2023-10-03 City Council Packet2
3
4
5
6
of c�,y
s
Agenda
Edmonds City Council
REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
OCTOBER 3, 2023, 7:00 PM
PERSONS WISHING TO JOIN THIS MEETING VIRTUALLY IN LIEU OF IN -PERSON ATTENDANCE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING AUDIENCE COMMENTS CAN CLICK ON OR PASTE THE FOLLOWING
ZOOM MEETING LINK INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE:
HTTPS://ZOOM. US/J/95798484261
OR COMMENT BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261
THOSE COMMENTING USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO RAISE A
VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS BY
DIAL -UP PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND. WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO
UNMUTE. WHEN YOUR COMMENTS ARE CONCLUDED, PLEASE LEAVE THE ZOOM MEETING AND
OBSERVE THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING ON THE COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE.
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM ARE STREAMED LIVE ON THE COUNCIL
MEETING WEBPAGE, COMCAST CHANNEL 21, AND ZIPLY CHANNEL 39.
"WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS PLACE, THE SDOHOBSH (SNOHOMISH)
PEOPLE AND THEIR SUCCESSORS THE TULALIP TRIBES, WHO SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL HAVE
HUNTED, FISHED, GATHERED, AND TAKEN CARE OF THESE LANDS. WE RESPECT THEIR
SOVEREIGNTY, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, AND WE HONOR THEIR SACRED SPIRITUAL
CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND WATER. - CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT REGARDING ANY MATTER NOT LISTED ON THE
AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS A PUBLIC HEARING. SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO
THREE MINUTES. PLEASE STATE CLEARLY YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE.
RECEIVED FOR FILING
Edmonds City Council Agenda
October 3, 2023
Page 1
1. Claim for Damages for filing (0 min)
7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Special Meeting Minutes September 19, 2023
2. Approval of Special Meeting Minutes September 26, 2023
3. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes September 26, 2023
4. Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
S. Approval of GFC Analysis and adoption of a GFC Rate Ordinance
8. PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public Hearing on Proposed 2024-2029 Capital Facilities Plan & Capital Improvement Program
(45 min)
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. Overview of Upcoming Budget Process (30 min)
2. Year in Review / Decision Package Presentation (50 min)
3. Draft Ordinance regarding Repeal of Ordinance 4079 Highway 99 Planned Action (20 min)
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
October 3, 2023
Page 2
6.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/3/2023
Claim for Damages for filing
Staff Lead: NA
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Marissa Cain
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages for filing.
Narrative
Lori Anderson
220th St SW & 84th Ave W
($2,832.33)
Attachments:
Claim for Damages - Lori Anderson - for council
Packet Pg. 3
054017932JI15,2205
CITY OF EDNIONDS
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM
Cate Claim Form
Received by City
nlease take note that TGA as agents of Safeco a/s/o Lori A�npeju°filly i0sides a
_ mailing address --
home phone # work phone # and who residea at
at the time of the occurrence and whose Uite of birth ;s , is :1aimina damages
against City of Edmonds in the sum of S 2 832.33 ansiny oul of the following-lrcumstances lister) uefow
DATE OF OCCURRENCE 7/1/2023 TIME 8_19arn
LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE 220th ST SW and 84th Ave 1N in Edmonds, VVA
DESCRIPTION.
t Describe the crinduct and circumstance that brought about the mpiry or damage. Also cescribe the miury or damage.
Our insured was traveling through the intersection when your officer entered the intersection
without warning, causing the collision.
(attach an extra sheet for additional information if needed)
2. Provide a list of witnesses. if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses. and phone r,urnbers
3, Attach copies of all doeumentalion relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and;or estimates far revair.
4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance cornpany7 x_ Yes Nr
If so, please provide the rianie_of ltt insurance company
and the policy #. _
' ' ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY' "
E
U
Packet Pg. 4
6.1.a
This Claim form must be signed by the Claimant, a person holding a written power of attorney from the Claimant Uy the
attorney in fact for the Claimant, by an attorney admitted to practice in Washington State on the Claimant's behalf, or by a
court -approved guardian or guardian ad litem on behalf of the Claimant.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of W ashington that the foregoing is true and correct
Sig ature o(Claimant Dairprand place (residential address, city and county)
o
E
Signature of Representative Date and place (residential address, city and county)
RAF-AEL E. DAVILA / 4QN�rL °
THOMAS GEORGE SOC, LTD. � /� �. � s 2-3 E
Print"N, a\me of R pr s the Dar Number (if applicable,) �)
DEBCRAH C. CANGEMI —
Notary Public, Stale of New Yo =
No. Oi CA5082708 3
Qualified in Suffolk County c0i
Term Expires Nov. 4, 20
Please present the completed claim form to:
City Clerk's Office
Clty of Edmonds
121 a'^ Avenue North
Edmonds, WA. 98020
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Page ' 40
Packet Pg. 5
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/3/2023
Approval of Special Meeting Minutes September 19, 2023
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Recommendation
Approval of Council Meeting minutes as part of the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
The Council meeting minutes are attached.
Attachments:
20230919 Special Meeting
Packet Pg. 6
7.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
September 19, 2023
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Neil Tibbott, Council President
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Will Chen, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Jenna Nand, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Oscar Antillon, Public Works & Utilities Director
Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., & Human Serv. Dir.
Rob English, City Engineer
Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks, Rec. & Human
Serv. Dir.
Mike De Lilla, Senior Utilities Engineer
Beckie Peterson, Council Admin/Legislative Asst.
Nicholas Falk, Deputy City Clerk
1. CALL TO ORDER
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Susanna Law Martini
Lauren Golembiewski
Jeremy Mitchell
Richard Kuehn
Nick Maxwell
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Judi Gladstone, Chair
Mary Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair
Emily Nutsch, Alternate
Lily Distelhorst, Student Rep
The Edmonds City Council retreat was called to order by Council President Tibbott at 5 p.m. in the Brackett
Meeting Room, 121 5' Avenue N, City Hall — 3rd Floor, Edmonds and virtually.
2. ROLL CALL
Deputy City Clerk Nicholas Falk called the roll. All elected officials were present.
3. COUNCIL BUSINESS
PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED 2024-2029 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN & CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Council President Tibbott provided an introduction. He welcomed planning board members, advising there
will be a presentation followed by a short Q&A. Planning board members will have an opportunity to ask
questions first, and he requested councilmembers keep their questions at a high level and not get into
specific project. The council will have at least two more opportunities to discuss the 2024-2029 CFP/CIP.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 19, 2023
Page 1
Packet Pg. 7
City Engineer Rob English introduced himself, Public Works Director Oscar Antillon, Senior Utilities
Engineer Mike De Lilla, Parks, Recreation and Human Services Director Angie Feser, and Deputy Parks,
Recreation and Human Services Director Shannon Burley. He reviewed:
L CIP CFP
6-year maintenance 6-year capital Long-range (20-year)
projects w/funding projects w/ capital project needs
sources funding
sources
• Components found only in the CIP
OComponents found only in the CFP
O Components found in both the CIP & CFP mi
• Public Works & Utilities 2024-2029 CFP & CIP
o Combined CFP & CIP Document
■ Transportation
■ Utilities
- Water
- Stormwater
- Sewer
o Facilities
o Wastewater Treatment Plant
o Comparison to previous year
wT o>
7—T.65 01 n_�wr $$
• CFP & CIP Format
Capital MPBWe
Nu Facilities Project
ofect List
Preservation / Maintenance Prpiects
Amuel $Peel Preselve0on $1600000 $2..000
P—on 400
$1,300,000 $20000
63
$2630000
$2630.000 $13,190,000 $39,4500
0000 $52,640,0PrOgrem
P-03 161P Ave W Overlay ham 1961P $20,000
Sl. SW b01y p,—D1.
$0 $0
$0
$0
$0 $20000
$0
$20000
P-- 9ein S1. Ovedey tram 6N Aye. to $—,—
$A $0
$0
$0
$0 $T89,553
So
$]89,553
h Ave
PWt05 Pagel Or.OVO Sgnel Upgrades $0
$0 $0
$90000
$49fi000
$0 $585000
$0
$58fi000
P-6 Sgnal Upgrades - X. Are l $0
$0 $0
$185.000
$213.000
$0 $938.000
$0
$938.m
2— St SW
P-07 61ein 51 3rd Sq 1Up9rpdee $0
$0 $0
$0
$1t0.000
$383000 $493.000
$0
5493.000
P1N 61 Otylnpc New Dr Overlay- 1961h/ $0 $200000
SR 5241, Tet,d Rd
S1,3o0.000
$0
$o
So $1's.."
$0
$1,50oo00
P-.. 881P Ave Overlay alw Sgewalk $150000 $1350.000
Repoir
$0
$0
$0
$o $1600.000
$o
$I1o0.000
Safety / capacity Analysts
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 19, 2023
Page 2
Packet Pg. 8
7.1.a
• Project Sheets
o Project description
o Project benefit
o Estimated project cost
...rmt.. r,...�r .m. ram...,,. r... .s n.a..wmi..r crn •.e[
!aY>bn r.m 'cp. noun ,oun nos ..uun ...�w
l.r.. s«n lzaeam fsmt� stauw susaw Deals ffasae seas
. •, •w..� .nnaao sre® Te,fe steam ssiaeef
...�
alOm .s4/p0
f..p�a�.. rwi sulfas a,aeae aaeae ffa %— sseaam aeae. Mal1T_
Park: & Recreation
Lake Ballinger Park/Mountlake Terrace ILA UL`I
tuk. a.liry ��k[nt of Mvunt:.l. t... �.
wm�.n trr n' Rmyr wr IvnW.l /�wm.m .r.n h rry er rM.m�s rwrwn m. rfy d raKnl. M
a. pnr..a mavr.mrrn n n. ne�t•wd O.v v1 t1. tl.a•ar vnf rn4ury. qef
e u qurw cru tu[ss ra we awnfa En: Peas is u•a a aw wrnmt u a! tl[w [an[[!tr[n a ar!
hojenlmtlM.nlar. RC rsem ttwnarn of Peq'f3E 'Mftl[I Mt:lrr. tneulnorore.n¢v11 iroA0e
x.ra.r.e-mine [era...nrt. re�ma rese�rx me re.en�e rcmmnn.:.• s.ePtl...le rm•,.un[n nn4e
rrr M. to m +m.xt Inw PaM r• .sPnr.f M �.'�-: , svt� Mr�rrn .rm
�[w'n3[..[ rllaVslnfcn nY.Jn[ f 12uunnrarY..Wn. t f>,d ue i ULµtiw. W...nrrwrOdrui 12 EmPA
a['.famau Ore gryrCCn<.C: mTl OI"tr rcOrO.Nr.YA 'ON. R![Onrt! Wtnn i.6 Eliw20LOatl,2r a[[tli 20 w[e
awty.r..mrN ('! M1rlNurr:ar hna..• fn-.WP nOscf W inn• vr.n[m-r m}<a.YbrmM OI:,RNe9 rtr.
o.CtM•n..�:..rmr!gn .m.f.nw.vf.mnaa...rymwlpuefr mnsuM
.n[v. b rv�a'wYµ-.xr..rt n n [n. ou�ty •unr.nn. I•LYi W.l a. J4.nu.w 32 f.f.rY l ii
Efenf4 C_ Salem
xr..);tY� 4 :DXam
arnw� awma I fewaw
itil�-Mf tT. Selo — — —
twaPw� aaelas I feww
.yf:a
2024 Public Works Comprehensive Plan Update
o Transportation & Stormwater/Surface Water Management Plans
■ Will generate new project lists for next year's CIP/CFP
Public Works & Utilities - Transportation
2024 Pavement Preservation Projects
0 2024 Pavement Preservation Program ($1.5M)
■ Construction - 6 Lane Miles
0 2025 Pavement Preservation Program ($100K)
■ Design 2024; Construction 2025
o Main St. Overlay 6th Ave — 8th Ave ($790k)
■ 2024 Construction
■ $750K Federal Grant
■ 11 New ADA Ramps
0 88th Ave Overlay & Sidewalk Repair ($150K)
■ Design 2024
0 76th Ave Overlay Close-out ($20k)
2024 Safety & Cgpacity Projects
o Hwy 99 Revitalization/Gateway ($114K)
o Hwy 99 Stage 3 244' St-238' St ($1.2M)
o Hwy 99 Stage 4 224' St-220t" St ($1.2M)
0 76t1i Ave/220'1i St Intersection ($748K)
o SR-104 Adaptive System ($186K)
o Traffic Signal Upgrades ($30K)
2024 Active Transportation Projects & Planning
o Transportation Plan Update($236K)
0 84' Ave Walkway 238t' St— 234' St ($88K)
o Citywide Bicycle Improvements($15K)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 19, 2023
Page 3
Packet Pg. 9
7.1.a
o Elm Way Walkway($ I OK)
o Traffic Calming Program($ I OOK)
o Pedestrian Safety Program ($80K)
Public Works & Utilities - Utilities
2024 Water Utility
0 2024 Replacement Program ($3.3M)
■ Construction 2024
■ 4,000 ft of Watermain Replacement
0 2025 Replacement Program ($426K)
■ Design 2024; Construction 2025
o Yost & Seaview Reservoir Final Design ($850K)
■ $3.5M-$4M rehabilitation cost for each reservoir
■ 2025-26 Construction
o Waterline Overlays ($225K)
2024 Stormwater Utility
o Storm & Surface Water Comp Plan ($350K)
o Perrinville Creek Basin Projects
■ Lower Perrinville Creek Restoration ($730K)
■ Perrinville Creek Flow Mgmt ($100K)
■ Perrinville Creek Basin Update ($594K)
o Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Impr ($90K)
o Lake Ballinger Floodplain Purchase ($120K)
0 2024 Replacement Program ($1.3M)
o Stormwater Overlays ($315K)
0 2025 Replacement Program ($324K)
2024 Sewer Utility
0 2024 Replacement Program($2.0M)
■ 800 ft of Sewerline Replacement
0 2025 Replacement Program($363K)
o Cured in -place pipe rehabilitation ($522K)
■ 4,000 ft of sewer CIPP rehab
o Sewerline Overlays($60K)
2024 WWTP
o WWTP Annual Capital Replaement ($500K)
o Carbon Recovery Project ($500K)
o Nutrient Removal Project ($350K)
o Gasification Bypass ($300K)
o Condition Assessment ($150K)
o Variable Frequency Drives (VFD) Upgrades ($250K)
o Primary Clarifier 2 Rehabilitation ($600K)
Public Works & Utilities - Facilities
o Boys & Girls Club o Historic Museum
o Cemetery Building o Library
o City Hall o Meadowdale Club House
o Fishing Pier o Old Public Works
o Frances Anderson Center o Parks Maintenance Building
o Fire Station 16 o Public Safety
o Fire Station 17 o Public Works O&M
o Fire Station 20 o Wade James Theater
o Historic Log Cabin o Yost Pool House
CIP/CFP Schedule
o July
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 19, 2023
Page 4
Packet Pg. 10
7.1.a
■ City staff begins development of capital budgets
o August
■ Submit proposed Capital budget to Finance
■ Prepare draft CFP and CIP
o September
■ Joint Presentation City Council/Planning Board (September 19th)
■ Planning Board Public Hearing (September 27th)
o October
■ City Council Public Hearing (October 3rd)
■ City Council Discussion (October 17th)
■ City Council Discussion/Approval (October 24th)
o November
■ Adopt CFP w/ Budget into the Comprehensive Plan (November 21 st)
Planning Board Member Nick Maxwell recalled Perrinville Creek was out of compliance with a federal
regulation. Mr. English responded it is a complicated issue. There is an existing diversion structure there
and the City has been working with the Department of Fish and Wildlife on a solution to that problem.
Issues include the diversion structure at the site plus two property owners downstream. There is an
opportunity to daylight that section, get rid of the diversion structure, and create a trestle under the railroad
to connect to Puget Sound. That is the stormwater project design referenced in the presentation.
Board Member Maxwell asked if there is funding for that project. Mr. English answered there is funding
for up to 60% design; no funding has been identified for construction. However, there are a number of grant
opportunities for construction funding once the design and environmental phases are far enough along.
BNSF has also expressed interest in that project.
Councilmember Nand asked if the Lake Ballinger floodplain purchase was the property at the south end of
the lake with the condemned building. Mr. English answered yes. Councilmember Nand asked if there was
a possibility in the future to adapt that property for a boat launch. Mr. English answered no, the grant
funding secured for that project restricts how the property can be used. That type of improvement, which
would provide public access, would not fit within the grant requirements.
Councilmember Nand asked how far along the grant process is, commenting there is not a proper boat
launch on the Edmonds side of the lake and the boat launch on the Mountlake Terrace side is often very
congested which limits the ability for Edmonds residents to enjoy the lake. Mr. English responded the City
received the appraisal and staff is reviewing it. All the due diligence has been done and the grant is in place.
Council President Tibbott requested councilmembers not ask about specific projects at this meeting and
keep questions at a higher level such as clarifications. The council will have an opportunity to discuss
specific CIP/CFP projects at a future council meeting. Councilmember Nand suggested that be flagged as
a point of interest for Public Works.
Board Member Lauren Golembiewski asked how the budgets are determined; she assumed construction
budgets were engineering estimates. She asked if the budget for design was primarily consultant dollars or
did it include inhouse dollars. Mr. English answered most of the larger projects are designed by consultants
as the City does not have staff capacity. The design cost includes consultant time, City staff time billed to
the project and miscellaneous costs.
Councilmember Chen referred to funding for transportation projects, noting a majority of the funding,
$328M, is unsecured. However, in 2024 the unsecured funding is $0. He asked how that process is managed.
Mr. English explained funding for projects in the first three years is secured or reasonably expected to be
secured, funding for projects in the final three years is not secured. The purpose of retaining projects in the
CIP/CFP even without secured funding is the potential for grants. Grant applications typically ask if the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 19, 2023
Page 5
Packet Pg. 11
7.1.a
project is in the 6-year CIP. He acknowledged funding was a big question because in addition to
improvement projects, the City's own maintenance projects are sorely underfunded such as the pavement
preservation program which should be $2.8-$2.9M/year. There is a balance between allocating enough
funding to maintain the City infrastructure, while also funding improvement projects. City staff tries to
identify grants for transportation projects that will be competitive to fund those projects. Rate revenue is a
funding source for utility projects that are primarily maintenance. There are opportunities for stormwater
projects via Department of Ecology (DOE) grants. Staff tries to work with the city council and the mayor
to develop a strategy that is balanced and efficient. There is more need than there are funds.
Councilmember Chen referred to project PWT-52 Traffic Calming Program, recalling the presentation
mentioned funding in 2024 was $100K, but in this chart it is $82K. When the council hosted a community
outreach meeting at the Meadowdale Clubhouse, a concern voiced by most of the residents was traffic, a
concern expressed by many other City residents. Although he was glad the budget had been increased to
$100K, he asked if that was sufficient to address the problem. Mr. English explained there is a call for
projects at the beginning of the year. Residents who feel here is a speeding problem in their neighborhood
can submit an application with signatures from 10 neighbors. Applications go through an evaluation process
where the 85t1i percentile speed, accident history, sidewalks and other criteria are considered. Each
application is evaluated and scored and the top applications are funded. Increasing the funding to $100K
will provide an opportunity to do more improvements. The results of the call for projects in 2024 will
determine if the funding is sufficient. If there was $100K for this year's program, it would have been
sufficient to address the improvements.
Councilmember Paine commented there are a lot of sidewalk and pedestrian safety projects as well as the
overlay project; she asked if any were any eligible for the bipartisan infrastructure grant funding. Mr.
English answered preservation (overlays) are not. Sidewalk projects are potential eligible via Safe Routes
to Schools. Councilmember Paine clarified her question was eligibility for federal bipartisan infrastructure
funding. Mr. English advised federal funds go to the state's Safe Routes to School. Staff can apply for
funding for sidewalks in proximity to a school from the Safe Routes to School program. Mr. Antillon
advised the City has a consultant that is assisting with identifying grant opportunities. The consultant is
looking for funding opportunities for many projects from many sources. Once a list is prepared, staff will
brief the council.
Councilmember Paine observed there is a lot funding available in addition to Safe Routes to Schools. She
expressed interest in finding a good mix between projects and funding in order to get sidewalks projects
done because they improve the community.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to PWF-23 Library Plaza Deck Waterproofing project; the description
states in 2003 the building was waterproofed, and a new membrane installed which has been leaking since
that time. The library is in the process of reopening, but the roof will still be leaking, potentially creating
health issues for users. The project description includes $0.9M in 2029 to replace the membrane and
waterproofing it instead of continually patching it. He expressed interest in moving that project up to
complete it in 2026 using ARAP fundings in partnership with Sno-Isle Library System. Mr. Antillon
answered it was probably not possible to use ARPA funds because they need to be spent by the end of 2026.
To complete the design and allocate ARPA funds would take longer than that. In addition, it would be too
soon after remodel for Sno-Isle to deal with another construction project. That is a very complex project,
requiring removal of the park on the roof and redoing it. Councilmember Teitzel offered to talk with Mr.
Antillon further about that project.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled she brought up this up the last 2 years; her issue is there is no indication
in the CIP/CFP about what is carryforward money versus new money. Comparing last year to this year, she
is not able to tie anything. She asked if 2024 was new numbers and if so, what happened to the 2023
numbers for projects that were not completed. Mr. English answered the estimated project cost on the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 19, 2023
Page 6
Packet Pg. 12
project sheets is the best guess about the total project cost. Costs for unsecured projects are updated with
an inflation adjustment. Updated projects estimates are provided for projects in active design as the design
progresses. For example an active project last year will have a number listed on the project sheet.
Expenditures to date in 2023 compared to the original budget are not shown in the CIP/CFP as this is a
forward -looking document.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented it would be nice to know what was and was not spent as unexpended
funds should be a carryforward in the budget. She referred to PWT-20, SR-104 Adaptive System,
commenting the cost in 2024 in this year's CIP/CFP is $186,000; last year the cost in 2023 was $243,440
and zero in 2024. She guessed that nothing was done in 2023, so the new number was just the 2024 number.
Mr. English answered there are expenditures from 2023 budget; the remaining cost will carry over into
2024.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed in 2027 there is an expenditure of $4.4M and $2M in 2025, doubling
the cost in the out year. She asked what caused that. Mr. English answered the cost of the project increased.
He offered to share details on the increase at a future city council meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis
recalled in the past staff did a project -by -project review. Mr. English did not recall doing a project -by -
project review. Mr. Antillon referred to the quarterly Public Works Update. Councilmember Buckshnis
agreed that information was very helpful.
Mr. Antillon explained the CIP/CFP evolves over time and prices change. Projects are guided by planning
documents, such as the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan. For example, after a complete analysis was done,
the City learned this year the cost of the reservoirs upgrades has increased. Councilmember Buckshnis
recalled previous finance directors included carryforwards for major projects in the budget so council could
see what was moved to the next year. She anticipates the City will receive more grant funding for
Perrinville.
Mr. English requested councilmembers email questions on specific projects to him and Mr. Antillon prior
to the next discussion.
Parks, Recreation & Human Services Director Angie Feser recognized the efforts of Deputy Parks,
Recreation and Human Services Director Shannon Burley in preparing the CIP/CFP. She presented the
Parks 2024-2029 CFP/CIP:
• 2024-2029 Parks CIP/CFP Framework
o Department Staff Resources
o PROS Plan Capital Recommendations
1. Acquisition to Fill Park System Gaps - Secure additional land for neighborhood parks to
address gaps
2. Open Space & Conservation Acquisitions - Pursue acquisitions that adjoin city properties
or conserve unique natural areas
3. Park Development & Enhancements — significant repairs needed for aging infrastructure
4. Yost Pool Replacement - Refine options for the replacement of Yost Pool
5. Trail Connections — Needed to help link destinations across the community
6. ADA, Accessibility & Other User Convenience Enhancements - Remove barriers and
improve universal access
o PROS Plan Goals (9)
1. ENGAGEMENT - Encourage and facilitate meaningful public involvement in park and
recreation planning.
2. DIVERSITY, EQUITY & INCLUSION - Decrease barriers and provide increased
opportunities for participation and representative cultural, heritage and art programs,
events representing the diversity of Edmonds demographics.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 19, 2023
Page 7
Packet Pg. 13
7.1.a
3. PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE - Provide an interconnected park system that offers a
wide variety of year-round recreation opportunities and experiences which support and
enhance Edmonds' cultural identity and the natural environment.
4. WATERFRONT USE & ACCESS - Preserve and pursue opportunities to expand public
access and enjoyment of Edmonds' waterfront.
5. NATURAL RESOURCE & HABITAT CONSERVATION - Conserve and provide access
to natural resource lands for habitat conservation, recreation, and environmental education.
6. CLIMATE CHANGE, ADAPTATION & RESILIENCY - Adapt to climate change and
increase local park system resiliency by improving environmental conditions, stewardship
and sustainability in parks, trails, open spaces and recreation facilities within planning,
development, maintenance, and operations.
7. RECREATION PROGRAMS & FACILITIES - Provide a varied and inclusive suite of
recreation opportunities and experiences to promote health and wellness, year-round
activity and social engagement.
8. CULTURAL SERVICES - Provide arts and cultural opportunities and experiences to
promote an engaged and vibrant community.
9. PARK OPERATIONS & ADMINISTRATION - Maintain and operate a modern, efficient
park system that provides a high level of user comfort, safety and aesthetic quality, and
protects capital investments.
2024-2029 Parks CIP/CFP Geographic Distribution
MNUI
• Parks 2024-2029 CIP/CFP Format
Non -site specific projects
A2 , P2, D13
Neighborhood Park SE 1
A3, P6, D15
Neighborhood Park SR99
A4, P7, D18
Neighborhood Park SE 2
R17
Citywide Park Improvements
R10
Signage & Wayfinding
2024 Projects
2025 - 2029 Projects
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 19, 2023
Page 8
Packet Pg. 14
7.1.a
Costs Inflated at 3% per year
Protect
CFP Project SiteB Description 1 2024 1 2025 1 2026 1 2027 1 2028 1 2029 6vrar Total
Lake Ballinger Park Mountlake 1.1Ke KA,'CARRYFORWARD'
U19
Fund,ne to s.Pp.rt City of Mountlake Terrace Balhnger Park Phase 111
S 200,000
S
Development Payment due upon completion of project,
D5
Mathay Ballinger Park •CARRYFORWARD•
P6
Construction of imvrovemmts inducting Permanent restroom, paved trail, picnk
$ 271.300
S
S
S -
$
i'1. tuu
D7
shelter ADA access and other amend -
Shell Creek Restoration •CARRYFORWARO'
R19
Sir- heahh and eroswn ronlrul ul shill Creek m Yust Park, snipe TOD based
S 12D,000
S 380,000
$ -
$
$
-
Situ,:arm
on study_ Study,o 024. work in 2025-
R9
Yost Park 6 Pool
R4
Park enhancements, repair and maintenance to Include resurface of tennis courts
S 254.300
S 1,296,400
S -
S
5
S
$ 1.450.700
RE
and trail, bider and boardwalk repatslrrpkrremeot in Z026, inclusive
Fill
playground and pool upgrades in 2025.
ColurMKlum grpamim - Phase It
D8
Expansion of the current columbarium, Fudineprovidedthrmrghthe Cemetery
$ -
5 1S9,100
S
S
5
5
5 159,100
Trust Fund 137.
Wood way Campus Attletic Complea - Phase I - Ughting
%
020
In rooprration with the Edmonds School Dnirtt, complrte a community park
$ -
$ 1,SOO.WO
ar
andath tent complex at Former Woodway High School to include Jig arid
luue construction of Ivro additional Ilelds.
P2
Neighborhood Park SE 1
% 013 Master plan and development of a new neigEdmondsrhrwd park In South Edmonds $ - $ 79,600 $ 819,500 $ - $ - $ - $ 899,100
(IunJing is ,n Per kIand Arquisill- prugrem for purchase)-
R8 Sierra Park 415.000 $ - $ - $ S 415,000
Playground repW,e-nt and upgrade to inclusive standarfh
R7 Olympic Heath Park 33,000 $ $ - $ - $ 53,000
Renovation ul e-A ing reshooms.
• Parks 2024-2029 CIP/CFP Funding Overview
PARKS CIP REVENUE
2024
2025
2026
2027
2029
2lkZ9
6-Year Total
Real Estate Excise Tax (BEET) I -Fund 126
5 200,000
5 200,000
S 200.000
S 200,000
$ 200,000
S 200,000
$ 1.200,000
Real Estate Excise Tax(REET)II-Fund 125
$ 2,DD0,000
$ I,SOD,ODO
$ 1,506000
5 1.S(I0.000
S 1.500.000
$ 1,SOO,ODD
$ 9.500,000
Park Impact Fees -Fund 332.100
S 300,000
S 300,000
$ 300,0DO
5 300,000
S 300,OD0
5 300.000
$ 1,900,000
Tree Fund 143 - land Acquisglon
S 215,000
S 215.000
$ 215,ODO
S 215.000
S 215,0D0
$ 215.000
$ 1.290,000
Cemetery Trust Fund 137- Columbarlum Expansion
$ 159.100
$ 159.100
ARPA Contribution -Shell Creek Study
$ 120,000
$ •
$ -
$ -
S -
$
$ 120.000
Investment Interest 13%)
IIS 18,918
$ 24.795
$ 30.849
S 37,085.5
43.50715
Si
5 205,277
Donations
115 -
S -
$ -
$
Is
is
$
Bond Proceeds
5
$ -
$
Sec uredGrants
$
$
$-
UnsecuredGrantslFunchng- noMand acquisition
11S
$ 1.500.000
$ 1,945MO
S S,48L200
$ 869,500
$ 20
$ 34,552,500
(E) TOTAL
PARKS CIP REVENUE
S 2r853,918
S 3,898,895
$ 4,190,849
S 7,733,i85
S 3,128,007
S27,021,924,7S6,802
$ 49,926.877
Parks Fund 6-Year Overview
11 2024
1 2025
1 2026
1 2027
1 2028
2029
(F)Beginning Fund Balance
$ 3,150,79S
$ 3,061.123
$ 1,316,908
$ 17,857
$ 1.214,742
$ 2,817,349
(E)Rerimue
$ 2.853,918
$ 3,898,895
$ 1 190,849
$ 7,733,265
$ 3,]28,007
$ 27,021.922
(D) Expenditures
$ 2,943,fi00
$ 5,643,100
$ 5,489,900
$ 6,536,400
$ 2,625,400
$ 26,559,455
(G) Ending Fund Bala nce(F+E-0)
306 313
316 08
17857
$ 1,214742
817349
2 79 17
• Current/Ongoing Capital Projects
o Civic Park close out
o Shirley Johnson property structure demolition
o Mathay Ballinger Park improvements (2023-2024)
o McAleer Lake Access Upgrade
o Tree Maintenance 5t1i & Main - oak trees
o Ballinger Park Mountlake Terrace ILA
o Parkland Acquisition Program
o Deferred Maintenance/Small Capital projects
■ BLN shower replacement
■ Cemetery gate repair
■ Mathay Ballinger Apollo Swing replacement
■ Park restroom door (12) automatic locks
■ Viewer repairs
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 19, 2023
Page 9
Packet Pg. 15
C
y-r
0)
C0)
C
14
d
Q
rn
O
M
N
Co
N
r.+
_
0
E
t
�a
a
7.1.a
• Parks 2024-2029 CIP/CFP Projects
o Highlight 2024 Projects
■ Ballinger Park/Mountlake Terrace ILA - D19 (DP)
Construct-(D39)-ILA
$200,000
$200,000
Total Experrses
S200,000
S200,000
Real Estate Excise Tax 11-Fund 125
$200,000
$200,000
Total Revenue
S200,000
$200,000
Unsecured Funding
so
so
• Interlocal agreement to support development PROS Plan
of phase 3 which includes improved access for G3 -Obj. 3.2, 3.8, 3.11
G5-Obi5.2
Edmonds residents Rec. - 3.6
• Estimated Cost $200,000
■ Mathay Ballinger Park D6 (Carryforward/DP)
2024 2025 2026 2027
2028 2029 Total
TotalExpentres
®_----®
Real Estate Excise Tax 11 - Fund 125
®_----®
Unseared Funding
$0
$0
• ADA parking and paved pathway
• Shelter with Picnic Tables
• Permanent Restroom
• Estimated Total Cost: $499,300
PROS Plan
G2- Obj 2.6
G3- Obi 3.3,3.4,3.5,3.6,3.8,3.9
G9- Obi 9.1
Rec. - 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 6.2, 6.4
■ Shell Creek Restoration - R19 (Carryforward)
Construction(R19)-Creek Restoration 1
$120,000
$380,000 1 1 1
1 1 $500,000
Total Expenses 1
$120,000
$380,000 I I I
I I SSW,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$380,000
ARPA Funding Transfer
$120,000
=Llj
$120,000
Total Revenue
$120,000
$500A00Unse,cured
Funding
so
so
so
• Study to determine scope & obtain permits - 2024 PROS Plan
• Restorative work - 2025 G3 - Obj 3.7, 3.8, 3.9
• Estimated Cost $500,000 G4-Obj 4.2, 4.4
G5 - Obj 5.1, 5.3, 5.4
G6 - Obj 6.5
G9 - Obj 9.1, 9.2
■ Yost Park & Pool - R9, R4, R, R11 (DP)
ConsM1•Rion(R4)- Trail/Bridge Repair
S80,000
S80,000
Coxrx-tion(R6)- Playground Replacement
$750,000
$750,000
Consvution(R9)- Term' Court Resurface
$74,300
$74,300
Constrrr 6-(R11)-Pod Upgrades
$5%,900
$546,400
Tod Expense
SI54,300
S2296AW
SIA50,700
Real Estate Excise Tax11-Fund125
$154,300
$1,296,400
$1,450,700
Taal Revenue
SISa,300
$1,2%,1100
$ylS0,T10
Trail / Bridge Repair - 2024
Tennis Court Resurface - 2024
Playground Replacement - 2025
Pool Upgrades - 2025
Estimated Cost: $1,450,700
PROS Plan
G1 - Obi 1. 1, 1.4
G3 - Obj 3.6, 3.8, 3.9
G4 - Obi. 4.4
G5- Obj 5.4
G6 - Obj 6.5
G9 - Obi. 9.1
Rec. - 3.1, 3.4, 3.10
Rec. - 6.2
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 19, 2023
Page 10
Packet Pg. 16
7.1.a
Parks 2024-2029 CIP/CFP Projects
o Columbarium Expansion — Phase 2
o Woodway Campus Athletic Complex — Phase 1 Lighting
o Neighborhood Park SE 1
o Sierra Park
o Olympic Beach Park
o Renovation of existing restrooms
o Pine Street Park
o Johnson property
o Neighborhood Park SR99 master plan for future park use, site development...
o Park & Facilities Maintenance and Operations Building
o Maplewood Hill Park
o Neighborhood Park SE 2
o Waterfront Walkway
o Seaview Park
o Elm Street Park
o Pool replacement
o Meadowdale Playfields
o Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration (Willow Creek Daylighting)
Programs — Highlight 2024 projects
o Signage & Wayfinding — R10 (DP)
Planning & Construction (RIO)
$75,000
$75p
Total Expenses
$75,000
Real Estate Excise Tax 11-Fund 125
$75,000
:75,000
75,OW
Toter Revenue
$75,000
S75AW
r
r
• Trail identification, orientation markers, safety & regulatory messaging,
park hours, park rules and etiquette, interpretive information and
warning signs.
S Plan
• Estimated Cost: $75,000 G2 -Obj.
GI - Obj. 2.1, 2.3
Y G3 - Obj. 3.6
G5 - Obj. 5.3, 5.4
( 1PARK HOURSG9 - Obj. 9.1
Rec. - 6.2, 6.5
o Citywide Park improvements/Capital Replaement Program
o Parkland Acquisition
2024 2025r r27 2028 2029 Total
Acquisition — Neighborhood Park SE 1(A2)
51,50D,DDO
Acquisition — Neighborhood Park SR99 (A3)
Acquisition — Neighborhood Park SE 2 (A4)
Total Expenses
$1,50DAW
Real Estee ExcaeTax I - Fund 126
51,30D,ODO
Tree Fund 143 - land acquisition - TBD
Total Revenue
S1,3001=1
PROS Plan
• Neighborhood Parks SE1 G2-7bj.2.1
• Acquisition as Feasible G3 - Obi. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.9
• Estimated Cost: $1,500,00 fim
Rec. -1.1
o Debt Service and Interfund Transfers
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 19, 2023
Page 11
Packet Pg. 17
7.1.a
• Changes to CIP/CFP
CFP I CIP COMPARISON (2024 TO 2029)
EC TS ADDED
Type PROJECT NAME I CFP I
DESCRIPTION
None
CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2024 TO 2029)
PROJECTS REMOVED
PROJECT NAME
CFP I
DESCRIPTION
r1pp-.1,11;
Lake Ballinger Access (McAleer)
Pro ctcompletion scheduled in 2023
Johnson Pro Demolition
Demolition to be complete in 2023
Playground Upgrade Program
Fla round upgrades idenhhed each year, no need for additional program
CFP I CIP COMPARISON 12024 TO 2029)
PROJECTS REVISED
Type
PROJECT NAME
CFP
CHANGE
Parks
Columbanum Expansion - Phase II
Funded through Cemetery Trust Fund 137 - scheduled in 2025 vs. 24
Parks
Elm Street Park Improvements
Separated into planning in 2027 and construction in 2028 vs. 2026
Parks
Interurban Trail Expansion
Moved to 2029 vs. 28
Parks
Johnson Property Master Plan
Removed demoldlon master plan scheduled in 2026 vs. 25
Parks
Lake Ballinger Park Mountlake Terrace ILA
ILA completed in 2023, payment due upon construction completion in 2024, carryforward
Parks
Maplewood Hill Park
Playground replacement moved to 2027 vs. 25, significant pince increase
Parks
IMathay Ballinger Park Improvements
permanent restroom installation scheduled to take place In 2024. car forward
Parks
Nei hborfgod Park SE1, SR99 SE2
X
Master plan and construction of all three parks pushed back one year must acquire first
Parks
CH m is Beach Park Improvements
Separated intoplanning in 2025 and construction in 2026 vs. 24
Parks
Parkland Ac uisition/Nei hborhood Parks
X
All three bumped back one year to 2024, 2025 and 2026
Parks
Pine Street Park Improvements
Separated into planning in 2025 and construction in 2026 vs- 24
Parks
Seaview Park Improvements
Restroom replacement moved to 2028 vs. 27
Parks
Shell Creek Restoration
Plan carried forward to 2024. restoration in 2025 vs. 24
Parks
2!9nage and Wayfinding
Price increase to S75K vs. $51 500
Parks
Yost Park & Pool Improvements
Playground replacement moved to 2025 vs. 23 significant price increase due to topography
Councilmember Olson referred to work in Yost Park related to erosion that was put off until 2025,
expressing hope since it was in the 2023 budget, the RFP could be done this year so construction could
occur during the fish window next year. She will follow up on that with staff. With regard to park
improvements such as a shelter in Elm Street Park, she relayed some of the neighbors near that park were
hopeful a dog park could be added. As staff looks at park improvements, she wanted to ensure
improvements to neighborhood parks make the people in the neighborhood happy.
Councilmember Olson said he hoped staff would let council know when the pipe replacement programs are
far enough behind that the program needs to be increased in some years. She recalled one of the reasons for
bonding was to avoid putting off deferred maintenance that would cost more or have negative outcomes.
She referred to the Public Works Update 2nd Quarter 2023 in tonight's packet that indicated there was more
leaks this year than in the past. If that means pipe replacement needs to be done, the council needs to be
alerted that more pipe replacement needs to be done. Clean water is one of the City's #1 priority. Mr.
Antillon reiterated the CIP/CFP is an evolving/living document. As staff learn more from inspections and
studies, things change. It is a delicate balancing act to keep rates steady and manage projects. Most of the
projects on the CIP/CFP are potentially related to life safety or a regulatory requirement the City must meet
as well as council priorities. For the utility enterprise funds, a lot of time is spent every year inspecting and
videoing pipes and systems which is used to generates a list of priorities.
Board Member Susanna Law Martini suggested signage be as accessible as possible for the visually or
hearing impaired. She referred to $100,000 for development on 3' Avenue & Main, commenting that was
a lot of money. Mr. English answered that is a signal replacement at 3' & Main; traffic signals are
expensive, a full signal typically costs $1M. The funds she was referring to in the CIP/CFP are likely for
design which is not programmed until 2028 and the funding is unsecured. That signal has been in the
CIP/CFP for a long time.
Board Member Lauren Golembiewski referred to a news article about Lynnwood giving up Meadowdale
and Edmonds potentially annexing Meadowdale. She asked if that would include the Meadowdale
playfields and how does that work into the City's long term planning. Ms. Feser explained there is a
neighborhood in Meadowdale that is seeking to annex into Edmonds. Board Member Golembiewski
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 19, 2023
Page 12
Packet Pg. 18
7.1.a
recalled the Lynnwood city council was considering revising their urban growth area to move a portion of
Meadowdale into Edmonds. Ms. Feser reiterated that is related to the neighborhood in Meadowdale that is
asking to annex into Edmonds. There has been no discussion about Meadowdale Park coming to Edmonds.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled in the past, the first $750,000 of BEET revenue went to Public Works.
The City has collected a lot of REET revenue in recent years; she asked how the funds are divided between
Parks and Public Works. Ms. Feser answered REET revenue is split 50150 between Parks and Public Works.
Councilmember Nand asked about the status of the Five Corner beautification improvement and if it was
included in the CIP/CFP for 2024. Ms. Feser answered that project would fit in the $450,000 allocated
annually for citywide improvements as well as possibly the use of beautification funding. It is not identified
as a standalone project but it is incorporated into the 2024 capital program. Councilmember Nand assumed
there will be discussions in 2024 about projects in other neighborhood business districts. Ms. Feser
answered possibly. Councilmember Nand thanked Ms. Feser and her staff for their work on that project.
As someone who uses sidewalks often, Board Member Susanna Law Martini thanked everyone for tackling
sidewalks.
Council President Tibbott referred to Councilmember Chen's comment about 76' Avenue in the
Meadowdale Beach area, agreeing that project was mentioned often by citizens. It is very concerning
because it is a very dangerous area with a lot of speeding. He asked how projects in areas that have severe
speeding or hazards are prioritized. Mr. English advised a speed count was done in that area as part of the
evaluation process, but it did not have speeds over 5 mph over the 85 percentile. Some of the other
applications for traffic calming were several mph over 5 mph. Five mph is the kind of the threshold for
doing work. Staff is in the process of evaluating mitigation measures. Mr. Antillon explained an application
was submitted for 76' Avenue, but it did not make the first cut. Even adding the accident data, the area did
not make it to the top of the list for projects selected this year.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested traffic counts taken during COVID needed to be updated Mr. English
answered the traffic counts were taken before school got out in June 2023.
Councilmember Paine asked if traffic calming was only the red flashing mile per hour signs or were other
methods used. Mr. English other options are also being considered such as speed tables.
Council President Tibbott asked how the council should use the materials in the notebook provided today
for budgeting purposes. Mr. English answered the CIP/CFP shows projects planned for the 2024 budget.
The mayor will release his budget in early October. There will be opportunities to get public input at the
public hearings held by the planning board and by the city council. The planning board and council can
agree with what is proposed in the 2024 budget, suggest changes or request additional information. This is
the initial step in the process. Further discussion is programmed through October. Ms. Feser suggested for
any changes, whether it is additional projects or having projects moved up on the schedule, councilmembers
work with staff on the implications that has on staffing resources, grant funding, partnership opportunities,
and funding. Staff will be happy to discuss proposed changes and identify impacts.
Council President Tibbott suggested councilmembers contact staff via email. Ms. Feser agreed that was the
preferred method as it allows staff to accumulate questions and share them with councilmembers and
planning board members so everyone has the same information when it is time to make a decision. Council
President Tibbott advised the meetings in late September and early October will likely generate additional
questions.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled a study done many years ago regarding Yost Pool that proposed an
indoor pool. She asked how the $23M estimate was determined. Ms. Feser answered the dollars that have
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 19, 2023
Page 13
Packet Pg. 19
been used in the capital program were generated during the PROS Plan process. A CIP/CFP was created
with the PROS Plan; the consultant used information from the PROS Plans to recommend projects, the
timing of projects, and based on historical data, assigned rough estimates to those projects. With regard to
the pool, further research was done when it was identified as a priority through the PROS Plan community
engagement process. Later in the process, the community was asked about preferences related to indoor
versus outdoor and a regional or local facility. The preference as a result of that process was a small outdoor
pool. The $23M cost was based on a rough estimate to build that in 2029.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the estimated cost to totally redo Klahaya was $5M. Ms. Feser said the
feasibility study in 2009 indicated a new pool was needed, but the numbers were dated which is why it was
updated. She summarized the cost to build a pool is $25M-$40M now, an indoor pool is even more
expensive.
!�\ 1a11111 711
With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 6:28 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 19, 2023
Page 14
Packet Pg. 20
7.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/3/2023
Approval of Special Meeting Minutes September 26, 2023
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Recommendation
Approval of Council Meeting minutes as part of the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
The Council Special meeting minutes are attached.
Attachments:
20230926 Special Meeting
Packet Pg. 21
7.2.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
September 26, 2023
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Neil Tibbott, Council President
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Will Chen, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Jenna Nand, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER
STAFF PRESENT
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director
Angie Feser, PRHS Director
The special Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Council President Tibbott
in the Council Chambers, 250 5' Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually.
2. CLOSED SESSION AND EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Council then convened in closed session for 50 minutes to discuss collective bargaining strategy per
RCW 42.30.140(4)(a), and executive session to consider the selection of a site or the acquisition of real
estate by lease or purchase when public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood
of increased price, per RCW 42.3 0.11 0(l)(b).
The executive session concluded at 6:50 p.m.
3. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
The meeting reconvened at 6:50 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2023
Page 1
Packet Pg. 22
7.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/3/2023
Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes September 26, 2023
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Recommendation
Approval of Council Meeting minutes as part of the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
The Council meeting minutes are attached.
Attachments:
20230926 Regular Meeting
Packet Pg. 23
7.3.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
September 26, 2023
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Neil Tibbott, Council President
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Will Chen, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Jenna Nand, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director
Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., & Human Serv. Dir.
Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director
Carolyn LaFave, Executive Asst. to the Mayor
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Nand read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the original
inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who
since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land
and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
4. PRESENTATIONS
1. ARBOR MONTH PROCLAMATION
Mayor Nelson read a proclamation proclaiming October 2023 as Arbor month in Edmonds and urging all
citizens to plant, maintain and preserve trees throughout our community as an investment in healthy and
sustainable future for all of us.
Tree Board Member Kevin Fagerstrom accepted the proclamation.
2. SISTER CITY COMMISSION EXCHANGE TRIP
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2023
Page 1
Packet Pg. 24
7.3.a
SCC Chair Katy Renz thanked the council and mayor for the opportunity to have a sister city. She was one
of the chaperones on the 2019 student exchange to Hekinan. After everything in the world changed, four
years later she was able to return to Hekinan with the adult delegation. This trip was approached knowing
anything could happen and there were many unknowns. Japan recently opened to tourists but was not open
to every country. There were other changes such as the hotel where they normally would have stayed was
not open yet and some of the factories they would have visited also had not opened yet. The delegation was
welcomed by the people of Hekinan upon their arrival and it was fun to see many of the people she had
gotten to know on her first trip to Japan. She displayed and described photos taken at many of the places
the Hekinan Sister City 35' Anniversary Trip (April 2-7, 2023) visited:
• Flowers given to each member of delegation upon arrival in Hekinan
• Handa Vinegar Mizkan Museum
• Buddhist Temple Lunch
• Chef (Buddhist Priest's son) with our group at the Buddhist Temple
• Kokonoe Mirin Vinegar Factory Tour
• Visited City Hall and Fire Station
• Hekinan City Hall Group Photo
• Mayor Negita and Mayor Nelson speaking together at Hekinan City Hall
• Nagoya Castle and Japanese Garden
• Sister City celebration reception to celebrate 35 years as sister cities
• 35' anniversary celebration
• Ceremony for Hekinan City 75t' Anniversary
• Hekinan Tea Ceremony
• Playing ancient instruments at tea ceremony
• Making traditional Matcha tea
• Group photo at tea ceremony
• Hekinan Aquarium
• Kyoto Gold Temple
• Kyoto Temple
• Masa and Kaori Suzuki, two of the many people of Hekinan who helped make the trip a success
• Group photograph - time to say goodbye, until we meet again.
Chair Renz explained a 12-member delegation from Hekinan will be in Edmonds October 30 - November
4, staying at the Edmonds Best Western Harbor Inn. During their stay, there are plans for a welcome
reception; a walking tour of downtown Edmonds to see art installations, historic sites, murals and local
shop; participation in Halloween festivities; tour of the regional firefighters training center; tour of
Maplewood school; 35' anniversary reception; visit to Pike Place Market and the Seattle Art museum; visit
to Fairhaven in La Conner and opportunity to experience Washington's trains; and a reception in Edmonds
for Hekinan delegates. Further information will be provided to councilmembers in the coming weeks. She
invited councilmembers to contact Executive Assistant to the Mayor Carolyn LaFave with any questions.
Council President Tibbott thanked Chair Renz for her investment in the relationship with Hekinan. There
have been many enriching trips and visits during that 35 year relationship and he expected the relationship
to last many more years. He asked how the delegation communicated with the people of Hekinan on the
trip. Chair Renz answered when they traveled, Commissioner Iyoko Okano who was part of the delegation
and is very fluent in Japanese acted as an interpreter. There was also an interpreter from Japan, Akiko. She
recalled when she stayed with a family in 2019, they spoke a little English, but she spoke no Japanese, and
they were able communicate quite well using Google Translate.
3. SALARY COMMISSION LETTER ESTABLISHING ELECTED OFFICIALS'
COMPENSATION FOR 2024 AND 2025
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2023
Page 2
Packet Pg. 25
7.3.a
Chair Bill Taylor reviewed:
• Salary Commission
o Bill Taylor, Chair
o Kathy Ehrlich
o Gary Holton
o Brook Roberts
o Angela Zhang
• Acknowledgements
o City HR Staff
o City Council Staff
o Mayor and Councilmembers
o Other City Personnel
o Compensation Connections (our consulting team)
o Fellow Commissioners
Our Process as a Commission
o Five independently minded citizens
o Coming together for a common purpose
o Exchanging ideas
o Exploring alternatives
o Reaching decisions
o Eventually speaking with one voice
Our Work as a Commission
o Conducted seven open meetings
o Identified 16 Western WA cities for comparison
■ Mayor — Council form of government
■ Edmonds +/- 50%
o Gathered data re pay and benefits from those cities
o Analyzed data re Edmonds council time requirements
o Interviewed the mayor and all seven councilmembers
o Sought public input
■ Three press releases
■ Outreach to other civic groups
o Conducted two public hearings
o Examined current salary levels for mayor and council
o Compared Edmonds salaries to comparable cities
o Calculated inflationary trends
o Researched Edmonds NR pay increase trends
o Considered WA State minimum wage requirements
o Thought deeply about DEI considerations
o Considered impact on the City's budget
o Reached our decisions
Mayor
o Our Decision:
■ Effective January 1, 2024: $156,126 (a 14.6% increase)
■ Effective January 1, 2025: Increase same % as City NR Ees
o Our Rationale:
■ Comparisons to average and median salaries for comparable cities
■ Edmonds salary was static for three years
■ City NR employee increase percentages
Councilmembers
o Our Decision:
■ Effective January 1, 2024: $20,462 (a 20% increase)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2023
Page 3
Packet Pg. 26
7.3.a
■ Effective January 1, 2025: Increase same % as City NR Ees
■ Council President: Additional 20% ($341 per month)
■ Low income supplement: $6,000 per year
- Available to an elected councilmember whose income is less than 80% of the reported
median income for Snohomish County
o Our Rationale:
■ Comparisons to average and median salaries for comparable cities
■ Edmonds salaries were static for three years
■ City NR employee increase percentages
■ Impact we might have on DEI considerations
■ WA State minimum wage requirements
■ "Market pay" vs. "community service" considerations
Councilmember Chen expressed his sincere appreciation for the time, effort and expertise the salary
commission brought to the process and completing their work in such a short period of time with the
assistance of HR and the council executive assistant. He especially appreciated the commission bringing
DEI into the process. Although $6,000 is not a lot of money, it is an expression that the City wants to open
the door for more people to participate on the council, including those from different income levels and
backgrounds.
Councilmember Paine thanked the commissioners for their service. She recognized this had been a lot of
work and expressed her appreciation for holding 14 two-hour meetings in a short amount of time in addition
to conducting interviews. As Councilmember Chen said, she appreciated their finding a way to offer
inclusion and accessibility. She hoped future salary commissions would continue that and possibly index it
somehow.
Councilmember Nand thanked the commission for their work, observing their work and the very thoughtful
way they approached their task honored her comments about DEL When she talks about DEI, she is
speaking not only about diversity of age and socioeconomic diversity; it would be amazing if someone who
works a 40 hour workweek and knows what it is like to live paycheck to paycheck would run for council.
People have to consider the amount of time councilmembers put in compared to the compensation they
receive and whether they make enough money at their day job to pay their bills. Most people earning less
than six figure income make the decision that being a councilmember is not for them. She is running
unopposed, but she is interested in attracting people to run for council who have a diversity of opinions and
perspectives. She appreciated the low-income supplement to signal the City's interest in having the voices
of people from diverse economic backgrounds heard and to represent their lived experience when the
council's makes decisions, many of which are related to budgets and finance. She hoped that low income
supplement would start to change the calculation for working class and middle class people who might
consider running for council. Chair Taylor said Councilmember Nand's comments echoed much of the
commission's discussion and he hoped that would be built on in the future.
Councilmember Olson echoed the gratitude and appreciation; the commission had a lot of work to do and
did it with a lot of grace and a great attitude. She enjoyed her interview with a commissioner and felt her
concerns were reflected in the final product, most notably her concerns about the budget situation. She was
concerned the effort to address DEI would end up with spending a lot more for the people who are willing
and able to serve on council. She joked she makes $100/hour for the hours she gets paid for and the rest she
volunteers. Many councilmembers had been volunteering for the City before being elected. It was not that
she did not think councilmembers weren't worth a market wage, but to the extent the City cannot afford it
or it doesn't jive with comparator cities, the commission found the right balance. She appreciated the
commission's nuanced and creative approach to DEI, recalling the idea was taken from Issaquah.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2023
Page 4
Packet Pg. 27
Councilmember Teitzel said as Chair Taylor was speaking, it occurred to him how grateful he was to live
in Edmonds, to be able to serve the City, and for commissioners who are willing to donate their time to a
very difficult task. The commission did a great job and brought their expertise to the table.
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Kevin Fagerstrom, Edmonds, speaking on behalf of himself and the tree board, the Edmonds Tree Board
is thrilled to declare October 7, 2023 as Arbor Day and October as Arbor month. In celebration, the board
will host an engaging booth at the Edmonds summer market on 5t1i Avenue, across from the historical
museum, offering complimentary giveaways to the community. The event, from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. aims to
promote environmental conscientiousness and the significance of trees in the urban landscape. At the Arbor
Day booth, residents will have the opportunity to choose from a diverse selection of tree species that are
well suited to the unique climate and environment of Edmonds. This initiative aligns with the tree board's
commitment to fostering a green and sustainable community. Additionally, the booth will feature an
interactive educational component focused on highlighting the importance of trees in critical areas such as
on steep slopes and wetlands. Visitors will gain valuable insight into determining if their homes are located
within these critical areas and discover the best approaches to tree and vegetation maintenance. Following
the summer market, Bess Bronstein, a renowned horticulturalist consultant, educator and ISA certified
arborist, will lead a captivating walking tour where participants will have the opportunity to explore
downtown Edmonds while she highlights and points out interesting trees. Her wealth of knowledge and
experience will enrich the tour, providing valuable insights into the unique qualities of the urban forest.
Tree walk participants should meet on the steps of the historical museum at 2 p.m. All residents, nature
enthusiasts and those interested in sustainable practices are encouraged to participate in the summer market
on October 7, 2023 and the tour for a memorable Arbor Day celebration.
Jane O'Dell, Edmonds, representing the Climate Action Board, relayed the board is a group of citizen
volunteers formed to interface with the City of Edmonds, the city council and with other citizen groups
concerned with the environment. She asked the council's help in stepping up to the challenge facing the
community, specifically, an investment in the actuation of the Climate Action Plan (CAP), starting with a
climate action manager. Edmonds has had a CAP since 2010. There were good intensions from the
beginning; it was not actually adopted until the updated version in 2023. The board thanked the council for
taking that step, but remain concerned. Having a plan is like looking at a swath of grass in your yard thinking
you could make a great vegetable garden there, but until a lot of work is done and an investment made in
seeds, there won't be anything but a swath of lawn and you won't be harvesting any carrots.
Ms. O'Dell continued, the board is willing to work to get things done, but would like to have the partnership
and investment in this effort. The board's belief that a climate action manager is a necessary and priority
step is based on research, looking at what other communities have done. Edmonds needs a designated
individual with subject matter expertise, project management expertise, experience, and communication
and interpersonal skills to engage other City departments, citizen groups, neighboring communities, set
priorities, define plans and monitor the work, and adjust plans to ensure preparations are being made in a
sensible way. This is not pioneering; other cities and municipalities of various sizes are doing this. If
Edmonds cares about addressing the vulnerabilities the City faces as a coastal community, this is a
necessary step.
Matt Richardson, Edmonds, said his comments are barely germane to city council other than the City has
flying Ukrainian flags on buildings and has adopted resolutions. For those that don't know, Poland has
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2023
Page 5
Packet Pg. 28
7.3.a
stopped giving weapons to Zelenskyy; the Canadian speaker of the parliament just stepped down because
they gave a standing ovation to a Nazi. Jon Stewart, a Jewish man, gave a medal of honor to a Nazi who
had to cover their swastika and black sun tattoos at Disneyland. He said he was just trying to sleep at night
and for those that don't know, the war in Ukraine is really about construction of natural gas pipeline from
Saudi Arabia to Eastern Europe to reduce reliance on natural gas from Russia. The destruction of Nord
Steam 1 and 2 was specifically about Germany's energy dependance on Russia. They scuttled their coal
burning power plants and nuclear reactors and now are dependent on Russia for energy which has become
a natural emergency for them.
Mr. Richardson continued, the war in Syria was over that; John Kerry went to Syrian President Bashar al-
Assad and proposed a pipeline. President al-Assad said no, we already have a deal with Iran and Russia to
build another pipeline. The war on Libya was over this; they needed weapons to send to ISIS to destabilize
Syria to get a Saudia Arbia pipeline line through. This is just another rung on the ladder for this pseudo
environmental effort; Germany wants to have windmills and solar panels and basically cut themselves off
at the knees. The tide is turning; no war is good. Edmonds didn't say boo about Libya, didn't fly Libyan or
Syrian flags and he questioned why Edmonds was flying Ukrainian flags when the wars are all for the same
reason. He reiterated he was just trying to sleep at night and wanted to say something about peace.
7. RECEIVED FOR FILING
1. UPDATE ON CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA CODE AMENDMENT
2. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
3. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 2023
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT
3. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE
PAYMENTS.
4. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH
SNOHOMISH COUNTY REGARDING SOLID WASTE
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. RESOLUTION FOR ANNEXATION INTO SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE (SCF)
Administrative Services Director Dave Turley explained the resolution is regarding the possibility of
annexation into the South Snohomish County Regional Fire Authority. He displayed a graph of the recent
fire contract cost to the City for 2013-2024, noting he projected the cost for 2024 as SCF has not provided
the cost for 2024. He built in a 10-12% increase for 2024 which according to his conversations with SCF
is accurate.
