjusted pricing. “I. Retail/commercial uses Ground Floor.... (( $.114 )) $.12 sq. ft. Upper Floor.... (( $.057 )) $.06 sq. ft. Below Ground Floor.... (( $.057)) $.06 sq. ft. II. Commercial Parking.... (( $5.72 )) $5.92 / space III. Full Service Hotels/Motels .... (( $11.44 )) $11.84 / room IV. Apartments.... (( $5.72 )) $5.92 / unit V. Property Owners.... (( $.057 )) $.06 sq. ft. (e) A minimum assessment of (( $110 )) $113.85 (( (One Hundred Ten Dollars) )) will be applied to every business, organization, and property within the BIA boundaries. (highlighted emphasis added) (f) The total assessment upon any single business site within the BIA shall not initially exceed (( $11,000 )) $11,385 (( (Eleven Thousand Dollars) )) annually.” The maximum EDBID assessment on a business of 5000+ square feet is $600.00 per year, which equates to $ 0.12 psf. Ms. Stiller gave testimony to the ECC that the EDBID was only “10% of the University BIA”, when in fact it is exactly the same on a per square foot basis, (exclusive of property owners and the others defined in the UBIA area). Packet Page 110 of 411 3 When the UBIA minimum assessment is added with their assessment of 5000 sq. ft. their combined total assessment would total ($113.85 + $ 486.12= $599.97 per year). Personal communications with Sheila Hartshorne, City of Seattle BIA Director, “The $113.85 is the minimum assessment, so if your square footage is over 949 sq ft you would be paying the higher amount, either the minimum of $113.85 or $113.88 based on 949 sq ft. The $0.12/sq ft is not in addition to the minimum assessment.” Their assessment from 1-948.75 sq feet is included in the base rate of $ 113.85. The University BIA can go up to $ 11,385.00 per year, that is achieved strictly by multiplication of massive square footage and the inclusion of property ownership as they have some very large buildings in the UBIA. The UBIA has a pedestrian and auto traffic count that makes downtown Edmonds look like a small rural town outside Winlock, as such the UBIA can support their level of assessment, Edmonds can not. Let us examine our EDBID and the UBIA on a comparative square foot basis, an apples to apples comparison. Another mathematical fact, if you take the UBIA minimum assessment of $113.85 per business and divide it by $0.12 per square foot, this equates to 948.75 square feet, which I will venture to say is larger than the vast majority of foot-prints (square footage) of businesses within the EDBID. They also did not develop classes of businesses, from personal experience, a wrongful death attorney makes more in one case, than 90% of most businesses in Edmonds will make in a full year of gross sales, so why a decreased rate? An upstairs office in the UnivBIA (450 sq feet) is assessed $113.85, in Edmonds it is $ 120.00 per year, fairly close. The assessment level of 948.75 square feet in the UBIA is $ 113.85, in the Edmonds BID it is $ 420.00 (“open door”) ($0.45 per square foot) or $ 180.00 (appointment)($0.19 per square foot) for the same square footage!! In this particular example our “open door” is only 369% more expensive. Our cheapest level of assessment is more expensive than their assessment at 948.75 square feet. Let’s look at one more point, let’s assume the 313 businesses in Edmonds all paid the University BIA minimum of $ 113.85, the total yearly assessment would be $ 35,635.05, not the approximately $89,000+ the EDBID is assessing! The assessments in Edmonds penalize small businesses owners and small offices: “Open Door” “Appointment” 0-499 sq.ft is $ 0.73 per square foot 0-499 sq.ft is $ 0.24 per square foot 500-999 sq ft is $0.42 per square foot 500-999 sq ft is $0.18 per square foot 1000-1999 sq ft is $ 0.24 per square foot 1000-1999 sq ft is $ 0.12 per square foot 2000-4999 sq ft is $ 0.11 per square foot 2000-4999 sq ft is $ 0.06 per square foot 5000+ sq ft is $ 0.12 per square foot. 5000+ sq ft is $ 0.08 per square foot. Do to the fact the City has never released any numbers, there is no way to make any comparison, but there are not that many businesses of size (large square footage) in Edmonds, I imagine this is why the excessive fee….. for being a small business. There is no other way to say this, but the ECC accepted “facts” from people on an agenda, you were presented mendacities, and it worked. Anything was said to get the City Council to vote...yes, and adopt the Edmonds BID. Packet Page 111 of 411 4 Now 23 businesses are threatened with, or being sent out for collections based on false information? While some businesses in Edmonds pay 369% more than the University BIA? How is that fair to businesses? To all Edmonds City Council members, this is a prime example of reacting to a “feel good” project, rather than doing any independent research. I know you have a lot on your plate, but this was a tax on businesses, the livelihood of many people. This unfortunate outcome has caused harm to every business in Edmonds, because a thorough and accurate examination of the facts would have never allowed the Edmonds BID to be enacted into Ordinance # 3909. I have done my homework, months of it. Many business owners are being harmed thru and from this mandated and egregious level of assessment. There is no remedy under the law, as the testimony given to the Edmonds City Council is classified as “evidence” under RCW35.87A.060, and the “evidence” was nothing but a mendacity, the Edmonds BID is based on lies. There is no remedy to correct this fact under the law. The only solution is the closure of the Edmonds BID. Sincerely, Brent Malgarin, G.G. Packet Page 112 of 411 Packet Page 113 of 411 Packet Page 114 of 411 Packet Page 115 of 411 ISSUES AND PROPOSALS FROM COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM REGARDING EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID) NOVEMBER 3, 2014 I will be proposing the following amendments to the BID work plan. I have copied Jeff as I will ask for his confirmation that the COE is fully responsible for the functioning of the BID, since it was formed by resolution of the Council, not by initiation of a petition by the business owners. I have also blind copied Council, for their review. (1) Review of fees assessed - not included in work plan. Propose: Amend the work plan to include a review of the equity of the fees assessed by the city of Edmonds to the BID members, to be completed and presented to Council by June 2015. Rationale: • Council was told, when voting for the BID, that the fees assessed would be considerably lower than those assessed by the U District. We have since been informed that the fees are actually significantly higher than those of the U District. • U District bases fees on actual square footage, not a range. • BID business owners have expressed concerns about the fairness of the fees assessed, given that a business owner who has a 500 square ft retail store, restaurant, or professional service, pays the same as a business owner who has a 999 sq ft business. Likewise, a square footage of 2000, pays the same as a business of 4999 sq. feet, almost 3000 sq feet more space. • U District has a lowest rate of $113.85/ year. Ed! has a lowest base rate of $120 Square footage Open Door By Appointment 0-499 $360/year $90/quarter $120/year $30/quarter 500-999 $420 /year $105/quarter $180/year $45/quarter 1000-1999 $480/year $120/quarter $240/year $60/quarter 2000-4999 $540/year $135/quarter $300/year $75/quarter 5000 and over $600 annual $150/quarter $360/year $90/quarter Packet Page 116 of 411 (2) BID Work Plan Item C “Assessment and evaluation,” and D “Member engagement and outreach.” Propose: Direct the board to add clarity to this passage, specifically regarding efforts to obtain anonymous input from BID members. Rationale: Some business owners have not felt comfortable expressing differences of opinion regarding the BID to the board. Anonymous collection of information will allow sharing of differences of opinion without fear of repercussion. (3 ) Item B “Administration” Propose: Reduce the amount budgeted for Administrative services to $6000 for 2015. • This will equal $500/mth. Contract for administrative services at the rate of $25/hr, equaling 20 hrs/month, or approximately 5 hrs/week. Rationale: This will be more palatable (than the proposed $17,000) to business owners who opposed the formation of the BID. The amount allocated can be adjusted in future budgets. (4) Collections issue- not an item in the work plan. Propose: An amendment to the work plan, to include a review of our collections policy to be presented in advance of final approval of the 2015 work plan and budget. Rationale: We have sent 29 businesses to collections. We have received no information as to why these businesses have failed to pay the assessed fees. Sending businesses to collections is, obviously, a huge deal as it can seriously affect their future credit ratings. We should be concerned about potential lawsuits related to collections. (5) Item K. “Research of Potential Boundary Adjustment” In coordination with the City and stakeholders, the Alliance Board will research the potential of boundary adjustments to include some businesses not currently included in the Alliance boundaries. The alliance will report its findings to the city council. Propose: Removal of Item K from the work plan. Packet Page 117 of 411 Rationale: A considerable amount of conflict continues among the BID membership. This conflict must be addressed if we expect successful implementation of the policies of the BID (Alliance) board. It is premature to research adding new members until current member input has been heard and integrated into the BID work plan. I ask my fellow Council members to consider these amendments to the BID work plan. ADDITIONAL ITEMS NOVEMBER 6, 2014 In addition to the five amendments I proposed, and Lora's amendment regarding use of only donated money, not fees assessed to business owners, for the grant program, I propose the following: Council liaison(s) to BID be assigned to start asap. From the inception of the BID, no Council member has served as a liaison to the BID. I suggest that the Council president serve as the liaison, and a second liaison be assigned by the Council president to also attend all board meetings. Rationale: The BID is one of the few, if not only, entities formed by Council that does not have a Council liaison assigned to attend their board meetings. Given that the BID is also the only one of the boards, commissions, etc, formed by Council that has authority over expenditure of funds, in this case of business owner funds, a Council liaison, or preferably liaisons, should be required. All other boards, to my knowledge, serve in an advisory capacity only. The only exception, again to my knowledge, is the Public Facilities District overseeing the ECA. The difference is that the PFD functions independently of Council. Council has no authority over the PFD decision making, budget, etc, unlike the BID. Packet Page 118 of 411 Edmonds Downtown Alliance, PO BOX 284, EDMONDS, WA 98020 November 6, 2014 RE: Response to proposed 2015 Work Plan changes We have reviewed the recommendations from Council Member Bloom sent in the November 3rd email, and have provided our feedback on her suggestions below. We have included her original proposals and have italicized our response after each item. (1) Review of fees assessed - not included in work plan. Propose: Amend the work plan to include a review of the equity of the fees assessed by the city of Edmonds to the BID members, to be completed and presented to Council by June 2015. Rationale: -Council was told, when voting for the BID, that the fees assessed would be considerably lower that those assessed by the U District. We have since been informed that the fees are actually significantly higher than those of the U District. -U District bases fees on actual square footage, not a range. BID business owners have expressed concerns about the fairness of the fees assessed, given that a business owner who has a 500 square ft retail store, restaurant, or professional service, pays the same as a business owner who has a 999 sq ft business. Likewise, a square footage of 2000, pays the same as a business of 4999 sq. feet, almost 3000 sq feet more space. -U District has a lowest rate of $100/ year. Ed! has a lowest base rate of $120 SQUARE FOOTAGE OPEN DOOR BY APPOINTMENT 0 - 499 $360/year $90/quarter $120/year $30/quarter 500 - 999 $420/year $105/quarter $180/year $45/quarter 1000 - 1999 $480/year $120/quarter $240/year $60/quarter 2000 - 4999 $540/year $135/quarter $300/year $75/quarter 5000 and over $600/year $150/quarter $360/year $90/quarter Ed! Response: Our focus when proposing the rate structure to Council was to keep our rates low and affordable for businesses in downtown. With a range of $120 to $600 annually, we feel we have accomplished this. From records posted in 2012, the University District’s lowest rate is $113.85 annually, their highest rate is $11,385. Their published budget for 2015 is $744,000. The U District’s BIA structure is very different from ours. For instance, they charge $5.92 per parking space. They charge residents, businesses and property owners. It is an apples to oranges comparison. While we understand the concern regarding charging per square foot, there is a small difference between each rate increase - $60 annually ($5 per month) per jump in square footage category. We believe it would not be in the City’s best interest to reassess all businesses based on square footage as the actual discrepancy is very small. Pam Stuller Pam@EdmondsDowntown.org Cadence Clyborne Cadence@EdmondsDowntown.org Paul Rucker Paul@EdmondsDowntown.org David Arista David@EdmondsDowntown.org Kim Wahl Kim@EdmondsDowntown.org Juliana van Buskirk Juliana@EdmondsDowntown.org Robert Boehlke Robert@EdmondsDowntown.org Sally Merck Sally@EdmondsDowntown.org Jordana Turner Jordana@EdmondsDowntown.org Mary Kay Sneeringer MaryKay@EdmondsDowntown.org Natalie-Pascale Boisseau NataliePascale@EdmondsDowntown.org Packet Page 119 of 411 Edmonds Downtown Alliance, PO BOX 284, EDMONDS, WA 98020 2 The Alliance Board is recommending that no changes be made to our assessment structure. If City Council chooses to amend the assessment structure provided in the ordinance, we will follow the City requirements. (2) Item C Assessment and evaluation, and D. Member engagement and outreach. Propose: Direct the board to add clarity to this passage, specifically regarding efforts to obtain anonymous input from BID members. Rationale: Some business owners have not felt comfortable expressing differences of opinion regarding the BID to the board. Anonymous collection of information will allow sharing of differences of opinion without fear of repercussion. Ed! Response: We’re happy to accept anonymous feedback and can let members know that is an option. We accept feedback on a regular basis and encourage our members to let us know their thoughts and come to our meetings to discuss ways to improve, change or address their concerns. We also have a PO Box where members are welcome so make suggestions or voice concerns. The Alliance Board does find that it is more helpful to address specific issues directly, but we understand that anonymous feedback is easier for some members. While our proposed assessment actions do not mention specific anonymous-feedback methods, we believe the potential use of a “survey,” as mentioned in the work plan, could certainly allow for the inclusion of anonymously collected input. (3 ) Item B Administration Propose: Reduce the amount budgeted for Administrative services to $6000 for 2015. -This will equal $500/mth. Contract for administrative services at the rate of $25/hr, equaling 20 hrs/month, or approximately 5 hrs/week. Rationale: This will be more palatable (than the proposed $17,000) to business owners who opposed the formation of the BID. The amount allocated can be adjusted in future budgets. Ed! Response: As of October 1, out of the amount budgeted; we have spent $883 on administration. The Alliance Board has been extremely mindful of administrative costs and careful stewards of the costs of this program. Thus far, the majority of our work has been completed through an impressive volume of volunteer hours by Members. The $17,000 estimated in the budget comprises both administrative consultant/contract assistance as well as operating expenses which include, but are not limited to, supplies and insurance, post office box rental, mailings to members, and web domain and hosting fees. Legal, accounting and professional services are contracted on an as-needed basis. Our administrative costs will increase substantially in 2015 due to our website, 501c3 and increased outreach meetings with members and Friends of Ed!. We will continue to be extremely careful with our funds and utilize volunteers and pro bono services when possible, but our budget is mindful of the real costs facing the organization to allow it to thrive and continue successful campaigns. As such, we respectfully disagree that the administration budget should be lowered to a level that would cover only a very minimal number of hours for a contractor to provide administrative services as that would not cover the full requirements of the organization. (4) Collections issue - not an item in the work plan. Propose: An amendment to the work plan, to include a review of our collections policy to be presented in advance of final approval of the 2015 work plan and budget. Rationale: We have sent 29 businesses to collections. We have received no information as to why these businesses have failed to pay the assessed fees. Sending businesses to collections is, obviously, a huge deal as it can seriously affect their future credit ratings. We should be concerned about potential lawsuits related to collections. Ed! Response: Per Ordinance 3909, as amended in Ordinance 3929, Section ECC 3.75.080, and as approved by Edmonds City Council: the City Finance Director is authorized to use a City of Edmonds approved collection agency to collect any Packet Page 120 of 411 Edmonds Downtown Alliance, PO BOX 284, EDMONDS, WA 98020 3 unpaid assessments. The Alliance made the decision to send a very small number of businesses with unpaid assessments (less than 10% of membership) to collections. This decision was made after all businesses were sent numerous letters, personal outreach and communication, and a final notice warning of collections. The decision was not made lightly as we understand the effect this can have on future credit ratings, however, this is a legal assessment that is owed by the businesses. The Alliance was given the ability to use a collection agency because there is very little recourse available to collect the assessment if it is not paid. Allowing some members to not pay, while the vast majority of the membership does, is not appropriate or fair to the greater membership. Ultimately, it is not the Board’s decision to remove the option to utilize a collection agency. The Board has spent countless hours reviewing the policy and has approved a decision to collect unpaid assessments per the Ordinance. If City Council wishes to amend the Ordinance to remove that option, that will need to be addressed by Council directly. (5) Item K. Research of Potential Boundary Adjustment In coordination with the City and stakeholders, the Alliance Board will research the potential of boundary adjustments to include some businesses not currently included in the Alliance boundaries. The alliance will report its findings to the city council. Propose: Removal of Item K from the work plan. Rationale: A considerable amount of conflict continues among the BID membership. This conflict must be addressed if we expect successful implementation of the policies of the BID (Alliance) board. It is premature to research adding new members until current member input has been heard and integrated into the BID work plan. Ed! Response: This item was included in our 2013 workplan as it was a discussion point brought up in the public hearing during this organization’s formation by the public and several council members. We removed it in the 2014 Work Plan because we were focusing on building the foundation pieces of the organization. Research on this topic would allow the advisory board to determine whether or not an adjustment makes sense based on support, economic feasibility and increased benefit to the community, Ed! members and business owners. If we were to propose any Boundary Adjustments, our research would include a show of support from potential Alliance members in any proposed Boundary Adjustment area. The Alliance, per the Ordinance, does not have the ability to decide that a boundary adjustment will occur. The Alliance would prefer to leave available the option to present the pros and cons of any well researched and supported Boundary Adjustment to City Council for discussion, review and decision in 2015. We hope this provides adequate detail and reasoning to aid in our discussion at the November 10 City Council session. Please feel free to contact any Advisory Board Member or myself if you have additional questions. Best Regards, Pam Stuller Members Advisory Board President Edmonds Downtown Alliance Packet Page 121 of 411    AM-7241     6.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:11/10/2014 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted For:Al Compaan Submitted By:Don Anderson Department:Police Department Committee: Type: Forward to Consent Information Subject Title Interlocal Agreement for Jail Services with Snohomish County Recommendation Staff recommends forward for consent at November 18, 2014 Business Meeting. Previous Council Action Narrative The current Interlocal Agreement for Jail Services with Snohomish County is set to expire on December 31, 2014. The new contract prepared by Snohomish County is attached and has been approved to form by the Edmonds City Attorney. Term for this new contract will be December 31, 2014 to December 31, 2017 (term may be extended or renewed for up to two (2) additional three (3) year terms). 2015 rate changes related to this new contract are as follows: • Booking fees will increase from $95.94 to $115.00 • Daily housing fees will increase from $66.63 to $84.00 - $201.00 (dependent on housing needs; general, medical, mental) • Daily work release/work crew fees will increase from $44.77 to $50.00 • Electronic home detention daily fees will increase from $17.06 to $22.00 • A new “Video Court Fee” has been set at $115.50 per hour Booking fees and daily housing/maintenance fees shall increase on January 1 of each calendar year during the term of the agreement by a rate equal to ninety percent (90%) of the CPI-U for the Seattle-Tacoma area, with a maximum increase of three percent (3%). No other changes to this Interlocal Agreement have a fiscal impact. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2015 Revenue:Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: $650,000 Is built into the Mayor's 2015 proposed budget in Non-Departmental, Prisoner Care Intergovernmental. The budgeted amount reflects terms of the new interlocal agreement. Attachments Interlocal Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/27/2014 02:25 PM Packet Page 122 of 411 Mayor Dave Earling 10/27/2014 06:11 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/28/2014 08:28 AM Form Started By: Don Anderson Started On: 10/24/2014 01:57 PM Final Approval Date: 10/28/2014  Packet Page 123 of 411 Packet Page 124 of 411 Packet Page 125 of 411 Packet Page 126 of 411 Packet Page 127 of 411 Packet Page 128 of 411 Packet Page 129 of 411 Packet Page 130 of 411 Packet Page 131 of 411 Packet Page 132 of 411 Packet Page 133 of 411 Packet Page 134 of 411 Packet Page 135 of 411 Packet Page 136 of 411 Packet Page 137 of 411 Packet Page 138 of 411 Packet Page 139 of 411    AM-7262     7.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:11/10/2014 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted For:Al Compaan Submitted By:Don Anderson Department:Police Department Type: Forward to Consent  Information Subject Title Renewal of Interlocal Agreement for Jail Services with Yakima County Recommendation Staff requests and recommends forwarding for approval via consent agenda at the November 18, 2014 Council meeting. Previous Council Action NA Narrative The Edmonds Police Department currently has contracts with multiple jail facilities for the housing of both short and long-term prisoners. Jail capacities vary and at times facilities are unable to accommodate our needs for booking prisoners. In addition, costs vary from facility to facility with those on the east side of the state generally being less expensive, especially for long-term commitments. Both the Lynnwood City Jail and the Snohomish County Jail will be raising and/or restructuring their rates in 2015. In order to have additional options for booking prisoners to address capacity issues, as well as to ensure that we are being as financially responsible as we can be, we entered into an interlocal agreement with the Yakima County Jail in June of 2014, for the housing of long-term commitments, similar to what we have in place with Okanogan County. The agreement with Yakima County is set to expire on December 31, 2014. Staff wishes to continue our agreement with the Yakima County Jail for the housing of long-term commitments. This agreement may be renewed for another one year period by written addendum. This Inmate Housing Agreement Addendum is attached reflecting the amended duration period of January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 with no increases in fees; compensation (bed rates) shall remain the same. The city attorney has reviewed the previously executed agreement and the attached Inmate Housing Agreement Addendum and it has been approved as to form. Staff requests that Council approve this matter authorizing the Mayor to so sign the Agreement addendum for continued services beginning January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015.  Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2015 Revenue: Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: Packet Page 140 of 411 Jail fees are budgeted for in the Non-Departmental, Prisoner Care Intergovernmental line. There is no fee increase for 2015 in this contract renewal; compensation/bed rates remain the same. Attachments Yakima County 2015 Agreement Addendum Interlocal Agreement-Yakima County Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 11/03/2014 09:50 AM Mayor Dave Earling 11/04/2014 09:26 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/04/2014 09:27 AM Form Started By: Don Anderson Started On: 11/03/2014 09:09 AM Final Approval Date: 11/04/2014  Packet Page 141 of 411 Inmate Housing Agreement Addendum This Agreement Addendum is made and entered into between the CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation with its principal offices at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 and YAKIMA COUNTY DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS located at 111 North Front Street, Yakima WA 98901. In consideration of the mutual benefits and covenants contained herein, the parties agree that their Inmate Housing Agreement executed on June 24th, 2014 shall be amended as follows: 1. Section 26: Duration of Agreement shall be amended effective January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015. This agreement is subject to earlier termination as provided under Section 30 of the original agreement and may be renewed for successive periods by written addendum under such terms and conditions as the parties determine. 