• Recent Fire Contract Cost History 2013-2024
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2023
Page 6
Packet Pg. 29
7.3.a
u..000.000
$12.000=
s39,699,000
s6.oao.000
s6aoo,aoo
sa,000,000
$2AWAW
So 2013 204 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2@3 2026
Mr. Turley observed for a quite a while, 2014-2021, the contract amount was pretty flat, and only varied
between $6M and $8M so previous councils and finance directors did not have to pay a lot of attention to
it. The cost went up from approximately $8M in 2022 to $12.5M in 2024, a 50% increase in the fire contract
in two years. The City needs to figure out how to handle that level of increase because it is not sustainable.
He assured the increase was not a blip that would correct itself; the cost would not go down.
Mr. Turley explained this Resolution was previously discussed in the Public Safety, Planning, Human
Services & Personnel Committee on July 11, and the Finance Committee on July 20. Three neighboring
cities, Brier, Mountlake Terrace, and Mill Creek, recently joined the RFA. This leaves Edmonds as the only
remaining "contract city." When SCF formed, they contracted for service with several area cities; one by
one the other cities joined the RFA. The RFA was formed as a result of legislation and has only been in
existence since 2017. He reviewed frequently asked questions:
• Doesn't the contract run until 2030? Yes, but keep in mind that the RFA can cancel's the City's
contract with a two-year notice. The RFA did that with Brier and Mountlake Terrace.
• If we pass this resolution tonight, what action is this Council or any future Council bound or
committed to? Nothing. Passing the resolution tonight does not commit the council to anything.
The council can walk away by not taking further action.
• What would happen if we don 't pass the resolution? We would not be able to learn what the impact
would be to the City or to taxpayers. Due diligence into this decision would not be performed.
There will be a $4M increase every 2-3 years with no identified funding source.
• Shouldn't we do our "due diligence" before passing this resolution regarding the RFA? We cannot
perform any due diligence regarding the South County RFA without passing this resolution. This
resolution is the first step in performing that due diligence. The resolution basically tells the RFA
that the City wants to talk to them. Without the resolution, the RFA won't answer questions. The
resolution is the only way to get the discussion started.
• Could we form a task force to look into this, prior to passing the resolution? A task force could
look into alternatives — recreating an Edmonds fire department, or asking Shoreline if they would
provide service to Edmonds, for example. But we cannot do any due diligence on joining the RFA
without notifying the RFA that we are considering the possibility. Per RCW, the resolution is the
first step in doing this research.
Mr. Turley relayed staff s request to approve the resolution on pages 150 and 151 of the packet.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO
APPROVE A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2023
Page 7
Packet Pg. 30
WASHINGTON EXPRESSING THE INTENT TO PURSUE THE BENEFITS OF RECEIVING
FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FROM THE SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY
REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY VIA ANNEXATION.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, suggesting a question and answer period first so
councilmembers do not have to only speak to the motion. Mayor Nelson advised the agenda item is a
resolution related to annexation to SCF and the motion is to approve the resolution. Councilmembers will
have an opportunity to discuss the resolution.
Council President Tibbott said one of questions he wanted to clear up was the administration did not ask
for this to be on agenda. He has been talking about it with council leadership and it seemed the right time
for the council to consider it so he asked that it be brought to the council for deliberation. He expected there
would be ample time for discussion on this topic tonight before the council votes. The reason he wanted to
present the resolution to council is because the RFA is the City's current provider of fire and emergency
medical services (EMS). The RFA is also the entity that knows the City better than any other provider,
knows the issues in the City, knows where the fire stations are located, knows where emergency services
are most likely to be needed and the plans to address those issues. Therefore, it seemed appropriate go to
them to ask for information. Unknowns include the level of service the RFA would recommend for the City
in the future. There have been dramatic increases in the volume of EMS calls, partially due to the increase
in population. The RFA knows what levels of service would be necessary to meet that need and to cooperate
with surrounding cities. Another unknown is the cost. This is an opportunity to get that information while
planning for other costs the City has to accommodate.
Council President Tibbott continued, explaining he would like to start the process now. It was his
understanding that it takes the RFA time to do a cost analysis and provide a cost estimate. He anticipated
the council would not have time to look at this issue for a few months, possibly December, January or
February. He felt it was prudent to start the conversation now which is why he made the motion.
Councilmember Teitzel expressed his appreciation for the excellent level of service the City has received
from SCF for some time. Having said that, he was looking at this issue from the constituent's perspective
and how they could get the best possible fire and EMS service for the least possible cost. He understood
the issue related to the City's budget, but feared if the council was not careful, the cost could be shifted
from the City directly to the user of these services. He wanted to ensure that whatever the council does,
they keep that perspective in mind, that the council looks at the issue from the consumer's perspective and
ensure they get the best possible deal.
Councilmember Teitzel continued, stating he agreed the City should look at joining the RFA as one option
as well as other potential ways to provide these services and run the numbers so when a vote is taken, the
council can say they have looked at this carefully and feel it is the best option for the residents. Having said
that, he agreed the council needed to pass a resolution to start the process with SCF; however, the resolution
as written is too affirmative, too strongly worded and presumes the City has already done some study and
makes some assumptions when frankly that is not the case. For example, the fourth whereas clause states,
"WHEREAS, both the City and SCF believe that the public health and safety of the citizens they serve will
benefit from annexation into SCF; and" He said that may or may not be true as that analysis has not been
done yet.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT, TO
AMEND THE RESOLUTION TO CHANGE "WILL" TO "MAY" IN THE 4T11 WHEREAS SO IT
READS, "WHEREAS BOTH THE CITY AND SCF BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND
SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS THEY SERVE 3A4Li? MAY BENEFIT FROM ANNEXATION INTO
SCF; AND".
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2023
Page 8
Packet Pg. 31
7.3.a
Councilmember Paine asked if altering this whereas clause would limit the information the RFA would be
able to provide. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered he did not think so although he has not spoken with
the RFA regarding this change. As long as Sections 1 and 2 of the resolution remain worded as they
currently are, he did not think a change in the whereas clauses would be not problematic as far as preventing
the City from getting the due diligence it is seeking from the RFA.
Councilmember Nand did not think Councilmember Teitzel's desire to change "will benefit from
annexation" to "may benefit from annexation" would materially affect the resolution so she had no
objection to the proposed amendment.
Councilmember Teitzel reminded the council as Mr. Turley mentioned, this a nonbinding resolution; it does
not bind either party. It is simply a resolution of intent to explore these options. As the resolution is
nonbinding, the amendment is appropriate.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Nand spoke in favor of the motion to pass the resolution. It is very important to explain to
the community that this would subject them to separate taxation authority that would parcel out money they
previously paid into the General Fund through their property taxes and to explore how that would impact
consumers and the services they expect from either the RFA or the other options. The framework that the
administration put forward to pursue obtaining this information and potentially holding public hearings in
the future regarding the impact to taxpayers and service users in the City is appropriate. She supported
moving forward with the resolution at this time.
Councilmember Chen expressed appreciation for the services the City gets from SCF. He also appreciated
Mr. Turley bringing this issue to council for the third time to get more information.
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
AMEND SECTION 1 OF THE RESOLUTION TO READ, "...THE CITY REQUESTS
INFORMATIONABOUT ANNEXATION INTO THE SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY REGIONAL
FIRE..."
Councilmember Chen said the reason he wants to make that clear is the intent of the resolution is to get
information, not to request annexation into SCF at this stage. He echoed Councilmember Nand's statements
about being transparent to the taxpayers who could end up getting a property tax bill that potentially was
hundreds of dollars more than what they are currently paying. For residents on a fixed income, a $400-$500
increase would be a difficult financial burden. He reiterated the need to be transparent about the process.
Councilmember Nand recalled during preliminary discussion the existing text in this section was required
to legally trigger SCF providing information. She asked if that was correct or was the amendment
nonmaterial. Mr. Taraday answered this resolution is taking place within the context of a statute. The statute
uses the phrase "resolution requesting the annexation." When a resolution is passed requesting annexation,
that triggers the next step in the process described in the statute. In his opinion, the amendment changes the
way the resolution relates to the statue, because it no longer follows the process in the statue. It is one thing
to request information about annexation and another thing to request annexation. The statute states when
annexation is requested, the next step in the process begins. The statute does not state what happens next if
information about annexation is requested. While he sympathized with the motion, he could not speak for
what the RFA would do if such a resolution were adopted. There is nothing preventing the RFA from
providing the same information, but he could not say that they would do that.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2023
Page 9
Packet Pg. 32
7.3.a
Councilmember Paine said after hearing Mr. Taraday's explanation, she was not in favor of amending either
Section 1 or 2. There is too much risk about what information the RFA provides the City. The City needs
as much information as possible to make a determination.
Councilmember Olson commented there are two separate issues, one is that the City is experiencing
increased costs for fire and police that have to be grappled with in the immediate term. The other is whether
annexation into the RFA is the best approach to deal with revenue insufficiency to offset those bigger and
growing expenses. The City is paying handsomely for fire service via the partnership with SCF. In the year
ahead, there will be onboarding of new councilmembers, the comprehensive plan will require a lot of the
council's attention, as well as the first biennial budget. She suggested the City not volunteer to consider
annexation into the RFA this year. If the RFA was gracious enough to work with the City until 2025, she
would happily support this initiative and vet it at that point. She has given this issue a lot of consideration
and is still considering it as she listens to councilmembers. Mayor Nelson reminded councilmembers to
keep their comments related to the amendment to Section 1.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the agenda memo in which Mr. Turley states, "This is the language
preferred by the RFA...", pointing out it does not say it is required by law or that the RFA will not provide
this information if the language in Section is amended as Councilmember Chen proposed. It is unknown
what the RFA will do if the council adopts the resolution with this amended language. He hoped the RFA
would work with the City and provide the information needed to do due diligence. He assumed the RFA
believes they are the best option for Edmonds and that they strongly desire Edmonds join the RFA. It
behooves the RFA and the City to work together to get the information the City needs to do its due diligence.
For that reason he strongly supports the amendment.
Councilmember Teitzel continued, the July 11, 203 PSPHSP committee meeting minutes are attached to
the agenda memo. At that meeting, Council President Tibbott raised the same concern, stating the phrase
request annexation seems to bypass the research process and he suggested replacing it with expressing the
intent to pursue the benefits of receiving fire and EMS services. Councilmember Teitzel agreed with those
comments, that it is premature to pass the resolution with the existing language and he preferred to adopt
Councilmember Chen's amended language.
Councilmember Nand asked if Councilmember Chen would be open to removing the request to amend
Section 1 related to seeking information and amend the first sentence in the third whereas clause,
WHEREAS the City and SCF are interested in Ong seeking additional information regarding the
potential operational efficiencies.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, observing Councilmember Nand was offering an
amendment that had nothing to do with Councilmember Chen's amendment. Mr. Taraday said
Councilmember Nand's comment was in order if she was suggesting Councilmember Chen withdraw his
amendment and she made the amendment as described. Councilmember Chen said no.
Council President Tibbott did not support the amendment even though his comments at the committee
indicated he probably would support it. He has learned in the meantime that there is a significant process
between passing this resolution to going to a vote. He asked Mr. Taraday to provide a step-by-step overview
of the process. He did not support the amendment as he believed there was plenty of opportunity to get
information before making any further recommendations. Mr. Taraday said he understood the sentiment
behind the desire to amend the language in the resolution because it does say request annexation. When the
plain words are spoken, it sounds like the City has decided it wants to be part of the RFA.
Mr. Taraday continued, it will be helpful for the council to put this in the context of the statute. There are
four subsections of the statue; subsection 2 talks about how a city like Edmonds can request annexation by
resolution which is what the council is deliberating tonight. Even if the council adopts the resolution, the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2023
Page 10
Packet Pg. 33
next step would be for the RFA Board to adopt a resolution amending its plan and establishing the terms
and conditions of the requested annexation. Then the RFA sends that resolution back to the City. The
election by constituents only happens if the Edmonds City Council adopts a resolution approving the
annexation and the plan amendment provided by the RFA. It does not just automatically go to a vote of the
citizens if the RFA Board adopts a plan amendment. It comes back to the city council and the city council
has another opportunity to decide whether it goes on the ballot or not. The council could decide at that time
to kill the matter and it never goes to the ballot. Procedurally speaking even though the resolution states the
City is requesting annexation, this not the final opportunity for the council's decision about annexing into
the RFA.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she strongly supports this amendment and has serious concerns. This has
not gone through a public process, it has been discussed by the finance committee and was pulled by the
council president. This is a very serious issue which could potentially have tax implications on citizens and
there has not been a public process. She wanted to get information , but anticipated she would not support
annexation. She supported the amendment due to the need for more transparency via holding public
hearings
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN,
BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT AND
COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO.
Councilmember Olson said it would work much better for the City to explore this in 2025. She encouraged
councilmembers not to approve a request for information which will result in the RFA providing
information and the City studying options which she thought would be better to do in 2025. She will vote
no on the motion for that reason.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she will vote no on the motion. She found it inconceivable that the council
would put something like this through when there will potentially be three new councilmembers and she is
retiring. This a serious decision to move to an RFA; the RFA is a taxing district, it is very different, there
has been no transparency related to the budget or cost, and there have not been any public hearings. She
felt it was premature to push this forward just because it may take months to get through. It is not something
the council should be doing now, there is plenty on the council's plate now and next year with the
comprehensive plan. The City has seven years left on the contract with SCF and has not received anything
from SCF saying they will cancel the contract with the City.
Councilmember Teitzel said at the appropriate time, he would be more than happy to approve the resolution
with the language as proposed tonight, but it is premature now. From the perspective of the fire and EMS
consumer, they could potentially pay quite a bit more per month for a comparable level of service.
Councilmembers need to be sure they can stand before their constituents and say they have considered all
the options and run the numbers and the RFA is the best choice for them and encourage them to vote for it.
The process is not there yet. He was interested in pursuing the numbers and hoped the RFA would work
with the City to provide the information needed to do due diligence.
Councilmember Nand said it would be a mistake not to pass the resolution tonight. During preliminary
discussions with the RFA, they made it clear they would not undertake the administrative burden of
providing taxpayers in Edmonds with information to make a responsible decision to ensure public safety in
Edmonds unless the council passed the resolution. The resolution is not binding, but she wanted the City to
procure the information necessary to provide to taxpayers so they can make a decision whether or not to
vote themselves into the RFA's taxing authority and pay the amount the RFA needs to provide public safety
in Edmonds. It sounds like a very egregious process. Looking at the map and the fact that Edmonds is the
only city still under contract in Snohomish County, it would irresponsible not to engage with a vital provider
of public safety on a change they potentially want to make and to look at other financial options in a neutral
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2023
Page 11
Packet Pg. 34
7.3.a
and methodical manner and put that information in front of the voters in an expeditious manner. The council
needs to allow the RFA, who provides the City's public safety, to engage with voters and provide
information to the council. This resolution provides the statutory trigger. It would not be in the best interest
of the City, constituents or taxpayers to keep putting this off. She supported the motion to pass the
resolution.
Council President Tibbott commented this is one of those decisions that will require a lot of detailed
information; the process is just getting started. It is a courtesy to start with the current provider as well as
the best way to get information from the people who know Edmonds best. It may take up to a year to work
though the details so it is worth starting now.
Councilmember Olson commented with the passage of Councilmember Chen's amendment, the statement
that the resolution provides the statutory trigger is not accurate. She was hopeful the RFA would still work
with the City and provide information. Mr. Taraday said with passage of the amendment to the resolution
that added "information about", he could not predict what the RFA Board would do with the resolution.
They may treat it the same as the original resolution, but he was skeptical about that. There is nothing
legally that prevents the RFA from providing the information, but it is possible they may interpret the
resolution as outside of the statutory process that he described.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she has heard nothing from the RFA that they plan to trigger the contract
and she did not want to rely on hearsay information. The council owes the voters to have a pragmatic
process after the budget process and after the comprehensive plan. She reiterated she would not rely on
hearsay information to make a decision this important that had not been transparency or had any public
hearings.
Councilmember Paine reiterated her support for the resolution. The council knows what the costs will look
like in the future by looking at the graph. The City has been experiencing increased costs due to inflation
and other costs. The dialogue with SCF will aid in the council's discussion. She did not know how this
could be considered hearsay; the information provided by SCF will be very clear and transparent as they
were with the other cities. The timing seems optimal; if the information is provided in late winter/early
spring, details regarding the comprehensive plan update will not be available and there will be an
understanding regarding the budget. With regard to new councilmembers that will be elected, they are all
smart people, no different than existing councilmembers, and thinking they are less able is a disservice to
them. When the council passes the resolution, she was hopeful SCF would treat the amended resolution
like the original and fulfill the request.
Councilmember Nand said based on preliminary discussion with SCF, the City cannot not get to the point
of a public hearing, where the actual impact to taxpayers of annexing into SCF could be provided, until the
resolution is passed. She was eager to get that information in front of the voters and handle this in a
transparent way. Continuing to put this off does not serve the best interests of the City's voters and
taxpayers. She was supportive of the original resolution due to the uncertainty provided by the amendment
to Section 1. She favored getting the process started so SCF could engage directly with citizens, taxpayers
and councilmember to provide financial impact information.
Councilmember Teitzel said he has have talked to SCF as have other councilmembers, and is convinced
they believe their service is the best option for Edmonds' citizens and businesses. Therefore it behooves
them and the City for SCF to provide the information necessary to do proper due diligence. There will be
an impact to the consumer of fire and EMS; the council needs to be able to articulate exactly what that will
be. The specifics of that impact are currently unknown; the City needs information from SCF. The council
needs to be able to stand in front of the voters and tell them the City has run the numbers and are convinced
voting to join the RFA is the right choice. He was hopeful if the council passes the resolution as amended,
SCF will agree to work with the City and provide the necessary information.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2023
Page 12
Packet Pg. 35
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, PAINE AND
NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN,
BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson gave a shout out to the community organized Perrinville Palooza street fair on October 7.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Buckshnis gave a shout out to the tree board for the work they have done and the wonderful
Arbor Day event. This Wednesday and Thursday from 9 to 11 a.m. are the last two opportunities to spread
chips under the leadership of Joe Scordino. The marsh group and other volunteers have spread chips on 400
feet of the creek; the chips were not affected by last night's rains. WSDOT will visit the site on Thursday
to see the work that has been done.
Councilmember Paine thanked for the community for their input regarding tonight's meeting. The salary
commission did a great job and the tree board has been doing awesome work. She noted fall is a good time
to plant trees in this area when the ground is still warm and the roots will still grow.
Councilmember Nand thanked councilmembers and staff for their hard work on the matters the council
considered tonight. She also recognized the incredible volunteers on the tree board, the salary commission
and the sister city commission. She thanked the community for responding to a call for donations for
Bonanza Rabbit Rescue, an organization whose board she serves on. After the story was picked up by My
Edmonds News and King 5, $2,800 of the $10,000 they were seeking was raised which will help get the 33
rescued rabbits fixed, vaccinated, fed and ready for adoption. She found it heartening from an animal rescue
perspective that so many people cared about the rabbits and helping find them new homes.
Council President Tibbott commented October will be a very busy month; planning has been underway
since the beginning of the year to enter the budget season in a different way. In addition to regular meetings,
there will be three special meetings to address budget issues, at least 2 public hearings on the budget and
1-2 other public hearings on other topics. There will be a lot of public engagement in the next 4-5 weeks
going into November deliberations. October will be a very important month for the council to be prepared
and for the public to be involved.
Councilmember Teitzel reported he worked at the marsh with the Joe Scordino and other volunteers at the
last week. It is amazing what the volunteers have accomplished, clearing an incredible amount of invasive
nightshade, opening the Shellabarger Creek channel to allow water to flow freely where it was previously
backed up which contributed to the flooding problem. An incredible amount of wood chips have been
spread and it is hoped the chips will keep the nightshade along the creek under control. He expressed
appreciation for all the work and time the volunteers and Joe Scordino have put into that effort.
Councilmember Chen reminded of the Mid-Autum/Moon Festival on Friday, September 29. It is a
traditional holiday celebrated in many Asian countries. It is one of the most popular holidays, almost as
popular as Chinese New Year or Lunar New Year. The history can be traced back 3000 years. It is typically
held on the lunar calendar of August 15 when it is believed the moon is the fullest and brightest. It is an
opportunity for the community to come together and celebrate this meaningful holiday. There will be a
celebration at the Waterfront Center on Friday at 6:30. He hoped to see everyone there.
Councilmember Olson said she had the privilege of attending the Harvest Moon Festival at the Edmonds
Waterfront Center last year. It was an amazing celebration, maybe one of the best events she has attended
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2023
Page 13
Packet Pg. 36
7.3.a
in terms of cultural experience. She highly recommended making that festival a priority on Friday evening.
She congratulated the ECA on the successful search for a new executive director. After reading the bio on
new director, Kathy Liu, she anticipated Ms. Liu would be fun to work with and she was excited to meet
her and have her leading the ECA. She congratulated the ECA for booking the Indigo Girls on September
27. Although it was likely a sold out show, she suggested anyone interested in attending inquire at the box
office.
Councilmember Olson reported on two exciting opportunities this Thursday, 1) Edmonds Civic Roundtable
is hosting the superintendent of Edmonds School District Rebecca Miner at the Edmonds Waterfront Center
at 5:30 p.m. to discuss happenings at Edmonds schools and an opportunity for Q&A. It is an RSVP event,
and 2) the annual fundraiser, the Empty Bowl, for the Edmonds Food Bank at the Edmonds Yacht club at
6 p.m., and 3) October 2 is National Custodian's Day. She relayed an awful situation the City's amazing
custodians had to deal with related to vandals doing gross things in restrooms. She was glad that was no
longer happening and hoped it never happened again, but the custodians need to be raised up, thanked and
applauded. She encouraged anyone who sees any of Edmonds' wonderful custodians next week to thank
them lavishly.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 26, 2023
Page 14
Packet Pg. 37
7.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/3/2023
Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #259360 through #259461 dated September 28, 2023 for $1,821,220.27 (re-
issued checks #259372 $910.00, #259373 $420.00, #259375 $202.25, #259391 $751.82 and #259408
$10,000.00) and wire payments of $4,558.60 & $6,521.01.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
Narrative
The Council President shall be designated as the auditing committee for the city council. The council
president shall review the documentation supporting claims paid and review for approval by the city
council at its next regular public meeting all checks or warrants issued in payment of any claim, demand
or voucher. A list of each claim, demand or voucher approved and each check or warrant issued
indicating the check or warrant number, the amount paid and the vendor or payee shall be filed in the
city council office for review by individual councilmembers prior to each regularly scheduled public
meeting.
Attachments:
Claims 09-28-23 Agenda copy
Packet Pg. 38
7.4.a
apPosPay Positive Pay Listing Page: 1
9/28/2023 9:08:49AM City of Edmonds
Document group: jacobson
Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount
076040
911 SUPPLY INC
259360
9/28/2023
2,494.68
061029
ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX
259361
9/28/2023
1,761.92
079319
ADVANCED POWER LLC
259362
9/28/2023
29,653.78
078938
ALLOY ARTS LLC
259363
9/28/2023
2,508.40
065568
ALLWATER INC
259364
9/28/2023
72.10
001375
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
259365
9/28/2023
420.00
069751
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
259366
9/28/2023
350.85
079353
ASPECT CONSULTING LLC
259367
9/28/2023
1,105.25
079382
ATWELL LLC
259368
9/28/2023
4,750.00
001801
AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO
259369
9/28/2023
14.69
079391
AZUOS LEARNING LLC
259370
9/28/2023
1,080.00
002100
BARNARD, EARL
259371
9/28/2023
544.01
076260
BELAIR, ROGER
259372
9/28/2023
910.00
076260
BELAIR, ROGER
259373
9/28/2023
420.00
012005
BENDIKSEN & BALL POLYGRAPH
259374
9/28/2023
600.00
078377
BENNETT, MICHELLE
259375
9/28/2023
202.25
074307
BLUE STAR GAS
259376
9/28/2023
1,306.59
073029
CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
259377
9/28/2023
1,356.14
077353
CAPITOL CONSULTING LLC
259378
9/28/2023
3,900.00
069813
CDW GOVERNMENT INC
259379
9/28/2023
4,798.27
069457
CITY OF EDMONDS
259380
9/28/2023
171.00
019215
CITY OF LYNNWOOD
259381
9/28/2023
250.00
079151
CM HEATING INC
259382
9/28/2023
59.20
004867
COOPER, JACK F
259383
9/28/2023
5,848.20
006635
DEPT OF LICENSING
259384
9/28/2023
5,751.23
007253
DUNN LUMBER
259385
9/28/2023
22.47
076610
EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
259386
9/28/2023
293.26
008705
EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
259387
9/28/2023
3,164.64
008812
ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
259388
9/28/2023
1,261.25
008975
ENTENMANN ROVIN CO
259389
9/28/2023
129.25
009350
EVERETT DAILY HERALD
259390
9/28/2023
280.36
079241
FIREHOSEDIRECT
259391
9/28/2023
751.82
076778
GO NATIVES! NURSERY
259392
9/28/2023
50.00
063137
GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER
259393
9/28/2023
612.21
012560
HACH COMPANY
259394
9/28/2023
2,175.03
074804
HARLES, JANINE
259395
9/28/2023
300.00
076294
HARRIS ISUZU
259396
9/28/2023
147.07
072647
HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL
259397
9/28/2023
8,226.47
074966
HIATT CONSULTING LLC
259398
9/28/2023
200.00
013500
HINGSON, ROBERT
259399
9/28/2023
3,415.37
076240
HIM PACIFIC NORTHWEST INC
259400
9/28/2023
307.48
067862
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
259402
9/28/2023
1,238.40
061013
HONEY BUCKET
259403
9/28/2023
1,323.20
079170
HOOPLA FACE PAINTING &BALLOONS
259404
9/28/2023
600.00
076488
HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG
259405
9/28/2023
500.00
076159
IMS INFRASTRUCTURE MGMT SVCS
259406
9/28/2023
6,714.40
072627
INTRADO LIFE & SAFETY INC
259407
9/28/2023
500.00
079318
JAY DIGITAL STRATEGIES
259408
9/28/2023
10,000.00
076136
JEFF ANDERSON
259409
9/28/2023
550.00
079397
JUDITH REID
259410
9/28/2023
598.72
075646
K-A GENERAL CONST CONTRACTOR
259411
9/28/2023
15,414.18
078250
KAUFER DMC LLC
259412
9/28/2023
300.00
075265
KBA INC
259413
9/28/2023
8,658.78
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 39
apPosPay Positive Pay Listing
9/28/2023 9:08:49AM City of Edmonds
Document group: jacobson
Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount
079396
KELSEY A BROGAN
259414
9/28/2023
155.19
017135
LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC
259415
9/28/2023
3,405.00
067235
MARYS TOWING INC
259416
9/28/2023
561.34
020900
MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
259417
9/28/2023
824.83
064570
NATIONAL SAFETY INC
259418
9/28/2023
505.21
072739
O'REILLYAUTO PARTS
259420
9/28/2023
83.27
079393
ONE.7INC
259419
9/28/2023
9,060.99
027450
PAWS
259421
9/28/2023
2,389.00
072507
PEACE OF MIND OFFICE SUPPORT
259422
9/28/2023
700.00
071783
PIGSKIN UNIFORMS
259423
9/28/2023
635.31
078800
POPA & ASSOCIATES
259424
9/28/2023
900.00
046900
PUGET SOUND ENERGY
259425
9/28/2023
953.21
068657
ROBERT HALF
259426
9/28/2023
1,533.87
064769
ROMAINE ELECTRIC
259427
9/28/2023
159.15
079390
SAFADAGO, GLENN
259428
9/28/2023
245.00
067802
SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO
259429
9/28/2023
22,545.31
065708
SCCIT
259430
9/28/2023
500.00
072733
SCHWING BIOSET INC
259431
9/28/2023
5,144.84
066918
SEDOR, NORMAN
259432
9/28/2023
14,000.00
063306
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
259433
9/28/2023
107.13
068132
SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION CO
259434
9/28/2023
448,038.36
036955
SKY NURSERY
259435
9/28/2023
131.22
060889
SNAP -ON INDUSTRIAL
259436
9/28/2023
3,554.97
037375
SNO CO PUD NO 1
259437
9/28/2023
5,554.51
063941
SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
259438
9/28/2023
41,333.63
063941
SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
259439
9/28/2023
200.00
037303
SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE
259440
9/28/2023
917,042.00
069936
SOUND TRANSIT
259441
9/28/2023
10,002.36
074797
SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC
259442
9/28/2023
650.00
076324
SUPERION LLC
259443
9/28/2023
57,606.42
079392
TARHEEL CANINE TRAINING INC
259444
9/28/2023
16,800.00
075025
THE BRANDING IRON LLC
259445
9/28/2023
563.56
079359
THE WALLS LAW FIRM INC
259446
9/28/2023
25,000.00
068141
TRANSPO GROUP
259447
9/28/2023
72,297.23
079309
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS INC
259448
9/28/2023
3,815.50
075141
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT COMPANY
259449
9/28/2023
9,392.50
064423
USA BLUE BOOK
259450
9/28/2023
162.90
067865
VERIZON WIRELESS
259451
9/28/2023
20.67
079302
VINYL LAB NW LLC
259452
9/28/2023
4,009.25
069816
VWR INTERNATIONAL INC
259453
9/28/2023
99.26
079395
VYACHESLAV & OKSANA KAPARCHUK
259454
9/28/2023
292.70
075485
WA ST DEPT OF LICENSING
259455
9/28/2023
4,756.25
067086
WASHINGTON CRANE AND HOIST CO
259456
9/28/2023
3,054.76
073552
W ELCO SALES LLC
259457
9/28/2023
1,360.72
063008
WSDOT
259458
9/28/2023
457.31
079243
YOUNG MARKETING
259459
9/28/2023
2,000.00
078389
ZENNER USA
259460
9/28/2023
2,521.60
011900
ZIPLY FIBER
259461
9/28/2023
315.09
GrandTotal:
1,833,504.34
Total count:
101
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 40
7.5
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/3/2023
Approval of GFC Analysis and adoption of a GFC Rate Ordinance
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Emiko Rodarte
Background/History
On September 12, 2023, staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee and it was
placed on the consent agenda for approval.
Staff Recommendation
Approve Ordinance.
Narrative
General Facilities Charges (GFCs) are a one-time fee imposed as a condition for a new or expanded
water/sewer/storm utility connection. The fee represents a proportionate share of the capital
investment made to provide system capacity for the utility service. The fee can then be used to fund
maintenance, capital projects or related debt services related to that specific enterprise fund.
FCS Group, using data provided by the City, modeled a rate fee schedule for water, sewer, and storm
utility connections. The data is based on water meter equivalents (MEs), equivalent residential units
(ERUs) and equivalent storm units (ESUs). The terms, ERU, ESU, and ME are used to convert non-
residential (commercial) customers into an equivalent number of residential units based on the defined
water/sewer/storm use of a single-family residence. This updated fee schedule will be used by the City
to charge a connection fee to new and upsizing utility customers connecting and/or updating
water/sewer/storm utilities to the City systems.
As part of this update, the respective Ordinance sections relating to the water, sewer and storm utilities
GFCs are updated to reflect the fee assessment schedule, clarify when effective dates of the respective
payment amount are vested, when payments need to be made, how they are calculated and
consolidates the GFC code into these respective sections for ease of reference and use.
The study has been modeled using methodology consistent with RCW and case law requirements for a
city in the State of Washington.
The City completed its last study in 2011 and has not updated its General Facilities Charge (GFC) rate
schedule since 2014.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Presentation
Packet Pg. 41
7.5
Attachment 2 - Ordinance
Attachment 3 - Clean Version Code Changes
Attachment 4 - Redlined Code Changes
Packet Pg. 42
IC. 189
2023 General Facilities Charge
(GFC) Update
•:;> FCS GROUP
Solutions -Oriented Consulting
Packet Pg. 43
7.5.a
:J Background & Methodology
The GFC is a connection charge that:
Is imposed on development to recover an equitable share of system costs
Is based on the cost of existing assets and future capital projects
Provides a source of funding for capital projects and/or debt service
:7
GFC per ERU =
Current GFCs have been in place since 2014
Calculated in 2011 analysis
Approved by Council effective May 2012, phased in from 2012 — 2014
City requested update to reflect current system costs
FCS GROUP I Packet Pg. 44
7.5.a
•:;> GFC Calculation
Total Allocable System Cost ($000s)
Svstem Caaacity in Eauivalent Units
Existinq GFC per Equivalent Unit
$147,499 $68,795 $184,809
23,199 22,039 283010
$5,050 $799 $4,417
Net allocable system cost has increased by 2 - 4 times since 2011 calculation
Current calculation reflects estimated number of equivalent units that each
utility can serve (versus projected growth over a specified period)
FCS GROUP
Packet Pg. 45
7.5.a
•:;> Single -Family GFC Survey
Woodinville [1 ] $7,729 $16,393
Bainbridge Island $7,125 $12,884 1 $20,009
Mukilteo $5,630 $12,230 I $17,860
Lake Stevens $3,645 f $13,500 $17,145
Bremerton $6,680 $1,604 $7,797 $16,081
Edmonds (Updated) • : I . • • : I $16,078
Bothell $7,801 $1,737 $5,380 $14,918
Shoreline [2] $6.475 $7,728 I $14,203
Alderwood WWI $4,398 $8,795 I $13,193
Mountlake Terrace $5,422 $3,003 $4,080 $12,505
Monroe S&111 IL $7,456 $11,567
Edmonds (Existing) $5,050 • • I $10,266
Lynnwood $4,000 � $4,000
i Water GFC
i Stormwater GFC
i Sewer GFC
[1] Woodinville WD's sewer GFC includes King County's capacity charge ($72.50 per month for 15 years)
[2] Shoreline sewer GFC assuming Edmonds wastewater treatment.
0
0
CU
0
0-
CL
FCS GROUP
Packet Pg. 46
Thank You! Questions?
Chris Gonzalez John Ghilarducci
Principal Principal/Technical Advisor
(425) 502-6280 (425) 336-1865
chrisg@fcsgroup.com johng@fcsgroup.com
www.fcsgroup.com
7.5.b
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING REVISED GENERAL
FACILITIES CHARGES FOR THE CITY'S WATER, SEWER,
AND STORM WATER UTILITIES, AMENDING SECTIONS
7.30.035 AND 7.50.070 EDMONDS CITY CODE, AND FIXING
A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the city has not updated its general facilities charges (also known as
connection charges) for its water, sewer, and storm water utilities in a number of years; and
WHEREAS, the administration obtained a study of its general facilities charges
from the FCS Group, dated September 12, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the FCS Group study calculated revisions to the city's general
facilities charges, which revisions are being proposed by the administration; and
WHEREAS, the city council finds that the proposed rates should be implemented,
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 7.30.035 of the Edmonds City Code is hereby amended to
read as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth
in full (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in stfike *'wough).
Section 2. Section 7.50.070 of the Edmonds City Code is hereby amended to read
as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in
full (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in stfike thfough).
-1-
Packet Pg. 48
7.5.b
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED :
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
Im
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE NELSON
-2-
Packet Pg. 49
7.5.b
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2023, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
ADOPTING REVISED GENERAL FACILITIES CHARGES FOR THE CITY'S WATER,
SEWER, AND STORM WATER UTILITIES, AMENDING SECTIONS 7.30.035 AND
7.50.070 EDMONDS CITY CODE, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of 92023.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
-3-
Packet Pg. 50
7.5.c
7.30.035 Water and sewer utility general facilities charges
A general facilities charge (GFC) (formerly known as a "connection charge") shall be paid by each
customer connecting to the City's water or sewer system in accordance with the following requirements
A. Sewer System GFC. The sanitary sewer GFC shall be paid at the time of side sewer permit issuance.
The payment amount shall be established based upon the GFC in effect on the date of side sewer permit
application. Sewer GFCs shall be in an amount per equivalent residential unit (ERU) added as a result of
the development as set forth below; provided, that nonresidential building permit and business license
applicants shall pay sewer system GFC when the proposed structure and/or business activity would
generate additional probable sewer usage.
1. Sewer System GFCs before the year 2024 shall be assessed on $4,417.00 Equivalent
Residential Unit per (ERU) basis as follows:
a. A single-family residential applicant shall pay a GFC equal to one ERU per dwelling unit.
b. A multifamily residential applicant shall pay a GFC equal to 0.67 ERU per dwelling unit.
c. Applicants for nonresidential development shall pay a GFC equal to the ERU
determination that is made by the public works director. This determination shall be
made by estimating the probable sewer usage of the proposed development. In
estimating the probable sewer usage, the public works director may consider, among
other factors, the average winter water consumption for similar existing development in
the city. If the applicant disagrees with the director's ERU determination, the applicant
may submit additional information and analysis from a qualified engineer, with an
additional $200.00 review fee, in support of a request for an alternate ERU
determination. The director shall review the request for an alternate ERU determination
and may accept the alternate calculation, revise the earlier ERU determination based on
the new information, or uphold the earlier ERU determination. Once the director has
made a final ERU determination, the applicant may pay the GFC under protest and
appeal the determination, along with the underlying permit, to the hearing examiner.
2. Sewer System GFCs in the year 2024 and beyond shall be assessed on $6,598.00 Equivalent
Residential Unit (ERU) basis as follows:
a. A single-family residential applicant shall pay a GFC equal to one ERU per dwelling
unit.
b. A multi -family residential applicant shall pay a GFC equal to 0.67 ERU per dwelling
unit.
c. Applicants for non-residential development shall be assessed GFC's as follows:
i. The sewer system GFC for a development without an existing water meter
shall be paid upon, and according to the date of, application for sewer
service, and based upon an ERU equivalent for the size of the water meter
to be installed, as set forth in the table below.
ii. The sewer system GFC for a development with an existing water meter shall
be paid upon, and according to the date of, application for sewer service,
Packet Pg. 51
7.5.c
and based upon the difference in the upsize of water meter to be installed,
as set forth in the table above.
iii. A sewer system GFC shall not be assessed for a dedicated fire service.
Sewer GFC - ERU
equivalent Water
Effective 2024
Meter Size
and Beyond
$6,598.00
3/4 Meter
$16,495.00
1" Meter
$32,990.00
1.5" Meter
$52,784.00
2" Meter
$105,568.00
3 Meter
$164,950.00
4" Meter
$329,900.00
6" Meter
$527,840.00
8" Meter
B. Water System GFC. The water system GFC shall be paid at the time of issuance of the water meter
permit. The payment amount shall be established based upon the GFC in effect on the date of
application for water meter. Water GFCs shall be based upon the size of the meter to be installed, as set
forth below:
Water GFC per
Water Meter Size
Effective
Before 2024
Effective 2024
and Beyond
3/4" Meter
$5,050.00
$6,358.00
1" Meter
$12,624.00
$15,895.00
1.5" Meter
$25,248.00
$31,790.00
2" Meter
$40,397.00
$50,864.00
3" Meter
$80,794.00
$101,728.00
4" Meter
$126,240.00
$158,950.00
6" Meter
$252,480.00
$317,900.00
8" Meter
$403,968.00
$508,640.00
1. Water System GFC's before the year 2024 shall be assessed on the size of water meter to be
installed as set forth in the table above.
2. Water System GFC's in the year 2024 and beyond shall be assessed as follows:
a. The water system GFC for a development without an existing water meter shall be
based upon the size of the water meter to be installed, as set forth in the table
above.
Packet Pg. 52
7.5.c
b. The water system GFC for a development with an existing water meter shall be
based upon the difference in upsize of the water meter to be installed, as set forth in
the table above.
c. For single water connections that provide fire protection and domestic service
through a combination water line, the GFC shall be based on domestic service
demand alone and shall not be subject to the cost differential when an up -sized
water meter is required to meet the design flow rate for an automatic fire sprinkler
system. All other costs, including the expense of a larger meter, a general facility
charge attributable to the meter sized for the domestic service alone, and other
permits and fees, shall remain the responsibility of the owner. This provision only
applies to a building containing one or two dwelling units constructed under the
International Residential Code (IRC).
3. A water system GFC shall not be assessed for a dedicated fire service.
4. No water GFCs shall be levied for connections to water mains installed pursuant to local
Improvement Districts Nos. 115, 146, and 152 by properties which participated in the
establishment of said local improvement districts.
5. For the purposes of this section a water meter shall be considered an "existing water meter"
if a prior structure served by a water meter is replaced with a new structure on the same site
or lot when a water meter application for such replaced structure is submitted to the city
within 12 months of the demolition or destruction of the prior structure.
7.50.070 Stormwater management system general facilities charge.
In addition to any other charge prescribed in this chapter, a stormwater management system general
facilities charge (GFC) shall be paid by each customer at the time of building permit issuance, provided
that, GFCs pertaining to subdivision improvements shall be governed by subsection A.2.d. The payment
amount shall be established based upon the GFC in effect on the date of the building permit application.
A. For the purposes of this section only, an ESU (Equivalent Service Unit) is hereby defined to be the
impervious surface area estimated to contribute an amount of runoff which is approximately equal to
that created by an average single-family residential development. .
Effective
Before
2024 and
Storm GFC
2024
Beyond
per ESU
$799.00
$3,122.00
1. Storm System GFCs before the year 2024 shall be assessed as follows:
a. A single-family residential development shall pay GFC equal to one ESU; provided, that a
single-family residential development that includes 5,000 square feet of new, replaced,
or new plus replaced impervious surface area shall pay GFC pursuant to subsection (b) of
this section.
Packet Pg. 53
7.5.c
b. All development not meeting the criteria in subsection (a) of this section shall pay GFC
calculated according to a ratio of one ESU per 3,000 square feet of new, replaced, or new
plus replaced impervious surface area.
2. Storm System GFCs in the year 2024 and beyond shall be assessed as follows:
a. New single family residential development on a vacant lot:
Shall pay a GFC equal to one ESU, provided that a new single family
residential development does not exceed 5,000 square feet of impervious
surface area. If that value is exceeded, the GFC shall instead be calculated at
a ratio of one ESU per 3,000 square feet of new impervious surface.
b. Existing single family residential development:
i. Shall pay a GFC according to a ratio of one ESU per 3,000 square feet if the
existing to remain, new and replaced impervious surface areas, collectively,
exceed 5,000 square feet except as provided in subsections (b.ii) and (b.iii)
below. A credit of one ESU will be given to the existing single-family
residence.
ii. Shall NOT be required to pay a GFC, provided that the existing to remain,
new and replaced impervious surface areas, collectively, do not exceed
5,000 square feet.
iii. Shall NOT be required to pay a GFC, provided that the new and replaced
impervious surface areas, collectively, do not exceed 500 square feet even if
the existing to remain, new and replaced impervious surface areas,
collectively, exceed 5,000 square feet.
c. All other development shall pay a GFC calculated according to a ratio of one ESU per
3,000 square feet of new and replaced impervious surface area except as provided in
subsection (c.i) below.
i. For existing developments, a GFC shall NOT be required provided that the
new and replaced impervious surface areas, collectively, do not exceed 500
square feet.
d. GFCs pertaining to subdivision improvements (e.g., streets, access roads, sidewalks)
shall be calculated for such improvements according to a ratio of one ESU per 3,000
square feet of new plus replaced impervious surface area. Payment shall be required at
the time of civil construction plan issuance for the subdivision project even if the actual
construction of the improvements is to be deferred pursuant to a performance bond or
similar assurance. The payment amount shall be established based upon the GFC in
effect on the date of subdivision application.
3. For the purposes of this section a single-family residence shall be considered an "existing
single-family residence" if a prior single-family residence is replaced with a new structure on the
same site or lot when a building permit application for such replacement is submitted to the city
within 12 months of the demolition or destruction of the prior structure.
4. For the purposes of this section the ratio one ESU per 3,000 square feet of applicable surface
area shall be prorated as necessary to calculate the GFC.
Packet Pg. 54
7.5.d
7.30.035 Water and sewer utility general facilities charges -
A general facilities charge (GFC) (formerly known as a "connection charge") shall be paid by each Re
customer connecting to the c#ylsCity's water or sewer system in accordance with the following
requirements:
A. Sewer System GFC. The sanitary sewer GFC shall be paid by the applieant aeeeFding *A- the date ef
at the time and accer ing to the date of side sewer permit issuance. The payment
amount shall be established based upon the GFC in effect on the date of side sewer permit application.
Sewer GFCs shall be in an amount per equivalent residential unit (ERU) added as a result of the
development as set forth Op the table below; provided, that nonresidential building permit and business
license applicants shall pay sewer system GFC when the proposed structure and/or business activity
would generate additional probable sewer usage.
1. Sewer System GFCs before the year 2024 shall be assessed on $4,417.00 Equivalent
Residential Unit Der (ERU) basis as follows:
4-a. A single-family residential applicant shall pay a GFC equal to one ERU per dwelling unit.
2L.b.A multifamily residential applicant shall pay a GFC equal to 0.67 ERU per dwelling unit.
Vic. Applicants for nonresidential development shall pay a GFC equal to the ERU
determination that is made by the public works director. This determination shall be
made by estimating the probable sewer usage of the proposed development. In
estimating the probable sewer usage, the public works director may consider, among
other factors, the average winter water consumption for similar existing development in
the city. If the applicant disagrees with the director's ERU determination, the applicant
may submit additional information and analysis from a qualified engineer, with an
additional $200.00 review fee, in support of a request for an alternate ERU
determination. The director shall review the request for an alternate ERU determination
and may accept the alternate calculation, revise the earlier ERU determination based on
the new information, or uphold the earlier _ERU determination. Once the director has
made a final ERU determination, the applicant may pay the GFC under protest and
appeal the determination, along with the underlying permit, to the hearing examiner.
2. Sewer System GFCs in the year 2024 and beyond shall be assessed on $6,598.00 Equivalent
Residential Unit (ERU) basis as follows:
a. A single-family residential applicant shall pay a GFC equal to one ERU per dwelling
unit.
b. A multi -family residential applicant shall pay a GFC equal to 0.67 ERU per dwelling
unit.
c. Applicants for non-residential development shall be assessed GFC's as follows:
Packet Pg. 55
7.5.d
i. The sewer system GFC for a development without an existing water meter
shall be paid upon, and according to the date of, application for sewer
service, and based upon an ERU equivalent for the size of the water meter
to be installed, as set forth in the table below.
ii. The sewer system GFC for a development with an existing water meter shall
be paid upon, and according to the date of, application for sewer service,
and based upon the difference in the upsize of water meter to be installed,
as set forth in the table above.
iii. A sewer system GFC shall not be assessed for a dedicated fire service.
Sewer GFC - ERU
Effective 2024
equivalent Water
Meter Size
and Beyond
3/4 Meter
6 598.00
1 Meter
16 495.00
1.5 Meter
32 990.00
2 Meter
52 784.00
3" Meter
$105,568.00
4" Meter
$164,950.00
6" Meter
$329,900.00
8" Meter
$527,840.00
B. Water System GFC. The water system GFC shall be paid UPOR, and aGGGFdiRg tO the date 4, app
fAr ;Ag#tar ,;eFviee and at the time of issuance of the water meter permit. The payment amount shall be
established based upon the GFC in effect on the date of application for water meter. Water GFCs shall
be-,apd based upon the size of the meter to be installed, as set forth in the table below:
7017 hnFn re nFFnrtivn 2012 nFFnrtivn
Water Mete Size da--e Clata forviard201-1 201A� �.4 and be -
and
Packet Pg. 56
7.5.d
7017 before effective 7019 effective
Water h eter Qi-e date
Water GFC per
Water Meter Size
Effective
Before 2024
Effective 2024
and Beyond
3 4" Meter
$5,050.00
6 358.00
1" Meter
$12,624.00
$15,895.00
1.5" Meter
$25,248.00
$31,790.00
2" Meter
40 397.00
$50,864.00
3" Meter
80 794.00
$101,728.00
4" Meter
$126,240.00
$158,950.00
6" Meter
$252,480.00
$317,900.00
8" Meter
$403,968.00
$508,640.00
1. Water System GFC's before the year 2024 shall be assessed on the size of water meter to be
installed as set forth in the table above.
2. Water System GFC's in the year 2024 and beyond shall be assessed as follows:
a. The water system GFC for a development without an existing water meter shall be
based upon the size of the water meter to be installed, as set forth in the table
ahnva
b. The water system GFC for a development with an existine water meter shall be
based upon the difference in upsize of the water meter to be installed, as set forth in
the table above.
c. For single water connections that provide fire protection and domestic service
through a combination water line, the GFC shall be based on domestic service
demand alone and shall not be subject to the cost differential when an up -sized
water meter is required to meet the design flow rate for an automatic fire sprinkler
system. All other costs, including the expense of a larger meter, a general facility
charge attributable to the meter sized for the domestic service alone, and other
permits and fees, shall remain the responsibility of the owner. This provision only
aDDlies to a building containine one or two dwelling units constructed under the
International Residential Code ll
3. A water system GFC shall not be assessed for a dedicated fire service.
4. C—.No water cennectinn rharnoGFCs shall be levied for connections to water mains
installed pursuant to ILocal Improvement DistrictDistricts Nos. 115, 146, and 152 by
properties which participated in the establishment of said local improvement districts.
Packet Pg. 57
7.5.d
5. For the purposes of this section a water meter shall be considered an "existine water meter"
if a prior structure served by a water meter is replaced with a new structure on the same site
or lot when a water meter application for such replaced structure is submitted to the city
within 12 months of the demolition or destruction of the prior structure.
7.50.070 Stormwater management system general facilities charge.
A. -In addition to any other charge prescribed min this chapter, a stormwater management system
general facilities charge (GFC) (fermerly knevin _ -a develepmen+ charge`"` shall be paid by the
appl+eanteach customer at the time and aceeFdong to the date of building permit issuance, provided that
GFC=s pertaining to subdivision improvements shall be governed by subsection A.2.d. The payment
amount shall be established based upon the GFC in effect on the date of the building permit application.
9—A. For the purposes of this section only, an ESU (Equivalent Service Unit) is hereby defined to be the
impervious surface area estimated to contribute an amount of runoff which is approximately equal to
that created by an average single-family residential development._" SiRgle faw,;'y Fesid^^ti,'
development shall pay GPG equal to ene ESIJ; PFevided, that a single family Feside-Mial develepment that-
& nGludes 5,000 square feet ef Rew, replaced, OF ReW P161S PeplaGed impeFviaus surfaeiea area shall pay GPG
Storm GFC
Effective
2024 and
Beyond
Before
2024
ep r ESU
799.00
3 122.00
1. Storm System GFCs before the year 2024 shall be assessed as follows:
a. A single-family residential development shall pay GFC equal to one ESU; provided, that a
single-family residential development that includes 5,000 square feet of new, replaced,
or new plus replaced impervious surface area shall pay GFC pursuant to subsection (Cb)
of this section.
b_C—.AII development not meeting the criteria in subsection (Ra) of this section shall pay
GFC calculated according to a ratio of one ESU per 3,000 square feet of new, replaced, or
new plus replaced impervious surface area.
2. Storm Svstem GFCs in the vear 2024 and bevond shall be assessed as follows:
a. New single family residential development on a vacant lot:
Packet Pg. 58
7.5.d
Shall oav a GFC eaual to one ESU. provided that a new sinele fami
residential development does not exceed 5,000 square feet of impervious
surface area. If that value is exceeded, the GFC shall instead be calculated at
a ratio of one ESU per 3,000 square feet of new impervious surface.
b. Existing single family residential development:
i. Shall pay a GFC according to a ratio of one ESU per 3,000 square feet if the
existing to remain, new and replaced impervious surface areas, collectively,
exceed 5,000 square feet except as provided in subsections (b.ii) and (b.iii)
below. A credit of one ESU will be given to the existing single-family
residence_
Shall NOT be required to pay a GFC, provided that the existing to remain
new and replaced impervious surface areas. collectively. do not exceed
5,000 square feet.
iii. Shall NOT be required to pay a GFC, provided that the new and replaced
impervious surface areas, collectively, do not exceed 500 square feet even if
the existing to remain, new and replaced impervious surface areas,
collectively, exceed 5,000 square feet.
c. All other development shall pay a GFC calculated according to a ratio of one ESU per
3,000 square feet of new and replaced impervious surface area except as provided in
subsection (6) below.
i. For existing developments, a GFC shall NOT be required provided that the
new and replaced impervious surface areas, collectively, do not exceed 500
square feet.
d. GFC=s oertainine to subdivision improvements (e.a.. streets. access roads. sidewalks
shall be calculated for such improvements according to a ratio of one ESU per 3,000
square feet of new plus replaced impervious surface area. Payment shall be required at
the time of civil construction plan issuance for the subdivision project even if the actual
construction of the improvements is to be deferred pursuant to a performance bond or
similar assurance. The payment amount shall be established based upon the GFC in
effect on the date of subdivision application.
3. For the purposes of this section a single-family residence shall be considered an "existing
single-family residence" if a prior single-family residence is replaced with a new structure on the
same site or lot when a buildine permit application for such replacement is submitted to the city
within 12 months of the demolition or destruction of the prior structure.
4. For the purposes of this section the ratio one ESU per 3,000 square feet of applicable surface
area shall be prorated as necessary to calculate the GFC.
Packet Pg. 59
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/3/2023
Public Hearing on Proposed 2024-2029 Capital Facilities Plan & Capital Improvement Program
Staff Lead: Rob English, Oscar Antillon, Angie Feser & Shannon Burley
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Rob English
Background/History
On September 19, 2023, staff presented the proposed 2024-2029 Capital Facilities Plan & Capital
Improvement Program in a joint meeting with the City Council and Planning Board.
Staff Recommendation
Hold public hearing.
Narrative
The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is updated annually and identifies capital projects for at
least the next six years, which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. CFP projects are capital
improvement projects that expand existing facilities/infrastructure or provide 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 CFP projects.
These preservation projects are part of the six -year capital improvement program (CIP) along with
capital facility plan projects that encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related
projects.
The Public Works and Utilities Department proposed 2024-2029 CFP/CIP is included as Attachment 1.
The Parks, Recreation & Human Services Department proposed 2024-2029 CFP/CIP is included as
Attachment 2. The presentations for Public Works & Utilities and Parks, Recreation and Human Services
are attached. (Attachments 3 & 4).
The Planning Board held a public hearing on September 27, 2023. The Planning Board will develop
recommendations for the City Council and review them at their next Planning Board meeting on October
11, 2023.
Attachments:
Attachment 1
- 2024 PW CIP.CFP Draft
Attachment 2
- 2024 Parks CIP.CFP DRAFT
Attachment 3
- Public Works Presentation
Attachment 4
- Parks Presentation
Packet Pg. 60
_, W
CRY OF EDMONDS �
PUBLIC WORKS
2024-2029 PROPOSED
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN &
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
P1
oi
i
- 9® 3
. ,
Packet Pg. 61
8.1.a
TRANSPORTATION & UTILITY PROJECT MAP..............................................................ii
FACILITIES & WWTP PROJECT MAP............................................................................iii
TRANSPORTATION...........................................................................................................1
PRESERVATION/MAINTENANCE PROJECTS............................................................6
SAFETY/CAPACITY ANALYSIS....................................................................................15
NON -MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS.........................................39
as
FERRYPROJECTS....................................................................................................63
TRAFFICCALMING................................................................................................ 65
TRAFFICPLANNING.............................................................................................. 67
GREENSTREETS......................................................................................................70
WATER........................................................................................................................... 72
STORMWATER.............................................................................................................. 77
EDMONDS MARSH ESTUARY RESTORATION RELATED PROJECTS.....................79
PERRINVILLE CREEK BASIN PROJECTS..........................................................................81
STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS...............................................85
ANNUALLY FUNDED PROJECTS..........................................................................88
COMPLIANCE RELATED PROJECTS.....................................................................91
SEWER............................................................................................................................ 93
FACILITIES.....................................................................................................................100
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.........................................................................122
CFP-CIP COMPARISON(2024-2029)....................................................................1 34
Packet Pg. 62
2024 CFPICIP v1.9
•
PWT-03
PWT-05
VPW,I,��T-07
PWT-65 �X-.�
PWT-04 ,—
PWT-51
PWT-09
PWT-12
W�6
PWT-35 `PWT-37
PWT-48 PWT-19 PWT-16
•
� PWT-11
x
PWT-25
PWT-15
PWT-20
PWT-08
PWT-21
�_ PWT-�9 •
PWT-30 PWTI20 PWT-13 PWT-14
PWT-47 P.WT 3, PWT-31
PWT-06 PWT-23 PWTi64 PWT-50
PWT-06 PWS-11
PWD-07
I� = PWD-06
J WP PWT-26 P
��' PWT-10
* Site specific projects only. Citywide/annual citywide projects not shown. PWT-43 Packet Pg. 63
2024 CFP/CIP vl.9 II DRAFT
S41 , ���� 4el Zak ���� PWF-07 #WF-01 �
a 99.*►�p ♦ �s, • W
�► `y *• p ��
PWF-16
�^T '► PWF-03 0 f�lj 'i�11 : �i
o
yJ=y PWF-100 �PiW 09: A IN-5all FitFor
p "umf �1.
o q PWF-13�� �� :r's1 �•.�i 1��� �'
. ,,
�k IOU
J92m. ELTi
.L. - -
PWF-09 M
fF-03 IP • PW
3 PWF-10 14
RUB' IEPF-23 F
PWF=13��
0PWF-08
•
* Site specific projects only. Citywide/a—nnual citywide
2024 CFP/CIP v1.9 ill'
I C
.N
■LWF-1
I � w
c
I a
LL
Ili a
IMF
a
le
N
O
C ■ N
NIL
C
AIR a)
t
l
aw''
Q
m
roiects no sown."
Packet Pg. 64
DRAFT
tr YID
8.1.a
01 —
Packet Pg. 65
O
O
O M
O LP)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
•
O
O LP)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
6
CT N 000
000
M
N
O
O
000
CO
N
Cf) f-
6s
LO
6r}
0
69
Q9-
LO
LO
O
CA
N
•
LC)
Ei)
EH
CA
Ei)
M
CA
O
O
O O
Ei> EFT
O
6q
O
un,
O
Vy
O
U>
O
Ui
O
EF)
O
Cf3
O
ER
_
O
O
LO
CA
Cl)
ER
O
O
O m
O LP)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O LP)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
•
O
O cr
�
CO
�00
O
M
O
OO
O
OO
P-
O
'
-
_
M
63
K?
0
K?
E!3
eq.
N
ER
Cfi
CA
ER
Cl)
ER
O
O
O O
ER Cfi
O
E!T
O
EiT
O
O
O
EiT
O
CA
O
O
O
CA
O
ER
O
O
O
O
Cl)
M
00
O
O_
CO
N
Cl)
Erk
M
ER
ER
O
O
O O
EA (Al
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
69
O
Efl
O
O
O
EA
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CO
(M
O
O
N
CO
CV
UT
fl-
E�
EA
LO
N
r-
M
Z
EA
EA
fA
OO
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
— _
O
O
EA (Al
O
O
O
O
EPr
69
Cfl
O
O
CA
O
O
O
�
�
O
EA
QCO
�
cli
EA
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
-
O
O
EA (Al
HJ
Cf}
EF?
O
O
Efl
EA
CA
0
O
O
N
O
c')
O
M
CO
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
Z
O
ffi (Al
fA
Cf}
6c>
O
O
EA
CA
0
li
N
fA
H?
Cf}
O
O m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O LO
O
O
O
O
O
O Cn
N 00
o
Li)
'
O
Cn
CA
64
EA
N
Q
6q
�
•O
L
CL
O
R
N
N
O
En
O
Cn
N
CD
O
N
M
a)
4;
o
j
o Q
?
Q
N
�=�
rn
C7
CO
0
Q
N
cn
Q
02$
N
E
m% O
C
O
O�
N
a)
> O
c=
C
O
C
O
U
U)c
O
U
:
O T
i
"O>
a)
ca
Lp6
w6
oa
cn
M
o
O
C\
U)
a>)
aa))
L6 L6
Q U)>
U)
CL N
Q .L
w
�-%
N N
N
•
d
L
� 0
>
� Q
0)
C
E �
2�1
OL
`L-
00
a
Q
i° U—)eo
C2
(n N
2
of
O U)
eo
ti
N IL
2 (n
2
x
x
x
T
Cl) .4,
LP)
CO
f.
r
9
w
9
00
W
O
`O
r
`O `O
L L
`O
L
`O
L
`O
L
L
L
`O
L
`O
L
`-
L
a
a a
a
CL
CL
a
a
CL
a
CL
2024 PW CFP/CIP vl.9
2
O
O
O
M
CA
LO
V
69
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cf3
O
O
O
M
CA
LO
L
N
K-1
O
O
O
4
co
O
O
EA
0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O
O O O O O O
O 0 r- 00 W
N N N N
N � M N Cfi ER
63 Cfi ER EA
O O O O O O
O O O OCD U) 6q CL
CO OM N ti V
N N 06
N 4 M N =
CA Cfi EA Efl �
a
� � � 60 o o Q
O Od CT
w+
N N
Ef3 ER LL
O
O
O
O
O
6f3
60
613
EA
O
O
CA
O
ti
EA
O
O
O
O
0
CA
Cf}
CA
EA
00
00
M
N
Ct}
O
O6sOC
A
OMOlr-
oVFOOOOE
CD
646q 60-
Nr`TrCN
O
ER
O
EA
CD
6q
�
CD
e»
�
C
O
.N
d
f�E
�
�
6
Q
a
LL
C)
a
tU
3.1
CL
00
rn
ai
o
CD
0)
Q
O
N
c6
c
U
8-0
00
a)
C
C
O
C
O
a)
3: E
d
co
f6
U) j
a)
t
N
N
O
U) Q
>
Q
(�
.�
L E
co
a>)
aa))
0)—
0)o
rn CD
Q
�
of
E
m
CD
Na)
N
Cn >
O
_
d
T
T
Lo
.� Q
E
C>
x
x
x
x
w+
a
LO
w
T
n
TT
00
`T
r
`
L
`T
a
Packet Pg. 66
7
OOON0
O O CD fA EA O
O
M
0
N
Cfi
o
cn
o
0
o
O
O
O
O
o
o
O
o
o
0
o
O
O
O
O
o
m
O
LO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
(O
O
O
6)
P-
Lr
V
L
O
O
O
00
O
I�
'IT
N
O
Cl)
(n
(n
(n
N
(n
Cl)
(O
'IT
ti
O
EA
EA
M
�
N
Os
Mva
-
ell
to
6q
6q
E13
Ef3
Ef3
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
613
V>
E1�
V>
Eq
0
Ef3
EA
613
O
O
O
P
�_
V
L
'ITN
Cl)
(O
V
ti
I-
M
EA
EA
ER
Efl
O
LO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
f--
O
O
O
H->
V>
613
V>
O
m
O
LO
O
O
O
O
N
O
�
(O
O
O
6)
O
O
O
�
O
Lf
N
(n
EA
Efi
M
�
N
6A
Efi
07
Q7
6
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
o
O
Efi
V>
V>
6-1
61D
(»
61�1
(»
Efi
Ef3
61�
0
0
0
(0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
613
EA
o
0
o
69
Efi
EA
GGI
613
EA
E13
0
0
0
O
00
N
N
N
0
fl-
N
N
Ki
EA
Efi
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
64
EA
EA
GGI
O
EA
Efi
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
I-
O
0060�
O
N
O
HT
V>
EA
609
EA
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
Ed'i
Ef3
EA
V>
Edo
EA
Efl
Ef3
EA
EA
EA
O
O
if )
ER
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ef3
Gq
EA
V>
Edo
V>
EA
E03
EA
Ef3
Efi
rl-
rl-
ER
0 0
0 o
O O
(O 00
00
M O
- -
0
O
O
r-
Cl)
O
o
O
O
_O
(n
O
O
O
N
00
(n
_
o
O
O
M
Cl)
Cl)
0
6(n
Cl)
Il-
613 613
61T
6a
Efi
N
6q
Efl
O O
ER EA
O
00
fl
O
6q
O
Efi
O
Ed'3
(
0 r
Efi
Cl)
O
EfT
q
S
(
O O
O O
(O 00
(n 00
M O
�
O
O
O
(n
O
O
N
00
(n
O
O
M
Cl)
Cl)
0
0
00
Cl)
I- (
6q
6S
�
7�y
c
w
0 o
o Ef3
0
r-
O
�»
O
Ei3
O
o
0
�
O
613
0 s
Efi
�
c
u>
Cl)
6
c
c
c
e
c
0 0
C 0
�t N
N (.0
0
o
0
O
CON
0
0
O
0
0
LO
00
c
0
o z
ER
EA
O O
EA O
O
O
Ef}
EA
O
O
O
Efl
O
O
O
O00
EA
O
O
O
=
69
t
O
O S
O
0
N
EA
CD—
EA
EPr
�t
613
(.0
N S
(
(
� EA
EA
EA
GO.
69
69.
7
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
c
(Al
EA
EA
EA
EA
Edo
Ed'i
C
.N
d
r
O
00
(n
O
HT
O
Ef3
O
69)-Ef3
O
O
69-
O
Ef3
O
Ef3
O
ER
O
O
00
O
Ef3
O
Ef3
O
Efl
O
Ef3
O
Efl
O
EA
0
69
�
N
ti
Q
o
LO
OD
Cl)
LOo o
V
a
LL
�
tU
a
V
0
?�
a
O
p
N
p
O
c
O
0
_
m
N
�
�
N
(n
i
0)
U
t�
dj
>�
U)
p
(n p
p
N
C2
N
Q
Vi
E
m
>
O
E
E
E
EO
(n C
E
C
p
C
Q C
(n
C
L C
(n
Of
C
T>
O
O
O
,�
w+
E
>
cn p
p
p
m
m
3�
3Q
3
mU)
f6�_
m>
°)
>
-FoOl
Y
Y
Y
O O
p
>
� O
O
O
Q
m
c6
(6
Q
N Q
i
N E
fl-
cn
<n
E
E
E
E
N
i
rn
� E
R
C
0
85-
C
3-
p C
�j
3-
p C
2 0
fn
0
U
>
U Q>
>
>co
O
00
Q
O
Q
M
N O
i .�
U)
r-�
i .�
O0
p
C
0)
C13O
L
O>
O
O
QO
O >
O >
O N
.Q N
_
> Cn
Q
>
.V
O
(n
o
coH
(%% Q
(n C
p
In
>
Q
>
Q
>
Q
fn
C
c)
L
O
Q
O
Q
rn
p
j,
L
O
Q
to
E,
-
N
N
p>
_7
0
L
(�
(n
t
d
E
0)
U)
�
U
0)
�
.p-�
00
(f')
O
p-
(9
N O
(4
CO
4
O
O
00 0)
>
0 C
f-
fn
(n E
(n E
fn c
O c
00 co
M N
(A E
O c
O
N
>
> (n
Z
M O
N —
M
N W
M 0
N 0
00 (n
00 (n
00 fn
N Q
t
()
x
X
x
x
x
x
X
x
X
x
X
x
x
x
x
r
Q
Cm
O
N
N
N
N
M
N
Ict
N
N
N
(O
N
t`
N
00
N
W
to
1-
(G
Cm
N
O
M
M
N
M
M
M
Ict
M
N
M
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Packet Pg. 67
2024 PW CFP/CIP vl.9
s
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
o
O
o
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
o
1,-
o
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
o
ti
o
O
O
O
O
Ln
N_
__
o
O
O'i'_
00M_
O
O_
O_
O_
O_
0)
N
Ln
(O
r-
co
PI-
N
co
M
O
00
N
N
EA
O
00
Ln
(O
N
ti
Cl)
Cl)
Cl)
(f>
GO.
O
M
Ln
EA
Ef>
N
Hi
M
H?
6e
(f>
00
(f>
(f>
•
ER
EF>
V>
Ei>
Ei>
6q
EA
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O'
64=t
61>
6F>
6a
6r>
61)
V>
641
69
�
�
69
CL
_
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
'
OM
:.)
f�
�_
Cl)
Cl)
(O
Cl)
Cl)
06
EA
u)
Efl
—7
(f>
_
a
O
O
o
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
rn
O
O
o
O
o
O
O
o
(»
cs>
61!>
6>
e3
O
ti
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
o
O
O
o
O
r--
O
O
O,
• O
O
Ln
N
OCT
(O
O
O
O
O
O
—
N
N
(f>
a)0000
Ln
(O
N
H3
(f>
O
OMO
N
•V
_ 613
H3
N
H)
_
_
M
C
H>
613
LL
6a
ER
(f>
V>
(A
f4
w
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
.Q
EF>
Ef>
(fi
O
ER
ER
K>
O
(f>
Ei>
EA
(fi
Ef>
Ef>
Efl
O
ER
O
f4
-
o
o
O
O
V
OM
O
CN
N
Ln
O
E!3
C7
N
63
N
Ef>
(O
Ef>
N
Iq
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
G
N
EA
—
EA
(f>
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
EA
EA
Ef>
(f>
6s
EF>
(f>
O
O
Ef>
O
O
-0
O
O
O
M
O
N
d
N
�
M
�
M
M
f�
Nfl
O
O
N
(f3
Cn
0
Q
V>
Ef}
V3
0
L.
d
o
o
O
O
o
es>
O
O
o
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
(Al
O
cf>
o
cf>
O
cf>
o
e»
O
es>
O
(f>
O
O
O
O
O
o
C
- o
o
O
C
O
o
0
o
O
o
0
O
O
O
N
O
N
M
(O
00
N
co
f—
O
O
O
00
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
O
co
ER
EF>
(f>
(f>
Ki
(f>
(fi
EF>
EFT
�
CU
O
EA
O
EA
O
Efl
O
EA
O
Efl
O
EA
O
EA
O
EA
O
EA
O
EA
O
(A
O
Efl
O
EA
O
Ef>
O
EA
O
Ef>
O
EA
O
O
V
O
N
—
N
VY
7
a
0
0
0
0
o
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
o
o
O
o
O
o
7
c
O
6s
—
e»
es>
e»
e»
e»
es>
(s>
(f>
es>
va
es>
e»
es>
va
es>
e»
o
C
•N
N
d
r
O
O
o
O
o
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
e»
(s
00
(s
es>
es>
(s>
e»
V>
(f>
60>
es>
(s
00
ti
V>
(»
0
o
C
o
LL
>
>
69
(»
U
a_
U
?�
>
Q
=
o
0
0
O
~
>
E
O
CL
le
N
L
E
_
c
N
m
O
O7
(n
co
0
Q
co
L
O
N
N
O
N
0)
;
;
J
O
L
O
O
0)
>, >
E
0 0)
M
Q
O
fn
(n
O
00
W
c
N
>,
>
c
Q
Y
T 07
> Q
E
0
Q
O
00
C
00
00
2
w
N
U
>
O U
CY))
d
EO
L
Ocu
=
>
N
L
O
Y
>
Q
_�
�'
E
O
E
O
0
U
E O
•�
C
V
(n
N
>
>,
D O
NO O
c
0 co
O
`6 E
>
>
'>�
>Y (n
co
f6
7
N
•�
>'
O
Q
C
m
00 0
� -O
O N
- >
0) w
> (n
> (n
(n
> >
N O
U
Q
�
> O
O
C
_
�
_
_
>
_
T
O
C
a
o �.
fn C4
r
_
O
>
W>
V N
O '—
O
0 d
(n >
Q
Q
N
> (n
Q
CO
Q
(n >>
>
L
N
>
O
d
• O
C4
'�
Q- p
�i
N
p
E
O
CO
00 N
E
N
L•.
c
i
E
(n
O
N O
_
U W
(6 (0
O 07
Q' O
(n 2
O
0
� E
(n d
O (p
r f—
O O
r
O N't
00 N
00
00 r
M>
N Q
W fn
O
N
L
N
LL
4)
LL 0-
"
t
V
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
X
x
X
x
X
x
X
x
w+
Q
(O
I--
M
O
r
M
Ict
N
CO
f-
co
M
O
N
O
CO
r
N
M
M
M
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
T
N
CO
CO
Cn
Ln
RI
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
M
a
a
a
a
a
M
a
a
a
Packet Pg. 68
2024 PW CFP/CIP vl.9
4
O
LO
O
Cl)
O
c0
O
I--
O
O
O
M
O
(6
O
00
N
LO
It
E9
M
00
U3,
to
M
64
O
O
O
O
(fi
E9
(A
O
O
LO
O
M
O
c0
O
1-
O
O
O
M
On
't
co
O
LO
w
�
M
N
(A
LO
T
ER
O
O
O
O
(fi
EH
(A
O
O 0
611, 69
O 0
6R 69
O 0
6R 61i
O LO
61) co
O
CD
co
N
69
O
N
N
T
O O
(fJ O
O
00
Ln
ti
M
03,
O O
O O
O O
O �
L!j M
M r
('0i T
O O
O O
O T
O to
Lf) to
M w
(A M
L
00
00
O
_0
co
U) m
C
L (A
= d
Lr
N
w
.�
'aU)
O
t�
yam=
`
G
O
=
O
fn
~
c
(0
(D
>
E- a
F-
(D a
x
M
Ln
U?
CO
H
H
H
a
a
a
w
w
D
H
0
z
w
IL
x
w
J
Q
O LO LO LO O O O O fl- O O O
fl- V O (o O O O O LO m O Efl 0
LO co (V O O O O O fl- 0) U') O
f9 � 00 M Lf) O � O O f- N
LO O N 00 Cl) O Cl) LO 6R N
M O r— O Cl) 6s N 6s LO 00 0
EF) CO - 69 6R U5 Lfi O
EFT EA N M
EFi EFi ER ('')
6q
O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
Efl O O HT ER (fi 61i ER ER (fi Efl Efl O
O O O
O 0 00
LO 00 O
N LO 0
cyi
N
ER E9 N
(»
O Lf) LO LO O O O O rl- O O 0
fl- �t O CO O O O O LO m O 69- 0
U') m N O O O O O r— O Lfi 0
f9 'i Cd M Lf) O � O O r-:
LO (D N 00 Cl) O M LO ss LO
M fD N O M 6q N 6Fi LO 00 Cl)
EA Li (d EF} E9 U5 Lfi (9
(fl (fi EFT EA N O_
(»
Efi
O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
Efl 00 O 6R Vf VT V3 (fi (A 61) 61) 61),0
0
O N O
LO fl- O
f� f— 0
E9 E9 (T
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
EH O O 6q E9 60i E9 69, 69 O ER 6FT O
O O O O
O N 00 00
� � � 00
E9 d) 0 O
6R (V
6R
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
6H O O 61) EFi 61) E9 61) 69 O ER UR O
O O O O
O N_ O (
0 N O cM
M N
E9 6R N
En 6F}
O O O LO O O O O LO O O O O
6H O O f-_ 6Fi 60i ER 6q N O ER (fi O
O M LO r— O
LO- M — CO0 LO
fA (D O rl- LT
N M
E9 69 69 ER 6F I
O O O 0) O O O O O O O 0
O O O N O O O 0 O ER (fi O
O O O N O O O O M O O
LO O N 0 LO 00 U') O O O
O LO ti 0 cM N �t Cl) 00
00 O It cM (fi N HT rl- 0 M
Efl 69 613 EFT 613 EA 61T N N
ER 6F}
O LO LO O O O O LO r— O O 0
f� O CO O O O ER LO Cl) 0 K} EA
Lfi M C ('') O O O M N Lf)
V LO M O 00 0 O N fl-
Ln f-- f-- N LO fD f— f- ER
N 0 (A EF} ss O LO
EA EH 6R N
69 Ef3 y}
7
06
X
to
N
H
LL
f6
V
N
j
N
+�
f6
LL
U)
0
CL
O
p
C
O
04
LO
f9
04
CNLL
O
LL
_
O
T
to
LL
c >
LL
—
-
c�
m
o
Q)
LL
�
LL
=
LL
Q
3
Z)
)
i
V
a
W
W
C
3
(6
d
vim)
_
m
O
cA E
�
(IfH
(D
(n
U)LPL
cn
O
Q
Pac
w
z
w
w
J
Q
H
ket Pg. 69
2024 PW CFP/CIP vl.9 5
2024 PW CFP/CIP vl.9
Packet Pg. 70
Public Works - Transportation
nnual Street Preservation Program
Annual pavement preservation program to maintain City streets.
Maintains the City's pavement infrastructure and reduces the need for larger capital investment to rebuild City steets
$1,600,000 (2024)
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
324 2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
20
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$130,000
$130,000
$130,000
$1,95O,OOC
0
$1,450,000
$2,250,000
$1,150,000
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$37,5OO,OOC LL
$1,600,000
$2,400,000
$1,300,000
$2,630,000
$2,630,000
$2,630,000
$39,450,000 a
U
$800,000
$750,000
$650,000
$750,000
$750,000
$750,000
$11,25O,OOC a
$800,000
$750,000
$650,000
$750,000
$750,000
$750,000
$11,25O,OOC N
0
N
c
d
E
t
r
$900,000 $1,130,000 $1,130,000 $1,130,000 $16,95O,OOC Q
.r
$1,600,000 $2,400,000 $1,300,000 $2,630,000 $2,630,000 $2,630,000 $39,450,000
E
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9
Packet Pg. 71
184th St SW
o`
�z3rd-P1-SW_
185th
Q��q m
185th St SW 185th St SW
PI SW
P/ __—_
3
04
P >
W 185th PI
Pi s+v
186th St SW ¢
F.
F.
MPI`'v Q
< SW
1861hMSW t
8-1 r, P1 Sv,
187th St SW co
.2
¢ 6th
n L 3 �a St SN 1
> LlJ 3
Q - >
s
e7I PI sw
188th St SW Q
ko
187th=P1 sw
b W
>
188TH-ST+SW =>,
a
_
c'
188th-PvsW--
Penny Ln
00 00
3
> ¢190th St SW +189th PI SRO 9P
189th PI-S(y_-
_ 89ln Pis�tagth al sW
9t,cP
M 06
a-190th=St SW-
_
a
191st
St SW
"=190th-St-SWI
-.. 792nd St SW
w
N191 st PISW 1 —''l
n --II
3 9zndStSW
=�1-91st=St-SWI
�a/P
Si 80th 192nd PI SW >
P Q
192nd-PI SW
NI
193rd
3
192nd"P_I=SW _ Park } 1
W a 1
>
PI SW H
3 ^
t 193rd PI
^ SW Q==193rd
St SW-= = 193rd St SW
3 194th St SW
_EJ
�194th PI SW_ n Z
3 jF,
w
> 1941ns[sw 1
N �
-th St SWL_--—
m
1-96TH=ST=SW
L•o
A pavement overlay of 76th Ave from 196th St. SW (SR-524) to Olympic View Dr was completed in 2023. The project close-
out and required federal documents for the transportation grant will be completed in 2024. The east side of the street is
within the City of Lynnwood and was included in the project.
Improve pavement condition and upgrade pedestrian curb ramps to meet ADA standards. In addition to the existing
southbound bike lane, the project may add a new northbound bike lane as outlined in the City's Transportation
c
Comprehensive Plan. c
N
Estimated Project Cost
c�
$2,583,000 p
a
C)
Design
a
tU
Right of Way
?�
Construction
$20,000
a
Expense Total
$20,000
N
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
$7,500
'
REET Fund 125
$5,000
c
REET Fund 126
d
E
Transportation Impact Fees
s
General Fund
Q
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
=
Federal Grants
E
State Grants
t
c�
Other
$7,500
r
Q
Funding Source Total
$20,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 8 1 Packet Pg. 72
Z
= w
u� ^ >
c�
_'� L Q
MW ►AIiN�S�T
Cence, Center Reid
W
}
a
DAYTON ST
Pavement overlay along Main St. from 6th Ave. to 8th Ave. with pedestrian curb ramps upgrades. The project will be fundE
with a federal grant and City funds for a local match.
Improve pavement conditions and pedestrian accessibility (with ADA curb ramps) on this segment of Main Street.
Estimated Project Cost
prior year expenditures
$937,500
Project Cost
Design
$9,000
Right of Way
Construction
$780,553
Expense Total
$789,553
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
$672
REET Fund 125
$158,001
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
$630,880
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$789,553
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 9 1 Packet Pg. 73
8.1.a
a�
c
�
`�
S� J
<
u Excelsior PI
`
a
woo 4h a
E,
i
rn
�Q
J
o
�
O
PUGET DR
L
w
>
a
Puget Way 0W
U
7 <
>,
Edmonds
d
<
Elementary
Puget Way
—
OJ
The project will rebuild the existing traffic signal and remove the signal heads currently on span wire and install standard
traffic signal poles with mast arms. Vehicle detention will also be upgraded as part of this project.
This upgrade will provide safer roadway conditions since the hanging signal heads will be replaced with fixed signal heads c
a
mast arms. The new vehicle detection will guarantee that all vehicles will be detected.
Estimated Project Cost
c
o
*Includes expenditures
Mn
prior year
$586,000
L
Design $90,000
a
Right of Way
u_
�?
Construction
$496,000
a
U
Expense Total $90,000
$496,000
d
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
N
N
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
d
General Fund
E
t
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
w
Federal Grants
r
Q
State Grants
Unsecured Funding $90,000
$496,000
E
Funding Source Total $90,000
$496,000
cva
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 10 1 Packet Pg. 74
W o,�c
SW
N �-
O p
O
O
238th St SW 3 •
Faith cu
o
Community Q o • 238th St SW
Church s�
Install new traffic signal and vehicle detection system.
The existing traffic signal is near the end of its anticipated service life.
$938,000
Design
$165,000
Right of Way
Construction
$773,000
Expense Total
$165,000
$773,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$165,000
$773,000
Funding Source Total
$165,000
$773,000
237th PI, C
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9
Packet Pg. 75
Bracketts Jc
P S�
Landing sa a
South a- .\�oa
Railroad
Station
✓arc's J<4
J?
Mini Park
= Post
Office
a
N
Q
4
Q
✓a�Ps moo
St
Install new traffic signal and vehicle detection system.
The existing traffic signal is near the end of its anticipated service life.
$493,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
Edmonds Polic j
' e%S,t and Municipa
o` Court
Veteran'
Edmonds Centennial Plaz i
City Hall Plaza Bell
r '
N �
Fountain M*rosm
$110,000
$383,000
$110,000 $383,000
$110,000
$110,000
$383,000
$383,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 12 1 Packet Pg. 76
Pavement overlay along Olympic View Dr, from 196th St. SW / SR-524 to Talbot Road, along with ADA curb ramp upgrades.
Improve pavement condition and improve accessibility for pedestrians of all abilities.
$1,500,000
Design
$200,000
Right of Way
Construction
$1,300,000
Expense Total
$200,000
$1,300,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
$100,000
$300,000
REET Fund 126
$100,000
$300,000
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants $700,000
State Grants
Unsecured Grants
Funding Source Total $200,000 $1,300,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 13 1 Packet Pg. 77
P4*'t/'„S ',U . III !
4
���
r f'r"i. *
r/ r
• a
r
■.. tl b
,taaL
i t�: rr !
!7
f
LLIPA
i9Bgr.l
hank WE
,
do
i „ .• JL
fllr,
i r
a or
:
r"
i~# r
.
ter♦ 1 r It ILI —ll *' 1
t
•1 a w
r -
• .�
l..�� '.
J
r
i
♦
k+�. ✓h
♦�
! •1 JP I
11 4
PUGET DR
e,
185th PI SW l r'M �r�L�tir��::.•`:'lll**
i ! I
d � {jjt r1.l�a.�ti•..rrw{III it
rrL�%r.i7'i li��+wti.rt.i;f rL r. rJj4..+
LILI
f �� �rr+la r�71 ...• 7Yr•o-....a 4
I I r ; fi r• I I. � Lam- I '•'-•Ir * l
s \.�.
j. h0 r,4 -4 rs f�� ., . f��� �.f -4 �r
�:., it 1.� I .• . YrJ--.III ��� A, `Q - _. -
ff—J
R .
y w� r 1 4 ��4''�►• "�"jv LL `1 V' 1 f�+J j +1k-
j• I I I r y!! 1 4w••w IL Ki; I
1• •�a ti � i r a � a -e II+ * \�' rr..J 1:! L. � "Ir�A�..r.wrrti. �
a 1 1
.r �4�J s "p' tl
AL Bit
r
L t i
r �r a .• y I M! r •� _ __
This project will resurface 88th Ave and improve the existing asphalt sidewalk on the east side of 88th Ave from 196th St S\
to 185th PI SW in the Seaview neighborhood. All City utilities along this section of 88th Ave have been upgraded in recent
years and the street is ready to pave. The existing curb is in poor condition and varies in height. The project will install 6"
concrete vertical curbs and repave the existing asphalt sidewalk.
Improve pavement conditions, pedestrian accessibility (with ADA curb ramps) and pedestrian safety.
$1,500,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Sewer Utility Fund 423
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9
$150,000
$1,350,000
$150,000 $1,350,000
$65,000
$65,000
$20,000 $180,000
$40,000
$1,130, 000
$150,000 $1,350,000
14
Packet Pg. 78
2024 PW CFP/CIP v1.9 15
3 -.r.� Iw + r•� rf-==-�.i �'rlro, LSPI:KAN(-t .• 1 L _' -_ i
Sth St SW 224th St SW ■' r� ~
_ 224th St S _224th St;SW
iR + '..OM ■ rq V.' iRi�1�!•.� r
s 1 � 22ChPJsw 1 �� I� I'I ■�_Pt�
rr-1 ■ ■ j�`. 1`�■�'� yl�!■Sraw4�1 r
S.I ■-'- --: * 1 v� .�,.Sw L f +1■� • �' Ir.a.goA■. L5 aq 1 -� ��� r1� ��ILPI SW
V«Cz25th-sw1� ■ i i�.�....3
Pf-�Q 1 w y* ■ ■ to .a .i �1F I ._i i-- �.
ll rV, • f Q �1 m lair 110&& N! - L Yh ■ R. 2`fiP` �n
a s t -a 226th St SW,—_- 226thrSt SW a
in . Ii a - ' '` momom
Ir
* Jr,I . 'w;�
.•_..
iiw�r .�'rn -I .e.* w �} a1A'1 itgl�,f n"!�� mom! IV r L� 1I�
nnns sW .
Jr Z
3 m
tgoommom
a 228TH ST S�
ac_e ,y r ilro 4 Jr i 'a• I■.'1, W-Uw��lr A • s,-'i-alllo +dam
■ 229hst3/. a .-
F * )_ ■ a 229th St-
�� ` ��i �■«1 Q�. !� )1 ■( A
i it 7LLI
�O 1 Q µ J _.♦ ir 1x� iF r r .L !* Q
O �_— �/ mt '��' 1 m1. ■ . I ■mr � - Mgr• J■ �� _
• ter-r ■ a' n �} - a-- m 230th St SW =' 230th St SWF
c,� '�/• �t�. , ell i i �.' e, "+�' �� r\
Y l+shy oyp% ' �r 3 231RvStaSW Q i ■
Q ° i. TS ■,sl■■sl r m w Ord. w lilt
232nd St SW L y a J ■n�■■fit■ i ♦ I ■71 ai , , ,:,. �! �• acg.tG
I
ILIrr-1 P L �+Lw,.1�. i►* tr :�� `�■ : Q•,23�ri
zszhn vises—m _ - � y I
Widen 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 95th PI. W to three lanes (with center two-way left turn lane), with curb and gutter,
sidewalk, and bike lanes.
This project would improve active transportation safety and traffic flows along this corridor. Community Transit will evalua
the possibility of creating a new east -west bus route along 228th St. SW, if this project moves forward (connecting Edmond
Transit Station to Mountlake Terrace Transit Station).
Estimated Project Cost
*Includes prior year expenditures
1� 111
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$1,447,000 $1,500,000
$1,000,000
$13,100,000
$1,447,000 $2,500,000 $13,100,000
$1,447,000 $2,500,000 $13,100,000
$1,447,000 $2,500,000 $13,100,000
r
c
0
.A
a�
L
a
u.
U
a_
U
IL
le
N
O
N
r
r+
c
as
E
t
r
Q
c
tv
E
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 16 1 Packet Pg. 80
V)
sn
�
>
>
w
a
a
o
=
a
_
M
LO
H
p,
3
Q�
>
a
=
a
a
o
A.
o
�P
0
O
O
3
&OW,DOIIM
244TH ST
w
a
0
212THSVSW w _°
a
Z W
N >
Ln a
w
244TH ST SW
a 3 =
= w
~ > 3
J t
F u
00 Q w
_ >
i
a
2
236TH ST SW
c
c
c
e
c
?v c
s
c
c
s
In 2023, the project constructed landscaped center medians on Highway 99 from 244th St. SW to 212th St. SW, a HAWK
signal — 600' north of 234th St. SW, and gateway signs on both ends of the corridor. Plant establishment and project close-
out will continue in 2024.
The conversion of the center two-way left turn lane to a landscaped raised median will improve corridor safety along this
Highway of Regional Significance (HRS), with an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of — 35,000 vehicles per day. The new HAWK
signal will provide a signalized pedestrian crossing between the existing traffic signals at 238th St and 228th St.
c
c
.N
Estimated Project Cost
prior year expenditures
$9,300,000
c�
p
a
C)
Design
a
tU
Right of Way
?�
Construction $114,000
a
Expense Total $114,000
N
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
c
Transportation Impact Fees
d
E
General Fund
s
ca
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Q
Federal Grants
=
State Grants $114,000
E
Unsecured Funding
t
cts
Funding Source Total $114,000
r
Q
Packet Pg. 81
CFP/CIP
2024 PW 0.9 17
D
r�
2 iH[h 99 S[ SW 238th St SW
F
A Q��
F 1'�
i
240th St SW
Mathay
Batt. 9e'
3 Park
a o D
^o , 9tv Jvt n
c� F
�c
.. 242nd St SW
v
v
F
Edmonds wdy
tw
N 205th St 2.1nth St SW N 205th St N 20501 St
243rd PI SW
The Stage 3 Highway 99 project limits are from 244th St SW to 238th St. SW. The project will widen the intersection of
Highway 99 and 238th St SW to provide a second northbound left turn lane. Additional improvements will include ADA
compliant sidewalks, a landscaped planter strip to separate sidewalk from adjacent traffic, enhanced street lighting, bike
lanes, ADA compliant pedestrian curb ramps and utility improvements (with potential undergrounding of overhead utility
lines).
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience along this segment of the Hwy 99 corridor.
$32,500,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$1,075,000 $630,000 $409,000
$215,000 $1,000,000 $1,203,000
$13,000,000 $13,752,000
$1,290,000 $1,630,000 $1,612,000 $13,000,000 $13,752,000
$1,290,000 $1,630,000 $1,612,000 $13,000,000 $6,688,000
$7,064,000
$1,290,000 $1,630,000 $1,612,000 $13,000,000 $13,752,000
O
r
MA
d
w
�a
a
u_
U
a_
U
IL
le
N
0
N
r
r+
_
d
E
t
t�
ea
r
Q
_
a�
E
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 18 1 Packet Pg. 82
220th St SW
223rd St SW
224th St SW
3
D
W
C
�e
c
0
m
C
2 220th St SW
224th St SV
3
The Stage 4 Highway 99 project limits are from 224th St SW to approximately 500 feet north of 220th St. SW. The project
will widen the intersection of Highway 99 and 220th St. SW to provide a second left turn lane for the northbound,
southbound and westbound movements. Highway 99 corridor improvements will include wider ADA compliant sidewalks,
landscaped planter to separate sidewalk from adjacent traffic, enhanced street lighting, bike lanes, ADA compliant
pedestrian curb ramps and utility improvements (with potential to underground overhead utility lines).
c
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience. In addition, future economic development would be improved. c
N
Estimated Proiect Cost
$42,534,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
Water Utility Fund 421
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Sewer Utility Fund 423
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9
r
c�
L
0
a
2024 2025• •27 2028 2029• • . , u_
U
$1,075,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $484,000 a
tU
$215,000 $500,000 $3,000,000 $1,885,000 ?�
$16,434,000 $16,000,000 '-
$1,290,000 $1,500,000 $4,000,000 $2,369,000 $16,434,000 $16,000,000 N
r
c
d
$642,300
E
$29,025
$67,500
$1,020,975
s
Q
c
E
$1,092,738
$432,500
$1,979,025
t
$168,237
$1,000,000
$357,700
r
Q
$2,369,000
$16,434,000 $16,000,000
$1,290,000
$1,500,000
$4,000,000 $2,369,000
$16,434,000 $16,000,000
1 Packet Pg. 83
19
a
a
_216th St Sw
3 3
v W
a'
Q
H
�D
3 G
a 214th St SW V
o�N�
c�
N
216th St SW -
- - - - -in 21614
Along Hwy 99 from 216th St SW to 212th St. SW, the project will add a planter strip on both sides of the street, new street
lighting, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities,
landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds.
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience. In addition, future economic development will be improved along the
corridor.
$47,173, 000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
c
0
N
d
L
♦�
a
$500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,593,000LL
U
$500,000 $3,951,000 V
$38,129,000
$500,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $43,673,000
N
O
N
r
c
a>
E
s
ca
ON
c
m
E
t
$500,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $43,673,000 OM
r
$500,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $43,673,000 Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 20 1 Packet Pg. 84
wlliiiii-O&PIIIIII
Madrona Ln
+7 _%',A 16 ESPEKANCE
_ 234th St SW
235th PI SW
� 3
s LL
236th St SW x Q
236th St SW
3 =
a' ono
-- --
'AM-
4, A
238TH ST SW 3
3
3
U
00
o
238th St SW--
234th St SW
v
a'
ro
236th St SW
s 3
n a
� 3
a
L
28Ui
�r, I N C
v c
!
Along Hwy 99 from 238th St. SW to 234th St. SW, the project will add a planter strip on both sides of the street, new street t
lighting, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities,
landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds.
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience. In addition, future economic development would be improved along the
corridor. r
0
Estimated Project Cost
v�
*Includes prior year expenditures
$21,160,000
�a
Project
. o
IL
Design $2,275,000 uU_
Right of Way $1,519,000 V
Construction $17,366,000 ?�
Expense Total $21,160,000 !L
N
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi- c
N
REET Fund 125
r
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
as
E
General Fund
M
r
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Q
Federal Grants
c
State Grants
a�
E
Unsecured Funding
s
$21,160,000 OM
Funding Source Total
$21,160,000 Q
2024 CFPICIP 0.9 21
Packet Pg. 85
PW
tSNtKANCt +■ IMr,�L ��la! ��1L 1 �� ~. a Q'
U_ r� F' iF .�a ■ ■ ■■� t >tirrf"i� , r.. .!- -
228TH-ST =SW
_
a „ ` 229th 4mg AIL AM
"M Napa
St -SW' a_ i �r m
' It w r� N7 �� t r■ _ J 229ih St SW
i ei-s f��! i 3r 1 r
r a m h rH sv
or MOP—
■■ — — a0 2$Oth St SW 230 h S 2301h 1�1 sve
r �.�31-��'���� aLI
�. � � ■UJr
23.1'stlStlSW
71< - a��# Q\
Q .I r a . �; r ^„#
w
Q
IS - S o r
,
lilt
_ Holly_ Ln 7 r ± +
t
t1
r.
RP160900MI
1
233rtl 51 SW
-s) rt
_
■
�lr.rri■�'�■F'� � �
■
ri
,r
•
a �� , a
\
�q
Maple Ln
�■� 41+"
, A bCO
,fir
rtr
234th St SW —
\�� 234th St SW
M adrona Ln
A
Along Hwy 99 from 234th St. SW to 228th St. SW, the project will add a planter strip on both sides of the street, new street
lighting, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities,
landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds.
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience. In addition, future economic development would be improved along the
corridor.
c
0
Estimated Project Cost
prior year expenditures
$40,430,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
a
$4,254,000LL
U
$5,675,000 V
$30,501,000
$40,430,000
N
O
N
ON
c
m
E
t
$40,430,000
r
$40,430,000 Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 22 1 Packet Pg. 86
up JPr� ti qr
3
J1
�■ .ir
'Elm
■ �� �-
225th PI SW
3
�
/. 3 ■ �! I iisth PI -SW. or �f
9 Q Q'
226th st SW -S �. l
0
MW
-74
.I 81sa,� +
z !�L 7 Y�
1 Lu
3 - 228TH ST SW`C�
224th St SW
224tfi Si SW -
- 4
in40
-
-
i
�
12-
y
L
a
�
EDMONDS
WQ
M0UNTLAKELU
^
a
v
226TH PL 3W
-
�
r �
^a N
Along Hwy 99 from 228th St. SW to 224th St. SW, the project will add a planter strip on both sides of the street, new street
lighting, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities,
landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds.
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience. In addition, future economic development would be improved along the
corridor.
c
0
Estimated Project Cost
prior year expenditures
$35,242,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
a
$3,596,000LL
U
$2,439,000 V
$29,207,000
$35,242,000
N
O
N
21
c
m
E
t
$35,242,000
r
$35,242,000 Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 23 1 Packet Pg. 87
J iv Z
E
216th st sW
99
e
Q
t
0
c
220th St SW
c
T
Along Hwy 99 from approximately 500 feet north of 220th St. SW to 216th St. SW, the project will add a planter strip on bo
sides of the street, new street lighting, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential
undergrounding of overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience. In addition, future economic development would be improved along the
corridor.
Estimated Project Cost
*Includes prior year expenditures
1/1
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
c
0
N
a�
ca
a
$1,978,000LL
U
$2,159,000 V
$17,140,000
$21,277,000
N
O
N
ON
c
m
E
t
$21,277,000
r
$21,277,000 Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 24 1 Packet Pg. 88
196TH ST SW
N�
A
Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196th St. SW @ 88th Ave. W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan
a�
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
V
solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. The existing LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D).
This project was ranked #6 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan.Project
a
Benefit
0
Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase tf•
'�
delay along 196th St. SW.
�a
Estimated Project Cost
prior.-.
a
U_
$1,289,000
�?
a_
Project •24 2025 2026• •28 2029 2030-44V
Design $263,000
a
Right of Way $238,000
le
c
Construction $788,000
N
Expense Total $263,000 $238,000 $788,000
r
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
E
E
REET Fund 125
0
ea
REET Fund 126
Q
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund a)
E
Federal Grants 0
_
State Grants Q
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9
$263,000 $238,000 $788,000
$263,000 $238,000 $788,000
25 1 Packet Pg. 89
Bell St
z
aJ
Q
00
Anderson
Center n
Field
W Bell St
MAIN ST I♦
Dayton Sty
t1J
>
Q
2
� Dayton St
a
Yost Park
Bell
A
Installation of a traffic signal or mini -roundabout. The project ranked #4 in the Roadway Project Priority of the 2015
Transportation Plan. The preliminary cost estimate for a new traffic signal is $1,290,000. A conceptual cost estimate for a
mini -roundabout is $500,000.
The existing intersection is stop -controlled for all approaches and the projected intersection LOS in 2035 is LOS F (below thi "
City's concurrency standards: LOS D). The installation of a traffic signal would improve the intersection delay to LOS B.
c
0
Estimated Project Cost
prior year expenditures
$1,290,000
c�
L
ProjectI I IM
a
LL
Design $198,000 U
Right of Way a
tU
Construction $1,092,000
a
Expense Total $198,000 $1,092,000
N
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
N
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
a
Transportation Impact Fees
d
E
s
General Fund
0
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Q
Federal Grants
c
State Grants
m
E
Unsecured Funding
t
$198,000 $1,092,000
r
Funding Source Total
$198,000 $1,092,000 Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 26 1 Packet Pg. 90
219th St SW
U � I
N
� m
LO
oo
M Q �—
a 21919
00
a
t Lf
1
220TH ST SW
Q 7514
■ I
��M
4& ESPERANCE (V2st PI SW
WINCO
STARBUCKS
01
s
Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through/ right turn lane. Add eastbound and westbound dedicated left
turn lanes with a protected -permitted phase. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement during southbound left
turn phase. (Additional improvements include wider sidewalk, bike lanes, and various utility improvements (including
potential conversion overhead utility lines to underground). ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY #1 in 2015 Transportation Plan .
Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The projected LOS in 2050 would be improved from LOS F to LOS D.
Improve active transportation conditions for pedestrians and bicycle riders.
$8,700,000
Design
$148,000
$326,100
Right of Way
$502,000
$448,000
Construction
Expense Total
$650,000
$774,100
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
$394,336
$398,729
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$45,000
$45,000
Water Utility Fund 421
$18,000
$18,000
Federal Grants
$192,664
$312,371
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$650,000
$774,100
$50,000
$6,670,000
$50,000 $6,670,000
$12, 500
$37,500
$6,670,000
$50,000 $6,670,000
r
MA
d
�a
a
LL
U
a_
U
IL
le
N
0
N
r
r+
_
d
E
t
t�
ea
r
Q
a�
E
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 27 1 Packet Pg. 91
� v
Algonquin R 226th St SW �bth St Sty
a
228th St SW
Deep=Dr
`
v
N
�
Q
s
Q
O
c
2-31 St St S�
0
a
�
5
Wachusett-Rd
v
E
°
rs
Nottingham Rd'
Q
0
0
0
z
)35th Pi SW o
O
6 > ayl7
O
CCC
p5th
�UJ
-
>
a
J
> a
L
a 2
m
'0LO
t
D � �5
:2231s� a
232nd St SW
V
3
,s■3 r > 225thP\SW ■i'
'.
a
v
f r r 2261h St'SW
CO i
rn
$
1 "' 0 . 5.,;.
y 1�
228TH ST SW_ '""
� s 1
:2 �. a.
�aaa� ■
FO
D
■.■.J ■��"R•+.L.1 r i
401
Q
y
N
1 M i• 1L11' r
, . �■ W 230th St
e >
231 st*SVaSw 'a
9 a
r y'~
-nu1. 1 ♦ I. !� QOq-J
22211d ai Se: ° Holly Ln -
r �.•- m
n� P I"
' a
Maple Ln ♦�r-
N
co
234th St SW� + 234th-St S
Madrona Ln
a
M
-236th St SW 236th St SW 236th�
The project will add a traffic signal adaptive system on a 1.25-mile segment of SR104 from 236th St to 226th St. The syster
will monitor and synchronize the timing of five existing signalized intersections (SR104 @ 236th St, SR104 @ 232nd St, SR1(
@ 95th PI, SR104 @ 100th Ave, SR104 @ 226th St) and improve traffic flows along SR104.
Improve traffic flows along this regional corridor with a current Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of — 25,000 vehicles per day.
Estimated Project Cost
c
o
*Includes expenditures
N
prior year
$4,810,000
0
Design
$186,575
CL
Right of Way
L?
Construction
$4,400,000
a
V
Expense Total
$186,575
$4,400,000
a
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
$7,313
N
REET Fund 125
$25,189
$440,000
N
REET Fund 126
$440,000
Transportation Impact Fees
r
d
General Fund
E
s
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
$154,073
Q
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$3,520,000
E
Funding Source Total
$186,575
$4,400,000
t
r
w
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 28 1 Packet Pg. 92
Ta
QFC PCC NATURAL C
MARKET (a
'lid,
a
OD
i
�y
Y
76 GA:
a
WALGREEN'S
p
<Q,
d
PARKING
s
BANK
o�
c
EDMONDS WAY
9�
rz
,�
e� AVe "s
w
00 O 00 CD N 00 'q N CD(n
00 O 6) W O OM
N CD
L
` BANK
co 00 00 co 00 f� h f_ h
rnrnrnm mrnrnmrn
�p }
NF-
N N
r,r- c
• �'
a
IVAR�S
�
€
e
O
N c
BARTELL'S
O
Z
t
Implement Westgate Circulation Access Plan, install mid -block pedestrian crossing along 100th Ave. W, improve safety to :
access the driveways within proximity to the intersection, and re -striping of 100th Ave. W with the potential addition of bik e
lanes. This project was identified in the SR-104 Completed Streets Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015).
Improve access and safety at the intersection and improve active transportation safety.
Estimated Project Cost
prior year expenditures
$2,500,000
Design $180,000 $195,000
Right of Way $525,000
Construction $1,600,000
Expense Total $180,000 $720,000 $1,600,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding $180,000 $720,000 $1,600,000
Funding Source Total $180,000 $720,000 $1,600,000
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 29 1 Packet Pg. 93
227th p/ S
PU D
Sub Station
228th St SW
J
a
2
Ln
4P
27th St
a
a;
c
o
<
M Lam_
t
C
N
_
rn L
99,Q u ST S
W
Westgate
Chapel
V)w
Ov
ZZ
oQ
2w
w
Da
w�
w
Upgrade all ADA Curb Ramps; and add C-Curb for access management. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete
Streets Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015).
Improve intersection safety for pedestrians and vehicles.
.. ....
C
$270,000
>
tv
LY
Project.
Design
$42,000 L]
Right of Way
a
LL
Construction
$228,000 V
a
Expense Total
$42,000 $228,000 V
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
a
REET Fund 125
N
REET Fund 126
N
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
r
4)
d
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
s
Federal Grants
0
State Grants
Q
Unsecured Funding
$42,000 $228,000
Funding Source Total
$42,000 $228,000
c�
r
w
Q
CFP/CIP
Packet Pg. 94
2024 PW 0.9
30
1 Q
Y
Y Vi
238th St SW 238TH ST SW,,
0�/ a'
Os
x
N C
Korean
s
Presbyter
Church S
Install traffic signal. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015)
Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety.
$1,519,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
c
0
N
$227,000
c�
L
$1,292,000 a
u_
$227,000 $1,292,000 V
a_
tU
a
N
O
N
r
c
d
E
s
ca
$227,000 $1,292,000 Q
$227,000 $1,292,000 =
m
E
t
c�
r
w
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9
31 1 Packet Pg. 95
Seaview Park Post Office
� a
FpM
al 0/VD VV6
W Op
00' 185th PI SW Q
I � .
2
F-
n
186th St SW?
3
a�
o,
a
it
184th PI SW
O' c
OLYMPIC VIEwpR
Lynndale Park c
s
c
Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for all movements). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015
Transportation Plan: #11).
The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. The projected Level of Service is LOS F in 2035, which is below the City a
concurrency standards (LOS D). The project will improve the Level of Service to LOS B.
Estimated Project Cost c
o
.expenditures .N
$1,347,000
0
Design $230,000 IL
Right of Way L?
a
Construction $1,117,000 V
Expense Total $1,347,000 a
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
N
REET Fund 125 N
REET Fund 126
r
Transportation Impact Fees
d
General Fund E
s
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants Q
State Grants
Unsecured Funding $1,347,000 t
Funding Source Total $1,347,000 r
w
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 32 1 Packet Pg. 96
U)
w
a
C LLI > > SpWp p/ Qy
M Q
F-
u) �
220TH ST SW
QO! LU -J
It1 LlJ J
aLO
a
_ L-
a o
3 228TH ST SW
o
moo° Fob,
0,L
2121H Sr SW w
0
Z
N
N
jw
_
a 3
w
a
WLn
228TH S T
n s�
a
_
Q
F�
N c
236TH ST� z
s
c
s
Widen 84th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk on each side of the street. (part of this project w
ranked #6 in the Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan).
Improve traffic flow, access and active transportation uses by installing a center two way left turn lane, sidewalks, bike IanE a
and street lighting.
Estimated Project Cost
c
0
*Includes expenditures
N
prior year
$17,615,000
a
Design
$2,245,000 M
Right of Way
L?
Construction
a
$15,370,000 V
Expense Total
$17,615,000 a
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
N
N
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
r
d
General Fund
E
s
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
Q
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$17,615,000 t
Funding Source Total
$17,615,000 r
w
Q
CFP/CIP
Packet Pg. 97
2024 PW 0.9
33
Seattle W 243rd PI SW Lake
Baptist > Ballinger
4Q Church Q
tilp� F H
Os,�MONO
11, S wA Y
�Nt20.51H ST
- �z N 205TH SAL-
N
W
204TH PL
Z
iU-
_ 0 C� NQ
N z 3o RD p J a
Q
� - e
Add a second westbound left turn lane along SR-104. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor
Analysis (completed in 2015).
Improve access, safety and delay at the intersection.
$3,424,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
c
0
N
$510,000
a
u_
$2,914,000 a
$3,424,000 V
:1
N
O
N
ON
$3,424,000
$3,424,000 E
c�
r
w
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 34 1 Packet Pg. 98
";�
O
DALE BEgC
N'�'O
174th St SW
69
v
O(0)4
2p
4W#
\Z
Q
"sth p,swe
o`
I �
a�
a�
�a
173rd PI SW
7�3rd St SW
174th St SW
St. Thomas
Moore School
A
Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane for 50' storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east tc
provide an acceleration lane for eastbound left turns. Install traffic signal to increase the LOS and reduce intersection delay
(ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #13)
Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers accessing either street.
Estimated Project Cost
c
o
*Includes expenditures
N
prior year
$715,000
a
Design
$120,000 IL
Right of Way
L?
Construction
a
$595,000 V
Expense Total
$715,000 a
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
N
N
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
r
d
General Fund
E
s
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
Q
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$715,000 t
Funding Source Total
$715,000 r
w
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 35 1 Packet Pg. 99
f aim 1
J1 On No M%-OM
175th St SW
Snohomish
/--.—., o_..i,
The project will stabilize the roadway subgrade and embankment and rebuild the damaged pavement on 175th St. SW
Repair roadway and stabilize slope embankment.
$1,000,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
� c
LJ
N C
c
s
c
D27 2028 2029 2030-44
$1,000,000 a
u-
$1,000,000 V
a
a
N
O
N
r
c
d
E
s
ca
$1,000,000 Q
$1,000,000
E
t
c�
r
w
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 36 1 Packet Pg. 100
This program started in 2019 and will provide new signal upgrades, such as vehicle detection at intersections, new
vehicle/pedestrian head equipment and other signal -related upgrades. These improvements will improve the safety of the
City's transportation system.
Improve reliabilityof traffic signal operation.
Project Cost
*Includes prior year expenditures
$30,290
P
Design
$500
Right of Way
Construction
$29,790
Expense Total
$30,290
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
$30,290
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Grants
Funding Source Total $30,290
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 37 1 Packet Pg. 101
The City Council added this study to the 2023-2028 CFP-CIP during the 2023 budget deliberations. This study will re-evaluat
alternatives identified in the 2016 Edmonds Waterfront Alternative Access Study and potential new alternatives for
improving the reliability of emergency responses to the Waterfront.
Both through and stopping trains can simultaneously block Main Street and Dayton Street impacting emergency response
times to the Waterfront. The many amenities along the Edmonds Waterfront (including the new Waterfront/Senior Center
dive park, marina, whale watching service, off leash dog park, restaurants, etc.) on the west side of the BNSF train tracks ar 2
T)
drawing an increasing number of visitors —meaning the potential for accidents and health emergencies is ever-increasing. '>
The study will develop potential solutions to address this issue.
uiuuueb PI V[ year expenunuieb
�a
D24 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030-44M
Planning $50,000
IL
Expense Total $50,000
le
c
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax &
N
REET Fund 125 $50,000
r
REET Fund 126
E
E
Transportation Impact Fees
0
General Fund
Q
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
c
a)
E
State Grants
CU
Unsecured Funding Q
Funding Source Total $50,000
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 38 1 Packet Pg. 102
2024 PW CFP/CIP vl.9
39 1 1 Packet Pg. 103
WIVIUNUJ WAY
■
v
Q
r
lu
a
Q
o,
2
O
0
V.
y
�S
e �
L' a
23 st PI s64
a'
233rd St SW
3
N
a'
L
1 a
Q
234th St SW
tSNtKANU
Ll�i a
a 231 st St SW IL FQ r '��`+►�� f
IL
232nd St SW U
3
v
Q
N
T
2.34th P >
32nd PI ;
Install sidewalk along 232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to SR-104. This project ranked #3 in the Long Walkway List of 2015 t
Transportation Plan.
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
$1,856,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$284,000
$1,572,000
$284,000 $1,572,000
$284,000 $1,572,000
$284,000 $1,572,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9
40 1 Packet Pg. 104
S:1
Elementary
N
iviaa ro na
236th St S�
School
Install sidewalk with curb and gutter along 236nd St. SW from Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. W. This project ranked #4
Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$296,000
$1,692,000
$296,000 $1,692,000
$296,000 $1,692,000
$296,000 $1,692,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 41 1 Packet Pg. 105
nStSW
c
Q)
>
LL1
>
C
a
Q
�
00
=
F—
i
C
2.3'6't h St SIN
236th
c
ILI
S `
s
a
c
m >
r` Q
s
c
c
c
� e
0 c
� � c
t
Install sidewalk along 236th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W. This project ranked #10 in Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
priorC
c
$1,937,000
>
d
Project.
Design
$276,000
Right of Way
a
Construction
u_
$1,661,000 a
Expense Total
$1,937,000 V
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
a
REET Fund 125
N
REET Fund 126
N
Transportation Impact Fees
r
General Fund
Q
d
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
s
Federal Grants
State Grants
Q
Unsecured Funding
$1,937,000 =
m
Funding Source Total
$1,937,000 t
c�
r
r
Q
CFP/CIP
42 Packet Pg. 106
2024 PW 0.9
W
SWESPERANCE
= 16
234th St SN'
2 A �
f
_ 4 �
o
Madrona Ln
PARK
EDMONDS
WHIRLY
BALL
O o
Q
APTS Nffr
O
i
r
m
i s mean `°
Christ ' 2
NORTHBnh
■ao:
235th PI st,
5am
HAVE '
_w
III
MANOR
�Z *„
%
CHRIST LUTHERAN
Church C�
L
CHURCH
TRAILER
'36th St SW
236ih St S1^/
R E Park and Ride OFFICE Q
COURT
s
236th St SW L
23601
-
23603 SAFEWAYA
23605 L KJIHG C-4c
3!
100
23607 M-N a SUNSET
'
�
23619 0
—
N
P
WILLOW C
LL
PARK PL
Q
CONDOS
BROOK C
'9 B1-10
D APT
F
R AURORA
23701.32
C
L WATER c
WATER
m
C E
S MARKETPLACE
C
CRMONDS
,"... EST
B G
T04
`�
Lj Q
A
U FAMILY PANCAKE
08
- C
8501 m
H
V
238th St SW
23800
238TH ST SIN -
rh
I
2380a 23610
-
SEOUL
I
f
The walkway project proposed approximately 1,000 LF of new sidewalk on the east side of 84th Ave W with ADA compliant I
f
pedestrian curb ramps.
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
$1, 510, 000 >
a>
IX
i
�.
Design
$160,000
Right of Way
a
u_
Construction
$1,350,000
V
a
Expense Total
$160,000
$1,350,000
V
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
a
REET Fund 125
N
REET Fund 126
N
Transportation Impact Fees
r
General Fund
Q
d
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
s
ARPA Funds
Federal Grants
Q
State Grants
=
m
Unsecured Funding
$160,000
$1,350,000
t
Funding Source Total
$160,000
$1,350,000
r
w
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 43 1 Packet Pg. 107
206th St
a
�
> Q
207ih St S
v;
208th
SY -.
�W
208th PI S'
li D;
PI SW
III
a
�
v
O
Y
y £
IL•
_
E
--
a
E
— -
a �
LYNNWOOD208TH-ST SW
1
w
Q
2
� =s
r\ �
210th St SW C
c
� v
a ¢ C
L a G e
m v
4S C
N c
212TH ST SW
t
Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 206th St. SW to 212th St. SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked #1 in Long
Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
The improvements will improve active transportation safety (including for school kids due to proximity of several schools).
Estimated Project Cost
*Includes prior year expenditures
$1,582,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$110,000 $120,000
$1,352,000
$110,000 $120,000 $1,352,000
$110,000 $120,000 $1,352,000
$110,000 $120,000 $1,352,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 44 1 Packet Pg. 108
• sr4
o?"Q ,
�LYM
sahs.sw,
`180th St
r
SW
a
`n
Q
�
181st PI SW
>
3
I
>.
3
W
7 g 2nd St SW
I
PI SW
�
n
a
WaY
W
d9e
M
34th s
=
O 184th St SW
I
L
� Q
a'
co
00V
y
185th PI SW
41
St SW
87th PI SW
�186th
v
LYNNWOOD
C
v co
3
>
a 187th St SW
a a a
o t
> C
�d
a
>
co a, n
o ,9
u
W _Q
188th St SW_
187th PI SW
O C
r, C
-187th P-1-SW
'
188th PI SW j
Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to OVD. This project ranked #13 in Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
....
c
$2,333,000
>
d
Project.
Design
$482,000
Right of Way
a
u_
Construction
$1,851,000
V
a
Expense Total
$482,000
$1,851,000
V
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
a
REET Fund 125
N
REET Fund 126
N
Transportation Impact Fees
r
General Fund
Q
d
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
s
Federal Grants
State Grants
Q
Unsecured Funding
$482,000
$1,851,000
Funding Source Total
$482,000
$1,851,000
c,s
r
w
Q
CFP/CIP
Packet Pg. 109
2024 PW 0.9
45
em a nta ry
Chase Lake
School
Q
c
N
00
216th St SW3
a
a�
0
00
-Edmonds Woodway High
School
> Swedis
?r Edmorn
W
Q
2
y
00 s
W N d s
7
Q a 9 ve W
-o
219th St SW
F-
s N
00 a_
Edmonds 220TH ST
ESPERANCE Church of God SW F'
Install sidewalk along 218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W with curb and gutter. This project ranked #2 in Long
Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
The improvements will improve pedestrian safety.
$1,738,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$264,000
$1,474,000
$264,000 $1,474,000
$264,000 $1,474,000
$264,000 $1,474,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 46 1 Packet Pg. 110
THE MARINER y j LW 'W Wad m o II,
L7
Alder St
BECKS W COMMODORE •
¢W Q
W O
2 2
AMELV � f
_ Walnut St
lei ME
a
� L
GREGORY
a
Holly Dr L
J Cedar St
J
C
g
7
0
A
Install sidewalk on the south side of Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S. This project is ranked #9 in the Short Walkway
List (from 2015 Transportation Plan).
This project will improve pedestrian safety along this stretch.
$290,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$50,000
$ 240, 000
$290,000
$290,000
$290,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 47 1 Packet Pg. 111
Q MCDONALD'S
ANT
<
'E STEVENS
COURT AEGIS
VALUE =O�
VILLAGEO
Swedish — -
Edmonds 216th St SW
�. 216th St SW !
EDMONDS q�
MEDICAL PLC
21605 PAVILION KRUGER ��
N'S
CLINIC
E�y�,P N
TH �pJ
ER
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
216th St. SW). This project is ranked #3 in the Short Walkway List (from 2015 Transportation Plan).
To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
$220,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
im
$33,000
$187,000
$220,000
$220,000
$220,000
r
0
.A
4)
�a
a
LL
U
a_
U
IL
le
N
O
N
c
as
E
t
ea
Q
a�
E
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 48 1 Packet Pg. 112
The project will add bike lanes or sharrows on the following streets:
• 100th Ave/9th Ave from 244th St to Walnut St
• Walnut/Bowdoin Way from 9th Ave to 84th Ave
• 228th St. from 76th Ave to 80th Ave
• Bike sharrows on 80th Ave from 228th St. to 220th St.
Pedestrian crossing improvements including curb ramps, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) and signing will be
installed at 100th Ave & 224th St, 9th Ave & Pine St, Bowdoin Way& 96th Ave and Bowdoin Way & Pioneer Way.
The project is currently in the construction phase and completion will be subject to available weather in Fall 2023. Project
close-out is scheduled for 2024.