2. Compensation (BED RATES) shall remain the same. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement Addendum, all other terms and conditions of the original agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Executed this _________day of ______________2014. City of Edmonds Yakima Board of County Commissioners _____________________________ ________________________________ City Mayor Chairman ATTEST: ________________________________ Commissioner _____________________________ ________________________________ By: City Clerk Commissioner Approved as to Form: Approved as for Form: _____________________________ ________________________________ City Attorney Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney ________________________________ Tiera Girard, Clerk of the Board Packet Page 142 of 411 Packet Page 143 of 411 Packet Page 144 of 411 Packet Page 145 of 411 Packet Page 146 of 411 Packet Page 147 of 411 Packet Page 148 of 411 Packet Page 149 of 411 Packet Page 150 of 411 Packet Page 151 of 411 Packet Page 152 of 411 Packet Page 153 of 411 Packet Page 154 of 411 Packet Page 155 of 411 Packet Page 156 of 411 Packet Page 157 of 411 Packet Page 158 of 411 Packet Page 159 of 411 Packet Page 160 of 411    AM-7263     8.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:11/10/2014 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Kody McConnell Department:Public Works Committee: Type: Action Information Subject Title Review & Potential Approval of Updated Right-of-Way Tree Management Policy Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt the updated Right-of-Way Tree Management Policy as amended by the Edmond's Citizens Tree Board. Previous Council Action The Edmonds City Council passed Resolution 418 on November 28, 1978, establishing guidelines for the management of trees located in City rights-of-way.  Parks, Planning, and Public Works Committee reviewed the limitations of Resolution 418 in discussions with City staff about potential improvements on August 13, 2013.  On October 8, 2013, the full City Council engaged in a review and discussion of Resolution 418 limitations and improvements and gave input to City staff regarding the initial draft of the updated Right-of-Way Tree Management Policy.  On October 15, 2013, the City Council unanimously instructed City staff to refer the draft updated Right-of-Way Tree Management Policy to the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board for further review and refinement. On November 7, 2013, the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board began discussing the proposed updated Right-of-Way Tree Management Policy.  On December 5, 2013, the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board continued discussions within the Board and with staff regarding the improvements and limitations of the updated draft Right-of-Way Tree Management Policy.  On April 3, 2014, citizens presented the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board with examples of their concerns when working with the City regarding trees in easements or rights-of-way.  On May 1, 2014, citizens presented the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board with examples of their concerns when working with the City regarding trees in easements or rights-of-way.  On June 5, 2014, the Edmonds Citizen's Tree Board continued their discussions related to recommendations for the draft updated Right-of-Way Tree Management Policy.  On July 3, 2014, the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board reported that a subcommittee had developed draft recommendations for the City's updated Right-of-Way Tree Management Policy.  On September 4, 2014, the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board unanimously moved to accept the recommendations of the subcommittee and forwarded the updated Right-of-Way Tree Management Policy back to City staff to finalize and then present to the City Council for review and approval.   Packet Page 161 of 411 Narrative Council Resolution 418 (11/28/1978) lists only three reasons why a tree located on "public rights-of-way" or "other public property" can be removed or trimmed as follows: 1. The tree or trees present a safety or sight distance hazard, or 2. The tree root system causes blockage of underground utility systems or damages other public improvements such as roadways, sidewalks, etc; or 3. The tree is damaged or diseased requiring its removal or trimming in the interests of the public health safety and general welfare. This policy (item 2 above) does not authorize the removal or trimming of any tree unless it is damaging or interfering with the function of a publicly owned utility or infrastructure element. It is silent regarding damage or interference to private property. Staff would recommend modifying or replacing Resolution 418 with language that would allow the Public Works & Utilities Director to authorize removal, trimming, or replacement of trees when they are clearly affecting either public or private property or systems. Following previous review and input by the City Council, recommendations and alterations by the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board following considerable public comment, and finalization of language by City staff, the City's Development Services and Public Works & Utilities Departments present the attached Right-of-Way Tree Management Policy with a recommendation for adoption by the Edmonds City Council. Attachments ROW Tree Management Policy - Draft Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Public Works Kody McConnell 11/06/2014 10:23 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 11/06/2014 10:24 AM Mayor Dave Earling 11/06/2014 10:53 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/06/2014 10:54 AM Form Started By: Kody McConnell Started On: 11/03/2014 10:16 AM Final Approval Date: 11/06/2014  Packet Page 162 of 411 PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING PERMITTING AND APPROVAL FOR TREE REMOVAL OR TRIMMING WITHIN CITY OF EDMONDS RIGHTS-OF-WAY Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.00.040, this memorandum is to clarify City of Edmonds regulations, policies, and procedures for the permit approval process and permit issuance for tree removal or trimming within City rights-of-way. These procedures shall apply to tree removal or trimming within City of Edmonds rights-of- way by any individuals or entities other than the City of Edmonds. These procedures do not apply to tree removal or trimming performed by the Public Works & Utilities Department or Parks, Recreation, & Cultural Services Department in the course of routine maintenance or repair of public-owned facilities or in emergency response to public safety situations. §1 – Permit Required. A Right-of Way Construction Permit is required for any party other than the City of Edmonds to perform any removal or trimming of trees located within City rights-of-way under any of the following conditions:  Any removal or trimming of a “street tree” as defined in the City Street Tree Plan1.  Any removal of a tree as defined in ECDC 18.45.040Q2.  Any trimming of a tree over a height of eight feet (8’) above the ground as measured from the downslope side of the tree.  Any trimming of a tree requiring or using equipment other than handheld equipment.  Any trimming or removal of a tree in the City right-of-way that will result in any branches or portions of the tree exceeding six inches (6”) in diameter falling within the traveled way (e.g., street, sidewalk, etc.) of the City right-of-way.  Any trimming or removal of a tree exceeding six inches (6”) in diameter on private property if the trees or branches will fall into the traveled way (e.g., street, sidewalk, etc.) of the City right-of-way during the tree removal or trimming process. Packet Page 163 of 411 §2 – Application. Right-of-Way Construction Permits for removal or trimming of trees in City rights-of-way shall be applied for through the Public Works & Utilities Engineering Division at City Hall. Only licensed and bonded contractors authorized to represent the owners of the property abutting the City right-of-way upon which the trees are located, a utility company, or the property owners in limited circumstances3 may apply for a Right-of- Way Construction Permit for tree removal or trimming. §3 – Necessary Criteria. City of Edmonds policy governing the removal or trimming of trees is contained in City Council Resolution 418, ECDC Chapter 18.45 (Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Code), and ECDC Chapter 18.85 (Street Trees). Removal or trimming of trees located in City rights-of-way as described in §1 will be approved only if one of the following conditions is met:  The tree or trees present a safety or sight distance hazard.  The tree root system causes blockage of underground utility systems or damages other public or private improvements such as roadways, sidewalks, driveways, etc.  The tree is damaged or diseased requiring its removal or trimming in the interests of the public health and safety.  The tree has outgrown its location, is nearing the end of its healthy life, and should be replaced by a smaller, location appropriate tree. *Removal or trimming of trees located in City rights-of-way designed to enhance views from abutting properties will not be approved. §4 – Review. Applications shall be reviewed by the Public Works & Utilities Department, Development Services Department, and the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department for compliance with this policy, with critical areas ordinances and land clearing permit requirements, and also for impacts on City parks and urban design planning. §5 – Replanting. Trees approved for removal are be replaced as follow: Caliper4 of Tree Removed Replacement Recommendation 6” – 8” 1 tree 8” – 12” 2 trees 12” – 18” 3 trees 18” – 24” 4 trees 24” + 5 trees Packet Page 164 of 411  Replacement species to be determined by a City staff/consulting arborist.  City staff/consulting arborist to review recommended tree replacement ratio and make a final determination on appropriate replacement ratio for the site. §6 – Approval. Right-of-Way Construction Permits for removal or trimming of trees in City rights-of-way shall be issued by the Public Works & Utilities Engineering Division following successful review and certification that the permit application meets all necessary criteria. EFFECTIVE THIS ____ DAY OF ______________, 2014 PHIL WILLIAMS PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES DIRECTOR NOTES: 1. Contact the Parks Maintenance Manager at 425.771.0230 to determine if the tree is officially designated as a street tree by the City. 2. Per ECDC 18.45.040Q a “tree” shall mean any living, woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk any many branches and having a caliper of six inches (6”) or greater, or a multi-stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown. 3. Property owners may apply directly if the work will include only trimming of branches utilizing handheld equipment and there is no risk of objects falling into the traveled way of the right-of-way. 4. Per ECDC 18.45.040A “caliper” shall mean the diameter of any tree trunk as measured at a height of four feet (4’) above the ground on the upslope side of the tree. Packet Page 165 of 411    AM-7272     9.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:11/10/2014 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted For:Shane Hope, Director Submitted By:Shane Hope Department:Development Services Type: Information  Information Subject Title Development Code Major Update Recommendation Ask questions and consider how to move forward with funding the Development Code Update—by carrying forward 2014 funds into 2015 or also adding additional funds for examining and updating more code chapters Previous Council Action Budget allocation in 2014 for updating the Development Code Narrative ISSUE To provide an overview of actions taken in the last two years, as well as upcoming budget options, for the Development Code Update (aka “rewrite”) WHAT IS THE DEVELOPMENT CODE? The Edmonds Community Development Code (or “Development Code”) consists of nine titles: Land Use Plans and Policies Zone Districts General Zoning Regulations Public Works Requirements Building Codes Review Criteria and Procedures Definitions Design Standards Natural Resources Each title has many chapters and each chapter has many sections. For the full list of existing chapters by title, see the Table of Contents (attached, Exhibit 1). WHAT HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED/SPENT IN THE LAST 2 YEARS? The City Council appropriated: $150,000 for a major update (aka a “rewrite”) of the Development Code over a 2-year period, namely: $75,000 in 2014 and $75,000 in 2015 Packet Page 166 of 411     -- $40,000 of the $150,000 has been spent $80,000 for updating the Critical Area regulations (and Best Available Science Report), over a 2-year period, namely: $40,000 in 2014 and $40,000 in 2015     -- A professional services agreement is in place for up to $80,000     -- Work is underway but the first $40,000 will probably not be entirely spent before the end of the year  $25,000 for a “tree code” proposal in 2014        --A professional services agreement is in place that will use the $25,000 plus an additional $10,000 grant by end  of the year     WHAT HAS BEEN DONE DURING THE LAST 2 YEARS? Below is a brief