This project will create new bike connections to various destination points throughout the City (such as schools, parks,
Downtown, Sound Transit Station...). Sound Transit awarded the grant to fund improvements that will provide more
convenient access so that more people can use Sound Transit services.
$3,000,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$15,000
Expense Total
$15,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
$10,095
REET Fund 126
$4,905
Funding Source Total
$15,000
c
0
.T
a�
L
a
LL
U
a_
U
IL
le
N
O
N
c
d
E
t
r
Q
c
d
E
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 49 1 Packet Pg. 113
-
__3; s
99th
s
a a
CASP-ERS-ST�
- -- —
-----
-200th-St-SW
z
3
-
Mountain Ln z
Vista PI
a
>
a
3 Q
L
¢
O
�
201 PI SW
COw
Q
b-P
Z Carol Way
202nd St SW_
�
a
ha St
SLLJ ierra PI
a
v
's
-o
j
W
= n
Z 2nd PI SW Q'
>
=
>
>
a
- a
Q
Glen 8[
Q
Glen St U
a
s
St SW co
s
°
203rd S
D aAems
20a
�' �04
10
a- _
h St SW
Daley St Daley St
J
10,
13
a
O
W
ZZ
-
SPr,O-si Sprague St
PIN
205th PI SW
a
n
a
as St Edmonds St
E6111L"jdl sr Edmonds St
m
�,-206th St-SWr
-
o
Bell St
Bell St Fm�,a���lls
o x207th
1207thPI SW
St
N a
a
m
N
- -- - — —
- - MAIN ST-
-
-
- -
208th PI SW
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 #18 in the Long Walkway list of the 201S
Transportation Plan).
Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood Elementary School on 200th St. SW and Main St., by encouraging kids t "
use non -motorized transportation to walk to / from school. r
c
0
vA
Estimated Project Cost 5
*Includes prior year expenditures
$ 2, 951, 000
L
a
LL
Design $220,000 $220,000 U
Right of Way a
U
Construction $2,511,000 ?�
IL
Expense Total $220,000 $220,000 $2,511,000 le
N
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi- CD
N
REET Fund 125
r
REET Fund 126
as
Transportation Impact Fees E
General Fund M
r
Stormwater Utility Fund 422 Q
Federal Grants c
a�
State Grants E
Unsecured Funding $220,000 $220,000 $2,511,000
Funding Source Total $220,000 $220,000 $2,511,000 Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 50 1 Packet Pg. 114
- — — 220TH ST S
-
` Wa -N V
3 O .' ! ■
a a m ZZ ■
LU IF
a, m
o d t St S� S z
W W 221s v. r
a
221 st P
a ��
Q
CD sCO 01
M a
-a
MOVE
7
it � �►��;�� �'� �'
3 D M.R; err ty
3' N
224th St SW ati —
224th St sw
C%
Install sidewalk along 95th PI. W from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in the Lonf
Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
$862,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$131,000
$731,000
$131,000 $731,000
$131,000 $731,000
$131,000 $731,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 51 1 Packet Pg. 115
a Seattle : 243rd PI SW
Baptist W Lake
FQMo 0 Church Q Ballinger
QMo
/VOS tv t•
AY
N 205TH' SiTiil�i .
N 205TH ST
z
N 204TH PL Q 204TH PL a Z
Z W
0 Q >
z Q
NERD p� I a W O�i02N�
, -n�ao sr m
Extend bike lanes within proximity of the intersection in northbound and southbound directions. Install APS on all corners
and new ADA curb ramps.
Improve active transportation safety along this section of the Interurban Trail and across SR-104.
$1, 571, 000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$261,000
$1,310,000
$261,000 $1,310,000
$261,000 $1,310,000
$261,000 $1,310,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 52 1 Packet Pg. 116
A
Installation of street lights along various streets within Downtown Edmonds.
This project will add new street lighting in Downtown to improve pedestrian safety at night.
$1,638,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$328,000
$1,310,000
$328,000 $1,310,000
$328,000 $1,310,000
$328,000 $1,310,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 53 1 Packet Pg. 117
Public Works - Transportation P
SR-104 Walkway HAWK to Pine/Pine from SR-104 to
Edmonds
j
Holly Dr
� Cedar S1
Marsh
Howell Way
Magndia
c
+.
S
Sprura Si C
N
Q
Spruce St
Homeland
N spruce pi
a
O
v
S
w
Hemlock Way -.E Hemlock St
W
c
0
N,
O
0 CO Laurel :V:ri
>
Q
j Erben Dr
v
j >
Q
c
Q Seamont Ln a Laurel St v
P.
0 <
_ >
F-
<
u
M
Ln r
-
PINE ST
Pine sty
<
c
}IN
N
Forsyth Ln <
C
C
> c
>z
Fir PI
a
C,
C
0o
�
\ C
C
02
z
On
Fi D
<
W
Installation of sidewalk with ADA curb ramps along SR-104 from the HAWK signal to Pine Stand along Pine St from SR-1041 z
9th Ave S t
.i
This project will improve pedestrian connectivity between the residential areas along 3rd Ave. S to Downtown Edmonds an
a
City Park.
c
o
Estimated Project Cost
*Includes expenditures
T
prior year
$3,276,000
L
Design
$273,000
$273,000
$2,730,000
Right of Way
ILL
U
Construction
a
(�
Expense Total
$273,000
$273,000
$2,730,000
d
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -
REET Fund 125
CV
N
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
d
General Fund
E
t
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
w
Federal Grants
r
Q
State Grants
=
a�
Unsecured Funding
$273,000
$273,000
$2,730,000
E
Funding Source Total
$273,000
$273,000
$2,730,000
Q
CFP/CIP
Packet Pg. 118
2024 PW 0.9
54
Sierra
Park
O
o
0
�- 00
O
1st St S1N "
4
•
w
■ en
192nd PI
No
I
V, 0 c
00 S
Z u
uJ `
L
c
w
> 0
Q �
c
2 N c
n i
Install sidewalk along 191th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in Long
Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
r
prior year expendituresC
$719,000
>
d
Design
$106,000
Right of Way
CL
Construction
$613,000 a
Expense Total
$719,000 V
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
a
REET Fund 125
le
N
REET Fund 126
CD
N
Transportation Impact Fees
r
w
General Fund
=
d
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
t
Federal Grants
State Grants
Q
Unsecured Funding
$719,000
Funding Source Total
$719,000 s
Q
2024 CFPICIP 0.9
Packet Pg. 119
PW
55
Wachusett-Rd
a
o<
a
E
J
T
r
♦ r �7 I .
et Ja-W �* V.
aobin Hood
Qto
?:Z
MO
O:E
�Lu
w
ost:Hickmi
:2 Park
Edmonds
Memorial a
237th P�
Cemetery
232nd St SW
Salem
Edmonds Lutheran
Heights Church
K-12 ,
I
Scriber Lake, ■ , i-
High School'
LU
r I
236th PI SW f-
i
a v ,
a a a'
7311h p� ^'
Faith
Community 238th St SW
Church
Install sidewalk along 104th Ave. W from 238th ST. SW to 106th Ave. W, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #10 in tl
Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
*Includes prior year expenditures
$1,124,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
O
N
d
$170,000
a
u-
$954,000 a
$1,124,000 V
:1
N
O
N
ON
$1,124,000
$1,124,000 E
cts
r
r
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 56 1 Packet Pg. 120
218th St SW
219th St SW
a
L
00 N
220TH ST SW — -
Edmonds Church of God - ESPERANCE
Project Description
Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 218th ST. SW to 220th ST. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #7 in the
Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
*Includes prior year expenditures
$344,000
r
LDesign
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
r
O
.A
N
$63,000
a
u-
$281,000 a
$344,000 V
IL
le
N
O
N
r
r+
_
d
E
L
r
2
r
$344,000
$344,000 E
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 57 1 Packet Pg. 121
ii PI SW
s
4
r
Ln
00
186th St SW m
187th St SW
a
N
L 188th St SW
Seaview00
Elementary K—
Install sidewalk along 84th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in Shor
Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
$348,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
r
0
.A
4)
$53,000
a
LL
$295,000 a
$348,000 V
IL
le
N
O
N
2
r
$348,000
$348,000 E
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 58 1 Packet Pg. 122
U U
c
78
>
,�
L L
J
-0
Q
(CL
Q
CD
Q Q
Y
C
Q
tU
ptq
>
a
Q
a
0
w
�
ILL
_
4'•
ii
CU
N
1
D_
N
0
o
CN
o
_�
2401h
St SW
=
Mathay
N
Ballinger
-
Park
0
a
0
Project Description "A
a
c
0
Install sidewalk along 238th St. SW from Hwy 99
to 76th Ave. W. This project
ranked #10 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 CD
Transportation Plan.
d
x
Project Benefit
V
This project would improve pedestrian
safety.Estimated
a
Project Cost
*Includesprior0
c
$1,363,000
>
d
Project.
Design
$199,000 CU
Right of Way
a
u_
Construction
$1,164,000 a
Expense Total
$1,363,000 V
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
a
REET Fund 125
N
REET Fund 126
N
Transportation Impact Fees
r
General Fund
Q
d
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
s
Federal Grants
State Grants
Q
Unsecured Funding
$1,363,000 =
m
Funding Source Total
$1,363,000 t
c�
r
w
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 59 Packet Pg. 123
Elm St
r—
�
The walkway project is ranked #6 on the short walkway list from the 2015 Transportation Plan. The project will install
approximately 700 feet of new sidewalk, six pedestrian curb ramps and modify the existing stormwater system on Elm Wad
between 8th Ave. S and 9th Ave. S. This project will complete an important missing sidewalk link.
The project is currently in the construction phase and completion will be subject to available weather in Fall 2023. Project 3
close-out is scheduled for 2024. a
Project Benefit 2
0
The project will improve pedestrian safety and provide a missing link of sidewalk on Elm Way between 8th Ave and 9th Ave
d
*Includes expenditures
prior year
$1,100,000
a
u_
U
Project--
a
U
Design
Right of Way
a
Construction
$10,000
c
Expense Total
$10,000
N
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -
REET Fund 125
a>
E
REET Fund 126
$6,000
Transportation Impact Fees
Q
General Fund
y-
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$4,000
E
Funding Source Total
$10,000
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 60 1 Packet Pg. 124
This program started in 2019 and will provide pedestrian safety improvements, such as RRFB's and flashing LED's around
stop signs. These improvements will improve the safety of the City's transportation system.
Improve safety at pedestrian crossings. a
prior year expendituresC
c
$80,770
>
r
N
�
�.
LDesign
$1,000
Right of Way
CL
Construction
$79,770
V
a
Expense Total
$80,770
V
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -
IL
REET Fund 125
$80,770
le
N
REET Fund 126
CD
N
Transportation Impact Fees
r
w
General Fund
a)
d
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
t
Federal Grants
State Grants
Q
Unsecured Grants
=
a�
Funding Source Total
$80,770
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 61 1 Packet Pg. 125
Final design of 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor to include site design and construction documents for a safe, pedestrian
friendly, and art enhanced corridor in the public right of way which provides a strong visual connection along 4th Avenue N
between Main Street and Edmonds Center for the Arts. Interim work on this project since the concept was developed
includes a 2015 temporary light artwork "Luminous Forest", as well as preliminary design development through 2020-21.
Funding for this project has not been secured at this time. The 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Project is managed by the
Community Services/Economic Development Department.
The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic and provide a strong visual connecti(
between the ECA and downtown retail. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor and
contribute to the economic vitality in downtown. The project has been supported by the community in the 2014 Communii
Cultural Plan and in the goals and priorities for the State certified Creative District. This project is supported by the 2022
Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan.
$9,206,600
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax &
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
General Fund
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$1,000,000 $500,000
$500,000
$6,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $6,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $6,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $6,000,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9
62 1 Packet Pg. 126
2024 PW CFP/CIP vl.9
63 ' Packet Pg. 127
W Da ton St_ -
-- Y_ _--
--
Dayton St
-
Dayton St
Dayton St
Puget Sound
G
Q
i
c
>
Maple St
c
a
Alder St
I
�
L
''der St
a
In
N
r
w
"
w
Q --
Walnut_St
L
Edmonds Marsh
m
u) Holly Dr
Howell Way
a'a
Homeland Dr
>
<
Q/i
Q
V -
CIO
a rr
n
<
�dy p�i
9 Z
ow
94 i
Hemlock
Way
N <
Erben Dr
0
W
Seamont Ln
Modify existing lane channelization on SR104 to add vehicle storage for ferry users.
Reduce conflicts between ferry storage and access to local driveways.
$380,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
c
0
N
$57,000
c�
L
$323,000 a
LL
$380,000 V
a_
tU
3.1
N
O
N
r
c
d
E
s
ca
$380,000 Q
$380,000 =
m
E
t
c�
r
w
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9
64 1 Packet Pg. 128
2024 PW CFP/CIP vl.9 65
Packet Pg. 129
Install traffic calming devices along selected stretches throughout the City with speeding issues (through completion of
detailed evaluation). This ongoing annual program started in 2015 and is included in the City's 6-year Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Reduce vehicle speeds on City streets that qualify under the City's Traffic Calming Policy.
Estimated Project Cost
*Includes prior year expenditures
$100,000 (2024)
Design
$11,000
Right of Way
Construction
$89,000
$22,000
$22,000
$22,000
$22,000
$22,000
Expense Total
$100,000
$22,000
$22,000
$22,000
$22,000
$22,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
$100,000
$22,000
$22,000
$22,000
$22,000
$22,000
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$100,000
$22,000
$22,000
$22,000
$22,000
$22,000
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 66 1 Packet Pg. 130
2024 PW CFP/CIP vl.9
67 Packet Pg. 131
The 2017 Transition Plan completed an ADA evaluation and prioritization of the City's street right-of-way. This decision
package will update the 2017 plan and expand the evaluation to include City Buildings and Parks facilities. The Plan will
inventory physical barriers preventing accessibility and develop actions and preliminary cost estimates to address ADA non
compliance.
Inventories and prioritizes ADA issues in the City right of way, as well as City buildings and parks facilities.
$440,000
Design $440,000
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total $440,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi- $105,000
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund $335,000
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total $440,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 68 1 Packet Pg. 132
The Transportation Plan serves as the transportation element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and is being updated in
coordination with the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update. Based upon existing and projected future land use and travel
patterns, the Transportation Plan describes street, pedestrian, bicycle and transit infrastructure and services and provides i
assessment of existing and projected future transportation needs. The Plan will establish the transportation priorities and
guides the development of the six -year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), Capital Improvement Program (CIP) an
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). The plan was last updated in 2015.
The Transportation Plan serves as the transportation element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The
Transportation Plan is being updated in coordination with the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update. Based upon existing and
projected future land use and travel patterns, the Transportation Plan describes roadway pedestrian, bicycle and transit
infrastructure and services and provides an assessment of existing and projected future transportation needs. The Plan will
establish the transportation priorities and guides the development of the six -year Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP), Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and introduce Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS).
$406,000
Planning
$236,085
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
$236,085
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi-
$236,085
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
Funding Source Total
$236,085
c
0
N
d
M
L
0
a
LL
U
a_
U
IL
le
N
O
N
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 69 1 Packet Pg. 133
2024 PW CFP/CIP vl.9
70 1 1 Packet Pg. 134
AMMOUL-_,�r t
The City of Edmonds proposes the development of this project to demonstrate how green infrastructure can both address
stormwater flows and enhance the streetscapes to benefit the Hwy 99 neighborhood and the downtown core.
This project includes the following elements:
• Roadway narrowing to reduce traffic speeds and to reduce impervious surface (vehicular capacity retained)
• Sidewalks and planting strips added a
• Bioretention cells collect runoff from the road through curb cuts
• Bioretention cells collect runoff directly from sidewalks c
• Public private partnership potential with Housing Hope and Terrace Place developments.
N
Project Benefit
r
Incorporating green streets into the urban fabric of the City of Edmonds is intended to demonstrate how trees, vegetation,
p
engineered green stormwater solutions, physical and visual narrowing of vehicular lane widths, and shortening pedestrian
crossings with curb bulbs help to slow traffic, ameliorate climate change impacts, and reinforce desired land use and
ILL
c)
transportation patterns on appropriate street ri rights -of -way. This project is intended to increase the livability of a diverse,
p pg Y• p J Y
a
v
growing city.
a
Estimated Project CostN
*Includesprior year expendituresN
O
$3,500,000
r
c
d
'
E
Design $350,000
s
M
Right of Way
Q
Construction $3,150,000
c
Expense Total $350,000 $3,150,000
m
E
Unsecured Funding $350,000 $3,150,000
r
Funding Source Total $350,000 $3,150,000
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 71 1 Packet Pg. 135
8.1.a
CL
Mo
V
m
a
8.1.a
O
O
O
0
O
00
O
O
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C.
O
O
O
0
0
0
o
O
o
C
o
O
C
0
0
••
O
0
N
0
L
O
Lo
00
O
to
c0
N
�
Ef3
O
M
O
O
(O
M
Cl)
LO
r
O
O
M
O
N
(p
(p
�M
co
V
V
V
V
V
Cl)
a)
(f)
ER
(f3
EFT
64
EFT
O
ER
V�
GG
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C.
ER
di
69
64
6G
(A
6G
6c3
0
(A
O
Q
rrl-
:a
_
c
_ o
U
(C
O
O
06
N
O
U0,
_
O
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
o
a
CDO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
w
_
C
C
C
0
C
o
C
0
0
0
C
- C
a�
•
Lf)
O
O
N
O
LO
(O
LO
O
00
co
• c0
04
OM
�
ON
Q1
0
w+
N
(A
O
M
I-O
cyS
LO
•�•:
f�
f�
�
Cl)
EA
(f!
EA
EH
EA
fH
09
LL
O
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CD
CD
O
EA
(A
GG
(R
EA
(A
EA
O
0
(A
G
C)
+�+
_
O
m
O
O
_
O
Q
co
N
(D
CO
cu
V
�
E9
N
O
O
O
o
0
0
o
O
O
o
o
c
N
6G
64
�
09,
(s1
(»
00
00
(»
(»
O
o
O
_
_
N
m
C.
CD
r
r
N
v
U
"C
d
N
0
0
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
Q
(»
(»
(»
(»
(»
0
0
(a
(s
(a
O
O
0
_
O
co
O
N
00
_L.
00
LO
a
Gi
LO
a
CY)
6G
o
a�
c
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
G
C)
.L
E9
ER
fA
EA
CD
O
fA
(A
Hi
O
O
O
_
W
W
co
LO
LO
c
N
N
(�
M
En
Cl)00
co
F
(A
64
a
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C.
o
a
(fl
(�
(fl
O
0
(�
(fl
(�
(fl
O
o
C
O
O
_
O
(o
O
r
O
O
M
M
_
r
(O
(O
V
Lf)
O
LO
r
r-
(`')
E9
�t
0
(f)
GG
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CD
O
O
O
O
O
E9
e3
(A
63
(A
O
O
_ O
Lf)
04
O
O
OM
co
cli
O
LO
oc
oc
N
fA
64
(G
CO
EL)
Nil
U.
M
63
6
a
a
LL
U
U
Cl)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
a
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
le
06
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a-
a_
a-
a_
a-
a_
a-
a-cu
N
c
Ef
c
c
c
c
c
c
0-
a)
'
Of
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
w+
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
O
(6
M
(6
(6
(6
(6
(6
(6
Q
Li
(i
7
C
7
C
7
C
7
C
7
C
7
C
7
C
7
C 07
N
• N
V
yam.+
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q a
m0
6
Q
V
�2
(O
?2
O
O N
(n
_
>J
>
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
N y
06
- Li
4%
•
N
U)
V)
to
V)
(A
V)
(A
(0
5
W
m
E
(6
m
m
m
m
m
m
(6
N
N
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d 0
V
O
fE
Z
a
+�.+
Q
x
0
0
Cl)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lu
a
a
a
a
a
CFP/CIP
o
Packet Pg. 137
2024 PW vl.9
73
Per the approved 2017 Water Comprehensive Plan, the project will replace/maintain pipe and related appurtenances at
various locations throughout the City due to old age, being undersized, need to increase flow or pressure, or more prone tc
breakage due to its material properties. Road pavement overlays will cover areas of roadways that were excavated and
patched in previous years as part of the Waterline Replacement Projects.
Improve overall pavement condition in locations that were excavated and patched due to the Annual Waterline Replaceme
Projects.
$225,000
Design
$20,000
Right of Way
Construction
$205,000
Expense Total
$225,000
Water Fund 421
$225,000
Funding Source Total
$225,000
r
0
.A
d
�a
a
uL
U
a_
U
IL
le
N
0
N
2024 PW CFPOP 0.9 74 1 Packet Pg. 138
Per the approved 2017 Water Comprehensive Plan, the projects will replace/maintain pipe and related appurtenances at
various locations throughout the City due to old age, being undersized, need to increase flow or pressure, or more prone tc
breakage due to its material properties.
Maintain a high level of drinking water quality, improve overall system reliability, decrease probability of breakages and
leakage, improve fire flows, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs. r
0
v�
Estimated Project Cost
prior year expenditures
$2.1 to $4.9 million/year
�a
Projecto
a
Design
$461,000
$547,000
$569,000
$592,000
$616,000
$641,000 $13,348,O1C U
Right of Way
a
U
Construction
$3,525,000
$3,666,000
$3,813,000
$3,966,000
$4,124,000
$4,289,000 $89,328,99C 3"
Expense Total
$3,986,000
$4,213,000
$4,382,000
$4,558,000
$4,740,000
$4,930,000 $102,677,000 a-
Water Fund 421
$3,736,000
$4,213,000
$4,382,000
$4,558,000
$4,740,000
N
$4,930,000 $1O2,677,OOC N
Funding Source Total
$3,736,000
$4,213,000
$4,382,000
$4,558,000
$4,740,000
$4,930,000 $102,677,000
_
d
E
t
�a
r
Q
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 75 1 Packet Pg. 139
�► 'W%
185th PI SW <
Yost Park rn �.
W
>i
Q
2
�db I-
186th PI SW Seaview 00
00
�0
Water Tank
a IiOO/
G' y
This work is being done to provide structural upgrades, repair leakages, and upgrades to our two underground potable wat
storage reservoirs. Preliminary findings completed in early 2023 were used to determine order of magnitude/preliminary
costs and next steps for the now planned repairs and upgrades project. The Yost Reservoir report shows that it will need a
major structural and seismic retrofit, plus repairs to address leakage from the reservoir. The report for the Seaview
Reservoir shows similar issues as the Yost Reservoir, with a less serious leakage issue.
Maintain a high level of drinking water quality, improve overall system reliability, decrease probability of leakage, retrofit
structures so that they meet current structural codes to improve their resiliency during earthquakes, and decrease overall
day to day maintenance costs.
$9,659,430
Design
$850,000
$650,000
Right of Way
Construction
$3,850,000
$3,850,000
Expense Total
$850,000
$4,500,000
$3,850,000
Water Fund 421
$850,000
$4,500,000
$3,850,000
Funding Source Total
$850,000
$4,500,000
$3,850,000
r
c
A)
d
�a
0
a
LL
U
a_
U
IL
le
N
0
N
c
d
E
t
ea
r
Q
c
a�
E
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 76 1 Packet Pg. 140
M
0
O
o
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
O
N
8.1.a
V
O
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
CO
O
00
oc
O
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
(M
O
O
CV
• V O CD 7 O C) I- N CO M � LO LO CD
N 0 CDV)
•
M
C)
co
O)
CDN
�
_
O
CO
LO
LO
LO
N •
LO
O
CO
N
O
M
Ln
N
M_
CD
CDN
M
M
M
I--M
EA
_
1�
ER
N
�
Qa
M
VT
N
N
N
N
N
O)
E9
O
C
ER
_
�
C
<»
09�
69
e»
�»
e»
69
69
69
v
r
0
e»
e»
r
E9
69
69
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
c
6R
o
UFl
Qa
U�l
6p,
6R
UFl
UFl
UFl
e»
e»
o
e»
OF l
o
o
e»
bq
6FJ
bq
e
r
0
C
0
o
cCD
o
coo
to
coo
o CL
M
V
M
r
rl
o
t'
(i
ER
m
o
LO
LO
c'IT
6H
69
E9
6 06
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
N
O
O
C
cc
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
N
CO
c!
O
O
00
O
O
O
CO
C
C a
V
O
O
V
O
O
L�
�_
N
Co
CO
V
U)
U)
(DN
_
00
V
C)Lf)
V
C
y
•
M
L--
CD
co
co
M
0)
LO
CD
N
N_
�
M
CDO
0')
r
CO
N
V)
M
O
M
M
U')
LM
to•
m
M
LO
_
O
M
EA
C
C G>
EA
C
EA
N
N
N
N
N
�
EE3
EA
Ln
•
ER
d3
E9
EA
6R
6H
6H
EH
N
H3
E9
C �
69
69
6 Z
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
c UL
_
E9
O
O
Ufl
6s
E9
6s
E9
EA
6R
6H
6H
O
O
O
O
EH
6R
O
O _
O
O
6FJ
E9
60.
69
c
c
0
V
Ln
M
W
+_+
Cto
M
C.0
e
c
O
V
csi
V
C4
Ccu
CN
O
o
O
0
O
o
0
O
0
O
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c N
69
CD69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
CD
69
69
69
CD
C)f!>
69
EA
H)
C CD
_
O
O
O
O _
O
C
N
o
0
m
C)ao
0
I --I-
0
c
r
N
m
M
M
C (V
N
N
C O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
O
O
O
o
0
o
O
o
0
0
o
c d
U�l
�
6s
C:)
6s
�
�
�
o
�
�
�
�
C:)
6s
�
�
o
c
_
o
o
o _
O
o
O_
C)
O
N
N
(O
M
O
N
C)
U')C
N
C 0
ER
co
69
L6
M
N
u a
E9
EA
69
6R
C
n/
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
c O
con�
O
O
�
O
U).
�
�
O
O_
cq
cq
cq
69
�
Q
O
CD
C)�
�
v>
CD
C)C
c
a%
W
C)
C:)C)LO
_
(D
CO
O
C
O
O
oN
I-
M
I
�
N
I L
R
ER
69
69
EA
69
69
EA
6
V
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
N
O
O
C
V
O
O
va
E9
Qa
69
O
O
EA
EA
EA
EFT
69
6R
I
6R
M
HJ
O
1 .0
C
_
cc
o
0
0
o
cc _
co
co
co
c 3
GN
v
o_
o
co
M
�
co
�
p a
LL
OEf-J
O
69
O
EA
M
00
69
CO
69
Ln
CO
E9
c
6 r
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
' ^
U)
_
O
O
O
O
O
O
0)
M
ER
O
O
O
O
O
O
ER
ER
(A
ER
(A
O
O
O
O
CA
M _
Lf)
f.-
O
O
Lf)
V
tT
EA
C
0 0
V
O
O
LO
V
O
V
LO
O
LO
T
M
u .5
LT
69
O
[I-O
N
LO
N
M
N
M
M
LO
M
'
Lf)
cc
N
LO
co
6rT
I
u G)
0
HT
Ef-J
61}
61)
EA
E9
69
m
N
E9
d3
c
a
�
a
p
CN
LL
N
CN
V
Ln
CO
CN
(�
_
06
o
0
0
0
0
o
d
0
°�'
N
N
N
N
N
N
a6
N
►,
i
CDL.
r
CO
Mo
C
tU
h
w
'ETa)
a
o
0
0
0
0
o
N
,
CL
a
U)
N
E
aci
d
g
a
D
0)
.c
y
c
c
c
c
c
c
aci
E
D
N
E
E
E
E
E
E
1
Q
N
=
.�
N
0
:EO
1
(o
@
@
@
@
@
Q
a
O
N
r
(o
.
O
Vi
Cl
m
m
Q
Q
i�
co
LL
>,
c
a
N
of
N
w
N
T-
N
W
N
W
Q)
W
O
Q
W
°)
Y
Y
�
N—
a
E
E
E
E
E
E
o
M
`:
E
i
LL
U
m
'�
��
a
°�'
>
o
cn
v
t
L
Y
N
Y
(C
N
c>Fu
@
>`
(o
•
-
n
O
fC
N
>
N
(p E
7
7
7
7
7
7
C
V
7
(D
y
-O
(6
0)
—
U
i
U
La
L
a)
o)
m N
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
O
c a)
Q o
>
O
_
LC
�
(u
Q
C
)
-O
—
—
—�
—
M
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
d
0
—
N
3
LL
N
>
�+
O
'i
L
L
y
m
N�
J O
•�
't
N
LO
N
CO
N
f�
N
CO
N
O
N
N N
Q
W
E
Q
O
O
N
E
3
O
Y
Coen
m
m
m
m
m
m
N
O
`o
T
c
L
oN
°
a�i
U
W
w
a
s
—j
a
y
3'
� u)
Q
a
a
6-
a
a
a
s LL
(�
i5
H
U)
Q�
L 0
0
`
'
z
w
Q
X
M
a
Cl)
to
N
N
M
V
LC)
CO
c0
QL
1,
W
C
O
O
O
N
O
N
0
0
0
0
0
Q
Q
142
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
Packet Pg.
2024 PW
v1.9
78
2024 PW CFPICIP vl.9
79
racneL ry. i•+a I
Wildlife -
Refuge Walnut Sr111111111111114
N
Edmonds Marsh 4•
C. Howell -Way
}� p i
N a�
CIO 0 City Park - Q' �—
OZ
y �
W
The project will be improving water quality of stormwater runoff by replacing existing catch basins along the west side of &
104 funded via a DOE grant and on the east side of SR-104 via a state funded appropriation. The catch basins will be
replaced with catch basins that include water filter cartridges. Staff proposes this effort in order to provide water quality
mitigation for all discharges that directly enter the marsh from these locations.
Improve water quality of stormwater discharging into the Edmonds Marsh from the west portions of SR-104 located near tl
marsh. The improvements will provide better habitat for the return of salmon to the marsh. g
y
Estimated Project Cost ?
$876,000 p
Project Cost
-
a
- v
Design
$90,000
a
U
Right of Way
?�
Construction
$644,843
d
v
Expense Total
$90,000
$644,843
N
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$11,250
$69,211
'
ARPA Funds
c
Secured Grants
$78,750
$575,632
d
E
Unsecured Grants
t
Funding Source Total
$90,000
$644,843
w
Q
c
a�
E
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 80 1 Packet Pg. 144
2024 PW CFP/CIP v1.9
Reducing scouring flows to reduce sediments load in Perrinville Creek was identified in a previous basin report completed ii a
2015 as a critical element of restoring this creek which has been significantly impacted by urban development. The project! 'S.
funded by this program are incremental steps toward recovering this stream run as adequate fish habitat. These efforts ha) _
become even more critical given recent challenges around the Perrinville Creek outfall area. This program is a fund for 0
implementing projects within the Perrinville Creek basin to reduce scour flows in the creek. It allows staff flexibility to
respond to ad -hoc opportunities such as rain garden cluster projects, or ensure matching funds are available for chasing a
grant applications for flow reductions projects.
c
0
Project Benefit
.0
Ah
The project will reduce peak flows in Perrinville creek, improve
fish passage and decrease
creek bed scour during peak flow 02)
events.
�a
0
Estimated Projecta
4
u_
*Includes prior year expenditures
$100,000/yearPW
a
U
Design
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$140,000 c
Right of Way
N
Construction
$90,000
$90,000
$90,000
$90,000
$90,000
$90,000
$1,260,000
Expense Total
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
c
$1,400,000
E
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$1,400,000
ARPA Funds
ea
Q
Secured Grants
Unsecured Grants
a)
E
Funding Source Total
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$1,400,000
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 82 1 Packet Pg. 146
A
The purpose of this project is to improve the environmental health of the creek necessary to support fish habitat, and to
restore the storm water capacity. The project consists of the modifications to three structures that currently prevent fish
passage and are undersized for the flows on the creek, (1) the culvert at the BNSF track, remove and replace with a fish -
friendly culvert or bridge with adequate flow capacity, (2) return flow to the creek between the diversion structure and the
BNSF culvert by blocking the structure and restoring creek capacity and (3) culvert at Talbot Road, remove and replace witl-
fish-friendly culvert or bridge that provides adequate fish passage and storm water flow capacity. This project will increase
the resiliency of the watershed by building the structures that mimic the natural channel performance necessary for fish
habitat and stormwater flow capacity. The project also includes time and effort to research and apply for
supplemental/additional funding sources for construction. Due to the project complexity and number of stakeholders, the
planning and design phase is estimated to be 2-years.
The project will reduce City maintenance needs in the future and improve fish passage.
$7,636,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
ARPA Funds
Secured Grants
Unsecured Grants
Funding Source Total
$275,000 $1,305,000
$2,800,000 $3,000,000
$275,000 $4,105,000 $3,000,000
$161,000 $1,490,400 $750,000
$114,000
$2,614,600 $2,250,000
$275,000 $4,105,000 $3,000,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 83 1 Packet Pg. 147
City of Edmonds and Lynnwood joint project to supplement/update the Perrinville Creek 2015 basin analysis that
determined possible locations for projects that would help decrease the peak storm flows during high rain events. Project
will be updated to reflect projects completed and also determine if there are other locations within the basin to aid in the
reduction of peak flows in the basin.
Improve overall basin and stream health, by using green stormwater infrastructure methods. This will make it so that rainf :
is not simply collected and conveyed downstream and instead behaves as close as possible to natural conditions. This 2
N
includes infiltrating rainfall runoff as close as possible to where it fell. This will also decrease stream peak flows, which will
decrease stream erosion and improve the overall stream habitat for aquatic life.
Dject Cost
a
u-
$649,200 L?
a
324 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030-440
Design
$594,390
a
Right of Way
c
Construction
N
Expense Total
$594,390
r
c
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$141,000
E
ARPA Funds
0
Secured Grants
$418,200
ca
Q
City of Lynnwood
$35,190
+-
Unsecured Grants
c
E
Funding Source Total
$594,390
c�
r
w
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 84 1 Packet Pg. 148
2024 PW CFP/CIP vl.9
85 1 1 Packet Pg. 149
a
a�MW i�:
>>
r a
0 0�
°° 00 24Oth St SW
Mathay
Ballinger
Park
79th p1
a a
r
0
242nd St SW
JFW-."VIQN
ti
p- A
24Oth PI SW
= 241 st St SW
H
%0
n
A
Lake Ballinger suffers from urban flooding & seasonal algae blooms along with other water quality impairments. The
Highway 99 corridor is an area of high development, including a future City project which will require stormwater
mitigation. By creating a regional facility, the City can improve the stormwater mitigation achieved by development,
addressed stormwater mitigation needs for the future Highway project, and treat runoff from one of the City bigger polluti
generating areas. The City can drastically improve Lake Ballinger water quality. The project proposes to implement water
quality and flow control improvements at City -owned Mathay-Bal linger Park as green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) whic
would significantly benefit the Lake ecology and habitat conditions and enhance a valued neighborhood, but underutilized,
park.
The project proposes to implement water quality and flow control improvements at City -owned Mathay-Ballinger Park as
green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) which would significantly benefit the Lake ecology and habitat conditions and enhan
a valued neighborhood, but underutilized, park.
Estimated Project Cost
*Includes prior year expenditures
II III
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
ARPA Funds
Secured Grants
Unsecured Grants
Funding Source Total
$200,000 $200,000
$2,800,000
$200,000 $3,000,000
$200,000 $750,000
$2,250,000
$200,000 $3,000,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 86 1 Packet Pg. 150
The project purchases an existing single family residential property in 2023 located within the Lake Ballinger flood plain. Th
City secured a $500,000 Department of Ecology grant to aid in this process. The home is the lowest property on the lake at
is badly damaged from previous flooding to the point it is generally uninhabitable.
The City intends to remove the home and any pollution generating surfaces from the site in 2024 as part of the initial 2023
purchase. The grant has restrictions that prevent this parcel to be used for public use. After demolition of the structures an a
impervious surfaces, the planned site use would be for public utility benefit only. Because the City storm drain line for SR-1 r
cuts through in an easement immediately adjacent to this parcel, the City plans to pursue a future project to split c
appropriate flows from the City storm drain system and provide water quality treatment to the maximum extent feasible. o
The future project would provide water quality treatment for a very heavily trafficked highway (SR-104) and would make
significant improvement in water quality to Lake Ballinger and its downstream course to Lake Washington via McAleer Cre(
�a
Project Benefit
L
♦�
a
u_
Improve the health and water quality of Lake Ballinger by removing hard surfaces and a home that is generally U
uninhabitable. Project will also provide a future location to treat stormwater runoff from portions SR-104. a
U
Estimated Project
C. a
prior year expendituresN
0
$750,000 N
c
a)
Design t
Right of Way $10,000 r
Construction $110,000 Q
Expense Total $120,000 =
a�
Stormwater Utility Fund 422 $92,500 E
Secured Grants $27,500
Unsecured Grants Q
Funding Source Total $120,000
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 87 1 Packet Pg. 151
2024 PW CFP/CIP vl.9
88 1 1 Packet Pg. 152
Annual storm drain replacement/maintenance projects. Projects propose to replace or rehab storm drain infrastructure in
several locations throughout the City. Locations of work identified by City crews and staff via firsthand knowledge or video
inspection results. Much of Edmonds stormwater infrastructure is past its useful lifespan and requires routine replacement
or repair to preserve the function of the storm drain system. Failure to conduct annual maintenance projects will increase
chances of storm drain system failure.
c
Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease breakages, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs. g
y
Estimated Project Cost
$1.7 to $2.4 million/year
Project Cost
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Funding Source Total
$354,000 $337,000 $351,000 $365,000 $380,000 $395,000
$1,347,000 $1,687,000 $1,755,000 $1,825,000 $1,898,000 $1,974,000
$1,701,000 $2,024,000 $2,106,000 $2,190,000 $2,278,000 $2,369,000
$1,701,000 $2,024,000 $2,106,000 $2,190,000 $2,278,000 $2,369,000
$1,701,000 $2,024,000 $2,106,000 $2,190,000 $2,278,000 $2,369,000
a
V
$8,230,139 V
$41,129,861
$49,360,000 N
$49,360,OOC
$49,360,000 c
d
E
t
w
r
Q
a�
E
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 89 1 Packet Pg. 153
Road pavement overlays to cover areas of roadways that were excavated and patched in previous years as part of the
Annual Storm Maintenance Projects.
Improve overall pavement condition in locations that were excavated and patched due to the Annual Storm Replacement
Projects.
Estimated Project Cost
prior year expenditures
$315,000
Design
$25,000
Right of Way
Construction
$290,000
Expense Total
$315,000
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$315,000
ARPA Funds
Secured Grants
Unsecured Grants
Funding Source Total
$315,000
c
0
.N
d
�a
0
a
LL
U
a_
U
IL
le
N
O
N
c
d
t
ea
r
Q
a�
E
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 90 1 Packet Pg. 154
2024 PW CFPICIP v1.9
Packet Pg. 155
WOODWAv
nkt ry
'. EDMONDS
4
s•s•rsrsw
cou"w
r = MOUNTLAKE
rtsn•u¢e 1ERRACE
�Y
...in.�x. OdG COIIN7Y 1M•13 W .....
The City of Edmonds (City) owns and operates an extensive system of drainage pipes, ditches, and other assets to convey
CD
stormwater runoff into streams, lakes, and Puget Sound to prevent and minimize damage to private property, streets, and
other infrastructure. The City is faced with the challenge of conveying this runoff safely and cost-effectively while preventir
=
or minimizing the adverse impacts of high flows (erosion, flooding, and sediment deposition) and of stormwater pollutants
V
on water quality and aquatic habitat. In addition, recent state and federal stormwater regulations make it technically and
3
financially challenging to address these issues while balancing utility ratepayer costs. To proactively address these challeng
a
and remain in compliance with the State -mandated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Western Washington
7
Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (NPDES Phase II permit) and other increasing regulatory requirements, the City is
c
updating its current comprehensive storm and surface water management plan. This permit has and will continue to have
significant impact on the workload and operational budget of both the Engineering Division and the Storm Crews within the
Public Works Department. Per the State Department of Ecology, the plan will also include the work findings from their
required (stormwater Management Action Plan) SMAP process of City drainage watersheds. Project will also include
recommendations for stormwater utilities rates to be adjusted at the discretion of Council.
a
u_
U
Project Benefit
a
A holistic summary of the City's Stormwater system with recommended priorities for selecting future capital maintenance
U
and improvements projects.
a
N
Estimated Project CostN
*Includesprior
O
r
year expendituresT_
$733,000
r
Q
E
s
0
ca
Design $350,000
Q
Right of Way
=
Construction
m
E
Expense Total $350,000
t
r
Stormwater Utility Fund 422 $350,000
Q
Funding Source Total $350,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 92 1 Packet Pg. 156
i
W-W
Packet Pg. 157
0 0
O
00
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
o O
o
rn
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
o
It
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O O
Ln
C4
CM
M
00
C4
M
O
O
N
CD
CD
LO
CD
O�
OCD
04
U). EA
O
It
CD
00
O
Lf)
N
N
N
N
N
N
d7
(fl
�
G)
GA
CA
60
60
60
H)
—
60
LO
64
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U). H)
di
EA
di
H)
di
Ef)
00
EA
Eft
O
00
O
N
W
N
00
M
LO
60
EA
0 0
O
00
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
0
o O
o
0)
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O o
o
v
o
0
o
O
O
O
o
C
O 0
LO
CO
Cl)
Cl)
00
C4
N
O
N
Cfl
O
O
O
O
O
V
V
CD
EA EA
O
It
LO
C4
�
00
O
O
Ln
N
N
N
N
N
N
VT
N
P.
6)
60
60
60
60
60
60
Cf?
60
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ef3
UfT
U7
EA
U7
EA
U7
O
O
O
U>
Gq
_
O
O
O
N
Cfl
O
M
M
N
U7
�
0
0
0
0
0
o
O
o
0
0
0
0
e»
e»
e»
U).
e»
U).
o
o
e»
O
e»
e»
_
C
C
C
rn
LO
O)
N
N
VEFT
N
EA
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
(D
U>
U).
U>
EA
U7
O
O
U).
EA
O
O
Eft
_
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
O
N
Nt
LO
CD
N
VJ
Gs
Cfl
U7
U7
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U7
U7
U7
EA
O
O
U7
Ef3
EA
O
O
61>
_
O
O
O
O
LO
Co
LC)
O
19
r
M
EA
LC)
U).
O
U7
W
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U7
U>
U7
O
O
EA
U7
EA
CA
O
U7
EA
_
0
C
C
o
W
Co
LO
!A
N
EA
O
O
O
00
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
6)
H)
EA
U7
Ef3
U7
U7
U7
0
_ O
O
O
V
O
O
O
LO
Cl)
N
CDO
O
N
CA
CA
O
Cl)
LO
N
EtT
Vp
EA
_ 06
M V L1j M 00 O O V
0 0 0 0 CN 0 0 0 0
N N Co
E
E E E E E E E E 0
U U U CU) U U U U Cu
3 Cu
u- 76 76 7u 76 (6 76 (6 N (n
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 f/7
a
c c c c c c c c 3 a
0 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a_ U
U)
(N w w w w w w w w C
N (0 (6 Cu Cu (0 Cu (6 Cu C
oaaaaaaaa M
N Li Q U
r
N
M
le
LA
CO
1.-
00
O
O
r M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r
r r
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a a
2024 PW CFP/CIP vl.9
94
Co
v
rn
v
8.1.a
N
M
N
O
E9
LP)
• M
N
O
Iq
O
_O
N
C
O
N
Q
m
U
N
VT
N
EA
06
i
Co
v
to
O
00
v
co
O
d
N
Q
co
C14
ff?
_ co
(Al
C>
LL
O
O
to
ce
_ C
O
v
ri
Q
Cu
U
O)
fi?
O
0
o
LO
M
Co
O
o
_ O
LO
Cl)
N
O
N
V
N
N
M
to
O
O
Co
M
60
O
O
Co
C
d
N
Q
0
N
O
E9
O
O
M
C14
O
ER
O
O
Cl)
L-
�
0
00
O
d4
0
Co
C
ER
0
L
Co
=
o
N
6F
_ o
�
C;
N
Efl
B
3
a
00
'
Q>
Csi
Co
C0
Cr
Cli
0
O
N
>
d
w+
Cu
U.
0
a
LL
U
a_
U
a
le
N
O
N
M
• V
r•
r
d
i
t�
W
H
U-
Co
Q
G
Z
a
x
V
Cu
w
Q
W
J
a
0
~
Packet Pg. 158
Road pavement overlays to cover areas of roadways that were excavated and patched in previous years as part of the
Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects.
Improve overall pavement condition in locations that were excavated and patched due to Sanitary Sewer Replacement
Projects.
$60,000
roject Cost i 2024
Design
$2,000
Right of Way
Construction
$58,000
Expense Total
$60,000
Sewer Fund 423
$60,000
Funding Source Total
$60,000
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 95 1 Packet Pg. 159
Per the approved 2013 Sewer Comprehensive Plan, the projects will replace pipe and related appurtenances at various
locations throughout the City due to old age, being undersized, need to increase capacity, or more prone to breakage due t
its material properties.
Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease infiltration and inflow, decrease breakages, and decrease overall day to
day maintenance costs. r
Estimated Project Cost
*Includes prior year expenditures
• •
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Sewer Fund 423
Funding Source Total
$378,000 $378,000 $393,000 $409,000 $425,000 $442,000
$2,000,000 $2,043,000 $2,125,000 $2,210,000 $2,299,000 $2,391,000
$2,378,000 $2,421,000 $2,518,000 $2,619,000 $2,724,000 $2,833,000
$2,378,000 $2,421,000 $2,518,000 $2,619,000 $2,724,000 $2,833,000
$2,378,000 $2,421,000 $2,518,000 $2,619,000 $2,724,000 $2,833,000
0
.A
a)
M
IL
$9,203,679 U
a_
U
$49,787,321 ?�
$58,991,000
N
$58,991,000 N
$58,991,000 r
21
a�
E
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 96 1 Packet Pg. 160
Per the approved 2013 Sewer Comprehensive plan and current video inspections of sewer mains, the project will line
existing sewer mains that are subject root intrusion, infiltration and inflow, and damage that can be repaired by this
trenchless method.
Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease infiltration and inflow, decrease breakages, and decrease overall day to
day maintenance costs. r
Estimated Project Cost
*Includes prior year expenditures
1 111 • 1 111
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Sewer Fund 423
Funding Source Total
$81,000 $85,000 $88,000 $92,000
$461,000
$480,000
$499,000
$519,000
$542,000
$565,000
$587,000
$611,000
$542,000
$565,000
$587,000
$611,000
$542,000
$565,000
$587,000
$611,000
$96,000
$540,000
$636,000
$636,000
$636,000
0
.A
a)
M
IL
$1,996,679 U
a_
U
$11,231,321 ?�
$13,228,000 CL
N
$13,228,000 N
$13,228,000 r
w
_
d
E
t
ea
r
21
a�
E
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 97 1 Packet Pg. 161
tbrtKANUL.
.eviswLk-Holl Ln� 7'.+ Mi
Maple
^� it
234th`St SW—
3Q 2341h St SW Q
Q Madrona Ln
Z w m
7
N 236th St SW Q 236th St SW
2361h St SN' C
00
h St SW 238TH ST SW __
�t v
238th St sw _ a
i 3
Oth St SW 240th St
= to t
SW
s
79th�
_ a 242nd St SW 7 --
- - sy
—
242nd St SWa a
�
CO
244-1-H ST SW
- �%S WAY I ea
Lake
Ballinger
232nd St Sv ' 32nd St SW
'232nd St
G
p, N N
�
a
�
F-O--
O
13 235thStSW s�sw
.,LO
235TH PL.SWhW
236TH ST SW
a,))
Im
o
i
N
0N
En
O o v
S
C
o`
C
ftos
d
c
c
c
LLINGER_WAY_ —244TH=ST SW <
t
c
s
Per the approved 2013 Sewer Comprehensive plan and current video inspections of sewer mains, the sewer pipe along Lak :
Ballinger will require additional flow capacity in the near future. These improvements are needed to account for populatio
growth, reduce Infiltration and Inflow from the pipe and improve maintenance and emergency access for this major trunk
system. <
Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease infiltration and inflow, and decrease overall day to day maintenance cost
Improved access will help ease maintenance and access for emergencies, which will further decease any chance of potentiz c
sewer spills into Lake Ballinger. >
d
:)IecT LOST
�xnendihtras
i
$7,000,000 a
LL
s,
■trolect Lost
2124 2025 20 0
2027 2U2x:
2'112Y 211 11- L'! a_
Design
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
U
Right of Way
a
Construction
$5,000,000
c
Expense Total
$1,000,000
$6,000,000
N
1
Sewer Fund 423
$1,000,000
$6,000,000
Funding Source Total
$1,000,000
$6,000,000
d
E
s
ca
Q
c
m
E
t
c*;
r
w
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 98 1 Packet Pg. 162
Per the approved 2013 Sewer Comprehensive plan and current video inspections of sewer mains, the project will line
existing sewer mains that are subject root intrusion, infiltration and inflow, and damage that can be repaired by this
trenchless method.
Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease infiltration and inflow, decrease breakages, and decrease overall day to
day maintenance costs.
Estimated Project Cost
*Includes prior year expenditures
111
Design
$70,000
Right of Way
Construction
$452,000
Expense Total
$522,000
Sewer Fund 423
$522,000
Funding Source Total
$522,000
r
0
.A
a)
a
LL
U
a_
U
IL
le
N
O
N
r
r+
_
d
E
t
V
R
r.+
Q
r+
_
d
E
t
C)
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 99 1 Packet Pg. 163
so . A(
LLJ
H I S r U K I C A L
-MUSEUM
2024 PW CFP/CAP vl.9
I I
r, K
10
f� O LO O N O O O M O O 'It It M M O
LO CO LO O It O ti N O O M I` 1 N 00 O LO O
(C CO O c0 � ti O c0 c0 M O (0 LL) O I� � LL) O O
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I1- 00 It N LO (fl It 0) It Cl) O LO 00 LO It LO
M N O M ti M O M N M O N
Ef3 C0 Efl N N Ef3 Ef3 N 0) r N O LLj M
Ef3 613 613 613 613 01, " Ef3 Ef3 e3 _ Efl cq cq cq
ea Efl
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
6r3 6q (t} 613 60 Ef3 613 Ef3 60 60 613 E13 613 60- 60 613 613 Ef3 Ef3
Il- r O LO (0 N M (O O M O r O "T r T M M O
LO It (O LO O NT (O I— N (0 O 00 Il- r— N c0 (O LO O
CO (C O c0 lq � O M M M O (O L[7 O I� lq Ln O O
f� 00 �t N LO (D 't d) M O LO r "t r CO LO 't LO
Cl) r N r (O t Cl) f� CO O r Cl) "t N CO O r N
E0- (.0 El3 It N It N Ef3 6a N O (V r O LO M r r
6a to ea Ef3 Ef3 Qf l , Ef} E13 60- - Ef3 6q Ef3 6q
Ef3 to
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Ef3 613 Efl 613 Efl Efl Efl 613 ER EA Ef3 Ef3 E13 (!? 613 E43 Efl Ef3 E43
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ef3
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
ER
O
O
LO
O
O
O
O
LO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r
O
O
LL)
LL)
O
LL)
O
Lfi
L6
O
O
O
LL)
O
Ef3
00
Efl
00
(M
It
N
613
ER
O
Ef3
N
N
00
LO
N
M
Ef3
Ef3
Efl
Efl
Efl
m
6s
U),
Efl
Ef?
Ef?
Ef?
Ef3
M
00
cl)
d7
r
LO
LO
d7
a7
O
O
O
0)
00
r
r
N
O
O
N
't
N
Cl)
't
(O
(O
O
O
H?
LO
r
N
I-
N
r—
M
U)
00
(.0
O
O
(O
N
r—
't
r
O
LO
N
O
00
00
M
O
Ef3
r
Cl)
N
N
W
r
CO
tf3
N
(Dr
�
N
Cl)
r
E13
r
613
Ef3
Ef3
Ef3
Ef}
Lf)
Ef3
60
60
60
Ef3
Ef3
Ely
Wrl-
0)
00
Itf—
LO
N
00
O
(O
O
f�
00
It
It
N
cM
O
f—
00
(0
N
M
Ef3
It
O
f-
00
It
M
N
Ef3
_ M
Cl
(O
Cl!
LLB
f-
M
(fl
O
":t
O
r
M
I,-
-
M
O
LO
O
O
f—
0)
It
LL)
-
LO
LO
0)
LO
0)
Ef3
I—
E13
N
(M
N
cc
WW
cq
It
ua
N
Ef3
LO
f-
Ef3
Ef3
Efl
Efl
Efl
Efl
Ef3
Efl
Ef3
Ef3
Efl
It
M
00
LO
0
LO
LO
00
(.0
N
00
N
�
O
N
H?
O
O
It
(
0
O
U)
V
O
0)
c0
Cli
Cl
N
LO
O
M
0)
O
Cl)
r
M
00
t
613
Q
00
63
0)
ti
N
Ef3
00
0)
0)
(0
r
N
-,t
0)
O
r
M
LO
I—
Ef3
Ln
N
(3)
E13
Ln
LO
O
O
cli
Nt
00
6q
N
60
Ef3
N
Ef3
60
60
60
Eli
Ef3
Ef3
Ef3
W
L6
00
O
O
O
O
't
O
O
O
O
r
O
O
O
I,-
00
O
Nt
O
f�
O
00
O
f—
O
O
O
Ef3
0)
LO
N
O
O
f—
N
O
_ O
O
Cl
O
N
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
O
O
O
Nt
O
N
O
m
O
(D
O
LO
O
Il-
N
O
O
Lf0
0)
(0
LO
N
00
Ef3
r
q
LO
(M
M
't
O
m
M
N
c0
m
N
N
613
Efi
r
Efl
61)
Efl
613
613
613
r
Ef3
N
N
61)
613
E13
613
Ef3
Efl
Efl
Efl
C
'�o
U)
C
U)°O
!?
C
U
L
a
E
C
D
C
(0
m'
U
=
E
co
D
Z
0
U
m
0
p
U
L
c
O
N
_a
m
a)
o
O
U
U
O
0
_0
N
O
L6
4)
C)
�T
w
w
0
a)
m
N
C
C
C
C
o)
�
N
C
i
_
03
Q
O
O
O
0
-0
U
E
U)N
>O
00
76
0)U
O
O
O
U
U
�
2
U)
>
O
O
O
O
L6
Eli
O
00
co
CD
Ln
LO
EA
co
LO
O
O
ER
I*
N
co
CD
(D
O
Eli
O
11
N
N
LO
LO
Eli
C)
2
C
(A
(A
(A
O
O
L6 LO
'O
0-
U
U
00
a
J
LU
a)
�
O
U
U
.O
-0 -0 p
0
C>6
UO
U
U
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
2
2
J J 0-O
d
d
d
>
LL
•
Z
W
a.
x
N
M
le
LO
to
ti
c0
O
O
r M
N
M
le
LO
w
r-
c0
O
W
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r
r N
r
r
r
r
J
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
Q
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a a
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a
Packet Pg. 16°
2024 PW CFP/CIP v1.9
101
0')
rl_
r-
It
00
Lf)
K-T
O
O
Lf)
O
O
Lf)
O
O
Lf)
O
O
4
t" )
to
M
8.1.a
• M
O
6FJ
rl-
0)
(M
U0,
M
Efl
M
EFT
It
rl-
to
CO
c0
EA
O
ER
O
ER
O
K)
O
E!)
O
EH
O
EH
O
ER
O
U9-
t0
Q
tC
CD
_ -
• t
LA
00
ti
O
O
0
tl )
O
0
M
O
o
Cl)
O
rn
LO
ttoo
((00
U
_
a
N
O
T
to
6)
Efi
6q
EH
r--
ti
ER
c0
c
Ef}
++
'V
t6
�
_
�
�
�
6s
�
63
69,
LL
(�
rr
Q
O
Ef?
O
O
O
Ef)
O
EfT
O
EFJ
O
ER
O
O
LO
N
O
OLO
O
4
m
U
rn
N
O
N
I
N
C
M
Efi
rI-
M
Lf)
Efl
O
It
Lf
vi
N
N
_
LO
CO
I,-
N
N
OD
co
00
LO
LO
O
L
O
ER
6q
0)
N
O
61)
O
EF)
O
EF)
O
EF)
O
Efl
(o
LO
r
r
vq-
LO
co
c
O
'L
d
to
rl-
Gq
N
O
�
a
I,-
�
2
U_
to
to
_ Il-
(14
00
N
O
O
K)
O
K)
O
H)
O
61",
O
CD
O
V)
It
N
c0
c0
a
L!j
I�a
O
L!j
6
(N
61)
to
O
T
ER
C
O
y
O
O
LO
00
�
Gq
OOOV
O
LO
co
(::
LO
Cl)
O
LO
Ch
N
N
to
It
N
N
LO
d
LO
ER
ER
EA
ER
00
Ufl
LO
V-:
L6
L
a
LL
U
a_
_
0
m
to
N
N
O
Q
T
N
70
M
U
N
p
N
.
@
L LL
• O
�
0
O
_0
N
'IT
a
:
LL
�
LL
=
N
�
LL
O
D
T
++
C
d
LL
LL
76
C�
t>6
>
O
O
(n
�
U)
a
n
V
_
W
D
Z
W
L
d
E
t)
Q
W
J
Q
H
2024 PW CFP/CIP v1.9
O
~
102
Packet Pg. 166
This small structure houses the Edmonds Cemetery funerary services and the cemetery Sextant office. The building is in
relatively good condition and has little deferred maintenance backlog. Minor security and communications updates will be
needed as technology dictates.
Projects:
Minor repair and maintenance
Project Benefit
0
.N
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to assure the
protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well -maintained facility creates a safe work environmei
that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine and preventative maintenance
reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as designed during manufacturer expected p
lifespan.
Estimated U
Project• Includes prior year expenditures
U
$24,048 (2024) a
N
roiect Cost
2024 20251 127 2028 20291 1 O
N
Construction\Professional Services
$24,048
$8,414
$3,377
$818
$1,000
r
Expense Total
$24,048
$8,414
$3,377
$818
$1,000
E
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
$20,000
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
$8,414
Unsecured Funding
$4,048
$3,377
$818
$1,000
Q
Funding Source Total
$24,048
$8,414
$3,377
$818
$1,000
a=i
E
t
c�
r
w
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 103 1 Packet Pg. 167
1
ylil U f1�; (r.. I Y i'f�..f
City Hall was built in 1979 and was operated as a private business office center until the City purchased and renovated the
building in the 199Os. The City has operated Edmonds City Hall from this location since the renovations were completed. Tr
building is in near original condition and needs substantial repair and maintenance.
Projects: All Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing systems need replacement, Restroom remodels w/gender neutral
consideration, Center Stairway Code updates and replacement, Lobby remodel, Entry Awning re -glazing, Interior Painting, a
ADA accessibility improvements.
c
Project Benefit 0
0
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to assure the W
protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well -maintained facility creates a safe work environmei
that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine and preventative maintenance p
reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as designed during manufacturer expected
lifespan. U
a_
Estimated Project �
tU
.
3.1
Includes prior pen a
$80,000 (2024) N
0
N
■trrzr Lost
2U24
2�•2.
2026
2•27
202:24129
211 0- z v-
Construction\Professional Services
$80,000
$279,064
$70,949
$108,628
$80,000
r
aa)
Expense Total
$80,000
$279,064
$70,949
$108,628
$80,000
s
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
$80,000
$129,064
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
$150,000
Q
Unsecured Funding
$70,949
$108,628
$80,000
4)
Funding Source Total
$80,000
$279,064
$70,949
$108,628
$80,000
c�
r
w
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 104 1 Packet Pg. 168
The Pier was recently renovated and is generally in good condition. The Beach Ranger Office is a 1200 square foot office an
restroom facility located near the east end of the pier. There are season programs and visitor support functions that operas
out of this facility.
Projects: Electrical panel clean up and safety inspection, minor repairs, and maintenance, Beach Ranger Station/restroom 3
roof replacement. a
Project Benefit
0
.N
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to assure the
protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a safe work environmer W
that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine and preventative maintenance
reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as designed during manufacturer expected p
lifespan.
Estimated U
Project• Includes prior year expenditures
U
$2,971 (2024) a
N
roiect Cost
2024 20251 127 2028 20291 1 O
N
Construction\Professional Services
$2,971
$2,918
$5,628
$1,043
$1,500
r
Expense Total
$2,971
$2,918
$5,628
$1,043
$1,500
E
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
$2,918
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding
$2,971
$5,628
$1,043
$1,500
Q
Funding Source Total
$2,971
$2,918
$5,628
$1,043
$1,500
a=i
E
t
c�
r
w
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 105 1 Packet Pg. 169
The Frances Anderson Center serves as the City's main recreation center offering arts, athletic and cultural programing yea
round. Due to the age and high usage of the building there are many building systems that are in need of replacement or
restoration.
Projects: Replacement of Heating Boilers with Electric alternatives that will add ventilation, cooling and heating Investment =
grade audit approved by City Council, Replacement of all exterior doors scheduled for 2024, ADA accessible door closures, a
Plumbing drainage collector, Restroom remodels (w/ gender neutral consideration), Replacement of all plumbing fixtures,
Addition of building security card readers, Building HVAC controls to maximize efficiency, Fire Sprinkler replacement, and c
clean building act compliance efforts will be addresses by IGA.)
N
Project Benefit
r
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to assure the
p
protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a safe work environmer
LL
that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine and preventative maintenance
U
reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as designed during manufacturer expected
a
U
lifespan.
a
Estimated Project CostN
*Includes prior year expendituresN
O
$110,000 (2024)
r
c
d
E
Construction\Professional Services $110,000 $98,892 $20,934 $113,029 $80,000
s
M
Expense Total $110,000 $98,892 $20,934 $113,029 $80,000
Q
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond) $110,000 $98,892
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
E
Unsecured Funding $20,934 $113,029 $80,000
t
r
Funding Source Total $110,000 $98,892 $20,934 $113,029 $80,000
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 106 1 Packet Pg. 170
This facility is operated by South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue and was built in 2003 and has a building area of 10,70(
square feet. The building is in fair condition and will require some infrastructure updates or replacements to remain
operationally ready for the needs of the City.
Projects: Roll -up Bay door controller replacements, HVAC unit assessment, Gutter replacement, interior coatings updates
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to assure the
c
c
protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a safe work environmer
that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine and preventative maintenance
W
reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as designed during manufacturer expected
lifespan.
o
a
u_
Estimated Project Cost
U
prior.- .
a
$49,280 (2024)
U
?�
a
N
Construction\Professional Services $49,280 $69,388 $30,107 $31,631 $35,000
O
N
Expense Total $49,280 $69,388 $30,107 $31,631 $35,000
r
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
c
d
E
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds) $69,388
s
Unsecured Funding $49,280 $30,107 $31,631 $35,000
Funding Source Total $49,280 $69,388 $30,107 $31,631 $35,000
Q
c
m
E
t
c�
r
w
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 107 1 Packet Pg. 171
MIM,M
MML-M:
MMM
MMM
This building is operated by South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue, was built in 1999 and has a building area of 9,800
square feet. This building has had some updates but will need some infrastructure upgrades to remain operationally ready
Projects: Bay Door assessment, Electrical infrastructure updates, roof soffit enclosure, interior painting.
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to assure the
protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a safe work environmer
that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine and preventative maintenance
reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as designed during manufacturer expected
lifespan.
$50,000 (2024)
Construction\Professional Services
$50,000
$221,922
$27,575
$122,245
$45,000
Expense Total
$50,000
$221,922
$27,575
$122,245
$45,000
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
$221,922
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding
$50,000
$27,575
$122,245
$45,000
Funding Source Total
$50,000
$221,922
$27,575
$122,245
$45,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 108 1 Packet Pg. 172
PVC
6 J
This building is the eldest of the City's three fire stations and is operated by South County Fire and Rescue. This station sery
Esperance and supports the other two fire stations in Edmonds. The building is 6400 square feet and was built in 1990. Th(
building has had significant updates to the exterior envelope and is in need of interior and HVAC system updates.
Projects: interior painting, restroom fixture replacement
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to assure the
c
c
protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a safe work environmer
that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine and preventative maintenance
W
reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as designed during manufacturer expected
lifespan.
o
a
u_
Estimated Project Cost
U
prior.- .
a
$36,274 (2024)
U
?�
a
..
N
Construction\Professional Services $36,274 $94,248 $69,782 $23,765 $20,000
O
N
Expense Total $36,274 $94,248 $69,782 $23,765 $20,000
r
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
c
d
E
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds) $94,248 $69,782 $23,765 $20,000
M
Unsecured Funding $36,274
Funding Source Total $36,274 $94,248 $69,782 $23,765 $20,000
Q
c
m
E
t
c�
r
w
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 109 1 Packet Pg. 173
PVC
W�J
This Historic log cabin is home to the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce visitor center, the structure was a purpose built cabi
from the turn of the century. The structure is professionally maintained on a three year cycle by a log cabin specialist and
requires only minor maintenance and upkeep annually.
Projects: new thick cut shingle replacement, chinking of exterior log finish, interior lighting.
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to assure the
c
c
protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a safe work environmer
that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine and preventative maintenance
W
reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as designed during manufacturer expected
lifespan.
p
IL
u_
Estimated Project Cost
U
*Includes prior year expendituresa
U
$30,000 (2024)
?�
a
..
N
Construction\Professional Services $30,000 $546 $1,361 $6,469 $1,500
O
N
Expense Total $30,000 $546 $1,361 $6,469 $1,500
r
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond) $30,000
c
d
E
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds) $546 $1,361 $6,469 $1,500
M
Unsecured Funding
Q
Funding Source Total $30,000 $546 $1,361 $6,469 $1,500
c
m
E
t
c�
r
w
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 110 1 Packet Pg. 174
MEML;1.a
The 110-year-old original Carnegie Library building is home to the Edmonds Museum. The building is on the State of
Washington Historic registry and has been well maintained over the last several years. Buildings of this age require
specialized maintenance and coordination with the state historic architect to maintain the historic status. Structural
stabilization and weatherproofing are the most significant priorities to maintain this facility.
Projects: minor structural reinforcement, entry fagade masonry repair, lower entry restoration
Project Benefit
0
.N
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to assure the
protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a safe work environmer W
that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine and preventative maintenance
reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as designed during manufacturer expected p
lifespan.
Estimated U
Project• Includes prior year expenditures
U
$45,000 (2024) a
N
roiect Cost
2024 20251 127 2028 20291 1 O
N
Construction\Professional Services
$45,000
$10,000
$4,621
$10,199
$5,000
r
Expense Total
$45,000
$10,000
$4,621
$10,199
$5,000
E
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
$45,000
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
$10,000
$4,621
$10,199
$5,000
Unsecured Funding
Q
Funding Source Total
$45,000
$10,000
$4,621
$10,199
$5,000
4)
E
t
c�
r
w
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 ill I Packet Pg. 175
- Facilit
Public
Works
Library
The Edmonds Library is operated by the Sno-Isle Library system with exception of the Second floor Plaza room rental space
The library is a 19,000 square foot building built in 1982. The building hosts special event rentals and daily Library
programming and community services. This is one of the City's most heavily used buildings by the public and has significant
deferred maintenance needs, including the building fagade and plaza deck waterproofing.
Projects: window replacement, ADA access device upgrades or replacement, gender inclusive public restroom creation, Pla a
Room restroom/changing facilities, Plaza Room A/V installation, building masonry restoration or building cladding, exterior
stairway restoration, HVAC ventilation fan assessment, building breezeway remodel, flood damage restoration, and plaza c
level green roof now on CIP.
N
Project Benefit
o:
r
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to assure the
p
protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a safe work environmer
LL
that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine and preventative maintenance
U
reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as designed during manufacturer expected
a
U
lifespan.
a
Estimated Project•
N
•. •-. • • :. •.
O
N
$100,000 (2024)
r
Construction\Professional Services
$100,000
$53,325
$45,038
$35,000
Expense Total
$100,000
$53,325
$45,038
$35,000
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
$100,000
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
$53,325
$45,038
$35,000
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$100,000
$53,325
$45,038
$35,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 112 1 Packet Pg. 176
==I
This 4000 square foot facility was built in 1965 as a community theater facility and later was transformed into the
Meadowdale community club house. The building is currently owned and maintained by the City of Edmonds and houses tl
City operated Meadowdale pre-school and the 1500 square foot Meadowdale club house rental facility. This facility while
dated has been well maintained and only requires minor maintenance and repairs.
Projects: minor maintenance and repairs, interior flooring and painting, and bath fixture replacement.
Project Benefit
0
.N
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to assure the
protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a safe work environmer W
that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine and preventative maintenance
reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as designed during manufacturer expected p
lifespan.
Estimated U
Project• Includes prior year expenditures
U
$97,091 (2024) a
N
roiect Cost
2024 20251 127 2028 20291 1 O
N
Construction\Professional Services
$97,091
$7,985
$4,446
$1,159
$5,000 $5,000
r
Expense Total
$97,091
$7,985
$4,446
$1,159
$5,000 $5,000
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
$7,985
$4,446
$1,159
$5,000
Unsecured Funding
$97,091
Q
Funding Source Total
$97,091
$7,985
$4,446
$1,159
$5,000
4)
E
t
c�
r
w
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 113 1 Packet Pg. 177
This facility was built in 1965 to house the City's Public Works Department, the building was converted in 1995 to tenant
space and City storage, as well as Edmonds Police large evidence storage. This is a vital piece of property adjacent to the
Waste Water Treatment Plant, and could be converted for utility use if regulatory requirements dictate. Building is primaril
used as storage and will need some updates to maintain current operational readiness.
Projects: HVAC updates, roll -up door replacement, security camera system.
Project Benefit
0
.N
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to assure the
protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a safe work environmer M
that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine and preventative maintenance
reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as designed during manufacturer expected p
lifespan.
Estimated U
Project• Includes prior year expenditures
U
$132,051 (2024) a
N
roiect Cost
2024 20251 127 2028 20291 1 O
N
Construction\Professional Services
$132,051
$25,000
$25,000
$24,519
$25,000
r
Expense Total
$132,051
$25,000
$25,000
$24,519
$25,000
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding
$132,051
$25,000
$25,000
$24,519
$25,000
Q
Funding Source Total
$132,051
$25,000
$25,000
$24,519
$25,000
a=i
E
t
c�
r
w
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 114 1 Packet Pg. 178
This facility was built in 1967 by Ed Huntley who at the time was the City Facilities supervisor. The 4800 square foot facility
now houses all City Facility Operations staff(11) and all of Park and Rec Parks Maintenance Staff(12+ seasonal help) This
Facility is home to the City Carpentry Shop, Key Shop, City Flower program, Parks engine repair shop and Parks and Facilitie
maintenance supply storage as well as Parks and Facilities Manager offices. This Facility is near end of life and is undersized
to support the departmental staffing that are assigned to this facility.
Projects: maintenance and repair to maintain operational capacity, ADA restroom updates, shop floor replacement, Pine St
facility exit, exterior painting. c
T)
Project
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to assure the
protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a safe work environmer
p
that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine and preventative maintenance
CL
reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as designed during manufacturer expected
U
lifespan.
a
U
Estimated Project Cost
a
prior .- .
le
$40,320 (2024)
O
N
c
a)
Construction\Professional Services $40,320 $9,349 $5,177 $69,228 $20,000
E
t
Expense Total $40,320 $9,349 $5,177 $69,228 $20,000
r
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond) $25,000
Q
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds) $9,349
=
a�
Unsecured Funding $15,320 $5,177 $69,228 $20,000
E
Funding Source Total $40,320 $9,349 $5,177 $69,228 $20,000
0
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 115 1 Packet Pg. 179
The Public Safety building houses Edmonds Police Department, Edmonds Municipal Court and the City Council Chambers.
The building was built in 1999 encompassing 30,000 square feet of office, court and municipal government uses. The buildi
houses one of the City emergency operations centers, large police training, simulator facilities and evidence processing anc
storage. The building has had minimal system updates over it's life and has a significant amount of deferred maintenance
and should be retrofitted with new fire sprinklers.
Projects: air handler and outdoor ventilation unit replacements, new solar plant installation, parking lot reconfiguration to
meet current usage, fire sprinkler installation, interior hallway renovation and painting, sleeping room remodel and gender c
specific/neutral accommodations, gender inclusive public restrooms, operable windows is specific locations, courts flat roo Ah
replacement.
Dject Benefit
IW
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to assure the a-
protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a safe work environmer U
that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine and preventative maintenance a
U
reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as designed during manufacturer expected
lifespan. a
N
O
•• • • • • N
�I•IMIR•[i7H•U1�[xItJAH,•R11••1[1� r
r
$220,000 (2024) E
s
0
ca
Construction\Professional Services $220,000 $55,169 $151,481 $515,071 $80,000 Q
Expense Total $220,000 $55,169 $151,481 $515,071 $80,000 c
m
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond) $140,000 E
t
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds) $55,169 $151,481
r
Unsecured Funding $80,000 $515,071 $80,000 Q
Funding Source Total $220,000 $55,169 $151,481 $515,071 $80,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 116 1 Packet Pg. 180
This building built in 1995 houses four Public Works divisions and the auxiliary City Emergency Operations Center. This
building is 28,000 square feet and is capable of operations 24/7 during weather emergencies and natural disasters. The
building has significant deferred maintenance needs and infrastructure updates.
Projects: vehicle yard leveling, HVAC unit replacements, roof system for material bunkers, ventilation fan replacements, firs 3
alarm system replacement, lobby remodel, restroom remodel with gender inclusivity considerations, electric vehicle a
charging and maintenance infrastructure, emergency communications updates, interior hallway flooring thresholds, utility
bay HVAC replacement, water main replacement (building connection). c
T)
Project
o:
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to assure the
protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a safe work environmer
p
that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine and preventative maintenance
M
reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as designed during manufacturer expected
U
lifespan.
a
U
Estimated Project
CostIncludes
prior year expenditures
$285,000 (2024)
O
`NI
c
d
Construction\Professional Services $285,000 $80,315 $79,348 $43,821 $50,000
E
s
Expense Total $285,000 $80,315 $79,348 $43,821 $50,000
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond) $35,000
Q
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds) $80,315
=
m
General Fund
E
t
Water Fund 421 $35,000
r
Stormwater Fund 422 $35,000
w
Q
Sewer Fund 423 $35,000
Unsecured Funding $145,000 $79,348 $43,821 $50,000
Fundinq Source Total $285,000 $80,315 $79,348 $43,821 $50,000
Packet Pg. 181
2024 PW CF/CIP 0.9 117
8.1.a
This community theater was built by the Driftwood Players theater group in 1967 and was deeded to City ownership at a
later date. The facility is 6,300 square feet in size and houses the Driftwood Players theatrical performances and City
meetings. The City's maintenance responsibilities are limited to large infrastructure, parking lot, roofing, and grounds.
Projects: parking lot repair and recoating, minor repair, and maintenance.
Project Benefit
c
0
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to assure the
y
protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a safe work environmer
that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine and preventative maintenance
+,
reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as designed during manufacturer expected
lifespan.
a
u_
Estimated Project Cost
a
prior year expendituresU
$99,077 (2024)
a
Project•s?= 2024 20251 127 2028 20291 1
v
N
O
N
Construction\Professional Services $99,077 $43,880 $115,734 $21,872 $25,000
Expense Total $99,077 $43,880 $115,734 $21,872 $25,000
c
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
d
E
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds) $43,880
Unsecured Funding $99,077 $115,734 $21,872 $25,000
w
Q
Funding Source Total $99,077 $43,880 $115,734 $21,872 $25,000
c
a�
E
s
0
Q
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 118 1 Packet Pg. 182
This recreational facility houses the City's aquatic programing and some Parks and Recreation programs. Built in 1971 the
pool house historically was only operated seasonally. The tenant run aquatic programing is currently expanding to year
round lap and team aquatic activities and will continue to support summer open swim programing. The facility requires
minimal maintenance to remain operational and is subject to tenant lease terms of use.
Projects: security updates, roof replacement, gutter replacement, plumbing fixture updates, exterior door replacements, a
operational repair and maintenance to accommodate 365 operations.
c
0
Project Benefit
.0
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to assure the
W
protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a safe work environmer
that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine and preventative maintenance
p
reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as designed during manufacturer expected
lifespan.
c?
a_
U
Estimated Project �
Cost
prior year expendituresa
$26,128 (2024)
N
CD
N
Construction\Professional Services $26,128 $8,409 $19,127 $30,389 $30,000
r+
d
Expense Total $26,128 $8,409 $19,127 $30,389 $30,000
t
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
V
M
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds) $8,409
Q
Unsecured Funding $26,128 $19,127 $30,389 $30,000
aa)
Funding Source Total $26,128 $8,409 $19,127 $30,389 $30,000
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 119 1 Packet Pg. 183
s
,y
All fire and life safety systems are required to be monitored 24/7 in case of emergency. Previously this monitoring has beer
done by traditional phone lines (POTS). This infrastructure is aging in place and is not required to be maintained by the
telecommunications providers as of 2020. In 2022 we have had 3 catastrophic communications failures that resulted sever;
thousand dollars expense and lack of compliance with fire code. The City has eleven facilities with life safety monitoring, ar
six locations with elevators, making a total of 17 locations with monitoring requirements that will need to be updated.
Maintaining and updating aging infrastructure allows the City to continue to operate older buildings by staying compliant
with fire code and L&I regulations.
$125,000
Construction\Professional Services $125,000
Expense Total $125,000
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding $125,000
Funding Source Total $125,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 120 1 Packet Pg. 184
Ta
- CL
ra
tU
The Library Plaza Deck is essentially a green roof on the second floor of the Edmonds Sno-Isle Library. The deck surface was
waterproofed and remodeled in 2003, since that project continuous water intrusion has occurred through the waterproof
membrane. This water intrusion has been successfully mitigated over the years and has not been deemed a project of
significance previously. In 2018 Western Specialty Contractors inspected the water intrusion and offered an initial ROM
price to demolish and waterproof the existing plaza deck. Rebuilding the plaza deck and replacement of landscape, planter!
grass, pavement, flashing and hand railings would be a separate construction project. The Parks Director in 2018 offered ar
estimate to replace landscaping and irrigations systems. In 2021 a draft structural report was performed by MLA Engineerir
to discover any structural consequences from the years of water intrusion, building was deemed structurally sound and
water intrusion not factoring in to building structural stability.
Maintaining building in operational and safe condition, in order to maintain partnership with Sno-Isle Library system.
Preservation of the City's physical assets in appropriate condition vs. the age of the facility and historic capital investment
$4,900,000
Construction\Professional Services
Expense Total
Fund 001 (Repair & Maint, Prof
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$4,900,000
$4,900,000
$4,900,000
$4,900,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 121 1 Packet Pg. 185
a ,
- _ Packet Pg. 186
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
co
I--
N
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
LO
Cl)
0')O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
_
V
O
M
• O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
in
V
O
O
O
• LO
O
LO
O
Ln
CD
LO
CD
I--N
• CO
LO
N
I—
Ln
00
Cl)1-
_2
O
O
O
Cl)
00
V
O
(O
N
V
co
co
EA
EA
69
v!)
64
EA
EA
LO
LO
LO
LO
O
O
O
O
N
r
(r1
N
I-
Cl
O
O
O
LO
Cl)
N
V
Cl)
O
0)
I-
ti
O
M
00
W
0)
V
C
64
69
613
69
EA
E9
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
00
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
(7
O
O
O
O
• O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
�
O
�
O
• V
V
Cl)
N
O
f�
V
O
CO
00
co
Ih
(o
O)
(O
co
O
D)
c0
V
00
Ln
H)
(i)
(f3
(i)
69
(F)
EA
(F)
r
O
00
ct
EA
V
O
N
(f3
64
fA
E9
ua
EA
O
O
O
O
I-
_ 00
N
CO
�
00
N
(O
O
LO
O
O
�
Cl)
O
00
(O
0
00
N
N
CD
N
N
_
(f3
(f3
(f3
EA
O
O
O
O
00
Ce)
M
M
N
_ O
O
O
O
_ n
LO
O
O
N
LO
O
r-
N
00
1-
O
Z
N
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
Q
c
N
�
69
4
o
C
C
C
cqIq��
O
O
Lon
LLnn
�
N
O
O
O
O
N
N
�
O
LO
O
Z
W
EA
c
N
6
EA
EA
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
F
O
_ O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
_ (D
V
(O
O
LO
O
LO
LM
Q
LO
W
0)
M
WEA
EA
ER
EA
r
EA
EA
(13
EA
F
LO
LO
U')
O
O
O
O
O
L
CD
O
O
O
O
O
_ n
(O
I
O
li
o
o�
v
o
Nd
�
�
Lor)
�
Lon
�
LLn
a
N
N
((DD
69
�
Cl)N
69
FVi
Ef3
O
O
O
O
CDO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CD
O
O
LO
co
LO
O
O
LO
O
LO
_ O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
_ O
O
O
V
W
o
O
o
O
(D
O
o
O
(i
o
U')O
(D
o
in
LO
V
v
00
OM
O
EA
ER
EA
ER
EA
ER
69
O
C1
co 69
�
Vs
d9
EA
a
3
C:
o
°
o
L`nn
o
=
0
a
o
c
o
o
E
cn
N
O
:
U
@
U
O
N
U
-
O
(n
m
c
n
N
d'
N
U
Cl)
o
Q
c
CL
(n
04
v
r
N
3
0
Q
a)
w
(n
@
E
a
a�
6
c
cri
N
m
U
U
y
r
LD
U
N
_7
U
O
ND
N
CL
:=
U
N
CO
U)
N
N
• U)
N
~
O
>
O
N
-OO
c
ti
c
O
Q E
LO
(0
6
O
OQ
U
CL
no
O
aHU
c
�
0)
a
c U
W
p
E
>
�
•L
°
°'
_
N
E
E
O
W
2
O
_
U
a
z
(D
>
`
a
a
O
U`U P
o
z
W
a
X
r
N
a
co
O
O
r
N
Cl)
I
W
J
O
O
O
O
O
r
r
r
r
r
Q
O
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
2024 PW CFP/CIP v1.9
123
O
8.1.a
0
O
O
N
00
O
(D
ER
O
CD
O
O
LOtU
ti
co
ram+
Q
m
06
ER
o
O
O
O
�
i
d
(/)
Q
r
O
LO
E9
O
O
_
(�
(Q
LL
(Q
+_+
N
N
r
cu
V
N
O
O
O
LO
N
(a
Q
N
Iq
04
Q
N
o
CL
0
LO
N
a`
C
o
CD
O
o
O
co
�
i
a
=
o
0
O
3
d
LO
a
C
.N
CD
O
LO
CD
d
(R
a
LL
C)
tU
a
le
N
Q
N
L
r
C
d
E
s
<i
yam+
Q
W
�
z
LU
C
�
V
w
J
H
Q
O
Packet Pg. 187
The WWTP Annual Capital Replacement In -House Projects is intended to maintain infrastructure and equipment to ensure
that the treatment plant is well maintained.
This project ensures that critical infrastructure is maintained and equipment is replaced in order to reduce risk to the City
Estimated Project Cost
*Includes prior year expenditures
11 111 1
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Sewer Fund 423
Mountlake Terrace
Olympic View Water Sewer District
City of Shoreline
Funding Source Total
$100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $200,000 $250,000 $250,000
$400,000
$400,000
$400,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,250,000
$1,250,000
$253,950
$253,950
$253,950
$507,900
$634,875
$634,875
$115,850
$115,850
$115,850
$231,700
$289,625
$289,625
$82,750
$82,750
$82,750
$165,500
$206,875
$206,875
$47,450
$47,450
$47,450
$94,900
$118,625
$118,625
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,250,000
$1,250,000
$3,750,000
a
LL
$15,000,00C a
$18,750,000 V
$9,523,125 a
$4,344,375 N
$3,103,125 N
$1,779,375 r
$18,750,000
E
t
�a
r
Q
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 124 1 Packet Pg. 188
To cover any carryover or close-out costs associated with the Carbon Recovery Project that occur in FY 2024.
To complete and close out all items associated with the Carbon Recovery Project.
$500,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$500,000
Expense Total
$500,000
Sewer Fund 423
$253,950
Mountlake Terrace
$115,850
Olympic View Water Sewer District
$82,750
City of Shoreline
$47,450
Funding Source Total
$500,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 125 1 Packet Pg. 189
The WA Dept of Ecology has imposed the Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit upon us. It is anticipated that our current
process will not be able to meet these new permit requirements. This decision package will allow us to team with an
engineering firm to study our current process and design a solution that will allow our plant to meet the new PSNGP
requirements as well as accommodate projected service area growth over the next decade.
To meet new permit requirements and increase capacity for projected 20-year service area expansion.
$41,850,000
Project , Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Sewer Fund 423
Mountlake Terrace
Olympic View Water Sewer District
City of Shoreline
Funding Source Total
$350,000 $750,000 $750,000
$20,000,000 $20,000,000
$350,000 $750,000 $750,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000
$177,765
$380,925
$380,925
$10,158,000
$10,158,000
$81,095
$173,775
$173,775
$4,634,000
$4,634,000
$57,925
$124,125
$124,125
$3,310,000
$3,310,000
$33,215
$71,175
$71,175
$1,898,000
$1,898,000
$350,000
$750,000
$750,000
$20,000,000
$20,000,000
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 126 1 Packet Pg. 190
This allows the ability to continue production of class A solids if/when the gasification system is shut down for repairs or
preventative maintenance. The ability to produce and haul class A solids will eliminate a temporary but substantial cost
increase hauling as this product is essentially the same in volume as biochar or concentrated minerals and is accepted at th
local transfer station whereas if this option is not available, sludge will need to be loaded into trailers and hauled to Oregor
as was done during the Carbon Recovery Project at a cost of up to $200,000 per month. This redundant solids processing
mode was an option to add to the Carbon Recovery Project and was rejected by previous administration. Along with the
savings in hauling costs, there will be no additional odor issues or daily sludge truck traffic in the adjacent neighborhood.
Allow solids handling system redundancy and the ability to run the dryer unit independently in the event of a gasification
system failure or repair. The dryer is capable of producing Class A biosolids, which would negate the need for temporary
hauling and disposal of wet cake at a rate of up to $200,000/month.
$300,000
Design
$50,000
Right of Way
Construction
$250,000
Expense Total
$300,000
Sewer Fund 423
$152,370
Mountlake Terrace
$69,510
Olympic View Water Sewer District
$49,650
City of Shoreline
$28,470
Funding Source Total
$300,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 127 1 Packet Pg. 191
Work with engineering firm to develop a comprehensive asset management system which includes an asset condition
assessment as well as asset criticality ranking. This will allow the WWTP to develop a 5 and 10 year asset repair and
replacement and CIP schedule which will improve overall plant reliability.
Develop a short and long term plan to improve plant reliability by ranking critical assets and creating a capital improvemen
plan. As the majority of this facility is coming to the end of its useful life, the planned replacement/repair of failing =
equipment and structures will be much more cost effective than replacing upon failure and ensure that the plant maintains c
its ability to meet discharge permit requirements. This will also be valuable in future rate studies. >
d
IX
*Includes expenditures
sa
prior year
0
$150,000
a
uL
U
Project--
a
Design
$150,000
U
Right of Way
IL
Construction
le
c
Expense Total
$150,000
N
r
Sewer Fund 423
$76,185
Mountlake Terrace
$34,755
as
E
Olympic View Water Sewer District
$24,825
t
r
City of Shoreline
$14,235
Q
Funding Source Total
$150,000
a�
E
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 128 1 Packet Pg. 192
■
J
The WWTP has several VFD's (variable frequency drives) on various critical equipment influent pumps, effluent pumps,
a)
RAS/WAS pumps, aeration blowers, etc. These VFD's have an expected useful life of 15-20 years. Several of the VFD's here
c
at the plant range in age between 20-30 years old. There have already bees some failures and replacements made. These
=
outdated VFD's need to be replaced to avoid a catastrophic failure event that could happen to these weakened state VFD's
V
for any number of reasons, including abrupt starting and stopping due to power bumps/loss, switching from grid to
generator power supply or just a parts failure. If multiple critical components fail simultaneously, then the plant may lose it
a
ability to treat wastewater that meets NPDES permit requirements resulting in pollution of our receiving waters and possib
fines by our governing agency.
c
N
Project
To keep critical equipment reliable and in working condition.
L
Estimated Project Cost
a
u_
. expenditures
U
$250,000
a
U
a
Project Cost 2024 2025• •27 2028 2029• • --
Design $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
c
Right of Way
N
Construction $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
r
Expense Total $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
c
d
E
Sewer Fund 423 $126,975 $126,975 $126,975
0
Mountlake Terrace $57,925 $57,925 $57,925
ca
Q
Olympic View Water Sewer District $41,375 $41,375 $41,375
City of Shoreline $23,725 $23,725 $23,725
c
E
Funding Source Total $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
c�
r
w
Q
2024 PW UNCIP 0.9 129 1 Packet Pg. 193
Primary Clarifier #2 cage, center column, feedwell, corner sweeps, weir, counterweight, skimming device and rake arms ne
replacement due to severe corrosion. The steel has not been replaced since the original construction. The limited access wi
require that pieces be assembled inside the tank. The concrete structure also needs to be inspected and repaired as neede
as corrosion of the concrete in spots has led to exposed rebar and may have compromised the structural integrity of the
clarifier.
Improve reliability of critical infrastructure as it is in a state of imminent failure. Ensure WWTP's ability to treat wastewate
up to its rated capacity and meet discharge permit requirements.
Design
$100,000
Right of Way
Construction
$500,000
Expense Total
$600,000
Sewer Fund 423
$304,740
Mountlake Terrace
$139,020
Olympic View Water Sewer District
$99,300
City of Shoreline
$56,940
Funding Source Total
$600,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 130 1 Packet Pg. 194
Primary Clarifier #3 (dual drive) cages, center columns, feedwells, corner sweeps, weirs, counterweights, skimming devices
and rake arms need replacement due to severe corrosion. The steel is in a highly corrosive environment and has not been
replaced since the original construction approximately 30 years ago. The limited access will require that pieces be assembl(
inside the tank. The concrete structure also needs to be inspected and repaired as needed as corrosion of the concrete in
spots has led to exposed rebar and may have compromised the structural integrity of the clarifier.
Improve reliability of critical infrastructure as it is approaching a state of imminent failure. Ensure WWTP's ability to treat
wastewater up to its rated capacity and meet discharge permit requirements.
$950,000
Design
$150,000
Right of Way
Construction
$800,000
Expense Total
$950,000
Sewer Fund 423
$482,505
Mountlake Terrace
$220,115
Olympic View Water Sewer District
$157,225
City of Shoreline
$90,155
Funding Source Total
$950,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 131 1 Packet Pg. 195
The ODS pumps are over 30 years old and are at the end of their useful life. The maintenance, reliability and efficiency of t
primary sludge pumping system would be greatly improved by replacing the current diaphragm pumps with progressive
cavity pumps. During this pump replacement, piping modifications would also be done to allow pumps to support more th
one clarifier, improving system redundancy along with reliability.
Improve reliability, redundancy and efficiency of the primary sludge and scum pumps by replacing 30+ year old pumps and =
improving piping system. c
.)
Estimated Proiect Cost
�.
�a
$600,000
p
a
U
Design
$100,000
a
U
Right of Way
Construction
$250,000
$250,000
a
le
Expense Total
$350,000
$250,000
N
Sewer Fund 423
$177,765
$126,975
'
r
Mountlake Terrace
$81,095
$57,925
c
Olympic View Water Sewer District
$57,925
$41,375
d
E
City of Shoreline
$33,215
$23,725
t
r
Funding Source Total
$350,000
$250,000
Q
c
a�
E
Q
2024 PW CFPICIP 0.9 132 1 Packet Pg. 196
Replace two gate valves and actuators at the inlets of the two chlorine contact channels. These gates have repeatedly
failed. Repair is often expensive and time consuming, as access is an issue, so it is necessary to rent scaffolding and other
equipment to make repairs. When a gate fails, it effectively cuts the disinfection capacity of the plant in half. These are
critical pieces of equipment and need to be replaced with a different technology to improve performance and reliability.
To replace problematic, yet critical valves with more reliable technology that helps to ensure disinfection system
functionality and the ability to continue to meet NPDES discharge permit requirements.
$375,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Sewer Fund 423
Mountlake Terrace
Olympic View Water Sewer District
City of Shoreline
Funding Source Total
$75,000
$300,000
$375,000
$190,463
$86,888
$62,062
$35,587
$375,000
2024 PW CFP/CIP 0.9 133
Packet Pg. 197
2024 PW CFP/CIP v1.9
134
8.1.a
ON
ii
9
LL
W
Co
W
0
Q.
ui
�
c
m
E
E
O
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
@
(U
N
U
U
Q
N
O_
0Z
C1
0Z
0_
0Z
O_
L
Q)
Q)
N
O
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
—
Cn
LO
N
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Q)
a)
N
�
E
O
E
Cn
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
QQ
Q
0
Q)U
(U
U
Q
U
N
Co
C
E0
C
O
C
O
C
O
U)
-O
Q
Q)L
L
L
L
L
L
L
.�
.�
.M
cl)L
Q)
O
0
W
L
N
CU
N
N
N
If
O
ItL�
O
O
QQ)
C
Q
C6
>N
i
>N
O
_
L
O
—
E
Q)O
a)O
O
N
N
O
O
C
C
C
Q)
MO
Q)
Q)-
L
L
L
O
L
L
Q
L
L
(n
L
O
L
(n
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
.N
(n
N
O
O
O
N
OU
0
O
O
O
Cn
OU
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
C)U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Q)
L
N
L
N
L
CU
N
L
N
L
N
L
Q)
L
CD
N
L
N
L
N
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
R
Z�
C
Z")
R
R
C
m
m
Q)
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
c
m
o
E
c
CD
m
CD
Cn
Cn
m
E
Co
CD_
It
N
O_
O
O
L
CD
N
CO
O
Q)
(n
-0
C)
C
Q
C
0
U
m
E
m
E
N
Q
C)
ML
N
(6
C
a-
(n
T
Q)
U
d
0
>
C
N
>
a--�
O
E
CU
O
Cn
C)U
-0
(nU'
0
Q
�
>
O
o
m
Q
L'^^E
00
O
O
E
E
"
O
mo�o//
LL
O
Q)
O_
(n
ON
L
O
O
a—
O
U
m
E
/
DL
///O/�
VJ
N
C6
O_
L
L
VJ
c�
>,N
L
Q
E
O
N
L
C)
C12
Co
MN
L
�
(n�
U
U
C
'
vJ
C)
Q)
O
O
D
c
w
m
U)
vJ
mvJ
/
M
E
M
E
T
L
U
O
N
CDC
CD
Q
N
C
m
U
C�6
N
Q
N
U
CDC
_U
d
d
Q
CD
CD
N
N
Q
O
-
L
U_
C
o
N
N
M
U
N
U
Cp
N
U
(n
m
z;--
Cn
Cn
Q
N
a_
U
o
m
Q
O
C
.L
d
U
d
0
F-
d
U
C
C
C
O
O
O
m
a�
E
E
a)
a)
a)
wwdwdwd
•
Q
Q
Q
C
C
C
''^^
V J
''^^
V J
V)
V)
V)
L
L
L
F—
F—
F—
N
0
N
0
CN
0
N
Cl)
m
CO
O
O
O
N
N
N
a)
CU
N
fB
(0
C
C
C
N
N
a)
a2
t
t
0-a
a
_0
_070_0
EEa)E
��0
0
U
0
U
0
—
0
U
Q
E
Q
E
E
E
E
0
o
U
°
U
U
U
U
E
(0
E
N
0
U
O
2
O
T
-O
O
T
C6
N
(0
O
�
>
E
O
L
a
m
O
L
O
>
O
��/C/��
VJ
a)O
C
Q
L
m
J
0
E
•
L
++
O
N
CO
L
O
fll
• C�
L-0
CO
C
(')
N
CDC`')
O
d
U
C
Q
CO
CD
N
NN
m
N
N_
CD
N
O
U
N
L
C
C
C
C
0
0
o
O
O
L
L
O
L
L
L
CU
L
CU
E
LO
_
O
C1
U
O
0?
U
O
C1
U
O
Q
U
L
Co
C
C
C
C
>>
Cn
(6
L
(0
L
(6
L
(0
L
2024 PW CFP/CIP v1.9 135 1 Packet Pg. 199
8.1.a
>
>
>
E
E
E
0
0
0
•
N
N
N
O
O
O
'
N
N
N
N
N
N
ON
N
N
C
C
C
0-0
_0
C
C
C
co
m
co
U
U
U
O
O
O
0
0
0
0)
0)
_�
co
cu
m
Q
0
0Q
Q
Q
0
0
X
25
JID
O
O
O
U
U
cn
cn
U
U
U
Q
M
0
Co
O
.0
N
C
0"a_
-0O
0
m
C
a)Q
U
(O
}'
—
C
0
L
0
yr
L
Q
L
0
n
U
N
ULL
L
�
E
>
'
/(moo
,,^^
U)
Nc
L
O
w
Y
L
0
C
• CO
)
E
'
O
(0
'
�/�
U
0
O
LL
I..L
>
• 0
Y
U
Q
U
0")
0
Cl
0
�
d
U
d
U
N
N
T
rL^
VJ
`VL^^
J
m
m
m
U-
U-
LK
,-a
ril
10
mwmm00r`[I-w00w
1-
0')rn0')000r
CY)000n
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
I
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
000
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
f-�
M
M
I-�
ti
4
4
r-�
ti
r�-
66
OO
00
I,�
r,�
rl�
rl�
rl�
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
CO
CO
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
00
00
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
O
—
O
—
O
+J
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
I.-
�
O
O
O
f�
I�
00
c0
�
00
00
C`
co
Cn
I--
�
ti
co
M
00
00
00
ti
00
O
O
00
I-
00
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N�'It
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C)O
N
N
N
N
1
N
1
N
1
N
1
N
1
N
1
N
1
N
1
N
1
N
1
N
1
N
1
N
1
N
1
N
1
N
1
N
1
N
N
N
i
N
i
N
i
O
O
O
CO
N
N
co
Cfl
M
M
CO
Cfl
Cfl
O
M
fl-
ti
CD
CO
CO
Cfl
CO
Cfl
Cfl
Cfl
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
ti
r—
ti
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
O
L
O
L
O
L
L
O
O
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
...
0
N
O
N
O
N
O
"0
"0
"0
"0
"0
"0
"0
"0
70
"0
-0-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-O
-O
w
-O
-O
w
-O
-O
N
N
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
E
E
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
N
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
-0
-0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
U
>
U
>
U
>
Mn
>
U
>
Mn
>
Mn
>
>
D
>
D
>
D
>
_D
>
Cfl
NO
N��(
>
>
>
>
In
>
au)
>
>
au)
>
>
U
>
E
E
E
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
N
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
0
L
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
O
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
-
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
H
4H
H
4H
H
4H
H
4H
H
4H
H
4H
H
4H
\H
\H
H
\H
H
\�
H
\�
\�
2
>
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
C
Cc
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
C0
E
En
L
C
M
c
>
co
U)
>
p
-9
0
0
Q
U
E
C
+U
C
C
C
c
>
OCD
r
ti
>
U)>
0>
U)�
0
>
>
L
U
>
<
L
O
A
VJ
C
E
0
0-
0
>
E
0>>
Q
U)
OQ
M
(CO)
E
L
O
O
c
U
U
.�
.�
O>
E
N
0
Q
0
0
0-
0-
Q
i
N
N>
ti
N
O
N
N
N
U
L
00co
0
U
0
U
0
j
0
O
Q
O
O
E
Q
E
Q
E
C
.0
.L
ai
>
C
O
O
O
O
O
-
O
�p
�0
07
Q
N
0)
O
d
O
L
U
+.
C
E
C
U
C6
Q
0
>
>
�_
U)
_
L
Q
7c
Ci
C
0
co
CV
O
C
,O
0
U
in
a)
:E-
CD
0
LLJ
�_
>
0
CA
U
0
(6
a)
Or)
CO
CO
O
a)
O
co
U)
U)
r�_/�
Q
.Sm
N
.2)
Q
C
0
_a)
0
0
�
E
L
0
L
L
L
�-
O
E
C
O
+�+
a0
+=+
N
U)
CO
T>
T`
O
vJ
cl
2)
CAOOO
CA
C6
>
L
1
uC
�
(>>n
O�NN
�
E
E
0
E
0N�
O
>
O
CO
C-6
06
Q
�
U)
U
>C
>
>>
>
>
>,
co
.2:
E
E
�
0
• O
`l
M1^�\1
2
C
C
0
0)
0
>
>
U>
Q
V-C
�
0
0
E
>,
N
co
O
Z
•
0
0
U)
0
M
N
(6
N\
C80D
Q
L
L
OCo
Q
Q
(L
Ui
Q
Cfl
F-
S
Co
(�
f6
N
Y
Fu
Y
>+
m
0
L
C0
m
m
N C\jQ
L
O
LO
00
.r
CO
>
(a
1
1
3
C6
>(6
>
�
0
0)j
N
N
@��
N
0
VNco>
0
U
-It
C)
C)"tCO
C)O>
C
0o0
>+
>
Cfl
(6
>
U
N
U)
>
Q
>
Q
>
(0
O
N
[L
v
N
2
2
Q
U)
U)U)
Q
M
N
Q
Q�
0
0
N
O
E
>
U)
�t
O
N
L
f`
O
�
00
00O
U)
(Y
co
co
co
N
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
C
0
—
c6
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
0-
Q
0-
Q
0-
Q
0-
a
0-
Q
0-
Q
0-
Q
0-
Q
0-
Q
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
2024 PW CFP/CIP v1.9 136 1 Packet Pg. 200
8.1.a
N
N
N
O
O
O
�
ti
�
4
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
co
N
0
0
O
NO
N
p
fl-
00
It
N
O
-O
O
O
O
�
(D
>
N
O
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
a
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cfl
c0
co
LO
ON
p
(1)
N
(1)
O
a)
to
(1)
to
(1)
to
(1)
O
(1)
<n
(1)
O
(1)
to
a)
D)
(1)
Mn
a)
a)
DO
a)
a)
a)
to
a)
DN
()
a)
D)O
a)
O
O
O
O
O
�
.�
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
N
N
N
N
LO
N
0)a)
L
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
a)
L
N
O
N
O
0�
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
W
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
)
N
O
N
N
cn
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
CD
N
N
CD
N
CD
N
CD
N
CD
N
O
N
CD
N
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
O
O
O
N
O
>
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
>>
>
U
O
N
N
O
L
O
N
Nt
ItIt
It
It
It
It
ItIt
Nt
qt
Nt
qt
U
N
O
c
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
0
a)
o
N
-
cmE
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
p
NO
p
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
U
L
M
O
0
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
-
Lo
a)
D
cn
•cn
O
cn
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
>>
>>
O
c
M
O
7
c
c
7
c
7
c
c
7
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
7
c
c
c
c
c
a)
L
a)
L
o
a)
L
a)
L
U
c
O
69
N
(n
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
7
w
7
�
7
w
7
�
�
�
�
L-
L-
�
�
�
L-
a
CD-a0
N
O
c
a
a
-0
c
_0
c
-0-0
c
c
70
c
_0
c
70
c
_0
c
-0-0
c
c
-0-0
c
c
-0-0
c
c
-0-0
c
c
-0-0
c
c
-0-0
c
c
c
c
O
c
c
(D
O
c)(0
`�
O
c
c
N
m
m
m
N
m
N
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
N
m
N
m
m
OC'j
c
c
c
O
c
E-
a)
n
n
n
n
n
i�
in
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
o
E
0
ETQ)(n
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C\l
"An
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
U
L
cum��
a)
mcu
cu
0
0
a)
0)
�n
�n
�n
>
a
-0U
>>+
0
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xUU
�U
UU
t
t�naLta))�
U
i
ouocointAintinv�ntnt2
oCO
rn
>.o
c
c
N
(n
0
U
7
c
O
O
N
—"
c
M
c
U)
U)
o
_
2
a
o
-0�
U
_
c
o
D
O-
U
"a
�
c
p
cu
D
O
0
C
c
O>
a)
L
(n
C
N
��
L
OL
O
VJ
L
C
O
U
0
�
U)
_
�
L
cL
Q
c6
c
06
a)
-�
a)
Q
(D
a)
O
�
U
cO
r�
o
c
=3
�
O
m
O
2
cn
L
�
00
o25
(0
N
a)
(n
0
QL
Q
c
O
>i
�
�p
—
(�
c
N
U
(B
p
O
O
U
-r
0
�NN/
L.L
L
U
�
L
>
w
C
c
O
c
O
>>
U
c
4
M
TO
c
E
pp
L
a)
m
L
.O
p
p>
c
L
Y
0>
O
c�
7
Ucu
E
>�
U
N
c�
•.
c6
�.
c0
�.
U
J
a)
c
U
O
L
O
0-
r^
i
a�
m
d
cu
a)
U
co
MO
c
<
(n
(n
(n
_U
L
c6
U_
J
0
p
c
a)
>
c0
O
d
_2)
J
Y
C
C
L
V J
�+
(n
U
>l
U
U
a�
C
W
L
UI
a)
L
ai
L
a)
L
O
L
O
�:
(�
U
U
(n
��
��
N
oar
m
U
a)
VIl
IL
LL
u)
(_n
cn
N
o�_2
�
-a
p
3Q>
O
(n
U
L
o
(�
U
d
o
a)
=
2
cp
U
N
d
(�
}
O=
.�
a)
CD
a)
J
J
(c6
M
N
z
C:
L
O
—
a)
F-
N
a)
>
L
__
f6
L
N
c
U
�
(n
d
Y
N
0
C�nx
m
O
(�
7
L L
IL
J
L
p
W
�
ai
E
�
'L^
VJ
c
—
0
J
m
O
a)
�
U-
U
co
J
I�
0
0
0
0
0
m
m
m
m
N
N
N
N
L
N
LD
N�
LD
LD
N�
N
N
N
2
N
N
N
N
_
Q-
Q
Q-
Q
Q
L
L
L
L
._
.0
.
.0
.0
U
.0
U
.0
•U
•U
•U
•U
U
.0
U
.0
U
.0
.0
.
.0
rrO^^
v!
rrO^^
v!
``O^^
vJ
rrO^^
vJ
rr�^^
vJ
`�^
VJ
L
L
LLL
LLL
LLL
2024 PW CFP/CIP v1.9 137 1 Packet Pg. 201
rOft EDMONDS
PARKS, RECREATION & HUMAN SERVICES
2024-2029 PROPOSED
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN &
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023
EDMONDS
PARKS. RECREATION & HUMAN SERVICES
Table of Contents
Director's Letter................................................................ 2
CIP/CFP Worksheets.......................................................3-7
Project Distribution Map ................................................. 8
Project Descriptions......................................................9-31
Program Descriptions...................................................32-34
Acquisition Descriptions...............................................35-37
FundDetail.....................................................................
38
Fund 332 (Capital Const. & Impact Fee) Detail ............39-40
Fund 125 (REET 11) Detail ................................................
41
Fund 126 (REET 1) Detail .................................................
42
Fund 143 (Tree) Detail ....................................................
43
Fund 137 (Cemetery) Detail ...........................................
44
Annual Project Comparison ............................................ 45
r
8.1.b
EDMONDS
PARKS, RECREATION & HUMAN SERVICES
September 19, 2023
Members of the City Council, Parks & Planning Board, Staff and Citizens of Edmonds,
The following document outlines the 6-year Parks Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Capital Facilities Plan
(CFP). The CIP/CFP serve as a planning guide identifying parks capital projects and related funding sources and
reflects the priorities established in the 2022 Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan based largely on
citizens' priorities. The CIP/CFP is updated annually through a public process including presentations and Public
Hearings hosted by both the Parks & Planning Board and the City Council.
There were several significant Parks Capital project accomplishments in 2023 to include:
1. Completion of the 8-acre Civic Center Playfield two-year construction project with a June 23rd Grand
Opening.
2. Completion of the 96th Avenue Infiltration project required for Civic Center Playfield which will
significantly reduce the contaminated water run-off into Shell Creek in Yost Park.
3. An Interlocal Agreement with City of Mountlake Terrace supporting the Ballinger Park Phase 3
development to provide improved park access for Edmonds residents.
The 2023 projects in process include:
1. Demolition of the structures on the property donated by Shirley Johnson (abatement completed).
2. Improvements to the Edmonds Lake Ballinger Access (McAleer) area.
3. Improvements to Mathay Ballinger Park — engineering completed, and permit submitted for paved path,
shade structure, permanent restroom and parking improvements.
4. Tree maintenance for large oak trees at 5th and Main.
5. Many deferred maintenance projects throughout the park system.
After completing two significant multi -million -dollar park projects consecutively (Edmonds Waterfront Center and
Civic Center Playfield), the Parks, Recreation & Human Services Department will turn our focus on deferred
maintenance throughout the city's existing parks system and recreation facilities.
Further, the department will remain focused on acquisition of additional parkland to fill system gaps in
park services and to address inequities in parkland distribution as identified in the 2022 PROS Plan.
Your Parks, Recreation & Human Services Department is proud to serve the citizens and visitors of Edmonds and
we look forward keeping the Edmonds parks safe, accessible, and enjoyable for all.
Sincerely,
I
,SL�w ti--
Angie Feser
Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Human Services Director
425-771-0256
Angie.Feser@EdmondsWA.gov
Page 2
Packet Pg. 204
2024-2029 SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
8.1.b
Costs inflated at 3% per year
Project
CFP
Project Site & Description
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Tot:
#
Lake Ballinger Park Mountlake Terrace ILA *CARRYFORWARD*
D19
Funding to support City of Mountlake Terrace Ballinger Park Phase III
$ 200,000
$
$
$
$
$
$ 200,0(
Development. Payment due upon completion of project.
D5
Mathay Ballinger Park *CARRYFORWARD*
D6
Construction of improvements including permanent restroom, paved trail, picnic
$ 271,300
$
$
$
$
$
$ 271,3(
D7
shelter ADA access and other amenities.
Shell Creek Restoration *CARRYFORWARD*
R19
Stream health and erosion control of shell Creek in Yost Park, scope TBD based
$ 120,000
$ 380,000
$
$
$
$
$ 500,0(
on study. Study in 2024, work in 2025.
R9
Yost Park & Pool
R4
Park enhancements, repair and maintenance to include resurface of tennis courts
$ 154,300
$ 1,296,400
$
$
$
$
$ 1,450,7(
R6
and trail, bridge and boardwalk repairs/replacement in 2024, inclusive
-
-
-
-
R11
playground and pool upgrades in 2025.
Columbarium Expansion - Phase II
D8
Expansion of the current columbarium. Funding provided through the Cemetery
$
$ 159,100
$
$
$
$
$ 159,1(
Trust Fund 137.
Woodway Campus Athletic Complex - Phase I - Lighting
X
D20
In cooperation with the Edmonds School District, complete a community park
$
$ 1,500,000
$
$
$
$
$ 1,500,0(
and athletic complex at Former Woodway High School to include lighting and
future construction of two additional fields.
Neighborhood Park SE 1
X
D13
Master plan and development of a new neighborhood park in South Edmonds
$
$ 79,600
$ 819,500
$
$
$
$ 899,1(
(funding is in Parkland Acquisition program for purchase).
R8
Sierra Park
$
$ -
$ 415,000
$
$
$
$ 415,0(
Playground replacement and upgrade to inclusive standards.
R7
Olympic Beach Park
$
$ 20,000
$ 33,000
$
$
$
$ 53,0(
Renovation of existing restrooms.
Project Type: A: Acquisition - R: Replacement/Upgrade - P: Master Planning - D: Development (new)
U
rn
N
O
N
4
N
O
N
N
N
O
O.
O
L
a
C
O
Im
C
fSS
N
2
c�
a
Page 3 Packet Pg. 205
2024-2029 SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
8.1.b
Costs inflated at 3% per year
Project
CFP
Project Site & Description
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Tot:
#
D10
Pine Street Park
D11
Park enhancements to include the addition of a small shelter with picnic tables,
$
$ 40,000
$ 124,400
$
$
$
$ 164,4(
D12
canopy shade trees and a paved connecting pathway.
Johnson Property
R2
Master plan for future park use. Site development not included in estimate.
$
$
$ 82,000
$
$
$
$ 82,0(
P5
Demolition, debris removal and site security completed in 2023.
Neighborhood Park SR99
X
D15
Master plan and development of a new neighborhood park in Southeast
$
$
$ 82,000
$ 844,100
$
$
$ 926,1(
Edmonds (funding is in Parkland Acquisition program for purchase).
x
P1
Parks & Facilities Maintenance and Operations Building
$
$
$ 1,125,500
$ 4,637,100
$
$
$ 5,762,6(
D2
Replace and/or renovate shop facilities located in City Park.
R12
Maplewood Hill Park
$
$
$ -
$ 347,800
$
$
$ 347,8(
Playground replacement.
Neighborhood Park SE 2
X
D18
Master plan and development of a new neighborhood park in Southeast
$
$
$
$ 84,400
$ 869,500
$
$ 953,9(
Edmonds (funding is in Parkland Acquisition program for purchase).
Waterfront Walkway
P3
Connecting the waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing North to
$
$
$
$
$ 515,000
$ 819,500
$ 1,334,5(
D14
Marina Beach Park by adding missing section in front of the Ebb Tide
_
Condominiums, to provide ADA improvements.
R16
Seaview Park
$
$
$
$
$ 417,900
$ -
$ 417,9(
Replacement of permanent restroom to provide ADA upgrades.
D16
Elm Street Park
D17
Park enhancements to include the addition of a nature playground,
$
$
$
$
$ 100,000
$ 340,370
$ 440,3,
R14
small shelter with picnic tables and habitat restoration.
Project Type: A: Acquisition - R: Replacement/Upgrade - P: Master Planning - D: Development (new)
U
rn
N
O
N
N
O
N
4)
N
O
Q
O
L
a
c
O
C
N
2
ct
a
Page 4 Packet Pg. 206
2024-2029 SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
8.1.b
Costs inflated at 3% per year
Project
CFP
Project Site & Description
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Tot:
#
X
R15
Pool Replacement
$
$
$
$
$
$ 23,881,000
$ 23,881,0(
Replacement of the existing Yost pool. Design, location, and funding TBD.
Meadowdale Playfields
R3
Renovations as suggested by the City of Lynnwood and consistent with re
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
$
negotiated and updated Interlocal Agreement. May include addition of dugout
-
roofs, light replacement and playground upgrade.
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration (Willow Creek Daylighting)
Master Plan development and implementation of the Edmonds Marsh to daylight
X
P4
D9
the waterway connection of Puget Sound to the Edmonds Marsh and two fresh
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
$
water creeks providing restoration of fresh water/salt water estuary and natural
-
D1
tidal exchange. (All expenses are TBD per Council direction in December 2022).
Acquisition funding identified in Parkland Acquisition program.
(A) SUBTOTAL PARKS CIP/CFP PROJECTS
$ 745,600
$ 3,475,100
$ 2,681,400
$ 5,913,400
$ 1,902,400
$ 25,040,870
$ 33,070,01
Costs inflated at 3% per year
Project
PARKS CIP PROGRAMS
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year
Tot:
Citywide Park Improvements / Capital Replacement Program
R17
Ongoing program of funding allocation for regular and deferred maintenance,
$ 450,000
$
450,000
$
450,000
$
450,000
$
450,000
$
450,000
$
2,700,0(
repair and replacement of parks amenities, structures and equipment.
Signage & Wayfinding
R10
Replacement of aging signage to improve accuracy and provide a
$ 75,000
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
75,0(
consistent City of Edmonds Parks visual identification system.
Parkland Acquisition Support
$ 50,000
$
50,000
$
50,000
$
50,000
$
50,000
$
50,000
$
300,0(
Funds utilized to evaluate potential acquisitions and complete due diligence.
Debt Service and Interfund Transfers
Debt service on Civic Park $1.6M bond (2021) and Interfund transfers to
$ 123,000
$
123,000
$
123,000
$
123,000
$
123,000
$
123,000
$
738,0(
Engineering for Capital Project Support.
(B) SUBTOTAL - PARKS CIP PROGRAMS
$ 698,000
$
623,000
$
623,000
$
623,000
$
623,000
$
623,000
$
3,813,0(
Project Type: A: Acquisition - R: Replacement/Upgrade - P: Master Planning - D: Development (new)
U
rn
N
O
N
IV
N
O
N
GN
N
O
O.
O
L
a
c
O
ca
d
2
c.�
a
Page 5 Packet Pg. 207
2024-2029 SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
8.1.b
Costs inflated at 3% per year
Project
PARKLAND ACQUISITION
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Tot:
X
A2
Neighborhood Park SE 1
$ 1,500,000
$ -
$
$
$
$
$ 1,500,0(
Acquisition of parkland in South Edmonds.
X
A3
Neighborhood Park SR99
$ -
$ 1,545,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1,545,0(
Acquisition of parkland near SR 99.
X
A4
Neighborhood Park SE 2
$
$ -
$ 2,185,500
$
$
$
$ 2,185,5(
Acquisition of parkland in South Edmonds.
A5
Interurban Trail
$
$
$
$
$
$ 895,585
$ 895,5i
Acquisition for trail extension.
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration (Willow Creek Daylighting)
X
Al
Acquisition of the Unocal property in support of greater Edmonds Marsh
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
$ -
restoration.