summary of activities related to updating various parts of the Development Code. General Development Code Update Activities  Contract with Carol Morris, legal consultant, for $40,000, covering part of the 2013/2014 period, resulting in:    --Consultant’s review of current code     --Memos with suggestions and questions    --A suggested reorganization for chapters (new names and different order for topics)     --Suggestions and approaches to increase legal certainty on certain processes, such as street vacations; some of these will inform and  be folded into the next phase of the Development Code Update  New Development Services Director (hired April 1, 2014):           --Generally reviewed the Development Code           --Heard from others about perceived gaps and problems            --Reviewed work of consultant Carol Morris  --Determined that: (a) Morris’s work was useful in identifying various legal issues and options; and (b) additional work was needed to prepare a code specific to Edmonds Discussion of Development Code Update process and priorities with the Planning Board  --Subject of at least 3 meetings this year, including lengthy discussion at the Board's annual retreat, plus additional meetings on specific code proposals --Planning Board recommendation for principles and objectives. See Exhibit 2, attached. Continuation of work to provide information and potential refinements regarding the draft Westgate regulations Minor Code amendment to City Council to clarify definition of legal lot and criteria for determining “innocent purchaser.” (As directed by Council after a public hearing, ordinance adoption is to be on Consent—scheduled for later this month) Coordination between Development Services and Police Department on minor Code amendments to clarify requirements related to animals, noise, and RV parking. (Final versions will be brought to Council in near future.) Issuance of RFQ (October 2014) for a consultant firm to work on next stage of preparing an updated Development Code for completion and consideration in 2015           --Consultant selection and negotiation process underway           --Approval of professional services agreement to be brought to Council this month Packet Page 167 of 411 Critical Area Regulations Consultant selected and work underway Project expected to be complete by June 2015 Tree Code Work well underway and options for draft regulations being discussed by Tree Board Draft recommendations and options to be presented to Council for discussion, probably early 2015 Other actions to follow, depending on Council direction WHAT IS PROPOSED WITH CURRENTLY BUDGETED FUNDS FOR MAJOR CODE UPDATE?  Remaining unspent in the budget for the Development Code Update is $110,000 (which represents the total $150,000 appropriated in 2013 and 2014, minus $40,000 spent for the legal consultant). The remaining $110,000 is budgeted for a professional services agreement to prepare Edmonds-specific draft regulations for the major Development Code Update project            --$25,000 – planned for expenditure in 2014            --$85,000 – proposed to carry forward as part of 2015 budget   Draft regulations are expected to cover:            --Subdivisions            --Planned Residential Developments             --General zoning requirements (e.g., nonconformances)  --Criteria and procedures for land use approvals, appeals, zoning amendments, and comprehensive plan  --Off-street parking            --Bicycle facilities            --Street and sidewalk restoration            --Accessory dwelling units            --Multifamily residential            --Notice procedures            --Definitions            --Design review            --Other topics as further review allows                   NOTE:  Timeframe for developing this phase of the Code Update and having a public process for it is November 2014 - December 2015  HOW AND WHEN COULD OTHER PARTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE BE UPDATED? Additional Code Update work requires resources. Rewriting the Code is no small task; it must be done in a thoughtful, integrated way. If not everything can be done at once, the rewrite could be phased, as long as a clear, coordinated approach is carried out.  Options include: Option A – Complete the current code update project (carrying forward all unspent 2014 funds into 2015) and, over the next few years, consider updates for other chapters, based on priorities and resources. Option B – Same as Option A, plus: Add new resources in the 2015 budget to rewrite approximately 70 more chapters of the Development Code in 2014/2015. Note: Needed resources for professional services Packet Page 168 of 411 is roughly estimated at an additional $300,000. Option C – Same as Option A, plus: During the 2016 budget process, consider adding new funds to rewrite other Development Code chapters. Option D—Don’t complete the current code update project; consider any new proposals on an ad hoc basis and avoid a more comprehensive review during the near future.   Attachments Dev. Code- Titles& Chapters Exhibit 2: Code Update Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 11/07/2014 06:59 AM Mayor Dave Earling 11/07/2014 07:14 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/07/2014 07:22 AM Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 11/06/2014 01:49 PM Final Approval Date: 11/07/2014  Packet Page 169 of 411 1 | P a g e Edmonds Community Development Code: Titles and Chapter Names Title 15 LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES Chapters: 15.00 Preface and Fees Sections: 15.00.000 Title. 15.00.010 Purpose. 15.00.020 Application fees. 15.00.030 Repealed. 15.00.040 Duties of officials. 15.00.050 References. 15.00.060 Regulated actions. 15.00.070 Severability. 15.05 Comprehensive Plan – Adoption Sections: 15.05.000 Adopted. 15.10 – 15.30 Repealed 15.35 – 15.39 Repealed 15.40 Comprehensive Street Plan Sections: 15.40.000 Purposes. 15.40.010 Repealed. 15.40.020 Repealed. 15.40.030 Official street map. 15.45 Repealed 15.50 Comprehensive Sidewalk Plan Sections: 15.50.000 Comprehensive sidewalk plan. 15.50.010 Effect. Title 16 ZONE DISTRICTS Chapters: 16.00 Zone Districts – Preface and Purpose Sections: 16.00.000 Title. 16.00.010 Purposes. Packet Page 170 of 411 2 | P a g e 16.00.020 Applicable to other titles. 16.00.030 Repealed. 16.10 Residential Zones – Purposes Sections: 16.10.000 Purposes. 16.20 RS – Single-Family Residential Sections: 16.20.000 Purposes. 16.20.010 Uses. 16.20.020 Subdistricts. 16.20.030 Table of site development standards. 16.20.040 Site development exceptions. 16.20.045 Site development standards – Single-family master plan. 16.20.050 Site development standards – Accessory buildings. 16.30 RM – Multiple Residential Sections: 16.30.000 Purposes. 16.30.010 Uses. 16.30.020 Subdistricts. 16.30.030 Site development standards. 16.30.040 Site development exceptions. 16.40 Business and Commercial Zones – Purposes Sections: 16.40.000 Purposes. 16.43 BD – Downtown Business Sections: 16.43.000 Purposes. 16.43.010 Subdistricts. 16.43.020 Uses. 16.43.030 Site development standards. 16.43.035 Design standards – BD1 zone. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. 16.45 BN – Neighborhood Business Sections: 16.45.000 Purposes. 16.45.010 Uses. 16.45.020 Site development standards. 16.45.030 Operating restrictions. 16.50 BC – Community Business Sections: 16.50.000 BC and BC – Edmonds Way. 16.50.005 Purposes. 16.50.010 Uses. 16.50.020 Site development standards. Packet Page 171 of 411 3 | P a g e 16.50.030 Operating restrictions. 16.53 BP – Planned Business Sections: 16.53.000 Purpose. 16.53.010 Uses. 16.53.020 Site development standards. 16.55 CW – Commercial Waterfront Sections: 16.55.000 Purposes. 16.55.010 Uses. 16.55.020 Site development standards. 16.55.030 Operating restrictions. 16.60 CG – General Commercial: CG and CG2 Zones Sections: 16.60.000 CG and CG2 zones. 16.60.005 Purposes. 16.60.010 Uses. 16.60.015 Location standards for sexually oriented businesses. 16.60.020 Site development standards – General. 16.60.030 Site development standards – Design standards. 16.60.040 Operating restrictions. 16.62 MU – Medical Use Zone Sections: 16.62.000 Purpose. 16.62.010 Uses. 16.62.020 Site development standards. 16.65 OS – Open Space Sections: 16.65.000 Purposes. 16.65.010 Uses. 16.70 MR – Marine Resource Sections: 16.70.000 Purposes. 16.70.010 Uses. 16.75 MP – Master Plan Hillside Mixed-Use Zone Sections: 16.75.000 MP – Master plan hillside mixed-use zone. 16.75.005 Purpose. 16.75.010 Uses. 16.75.020 Site development standards. 16.77 OR – Office-Residential Sections: 16.77.000 Purposes. 16.77.010 Uses. Packet Page 172 of 411 4 | P a g e 16.77.020 Site development standards. 16.80 P – Public Use Sections: 16.80.000 Purposes. 16.80.010 Uses. 16.80.020 Conditional use permit criteria. 16.80.030 Site development standards. 16.100 Firdale Village Mixed-Use Zoning Criteria Sections: 16.100.000 Introduction. 16.100.010 Purposes. 16.100.020 Subdistricts. 16.100.030 Uses. 16.100.040 Site development standards. Title 17 GENERAL ZONING REGULATIONS Chapters: 17.00 Administration Sections: 17.00.000 Applicability. 17.00.010 Zoning map. 17.00.020 Boundaries. 17.00.030 Application of regulations. 17.00.040 Enforcement. 17.00.050 Prior land use regulations and maps. 17.00.060 Annexation areas – Interim regulations. 17.05 Reasonable Accommodations Process Sections: 17.05.010 Purpose. 17.05.020 Reasonable accommodations. 17.05.030 Waiver of building code requirements. 17.05.040 Accommodations personal to the applicant. 17.05.050 Appeal. 17.10 Bonds Sections: 17.10.000 Bond required. 17.20 Temporary Homeless Encampment Sections: 17.20.010 Definitions. 17.20.020 Temporary homeless encampments permit. 17.20.030 Standards. 17.20.040 Frequency and duration. 17.20.050 Procedural requirements for temporary homeless encampment permit applications. Packet Page 173 of 411 5 | P a g e 17.20.060 Requesting modification. 17.20.070 Notice of decision. 17.20.080 Indemnification and hold harmless requirements. 17.20.090 Enforcement. 17.20.100 Conflict. 17.20.110 No intent to create protected/benefited class. 17.30 Fences Sections: 17.30.000 General. 17.30.010 Special height restrictions. 17.30.035 Trellises and arbors. 17.35 Animals Sections: 17.35.010 Purpose. 17.35.020 Definitions. 17.35.030 Keeping of domesticated animals in residential zones. 17.35.040 Keeping of poultry and covered animals in residential zones. 17.40 Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, Signs and Lots Sections: 17.40.000 Purpose. 17.40.010 Nonconforming uses. 17.40.020 Nonconforming building and/or structure. 17.40.025 Vested nonconforming or illegal accessory dwelling units. 17.40.030 Nonconforming lots. 17.40.040 Nonconforming signs. 17.40.050 Nonconforming local public facilities. 17.40.060 Setback exemption. 17.50 Off-Street Parking Regulations Sections: 17.50.000 Purposes. 17.50.010 Off-street parking required. 17.50.020 Parking space requirements. 17.50.030 Calculations. 17.50.040 Location. 17.50.050 Standards. 17.50.060 Joint use. 17.50.070 Downtown business area parking requirements. 17.50.075 Parking requirements for sexually oriented businesses. 17.50.090 Temporary parking lots. 17.50.100 Commercial vehicle regulations. 17.60 Property Performance Standards Sections: 17.60.000 Purpose. 17.60.010 Proof of compliance. Packet Page 174 of 411 6 | P a g e 17.60.020 Applicability. 17.60.030 Standards. 17.60.040 Vehicles in residential zones. 17.60.050 Habitation uses prohibited. 17.65 Limited Outdoor Display of Merchandise Sections: 17.65.000 Purpose. 17.65.010 Standards. 17.70 Temporary Uses Sections: 17.70.000 Security units. 17.70.005 Project sales offices/sales models. 17.70.010 Other temporary buildings. 17.70.020 Temporary parking lots. 17.70.030 Temporary municipal office uses. 17.70.035 Temporary storage units. 17.70.040 Bistro and outdoor dining. 17.70.050 Repealed. 17.75 Outdoor Dining Sections: 17.75.010 Outdoor dining – Permitted secondary use. 17.75.020 Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit. 17.75.030 Reduction of outdoor seating by existing nonconforming seating. 17.75.040 Outdoor dining buildings or structures. 17.80 Planter Area Maintenance Sections: 17.80.000 Applicability. 17.80.010 Definitions. 17.80.030 Maintenance required. 17.80.040 Enforcement. 17.80.050 Penalties. 17.90 Recycling Collection Facilities Sections: 17.90.000 Applicability. 17.90.010 Definitions. 17.90.020 Approval. 17.90.030 Maintenance. 17.90.040 Enforcement. 17.90.050 Appeal. 17.90.060 No vested right. 17.90.070 Penalties. 17.95 Commute Trip Reduction Plan Sections: 17.95.010 Administration. Packet Page 175 of 411 7 | P a g e 17.95.020 CTR plan. 17.95.030 Program compliance. 17.95.040 General. 17.100 Community Facilities Sections: 17.100.010 Purpose and intent. 17.100.020 Churches. 17.100.030 Conditional use permits (CUP) – Community churches and schools requiring a CUP. 17.100.040 Conditional use plan – Additional criteria. 17.100.050 Local public facilities and schools. 17.100.060 Regional public facilities. 17.100.070 Parks facilities. 17.105 Emergency Temporary Indoor Shelter Sections: 17.105.000 Intent. 17.105.010 Definitions. 17.105.020 Temporary change in use. 17.105.030 Zoning districts where permitted. Title 18 PUBLIC WORKS REQUIREMENTS Chapters: 18.00 General Requirements Sections: 18.00.000 Scope. 18.00.010 Application. 18.00.020 Review. 18.00.030 Inspection. 18.00.040 Regulations. 18.05 Utility Wires Sections: 18.05.000 Scope. 18.05.010 Underground requirements. 18.05.020 Cost. 18.05.030 Design standards. 18.05.040 Variances. 18.05.050 Existing city franchises not affected. 18.05.060 Coordination of facility replacement. 