(C) SUBTOTAL - PARKLAND ACQUISITION
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,545,000
$ 2,185,500
$ -
$
$ 895,585
$ 6,126,01
U
rn
N
0
N
IV
N
O
N
d
O
Q
O
L
a
C
O
c
N
2
ct
a
H
LL
9
L3
(D) TOTAL PARKS CIP/CFP EXPENDITURES (A+B+C) $ 2,943,600 $ 5,643,100 $ 5,489,900 $ 6,536,400 $ 2,525,400 $ 26,559,455 $ 43,009,1! LL
U
PARKS CIP REVENUE
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Tot:
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) I - Fund 126
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 1,200,01
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) II - Fund 125
$ 2,000,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 9,500,0
Park Impact Fees - Fund 332-100
$ 300,000
$ 300,000
$ 300,000
$ 300,000
$ 300,000
$ 300,000
$ 1,800,0
Tree Fund 143 - Land Acquisition
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$ 1,290,0
Cemetery Trust Fund 137 - Columbarium Expansion
$ 159,100
$ 159,1(
ARPA Contribution - Shell Creek Study
$ 120,000
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$
$ 120,0(
Investment Interest (3%)
$ 18,918
$ 24,795
$ 30,849
$ 37,085
$ 43,507
$ 50,122
$ 205,2'
Donations
$ -
$
$ -
$
$ -
$
$
Bond Proceeds
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Secured Grants
$
$
$ -
j $ -
j
j $
Unsecured Grants/Funding - non -land acquisition
$ -
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,945,000
$ 5,481,200
$ 869,500
$ 24,756,800
$ 34,552,5(
(E) TOTAL PARKS CIP REVENUE
$ 2,853,918
$ 3,898,895
$ 4,190,849
$ 7,733,285
$ 3,128,007
$ 27,021,922
$ 48,826,8-,
a_
U
R
a
N
0
N
N
c
d
t
v
to
.r
.r
a
C
N
t
Project Type: A: Acquisition - R: Replacement/Upgrade - P: Master Planning - D: Development (new)
r
r
Q
Page 6
Packet Pg. 208
2024-2029 SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
8.1.b
Parks Fund 6-Year Overview
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
(F) Beginning Fund Balance
$ 3,150,795
$ 3,061,113
$ 1,316,908
$ 17,857
$ 1,214,742
$ 1,817,349
(E) Revenue
$ 2,853,918
$ 3,898,895
$ 4,190,849
$ 7,733,285
$ 3,128,007
$ 27,021,922
(D) Expenditures
$ 2,943,600
$ 5,643,100
$ 5,489,900
$ 6,536,400
$ 2,525,400
$ 26,559,455
(G) Ending Fund Balance (F+E-D)
$ 3,061,113
$ 1,316,908
$ 17,857
$ 1,214,742
$ 1,817,349
$ 2,279,817
Project Type: A: Acquisition - R: Replacement/Upgrade - P: Master Planning - D: Development (new)
Page 7
Packet Pg. 209
8.1.b
P5 Johnson Property
R3 Meadowdale Playfields
D6 Mathay Ballinger Park
R9, R4, R6, R11 Yost Park & Pool
D19 Lake Ballinger Park (MLT)
D8 Columbarium Expansion - Phase II i
R7 Olympic Beach Park
D10, D11, D12 Pine Street Park
R8 Sierra Park
P3, D14 Waterfront Walkway
R12 Maplewood Hill Park
P4, D9, D1 Edmonds Marsh Restoration _
D16, D17, R14 Elm Street Park
P1, D2 Parks Maintenance Building
R16 Seaview Park
R15 Pool Replacement
Al Edmonds Marsh Restoration
A5 Interurban Trail �; I
R19 Shell Creek Restoration
D20 Woodway Campus Athletic
Complex MILE-
* Non -site specific projects
A2 , P2, D13
Neighborhood Park SE 1
A3, P6, D15
Neighborhood Park SR99
A4, P7, D18
Neighborhood Park SE 2
R17
Citywide Park Improvements
R10
Signage & Wayfinding
r40
D1
P4
D1
Al • D9
P1
ID2
* Site specific projects only.
Citywide/annual citywide projects not shown. DRAFT
Packet Pg. 210
2024-2029
Parks Capital Improvement & Capital Facilities Plan
PROJECTS
.>A �yyyy��'�+J"',,yil�i Q y l F4 ) �I - N 'ij �J�� Si Yi Y11 ('ryy' ✓ r i� x 7 (', (�
'
F �Fi '.� �*M� l:(A /�y� � 1 Y� � i �1 '} M 1 �✓" i .rb A- ,
,�"1� .
EDMONDS
PARKS, RECREATION & HUMAN SERVICES
Page 9
Packet Pg. 211
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Lake Ballinger Park/Mountlake Terrace ILA — D19
-��_
v Interurban Trad
Improved Park Entry
Proposed Crossing by the U S.
_rfr' Army Corps of Engineers
+% J Senior Center
r
Proposed Channel by the
6 ft Asphalt Path U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6 It Wood Chips Path
6 ft Gravel Path
Proposed Boardwalk by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers
Boardwalk & Viewing Platform
Lake Ballinger
Lake Ballinger Park, City of Mountlake Terrace
Project Summary: Through an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Mountlake Terrace, the City of Edmonds will
support the construction of the planned improvements in the northwest area of Lake Ballinger Park including a park
entry, pathways and access to Lake Ballinger. The project is underway and payment is due upon completion of the
project.
I
Project Justification: This western boundary of the park is Edmonds city limits and these improvements will provide
better access to Lake Ballinger Park for Edmonds residents. The revenue contribution supports the construction of the
I
improvements which will benefit the City of Edmonds. This project is supported by the 2022 Parks, Recreation and i
Open Space (PROS) Plan including 3 Recommendations, 1 Goal and 3 Objectives. Recommendation 1.2 Expand
partnerships and agreements with other nearby jurisdictions. Recommendation 3.6 Explore options for access to Lake l
Ballinger with the City of Mountlake Terrace to include possible joint development and consideration of a fishing pier. ;
Recommendation 5.2 Repair and improve or extend trails and boardwalks to allow improved public access to natural
areas for nature/wildlife viewing, hiking and outdoor experience. PROS Goal 3, Objectives 3.2, 3.8 and 3.11. r
Estimated Cost: $200,000
Page 10
Packet Pg. 212
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Mathay Ballinger Park - D6
24100 78th Place West
Project Summary: Park improvements to Mathay Ballinger Park began in 2023 and are continuing into 2024.
Improvements include the addition of a permanent restroom, a shelter with picnic tables and a paved pathway to
provide ADA accessibility to the playground as well as connect the paved Interurban Trail spur. Approximately
$228,000 was expended in 2023 for the engineering, permitting and restroom procurement.
Project Justification: Upgrades to this park are supported by 5 Recommendations, 3 Goals and 8 Objectives in the
2022 Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Recommendation 3.3 is to prioritize improvements to Mathay
Ballinger Park and upgrade, enhance or replace park amenities, specifically the play amenities. Recommendation 3.5
is to add amenities to existing parks, such as picnic shelters to Mathay Ballinger Park... and paved pathway connections
in Mathay Ballinger Park. Recommendation 6.4 is to install permanent restrooms at Marina Beach Park and Mathay
Ballinger Park. PROS Plan Goal 2, Objective 2.6, Goal 3 Objectives 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8 and 3.9 Goal 9 Objective 9.1
and Recommendations 3.1 and 6.2 also align with these upgrades.
Estimated Cost: $499,300 (approx. $228,000 expended in 2023)
Page 11
Packet Pg. 213
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Shell Creek Restoration — R19
Shell Creek, Yost Park
Project Summary: Restorative work of Shell Creek waterway in Yost Park to address erosion issues. Scope of this
work will be determined based on a study conducted in 2024. The goal of the study is to determine what
improvements are needed to support a healthy environment for the natural ecosystem within the park. and
decrease stream bed erosion. With Shell Creek in its entirety being a salmon -bearing stream silting issues caused
by erosion within Yost Park may impact spawning habitat. Erosion has caused closure of a pedestrian bridge in the
upper creek corridor in the park, causing significant impact to trail users by lack of ability to cross the creek to
access both sides of the park. In addition, other pedestrian bridges are deteriorating and in short order, require
replacement. Restoration, including near t erm actions to address severe erosion issues caused by the creek, may
include habitat and environmental protection and enhancement, mitigation opportunities and potential trail and
bridge relocations.
Project Justification: The 45-acre Yost Park, containing a portion of Shell Creek, has a need to prevent erosive
conditions. This work is the second phase in addressing the pedestrian system (boardwalks, bridges, and trails)
and Shell Creek water quality and health. 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan - Goal 3: Parks, Trails
& Open Space, Objectives 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9; Goal 4: Waterfront Use & Access, Objectives 4.2 and 4.4; Goal 5: Natural
Resource & Habitat Conservation Objectives, 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4; Goal 6: Climate Change, Adaptation & Resiliency,
Objective 6.5; and Goal 9: Park Operations & Administration Objectives 9.1 and 9.2.
Estimated Cost: $500,000
Construction (R19) — Creek Restoration
2024
$120,000
2025 2026
$380,000
2027Total
$500,000
Total Expenses
$120,000
$380,000
$500,000
ARPA Funding Transfer
$120,000
$120,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II — Fund 125
$380,000
$380,000
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$120,000
i
$380,000
$500,000
Page 12
Packet Pg. 214
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Yost Park & Pool - R91 R41 R6 & R11
96th Ave W & Bowdoin Way, Yost Park
Project Summary: Future Park enhancements, repair, and maintenance to include a playground replacement,
resurface of tennis/pickleball courts, pool upgrades and trail, bridge, and boardwalk repairs / replacement. The
playground at Yost Park installed in 1995, is 27 years old, has reached the end of its lifecycle, is not ADA accessible
and is scheduled to be replaced in 2025.
Project Justification: To maintain safety amenities should be repaired and/or replaced as supported in the 2022 Parks,
Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan Recommendation 3.1 which is to maintain, renovate or replace aging or
damaged infrastructure in existing City properties to ensure public accessibility, use and safety and Recommendation
3.4 replace the playgrounds at... Yost Memorial Park. In addition, this work is supported by PROS Plan Goal 1, Objective
1.1 and 1.4; Goal 3, Objective 3.6, 3.8 and 3.9; Goal 4, Objective 4.4, Goal 5, Objective 5.4; Goal 6, Objective 6.5; Goal
9, Objective 9.1 and Recommendation 3.10 and 6.2 for a total of 4 Recommendations, 6 Goals and 9 Objectives.
Estimated Cost: $1,450,700
Construction (M) — Bridge repairs
$80,000
$80,000
Construction (R6) — Playground Replacement
$750,000
$750,000
Construction (R9)—Tennis Court Resurface
$74,300
$74,300
Construction (R11) — Pool Upgrades
$546,400
$546,400
Total Expenses
$154,300
$1,296,400
1,450,700
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$154,300
$1,296,400
1,450,700
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$154,300
i
1 $1,296,400
1,450,700
Page 13
Packet Pg. 215
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Olympic Beach Park - R7
—.JV
a.
200 Admiral Way, Entrance of the Fishing Pier
Project Summary: Renovation of existing restroom and Visitor Center.
Project Justification: This work is supported by 3 Recommendations, 3 Goals and 3 Objectives in the 2022 Parks,
Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Recommendation 6.3 is to replace or renovate restrooms at Olympic Beach,
Seaview Park and Brackett's Landing North. PROS Plan Goal 3, Objective 3.8; Goal 4, Objective 4.1; Goal 9, Objective
9.1 and Recommendation 6.3 also align with these upgrades.
Estimated Cost: $53,000
Planning (R7) — Restroom Renovation
$20,000
$20,000
Construction (R7) — Restroom Renovation
$33,000
$33,000
Total Expenses
$20,000
$33,000
$53,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$20,000
$33,000
$53,000
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$20,000
so
$33,000
$0
$53,000
$1
Page 14
Packet Pg. 216
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
D20: Woodway Campus Athletic Complex Phase I Lighting
23200 1001h Ave. W
Project Summary: This project consists of two components: Phase I lighting addition, Phase II renovation of
existing underdeveloped athletic field and would be coordinated with the property owner, Edmonds School
District.
Project Justification: By adding lighting to the renovated Phase I year-round field, usage of the multi -use facility
would significantly increase. Phase II would renovate a currently poorly maintained and underutilized large
athletic field to provide community significantly more multi -sport use of an existing facility. This Athletic Complex
serves a densely populated area of more than 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance costs
could be offset by user fees. Phase I without lighting installation was completed in 2015 for $4.2M, Phase II
estimated at $6-8M with funding and timing undetermined. This partnership improvement is supported by a
Recommendation, 2 Goals and 5 Objectives in the 2022 PROS Plan including Recommendation 3.2 "expand
partnerships and agreements with Edmonds School District ... to provide public access and opportunities for
outdoor recreation". And PROS Plan Goal 3, Objectives 3.3, 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11; and Goal 9, Objective 9.4.
Estimated Cost: Phase I Lighting: $1,500,000; Phase II: $6 — 8M
Construction (D20) - Lighting
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
Total Expenses
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
Park Impact Fees — Fund 332-100
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$0
($1,500,000)
$0
($1,500,000)
Page 15
Packet Pg. 217
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Neighborhood Park SE 1— P2, D13
Project Summary: Acquire and develop an additional neighborhood park in the SE Edmonds area to address an
existing gap in park services and inequities in parkland distribution. Once an acquisition has been authorized (see
Land Acquisition Section for details) a Master Plan will be developed in collaboration with the surrounding
community. Development of the park will be based on the Master Plan.
Project Justification: The addition of a new park is supported by 2 Recommendations, 3 Goals and 11 Objectives in
the 2022 Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Recommendation 1 is to fill the park system gaps, 1.1
Acquire property for neighborhood parks in underserved areas such as the south Edmonds area and the SR 99 corridor.
PROS Plan Goal 1, Objective 1.1; Goal 2, Objectives 2.1 and 2.3, Goal 3, Objectives 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 and
3.10 and Recommendation 6.2 also align with the development of a new park.
Estimated Cost: $899,100 + Parkland Acquisition
Planning— Neighborhood Park SE 1 (P2)
$79,600
2029 Total
$79,600
Construction — Neighborhood Park SE 1 (D13)
$819,500
$819,500
Total Expenses
$79,600 $819,500
$899,100
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$79,600
$79,600
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$79,600
$0 00
$79,600
00
*Project is both in Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
Page 16
Packet Pg. 218
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Sierra Park — R8
81st Ave W & 190th St SW
Project Summary: Replacement of the playground and fall surfacing at Sierra Park. The playground is 27 years old and
is currently the smallest and most limited playground in the park system. The new playground is intended to be
inclusive level design.
Project Justification: These improvements are supported by 2 Recommendations, 3 Goals and 3 Objectives in the
2022 Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Recommendation 3.4 is to replace the playgrounds at
Maplewood Hill Park, Sierra Park and Yost Memorial Park. PROS Plan Goal 1, Objective 1.1; Goal 3, Objective 3.8, Goal
9, Objective 9.1 and Recommendation 3.1 also align with these improvements.
Estimated Cost: $415,000
*Project is both in Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
Page 17
Packet Pg. 219
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Pine Street Park - D10, D11 & D12
6th and Pine Street
Project Summary: Park improvements to include the addition of a small shelter with picnic tables, canopy shade trees
and a paved interior connecting pathway.
Project Justification: These improvements are supported by 2 Recommendations, 2 Goals and 2 Objectives in the
2022 Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Recommendation 3.5 is to add amenities to existing parks, such
as picnic shelters to Mathay Ballinger Park, Elm Street Park and Pine Street Park and paved pathway connections in
Mathay Ballinger Park and Pine Street Park. PROS Plan Goal 3, Objective 3.8; Goal 9, Objective 9.1 and
Recommendation 6.2 also align with these improvements.
Estimated Cost: $164,400
Planning (D10, 11, 12)
$40,000
2028 2029
Total
$40,000
Construction (D10) — Shelter w/Picnic Tables
$59,600
$59,600
Construction (D11) — Paved Pathway
$38,300
$38,300
Construction (D12) — Canopy Shade Trees
$26,500
$26,500
Total Expenses
$40,000
$124,400
$164,400
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$40,000
$124,400
$164,400
Total Revenue
$40,000
1 $124,400
$164,400
Page 18
Packet Pg. 220
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Maplewood Hill Park — R12
19800 89th PI W
Project Summary: Replacement of the existing playground installed in 1985. This playground is 38 years old and is
the oldest in the park system.
Project Justification: This improvement is supported by 2 Recommendations, 3 Goals and 3 Objectives in the 2022
Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Recommendation 3.4 is to replace the playgrounds at Maplewood Hill
Park, Sierra Park and Yost Memorial Park. PROS Plan Goal 1, Objective 1.1; Goal 3, Objective 3.8; Goal 9, Objective 9.1
and Recommendation 3.1 also align with this improvement.
Estimated Cost: $347,800
Page 19
Packet Pg. 221
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Neighborhood Park SR 99 — P6 & D15
Project Summary: Design and development of an additional neighborhood park in the SR 99 area to address an
existing gap in park services and inequities in parkland distribution. Once an acquisition has been authorized (see
Land Acquisition Section for details) a Master Plan will be developed in collaboration with the surrounding
community. Development of the park will be based on the Master Plan.
Project Justification: The addition of a new park is supported by 2 Recommendations, 3 Goals and 11 Objectives in
the 2022 Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Recommendation 1 is to fill the park system gaps, 1.1
Acquire property for neighborhood parks in underserved areas such as the south Edmonds area and the SR 99 corridor.
PROS Plan Goal 1, Objective 1.1; Goal 2, Objectives 2.1 and 2.3, Goal 3, Objectives 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 and
3.10 and Recommendation 6.2 also align with the development of a new park.
Estimated Cost: $926,100 + Parkland Acquisition
Planning— Neighborhood Park SR99 (P6)
$82,000
$82,000
Construction — Neighborhood Park SR 99 (D15)
$844,100
$844,100
Total Expenses
F7
$82,000 $844,100
$926,100
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$82,000
$82,000
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$82,000
$0 00
$82,000
00
*Project is both in Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
Page 20
Packet Pg. 222
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Johnson Property - P5
9309 Bowdoin Way
Project Summary: This project is to design a master plan for this 1-acre property donated by Shirley Johnson in 2021.
The house and outbuildings were removed in 2023. The site includes historic fruit and nut trees which have all been
neglected for years. The master planning process uses a combination of park system -wide goals (PROS Plan), property
opportunities and constraints and community input on future design and usage for the space and provides supporting
documentation for potential grants for future improvements.
Project Justification: This project is supported by 1 Recommendation, 5 Goals and 11 Objectives of the 2022 Parks,
Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Recommendation 3.1 — Maintain, renovate, or replace aging or damaged
infrastructure in existing City properties to ensure public accessibility, use and safety. PROS Plan Goal 1, Objective 1.1;
Goal 3, Objective 3.7, 3.8 and 3.10; Goal 5, Objective 5.1; Goal 6, Objectives 6.1, 6.4 and 6.5; Goal 9, Objectives 9.1,
9.3 and 9.5 also align with this project.
Estimated Cost: $82,000
024
Planning & Design (P5)
$82,000
$82,000
Total Expenses
$82,000
$82,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$82,000
$82,000
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$82,000
$0
$82,000
$0
Page 21
Packet Pg. 223
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Parks & Facilities Maintenance Building - P1 & D2
600 3rd Avenue South, City Park
Project Summary: Replacement of 40+year old Parks and Facilities Maintenance building and renovation of the yard
area in City Park. Currently undersized to accommodate staff, vehicles and equipment, mechanical work spaces and
employee facilities and the facility is reaching the end of its useful life.
Project Justification: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this existing facility and need additional work
areas and fixed equipment storage in order to more efficiently maintain City parks and Capital facilities. The city's
small equipment repair garage is used as the Park Maintenance locker room, daily meeting room, computer access
(two for 17 FTEs) and work preparation space. It is insufficient for work efficiency and creates a conflicting work space
of small machinery repair and gathering space. This project is supported by 1 Goals, 3 Objectives in the 2022 Parks,
Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. PROS Plan Goal 9, Objectives 9.1, 9.3 and 9.9 align with this project.
Estimated Cost: $5,762,600
Planning & Design (P1)
$1,125,500
$1,125,500
Construction (D2)
$4,637,100
$4,637,100
Total Expenses
$1,125,500
$4,637,100
$5,762,600
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
Park Impact Fees — Fund 332-100
Bond Proceeds
Operating Contribution — General Fund
Park Donations
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
00
00
.00
*Project is both in Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
Page 22
Packet Pg. 224
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Columbarium Expansion Phase II — D8
820 15th St SW, Edmonds Memorial Cemetery
Project Summary: Expansion of the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery Columbarium. Funding provided through the
Cemetery Trust Fund 137 which accumulates fund balance based on Cemetery usage and revenue generated.
Project Justification: As the existing columbarium continues to fill up, it is appropriate to begin planning for the Phase
II expansion. The design is complete and since it is continuation of phase improvements, could be relatively simple to
implement.
Estimated Cost: $159,100
Page 23
Packet Pg. 225
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Waterfront Walkway Completion — Ebb Tide Section - P3 & D14
Beachfront in front of Ebb Tide Condominiums (200 Beach Place)
Project Summary: This improvement would provide a continuous ADA accessible waterfront walkway from Brackett's
Landing North to Marina Beach Park ensuring all individuals, including those with mobility challenges and those using
wheeled carriers can safely enjoy the waterfront. The final missing piece is a constructed pathway beach side of the
Ebb Tide condominiums in the easement owned by the City of Edmonds.
Project Justification: To provide public ADA access along the waterfront for all individuals. Completion of the walkway
would meet ADA requirements, support efforts to keep dogs off of the beaches and was recognized as a high priority
by residents participating in the development of the 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan. This project is
supported by 1 Recommendation, 3 Goals and 5 Objectives in the PROS Plan. Recommendation 6.2 is to implement
upgrades and improvements to park facilities to conform with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and ensure
universal accessibility to include required parking, providing ramped entrances and site furnishings. PROS Plan Goal 3,
Objective 3.8; Goal 4, Objectives 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4, Goal 6, Objective 6.7 also align with this project.
Estimated Cost: $1,334,500
Planning & Design
$515,000
$515,000
Construction
$819,500 $819,500
Total Expenses
$515,000
$819,500 $1,334,500
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$515,000
$515,000
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$515,000
$515,000
ii ii
Page 24
Packet Pg. 226
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Neighborhood Park SE 2 — P7, D18
f 11
Project Summary: Design and development of an additional neighborhood park in the SE Edmonds area to address
an existing gap in park services and inequities in parkland distribution. Once an acquisition (see Land Acquisition
Section for details) has been authorized a Master Plan will be developed in collaboration with the surrounding
community. Development of the park will be based on the Master Plan.
Project Justification: The addition of a new park is supported by 2 Recommendations, 3 Goals and 11 Objectives in
the 2022 Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Recommendation 1 is to fill the park system gaps, 1.1
Acquire property for neighborhood parks in underserved areas such as the south Edmonds area and the SR 99 corridor.
PROS Plan Goal 1, Objective 1.1; Goal 2, Objectives 2.1 and 2.3, Goal 3, Objectives 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 and
3.10 and Recommendation 6.2 also align with the development of a new park.
Estimated Cost: $953,900 + Parkland Acquisition
*Project is both in Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
Page 25
Packet Pg. 227
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Seaview Park Restroom — R16
80th Ave W & 186th St SW
Project Summary: Improvements to include renovation or replacement of the permanent restroom to provide ADA
compliant facilities.
Project Justification: These improvements are supported by 3 Recommendations, 2 Goals and 2 Objectives in the
2022 Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Recommendation 6 is to make improvements to existing parks
as needed to ensure proper maintenance, usability and quality of park features and grounds to remove barriers and
improve universal access. Recommendation 6.3 is to replace or renovate restrooms at Olympic Beach, Seaview Park
and Brackett's Landing North. PROS Plan Goal 3, Objective 3.8; Goal 9, Objective 9.1 and Recommendations 3.1 and
6.2 also align with these improvements.
Estimated Cost: $417,900
Construction (R16) — Restroom Replacement $417,900 $417,900
Total Expenses
$417,900
$417,900
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$417,900
$417,900
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$417,900
$0
$417,900
$0
Page 26
Packet Pg. 228
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Elm Street Park - D161 D17 & R14
7th & Elm Street
Project Summary: Park enhancements to include the addition of a nature playground, small shelter with picnic tables
and habitat restoration.
Project Justification: These improvements are supported by 2 Recommendations, 2 Goals and 2 Objectives in the
2022 Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Recommendation 3.1 is to add amenities to existing parks, such
as picnic shelters to Mathay Ballinger Park, Elm Street Park and Pine Street Park. PROS Plan Goal 6, Objective 6.5; Goal
9, Objective 9.1; and Recommendation 3.5 also align with these improvements.
Estimated Cost: $440,370
Planning (R14, D16, D17)
$100,000
$100,000
Construction (R14) — Habitat Restoration
$56,300
$56,300
Construction (D16) — Nature Playground
$199,670
$199,670
Construction (D17) — Shelter w/Picnic Tables
$84,400
$84,400
Total Expenses
$100,000
$340,370
$440,370
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$100,000
$284,070
$384,070
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$100,000
i
$284,070
i0
$384,070
0i
Page 27
Packet Pg. 229
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Yost Pool Replacement — R15
96th Ave W & Bowdoin Way, Yost Park
Project Summary: Yost Pool was built nearly 50 years ago and continues to provide recreational opportunities for
many residents and visitors. In addition to teaching youth lifesaving water safety, the pool serves as an opportunity
for community members of all ages to lead healthy and active lifestyles. Funding for this project has not been
identified and would likely require voter approval.
Project Justification: Replacing Yost Pool is supported by 4 Recommendations, 4 Goals and 6 Objectives in the 2022
Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Recommendation 4 is to replace Yost Pool. PROS Plan Goal 1,
Objective 1.1; Goal 3, Objective 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9; Goal 7, Objective 7.4; Goal 9, Objective 9.1 and Recommendations
3.1, 4.1, 4.2 and 6.2 also align with this replacement.
Estimated Cost: $23,881,000
Planning & Construction (1115)
2028
2029
$23,881,000
Total
$23,881,000
Total Expenses
$23,881,000
$23,881,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
Fund 332 Balance + Park Impact Fees
Secured Grants
Bonds
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$0
000($23,88,100011
$0
*Project is both in Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
Page 28
Packet Pg. 230
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Meadowdale Playfields - R3
168th ST SW, Lynnwood
Project Summary: Currently identifying potential budget allocation for shared improvements and related
expenditures dependent upon pending Interlocal Agreement negotiations.
Project Justification: The cities of Lynnwood and Edmonds and Edmonds School District currently have an Interlocal
Agreement (ILA) for Meadowdale Park for shared cost of capital improvements, renovations, and ongoing
maintenance. This work is supported by 2 Recommendations, 3 Goals and 5 Objectives of the 2022 Parks, Recreation
and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Recommendation 1.2 — Expand partnerships and agreements with the Edmonds School
District, Snohomish County, and other nearby jurisdictions (cities of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Woodway, and
Shoreline) to improve public access and opportunities for outdoor recreation and Recommendation 6.2 - Implement
upgrades and improvements to park facilities to conform with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and ensure
universal accessibility to include required parking, providing ramped entrances and site furnishings. PROS Plan Goal 2,
Objective 2.6; Goal 3, Objective 3.8, 3.10 and 3.11 and Goal 7, Objective 7.2 also align with this work.
Estimated Cost: TBD, negotiations are ongoing with the City of Lynnwood.
Construction (R3)
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Total Expenses
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Ending Fund Balance/Impact Fees - 332
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Total Revenue
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
i
TBD
i
TBD
TBD
Page 29
Packet Pg. 231
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Edmonds Marsh -Estuary Expansion & Restoration - Al, P4, D9 & D1
Edmonds Marsh - City of Edmonds Marsh, Marina Beach Park and property owned by Unocal (Chevron)
Project Summary: Reconnect the Puget Sound with the Edmonds Marsh near -shore estuary by restoring the natural
tidal exchange. This project will impact the existing Marina Beach Park and its proposed renovation including
daylighting of Willow Creek within the park and the Edmonds Marsh. In addition, this project encompasses the
possible acquisition or use of the adjacent 21-acre parcel known as the Unocal property to support a larger estuary
restoration project. Once acquired, an integrated restoration plan can be developed to restore functioning conditions
of the tidal wetland for salmon recovery, wildlife conservation and improved public access for recreational use,
environmental education and wildlife viewing.
Project Justification: The marsh estuary restoration project will allow for and provide a natural tidal exchange, allow
salmon to again migrate into Willow Creek, support migratory birds and waterfowl, provide a natural redistribution
of saltwater -freshwater flora and fauna and address sea level rise impacts. This project is supported by 3
Recommendations, 5 Goals and 8 Objectives in the 2022 Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan.
Recommendation 2.2 — Expand the Edmonds Marsh/Estuary to include the Unocal property. Develop funding strategy
for purchase of the Unocal property or negotiate with the State of Washington to have the property become part of
the Edmonds Marsh/Estuary. PROS Plan Goal 1, Objective 1.1; Goal 4, Objective 4.3; Goal 5, Objectives 5.1, 5.3 and
5.4; Goal 6, Objective 6.5 and 6.7; Goal 9, Objective 9.1; Recommendation 2.1 and 3.11 also align with this project.
Estimated Cost: TBD Acquisition and Planning + Restoration + Marina Beach Park renovation
Continued on next page.
Page 30
Packet Pg. 232
8.1.b
Edmonds Marsh -Estuary Expansion & Restoration— continued.
.
2027
2028
2029
Total
Land Acquisition (Al)
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Master Plan (P4)
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Master Plan Implementation (D9)
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Restoration (D1) -TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Total Expenses
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
Real Estate Excise Tax I — Fund 126
Fund 332 Balance + Park Impact Fees
Bond Proceeds
Secured Grants
Tree Fund 143 — Land Acquisition
Park Donations
Operating Contribution — General Fund
Stormwater — Fund 422
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBID
Project Accounting #M070
*Project is both in Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
Expense estimates and funding sources changed to TBD per Council direction December 2022.
Page 31
Packet Pg. 233
2024-2029
Parks Capital Improvement & Capital Facilities Plan
PROGRAMS
EDMONDS
PARKS, RECREATION & HUMAN SERVICES
Page 32
Packet Pg. 234
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Citywide Park Improvements / Capital Replacement Program - R17
�4-
rm a
Project Summary: The 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) plan identified a significant list of deferred park
maintenance projects. With the addition of a Parks Capital Project Manager, hired in 2022 and the Job Order
Contracting program, the Parks Department will continue to make progress on the numerous system -wide repairs,
renovations and replacements of an aging parks infrastructure.
Project Justification: Insufficiently maintained parks and related assets lead to higher deferred maintenance costs,
increased City liability and decreased level of service and community satisfaction. This program is supported by 5
Recommendations, 6 Goals and 21 Objectives in the 2022 Parks, Recreation and Opens Space (PROS) Plan.
Recommendation 3.1 is to Maintain, renovate, or replace aging or damaged infrastructure in existing City properties
to ensure public accessibility, use and safety. PROS Plan Goal 2, Objectives 2.1 and 2.3; Goal 3, Objectives 3.6, 3.7, 3.8
and 3.9; Goal 4, Objectives 4.1, 4.2, 4.4; Goal 5, Objective 5.1, 5.3, and 5.4; Goal 6, Objective 6.1, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.7;
Goal 9, Objective 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 and 9.9 and Recommendations 3.7, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 also align with this program.
Estimated Cost: $2,700,000 (6-year total)
024
2025
Repair & Maintenance $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,800,000
Professional Services $150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$900,000
Total Expenses $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $2,700,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000
$450,000 $450,000 $2,700,000
Total Revenue $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $2,700,000
Unsecured Funding i i i
Page 33
Packet Pg. 235
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Signage & Wayfinding — R10
• VIEWPOINT PLAY STRUCTURE
NATURAL AREA&DOG WALK
PARIIOPE.N DAWN TO DUSK
Project Summary: Update park and recreation facilities signage system -wide to include uniform and accurate trail
identification information, orientation markers, safety and regulatory messaging, park hours, park rules and etiquette,
interpretive information and warning signs.
Project Justification: A comprehensive and consistent signage system is necessary to inform, orient and educate park
users. This program is supported by 2 Recommendations, 4 Goals and 6 Objectives in the 2022 Parks, Recreation and
Opens Space (PROS) plan. Recommendation 6.5 is to develop and provide consistent graphics and citywide signage to
improve communication on access, usability and "branding" of the city's park and open space system. PROS Plan Goal
2, Objectives 2.1 and 2.3; Goal 3, Objective 3.6; Goal 5, Objectives 5.3 and 5.4; Goal 9, Objective 9.1 and
Recommendation 6.2 also align with this program.
Estimated Cost: $75,000
Page 34
Packet Pg. 236
tl��
is#
2024-2029
Parks Capital Improvement & Capital Facilities Plan
PARKLAND
ACQUISITION
EDMONDS
PARKS, RECREATION & HUMAN SERVICES
Page 35
Packet Pg. 237
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Parkland Acquisition — Neighborhood Park SE 1, SR 99 & SE 2 - A2, A3 & A4
Project Summary: Acquisition of parkland that will benefit citizens and support the priorities identified in the PROS
Plan. Currently, $1,100,000 is reserved for parkland and open space acquisition. These funds were accumulated from
2019 through 2023. There is no specific request to purchase a particular parcel as opportunities are somewhat limited
in a mostly built -out city, but staff continues to search for, develop and negotiate opportunities.
Project Justification: Parkland Acquisitions are supported by 1 Recommendation, 2 Goals and 5 Objectives (land
purchase only, see previous projects for development) in the 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan.
Recommendation 1 is to fill the park system gaps, 1.1 Acquire property for neighborhood parks in underserved areas
such as the south Edmonds area and the SR 99 corridor. PROS Plan Goal 2, Objective 2.1; Goal 3, Objective 3.1, 3.2,
3.3 and 3.9 also align with the acquisition of parkland.
Estimated Cost: $5,230,500
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Acquisition — Neighborhood Park SE 1 (A2)
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
Acquisition — Neighborhood Park SR99 (A3)
$1,545,000
$1,545,000
Acquisition — Neighborhood Park SE 2 (A4)
$2,185,500
$2,185,500
Total Expenses
$1,500,000
$1,545,000 $2,185,500
$5,230,500
Real Estate Excise Tax I - Fund 126
$1,300,000
$200,000 $200,000
$1,700,000
Tree Fund 143 - land acquisition - TBD
Total Revenue
$1,300,000
$200,000 $200,000
$1,700,000
*Project is both in Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
Page 36
Packet Pg. 238
8.1.b
Parks & Recreation
Interurban Trail Expansion — A5
24100 78th Place West
Project Summary: Acquisition of additional lands, easements and/or right-of-ways to continue the Interurban Trail,
including more off -road segments.
Project Justification: This Expansion is supported by 3 Recommendations, 2 Goals and 6 Objectives in the 2022
Parks, Recreation and Opens Space (PROS) Plan. Recommendation 5 is to improve trail connections including
sidewalks and bike lanes to help link destinations across the community. Recommendation 5.1 suggests the City
peruse opportunities to acquire additional lands, easements and/or right of way to continue the Interurban Trail. Goal
2, Objective 2.1; Goal 3, Objective 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 and Recommendations 1.1 and 5.2 also align with this
expansion.
Estimated Cost: $895,585
Land Acquisition — Park Facilities (A5) $895,585 $895,585
Total Expenses $895,585 $895,585
Real Estate Excise Tax I - Fund 126
Tree Fund 143 - Land Acquisition
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding ($895,585) ($895,585)
Page 37
Packet Pg. 239
2024-2029
Parks Capital Improvement & Capital Facilities Plan
FUND DETAIL
EDMONDS
PARKS, RECREATION & HUMAN SERVICES
Page 38
Packet Pg. 240
Fund 332
8.1.b
Costs inflated at 3% per year
Fund 332 Expenditures
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Total
D9
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration (Master Plan Implementation)
$
D1
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration (Restoration)
$ -
R14
Elm Street Park Habitat Restoration
$ 56,300
$ 56,300
D6
Mathay Ballinger Park Permanent Restrooms
$ 100,000
$ -
R3
Meadowdale Playfields (Renovations, City of Lynnwood ILA)
$ -
D13
Neighborhood Park - SE1 (Park Development)
$ 819,500
$ 819,500
D15
Neighborhood Park - SR99 (Park Development)
$ 844,100
$ 844,100
D18
Neighborhood Park - SE2 (Park Development)
$ 869,500
$ 869,500
R15
Pool Replacement
$ 23,881,000
$ 23,881,000
P1
Parks Facilities M&O Building (Design)
$ 1,125,500
$ 1,125,500
D2
Parks Facilities M&O Building (Construction)
$ 4,637,100
$ 4,637,100
R19
Shell Creek Restoration (Yost Park)
$ 120,000
$ 120,000
D14
Waterfront Walkway (Construction)
$ 819,500
$ 819,500
D20
Woodway Campus Athletic Complex - Phase I - Lighting
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
Interfund Services
$ 68,000
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
$ 150,000
Debt Service Civic Park $1.6M (2021)
$ 98,000
$ 98,000
$ 98,000
$ 98,000
$ 98,000
$ 98,0001
$ 98,0001
$ 588,000
(C) TOTAL Fund 332 Expenditures
$ 266,000
1 $ 243,000
$ 1,623,000
$ 2,068,000
$ 5,604,200
$ 992,5001
$24,879,800
1 $35,410,500
Fund 332 Revenue
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Total
Park Impact Fees (Fund 332-100)
$ 682,681
$ 300,000
$ 300,000
$ 300,000
$ 300,000
$ 300,000
$ 300,000
$ 1,800,000
Investment Interest (3%)
$ 6,230
$ 18,918
$ 24,795
$ 30,849
$ 37,085
$ 43,507
$ 50,122
$ 205,277
Miscellaneous Park Donations
$ -
Bond Proceeds
$ -
ARPA Transfer - Shell Creek Restoration (Study)
$ 120,000
$ 120,000
Unsecured Funding - Woodway Campus Athletic Complex Phase 1
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
Unsecured Grants - Marsh Estuary Restoration
$ -
Unsecured Grants - Elm Street Park Habitat Restoration
$ 56,300
$ 56,300
Unsecured Grants - Neighborhood Park SE 1 (Development)
$ 819,500
$ 819,500
Unsecured Grants - Neighborhood Park SR99 (Development)
$ 844,100
$ 844,100
Unsecured Grants - Neighborhood Park SE 2 (Development)
$ 869,500
$ 869,500
Unsecured Funding (Bonds, Levy, Misc.) Pool Replacement
$ 23,881,000
$ 23,881,000
Unsecured Funding Park Facilities M&O Building
$ 1,125,500
$ 4,637,100
$ 5,762,600
Unsecured Grants - Waterfront Walkway (Construction)
$ 819,500
$ 819,500
(D) TOTAL Fund 332 Revenue
$ 688,911
$ 438,918
$ 1,824,795
$ 2,275,849
$ 5,818,285
$ 1,213,007
$25,106,922
$36,677,777
R
.r
R
U
O
N
O
N
4
N
O
N
13
d
O
Q
O
L
a
C
fLf
N
2
v
7
a
LL
a
LL
U
a_
U
i
R
a
V
N
O
N
a
Page 39
Packet Pg. 241
Fund 332
8.1.b
Fund 332 Parks Fund 6-Year Overview
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
(E) Beginning Fund Balance (332 + 332-100)
$ 207,683
$ 630,594
$ 826,512
$ 1,028,308
$ 1,236,157
$ 1,450,242
$ 1,670,749
(D) Revenue
$ 688,911
$ 438,918
$ 1,824,795
$ 2,275,849
$ 5,818,285
$ 1,213,007
$ 25,106,922
(C) Expenditures
$ 266,000
$ 243,000
$ 1,623,000
$ 2,068,000
$ 5,604,200
$ 992,500
$ 24,879,800
(G) Ending Fund Balance (E+D-C)
$ 630,594
$ 826,512
$ 1,028,308
$ 1,236,157
$ 1,450,242
$ 1,670,749
$ 1,897,871
Project Type:
A Acquisition
P Master Planning
D Development - New
R Replacement/Upgrade
Page 40
Packet Pg. 242
REET II Fund 125
8.1.b
Costs inflated at 3% per year
REET II(Fund 125)Expenditures
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Total
P4
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration (Master Plan)
$ -
D16
Elm Street Park (Nature Playground)
$ 100,000
$ 199,670
$ 299,670
D17
Elm Street Park (Shelter w/Picnic Tables)
$ 84,400
$ 84,400
R2
Johnson Property (Demo & Secure Site)
$
P5
lJohnson Property (Master Plan)
$ 82,000
$ 82,000
R12
Maplewood Hill Park (Playground Replacement)
$ 347,800
$ 347,800
D5
Mathay Ballinger Park (Paved Loop Pathway)
$
D7
Mathay Ballinger Park (Shelter w/Picnic Tables)
$ -
D6
Mathay Ballinger Park Permanent Restrooms
$ 271,300
$ 271,300
D19
Mountlake Terrace ILA (Lake Ballinger Park)*
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
P2
Neighborhood Park - SE1 (Master Plan)
$ 79,600
$ 79,600
P6
Neighborhood Park - SR99 (Master Plan)
$ 82,000
$ 82,000
P7
Neighborhood Park - SE2 (Master Plan)
$ 84,400
$ 84,400
R7
Olympic Beach Park (Restroom Upgrade)
$ 20,000
$ 33,000
$ 53,000
D10
Pine Street Park (Shelter w/Picnic Tables)
$ 20,000
$ 59,600
$ 79,600
D11
Pine Street Park (Paved Connecting Pathway)
$ 20,000
$ 38,300
$ 58,300
D12
Pine Street Park (Canopy Shade Trees)
$ 26,500
$ 26,500
R16
Seaview Park (Restroom Replacement)
$ 417,900
$ 417,900
R19
Shell Creek Restoration (Yost Park)
$ 380,000
$ 380,000
R8
Sierra Park (Playground Replacement)
$ 415,000
$ 415,000
P3
Waterfront Walkway Design Completion
$ 515,000
$ 515,000
R11
Yost Pool Upgrades & Renovation
$ 546,400
$ 546,400
R9
Yost Park (Tennis Court Resurface)
$ 74,300
$ 74,300
R4
Yost Park (Trail, Bridge & Boardwalk Repairs)
$ 80,000
$ 80,000
R6
Yost Park (Playground Replacement - Inclusive)
$ 750,000
$ 750,000
R10
lSignage and Wayfinding
$ 75,000
$ 75,000
R17
ICitywide Park Improvements / Capital Replacement Program
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 2,700,000
(C) TOTAL PARKS REET II (Fund 125) Expenditures
$ 1,150,600
$ 2,266,000
$ 1,186,400
$ 882,200
$ 1,482,900
$ 734,070
$ 7,702,170
REET II(Fund 125)Revenue
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Total
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) II - Fund 125
$ 2,000,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 9,500,000
(D) TOTAL PARKS REET I (Fund 126) Revenue
$ 2,000,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 9,500,000
REET II (Fund 125) Parks Fund 6-Year Overview
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
(E) Beginning Fund Balance
$ 1,222,000
$
2,071,400
$
1,305,400
$
1,619,000
$ 2,236,800
$
2,253,900
(D) Revenue
$ 2,000,000
$
1,500,000
$
1,500,000
$
1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$
1,500,000
(C) Expenditures
$ 1,150,600
$
2,266,000
$
1,186,400
$
882,200
$ 1,482,900
$
734,070
(G) Ending Fund Balance (E+D-C)
$ 2,071,400
$
1,305,400
$
1,619,000
$
2,236,800
$ 2,253,900
$
3,019,830
*Project added via Council amendment in 2023 Page 41 Packet Pg. 243
REET I Fund 126
8.1.b
Costs inflated at 3% per year
REET I (Fund 126) Expenditures
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Total
Al
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration (Acquisition)
$ -
A5
Interurban Trail (Expansion/Acquisition)
$ 895,585
$ 895,585
A2
Neighborhood Park - SE1 (Acquisition)
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
A3
Neighborhood Park - SR99 (Acquisition)
$ 1,545,000
$ 1,545,000
A4
Neighborhood Park - SE2 (Acquisition)
$ 2,185,500
$ 2,185,500
Land Acquisition Services
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
$ 300,000
(C) TOTAL PARKS REET I (Fund 126) Expenditures
$ 1,550,000
$ 1,595,000
$ 2,235,500
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
$ 945,585
$ 6,426,085
REET I(Fund 126)Revenue
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Total
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) I - Fund 126
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 1,200,000
(D) TOTAL PARKS REET I (Fund 126) Revenue
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 1,200,000
REET I (Fund 126) Parks Fund 6-Year Overview
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
(E) Beginning Fund Balance
$ 872,136
$ (477,864)
$ (1,872,864)
$ (3,908,364)
$ (3,758,364)
$ (3,608,364)
(D) Revenue
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
(C) Expenditures
$ 1,550,000
$ 1,595,000
$ 2,235,500
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
$ 945,585
(G) Ending Fund Balance (E+D-C)
$ (477,864)
$ (1,872,864)
$ (3,908,364)
$ (3,758,364)
$ (3,608,364)
$ (4,353,949)
R
U
N
0
N
N
0
N
d
N
O
Q
O
L
a
C
to
N
2
2
O
a
H
ur
IL
u_
U
a_
U
N
i
R
a
v
N
O
N
a
Page 42
Packet Pg. 244
CEMETERY Trust Fund 137
8.1.b
Costs inflated at 3% per year
CEMETERY Trust (Fund 137) Expenditures
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Total
D8
lColumbariurn Expansion -Phase II
$ 159,100
$ 159,100
Repair & Maintenance
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
$ 125,000
(C) TOTAL CEMETERY Trust(Fund 137) Expenditures
$ 25,000
$ 184,100
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
$ 284,100
CEMETERY Trust (Fund 137) Revenue
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Total
Cemetery Trust - Fund 137 Investment Interest (@5%)
$ 62,673
$ 65,306
$ 60,117
$ 62,623
$ 65,254
$ 68,016
$ 315,972
F
I Cemetery Trust - Fund 137 Sales Revenue
$ 15,000
$ 15,000
$ 15,000
$ 15,000
$ 15,000
$ 15,000
$ 90,000
(D) TOTAL CEMETERY Trust (Fund 137) Revenue
$ 77,673
$ 80,306
$ 75,117
$ 77,623
$ 80,254
$ 83,016
$ 405,972
CEMETERY Trust (Fund 137) 6-Year Overview
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
(E) Beginning Fund Balance
$ 1,253,456
$ 1,306,129
$ 1,202,335
$ 1,252,452
$ 1,305,075
$ 1,360,328
(D)Revenue
$ 77,673
$ 80,306
$ 75,117
$ 77,623
$ 80,254
$ 83,016
(C)Expenditures
$ 25,000
$ 184,100
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
(G) Ending Fund Balance (E+D-C)
$ 1,306,129
$ 1,202,335
$ 1,252,452
$ 1,305,075
$ 1,360,328
$ 1,418,345
R
R
U
N
0
N
N
O
N
13
d
O
Q
O
L
a
C
O
N
2
c�
O
a
H
ur
IL
u_
U
a_
U
N
i
R
a
v
N
O
N
a
Page 43
Packet Pg. 245
TREE Fund 143
8.1.b
Costs inflated at 3% per year
TREE (Fund 143)Expenditures
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Total
Park and Open Space Acquisition Program
$
Tree Maintenance - Oak Tree's 5th & Main*
$
(C) TOTAL TREE (Fund 143) Expenditures
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
TREE (Fund 143)Revenue
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Total
Tree - Fund 143
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$ 1,290,000
(D) TOTAL TREE (Fund 143) Revenue
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$ 1,290,000
TREE (Fund 143) 6-Year Overview
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
(E) Beginning Fund Balance
$ 426,065
$
641,065
$ 856,065
$ 1,071,065
$
1,286,065
$ 1,501,065
(D) Revenue
$ 215,000
$
215,000
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$
215,000
$ 215,000
(C) Expenditures
$ -
$
-
$ -
$ -
$
-
$ -
(G) Ending Fund Balance (E+D-C)
$ 641,065
$
856,065
$ 1,071,065
$ 1,286,065
$
1,501,065
$ 1,716,065
*Added via Council Budget Amendment Dec. 2022
Page 44
Packet Pg. 246
8.1.b
CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2024 TO 2029)
PROJECTS ADDED
Type I PROJECT NAME CFP DESCRIPTION
None
CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2024 TO 2029)
PROJECTS REMOVED
Type
PROJECT NAME
CFP
DESCRIPTION
Parks
Lake Ballinger Access (McAleer)
Project completion scheduled in 2023
Parks
Johnson Property Demolition
Demolition to be complete in 2023
Parks
Playground Upgrade Program
Playground upgrades identified each year, no need for additional program
CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2024 TO 2029)
Type
PROJECT NAME
CFP
CHANGE
Parks
Columbarium Expansion - Phase II
Funded through Cemetery Trust Fund 137 - scheduled in 2025 vs. 24
Parks
Elm Street Park Improvements
Separated into planning in 2027 and construction in 2028 vs. 2026
Parks
Interurban Trail Expansion
Moved to 2029 vs. 28
Parks
Johnson Property Master Plan
Removed demolition, master plan scheduled in 2026 vs. 25
Parks
ILake Ballinger Park Mountlake Terrace ILA
ILA completed in 2023; payment due upon construction completion in 2024, carryforward
Parks
Maplewood Hill Park
Playground replacement moved to 2027 vs. 25, significant price increase
Parks
Mathay Ballinger Park Improvements
permanent restroom installation scheduled to take place in 2024, carryforward
Parks
Neighborhood Park SE1, SR99, SE2
X
Master plan and construction of all three parks pushed back one year (must acquire first)
Parks
Olympic Beach Park Improvements
Separated into planning in 2025 and construction in 2026 vs. 24
Parks
Parkland Acquisition/Neighborhood Parks
X
All three bumped back one year to 2024, 2025 and 2026
Parks
Pine Street Park Improvements
Separated into planning in 2025 and construction in 2026 vs. 24
Parks
Seaview Park Improvements
Restroom replacement moved to 2028 vs. 27
Parks
Shell Creek Restoration
Plan carried forward to 2024; restoration in 2025 vs. 24
Parks
Signage and Wayfinding
Price increase to $75K vs. $51,500
Parks
Yost Park & Pool Improvements
I Playground replacement moved to 2025 vs. 23, significant price increase due to topography
Page 45 Packet Pg. 247
8.1.c
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) &
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
F•
City Council— October 3, 2023
.Q
U
N
O
N
le
N
O
N
0
CL
0
L
a
0
CD
•L
0
m
U_
a
Packet Pg. 248
8.1.c
CIP
6-year maintenance 6-year capital
projects w/fundin projects w/
sources funding
sources
OComponents found only in the CIP
OComponents found only in the CFP
O Components found in both the CIP & CFP
CFP
Long-range (20-year)
capital project needs
Packet Pg. 249
8.1.c
Public Works & Utilities
2024-2029 CFP
Combined CFP & CIP Document
• Transportation
• Utilities
• Water
• Stormwater
• Sewer
• Facilities
• Wastewater Treatment Plant
• Comparison to previous year
Packet Pg. 250
8.1.c
Public Works & Utilities CFP & CIP
Citywide Project Maps
PWW-09 P'
1
PWT-a
-PWT-17
P'A'T 24
-05
IT 44
PWT03
PWT 4G
do[
Q
U
N
O
N
le
N
O
N
0
CL
0
L
a
O
CD
•L
m
U_
a
0
C
d
N
d
a
y
Y
O
U_
a
Packet Pg. 251
.Q
U
rn
N
CFP & CIP Format
N
O
oject List
"
a�
Capital
2024 Bu
Pro
Facilities
Decision Pa
Budget
$
Nu
Project
Numb
Amount
a
=
0
a�
D•TOTALTOTAL
PROJECT2024-2029)
x
Preservation / Maintenance Projects
PWT-01
Annual Street Preservation
$1,600,000 $2,400,000
$1,300,000 $2,630,000
$2.630,000
$2,630,000
$13,190,000
$39,450,000
a
$52,64 0
Program
PWT-03
76th Ave. W Overlay from 196th $20,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$20,000
$0
_
$2 10
St. SW to Olympic View Dr.
PWT-04
Main St. Overlay from 6th Ave. to
$789,553
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$789,553
$0
a=i
$78 u) 3
gth Ave.
a
PWT-05
Puget Dr. / OVD Signal Upgrades $0
$0
$0
$90,000
$496,000
$0
$586,000
$0
$58 Y 0
PWT-06
Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave /
$0
$0
$0
$165,000
$773,000
$0
$938,000
$0
L
2!0
$93 0
238th St. SW
3
PWT-07
Main St. / 3rd Signal Upgrades $0
$0
$0
$0
$110,000
$383,000
$493,000
$0
$49 a �0
PWT-61
Olympic View Dr Overlay - 196th / $0 $200,000
$1,300,000
$0
$0
$0
$1,500,000
$0
$1,50 10
SR-524 to Talbot Rd
d
PWT-68
88th Ave Overlay and Sidewalk $150,000 $1,350,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,500,000
$0
$1,50 s 0
Repair
Safety / Capacity Analysis
a
w
a�
E 5
t
c�
a
Packet Pg. 252
8.1.c
Public Works & Utilities CFP & CIP
Project Sheets
Annual pavement preservation program to maintain City streets
Mamtains the City's pavement infrastructure and reduces the need for larger capital investment to rebuild City steers.
bang
5350,000 SI50,000 5150.000 5130,000 5330,000 5130p00 51.950,000
Right of way
Conitruttpn
S1,a50,000 52,250,00a 51,15000a 52,SOD,000 52,SOD,pOa 52,50apW 53],500,000
Ea►e^.e Tmel
$s.Eaaa6a $ir�.aaa $ijmApp 52,11210.ago S2.53q= Skliar M $39MDM
Street Fund 132 -GES tat & hUti
RFET Fund 125
S1100,00D 51150,00[1 565b" 5750,000 S150.— 5)S X. S31.250,000
0.E2t Fund L6
$&10,000 $)50,000 5650,000 51.000 ST5D.000 S150,00D 531.250.0a0
mnsportatbn mipxct Fels
Gere Fund
stonnuvter.. n, Fund A
Federal Grams
Rate Grains
umecved FUMing
590a,00a 51.130,000 51.13a.0a0 51.13p0oa 516.950,000
f..di.9 aewce Ural
S1.600,000 $2,2Yo,000 $1300,000 S2530,000 S2.®U.000 $2,630,OW S39,a50,Ofp
Parks & Recreation
Lake Ballinger Park/Mountlake Terrace ILA —D19
' ! "All
Lake Ballinger Park, City of Mountlake Terrace
Project Summary: Through an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Mountlake Terrace, the City of Edmonds will
support the Construction of the planned improvements in the northwest area of Lake Ballinger Park including a park
entry, pathways and access toLake Ballinger. The project is underway and payment is due upon completion of the
projeR.
Project Justification: This western boundary of the park is Edmonds dry limits and these improvements will provide
better access to Lake Ballinger Park for Edmonds residents. The revenue contribution supports me construction of the
improvements which will benefit the Crty of Edmonds. This project is supported by the 2022 Parks, Recreate n antl
Open Space (PROS) Plan including 3 Recommendations. 1 Goal and 3 Objectives. Recommendation 12 Expand
partnerships and agreements with other nearby jurisdictions. Recommendation 3.6 Explore optronsfor access to Lake
Ballinger with the Cny of Mountlake Terrace to include possible joint development and Consideration of o fishing pier.
Recommendation 52 Repair and improve or extend trails and boardwalks to allow improved public access to natural
areosfor nature/wildlrfe viewing, hiking and outdoor experience. PROS Goal 3, Objec 3.2, 3.6 and 3.11.
Estimated Cost: $200,000
Construction 1019)—IIA 5200.000 5200,000
Tool Fspvc $200,000 $200000
Real Ertate Excise Tax ll-Nadl 125 5200,000 5200,000
Total Revenue $200,000 $200,000
2
Packet Pg. 253
.Q
U
2024 Public Works
Comprehensive Plan
Updates
N
Transportation &
Stormwater/Surface
Water
N
N
O
r.L
FEHR�'PEERS
a
Comprehensive Transportation PLan_
A(Yrnondsme. a �.
O
e o s
STORM AND SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WORK
i
O
d
2
City of Edmonds
PROGRESS
2
-�
yOf EI)4f
a
- - -- --- - - - -
City of Edmonds
Public Works Department/Engineering Division
Y
L
`
O
U
Approved by City Council on
a
July 6, 2010
M
--
rr
C
d
E
-
V
cC
October 2010
T
Q
t
v
R
Q
Packet Pg. 254
8.1.c
Public Works & Utilities —Transportation
2024 Pavement Preservation Projects
• 2024 Pavement Preservation Program ($1.5M)
• Construction - 6 Lane Miles
• 2025 Pavement Preservation Program ($100K)
• Design 2024; Construction 2025
• Main St. Overlay 6t" Ave — 8t" Ave ($790k)
• 2024 Construction
• $750K Federal Grant
• 11 New ADA Ramps
• 88tn Ave Overlay &Sidewalk Repair ($150K)
• Design 2024
• 76th Ave Overlay Close-out ($20k)
76
.Q
U
N
N
N
O
N
0
CL
0
a
0
_
•L
U_
a
K
Packet Pg. 255
8.1.c
Public Works & Utilities
2024 Safety &Capacity Projects
• Hwy 99 Revitalization/Gateway ($114K)
• Hwy 99 Stage 3 2441"St-238t"St ($1.2M)
• Hwy 99 Stage 4 224thSt-220t"St ($1.2M)
• 76th Ave/220th St Intersection ($650K)
• SR-104 Adaptive System ($186K)
• Traffic Signal Upgrades ($30K)
Transportation
Packet Pg. 256
8.1.c
Public Works & Utilities —Transportation
2024 Active Transportation Projects & Planning
• Transportation Plan Update($236K)
• Citywide Bicycle Improvements($15K)
• Elm Way Walkway($10K)
• Traffic Calming Program($100K)
• Pedestrian Safety Program ($80K)
.Q
U
N
N
N
O
N
0
CL
0
a
0
CD
_
U
a
Packet Pg. 257
8.1.c
Public Works & Utilities — Utilities
2024 Water Utility
• 2024 Replacement Program ($3.3M)
• Construction 2024
• 41000 ft of Watermain Replacement
• 2025 Replacement Program ($426K)
• Design 2024; Construction 2025
• Yost & Seaview Reservoir Final Design ($850K)
• $3.5M-$4M rehabilitation cost for each Reservoir
• 2025-26 Construction
• Waterline Overlays ($225K)
o..`
y
Packet Pg. 258
8.1.c
Public Works & Utilities — Utilities
2024 Stormwater Utility
• Storm &Surface Water Comp Plan ($350K)
• Perrinville Creek Basin Projects
• Lower Perrinville Creek Restoration ($275K)
• Perrinville Creek Flow Mgmt ($100K)
• Perrinville Creek Basin Update ($594K)
• Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Impr ($90K)
• Lake Ballinger Floodplain Purchase ($120K)
• 2024 Replacement Program ($1.3M)
• Stormwater Overlays ($315K)
• 2025 Replacement Program ($324K)
Q
U
M
N
N
le
N
O
N
d
O
CL
IL
1-1 W.
U
� . a
am
Packet Pg. 259
8.1.c
Public Works & Utilities — Utilities
2024 Sewer Utility
• 2024 Replacement Program($2.01VI)
• 800 ft of Sewerline Replacement
• 2025 Replacement Program($363K)
• Cured in -place pipe rehabilitation ($522K)
• 41000 ft of sewer CIPP rehab
• Sewerline Overlays($60K)
2024 WWTP
• WWTP Annual Capital Replace ment($500K)
• Carbon Recovery Project($500K)
• Nutrient Removal Project($350K)
• Gasification Bypass($300K)
• Condition Assessment ($150K)
• Variable Frequency Drives(VFD) Upgrades ($250K)
• Primary Clarifier 2 Rehabilitation ($600K)
- 7-
.Q
U
N
N
N
O
N
0
CL
0
L
a
0
CD
�L
U
a
0
N
d
a
y
Y
0
a.
Packet Pg. 260
8.1.c
Public Works & Utilities — Facilities
• Boys & Girls Club
• Cemetery Building
• Historic Museum
• Library
• City Hall • Meadowdale Club House
• Fishing Pier • Old Public Works
• Frances Anderson Center • Parks Maintenance Bldg
• Fire Station 16
• Fire Station 17
• Fire Station 20
• Historic Log Cabin
• Public Safety
• Public Works O&M
• Wade James Theater
• Yost Pool House
Q
U
rn
N
O
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
a
! c
0
7—
a
CU
N
a
a
M
C
d'-
E
t
V
N yam.+
Q
= 14
a�
E
t
c�
r
Q
Packet Pg. 261
8.1.c
CIP/CFP Schedule
July
• City staff begins development of capital budgets
August
• Submit proposed Capital budget to Finance
• Prepare draft CFP and CIP
September
• Joint Presentation City Council/Planning Board (September 19tn)
• Planning Board Public Hearing (September 27tn)
October
• City Council Public Hearing (October 3rd)
• Planning Board Recommendations/Approval (October 11tn)
• City Council Discussion (October 17th)
• City Council Discussion/Approval (October 24tn)
\• -Ia•-I
• Adopt CFP w/ Budget into the Comprehensive Plan (November 21st)
Q
U
M
N
O
N
le
N
O
N
d
N
0
a
0
L
a
0
•L
a
15
Packet Pg. 262
8.1.d
Parks, Recreation & Human Services
Parks 2024-2029 CIP / CFP
Angie Feser, Director
September 27, 2023
Packet Pg. 263
8.1.d
Parks 2024-2029 CIP / UP Overview
Framework for CIP/CFP
Current/Ongoing Projects
Capital Projects — 2024 Highlighted
Projects
Programs
Acquisition
Changes
Packet Pg. 264
8.1.d
2024-2029 Parks CIP / CFP- FRAMEWORK
Department Staff Resources
PROS Plan Capital Recommendations
1. Acquisition to Fill Park System Gaps - Secure additional land for neighborhood parks to
address gaps
2. Open Space & Conservation Acquisitions - Pursue acquisitions that adjoin city properties or
conserve unique natural areas
3. Park Development & Enhancements — significant repairs needed for aging infrastructure
4. Yost Pool Replacement - Refine options for the replacement of Yost Pool
5. Trail Connections — Needed to help link destinations across the community
6. ADA, Accessibility & Other User Convenience Enhancements - Remove barriers and improve
universal access
Packet Pg. 265
8.1.d
2024-2029 Parks CIP / CFP - FRAMEWORK
PROS Plan Goals (9)
1. ENGAGEMENT - Encourage and facilitate meaningful public involvement in park and recreation
planning.
2. DIVERSITY, EQUITY & INCLUSION - Decrease barriers and provide increased opportunities for
participation and representative cultural, heritage and art programs, events representing the diversity
of Edmonds demographics.
3. PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE - Provide an interconnected park system that offers a wide variety of
year-round recreation opportunities and experiences which support and enhance Edmonds' cultural
identity and the natural environment.
4. WATERFRONT USE & ACCESS - Preserve and pursue opportunities to expand public access and
enjoyment of Edmonds' waterfront.
5. NATURAL RESOURCE & HABITAT CONSERVATION - Conserve and provide access to natural resource
lands for habitat conservation, recreation, and environmental education.
Packet Pg. 266
8.1.d
2024-2029 Parks CIP / CFP FRAMEWORK
PROS Plan Goals (Cont.)
6. CLIMATE CHANGE, ADAPTATION & RESILIENCY -Adopt to climate change and increase local park
system resiliency by improving environmental conditions, stewardship and sustainability in parks, trails,
open spaces and recreation facilities within planning, development, maintenance, and operations.
7. RECREATION PROGRAMS & FACILITIES -Provide a varied and inclusive suite of recreation opportunities
and experiences to promote health and wellness, year-round activity and social engagement.
8. CULTURAL SERVICES -Provide arts and cultural opportunities and experiences to promote an engaged
and vibrant community.
9. PARK OPERATIONS & ADMINISTRATION - Maintain and operate a modern, efficient park system that
provides a high level of user comfort, safety and aesthetic quality, and protects capital investments.
PROS Plan
G2—Obj2.6
G3—Obj3.8,3.10,3.11
G7— Obi 7.2
Rec. — 1.2, 6.2
Packet Pg. 267
8.1.d
2024 - 2029 Parks CIP / UP Geographic Distribution
Ps
Johnson Property
R3
Meadowdale Playllelds
D6
Mathay Ballinger Park
119,1141 R6, R31
Yost Park & Pool
D19
Lake Ballinger Park IMLTI
D8
[alumharium Expansion - Phase ll
RI
Olymplc Beach Park
DSD, Dll, D31
Pine street Park
RB
St.— Park
P3, D14
WMedron[ Walkway
Rl2
Maplewood Hill Park
P4, D9, DI
Edmonds Marsh Restoration
D36, D31, R14
Elm Street Park
P1, D2
Parks M.1—nince Bullding
R16
Seavlew Park
R35
Pool Replacement
Al
Edmonds Marsh Restoration
AS
Interurban Troll
R19
Shell Creek Restoration
D20
Woodway Campus Athletic
Complex
N—site specs lc projects
A2, P2, D23
Nelghborhoad park 5E1
N, P6,D15
Neighbor hood Park SR99
A4, P1, D38
Neighborhood Park SE 2
R17
Ctywlde Park Improvements
R10
Signege& WWfihding
P4
•D1
D9
D
A2, P2, D13
A3,P6,D15
A4, P7, D18
R16
• r v
R17
R10
f.0
* Non -site specific projects
Neighborhood Park SE 1
Neighborhood Park SR99
Neighborhood Park SE 2
Citywide Park Improvements
Signage & Wayfinding
R4
RB
R11 R19
R16 • 7
R14
�R6
010 •
D12 ;' 2024 Projects
•
•D17
DB
L,7 I?19 2025 - 2029 Projects
• D6
AS \
Site speck projects only.
Citywide/annual citywide projects not shown.
Packet Pg. 268
8.1.d
Parks 2024-2029 CIP / UP - FORMAT
Costs inflated at 3% per year
Project
CFP
Project Site& Description
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Total
Lake Ballinger Park Mountlake Terrace ILA *CARRYFORWARD*
D19
Funding to support City of Mountlake Terrace Ballinger Park Phase III
$ 200,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 200,000
Development. Payment due upon completion of project.
DS
Mathay Ballinger Park *CARRYFORWARD*
D6
Construction of improvements including permanent restroom, paved trail, picnic
$ 271,300
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 271,300
D7
shelter ADA access and other amenities.
Shell Creek Restoration *CARRYFORWARD*
R19
Stream health and erosion control of shell Creek in Yost Park, scope TBD based
$ 120,000
$ 380,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 500,000
on study. Study in 2024, work in 2025.
R9
Yost Park & Pool
R4
Park enhancements, repair and maintenance to include resurface of tennis courts
$ 154,300
$ 1,296,400
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1,450,700
R6
and trail, bridge and boardwalk repairs/replacement in 2024, inclusive
R11
iplaVground and pool upgrades in 2025.
Columbarium Expansion - Phase II
D8
Expansion ofthe current colum barium. Funding provided throughthe Cemetery
$ -
$ 159,100
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 159,100
Trust Fund 137.
Woodway Campus Athletic Complex - Phase I - Lighting
X
D20
In cooperation with the Edmonds School District, complete a community park
$ _
$ 1,500,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1,500,000
and athletic complex at Former Woodway High School to include lighting and
future construction of two additional fields.
Neighborhood Park SE 1
X
Master plan and development of a new neighborhood park in South Edmonds
$ -
$ 79,600
$ 819,500
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 899,100
D13
(funding is in Parkland Acquisition program for purchase).
Sierra Park
R8
$ _
$ -
$ 415,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 415,000
Playground replacement and upgradeto inclusive standards.
R7
Olympic Beach Park
$
$ 20,000
$ 33,000
$
$
$
$ 53,000
Renovation of existing restrooms.
Packet Pg. 269
8.1.d
Parks 2024-2029 CIP / CFP Funding Overview
PARKS CIP REVENUE
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Total
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) I - Fund 126
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 1,200,000
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) II - Fund 125
$ 2,000,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 9,500,000
Park Impact Fees - Fund 332-100
$ 300,000
$ 300,000
$ 300,000
$ 300,000
$ 300,000
$ 300,000
$ 1,800,000
Tree Fund 143 - Land Acquisition
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$ 215,000
$ 1,290,000
Cemetery Trust Fund 137 - Columbarium Expansion
$ 159,100
$ 159,100
ARPA Contribution - Shell Creek Study
$ 120,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 120,000
Investment Interest (3%)
$ 18,918
$ 24,795
$ 30,849
$ 37,085
$ 43,507
$ 50,122
$ 205,277
Donations
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
Bond Proceeds
$
$
$
is
$
$
$ -
Secured Grants
$
$
$
I $
$ -
$
$
L�
L(E)TOTAL
Unsecured Grants/Funding- non -land acquisition
$
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,945,000
1 $ 5,481,200
$ 869,500
$ 24,756,800
$ 34,552,500
PARKS CIP REVENUE
$ 2,853,918
$ 3,898,895
$ 4,190,849
1 $ 7,733,285
$ 3,128,007
$ 27,021,922
$ 48,826,877
Parks Fund 6-Year Overview
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
(F) Beginning Fund Balance
$ 3,150,795
$ 3,061,113
$ 1,316,908
$ 17,857
$ 1,214,742
$ 1,817,349
(E) Revenue
$ 2,853,918
$ 3,898,895
$ 4,190,849
$ 7,733,285
$ 3,128,007
$ 27,021,922
(D) Expenditures
$ 2,943,600
$ 5,643,100
$ 5,489,900
$ 6,536,400
$ 2,525,400
$ 26,559,455
(G) Ending Fund Balance (F+E-D)
$ 3,061,113
$ 1,316,908
$ 17,857
$ 1,214,742
$ 1,817,349
$ 2,279,817
Packet Pg. 270
Current/Ongoing Capital Projects
)emolition
:s (2023-2024)
Packet Pg. 271
8.1.d
Current/Ongoing Capital Projects
W
d
r
LL
Q
M
U
rn
N
O
N
Ballinger Park Mountlake Terrace ILA o
N
Parkland Acquisition Program 0
0
L.
a
Deferred Maintenance/Small Capital Projects 0
BLN Shower replacement
'i
Cemetery Gate repair
Mathay Ballinger Apollo Swing replacem(
Park Restroom Doors (12) — automatic Ica >
Viewer repairs
OUTS I OR INSIDE IN9DE OUTSIDE
In
T
21/a In. ■ ht m� i
-43I6In_� Y4 �2Y18 F.ti
Packet Pg. 272
8.1.d
Parks, Recreation and Human Services
Parks 2024-2029 CIP / UP
PROJECTS
Highlight — 2024 projects
Packet Pg. 273
Ballinger Park/Mountlake Terrace ILA- Dig (DP)
71
Boardwalk & Viewing Platform
Lake Ballinger
--m- .�q
*�W41011
I
• Interlocal agreement to support development PROS Plan o
of phase 3 which includes improved access for G3-obj. 3.2, 3.8, 3.11
G5 — Obj 5.2 a�
Edmonds residents Rec.- 3.6
• Estimated Cost $200,000 Y
a
C
N
Of EQ4, E
0
N w
a�
Q
0 �
t
V
Q
Packet Pg. 274
Mathay Ballinger Park -D6 (CarryforwardlDP)
• ADA parking and paved pathway
• Shelter with Picnic Tables
• Permanent Restroom
• Estimated Total Cost: $499,300
PROS Plan
G2— Obj 2.6
°
G3 — Obj 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8, 3.9
G9 — Obj 9.1
Rec. — 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 6.2, 6.4
a
Packet Pg. 275
8.1.d
Shell Creek Restoration- x19 (Carryforward)
Construction (R19) — Creek Restoration
$120,000
$380,000
,. 2027 2028
$500,(
Total Expenses
$120,000
$380,000
$500,(
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$380,000
$380,(
ARPA Funding Transfer
$120,000
$120,(
Total Revenue
$120,000
$380,000
$500,1
• Study to determine scope & obtain permits - 2024
• Restorative work - 2025
• Estimated Cost $500,000
C
PROS Plan
G3 - Obj 3.7, 3.8, 3.9
y
G4 - Obj 4.2, 4.4
a
G5 - Obj 5. 1, 5.3, 5.4
Y
G6 - Obj 6.5
a
G9 - Obj 9.1, 9.2
1;
OF ED,f
w
c
a�
E
I
�
t
v
Q
Packet Pg. 276
Yost Park &Pool - R9, R41 R6, R11 (DP)
Construction (R4)—Trail/Bridge Repair
,.
$80,000
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
$8i
Construction (R6)—Playground Replacement
$750,000
$75i
Construction (R9)—Tennis Court Resurface
$74,300
$7
Construction (R11) — Pool Upgrades
$546,400
$54
Total Expenses
$154,300
$1,296,400
$1,45,
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$154,300
$1,296,400
$1,45
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$154,300
$0
$1,296,400
i
$1,45,
• Trail / Bridge Repair— 2024
• Tennis Court Resurface — 2024
• Playground Replacement - 2025
• Pool Upgrades — 2025
• Estimated Cost: $1,450,700
PROS Plan
G1 — Obj 1.1, 1.4
G3 — Obj 3.6, 3.8, 3.9
G4 — Obj. 4.4
G5— Obj 5.4
G6 — Obj 6.5
G9 — Obj. 9.1
Rec.— 3.1,3.4,3.10
Rec. — 6.2
Packet Pg. 277
8.1.d
Parks 2024-2029 CIP / UP - PROJECTS
Costs inflated at 3% per year
Project
CFP
Project Site & Description
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Total
Lake Ballinger Park Mountlake Terrace ILA *CARRYFORWARD*
D19
Funding to support City of Mountlake Terrace Ballinger Park Phase III
$ 200,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 200,000
Development. Payment due upon completion of project.
DS
Mathay Ballinger Park *CARRYFORWARD*
D6
Construction of improvements including permanent restroom, paved trail, picnic
$ 271,300
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 271,300
D7
shelter ADA access and other amenities.
Shell Creek Restoration *CARRYFORWARD*
R19
Stream health and erosion control of shell Creek in Yost Park, scope TBD based
$ 120,000
$ 380,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 500,000
on study. Study in 2024, work in 2025.
R9
Yost Park & Pool
R4
Park enhancements, repair and maintenance to include resurface of tennis courts
$ 154,300
$ 1,296,400
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1,450,700
R6
and trail, bridge and boardwalk repairs/replacement in 2024, inclusive
R11
iplaVground and pool upgrades in 2025.
Columbarium Expansion - Phase II
D8
Expansion ofthe current colum barium. Funding provided throughthe Cemetery
$ -
$ 159,100
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 159,100
Trust Fund 137.
Woodway Campus Athletic Complex - Phase I - Lighting
X
D20
In cooperation with the Edmonds School District, complete a community park
$ _
$ 1,500,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1,500,000
and athletic complex at Former Woodway High School to include lighting and
future construction of two additional fields.
Neighborh nod Park SE 1
X
Master plan and development of a new neighborhood park in South Edmonds
$ -
$ 79,600
$ 819,500
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 899,100
D13
(funding is in Parkland Acquisition program for purchase).
Sierra Park
R8
$ _
$ -
$ 415,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 415,000
Playground replacement and upgradeto inclusive standards.
R7
Olympic Beach Park
$
$ 20,000
$ 33,000
$
$
$
$ 53,000
Renovation of existing restrooms.
Packet Pg. 278
8.1.d
Parks 2024-2029 CIP / UP - PROJECTS
Costs inflated at 3% per year
Project
CFP
Project Site & Description
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Total
D10
Pine Street Park
D11
Park enhancements to include the addition of a small shelter with picnic tables,
$ -
$ 40,000
$ 124,400
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 164,400
D12
canopy shade trees and a paved connecting pathway.
Johnson Property
R2
Master plan forfuture park use. Site development not included in estimate.
$ -
$ -
$ 82,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 82,000
PS
Demolition, debris removal and site security completed in 2023.
Neighborhood Park SR99
•
Master plan and development of a new neighborhood park in Southeast
$ -
$ -
$ 82,000
$ 844,100
$ -
$ -
$ 926,100
D15
Edmonds (funding is in Parkland Acquisition program for purchase).
X
P1
Parks & Facilities Maintenance and Operations Building
$ _
$ -
$ 1,125,500
$ 4,637,100
$ -
$ -
$ 5,762,600
D2
Replace and/or renovate shop facilities located in City Park.
R12
Maplewood Hill Park
$ _
$ _
$ -
$ 347,800
$ -
$ -
$ 347,800
Playground replacement.
Neighborhood Park SE 2
X
D18
Master plan and development of a new neighborhood park in Southeast
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 84,400
$ 869,500
$ -
$ 953,900
Edmonds (funding is in Parkland Acquisition program for purchase).
Waterfront Walkway
P3
Connectingthe waterfront walkwayfrom Brackett's Landing North to
$
$
$
$ 515,000
$ 819,500
$ 1,334,500
D14
Marina Beach Park by adding missing section in front of the Ebb Tide
-
_
_
S _
Condominiums, to provide ADA improvements.
R16
Seaview Park
$ -
$ -
$ -
S -
$ 417,900
$ -
$ 417,900
Replacement of permanent restroom to provide ADA upgrades.
D16
Elm Street Park
D17
Park enhancements to include the addition of a nature playground,
$ -
$ -
$ -
S -
$ 100,000
$ 340,370
$ 440,370
R14
small shelter with picnic tables and habitat restoration.
of EDM0�O
hoc. 1890
Packet Pg. 279
8.1.d
Parks 2024-2029 CIP / CFP - PROJECTS
Costs inflated at 3% per year
Project
CFP
Project Site & Description
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Total
X
R15
Pool Replacement
$ _
$ _
$ _
$ _
$ -
$ 23,881,000
$ 23,881,000
Replacement of the existing Yost pool. Design, location, and funding TBD.
Meadowdale Playfields
R3
Renovations as suggested by the City of Lynnwood and consistent with re-
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
$
negotiated and updated Interlocal Agreement. May include addition of dugout
-
roofs, light replacement and playground upgrade.
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration (Willow Creek Daylighting)
Master Plan development and implementation of the Edmonds Marsh to daylight
P4
the waterway connection of Puget Sound to the Edmonds Marsh and twofresh
X
D9
water creeks providing restoration offresh water/salt water estuary and natural
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
$ -
DI
tidal exchange. (All expenses are TBD per Council direction in December 2022).
Acquisition funding identified in Parkland Acquisition program.
(A) SUBTOTAL PARKS CIP/CFP PROJECTS
1 $ 745,600
$ 3,475,100
$ 2,6874 00
$ 5,913,400
$ 1,902,40
$ 25,0 00,870
$ 33,070,070
Packet Pg. 280
8.1.d
Parks, Recreation and Human Services
Parks 2024-2029 CIP / UP
PROGRAMS
Highlight — 2024 projects
Packet Pg. 281
8.1.d
Signage & Wayfinding - R10 (DP)
Trail identification, orientation markers, safety & regulatory messagin
.o
park hours, park rules and etiquette, interpretive information and
warning signs.
Estimated Cost: $75,000
PROS Plan
y
G2 — Obj. 2.1, 2.3
0
G3 — Obj. 3.6
a
'
G5 — Obj. 5.3, 5.4
PARK HOURS. A.
G9 — Obj. 9.1
Rec. — 6.2, 6.5
E
DUSKci
/01. 18yJ
.
G
t
Ci
l0
r+
a
Packet Pg. 282
Parks 2024-2029 CIP / CFP - PROGRAMS
Costs inflated at 3% per year
Project (4) Programs
PARKS CIP PROGRAMS 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 6-Year Total
R17
Citywide Park Improvements / Capital Replacement Program
Ongoing program of funding allocation for regular and deferred maintenance,
repair and replacement of parks amenities, structures and equipment.
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 2,700,000
signage m waynnamg
R10 Replacement of aging signage to improve accuracy and provide a
consistent City of Edmonds Parks visual identification system.
Parkland Acquisition Support
Funds utilized to evaluate potential acquisitions and complete due diligence.
Debt Service and Interfund Transfers
Debt service on Civic Park $1.61M bond (2021) and Interfund transfers to
Engineering for Capital Project Support.
I SUBTOTAL- PARKS CIP PROGRAMS
$ 75,000 $ $ - $ $ $ - $ 75,000
$ 50,000 $ 50,000 1 $ 50,000 1 $ 50,000 1 $ 50,000 1 $ 50,000 1 $ 300,000
$ 123,000 j $ 123,000 j $ 123,000 1 $ 123,000 j $ 123,000 j $ 123,000 1 $ 738,000
Packet Pg. 283
8.1.d
Parks 2024-2029 CIP / UP - PROGRAMS
Costs inflated at 3% per year
Project
�
PARKS CIP PROGRAMS
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Total
Citywide Park Improvements / Capital Replacement Program
R17
Ongoing program of funding allocation for regular and deferred maintenance,
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 2,700,000
repair and replacement of parks amenities, structures and equipment.
Signage & Wayfinding
R10
Replacement of aging signage to improve accuracy and provide a
$ 75,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 75,000
consistent City of Edmonds Parks visual identification system.
Parkland Acquisition Support
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
$ 300,000
Funds utilized to evaluate potential acquisitions and complete due diligence.
Debt Service and Interfund Transfers
Debt service on Civic Park $1.61M bond (2021) and Interfund transfers to
$ 123,000
$ 123,000
$ 123,000
$ 123,000
$ 123,000
$ 123,000
$ 738,000
Engineering for Capital Project Support.
(B)SUBTOTAL- PARKS CIP PROGRAMS
$ 698,000
$ 623,000
$ 623,000
$ 623,000
$ 6237000
$ 623,000
$ 3,813,000
(4) Programs
Packet Pg. 284
8.1.d
Parks, Recreation and Human Services
Parks 2024-2029 CIP / CFP
PARKLAND ACQUISITIONS
Highlight — 2024 project
Packet Pg. 285
8.1.d
Parkland Acquisition - a2, A3, A4 (No DP -Council Authorization)
Acquisition — Neighborhood Park SE 1 (A2)
..
$1,500,000
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Acquisition —Neighborhood Park SR99 (A3)
Acquisition — Neighborhood Park SE 2 (A4)
Total Expenses
$1,500,000
Real Estate Excise Tax I - Fund 126
$1,300,000
Tree Fund 143 - land acquisition - TBD
Total Revenue
$1,300,000
• Neighborhood Parks SE1
• Acquisition as Feasible
• Estimated Cost: $1,500,00
N
PROS Plan
G2 — Obj. 2.1 a
G3 — Obj. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3A w
Rec. —1.1
E
v c
�o
Z
a
E
a
Packet Pg. 286
8.1.d
Parks 2024-2029 CIP / CFP
Costs inflated at 3% per year
Project
tf
PARKLAND ACQUISITION
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
6-Year Total
X
A2
Neighborhood Park SE 1
$ 1,500,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1,500,000
Acquisition of parkland in South Edmonds.
X
A3
Neighborhood Park SR99
$ -
$ 1,545,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1,545,000
Acquisition of parkland near SR 99.
X
A4
Neighborhood Park SE 2
-
$ -
$ 2,185,500
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 2,185,500
Acquisition of parkland in South Edmonds.
AS
Interurban Trail
-
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 895,585
$ 895,585
Acquisition for trail extension.
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration (Willow Creek Daylighting)
X
Al
Acquisition ofthe Unocal property in support of greater Edmonds Marsh
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
$ -
restoration.
(C)SUBTOTAL- PARKLAND ACQUISITION
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,545,000
$ 2,185,500
$
$
$ 895,585
$ 6,126,085
Packet Pg. 287
8.1.d
Changes to CIP/CFP
UP / CIP COMPARISON (2024 TO 2029)
PROJECTS ADDED
Type PROJECT NAME CFP r DESCRIPTION
None
UP / CIP COMPARISON (2024 TO 2029)
PROJECTS REMOVED
Type
PROJECT NAME
CFP
I DESCRIPTION
Parks
Lake Ballinger Access (McAleer)
Project completion scheduled in 2023
Parks
Johnson Property Demolition
Demolition to be complete in 2023
Parks
Playground Upgrade Program
IPlayground upgrades identified each year, no need for additional program
UP / CIP COMPARISON (2024 TO 2029)
Type
PROJECT NAME
CFP
CHANGE
Parks
Columbarium Expansion - Phase II
Funded through Cemetery Trust Fund 137 - scheduled in 2025 vs. 24
Parks
Elm Street Park Improvements
Separated into planning in 2027 and construction in 2028 vs. 2026
Parks
Interurban Trail Expansion
Moved to 2029 vs. 28
Parks
Johnson Property Master Plan
Removed demolition, master plan scheduled in 2026 vs. 25
Parks
Lake Ballinger Park Mountlake Terrace ILA
ILA completed in 2023; payment due upon construction completion in 2024, carryforward
Parks
Maplewood Hill Park
Playground replacement moved to 2027 vs. 25, significant price increase
Parks
Mathay Ballinger Park Improvements
permanent restroom installation scheduled to take place in 2024, carr forward
Parks
Neighborhood Park SE1, SR99, SE2
X
Master plan and construction of all three parks pushed back one year must acquire first
Parks
Olympic Beach Park Improvements
Se arated into planning in 2025 and construction in 2026 vs. 24
Parks
Parkland Acquisition/Neighborhood Parks
X
All three bumped back one year to 2024, 2025 and 2026
Parks
Pine Street Park Improvements
Separated into planning in 2025 and construction in 2026 vs. 24
Parks
Seaview Park Improvements
Restroom replacement moved to 2028 vs. 27
Parks
Shell Creek Restoration
IPlayground
Plan carried forward to 2024, restoration in 2025 vs. 24
Parks
Si na e and Wayfinding
Price increase to $75K vs. $51,500
Parks
Yost Park & Pool Improvements
replacement moved to 2025 vs. 23, significant price increase due to topography
Packet Pg. 288
8.1.d
Questions?
d
r
U-
.Q
m
U
rn
N
O
N
4
N
O
N
N
O
CL
O
a
Q
Packet Pg. 289
8.1.d
Parks, Recreation & Human Services
Parks 2024-2029 CIP / CFP
Angie Feser, Director
October 3, 2023
Packet Pg. 290
9.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/3/2023
Overview of Upcoming Budget Process
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Dave Turley
Background/History
The Council should have received the Mayor's Proposed Budget by this time. During the upcoming seven
weeks we will be working together intently to pass the Council's Adopted Budget for 2024.
Staff Recommendation
No recommendation; discussion only.
Narrative
Council and the Administration will be busy during the upcoming Budget Season processing information;
preparing, delivering, and hearing presentations; asking questions; passing Ordinances; offering
suggestions; and ultimately passing a new budget for 2024. Tonight the Budget Director will spend a few
minutes giving an overview of what Council, staff, and the public can expect during the coming weeks.
Packet Pg. 291
9.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/3/2023
Year in Review / Decision Package Presentation
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Dave Turley
Background/History
Year in Review for the Municipal Court and Administrative Services Departments.
Staff Recommendation
Presentation only, no recommendation. For information and brief discussion purposes.
Narrative
N/A
Packet Pg. 292
9.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/3/2023
Draft Ordinance regarding Repeal of Ordinance 4079 Highway 99 Planned Action
Staff Lead: City Council
Department: City Council
Preparer: Beckie Peterson
Background/History
The City of Edmonds completed a subarea planning process for the Highway 99 corridor which included:
1) Adoption of the Highway 99 subarea master plan into the comprehensive plan (ordinance 4077)
2) Update of the general commercial zoning in Chapter 16.60 ECDC (ordinance 4078)
3) The establishment of the Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Highway
99 Subarea (ordinance 4079, attached).
Council Minutes of 6/20/2017, 7/18/2017, 7/31/2017 and 8/15/2017 provide history of the transparent
and lengthy process which led to the approval of 4079. A planned action ordinance allows developers a
streamlined permitting process requiring only a SEPA (State Environmental Protection Act) checklist to
be completed.
In July of 2023, the City brought forth the proposed consultants for the Comprehensive Plan. A citywide
EIS was recommended and approved by Council. Any plans to conduct a SEIS for the Highway 99
planned action area was pushed back until after the completion of the citywide EIS and Comprehensive
Plan completion, likely 2025.
Recommendation
Discuss the draft ordinance to Repeal Ordinance 4079.
Narrative
Questions to consider while reviewing 4079 and the benefits of repealing the Planned Action Ordinance
while the new city-wide EIS is completed and the new Comprehensive Plan is approved.
1. What deficiencies exist in the current planned action ordinance that have been discovered since
it was adopted?
2. What are the benefits of repealing 4079 during the Comp Planning process?
3. What are the benefits of retaining 4079 during the Comp Planning process?
4. How will the new EIS address the issues in the sub -area?
5. How will the new Comp Plan address the potential of a new or revised PAO?
Attachments:
2023-09-20 ordinance repealing Ord 4079 by
Packet Pg. 293
9.3
Ordinance 4079
Pages from 2022-10-18 City Council - Full Minutes-3212
Resolution 1125 Watershed Protection
Buckshnis - 4079 Repeal Ordinance Justication
Memo_PAO Status with Comp Plan Sept 2023
Packet Pg. 294
9.3.a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS REPEALING
ORDINANCE 4079, WHICH CREATED A SEPA PLANNED
ACTION WITHIN THE CITY'S HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA
WHEREAS, the city council adopted Ordinance 4079, a planned action ordinance under
RCW 43.21 C.440, on August 15, 2017; and
WHEREAS, Section 5.A of Ordinance 4079 stated: "The City shall monitor the progress
of development in the designated Planned Action Sub -area to ensure that it is consistent with the
assumptions of this ordinance and the Planned Action EIS regarding the type and amount of
development and associated impacts, and with the mitigation measures and improvements
planned for the Highway 99 Planned Action Area;" and
WHEREAS, the city council has concerns about whether the mitigation measures in the
Planned Action EIS are adequate; and
WHEREAS, there will be an opportunity to revisit the subarea, including the utility and
desirability of using a planned action in the subarea, in conjunction with the 2024 comprehensive
plan update; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Repealer. Ordinance 4079 is hereby repealed.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
Packet Pg. 295
9.3.a
MAYOR MIKE NELSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED :
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Pg. 296
9.3.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2023, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS
REPEALING ORDINANCE 4219, WHICH IMPOSED
MANDATORY HAZARD PAY FOR GROCERY STORE
WORKERS.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of , 2023.
4840-7251-8158, v. 1
3
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Pg. 297
9.3.b
ORDINANCE NO.4079
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A PLANNED
ACTION FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA, PURSUANT TO
THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
WHEREAS, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and implementing rules provide
for the integration of environmental review with land use planning and project review through
designation of Planned Actions by jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act
"GMA); and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan complying with the GMA; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted development regulations providing for planned actions;
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a subarea plan and development regulations for the
Highway 99 Subarea; and
WHEREAS, designation of a Planned Action expedites the permitting process for
subsequent, implementing projects whose impacts have been previously addressed in a Planned
Action environmental impact statement (EIS), and thereby encourages desired growth and
economic development; and
WHEREAS, the Highway 99 Planned Action EIS identifies impacts and mitigation
measures associated with planned development in the subarea; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted development regulations which will help protect the
environment, and is adopting zoning regulations specific to the sub -area which will guide the
amount, location, form, and quality of desired development;
WHEREAS, the Highway 99 Subarea is deemed to be appropriate for designation of a
Planned Action;
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Planning Board held an open record public hearing on May
10, 2017 to consider Highway 99 Subarea development regulations and on July 26, 2017 to
consider the proposed planned action ordinance;
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council held an open record public hearing on June 20,
2017 to consider Highway 99 Subarea development regulations and on July 31, 2017, to consider
the proposed planned action ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
-1-
Packet Pg. 298
9.3.b
SECTION 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are hereby adopted and incorporated
by reference. The City Council bases its findings and conclusions on the entire record of
testimony and exhibits, including all written and oral testimony before the Planning Board and
City Council.
to:
SECTION 2. Purpose. The City Council declares that the purpose of this ordinance is
A. Combine analysis of environmental impacts with the City's development of plans and
regulations;
B. Designate the Highway 99 Subarea as a Planned Action for purposes of environmental
review and permitting of subsequent, implementing projects pursuant to the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.031;
C. Determine that the EIS prepared for the sub -area plan meets the requirements of a
Planned Action EIS pursuant to SEPA;
D. Establish criteria and procedures, consistent with state law, that will determine
whether subsequent, implementing projects qualify as Planned Actions;
E. Provide the public with information about planned actions and how the City will
process applications for implementing projects;
F. Streamline and expedite the land use review and approval process for qualifying
projects by relying on the EIS completed for the Planned Action; and
G. Apply the City's development regulations together with the mitigation measures
described in the Planned Action EIS and this Ordinance to address the impacts of future
development contemplated by the Planned Action.
SECTION 3. Findings. The City Council finds as follows:
A. The City is subject to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A,
and is located within an Urban Growth Area;
B. The City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan complying with the GMA, and is
amending the Comprehensive Plan by adopting a subarea element specific to the Highway 99
Subarea;
C. The City is adopting development regulations to implement the Highway 99 Subarea
Plan to implement said Plan;
D. The City has prepared an EIS for the Highway 99 subarea (Planned Action EIS) and
finds that this EIS adequately addresses the probable significant environmental impacts
associated with the type and amount of development planned to occur in the designated Planned
Action area;
-2-
Packet Pg. 299
9.3.b
E. The mitigation measures identified in the Planned Action EIS and attached to this
ordinance as Exhibit B, together with adopted City development regulations, will adequately
mitigate significant impacts from development within the Planned Action area;
F. The Subarea Plan and Planned Action EIS identify the location, type and amount of
development that is contemplated by the Planned Action;
G. Future projects that are implemented consistent with the Planned Action will protect
the environment, benefit the public and enhance economic development;
H. The City has provided numerous opportunities for meaningful public involvement in
the proposed Planned Action; has considered all comments received; and, as appropriate, has
modified the proposal or mitigation measures in response to comments;
I. The Highway 99 Subarea Plan is not an essential public facility as defined by RCW
36.70A.200(1), and any future projects which meet the definition of an essential public facility
will not qualify as Planned Actions;
J. The Planned Action applies to a defined area that is smaller than the overall City
boundaries; and
K. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed Planned Action, with
implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EIS.
SECTION 4. Procedures and Criteria for Evaluating and Determining Projects as
Planned Actions.
A. Planned Action Area. The Planned Action designation shall apply to the area shown in
Exhibit A.
B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action determination for a site -specific
implementing project application shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the
Draft EIS issued by the City on June 2, 2017, and the Final EIS published on August 4, 2017.
The Draft and Final EISs shall comprise the Planned Action EIS. The mitigation measures
contained in Exhibit B are based upon the findings of the Planned Action EIS and shall, along
with adopted City regulations, provide the framework that the City will use to impose
appropriate conditions on qualifying Planned Action projects.
C. Planned Action Designated. Land uses and activities described in the Planned Action
EIS, subject to the thresholds described in subsection ID, below, and the mitigation measures
contained in Exhibit B, are designated Planned Actions or Planned Action Projects pursuant to
RCW 43.21C.031. A development application for a site -specific Planned Action project located
within the Highway 99 Subarea Planned Action Area shall be designated as a Planned Action if
it meets the criteria set forth in subsection 3.1) of this ordinance and applicable laws, codes,
development regulations and standards of the City.
-3-
Packet Pg. 300
9.3.b
D. Planned Action Qualifications. The following thresholds shall be used to determine if
a site -specific development proposed within the Highway 99 Planned Action Area is
contemplated by the Planned Action and has had its environmental impacts evaluated in the
Planned Action EIS:
(1) Land Use. The following general categories/types of land uses, which are
permitted or conditionally permitted in zoning districts applicable to the Highway 99
Planned Action Area, and subject to any limitations in size contained in the applicable
zoning districts, are considered Planned Actions: Anticipated land uses are further
identified below:
(a) Multiple dwellings;
(b) Office uses, including but not limited to medical office;
(c) Retail and service uses;
(d) Medical and health care uses;
(e) Mixed use development;
(e) Utilities and capital facilities.
To be considered Planned Actions proposed projects shall only include those uses
specifically listed in development regulations applicable to the zoning classifications applied to
properties within the Planned Action Area.
(2) Development Thresholds.
a) The following amount of various new development are contemplated by the
Planned Action:
Land Use
Development Amount
Non-residential uses, including
1,634,685 square feet of building
office, retail, service and
area
medical/health care uses
Residential
3,325 dwelling units
(b) If future development proposals in the Highway 99 Planned Action Area
would contribute enough new square footage and/or dwelling units to the square
footage and/or dwelling units generated from earlier planned action projects to
cause either of the above thresholds for cumulative development to be exceeded,
that development proposal and all subsequent proposed projects will require
additional SEPA review, pursuant to WAC 197-11-172. Furthermore, if proposed
-4-
Packet Pg. 301
9.3.b
development would alter the assumptions and analysis in the Planned Action EIS,
further environmental review may be required. Shifting the development amount
between categories of uses may be permitted so long as the total build -out does
not exceed the aggregate amount of development and trip generation reviewed in
the EIS, and so long as the impacts of that development have been identified in
the Planned Action EIS and are mitigated consistent with Exhibit B.
(c). Building Heights. Building heights shall be as established in the applicable
zoning classification and as evaluated in the Planned Action EIS.
(3) Transportation.
(a) Trip Ranges & Thresholds. The Planned Action EIS analyzed and identified
mitigation for 2,755 new pm peak hour trips to be generated from cumulative development
occurring in the Planned Action area. If a proposed project would contribute enough new pm
peak hour trips to the trips generated from earlier planned action projects to cause this threshold
for cumulative development to be exceeded, that proposed projects and all subsequent proposed
projects will require additional SEPA review.
(b) Concurrency. The determination of transportation impacts shall be based on the
City's concurrency management program and the level of service standards in the
Comprehensive Plan.
(c) Traffic Impact Mitigation. All planned action projects shall pay, as a condition of
approval, their proportionate share of local street improvements according to the schedule in
Edmonds City Code 3.36.125. Impact fees will be determined according to the methodology
contained in Chapter 3.36.
(d) Director Discretion. The Development Services Director, in consultation with the
City Engineer, shall have discretion to determine incremental and total trip generation, consistent
with the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (latest edition) or an
alternative manual accepted by the Director at his or her sole discretion, for each project permit
application proposed under this Planned Action.
(4) Elements of the Environment and Degree of Impacts. A proposed project that would
result in a significant change in the type or degree of impacts to any of the elements of the
environment analyzed in the Planned Action EIS, would not qualify as a Planned Action.
(5) Changed Conditions. Should environmental conditions change significantly from
those analyzed in the Planned Action EIS, the City's SEPA Responsible Official may determine
that the Planned Action designation is no longer applicable until supplemental environmental
review is conducted.
E. Planned Action Review Criteria.
(1) The City's SEPA Responsible Official may designate as planned actions, pursuant to
RCW 43.21 C.030, applications that meet all of the following conditions:
-5-
Packet Pg. 302
9.3.b
(a) the proposal is located within the Planned Action area identified in Exhibit A of this
ordinance;
(b) the proposed uses and activities are consistent with those described in the Planned
Action EIS and Section 4.D of this ordinance;
(c) the proposal does not cause the Planned Action thresholds and other criteria of
Section 4.D of this ordinance to be exceeded;
(d) the proposal is consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and the
Highway 99 Subarea Plan;
(e) the proposal's significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified in the
Planned Action EIS;
(f) the proposal's significant impacts have been mitigated by application of the measures
identified in Exhibit B, and other applicable city regulations, together with any modifications or
variances or special permits that may be required;
(g) the proposal complies with all applicable local, state and/or federal laws and
regulations, and the Responsible Official determines that these constitute adequate mitigation;
and
(h) the proposal is not an essential public facility as defined by RCW 36.70A.200(1).
(2) The City shall base its decision on review of a SEPA checklist, or an alternative form
approved by the Department of Ecology, and review of the application and supporting
documentation.
(3) A proposal that meets the criteria of this section shall be considered to qualify and be
designated as a Planned Action, consistent with the requirements or RCW 43.21C.030, WAC
197-11-164 et seq, and this ordinance.
F. Effect of Planned Action
(1) Designation as a Planned Action project means that a qualifying proposal has been
reviewed in accordance with this ordinance and found to be consistent with its development
parameters and thresholds, and with the environmental analysis contained in the Planned Action
EIS.
(2) Upon determination by the City's SEPA Responsible Official that the proposal meets
the criteria of Section 4.D and qualifies as a Planned Action, the proposal shall not require a
SEPA threshold determination, preparation of an EIS, or be subject to further review pursuant to
SEPA.
G. Planned Action Permit Process. Applications for Planned Actions shall be reviewed
pursuant to the following process.
-6-
Packet Pg. 303
9.3.b
(1) Development applications shall meet all applicable requirements of the Edmonds City
Code and Community Development Code. Applications for Planned Actions shall be made on
forms provided by the City and shall include a SEPA checklist, or an approved Planned Action
checklist.
(2) The City's Director of Development Services or designee shall determine whether the
application is complete as provided in Edmonds City Code 20.02.003.
(3) If the application is for a project within the Planned Action Area defined in Exhibit
A, the application will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the criteria of this
ordinance and thereby qualifies as a Planned Action project. The SEPA Responsible Official
shall notify the applicant of his/her decision. If the project is determined to qualify as a Planned
Action, it shall proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review procedures specified in
Edmonds City Code Chapter 20.02, except that no SEPA threshold determination, EIS or
additional SEPA review shall be required. The decision of the SEPA Responsible Official
regarding qualification as a Planned Action shall be final.
(4) Public notice and review for projects that qualify as Planned Actions shall be tied to
the underlying permit and shall follow the procedures set forth in Edmonds City Code Chapter
20.03. If notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that the
project has qualified as a Planned Action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying
permit, no special notice is required by this ordinance.
(5) If a project is determined to not qualify as a Planned Action, the SEPA Responsible
Official shall so notify the applicant and prescribe a SEPA review procedure consistent with the
City's SEPA regulations and the requirements of state law. The notice shall describe the
elements of the application that result in failure to qualify as a Planned Action.
(6) Projects that fail to qualify as Planned Actions may incorporate or otherwise use
relevant elements of the Planned Action EIS, as well as other relevant SEPA documents, to meet
their SEPA requirements. The SEPA Responsible Official may limit the scope of SEPA review
for the non -qualifying project to those issues and environmental impacts not previously
addressed in the Planned Action EIS.
SECTION 5. Monitoring and Review.
A. The City shall monitor the progress of development in the designated Planned Action
Sub -area to ensure that it is consistent with the assumptions of this ordinance and the Planned
Action EIS regarding the type and amount of development and associated impacts, and with the
mitigation measures and improvements planned for the Highway 99 Planned Action Area.
B. This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed no later than five years from its
effective date by the SEPA Responsible Official to determine the continuing relevance of its
assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the Planned Action area,
-7-
Packet Pg. 304
9.3.b
the impacts of development, and required mitigation measures. Based upon this review, the City
may propose amendments to this ordinance or may supplement or revise the Planned Action EIS.
SECTION 6. Conflict. In the event of a conflict between this Ordinance or any
mitigation measure imposed thereto, and any ordinance or regulation of the City, the provisions
of this ordinance shall control EXCEPT that the provision of any International Code shall
supersede.
SECTION 7. Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause
or phrase of this Ordinance or its application be declared to be unconstitutional or invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the constitutionality or validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
SECTION 8. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5)
days after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
ATTESTIAUTH TICATED:
Y CLERK, SGOTf PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
,j F F F �7■'i N �2
L'0 t% N
MA OR DAVID O. EARLING
J
BY
.lE iREY B. TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: August 11, 2017
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: August 15, 2017
PUBLISHED: August 20, 2017
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 25, 2017
ORDINANCE NO.: 4079
..8-
Packet Pg. 305
9.3.b
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4079
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 151h day of August, 2017, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. 4079. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title,
provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING
A PLANNED ACTION FOR THE HIGHWAY 99
SUBAREA, PURSUANT TO THE STATE
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 16th day of August, 2017,
5;;� -
C LERK, SC ASSEY
Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance
E
Packet Pg. 306
9.3.b
EXHIBIT A
Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance
10
F
ti
0
v
m
c
m
c
=a
L
0
Q
NNa)
L
0
rt+
L
0
L
0
rt+
cd
G
t
V
r.+
y.+
Q
Packet Pg. 307
9.3.b
PLANNED ACTION AREA
I I ,
I
�9
EDMONDS
I,
2 ITH S I SW
-----------------------
LYNNWOOD
r
r'
r'~
R
rtr.
� a
i
ESPERANU
A -, 14'r`rJJ i
_ 23011.1 sw MOUN#TLAXE TEFtRACE
i
r
a
23 ST SW
34 � ST S
�3b � FF SII s
p � F
I �
24 f7 I1
b
EDMONDS w
�- 4 ND ST w '
�y
�t
Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance
11
a
Packet Pg. 308
9.3.b
EXHIBIT B
Highway 99 Subarea Plan
PLANNED ACTION EIS MITIGATION DOCUMENT
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review for project
and non -project proposals that may have adverse impacts on the environment.
In order to meet SEPA requirements, the City of Edmonds issued the Draft Highway 99
Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on June 2, 2017 and the Final
Highway 99 Planned Action EIS on August 4, 2017. The Draft and Final EIS are
referenced collectively herein as the "EIS." The EIS has identified probably significant
impacts that would occur with future development in the Planned Action area, together
with a number of potential measures to mitigate those significant impacts.
The purpose of this Mitigation Document is to establish specific mitigation measure for
qualified planned action development proposals, based on significant impacts identified
in the EIS. The mitigation measures would apply to future development proposals that are
consistent with the planned action development envelope reviewed in the EIS and that are
located within the Planned Action area (see Exhibit A).
USE OF TERMS
Brief definitions of terms used in this Mitigation Document are provided below.
SEPA Terms
The discussion of mitigation measures may refer to the word's action, planned action or
proposal and for reference, these terms are defined below:
• "Action" means projects or programs financed, licensed, regulated, conducted or
approved by an agency. "Project actions" involve decisions on a specific project
such as a construction or management activity for a defined geographic area.
"Non -project" actions involve decisions about policies, plans or programs (WAC
197-11-704)
• "Planned Action" refers to types of project actions that are designated by
ordinance for a specific geographic area and addressed in an EIS in conjunction
with a comprehensive plan or subarea plan, a fully contained community, a master
planned resort, a master planned development or phased project (WAC 197-11-
164).
Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance
12
Packet Pg. 309
9.3.b
• "Proposal" means a proposed action that may be an action or regulatory decision
of an agency, or any action proposed by applicants (WAC 197-11-784)
Other Terms
The Planned Action area may be referred to as the Highway 99 Planned Action Area,
Highway 99 Subarea, project area or project site in this document.
General Interpretation
Where a mitigation measure includes the words "shall" or "will," inclusion of that
measure is mandatory in order to qualify a project as a Planned Action. Where "should"
or "would" appear, the mitigation measures may be considered by the project applicant as
a source of additional mitigation, as feasible or necessary, to ensure that a project
qualifies as a planned action and/or to reduce or avoid impacts.
Unless stated specifically otherwise, the mitigation measures that require preparation of
plans, conduct of studies, construction of improvements, conduct of maintenance
activities, etc., are the responsibility of the applicant or designee to fund and/or perform.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED UNDER THE PLANNED ACTION
The proposal reviewed in this EIS include designation of the Highway 99 Subarea (see
Exhibit A) as a Planned Acton area for the purpose of SEPA compliance, pursuant to
RCW 43.21 C.440 and WAC 197-11-164, adoption of comprehensive plan amendments
for the Highway 99 Subarea, and adoption of zoning code amendments addressing zoning
classifications, design standards, parking standards. The planned action designation
would encourage redevelopment in the Highway 99 Subarea to create increased housing
choices and an attractive pedestrian -oriented streetscape, provide opportunities for
medical services growth, provide for enhanced multi -modal mobility, and provide for a
greater mix of uses in the subarea. Under this Planned Action, redevelopment would add
about 3,013 new jobs and 3,325 new housing units through 2035.
MITIGATION
Based on the EIS, which is incorporated by reference, this Mitigation Document
summarizes significant adverse environmental impacts that are anticipated to occur in
conjunction with the development of planned action projects. Mitigation measures,
identified in the EIS, are reiterated here for inclusion in conjunction with proposed
projects to mitigate related impacts and to qualify as planned action projects.
Consistency review under the Planned Action, site plan review, and other permit
approvals will be required for specific development actions proposed under the Planned
Action designation (WAC 197-11-172). Additional project conditions may be imposed
Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance
13
Packet Pg. 310
9.3.b
on planned action projects based upon the analysis of the Planned Action in relationship
to independent requirements of the City, state or federal requirements or review criteria.
Any applicant for a project within the planned action area may propose alternative
mitigation measures, if appropriate and/or as a result of changed circumstance, in order to
allow an equivalent substitute mitigation for identified impacts. Such modifications
would be evaluated by the City SEPA Responsible Official prior to any project approvals
by the City.
As permitted by WAC 197-11-660, there may be some adverse impacts that are
unavoidable because reasonable or feasible mitigation cannot be achieved for the Planned
Action
The combination of regulations applicable to each element of the environment and
mitigation measures identified in the EIS and documented in this Mitigation Document
that are applied to any planned action proposal will adequately mitigate all significant
environmental impacts associated with planned action proposals, except for those impacts
that are identified as significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
Mitigation measures are provided below for each element of the environment considered
in the EIS.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The EIS identifies significant impacts, unavoidable adverse impacts, and mitigation
measures for potential impacts associated with land use, plans and policies, aesthetics,
transportation, and public services and utilities. Please refer to the Draft and Final EIS for
complete text associated with each element of the environment. The following lists all
mitigation measures applicable to impacts for each element of the environment.
Land Use Mitigation Measures
Incorporated Plan Features
The zoning code includes provisions to minimize the impacts associated with increases in
building height and changes in land use patterns under the Planned Action. The proposed
Subarea Plan includes policy language in support of the proposed stepback development
regulations, which are intended to help mitigate for potential land use conflicts around the
edges of the subarea.
Applicable Regulations and Commitments
Zoning designations provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the City's growth
targets for the subarea. When combined with the City's remaining existing development
Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance
14
Packet Pg. 311
9.3.b
and design standards, the Planned Action stepback standards will mitigate for land use
incompatibilities in areas where the updated CG zone abuts single family zones.
Additionally, existing development and design standards require site design to be
compatible with existing and planned character of the nearby area. Applicable site
development standards include those for setbacks, screening and buffering, site design,
lighting, building design and massing, and others.
Other Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are recommended.
Plans and Policies
Incorporated Plan Features
The locally -designated role of the Highway 99 Corridor will continue to be maintained
and reinforced through the plan vision for a high density, walkable mixed -use
neighborhood with urban amenities.
Within the Planned Action, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan clearly identify three
distinct districts anchored around major transportation gateways and employment
clusters, such as the hospital and international businesses (Recommendation 3.1,
February 2017 Draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan). These amendments will bring the
Comprehensive Plan and recommended Highway 99 Subarea Plan into alignment.
Regulations and Commitments
As required by the Growth Management Act (GMA), the draft Subarea Plan and
regulations have been submitted to the Washington Department of Commerce for review
and comment prior to final adoption.
Other Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are recommended.
Aesthetics Mitigation Measures
Incorporated Plan Features
The City's Highway 99 Corridor and Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
Comprehensive Plan Map designations within the Comprehensive Plan will guide
aesthetic improvements under the planned action. Such improvements shall make the area
more attractive and pedestrian friendly by:
• ensuring that the design of new development contributes to the quality and
character of the area
• encouraging a variety of building types
Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance
15
Packet Pg. 312
9.3.b
• using landscaping and buffering to soften street fronts and to provide transitions
between more and less intensive uses
• fostering distinct sub -district identities consistent with the Highway 99 Corridor
Vision.
Additionally, the Planned Action contains policy guidance and recommended
transportation improvement projects that are intended to enhance the aesthetics and urban
design of the study area and support the community's vision for the future neighborhood
character of the corridor. The policy guidance calls for improvements in signage and
wayfinding, using design to strengthen business opportunity, development of a unique
district design identity, supporting building types and uses typical of vibrant urban
corridors, and making code updates to support more pedestrian- and transit -friendly
building forms and streetscapes.
Regulations and Commitments
Development under the Planned Action will be required to comply with existing
development and design standards including those for setbacks, screening and buffering,
site design, lighting, building design and massing, and others. These standards require
site design to be compatible with existing and planned character of the nearby area.
Additionally, the Planned Action stepback standards provide for transitions in building
height and bulk between portions of the subarea zoned for the highest intensity uses and
adjacent single family zoned areas.
Other Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are recommended.
Transportation
Incorporated Plan Features
The City of Edmond's existing planned transportation improvements will help to mitigate
for traffic impacts. The near -term and long-term transportation improvements in the
Subarea Plan will contribute to the underlying infrastructure that creates transit,
pedestrian, and bicycle -friendly places and will indirectly help to mitigate for traffic
impacts.
Regulations and Commitments
Near -term and long-term transportation improvements identified in the proposed Subarea
Plan will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Transportation Plan's capital
improvement projects. The current Comprehensive Transportation Plan process
Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance
16
Packet Pg. 313
9.3.b
(updating the Plan in a cycle approximately every six years) will be the mechanism for
monitoring the LOS at impacted intersections.
The City's current six year Transportation Improvement Program will be used to
prioritize projects and identifying funding. Flexibility will be built into each cycle of this
program to modify the priority and funding of the capital projects serving the study area
as new development occurs and creates opportunities for matching funds from private
development; redirecting project priorities and timing to coincide with major
developments.
The City will leverage the proposed Subarea Plan and Planned Action Ordinance to
request early distribution of state funds ($10,000,000) earmarked for Highway 99 within
Edmonds in the State's Ten Year Transportation Investment Plan. Additionally, the City
will continue to compete for funding from state and federal grants and continue to watch
for potential new funding sources.
Other Mitigation Measures
The EIS analysis indicates that mitigation for traffic impacts of improvement projects
under the Planned Action would occur in two stages.
Stye 1
The City will work with Community Transit to identify and help implement
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) mitigation measures to potentially reduce
intersection level of service impacts under the No Action and Preferred Alternatives.
The City may also consult with Sound Transit and the Washington State Department of
Transportation on this subject.
Residential (any size), commercial (under 25 employees), and mixed -use developments
may select from a menu of TDM measures specifically assembled for these types of land
uses. The City will work with Community Transit and, if appropriate, other agencies, to
develop guidelines and worksheets for property owners or tenants of new developments
to formulate a trip reduction plan, provided that where the proposed development already
incorporates measures that encourage vehicle trip reduction or transportation demand as
part of its proposal . Where specific trip reductions plans are required, plans must be
submitted to the Development Services Department prior of building permit application
unless a different schedule has been approved by the Development Services Director.
The Department will consult with Community Transit on the commute trip reduction
plans and recommend any changes..
Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance
17
Packet Pg. 314
9.3.b
Developments comprised of larger employers are required to develop and implement
TDM plans tailored to their workforce. Employers with 25 to 100 employees are required
to develop a TDM plan selecting from the menu of TDM measures described above, or
customize their own plan. TDM plans for employers with 100 employees or more must
conform to the requirements of the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law that is part of
the Washington Clean Air Act (RCW 70.94).
Menus of TDM strategies should include tiers of measures that have varying levels of
effectiveness and cost including but not limited to measures within the following broad
categories and associated example measures:
• Financial incentives, amenities and perks:
o Fully or partially subsidized transit passes
o Carpool/vanpool subsidies such as fuel vouchers, provision of vehicles,
full or partial coverage of vehicle lease, fuel, insurance and maintenance
o Car share membership for use by registered carpool and transit commuters
o Emergency ride home program
o Company vehicle available for employees who commute by alternative
modes
o Prize drawings to employees or residents who commute by alternative
modes
o Subsidized off -site services such as fitness center, daycare, dry cleaning,
bicycle repair and maintenance, etc.
o Service provided, or delivered, on -site such as dry cleaning pickup and
delivery, ATM machine, fitness center, daycare, etc.
• Parking Management Strategies
o Charge market rate for employee parking
o Parking cashout program
o Preferential parking for carpool/vanpools
o Restrictions or limited on -site parking
o Unbundled parking
o On -site bike share and/or car share facilities
• Support Strategies and Assistance
o Part or full-time on -site TDM coordinator
o Commute options package for new employees and/or residents
o Commute alternative information kiosk or website
Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance
18
Packet Pg. 315
9.3.b
o Rideshare matching program
o Discounts on purchasing bicycles and accessories
o Sponsored events promoting alternative commute options
Note: Except where required by law or as a condition of approval, monitoring,
refinement, and maintenance of individual TDM plans by new development is voluntary
after the initial submittal for plan approval.
St
The City will implement new capacity -enhancing mitigation measures for intersection
impacts under the Preferred Alternative. The following new intersection capacity -
enhancing mitigation measures will be incorporated into the City's standardized six -year
Transportation Improvement Program process for funding and prioritizing transportation
projects:
• State Route 99 / 220th Street SW — Widen State Route 99 to add a second
southbound left turn lane. This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F under
buildout of the Preferred Alternative, exceeding the standard of LOS E even with
implementation of the improvement called for in the 2015 Comprehensive
Transportation Plan to widen 220th to add a westbound right turn lane and a
second westbound left turn lane, and an eastbound right turn lane.
• State Route 99 / 224th Street SW — Convert the eastbound approach of 224th
Street SW to provide an exclusive right turn lane, a shared through/right turn lane,
and an exclusive left turn lane, or an alternate design as confirmed by further
study. This intersection would operate at a LOS F under buildout of the Preferred
Alternative. This intersection was not studied in the 2015 update to the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan and, therefore, does not currently have any
planned improvements.
Additionally, the City will take steps to enable the new capacity -enhancing mitigation
measures when and if monitoring shows that the measures are required, and implement
the improvements, as the following opportunities arise:
• Require any new development, redevelopment or site improvements requiring a
building permit on the properties adjacent to the impacted intersections to not
construct any form of structure or infrastructure (except landscaping or other
streetscape improvements) on, under, or above the right of way potentially needed
to be acquired for the intersection capacity improvements.
• Coordinate with WSDOT and adjacent municipalities on the potential land
acquisitions needed for the intersection capacity improvements located within
Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance
19
Packet Pg. 316
9.3.b
their jurisdictions and, if possible, request the adjacent municipalities to apply the
same building restrictions.
• As funds become available through the City's Transportation Improvement
Program process, construct the capacity improvements. This may include
acquiring the necessary right of way from adjacent property owners through
purchase or negotiated dedication.
Public Services
Incorporated Plan Features
Proposed transportation projects under the sub -area plan would improve pedestrian and
bicycle character, access, and mobility within the study area, particularly crossing
Highway 99. As such, east -west access across Highway 99 to park and recreation
facilities would improve.
The sub -area plan provides greater incentive for mixed -use and commercial development
in proximity to existing infrastructure on SR-99, making more efficient use of available
stormwater capacity. Additionally, planned streetscape improvements under the Action
Alternative would increase landscaping along the street — trees and other landscaping
provide a natural ability to absorb stormwater and release it slowly to the atmosphere.
The City will continue to pursue energy efficiency measures to reduce energy
consumption, thereby reducing stress on Snohomish County PUD as residential and jobs
growth occurs. The sub -area plan encourages sustainable building practices, including
considering requiring electric vehicle charging facilities and encouraging solar panels
(Recommendation 2.2 and 2.3, February 2017 Draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan).
Regulations and Commitments
Police
The Police Department will implement the 2016 agency goals to the extent feasible in its
2016-2021 Multiyear Strategic Plan. These goals include:
• bringing the Street Crimes Unit and second K-9 team back on line
• partnering with City Council and the Edmonds School District to secure funding
for a School Resource Officer for Edmonds-Woodway High School
• establishing by policy the Peer Support Team to assist Department members and
their families in time of need
• working with SNOCOM and Bair Analytics to secure a crime analysis
workstation which interfaces with records management and helps bring a public
crime mapping portal on-line
Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance
20
Packet Pg. 317
9.3.b
As recommended in the 2016-2021 Multiyear Strategic Plan, the Police Department
should maintain, at a minimum, the current staffing ratio of 1.35 commissioned officers
per 1,000 residents. Additionally, the Police Department should continue looking to
future budget cycles and preparing to pursue and justify the addition of commissioned
staff as the economic climate allows.