18.10 Sewers Sections: 18.10.000 Latecomer agreements (water and/or sewer). 18.10.010 Sewer connections. 18.10.020 Prohibitions. 18.10.030 Unlawful connections. Packet Page 176 of 411 8 | P a g e 18.10.040 Defective private drain pipes. 18.10.050 Draining of swimming pools. 18.20 Septic Tanks Sections: 18.20.000 Regulations. 18.20.010 Definitions. 18.20.020 Designer’s certificate. 18.20.040 Permits. 18.20.050 Where systems required. 18.20.060 Location. 18.20.070 Standards. 18.20.080 Maintenance. 18.30 Storm Water Management Sections: 18.30.000 Purpose. 18.30.010 Definitions. 18.30.020 Regulation. 18.30.030 Applicability. 18.30.040 Administration. 18.30.050 Project classification. 18.30.060 Storm water management requirements. 18.30.070 Exemptions, exceptions, adjustments and appeal. 18.30.080 Easements, deeds, and covenants. 18.30.090 Inspection and maintenance roles and responsibilities. 18.30.100 Enforcement procedures. 18.40 Grading and Retaining Walls Sections: 18.40.000 Grading. 18.40.010 Retaining walls. 18.40.020 Prohibited rockeries. 18.45 Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Code Sections: 18.45.000 Purposes. 18.45.010 Administering authority. 18.45.020 Permits. 18.45.030 Exemptions. 18.45.035 Procedural exemption. 18.45.040 Definitions. 18.45.045 Application requirements. 18.45.050 Performance standards for land development permits. 18.45.055 Notice. 18.45.060 Appeals. 18.45.065 Bonding. 18.45.070 Violations and penalties. Packet Page 177 of 411 9 | P a g e 18.45.075 Public and private redress. 18.45.080 Additional remedies authorized. 18.50 Official Street Map Sections: 18.50.000 Purpose. 18.50.010 Street map adopted. 18.50.020 Effect. 18.50.030 Changes. 18.60 Right-of-Way Construction Permits Sections: 18.60.000 Permits required. 18.60.010 Exemptions. 18.60.020 Applications. 18.60.030 Repaving. 18.60.040 Fees. 18.60.050 Decision and appeal. 18.70 Street Use and Encroachment Permits Sections: 18.70.000 Permits required. 18.70.010 Exemptions. 18.70.020 Applications. 18.70.030 Review. 18.70.040 Revocation. 18.70.050 Fees. 18.80 Streets and Driveways Sections: 18.80.000 Adoption of standard specifications. 18.80.005 Highway access management – Administrative process. 18.80.010 Street standards. 18.80.020 Plans and specifications. 18.80.030 Storm drainage. 18.80.040 Surfacing and base preparation. 18.80.050 Utilities. 18.80.060 Driveway and curb cut requirements. 18.80.070 Street slope requirements. 18.82 Traffic Impact Fees Sections: 18.82.010 Findings and authority. 18.82.020 Definitions. 18.82.030 Assessment and payment of impact fees. 18.82.040 Exemptions. 18.82.050 Credits. 18.82.060 Tax adjustments. 18.82.070 Appeals. Packet Page 178 of 411 10 | P a g e 18.82.080 Establishment of impact fee accounts. 18.82.090 Refunds. 18.82.100 Use of funds. 18.82.110 Review. 18.82.120 Road impact fee rates. 18.82.130 Independent fee calculations. 18.82.140 Existing authority unimpaired. 18.82.150 Procedures guide. 18.85 Street Trees Sections: 18.85.000 Purposes. 18.85.010 Street plan adopted. 18.85.020 Permits. 18.85.030 Duties of director of public works. 18.85.040 Abuse of street trees. 18.85.050 Replanting and replacement. 18.85.060 Visibility blockage. 18.90 Sidewalks Sections: 18.90.000 Purpose. 18.90.010 Sidewalk plan adopted. 18.90.020 Effect. 18.90.030 Sidewalk standards. 18.90.040 Sidewalk maintenance. 18.95 Parking Lot Construction Sections: 18.95.000 Permit required. 18.95.010 Application. 18.95.020 Requirements. 18.95.030 Tandem parking prohibited. Title 19 BUILDING CODES Chapters: 19.00 Building Code 19.05 Residential Building Code 19.10 Building Permits – Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas 19.15 Mechanical Code and Fuel Gas Code 19.20 Plumbing Code 19.25 Fire Code 19.30 Energy Code 19.35 Repealed 19.40 International Property Maintenance Code 19.45 International Code Council Performance Code Packet Page 179 of 411 11 | P a g e 19.50 International Existing Building Code 19.55 Electrical Code 19.60 Moving Buildings 19.65 Marinas 19.70 Fees 19.75 Street Names and Address Numbering 19.80 Board of Appeals 19.85 Penalties 19.90 Limitation of Benefited and Protected Classes 19.95 Conversion Condominiums Title 20 REVIEW CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES Chapters: 20.00 Changes to the Comprehensive Plan Sections: 20.00.000 Scope. 20.00.010 Submittal of amendments. 20.00.020 Notice. 20.00.030 Receipt by mayor and clerk certification. 20.00.040 Council action on amendments. 20.00.050 Findings. 20.01 Types of Development Project Permits Sections: 20.01.000 Purpose and general provisions. 20.01.001 Types of actions. 20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type. 20.01.003 Permit type and decision framework. 20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted. 20.01.007 Exempt projects. 20.02 Development Project Permit Applications Sections: 20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference. 20.02.002 Permit application requirements. 20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application. 20.02.005 Referral and review of development project permit applications. 20.03 Public Notice Requirements Sections: 20.03.002 Notice of application. 20.03.003 Notice of public hearing. 20.03.004 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) notice. 20.03.005 Shoreline master program (SMP) notice. 20.03.006 Optional public notice. 20.04 Consistency with Development Regulations and SEPA Packet Page 180 of 411 12 | P a g e Sections: 20.04.001 Determination of consistency. 20.04.002 Initial SEPA analysis. 20.04.003 Categorically exempt and planned actions. 20.04A Expired 20.05 Conditional Use Permits Sections: 20.05.000 Scope. 20.05.010 Criteria and findings. 20.05.020 General requirements. 20.06 Open Record Public Hearings Sections: 20.06.000 General. 20.06.001 Joint public hearings. 20.06.002 Responsibility of director for hearing. 20.06.003 Conflict of interest. 20.06.004 Ex parte communications. 20.06.005 Disqualification. 20.06.006 Burden and nature of proof. 20.06.007 Order of proceedings. 20.06.008 Decision. 20.06.009 Notice of final decision. 20.06.010 Reconsideration of decision. 20.07 Closed Record Appeals Sections: 20.07.001 Appeals of decisions. 20.07.002 Consolidated appeals. 20.07.003 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal. 20.07.004 Appeals of recommendations and decisions – Permit decisions or recommendations. 20.07.005 Procedure for closed record decision/appeal. 20.07.006 Judicial appeals. 20.07.007 Resubmission of application. 20.08 Development Agreements Sections: 20.08.010 Authority. 20.08.020 General provisions of development agreements. 20.08.030 Enforceability. 20.08.040 Approval procedure for development agreements. 20.08.050 Form of agreement, council approval, recordation. 20.08.060 Judicial appeal. 20.10 Design Review Sections: 20.10.000 Purposes. 20.10.010 Types of design review. Packet Page 181 of 411 13 | P a g e 20.10.020 Scope. 20.10.030 Approval required. 20.10.040 Optional pre-application. 20.10.045 Augmented architectural design review applications. 20.11 General Design Review Sections: 20.11.010 Review procedure – General design review. 20.11.020 Findings. 20.11.030 Criteria. 20.11.040 Appeals. 20.11.050 Lapse of approval. 20.12 District-Based Design Review Sections: 20.12.005 Outline of process and statement of intent. 20.12.010 Applicability. 20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board. 20.12.030 Design review by city staff. 20.12.070 Design guidelines, criteria and checklist. 20.12.080 Appeals. 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. 20.13 Landscaping Requirements Sections: 20.13.000 Scope. 20.13.010 Landscape plan requirements. 20.13.015 Plant schedule. 20.13.020 General design standards. 20.13.025 General planting standards. 20.13.030 Landscape types. 20.13.040 Landscape bonds. 20.13.050 Urban design chapter adopted. 20.15A Environmental Review (SEPA) Sections: 20.15A.010 Authority. 20.15A.020 General SEPA requirements – Adoption by reference. 20.15A.025 Reliance on existing plans, laws and regulations. 20.15A.030 Additional definitions. 20.15A.040 Designation of responsible official. 20.15A.050 Lead agency determination and responsibilities. 20.15A.060 Rules for deciding probable significant, adverse environmental impact – Adoption by reference. 20.15A.080 Categorical exemptions – Adoption by reference. 20.15A.090 Categorical exemptions – Flexible thresholds. 20.15A.100 Categorical exemptions – Use of exemptions. 20.15A.110 Determination – Review at conceptual stage. 20.15A.120 Environmental checklist. Packet Page 182 of 411 14 | P a g e 20.15A.130 Threshold determinations – Mitigated DNS. 20.15A.140 Environmental impact statement (EIS) – Adoption by reference. 20.15A.150 Preparation of EIS – Additional considerations. 20.15A.160 Commenting – Adoption by reference. 20.15A.170 Public notice. 20.15A.180 Designation of official to perform consulted agency responsibilities. 20.15A.190 Using existing environmental documents – Adoption by reference. 20.15A.195 Planned actions. 20.15A.200 SEPA decisions – Adoption by reference. 20.15A.210 SEPA decisions – Nonexempt proposals. 20.15A.220 SEPA decisions – Substantive authority. 20.15A.230 SEPA – Policies. 20.15A.240 Appeals. 20.15A.250 Notice/statute of limitations. 20.15A.260 Definitions – Adoption by reference. 20.15A.270 Compliance with SEPA – Adoption by reference. 20.15A.290 Fees. 20.15A.300 Forms – Adoption by reference. 20.15A.310 Severability. 20.15B Repealed 20.16 Essential Public Facilities Sections: 20.16.010 Purpose and applicability. 20.16.020 Definitions. 20.16.030 Conditional use permit required. 20.16.040 Optional site consultation process. 20.16.045 Interjurisdictional siting. 20.16.050 EPF conditional use permit procedure. 20.16.060 Independent consultant review. 20.16.070 Decision criteria. 20.16.080 Decision criteria – EPFs proposed by a regional agency with jurisdiction. 20.16.090 Denial of regional EPF – Limitations. 20.16.100 Permit approval – Suspension or revocation. 20.16.110 Reconsideration and appeal. 20.16.120 Decision timing. 20.16.130 Building permit application. 20.18 Group Homes Sections: 20.18.010 Purpose. 20.18.020 Pre-establishment operating plan. 20.18.030 Complaint procedures and facilitated meeting. 20.18.040 Neighborhood mediation. 20.18.050 Civil enforcement procedure. 20.19 Home Day Care Packet Page 183 of 411 15 | P a g e Sections: 20.19.000 Purpose. 20.19.010 Conditional use permit required. 20.19.020 Criteria. 20.19.030 Permit. 20.19.040 Review hearings. 20.19.050 Appeal. 20.20 Home Occupations Sections: 20.20.000 Purpose. 20.20.010 Home occupation. 20.20.015 Prohibited home occupations. 20.20.020 General regulation. 20.20.030 Permit. 20.21 Accessory Dwelling Units Sections: 20.21.000 Purpose. 20.21.010 Accessory dwelling units prohibited. 20.21.020 Density limitation – Limitation on total occupancy. 20.21.025 Application and filing fee. 20.21.030 Criteria for attached accessory dwelling units. 20.21.040 Nontransferability. 20.21.050 Preexisting accessory dwelling units. 20.21.060 Permit conditions. 20.25 Housing for the Low Income Elderly Sections: 20.25.000 Purpose. 20.25.010 Changes to site development standards. 20.25.020 Eligible projects. 20.25.030 Application. 20.25.040 Location criteria. 20.25.050 Enforcement. 20.30 Joint Use of Parking Sections: 20.30.000 Purpose. 20.30.010 Application. 20.30.020 Review. 20.30.030 Criteria. 20.30.040 Recorded agreement. 20.30.050 Loss of joint use. 20.35 Planned Residential Development (PRD) Sections: 20.35.010 Purposes. 20.35.020 Applicability. Packet Page 184 of 411 16 | P a g e 20.35.030 Alternative standards. 20.35.040 Criteria for establishing alternative development standards. 20.35.050 Decision criteria for PRDs. 20.35.060 Single-family design criteria. 20.35.070 Application. 20.35.080 Review process. 20.35.090 Final approval. 20.35.100 Administration of an approved PRD. 20.35.110 Modifications to approved PRDs – Final development plan – Amendments permitted. 20.40 Rezones Sections: 20.40.000 Scope. 20.40.010 Review. 20.40.020 Contract rezones. 20.40.030 Notice. 20.45 Edmonds Register of Historic Places Sections: 20.45.000 Definitions. 20.45.010 Criteria for determining designation in the register. 20.45.020 Process for designating properties or districts to the Edmonds historic register. 20.45.030 Removal of properties from the register. 20.45.040 Effects of listing on the register. 20.45.050 Review of changes to Edmonds register of historic places properties. 20.45.060 Relationship to zoning. 20.45.070 Review and monitoring of properties for special property tax valuation. 20.45.080 Special valuation agreement. 20.45.090 Appeals. 20.50 Wireless Communication Facilities Sections: 20.50.010 Purpose. 20.50.020 Applicability. 20.50.030 Exemption. 20.50.040 Prohibitions. 20.50.050 General siting criteria and design considerations. 20.50.060 Permit requirements. 20.50.070 Application requirements. 20.50.080 Review timeframes. 20.50.090 Building-mounted facility standards. 20.50.100 Structure-mounted facility standards. 20.50.110 Monopole facility standards. 20.50.120 Temporary facilities. 20.50.130 Modification. 20.50.140 Abandonment or discontinuation of use. 20.50.150 Maintenance. Packet Page 185 of 411 17 | P a g e 20.50.160 Definitions. 20.55 Shoreline Permits Sections: 20.55.000 Purpose. 20.55.010 Application requirements. 20.55.020 Notice. 20.55.025 Substantial development permits for limited utility extensions and bulkheads. 20.55.030 Review. 20.55.040 Variances. 20.55.050 Filing with state. 20.55.060 Effective date. 20.60 Sign Code Sections: 20.60.000 Purpose. 20.60.005 Definitions. 20.60.010 Permit required. 20.60.015 Design review procedures. 20.60.020 General regulations for permanent signs. 20.60.025 Total maximum permanent sign area. 20.60.030 Wall signs – Maximum area and height. 20.60.035 Window signs – Maximum area. 20.60.040 Projecting signs – Maximum area and height restrictions. 20.60.045 Freestanding signs – Regulations. 20.60.050 Wall graphic and identification structures. 20.60.060 Campaign signs. 20.60.065 Real estate signs. 20.60.080 Temporary signs. 20.60.070 Construction signs. 20.60.090 Prohibited signs. 20.60.095 Exempt signs. 20.60.100 Administration. 20.65 Street Map Changes Sections: 20.65.000 Scope. 20.65.010 Review. 20.65.020 Approved changes. 20.65.030 Street vacations. 20.70 Street Vacations Sections: 20.70.000 Purpose. 20.70.010 Applicability. 20.70.020 Criteria for vacation. 20.70.030 City easement rights for public utilities and services. 20.70.040 Limitations on vacations. Packet Page 186 of 411 18 | P a g e 20.70.050 Initiation of proceedings. 20.70.060 Application requirements. 20.70.070 Public hearing – Date fixing. 20.70.80 Staff report preparation 20.70.090 Public notification – Contents and distribution. 20.70.100 Vacation file content and availability. 20.70.110 Public hearing – Required. 20.70.120 Public hearing – Continuation. 20.70.130 Public hearing – Presentation by planning manager. 20.70.140 Final decision. 20.75 Subdivisions Sections: 20.75.010 Citation of chapter. 20.75.020 Purposes. 20.75.025 Scope. 20.75.030 Subdivision defined. 20.75.035 Compliance required. 20.75.040 Application. 20.75.050 Lot line adjustment – Application. 20.75.055 Lot combination. 20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats. 20.75.065 Preliminary review. 20.75.070 Formal subdivision – Time limit. 20.75.075 Modifications. 20.75.080 General findings. 20.75.085 Review criteria. 20.75.090 Park land dedication. 20.75.100 Preliminary approval – Time limit. 20.75.105 Repealed. 20.75.110 Changes. 20.75.120 Review of improvement plans. 20.75.130 Installation of improvements. 20.75.135 Preparation of final plat. 20.75.140 Final plat – Required certificates. 20.75.145 Final plat – Accompanying material. 20.75.150 Waiver of survey. 20.75.155 Review of final plat. 20.75.158 Short plat – Staff review. 20.75.160 Final plat – Filing for record. 20.75.165 Effect of rezones. 20.75.170 Further division – Short subdivisions. 20.75.175 Court review. 20.75.180 Violation – Permits. 20.75.185 Penalties. Packet Page 187 of 411 19 | P a g e 20.80 Text and Map Changes Sections: 20.80.000 Scope. 20.80.010 Procedural and nonzoning related changes. 20.80.020 Zoning and planning changes. 20.85 Variances Sections: 20.85.000 Scope. 20.85.010 Findings. 20.85.020 General requirements. 20.90 Repealed 20.91 Repealed 20.95 Repealed 20.100 Miscellaneous Review Sections: 20.100.000 – 20.100.020 Repealed. 20.100.030 Expired. 20.100.040 Review of approved permits. 20.100.050 Forest Practices Act moratorium. 20.105 Repealed 20.110 Civil Violation – Enforcement Procedure Sections: 20.110.010 Purpose. 20.110.020 Definition section. 20.110.030 Repealed. 20.110.040 Enforcement procedures. 20.110.050 Repealed. Title 21 DEFINITIONS Chapters: 21.00 Definitions – General 21.05 “A” Terms 21.10 “B” Terms 21.15 “C” Terms 21.20 “D” Terms 21.25 “E” Terms 21.30 “F” Terms 21.35 “G” Terms 21.40 “H” Terms 21.45 “I” Terms 21.47 “J” Terms 21.50 “K” Terms Packet Page 188 of 411 20 | P a g e 21.55 “L” Terms 21.60 “M” Terms 21.65 “N” Terms 21.75 “O” Terms 21.80 “P” Terms 21.85 “R” Terms 21.90 “S” Terms 21.100 “T” Terms 21.105 “U” Terms 21.110 “V” Terms 21.115 “W” Terms 21.125 “Z” Terms Title 22 DESIGN STANDARDS Chapters: 22.43 Design Standards for the BD1 Zone Sections: 22.43.000 Applicability. 22.43.010 Massing and articulation. 22.43.020 Orientation to street. 22.43.030 Ground level details. 22.43.040 Awnings/canopies and signage. 22.43.050 Transparency at street level. 22.43.060 Treating blank walls. 22.43.070 Building HVAC equipment. 22.100 Firdale Village Site Design Standards Sections: 22.100.000 Applicability and goals. 22.100.010 Site design and planning. 22.100.020 Architectural design. 22.100.030 Pedestrian orientation, outdoor spaces and amenities. 22.100.040 Vehicular access and parking. 22.100.050 Site landscaping and screening elements. 22.100.060 Signage. 22.100.070 Site lighting. 22.100.080 Safety issues. 22.100.090 Sustainable design. 22.100.100 Definitions. Title 23 NATURAL RESOURCES Chapters: 23.10 Shoreline Master Program Packet Page 189 of 411 21 | P a g e Sections: 23.10.005 Organization. Part I. Introduction 23.10.010 User guide. 23.10.015 Objectives of this master program. 23.10.020 Adoption authority. 23.10.025 Applicability. 23.10.030 Relationship to other codes and ordinances. 23.10.035 Procedures. 23.10.040 Policies and regulations. 23.10.045 Definitions. Part II. Goals and Policies 23.10.050 User guide. 23.10.055 Adoption by reference. 23.10.060 Shoreline use element goals and policies. 23.10.065 Economic development element goal and policies. 23.10.070 Circulation element goal and policies. 23.10.075 Public access element goal and policies. 23.10.080 Recreational element goal and policies. 23.10.085 Conservation element goal and policies. 23.10.090 Historical/cultural element goal and policies. 23.10.095 Urban design element goal and policies. Part III. Environmental Designations 23.10.100 User guide. 23.10.105 Adoption criteria. 23.10.110 Map adopted by reference. Part IV. Use Regulations 23.10.115 User guide. 23.10.120 Shoreline uses, developments and activities. 23.10.125 Flexibility with a shoreline conditional use permit. 23.10.130 General regulations – Environmentally sensitive areas and critical areas. 23.10.135 General regulations – Historical and archeological resources. 23.10.140 General regulations – Parking. 23.10.145 General regulations – Public access. 23.10.150 Use regulations – Detached dwelling units. 23.10.155 Use regulations – Mixed-use commercial. 23.10.160 Use regulations – Moorage structures and facilities. 23.10.165 Use regulations – Railroads. 23.10.170 Use regulations – Ferry terminals. 23.10.175 Use regulations – Utilities, government facilities, and transportation systems. 23.10.180 Use regulations – Public parks and public recreation facilities. 23.10.185 Use regulations – Public access pier or boardwalk. 23.10.190 Use regulations – Bulkheads and similar structures. 23.10.195 Use regulations – Breakwaters and similar structures. Packet Page 190 of 411 22 | P a g e 23.10.200 Special regulations – Dredging. 23.10.205 Special regulations – Filling. 23.10.210 General regulations – Land surface modification. 23.10.215 Special regulations – Authority of the city. 23.10.220 Special regulations – Nonconformance. Part V. Appendices 23.10.230 Map of shoreline environments and jurisdictions. 23.10.235 Calculating average grade level. 23.10.240 Calculating average parcel depth. 23.10.245 Calculating waterward view corridor. 23.10.250 Interpretations of this master program. 23.40 Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions Sections: Part I. Purpose and General Provisions 23.40.000 Purpose. 23.40.010 Authority. 23.40.020 Relationship to other regulations. 23.40.030 Severability. 23.40.040 Jurisdiction – Critical areas. 23.40.050 Protection of critical areas. Part II. Critical Areas Review Process 23.40.060 General requirements. 23.40.070 Critical areas preapplication consultation. 23.40.080 Notice of initial determination. 23.40.090 Critical areas report – Requirements. 23.40.100 Critical areas report – Modifications to requirements. 23.40.110 Mitigation requirements. 23.40.120 Mitigation sequencing. 23.40.130 Mitigation plan requirements. 23.40.140 Innovative mitigation. 23.40.150 Critical areas decision. 23.40.160 Review criteria. 23.40.170 Favorable critical areas decision. 23.40.180 Unfavorable critical areas decision. 23.40.190 Completion of the critical areas review. 23.40.200 Appeals. 23.40.210 Variances. Part III. Allowed Activities, Exemptions and Noncompliance Penalties 23.40.220 Allowed activities. 23.40.230 Exemptions. 23.40.240 Unauthorized critical areas alterations and enforcement. Part IV. General Critical Areas Protective Measures 23.40.250 Critical areas markers and signs. 23.40.270 Critical areas tracts. Packet Page 191 of 411 23 | P a g e 23.40.280 Building setbacks. 23.40.290 Bonds to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring. 23.40.300 Critical areas inspections. Part V. Incorporation of Best Available Science 23.40.310 Best available science. Part VI. Definitions 23.40.320 Definitions pertaining to critical areas. 23.50 Wetlands Sections: Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.50.000 Wetlands compliance requirements flowchart. 23.50.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Wetlands. Part II. Allowed Activities – Wetlands 23.50.020 Allowed activities – Wetlands. Part III. Additional Report Requirements – Wetlands 23.50.030 Special study and report requirements – Wetlands. Part IV. Development Standards – Wetlands 23.50.040 Development standards – Wetlands. 23.50.050 Mitigation requirements – Wetlands. 23.50.060 Performance standards – Subdivisions. Part V. City of Edmonds Wetland Field Data Form 23.50.070 Wetland field data form. 23.60 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Sections: Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.60.010 Critical aquifer recharge areas designation. 23.70 Frequently Flooded Areas Sections: Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.70.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Frequently flooded areas. Part II. Additional Report Requirements – Frequently Flooded Areas 23.70.020 Special study and report requirements – Frequently flooded areas. 23.70.030 Warning and disclaimer of liability. Part III. Development Standards – Frequently Flooded Areas 23.70.040 Development standards – Frequently flooded areas. 23.80 Geologically Hazardous Areas Sections: Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.80.000 Geologically hazardous areas compliance requirements flowchart. 23.80.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Geologically hazardous areas. 23.80.020 Designation of specific hazard areas. 23.80.030 Mapping of geologically hazardous areas. Part II. Allowed Activities – Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.040 Allowed activities – Geologically hazardous areas. Packet Page 192 of 411 24 | P a g e Part III. Additional Report Requirements – Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.050 Special study and report requirements – Geologically hazardous areas. Part IV. Development Standards – Geologically Hazardous Areas 23.80.060 Development standards – General requirements. 23.80.070 Development standards – Specific hazards. 23.90 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Sections: Part I. Designation, Rating and Mapping 23.90.000 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas compliance requirements flowchart. 23.90.010 Designation, rating and mapping – Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Part II. Additional Report Requirements – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 23.90.020 Special study and report requirements – Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Part III. Development Standards – Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 23.90.030 Development standards – General requirements. 23.90.040 Development standards – Specific habitats. Packet Page 193 of 411   Code Re‐write/Update  As Identified at the July 2014 Planning Board Retreat    Public Process  An open public process is vital.  It will include many opportunities for public input from a broad range of  persons.  Principles     AM-7259     10.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:11/10/2014 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted By:Patrick Doherty Department:Community Services Type: Information  Information Subject Title Presentation regarding Lodging Tax Advisory Committee's Recommended 2015 Work Program and Budget Recommendation Approval Previous Council Action Narrative Pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 67.28.1817 all cities of greater than 5,000 population that impose a lodging tax must appoint a Lodging Tax Advisory Committee to provide recommendations on the usage of lodging tax revenue for the purposes of tourism promotion. The City of Edmonds Lodging Tax Advisory Committee met three times in 2014 (July 21 and October 21 & 27, 2014) to review the lodging tax revenue projections, consider applications for use of lodging tax monies for tourism events and promotional activities, and prepare their recommendations to City Council, as required by RCW 67.28.1816. With lodging tax revenues on the rise, the current projection for lodging tax revenue in 2015 is $90,000. Pursuant to City Council Resolution #630, 25% of the lodging tax revenue (or $22,500 in 2015) will be directed to Fund 123 for arts and culture events that promote tourism. Attached you will see 9 (nine) applications for arts/culture events and/or programs that promote tourism, totaling $21,200, as follows:  City of Edmonds Arts Commission Tourism Promotion Awards - $10,000 (Cascade Symphony - $2,000; Olympic Ballet Theater - $2,000; Art Studio Tour - $1,000; Driftwood Players - $2,000, Sno-King Chorale - $1,500, Phoenix Theater - $1,500) Promotion of Edmonds arts/culture in SnoCo Visitor Guide, CRAZE, Arts Access - $4,000 Write on the Sound Conference - $7,200 Public Art Brochure - $2,000 DeMiero Jazz Fest - $2,000 Packet Page 195 of 411 The remaining 75% of lodging tax revenues (or $67,500 in 2015) is available for general tourism promotion activities, programs and services. Attached you will see 6 (six) applications for general tourism promotion activities, totaling $67,000, as follows:  Snohomish County Tourism Bureau - $6,000 Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Visitors Center - $2,500 Edmonds Center for the Arts Season Brochure Arts/Culture/Tourism Ad - $12,500 Puget Sound Bird Fest - $2,500 Advertising/marketing for tourism - $27,500 Professional services for tourism and arts/culture/events marketing and website implementation - $12,000 In addition, you will see attached one application to cover costs associated with the City of Edmonds hosting the "RevitalizeWA 2015" Conference, organized by the Washington State Trust for Historic Preservation and Washington State Main Street Program, in the amount of $3,000.  This cost is anticipated to be covered by monies in the Fund 120 Fund Balance. Attachments 2015 LTAC Applications Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/30/2014 03:30 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/30/2014 10:11 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/31/2014 07:20 AM Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Started On: 10/30/2014 02:14 PM Final Approval Date: 10/31/2014  Packet Page 196 of 411 Packet Page 197 of 411 Packet Page 198 of 411 Packet Page 199 of 411 Packet Page 200 of 411 Packet Page 201 of 411 Packet Page 202 of 411 Packet Page 203 of 411 Packet Page 204 of 411 Packet Page 205 of 411 Packet Page 206 of 411 Packet Page 207 of 411 Packet Page 208 of 411 Packet Page 209 of 411 Packet Page 210 of 411 Packet Page 211 of 411 Packet Page 212 of 411 Packet Page 213 of 411 Packet Page 214 of 411 Packet Page 215 of 411 Packet Page 216 of 411 Packet Page 217 of 411    AM-7270     11.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:11/10/2014 Time:45 Minutes   Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Scott James Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title Discussion regarding the 2015 Proposed City Budget. Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative Mayor Earling presented the Proposed 2015 Budget to City Council during their October 7th City Council meeting. 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. On October 28th Council Meeting, the following departments will presented 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. On November 3rd, Council held a Public Hearing on the Proposed 2015 Budget and received public comments. On November 10th 2015, council will continue discussing the Proposed 2015 Budget during their Study Session. Subsequent Council Meetings on the Proposed 2015 Budget are scheduled as scheduled as follows: November 18th 2015 Budget Discussion and Potential Adoption Tentative December 2nd 2015 Budget Discussion and Potential Adoption. Packet Page 218 of 411 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 11/06/2014 10:36 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 11/06/2014 10:36 AM Mayor Dave Earling 11/06/2014 10:52 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/06/2014 10:54 AM Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 11/06/2014 10:28 AM Final Approval Date: 11/06/2014  Packet Page 219 of 411    AM-7266     12.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:11/10/2014 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Review Committee: Committee Action: Cancel Type: Information  Information Subject Title Discussion on the Proposed 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the 2015-2020 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and an ordinance be prepared to adopt the 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan as amended by the City Council.   Previous Council Action On September 23, 2014, Council reviewed the process to approve the Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program.  On October 28, 2014, Council reviewed the proposed Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program. On November 3, 2014, a public hearing was held to receive public comment.  Narrative The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) 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 Packet Page 220 of 411 has two sections related to general and parks projects and each project list is organized by the City's financial fund numbers. Exhibit 3 is a comparison that shows added, deleted and changed projects between last year's CFP/CIP to the proposed CFP/CIP. The CFP and CIP were presented and a public hearing was held at the Planning Board meeting on 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. Attached is the Sunset Walkway cost information for the trial project and project design costs to date.  The City has received $78,527 in reimbursement for design costs from the federal grant through the second quarter of 2014.  The PSRC TAP preliminary cost estimate for the $2,099,000 figure in the proposed CIP/CFP in 2018 is also attached for reference.  The difference between the cost estimate and the number in the CIP/CFP is an estimate of inflation from the date of estimate to the assumed date of construction (2018).   The TAP estimate did not include costs for design and construction of water and sewer utilities that may be built, if the project goes forward.  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 Sunset Walkway Trial Project Costs  Sunset Walkway Design Costs PSRC TAP Estimate Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 11/06/2014 03:01 PM Public Works Phil Williams 11/07/2014 09:42 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 11/07/2014 09:42 AM Mayor Dave Earling 11/07/2014 10:57 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/07/2014 11:02 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 11/05/2014 03:56 PM Final Approval Date: 11/07/2014  Packet Page 221 of 411 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2015-2020 DRAFT Packet Page 222 of 411 Packet Page 223 of 411 CFP GENERAL Packet Page 224 of 411 Packet Page 225 of 411 $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 $1 - 2M 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 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 Grounds Replace and expand deteriorating building on the waterfront. 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 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. P a c k e t P a g e 2 2 6 o f 4 1 1 P a c k e t P a g e 2 2 7 o f 4 1 1 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 228 of 411 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 229 of 411 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 230 of 411 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 231 of 411 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 232 of 411 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 233 of 411 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 234 of 411 PROJECT NAME: Senior Center grounds ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1-2M * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rehabilitate grounds, parking, beach access and area around Senior Center, in conjunction with the construction of a new Senior Center building. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This facility is at the end of its useful life. The Edmonds Senior Center, a nonprofit, will be launching a capital campaign to reconstruct the Senior Center and seek a long term land lease with the City. It is the City’s intent to rehabilitate the grounds and beach access surrounding the Sr. Ctr when construction begins. SCHEDULE: Work with Sr. Center on timing of construction and grounds rehab. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $1-2M Packet Page 235 of 411 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 236 of 411 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 237 of 411 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 238 of 411 Packet Page 239 of 411 CFP TRANSPORTATION Packet Page 240 of 411 Packet Page 241 of 411 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 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 2016Funding 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) 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 converting a stop controlled intersection for NB and SB to a signalized intersection. Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 20172015 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. P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 2 o f 4 1 1 Project Name 2016Funding Source Project Phase 2021-2025201820192020 Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 20172015 $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 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. Walnut St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements Convert all-way controlled intersection into signalized intersection. Olympic View Dr. @ 174th St. SW Intersection Improvements Main St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvement Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements 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. P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 3 o f 4 1 1 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 4 4 o f 4 1 1 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 4 5 o f 4 1 1 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 4 6 o f 4 1 1 P a c k e t P a g e 2 4 7 o f 4 1 1 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 248 of 411 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 249 of 411 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 250 of 411 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 251 of 411 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 252 of 411 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 253 of 411 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 254 of 411 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 255 of 411 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 256 of 411 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 257 of 411 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 258 of 411 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 259 of 411 PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 174th St. SW 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 260 of 411 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 261 of 411 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 262 of 411 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 263 of 411 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 264 of 411 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 265 of 411 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 266 of 411 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 267 of 411 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 268 of 411 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 269 of 411 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 270 of 411 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 271 of 411 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 272 of 411 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 273 of 411 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 274 of 411 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 275 of 411 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 276 of 411 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 277 of 411 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 278 of 411 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 279 of 411 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 280 of 411 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 281 of 411 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 282 of 411 Packet Page 283 of 411 CFP STORMWATER Packet Page 284 of 411 Packet Page 285 of 411 $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 8 6 o f 4 1 1 P a c k e t P a g e 2 8 7 o f 4 1 1 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 288 of 411 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 289 of 411 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 290 of 411 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2015-2020 DRAFT Packet Page 291 of 411 Packet Page 292 of 411 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 293 of 411 Packet Page 294 of 411 CIP GENERAL Packet Page 295 of 411 Packet Page 296 of 411 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 9 7 o f 4 1 1 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 9 8 o f 4 1 1 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 9 9 o f 4 1 1 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 3 0 0 o f 4 1 1 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 3 0 1 o f 4 1 1 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 3 0 2 o f 4 1 1 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 3 0 3 o f 4 1 1 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 3 0 4 o f 4 1 1 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 3 0 5 o f 4 1 1 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 3 0 6 o f 4 1 1 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 Veteran's Plaza $10,000 Total Projects $1,361,632 $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 $1,386,902 $82,011 -$17,989 -$3,017,989 -$3,017,989 $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 $1,686,902 $82,011 -$17,989 -$3,017,989 -$3,017,989 $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 $6,199,911 $82,011 -$17,989 -$1,592,989 -$117,989 $282,912 Total Construction Projects (1,361,632.00)($6,117,900)(100,000)(3,000,000)($1,425,000)(2,900,000)$0 Ending Cash Balance $1,386,902 $82,011 -$17,989 -$3,017,989 -$3,017,989 -$3,017,989 $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 3 0 7 o f 4 1 1 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 3 0 8 o f 4 1 1 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 3 0 9 o f 4 1 1 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 3 1 0 o f 4 1 1 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 3 1 1 o f 4 1 1 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 3 1 2 o f 4 1 1 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 3 1 3 o f 4 1 1 P a c k e t P a g e 3 1 4 o f 4 1 1 CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Packet Page 315 of 411 Packet Page 316 of 411 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 317 of 411 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 318 of 411 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 $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 319 of 411 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 320 of 411 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 321 of 411 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 322 of 411 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 323 of 411 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 324 of 411 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 325 of 411 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 326 of 411 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 327 of 411 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 328 of 411 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 329 of 411 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 330 of 411 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 331 of 411 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 332 of 411 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 333 of 411 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 334 of 411 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 335 of 411 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 336 of 411 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 337 of 411 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 338 of 411 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 339 of 411 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 $20,000 Packet Page 340 of 411 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Cemetery Mapping ESTIMATED COST:$ 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 341 of 411 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 342 of 411 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 343 of 411 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 344 of 411 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 345 of 411 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 346 of 411 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 347 of 411 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 348 of 411 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 349 of 411 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 350 of 411 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. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain capital assets and provide safety and better accessibility for Seniors. 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 351 of 411 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 352 of 411 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 353 of 411 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 354 of 411 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 355 of 411 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 356 of 411 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 357 of 411 PROJECT NAME: Veteran’s Plaza ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The establishment of a Veteran’s Plaza was unanimously approved by the City Council in 2014. It will serve as a tribute to the patriotic and courageous men and women who served this nation. The Plaza will reflect the bravery, sacrifice and strength they gave our country. The design will accommodate flagpoles (in their existing location), space for display of military seals and a Plaza, seating areas for reflection, some educational monuments or placards, and existing hardscape and significant trees. The address is 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 and is adjacent to the Edmonds Public Safety Building. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Veteran’s Plaza will serve as a focal point which raises awareness of the contributions made by veterans and illustrates the high respect the citizens of Edmonds have for the men and women who have defended the rights and freedoms of this nation. It will provide a tribute for the men and women who have served and are serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. The Plaza will establish a central site for the citizens of Edmonds to conduct official observances, activities and ceremonies to honor veterans including Veterans Day. SCHEDULE: 2015-2021 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. 10,000 Construction 1% for Art TOTAL 10,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 358 of 411 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 359 of 411 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 360 of 411 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 361 of 411 423.76 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 362 of 411 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 363 of 411 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 364 of 411 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 365 of 411 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 366 of 411 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 367 of 411 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 368 of 411 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 369 of 411 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 370 of 411 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 371 of 411 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 372 of 411 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 373 of 411 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 374 of 411 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 375 of 411 Date Hours Funds Purpose Materials 12‐Sep 4 3,400.00$          Fogging of Sunset/project start Engineering 13‐Sep 0 14‐Sep 0 15‐Sep 36 726.88$             swept /layout and paint materials from stock 16‐Sep 27 1,005.96$          paint/HC stalls/x‐walks materials from stock 17‐Sep 35 685.44$             install curb stops Cuz Concrete 18‐Sep 42 370.00$             prep for sidewalk pave 20yrds crush Stock 19‐Sep 7 77.78$                adjust m/h in sidewalk materials from stock 20‐Sep 0 21‐Sep 0 22‐Sep 27 148.00$             prep for sidewalk pave 8yrds crush Stock 23‐Sep 27 1,388.13$          pave walkway 18 ton Cemex 24‐Sep 18 148.00$             prep for sidewalk pave 8yrds crush  Stock 25‐Sep 36 845.45$             pave walkway 11 ton  Cemex 26‐Sep 6 prep curb for paint 27‐Sep 28‐Sep 0 29‐Sep 18 170.34$             paint yellow curb materials from stock 30‐Sep 0 55.50$                prep ramps 3y rock from stock 30‐Sep 27 386.32$             prep and pave ramps 5ton Cemex Sept Totals 310 9,407.80$           1‐Oct 18 37.00$                form bench pads 2 yrds crush  Stock 2‐Oct 24 261.43$             pour bench pads 2.5yrds Cemex 3‐Oct 2 break down forms 4‐Oct 0 5‐Oct 0 6‐Oct 9 70.00$                hot tape stock material 6‐Oct 0 92.85$                black paint to hide old center line Miller Paint 6‐Oct 36 3,236.52$          hot tape/spread chips Ennis Flint 7‐Oct 23 92.85$                black paint to hide old center line Miller Paint 8‐Oct 6 140.00$             pave around benches Cemex / Partial Cost 9‐Oct 0 10‐Oct 0 11‐Oct 0 12‐Oct 0 13‐Oct 0 14‐Oct 0 15‐Oct 18 spread wood chips free chips 17‐Oct 0 500.00$             fuel estimate 18‐Oct 0 19‐Oct 0 20‐Oct 0 21‐Oct 0 22‐Oct 27 3,925.58$          assist parks with plantings plants 23‐Oct 107 Parks department hours to date 24‐Oct 0 25‐Oct 0 26‐Oct 0 27‐Oct 0 28‐Oct 0 29‐Oct 0 30‐Oct 0 31‐Oct 0 Oct Totals 270 8,356.23$           Project Totals 575 17,764.03$        Sunset Walkway Public Works Cost Estimates Packet Page 376 of 411 Packet Page 377 of 411 Packet Page 378 of 411 Packet Page 379 of 411 Packet Page 380 of 411 Packet Page 381 of 411 Packet Page 382 of 411 Packet Page 383 of 411 Packet Page 384 of 411 Packet Page 385 of 411 Packet Page 386 of 411 Packet Page 387 of 411 SUNSET WALKWAY PROJECT PRE-ENGINEERING AND RCO GRANT APPLICATION (Prior to 2013) No. Item Cost 1 DHA, Inc. $2,965 2 Parametrix $26,661 3 BNSF $600 4 Staff Time $3,246 Total =$33,472 DESIGN (2013-to date) No. Item Cost 1 MacLeod Reckord $83,297 2 Post Cards $86 3 Daily Journal of Commerce $372 4 Everett Herald $172 5 Public Records Requests $656 6 Staff Time $25,148 Total = $109,731 Packet Page 388 of 411 Prepared by: C. Reckord 8/26/2013 ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION OF ITEM EST QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT PREPARATION 1 MOBILIZATION (10%)1 L.S.$92,498 $92,498 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 1 L.S.$10,000 $10,000 3 REMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB 2,219 L.F.$8 $17,752 4 REMOVE ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT 4,134 S.Y.$10 $41,342 5 ROADWAY EXCAVATION INCLUDING HAUL 2,756 C.Y.$12.00 $33,074 6 GRAVEL BORROW INCL. HAUL 2,067 TN.$15.00 $31,007 SURFACING 7 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE - CONCRETE UNDERLAY 878 TN.$22.00 $19,321 8 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE - HMA UNDERLAY 508 TN.$22.00 $11,183 9 VACANT 10 NEW HMA 254 TN.$125.00 $31,771 STORM SEWER 11 FILTERRA 6 EA $15,000 $90,000 12 CATCH BASIN TYPE I 8 EA $1,200 $9,600 13 CATCH BASIN TYPE II 3 EA $2,500 $7,500 14 STORM SEWER (12" PVC)2,200 LF $22 $48,400 15 ADJUST MANHOLE 8 EA $500 $4,000 EROSION CONTROL AND PLANTING 16 TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 1 L.S.$8,000 $8,000 17 TESC PLAN 1 L.S.$2,500 $2,500 18 PLANT BED AREA (PSIPE 1 YEAR)1,393 S.Y.$50 $69,650 19 TOPSOIL 18" DEPTH 697 C.Y.$35 $24,378 TRAFFIC 20 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 L.S.$40,000 $40,000 21 CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER 2,219 L.F.$18 $39,942 22 SIGNING AND STRIPING 1 L.S.$15,000 $15,000 23 WHEEL STOPS 26 EA.$250 $6,500 24 SPEED TABLE CROSSINGS 1 EA.$16,000 $16,000 OTHER ITEMS 25 INTERPRETIVE SIGNS 3 EA.$2,000 $6,000 26 ENTRANCE SIGNS 2 EA.$2,500 $5,000 27 BENCHES 5 EA.$2,000 $10,000 28 PICNIC TABLES 4 EA.$2,000 $8,000 29 CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK 10' - 12' WIDE 2,635 S.Y.$45 $118,560 30 CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP 6 EA.$6,000 $36,000 31 DECORATIVE GUARD RAIL 1,550 L.F.$90 $139,500 32 VIEWING AREAS 1 EA.$25,000 $25,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $1,017,477 CONTINGENCY (30%)$305,243 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $1,322,720 OTHER COSTS 22 SURVEY 1 L.S.$28,000 $28,000 23 GEOTECHNICAL 1 L.S.$23,000 $23,000 24 DESIGN, PUBLIC OUTREACH & PERMITTING (18%)1 L.S.$238,090 $238,090 25 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15%)1 L.S.$198,408 $198,408 26 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND ADMIN (5%)1 L.S.$66,136 $66,136 27 $0 SUBTOTAL OTHER COSTS $553,634 GRAND TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,876,354 CONSTRUCTION COSTS CITY OF EDMONDS - SUNSET AVENUE OVERLOOK TRAIL PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE 7/23/2014 1 MacLeod Reckord Packet Page 389 of 411    AM-7249     13.              City Council Meeting Meeting Date:11/10/2014 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted For:Council President Buckshnis Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action:  Type: Information  Information Subject Title 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). October 28, 2014 Council Meeting:   Due to the lateness of the hour the Continued Discussion on Study Sessions was rescheduled as an item for this agenda. 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? Packet Page 390 of 411 7) Understood that all items that are moved, are moved onto Consent for the next week, unless specified.   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 11/06/2014 10:24 AM Mayor Dave Earling 11/06/2014 10:53 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/06/2014 10:54 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 10/29/2014 08:45 AM Final Approval Date: 11/06/2014  Packet Page 391 of 411 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 392 of 411 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 393 of 411 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 394 of 411 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 395 of 411 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 396 of 411 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 397 of 411 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 398 of 411 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 399 of 411 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 400 of 411 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 401 of 411 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 402 of 411 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 403 of 411 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 404 of 411 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 405 of 411 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 406 of 411 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 407 of 411 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 408 of 411 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 409 of 411 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 410 of 411 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 411 of 411