As recommended in the 2016-2021 Multiyear Strategic Plan, the Police Department
should restore the Crime Prevention Officer position to aid the Department's ability to
conduct crime prevention training and strategies for businesses, apartment management,
various concerned groups, and individuals.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Ongoing capital facilities improvement, budgeting, and operational planning by Fire
District 1 and the City of Edmonds are anticipated to address incremental increases and
other changes in demand for fire services, including the need for additional personnel,
additional apparatus, and facility improvements. Fire District 1 recently completed the
first Phase of a Capital Facilities Plan which evaluates existing conditions, including an
inventory and assessment of existing facilities. Phase 1 of the plan indicated a need for
minor near and mid-term maintenance and repairs at Stations 16 and 17, as well as
potential seismic or safety upgrades. Station 20 is identified as one of 5-6 stations
throughout the district which should be considered for replacement to support operation
needs and code deficiencies (Fire District 2016c, 46, 48, C 114-C 145). Phase 2 will
forecast future needs and phase 3 will provide an estimate of capital facility funding
necessary to execute the plan, an implementation timeline and a recommended funding
approach.
All potential development in the study area will be constructed in compliance with the
City's current Fire Code (ECDC 19.25), which is comprised of the 2015 International
Fire Code with Edmonds Amendments. Adequate fire flow to serve potential
development will be provided as required by the Fire Code. Potential development will
also be required to comply with code requirements for emergency access to structures.
The Department of Fire Prevention also reviews proposed street improvements on a
project —by -project basis to identify potential negative impacts on response times and
ensure street improvements are consistent with the City's Fire Code.
A portion of the tax revenue generated from potential redevelopment in the study area
would accrue to the City and Fire District 1 to help fund additional fire and emergency
medical services.
Schools
Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance
21
Packet Pg. 318
9.3.b
Ongoing capital facilities improvements, budgeting, and operational planning by the
District, in conjunction with the City of Edmonds, are anticipated to accommodate
projected student enrollment at acceptable levels of service over the next twenty years.
The School District will continue to replace, expand, modernize, and upgrade District
facilities as approved by voters in the 2014 Capital Construction Bond and should
implement the goals identified in Edmonds School District's Strategic Direction (ESD
2014).
Parks and Open Space
The City will, to the extent feasible, implement goals identified in the 2014 Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Plan which improve the park system within or near the
study area to address geographic gaps in service (Edmonds 2014, 4-1 — 4-11).
Specifically, impacts identified in the EIS should be mitigated by:
• Expanding the partnership with the Edmonds School District, including
negotiating an agreement for expanded, year-round public use of school grounds,
sports fields and gyms for recreation purposes (Goal LA).
• Exploring property acquisition and development with partners, including the
School District, Snohomish County and other public and private entities —
continue to partner with neighboring and overlapping jurisdictions (cities,
counties, school districts) as well as private entities (i.e. churches) to expand
recreation opportunities for the community; continue discussions for possible
acquisition of Esperance Park from Snohomish County for annexation and
redevelopment into a community park with sports fields, community gardens,
picnic shelters, and other recreation features; and consider acquisition of County
park land within or adjacent to Edmonds (if made available), such as Chase Lake
(Goal 2.C).
• Acquiring park land in the Highway 99/SR 104 areas to provide adequate park
service in redeveloping areas. Create new civic spaces to enhance investment and
revitalization while meeting recreation needs, especially where service gaps exist,
or higher residential impact is planned (Goal 2.G).
• Defining the best routes for and treatments to create central north -south and east -
west pedestrian and bicycle corridors, incorporate these into the City's
transportation plans, and implement improvements (Goal 2.N).
• Increasing connections to the Interurban Trail, using signage, sidewalks, curb
extensions, and other pedestrian/bicycle enhancements, especially focusing on
crossing Highway 99 (Goal 2.0).
Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance
22
Packet Pg. 319
9.3.b
• Strongly considering the formation of a Metropolitan Park District in order to
sustain the level of quality expected by the community while growing to meet
future needs (Edmonds 2014, 5-5).
Electricity
Ongoing capital facilities improvements, budgeting, and operational planning by
Snohomish County PUD are anticipated to address incremental increases and other
changes in demand for electricity. Depending on the level of development and associated
new loads, feasibility studies should be conducted for individual projects as part of the
development review process. System capital projects should be developed to meet the
demands of future loading if capacity improvements are necessary (Ha pers. com).
Stormwater
Any redevelopment or new development under both alternatives would be subject to
today's stricter regulations governing stormwater. Green design and construction
methods should be employed in buildings, streetscapes, and drainage features to detain
and treat stormwater (Ecology 2014, 8-10).
The City's Storm and Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan (2010) will guide
infrastructure improvements. Specific elements of the stormwater improvements will be
defined by the requirements of the State -mandated NPDES Western Washington Phase II
Municipal Stormwater Permit. Under this set of regulations, the City maintains measures
to protect and improve runoff conditions in relation to the receiving waters. The City of
Edmond's stormwater management requirements and ongoing efforts are included in:
• Edmonds Community Development Code 18.30 and Stormwater Code
Supplement to 18.30 (Edmonds 2010b; Edmonds 2016c) — the City is nearly
finished updating the Stormwater Code and Supplement, anticipated to be adopted
January 1, 2017 (Cawrsepers. com)
• Storm and Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan (Edmonds 201Oa)
• Stormwater Management Program Plan (Edmonds 2016f)
Other Mitigation Measures
Police
The City will monitor growth and demand for police services in the study area in order to
determine if/when additional personnel are needed and will regularly review trends to
ensure the Police Department has enough advance time to address the needs.
New development under the Planned Action will employ Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques - incorporation of design features into
Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance
23
Packet Pg. 320
9.3.b
development that would help reduce criminal activity and calls for service, including
orienting buildings toward the sidewalk and public spaces, providing connections
between buildings, and providing adequate lighting and visibility.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
The City will monitor growth and demand for fire and emergency medical services in the
study area in order to determine if/when additional personnel, equipment, or facilities are
needed and will regularly review trends to ensure the City and Fire District 1 have
enough advance time to address the needs.
The City and Fire District 1 should work together to plan for pedestrian improvements,
such as wider sidewalks, to ensure that the opportunity for emergency vehicle
maneuvering is maintained.
Additionally, the City should continue efforts to find sufficient resources to retain and
improve Fire District 1's current level of services provided. Efforts include exploring
additional funding sources — such as a Fire Benefit Charge or Levy Lid Lift; pursuing
ways to reduce unnecessary costs/eliminate redundancy, including potential opportunities
to partner with neighboring cities, Fire District 7, and other Fire Protection agencies
through regional consolidation; and planning for the possible formation of a Regional
Fire Authority in South Snohomish County.
Schools
The Edmonds School District tracks information on growth in enrollment and demand for
educational programs offering across all grade spans in the region, including the study
area, as part of its determination about if/when additional personnel or facilities are
needed. The City will periodically review trends and information from the Edmonds
School District, to ensure the City and the Edmonds School District have enough advance
time to address the needs, including grade configuration, optimum facility size,
educational program offerings, classroom utilization, scheduling requirements, and the
use of temporary classroom facilities.
Additionally, the Edmonds School District will continue to evaluate both condition and
capacity of existing facilities at Westgate and Sherwood Elementary Schools to
determine if capital improvements are needed.
Parks and Open Space
The following steps should be taken to mitigate for impacts to Parks and Open Space
under the Planned Action:
• Require on -site open space as a residential amenity for new development.
Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance
24
Packet Pg. 321
9.3.b
• Encourage and promote public open spaces through public/private partnerships
where possible.
• Implement pedestrian and bicycle transportation improvements to provide greater
access to existing facilities within one-half mile of the study area, with a focus on
removing Highway 99 as a physical barrier.
• Existing recreational programs may see increased enrollment and increased
revenue as people living in the study area enroll in more programs. This increased
enrollment may marginally help offset the costs of providing additional facilities.
Electricity
The following steps should be taken to mitigate for impacts to the electrical grid under
the Planned Action:
• Evaluate and identify future service system needs through coordinated electricity
demand planning between the City Development Services Department and
Snohomish County PUD.
• The PUD is currently undergoing smart grid infrastructure modernization of its
electrical distribution system to improve reliability and increase efficiencies for its
customers.
• Where feasible, reduce the use of power in building heating and cooling through
passive systems and modern power saving units.
Stormwater
No additional mitigation measures are recommended.
Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance
25
Packet Pg. 322
9.3.b
Everett Daily Herald
Affidavit of Publication
State of Washington }
County of Snohomish } ss
Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon
oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal
representative of the Everett Daily Herald a
daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal
newspaper by order of the superior court in the
county in which it is published and is now and
has been for more than six months prior to the
date of the first publication of the Notice
hereinafter referred to, published in the English
language continually as a daily newspaper in
Snohomish County, Washington and is and
always has been printed in whole or part in the
Everett Daily Herald and is of general
circulation in said County, and is a legal
newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99
of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter
213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of
Snohomish County, State of Washington, by
order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed
is a true copy of EDH773342 ORD 4077-4081
as it was published in the regular and entire
issue of said paper and not as a supplement
form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such
publication commencing on 08/20/2017 and
ending on 08/20/2017 and that said newspaper
was regularly distributed to its subscribers
during all of said period.
The amount of the fee
for such publication is
$68.8( j
Subscribed and sworn
before me on this
day of
o7D
s �
f , �.
L
Z
f
Nei ary Public in and for the State of
Washington.
City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416
SCOTT PASSEY
�,'��i1441E11tlf1ldl�lf/
P H
o � ySidf7 Vie' (P r.
v .'s DY AR Y
s
O�g-29 ,lfl
Packet Pg. 323
9.3.b
ORDIMANCC SUMMARY
of trio City of EdmwlcK Washinglon
On the 151h day of August, 2017, the City Council of the City of
Edmonds, passed the following Ordinances, the sumrnarles of the
content of said ordinances consisting of lilies ate proVided as
follows-
ORDINANCE NO.4077
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA
PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
ORDINANCE NO.4078
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE,
AMENDING CHAPTER 16.60 ENTITLED "CG - GENERAL
COMMERCIAL ZONE," AND ECDC 20.60,045 ENTITLED
FREESTANDING SIGNS - REGULATIONS," REZONING
CERTAIN PROPERTY TO CG - GENERAL COMMERCIAL
ZONE, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE
ORDINANCE NO.4079
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A PLANNED
ACTION rCR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA, PURSUANT TO
THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
ORDINANCE NO.4080
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 3.38
OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, MULTI -FAMILY TAX
EXEMPTION PROGRAM
ORDINANCE NO.4081
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 3.75
OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
The full text of these OItlWlances will be mailed upon requni,
DATED Ills 169i day of August, 2017,
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
�I PutbishW! August 20. 2017. EOH 7T33421
L5
O
d
V
C
M
C
L
0
CL
d
G1
V
C
R
C_
f_
0
M
i
O
ti
O
IV
4)
V
C
M
C
L
0
cd
G
t
V
M
Q
Packet Pg. 324
9.3.c
for the assistant court administrator position. With regard to workload, it depends on how it is measured.
There has been a lot of work coming out of COVID with the Washington Supreme court emergency order
about to go away and the pause on infraction failures to appear. There are different ways to measure
workload such as number of cases or number of hearings. For example, she had six cases on this afternoon's
docket but it took hours. Once the assistant court administrator position is filled, the court will be properly
staffed to handle the work that comes through Edmonds Municipal Court.
Councilmember Chen recalled Ms. Maylor's response to his email that there were 5,000 new cases in 2021
and 1,000 in 2022, which is a significant drop in the number of cases, yet the department's budget has
doubled. Judge Rivera said case filings is one way of tracking workload. The court processes cases they
get; it is interesting to look at trends, there are peaks and valleys. If someone pled guilty to domestic
violence or driving under the influence today, they potentially would be on probation through 2027. A lot
of what they do in community court is providing services to people on probation who may be struggling, it
is not just pending cases. She agreed the case filings are projected to be lower in 2022 than in 2021.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
4. HIGHWAY 99 PLANNED ACTION FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin explained this plan review was written into the
legislation and anticipated. Staff thoroughly reviewed the planned action mitigation measures and will
report on compliance with the planned action and status of development. She recognized the significant
amount of public comment and she appreciated the diligence about understanding the nature of
development that is occurring, questioning how it fits into the environmental review; staff will review and
offer assurances on each of those aspects from traffic to parks to ensure the initial issues outlined the in EIS
are acknowledged and still moving forward consistent with what was required by the EIS and mitigation
measures, both the private development community as well as public investments.
Ms. McLaughlin explained the intent of a planned action is to offer transparency to the public about what
is anticipated from development along a corridor that was upzoned to a zone that will accept higher levels
of density, particularly housing given the City's housing needs. It also gives developers some assurance, a
level of confidence to make those large scale investment in larger apartment buildings that are being
constructed in the corridor. It is also to leverage public investment, putting private and public investments
in the same area increases livability. Although mitigation measures cannot address existing deficiencies,
they can shape in a beneficial ways the neighborhoods along the Highway 99 corridor. It also leverages
private investment not only in the realm of housing but sidewalks and walkability via frontage
improvements to add to the walkability network, sidewalk network and improves safety at intersections.
That is all in accordance with the anticipated impacts. There has been a negligible amount of development
compared to what was anticipated under the planned action. There are nowhere near the cumulative impacts
anticipated or mitigated against.
Planning Manager Kernen Lien reviewed:
• Highway 99 Subarea Planning Process
o Subarea Plan (Ordinance 4077)
o Updated Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ordinance 4078)
o Environmental Impact Statement & Planned Action (Ordinance 4079)
o Won VISION 2040 Award from the Puget Sound Regional Council
• What is a Planned Action SEPA?
o Designating specific types of projects shifts environmental review to an earlier phase
o The intent is to provide a more streamlined environmental review process at the project stage
by conducting a more detailed environmental analysis during planning
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 17
Packet Pg. 325
9.3.c
o Early environmental review provides more certainty to applicants with respect to what will be
required and to the public with respect to how environmental impacts will be addressed
o Designation of planned action projects does not prohibit the city from placing conditions on a
project; it only addresses procedural SEPA requirements
Planned Action Thresholds and Mitigation Measures
o Development Thresholds
■ Number of Residential Dwelling Units — 3,325 Units
■ Square Footage of Non-residential Uses — 1,634,685 square feet
■ PM Peak Hour Trips — 2,755 Trips
o Mitigation measures are largely a mix of policy, code amendments and specific projects
o Mitigation measures identified in EIS and attached to the Planned Action Ordinance
■ Incorporated Plan Features
■ Regulations and Commitments
■ Other Mitigation Measures
Planned Action Monitoring and Review
o Ongoing: Monitor progress of development to ensure it is consistent with the assumptions of
the planned action, the amount of development and associated impacts and mitigation measures
o August 2022: Five-year review of assumptions and findings with respect to environmental
conditions in the Planned Action area, the impacts of development, and required mitigation
measures
Monitoring and Tracking
o Projects reviewed at application with Planned Action Checklist
o Review based on application materials and SEPA Checklist
o All projects tracked in Highway 99 spreadsheet
o Additional SEPA review required if project impacts and/or mitigation not in Planned Action
Planned Action Projects and Thresholds
Planned
Status
Remaining until
BLD
Measure
Action
threshold
Threshold
Issued
Proposed
exceeded
Land Use
New square
1,634,685
14,125
1,389
1,619,171
Non-residential, including office,
footage of
retail, service and
building area
medical/healthcare uses
Residential
Number of new
3,325
319
313
2,693
dwelling units
Transportation
Peak PM Trips
2,755
80
126
2,549
• Environmental Conditions Changed?
o Detailed in Subarea Plan
■ Land Use Pattern
■ Housing
■ Transportation
■ Economic and Market Trends
o Changes in existing conditions limited to plan implementation
■ Zoning change
■ Transportation projects
■ New development
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 18
Packet Pg. 326
9.3.c
CURRENT ZONING
■ r-Nat LOm'rlef[�41 J
G General Cgmmnoal
'N - Negtbomood Busamss
■ 3- wmrxndy Buss
-S 8 - S,rgie Farnly. 8.000 sq h
EA Mutd-0ty, 3.000 sq It
IA 2 4 - V ultdamdy, 2.400 Sq it
■ RM-1.5- Vulbfamgy, 1.500 W ft
■ MU - Medico' the
Public Use
RECOMMENDED ZONING
■ ON No,91-bwhood Busness
■ BC - Consnlunrty Busness
i RS-8 Sirgte Famty, 8.000 sq t•.
R1,4-3 Mueri—Or. 3,000 sq it
RM 24 Muhdamly, 2400 sq 'I
■ RM-1 5-/Aultdamiy, 1,500 sq h
■ MU-Wd-I Use
P Public use
• Impacts of Development?
o Twelve projects:
■ One expired
■ Four projects completed
■ Three currently under construction
■ Four under application review
o Impacts as envisioned and mitigated
Project
I
Project Status
Permit
Addreas
New square footage of
building area (non-
nsiden0al us..)dwelling
Number of new
units
Peak PM Trips
Generated
GRE Apartments
:BLD Issued
PLN20180060
!23326 Highway 99
0
192
83
CHIC Addition
-', BLD Finaled
PLN20190029
23320 Highway 99
7,000
0
13
Edmond Senior Living!.
Expired
;PLN20190013
21200 72nd Ave. W
Doug's Mazda service
;BLD Finaled
BLD20191212
22133 Highway 99
13,659
0
18.7
Doug's Hyundai showroom addn/remodel
! BLD Finaled
: BLD20190120
22130 Highway 99
2,542
0
2.27
Behar remodel
!BLD Finaled
BLD20171452
:22019 Highway 99
-94
0
-2
Better Bellevue Townhomes
BLD Applied
PLN20180058
j8029 238th St SW
0
3
1
Apollo Apartments
!BLD Applied
!PLN20200043
123601 Highway 99
-26,290
252
76
Anthology Senior Living
BLD Issued
PLN2021-0004
2120072nd Ave. W
14,125
127
-3
Terrace Place Apartments
'Proposed
PLN2022-0047
i 2362584th Ave. W
0 -
261
302
Housing Hope
!Proposed
PLN2022-0042
18215 236th St. SW
1,389
52
24
Highway 99 Gateway Project
Capital Project
0
0
0
• Mitigation Measures
o Specific mitigation measures in agenda packet identifying actions taken
o Mitigation measures expected to occur over time
■ Transportation Projects (Near -term 5 to10 years; Long-term 10 to 20 years)
■ Park Acquisition
■ Development Improvements
o Specific Subdistrict Identities
■ Health District, International District, and Gateway District
• Other — Project Review
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 19
Packet Pg. 327
o Design review in other areas of the city require Architectural Design Board (ADB) review is
SEPA triggered
o In CG zone, only projects that exceed 75 feet required to go to ADB
o With adoption of Planned Action, no notice required
o City's largest projects don't require notice or public design review process
Recommendations
o No amendments to the Planned Action Ordinance 4079 or supplements to the Highway 99
Planned Action EIS are needed at this time
o Implementation of the Planned Action EIS and mitigations should continue to be pursued
o Expand notice and public process for projects in CG zone
o Expand Subdistrict Identities
Ms. McLaughlin emphasized there was a thorough analysis under the planned action, environmental review
and specific measures and staff believes it is in compliance. She recognized the community's concern which
is why changes are suggested related to public notice and design review. Staff has the discretion to require
noticing, but it does not require SEPA noticing. With regard to design review, projects are reviewed by
staff under specific development standards. If there is interest, there could be a higher level of design review
for projects along the Highway 99 corridor. Changes like this do not require a supplemental EIS. She agreed
with continuing to finetune and improve the process and outcomes and address some of the issues the
community raised.
Ms. McLaughlin continued, just like with the emergency ordinance that was brought forward, it was not an
explicit mitigation measure or requirement of the planned action, it was something staff thought was not an
equitable approach and an emergency ordinance was proposed to address it. The City can work with much
more innovation and expedience in resolving some of the issues instead of going through a rigid
environmental process that has very defined methodologies that may not result in the desired outcome. For
example, the transportation methodology relies on vehicular level of service at intersections, it only count
cars. If only cars are counted and impacts are defined by cars at intersections when the community is talking
about impacts to people, walkability, bikeability and livability of their neighborhood, an environmental
document will only expand intersections and add signals. In staff s opinion a supplement EIS is not the
vehicle to make the changes everyone wants to see. An example of that is shifting to a multimodal level of
service, something she hoped was on the near term horizon.
Ms. McLaughlin explained despite the planned action and EIS, staff still goes through an individual project
based analysis which includes traffic. Reviewing those traffic analyses confirmed what she already thought;
there are negligible impacts from the projects at the intersections mentioned this evening during audience
comments such as 236t1i & 84'1i. She reiterated a supplemental EIS may not be the vehicle to get the outcomes
that everyone seeks.
Councilmember Tibbott recalled there used to be a transition zone between a 75' building and a one story
single family. He did not know what happened to that and would like to explore how to reintroduce that..
He appreciated what staff was saying about a multimodal approach to looking at streets; he has often
thought the level of service at intersections does not help much with regard to determining the impact to a
neighborhood. For a long time he and the late Councilmember K. Johnson worked to get walkway crews,
etc. He would like some reassurance that there is something in the TIP that addresses the issue on 236'.
His kids attended Madrona; most of the students do not walk because it is a choice school. Having a
walkway system that serves that neighborhood is very important and he wanted assurance the City was
moving in that direction. Ms. McLaughlin referred to her articles regarding the comprehensive plan
visioning process which addressed evaluating a transition zone for this neighborhood as part of the
comprehensive plan process. She acknowledged eliminating nine zones may have homogenized it too
much. That can be done without a supplemental EIS via the comprehensive plan process.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 20
Packet Pg. 328
9.3.c
Mr. Lien explained the rezoning of the Highway 99 corridor got rid of the transition zones and was part of
the EIS analysis and there were some mitigation measures associated with that including the stepbacks
properties that are adjacent to single family. The ordinance last week addressed specific mitigation for
properties across the street. That was part of analysis in the EIS for removing those transition zones. With
regard to transportation improvements, there are east -west connector sidewalk projects identified in the
EIS, new bike lanes on 236t1i, and pedestrian sidewalk improvements. Pedestrian projects identified in the
EIS will occur over time.
Ms. McLaughlin said while the planned action includes mitigation measures, it is not inclusive of projects
in the CIP/CFP or existing projects. Layering those over the mitigation measures in the EIS provides a more
full picture of the commitment over the years in this neighborhood. Mr. Lien highlighted projects in the
CIP that are in the mitigation measure table in the packet.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff for the complete packet. She is environmentally rigid; she is not
a scientist but has spent more than a thousand hours talking to people about this. The EIS talks about
probable adverse environmental impacts. The FEIS talks about the 2014 stormwater code which has been
updated and had a significant impact to stormwater which would be a reason to trigger supplemental EIS.
The City learned from OVWSD about issues with the wellheads that are within this area. Updating the code
regarding the critical aquifer recharge area (CARA) could also trigger a supplemental EIS. In addition to
protecting water quality and the environment, climate change has significant impacts across the world.
Significant geomorphology events where very little rain falls have a tremendous impact on stormwater.
Further, there are sewer treatment plant issues where nitrogen levels have changed and the facility is at
capacity. Citizens' voices need to be part of this supplemental EIS. She was not as worried about traffic as
she was with poor air quality, recalling people wore masks in Oregon when Mount St. Helens erupted and
more recently due to wildfire smoke. The air quality on Highway 99 is another trigger for a supplemental
EIS. Things have drastically changed from 2017 to 2022, even from 2020 to 2022. She planned to make a
motion to have a supplemental EIS performed.
With regard to stormwater regulations, Mr. Lien explained the update resulted in stricter stormwater
regulations so that was not a probable significant environmental impact under SEPA. Implementing the
stormwater regulations will help protect the environment so he disagreed that was a probable significant
probably impact under SEPA. With regard to the CARA, staff is aware of that issue and added OVWSD's
wellhead protection areas to the critical area layers, consider those during reviews and notify OVWSD if
there are any projects in those areas. As part of the SEPA review and SEPA appeal on the stormwater, there
was a lot of discussion on that and the updated stormwater regulations provide protection to the wellhead
protection areas. The City does not have a specific CARA code but it will be part of the comprehensive
plan update. Implementing the stormwater code is not a probably significant adverse impact under SEPA
and was actually litigated before the hearing examiner recently. He talked to WWTP Manager Pam
Randolph about sewer capacity
Councilmember Pained thanked staff and the community for the abundance of information. She anticipated
the planned action absorbed a lot of time in 2017. She noted things should happen sooner and asked whether
transition zones could be implemented more swiftly than the 2024 comprehensive plan update. Duplexes,
triplexes and 4-plexes provide honest transition zones in a fairly narrow area. She also asked if the sidewalk
program and planning could be accelerated to prioritize these routes because sidewalks build communities.
She asked whether Snohomish County could build sidewalks in the Esperance area. She was most
concerned about displacement; this community has the highest level of diversity and is the most
economically vulnerable. She asked what the City could do to avoid displacement. Housing is critical need
and is more critical than it was 5-8 years ago when the earlier analysis was done. Displacement is a critical
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 21
Packet Pg. 329
9.3.c
issue and is one of the ways the community judges success. She asked what a blight designation meant,
how it benefits Edmonds, and the components of that designation.
With regard to whether transitional zoning could be implemented sooner, Ms. McLaughlin said that type
of analysis lends itself to what will be done with the comprehensive plan update. She was not a fan of
waiting until 2024, but starting on the journey will lend itself to more sensible citywide analysis about
growth, density and housing. Whether some of those policy recommendations can be expedited, she was
not opposed to it. The ability to invest in this network is in the council's hands in terms of approving a
budget that prioritizes investments in this corridor and in this neighborhood. There is a fixed amount of
capital funding and how it is allocated is up to council. Recognizing the importance of private investment
in that equation for building out sidewalk networks is also critical. Without the private investment, the City
does not get the frontage improvements.
Ms. McLaughlin continued, through the reimagining work, street typologies are being explored to inform
the sidewalk code package. The sidewalk code will ensure the City is leveraging as much private investment
from development as possible as well as exploring an in -lieu payment program. Those tools, which are not
currently available, will help further build out the network using private investment. A critical part of that
is shifting to a multimodal level of service. Currently the City cannot prioritize sidewalk expansion using
transportation impact fees because those go toward vehicular capacity improvements. That is a big deal for
this neighborhood in particular who want to prioritize sidewalks. Once the City shifts to a multimodal level
of service, those impact fees can be used where they are needed. The transportation and park impact fees
for one development were over $1 million. She summarized private investment was certainly part of the
equation.
With regard to displacement, McLaughlin said it is thorny and challenging and something cities across the
country are looking at in relation to escalating housing prices. The Department of Commerce under the
GMA has required all cities in Washington to evaluate this as part of the comprehensive plan. A gap analysis
has been done for equity and the analysis will consider housing costs, where costs are escalating the most
and where there is the greatest risk of displacement. Staff is aware this corridor is at risk for displacement,
but it is not disproportionate impacted under the planned action; that will be considered via the
comprehensive plan update.
With regard to a blight designation, Ms. McLaughlin said a Highway 99 community renewal plan is
underway that will consider whether it meets the designation of blight as defined in the RCW. The EIS did
use the terminology of blight so it is irrelevant to this conversation. She asked what the question about
blight was in relation to. Councilmember Paine commented it was a new word that was being applied to
some aspects of the Highway 99 redevelopment; it was her vague understanding that there was a funding
source and she was seeking more information. Ms. McLaughlin responded blight can be defined in a couple
of ways under the community renewal plan as economic or structural such as the way streets are laid out or
land use as it relates to transportation. From an economic standpoint, this corridor is actually a strong
economic engine for the City so from an economic standpoint it would not be characterized as blight.
Councilmember Paine said she was glad to hear that, commenting blight was such a loaded word. Due to
the amount of information, she wanted more time to consider this. She was interested in what could be done
short of an EIS to address the concerns raised by the community. Even though staff determined the triggers
for a supplemental EIS have not been met, there is still a big need.
Councilmember Nand echoed Councilmember Buckshnis' comment that it would be appropriate to proceed
with a supplemental EIS. She did not find it appropriate to act as though adding hundreds of housing units
to the area of town where she lived and grew up without acknowledging that when people jaywalk on
Highway 99, they are crossing five lanes of traffic. People have been killed crossing Highway 99, something
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 22
Packet Pg. 330
that doesn't happen in other areas of the City. She was one of those 12-year old jaywalkers crossing
Highway 99 because there have never been not enough sidewalks or crosswalks. People run across five
lanes of traffic traveling 40-60 mph trying to reach a bus stop, something that does not happen in other parts
of Edmonds. That is the reason for the level of frustration expressed by the Lake Ballinger community. She
was proud to be from the Lake Ballinger and Highway 99 community; it is a lovely place to live and she
was shocked to hear the word blight applied to that area.
Councilmember Nand continued, the incredibly frustrated speakers who addressed council about
supplemental EIS they feel frustrations are falling on deaf ears. Young kids who jaywalk in this area can
be killed; adding hundreds of housing units to this area without addressing that impact is irresponsible. It
is the responsibility of the City, not private development to address that concern. A multitude of concerns
have been eloquently expounded in numerous meetings prior to tonight. She requested staff revise their
position that a supplemental EIS is not necessary or that no amendments are necessary. Conditions that may
have been appropriate in 2017 are not appropriate post -pandemic. It is not appropriate after a heatwave
killed hundreds in Washington last year due to inadequate infrastructure to protect vulnerable populations
including seniors. People died on sidewalks in Washington during 2021 due to the heat when resources
were unable to reach them in time.
Councilmember Nand continued, there is a lot of frustration in her part of the community, an area that has
always been very different than the Bowl. It is not just feeling underserved by City government or feeling
their concerns and frustrations fall on deaf ears, but the fact that they generate the most tax income for the
City, yet their area is treated as a problem. For the first time in 2019 when she ran for council, someone
referred to her part of Edmonds as the ghetto of Edmonds, a term she had never heard before. It is a part of
Edmonds where a lot of people of color live including her family who are members of the Asian -American
community. Before 2019, she did know her area of Edmonds was referred to as the ghetto of Edmonds or
that it was referred to as a blight. She was always proud to be part of Edmonds and did not know that was
how other people viewed that area.
Councilmember Nand continued, she lives in high density housing a few yards from Highway 99. She sees
her neighbor's young kids playing in the common driveway for their townhouse complex because there is
absolutely no green space for them to play. People pull out of their garages and whiz past kids trying to
play ball in the common driveway due to the lack of green space or trees especially compared to other parts
of Edmonds which are very well served and well represented. Issues of cultural competency need to be
addressed when people have been speaking to council for weeks about why they feel the subarea plan is
inappropriate and why they haven't been adequately consulted. She recognized staff worked very hard to
prepare tonight's packet, but did not feel it was adequate to address the concerns of her community and a
supplemental EIS needs to be pursued. She supported looking at transportation issues, reiterating in her
area of Edmonds, someone who is unlucky while jaywalking will die, something that does not happen to
people in the Bowl where people drive 25 mph. She encouraged staff to examine cultural competencies
when dealing with proud residents and taxpayers in her area of Edmonds who address this apparatus that is
supposed to represent them and is funded by taxpayer money.
Ms. McLaughlin appreciated Councilmember Nand's passion and commitment for the corridor. The intent
of tonight's presentation is to find the most effective vehicle to address all the issues that Councilmember
Nand raised. She assured she is passionate about traffic safety and finding ways to get capital investments
into that neighborhood. That is why she wanted to emphasize how ineffective the existing environmental
framework would be to achieve that and recognizing the limitations of that environmental document, the
City could be more effective on the fringes. She is an educated professional completely committed to under -
invested and under -represented neighborhoods like this area. She assured this areas was not blighted and
hoped that word did not get proliferated in that neighborhood. It is not blighted; it is an economic engine
for Edmonds that is only now receiving the investment that it has historically deserved.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 23
Packet Pg. 331
9.3.c
Ms. McLaughlin assured Councilmember Nand that her and the community's concerns have not fallen on
deaf ears. A member of the community wrote a very thorough letter that took a lot of research in addition
to the material staff provided in the packet. It took time to research and respond to her letter and meet with
her, but it did not fall on deaf ears; staff took her comments very seriously. Staff's recommendation to not
pursue a supplemental EIS is absolutely no reflection to their dedication and commitment to investing in
this area, it is because staff feels taking a different strategy would be more successful.
Mayor Nelson expressed appreciation for the work Ms. McLaughlin does and took offense to claims that
she has not been paying attention or listening. He knew she cared deeply about what was happening in that
area and was doing everything she can via the lens she looks through. Her expertise and her staff s expertise
in working through these issues and challenges are undervalued and he appreciated everything they were
doing.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
EXTEND TO 10:30. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
Councilmember Teitzel commented the frustration expressed by residents indicates a need to redouble
efforts to reach out to the community including communities of color. During his first term on council, he
attended open houses, recalling at one held at the hospital, almost everyone in the room looked like him;
there were very few people of color. The problem is not getting enough input from people affected by these
changes and they are shocked and concerned when these large developments start happening and they
realize how big the developments will be and how many people will live there. The City needs to redouble
its efforts and find ways to reach everybody to get input early before things reach the 1 I' hour.
Councilmember Teitzel continued, there has been a lot of discussion about the lack of open space, green
space and parks in south Edmonds. The City is trying to acquire open space and parks in conjunction with
the subarea plan. He referred to page 842 of the packet, Parks and Open Space in the 2017 subarea plan
states, "provide onsite open space as a residential amenity through new development." He asked if that
could be interpreted as developers would be expected to provide the open space or is that action that the
City would take in concert with development. Mr. Lien answered that is one of the design review standards
that were adopted in 16.60 to require amenity space and open space with development, but does not replace
the need for parks in the area. Ms. McLaughlin said there have been conversations recently with both private
development and the parks department about private investment solely providing those investments as well
as public -private partnership opportunities.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to page 840 of the packet Parks and Open Space in the 2017 subarea plan
which refers to possible acquisition of Esperance Park from Snohomish County for annexation and
redevelopment into a community park with sports fields, community gardens, picnic shelters, etc. He asked
why it would be beneficial for the City to acquire the park from Snohomish County when south Edmonds
residents already use it. Ms. McLaughlin was unsure of the status of that effort and offered to circle back
to Councilmember Teitzel on that question. She observed his point was not to take credit for space that
already exists. Councilmember Teitzel clarified since south Edmonds residents already use that park and
actually own it because they also pay taxes to the County, if the City acquires it, it will also take on the
maintenance costs. He did not see the benefit to the City as part of the subarea plan to consider acquiring
the park at this time.
Mr. Lien said since the subarea plan was done, the Snohomish County Esperance Park has been developed
and made available for public use. It includes sports fields, a dog park, playground trails and other recreation
facilities. The City has not acquired the park, but Edmonds citizens do use it.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 24
Packet Pg. 332
Councilmember Teitzel said he was interested in considering an SEIS especially with the passion expressed
about why the City should pursue an EIS. He asked the cost in terms of time and investment to conduct an
SEIS. Ms. McLaughlin answered that body of work has not been scoped, but depending on the scope and
amount of community outreach, she estimated the cost at $200,0004250,000 based on a range in other
local jurisdictions. She pointed out staff resources for that work would also need to be considered as the
City begins the update of the comprehensive plan. That workload would be unanticipated and almost
duplicative as it will consider the same policy issues, code issues, displacement issues, and will culminate
in an EIS.
Councilmember Teitzel suggested staff provide council the response to the citizen's letter. The council
needs to understand if an EIS is not done, how the City can respond to those concerns. Ms. McLaughlin
said these are valid issues that are mentioned in various planning documents whether it is an adopted
document of and EIS or planned projects associated with the CIP or comprehensive plan policies, all well
intended and adopted by council that are not all in one place. The community renewal plan provides an
opportunity to include an action plan to combine all the current and planned actions in one location so it
does not feel so disparate or unintentional. It would be helpful to see all the investments outlined in one
place along with a time horizon.
With regard to impacts of doing an SEIS, Mr. Lien explained if an SEIS is initiated on the subarea plan, the
planned action is not in place during that interim period. If any project applications are submitted while an
SEIS is underway, they would need to go through the entire SEPA process which includes a new threshold
determination, etc.
To reinforce what other councilmembers are saying, Council President Olson suggested some type of work
plan approved by council may be workable if it included dates and deadlines. There is a sense of urgency
about some of these things, specifically related to the aquifer. She was confused by staff saying there were
no changes in the environment; it was not that the changes have happened while the planned action was in
place, but questioned whether the fact that this environmental condition was unknown at the time it was
implemented would be considered a change. Mr. Lien explained for the SEPA analysis, the threshold is a
probable significant environmental impact. The City became aware of the wellhead protection areas by
OVWSD and there is a stormwater code that address development within wellhead protection areas that
protects the aquifer recharge area. Knowing they exist now does not necessarily mean it is a probable
significant adverse impact. This was a big part of the discussion when the SEPA review was done on the
stormwater code.
Council President Olson asked if there was anything in the documents about true protections for ensuring
development does not occur in that area. Mr. Lien answered it is not that development does not occur in the
wellhead protection areas, it is how development occurs. For example, to protect the aquifer, one of the
problems is injection wells. He first became aware of this during the Madrona School project that proposed
deep injection wells for stormwater which could potentially put stormwater into the aquifer. That is one of
the things that should not be done as part of development in an wellhead protection area. When development
is proposed within a wellhead protection area, OVWSD is notified so they can review the project and the
city stormwater code also helps project those areas. He summarized it is not that no development can occur
in those areas, it is how development occurs to avoid impacting the aquifer.
Council President Olson said she did not want to take action tonight; she wanted time to talk with citizens
and staff. One of the early concerns was the transportation impacts in the original EIS focused on Highway
99 and SR-104. As soon as those buildings (84') are constructed, they will obviously have a traffic impact.
If the original EIS did not look closely at that street and address those impact, it seems like that needs to
happen now. If there is no requirement for a traffic impact study because it is part of the subarea plan, that
seems like a miss. Whether that is handled by a council action plan or something else, she felt there should
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 25
Packet Pg. 333
be something that is documented, tracked and made a sense of urgency and a priority. Mr. Lien explained
applicants for projects within the planned area still prepare a project -level traffic impact analysis that looks
at the impacts of that specific project. Even if it qualifies as a planned action, conditions and mitigations
can be added for specific projects if warranted. He summarized additional traffic impact analysis is required
at the project level when applications are made.
Council President Olson referred to staff s comments about having public notice and involvement, and
asked if the developer would expect something had changed based on public input. Ms. McLaughlin asked
if Council President Olson's question was whether the developer would be aware the public notice had
changed. Council President Olson clarified staff mentioned adding a step for public notice for some
projects, but if nothing is required in terms of the subarea plan or the way the City typically does business,
how would the public input be used and would it change what happens. Ms. McLaughlin answered the
developer would definitely be aware of it coming into the application process and it likely would require
an ordinance change. In terms of how to be most effective with public notice, frankly a SEPA notice may
not be effective at reaching people, speak in layman's terms, and have a community conversation. The
public notice staff has been thinking about is in advance of a design review, to require a community meeting
with the developer to talk about project. That is something other jurisdictions do and it is highly effective
to have community members meet the developer and talk about the project in advance of a design review
so they understand what's valuable to the community versus just notice of a public hearing. Council
President Olson suggested she and staff talk offline about what that ordinance needs to look like.
Councilmember Chen acknowledged staffs hard work putting the packet together and all the information
provided. He also acknowledged staff listens to the community's input and thinks about what's best for the
community as evidenced by the moratorium two weeks ago. He shared the concerns of other
councilmembers' and the community about the lack of green space, lack of a transition zone, and
displacement for low income and people of color living in this community. Many of them work multiple
jobs to make ends meet and when their property values increase due to development, their property taxes
increase which diminishes their ability to pay. He was very concerned about displacement due to
development.
Councilmember Chen referred to Councilmember Teitzel's comment that people at community events look
like him, commenting it is because people of color work 2-3 jobs and are at work when those event are held
and do not have time to attend. He complimented staff s efforts to reach out, noting it is hard to reach them.
With the community's input and concerns, he supports conducting a supplemental EIS. The estimated cost
of $250,000 is a worthy investment to get the community's input and get the best development for this
community.
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
HAVE A SUPPLEMENTAL EIS CONDUCTED.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff for all the work they are doing, but she is jaded after 12 years.
Highway 99 residents deserve this SEIS. So much change has occurred and the citizens deserve to have a
voice. She preferred conducting a SEIS rather than a work around such as updating the code, including it
in the comprehensive plan, conducting a charrette, etc. She reiterated the climate will continue to get worse.
The Lake Ballinger Forum, which consists of Mountlake Terrace, Lake Forest Park, Shoreline and
Edmonds, is intent on keeping the lake clean and pristine. The City has $240 million from the state and
should just bite the bullet and do it.
Councilmember Paine said she was not in support of the motion at this time. The council needs to learn
more about implementing fixes that can happen right away. She wanted to explore other options before
reaching the conclusion that a SEIS is needed. She was excited about the light rail, anticipating south
Edmonds residents were not saying no housing or were supportive of the delays that a SEIS would create.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 26
Packet Pg. 334
9.3.c
She was hopeful things like transition zones could be implemented right away and consideration given to
things that could be done short of a SEIS. Adding more housing options throughout Edmonds would be
ideal rather than building it all in this corridor, but this corridor has the greatest opportunity with the light
rail, additional transportation services on Highway 99, and the Highway 99 renewal project which will
result in a lot of changes.
Councilmember Paine continued, she would like to adopt guidelines for all neighborhoods so there is shared
vision and opportunities for Highway 99, Lake Ballinger, the Gateway District, etc. and do it in a way that
includes public outreach. There are two mobile home parks in Edmonds; those are the areas she worries
about displacing and having more housing options is great way to avoid that. Housing is a human right and
honors people who have been here for a long time. She thanked staff for all the information and summarized
she preferred to look at options before doing a SEIS.
Councilmember Teitzel commented the council is hearing from its constituents tonight and for the past
several weeks that they want action taken on issues that concern them such as displacement, open space
acquisition, partnership with other entities on parks, traffic safety, pedestrian safety, etc. The key thing the
council should consider is how to best address those concerns. If it is a SEIS so be it; if there is a better,
more efficient, effective way to do that, that was fine too. The council needs to get to the point where it can
make a decision whether to invest the money in a SEIS or not. He observed Ms. McLaughlin has said there
may be better ways to ensure those concerns are addressed and was willing to entertain those ideas, but
needed to see the responses to the concerns raised in the letter and the concern the council heard tonight.
He would like to consider that before taking action on conducting a SEIS. For that reason he will not support
proceeding with a SEIS at this time.
Councilmember Nand said she was full throated in support of the motion to authorize a SEIS tonight. The
political process exists for a reason and the engaged citizenry has let the council know through the political
process that they have concerns about some of the proposed changes, the oversights they feel emanate from
City government and affect their community. A SEIS is the bare minimum of an appropriate response to
the level of outage coming from her community at some of the changes imbedded in the five-year plan. She
will take endless amounts of verbal smacks to continue verbalizing the wholly appropriate engagement in
the political process that is coming from her part of Edmonds.
Councilmember Tibbott agreed that moving forward with a SEIS at this time is premature. A SEIS may
need to be done, but he preferred to see a work plan from the development services department about how
it would integrate with the comprehensive plan which will include a great deal of public input. He hated to
circumvent a process that is already in motion to insert another process when resources could be expedited
via a process that is already in motion.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
EXTEND TO 10:45. MOTION CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
Councilmember Paine asked when the emergency ordinance expires. Mr. Lien explained the emergency
interim ordinance is good for six months. A public hearing schedule is scheduled for November 15 and the
ordinance should go through the planning Board and back through council before the 6 months expires.
Councilmember Paine observed the effect of the emergency ordinance was no new permits were accepted
during emergency interim ordinance period. Mr. Lien explained the interim ordinance passed two weeks
ago was related to stepbacks for properties across the street and is good for six months with the possibility
of an extension with a work plan. A public hearing before council is scheduled on the interim ordinance for
November 15; the council makes findings whether to continue the interim ordinance or modify the interim
ordinance. The next step in the interim ordinance process is planning board review and recommendation to
council and then council would adopt another ordinance (or not) to make it permanent. The interim
ordinance is only related to stepbacks.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 27
Packet Pg. 335
9.3.c
Council President Olson said she would support the motion with the thought that a motion to reconsider
could be done next week. The council will learn during the coming week whether it was the right move or
have something in the packet next week to consider as an alternative.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, BUCKSHNIS, AND
NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL,
TIBBOTT AND PAINE VOTING NO.
Ms. McLaughlin asked what the one week reconsideration mentioned by Council President Olson meant.
Council President Olson offered to follow up with Ms. McLaughlin tomorrow, explaining councilmembers
on the prevailing side have the option to reconsider. If there was a convincing reason or an agenda memo
regarding a different approach next week, there could be a motion to reconsider the motion passed tonight.
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN VISIONING SUMMARY
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
6. APPROVAL OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID AND HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN (Previously Consent Agenda Item 7.10)
Mr. Taraday said he had an opportunity to compare the committee packet to tonight's packet and understood
the question about the resolution. The resolution in tonight's packet meets the typical Edmonds resolution
format and appropriately adopts the Snohomish County Solid Waste Plan so he saw no legal reason not to
adopt it.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED, TO APPROVE
THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson welcomed Councilmember Nand. He reported on the Great Shakeout, an annual earthquake
preparedness exercise that will include testing of the tsunami siren on Thursday, October 20 at 10:20 a.m.
for 3 minutes. The siren is only a test and is for people who are outside, not inside a building, to seek higher
shelter. The City's disaster coordinator will be at the exercise to answer questions about disaster
preparedness.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Nand said she was incredibly honored and privileged to be on council. She was tweeting
with the former council student rep Brook yesterday and told him it was important that the council model
democracy and the democratic values of the U.S. Constitution at all levels of government down to the city
council. In working with City staff, she has established Councilmember Nand office hours every week on
Thursday from 4 to 5 pm. She also plans to have Councilmember Nand office hours on the weekend in the
Highway 99 community. She is wholly committed to being a public servant and she was thankful for the
opportunity.
Councilmember Paine welcomed Councilmember Nand, commenting she has been an active part of the
community and it was great to have her voice and experience. She thanked all the applicants for their interest
in council position #7. There is an amazing body of talent in Edmonds and she encouraged the applicants
to stay involved. She looked forward to the community renewal project open house on Thursday evening.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 28
Packet Pg. 336
9.3.d
OLYMPIC VIEW WATER & SEWER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. 1125
A RESOLUTION URGING THE CITY OF EDMONDS TO EXPEDITE THE
UPDATE TO ITS GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
INCLUDE GREATER PROTECTIONS TO CRITICAL AREAS WHICH HAVE THE
POTENTIAL TO IMPACT PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WITHIN THE OLYMPIC VIEW
WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT WATERSHED PROTECTION PLANNIG AREA.
WHEREAS, Olympic View Water & Sewer District ("District") is a purveyor of
public water to approximately 13,000 customers within and outside the City of Edmonds
("Edmonds") corporate limits; and
WHEREAS, under rules and regulations promulgated by the State Department of
Health, the District must meet stringent standards for supplying safe public water to its
customers; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW57.08.005(3) the District has express authority "To =
construct, condemn and purchase, add to, maintain, and supply waterworks to furnish the
district and inhabitants thereof and any other persons, both within and without the o
district, with an ample supply of water for all uses and purposes public and private with 2
full authority to regulate and control the use, content, distribution, and price thereof ....";
and =
0
r
d
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 57.08.005(7) (a) the District has authority "To 0
construct, condemn and purchase, add to, maintain, and operate systems of drainage for a
the benefit and use of the district, the inhabitants thereof, and persons outside the district
with an adequate system of drainage, including but not limited to facilities and systems
for the collection, interception, treatment, and disposal of storm or surface waters, and for
the protection, preservation, and rehabilitation of surface and underground waters, and
drainage facilities for public highways, streets, and roads, with full authority to regulate r
the use and operation thereof ..."; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 57.08.005(10) Where a district contains within its
borders, abuts, or is located adjacent to any lake, stream, groundwater as defined by
RCW 90.44.035, or other waterway within the state of Washington, such District has
authority to provide for the reduction, minimization, or elimination of pollutants from
those waters in accordance with the district's comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 57.08.005(22) a water/sewer district has authority
"To exercise any of the powers granted to cities and counties with respect to the
acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation of, and fixing rates and charges for
waterworks and systems of sewerage and drainage"; and
WHEREAS, under RCW 36.70.A.020(10), one of the important planning goals
for cities and counties planning under the Growth Management Act ("GMA") is to
Packet Pg. 337
9.3.d
"Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and
water quality, and the availability of water"; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060 (2) each county and city planning
under GMA is required to adopt development regulations that protect critical areas that
are required to be designated under RCW 36.70A.170; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.050(3) the State Department of Ecology
is required to provide minimum guidelines that apply to all jurisdictions, the intent of
which is to assist counties and cities in designating the classification of agricultural lands,
forestlands, mineral resource lands, and critical areas under RCW 36.70A.170 ; and
WHEREAS, under RCW 36.70.A.070 one of the mandatory elements cities and
counties are to provide in their comprehensive plans is a land use element which shall
provide for protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water
supplies. Where applicable, the land use element shall review drainage, flooding, and
stormwater runoff in the area and nearby jurisdictions and provide guidance for
corrective actions to mitigate or cleanse those discharges that pollute waters of the state,
including Puget Sound or waters entering Puget Sound; and
WHEREAS, pursuant RCW 36.70A.172 in designating and protecting critical
areas under GMA, counties and cities are required to include the best available science in
developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of
critical areas. In addition, counties and cities shall give special consideration to
conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous
fisheries; and
WHEREAS, in fulfilling its responsibilities to comply with the protection of
critical area aquifers under GMA, Snohomish County has adopted SCC Chapter 30.62.0
the purpose of which is to "... designate and protect critical aquifer recharge areas
(CARAS) pursuant to the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) in order to
safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare and to protect groundwater resources.
Critical aquifer recharge areas include sole source aquifers, Group A wellhead protection
areas and areas sensitive to groundwater contamination."; and
WHEREAS, SCC 30.62C.150 provides that County Planning and Development
Services shall provide notification as required by Chapter 30.70 SCC of any proposed
development activity or actions requiring a project permit subject to Part 300 to
purveyors of Group A public water supply systems established pursuant to WAC 246-
290; and
WHEREAS, SCC prohibits the following activities in CARAS:
(1) Landfills, including hazardous or dangerous waste, municipal solid waste, special
waste, woodwaste, and inert and demolition waste landfills;
(2) Underground injection wells;
Packet Pg. 338
9.3.d
(3) Mining of metals and hard rock;
(4) Wood treatment facilities occurring over permeable surfaces (natural or
manmade); and
(5) Facilities that store, process, or dispose of radioactive substances; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has no comparable regulations to designate or
protect CARAS; and
WHEREAS, the District has increasing concerns with land use and development
activities in Edmonds which if not regulated in a similar way as Snohomish County, may
pose harm to the watershed and groundwater within the District which is the source of
supply for its water customers; and
WHEREAS, WAC 365-190-100 adopted in February, 2010 by the State
Department of Commerce regarding Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas reads as follows
Critical aquifer recharge areas.
(1) Potable water is an essential life sustaining element for people and many other
species. Much of Washington's drinking water comes from groundwater. Once 2
groundwater is contaminated it is difficult, costly, and sometimes impossible to clean up.
Preventing contamination is necessary to avoid exorbitant costs, hardships, and potential c
physical harm to people and ecosystems.
(2) The quality and quantity of groundwater in an aquifer is inextricably linked to its o
recharge area. Where aquifers and their recharge areas have been studied, affected a
counties and cities should use this information as the basis for classifying and designating
these areas. Where no specific studies have been done, counties and cities may use
existing soil and surficial geologic information to determine where recharge areas exist.
To determine the threat to groundwater quality, existing land use activities and their
potential to lead to contamination should be evaluated. r
(3) Counties and cities must classify recharge areas for aquifers according to the aquifer =
vulnerability. Vulnerability is the combined effect of hydrogeological susceptibility to C
contamination and the contamination loading potential. High vulnerability is indicated by c
land uses that contribute directly or indirectly to contamination that may degrade a
groundwater, and hydrogeologic conditions that facilitate degradation. Low vulnerability
is indicated by land uses that do not contribute contaminants that will degrade
groundwater, and by hydrogeologic conditions that do not facilitate degradation. s
Hydrological conditions may include those induced by limited recharge of an aquifer.
Reduced aquifer recharge from effective impervious surfaces may result in higher a
concentrations of contaminants than would otherwise occur.
(a) To characterize hydrogeologic susceptibility of the recharge area to contamination,
counties and cities may consider the following physical characteristics:
(i) Depth to groundwater;
(ii) Aquifer properties such as hydraulic conductivity, gradients, and size;
(iii) Soil (texture, permeability, and contaminant attenuation properties);
Packet Pg. 339
9.3.d
(iv) Characteristics of the vadose zone including permeability and attenuation properties;
and
(v) Other relevant factors.
(b) The following may be considered to evaluate vulnerability based on the contaminant
loading potential:
(i) General land use;
(ii) Waste disposal sites;
(iii) Agriculture activities;
(iv) Well logs and water quality test results;
(v) Proximity to marine shorelines; and
(vi) Other information about the potential for contamination.
(4) A classification strategy for aquifer recharge areas should be to maintain the quality,
and if needed, the quantity of the groundwater, with particular attention to recharge areas
of high susceptibility.
(a) In recharge areas that are highly vulnerable, studies should be initiated to determine if
groundwater contamination has occurred. Classification of these areas should include
consideration of the degree to which the aquifer is used as a potable water source,
feasibility of protective measures to preclude further degradation, availability of
treatment measures to maintain potability, and availability of alternative potable water
Mi"11KRM
(b) Examples of areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water L
may include:
(i) Recharge areas for sole source aquifers designated pursuant to the Federal Safe 0
Drinking Water Act;
(ii) Areas established for special protection pursuant to a groundwater management c
program, chapters 90.44, 90.48, and 90.54 RCW, and chapters 173-100 and 173- a.
200 WAC;
(iii) Areas designated for wellhead protection pursuant to the Federal Safe Drinking L
Water Act;
(iv) Areas near marine waters where aquifers may be subject to saltwater intrusion; and
(v) Other areas meeting the definition of "areas with a critical recharging effect on N
aquifers used for potable water" in these guidelines. r
(c) Some aquifers may also have critical recharging effects on streams, lakes, and 0
wetlands that provide critical fish and wildlife habitat. Protecting adequate recharge of M
0
these aquifers may provide additional benefits in maintaining fish and wildlife habitat a
conservation areas; and
WHEREAS, the District's Well Head Protection Areas (WHPA) have been
designated as highly susceptible to stormwater contamination, and portions do not have
overlying till to protect the aquifer. More than half of the Deer Creek WHPA (out to 10-
year zone) and a portion of the buffer zone as well, are not covered with till and therefore
are highly vulnerable to contamination; and
WHEREAS, Edmonds will be required to update its Comprehensive Plan in 2024
and will have the opportunity to include more stringent regulations to protect the
groundwater supply from which the District draws its public water drinking supply;
Packet Pg. 340
9.3.d
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the
Olympic View Water and Sewer District as follows:
The Board of Commissioners of Olympic View Water and Sewer District urge
Edmonds to begin the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan to include
measures which will better protect sources of water supply in the District's
watershed protection planning area.
2. The District urges Edmonds to adopt regulations similar in nature and at least as
stringent as Snohomish County to designate and protect critical aquifer recharge
areas CARAS) pursuant to the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW)
in order to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare and to protect
groundwater resources.
The District requests that Edmonds immediately agree to providing notice to the
District of any proposed development activity or actions requiring a project
permit pursuant to WAC 246-290.
4. In updating the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, the District urges Edmonds to
work together with the District to adopt more stringent protections for the
District's watershed which are based on the best available science.
0
ADOPTED by the Board of Commissioners of Olympic View Water & Sewer District at
an open public meeting this 27 day of June 2022. 0-
a
m
s
y
L
ATTEST:
John Elsasser, President
Lora Petso, Secretary
Approved as to Form:
Grant Weed, General Counsel
Fanny Yee, Vice President
Packet Pg. 341
9.3.d
ti
CD
d
tU
C
cu
C
L
0
Q
Nd
LPL
d
U
C
cu
C
L
0
M
L
0
C
O
tU
d
O
L
(L
a)
L
w
m
LO
N
C
O
7
O
N
d
C
d
E
C1
r
Q
Packet Pg. 342
9.3.e
Issues with Ordinance #4079 and the Planned Action Environmental Impact
Statement for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan
Provided by: Diane Buckshnis — Edmonds Councilmember
Ordinance 4079 is a very extensive outline of planned actions that the City needed to perform with many
sections outlined for Land Use, Transportation, Development and Zoning and the Planned Action
Environmental Impact Statement for Hwy 99 was the roadmap for the City to perform that would impact
policy, code, planning, zoning, utilities, transportation and so on.
A few examples of the outdated assumptions in the 2017 EIS are as follows or incongruency between the
two documents:
• Code and design standards have not been completed to identify housing stock for 3-4 story multi-
family;
• Code and design standards for mixed -use development has not happened (#4079 section 4 D);
• Necessary job creation estimates of 2,317 for alternative 1 (which means the city does nothing)
or 3,013 positions which was the preferred alternative have not been met;
• Code for our Critical Area Recharge Area (CARA) is yet to be developed and capacity was assumed
adequate at 3013 new housing units;
• Three subdistricts Hospital, International and Gateway have not been uniquely created and land
use zoning specifically for medical and health care uses or office uses.
• Environmental issues like low impact development, zoning, stormwater management, tree
canopy, utilities, incentives, parking requires updating and are not close to helping the City achieve
any of the projected modeling of this subarea.
• Most of the preferred alternatives (alternative 2) stated as assumptions in the Planned Action EIS
for land use, public services, plans and policies, aesthetics, and transportation have not been met.
• Most of the City's status quo (alternative 1) stated as assumptions in the Planned Action EIS for
land use, public services, plans and policies, aesthetics, and transportation have not been met.
• Mitigation and Impacts need updating based on the inaccurate assumptions and projections.
• Traffic level of service noted in 2017 are far below the City's established standard for three of the
six study intersections: 1) State Route 99 and 212th Street SW, 2) State Route 99 and 220th St SW,
and 3) State Route 99 and 224th St SW.
The list can go on but it's evident that the 2017 needed to be updated which is why the Council did put
money aside for the SEIS in 2022.
Additionally, if a new planned action EIS is performed in this subarea, Council should ensure the
Administration includes newer environmental concerns such as air quality, noise pollution, heat dome
effects, sidewalks, zoning changes, and the impact of density from surrounding Cities as well as, using the
industry standards of two alternatives instead of one.
Packet Pg. 343
9.3.e
Planned Action Ordinance Details — Justification for Repeal of 4079
Provided by: Diane Buckshnis — Edmonds Councilmember
The most expedient action to address concerns of the Planned Action Area is to repeal
Ordinance 4079. This repeal would require developers to complete a SEPA process just as they
would in other areas of the city. Thus there will be no streamlined process for permitting.
In 2025, after the completion of the comprehensive plan and Citywide EIS, the Council may choose to
consider re-establishing a planned action ordinance for the Highway 99 subarea.
Recently, two specific codes that had not been updated caused the following: 1) the City had to
place a moratorium and update the code related to building step backs, and 2) the City
received a Resolution Number 1125 from Olympic View Water & Sewer District regarding
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARA) and our inadequate code (see attachment). Currently
staff is working on the updated CARA code which was scheduled for the Planning Board in
September, but has been delayed.
About the 2017 EIS for the Highway 99 Subarea
The 2017 Planned action Environmental Impact Statement for the Highway 99 subarea is available on
request since it is 130 pages. The Highway 99 subarea EIS addresses projected growth, traffic, land
use, job creation, affordable housing, zoning assumptions (etc.) and then created thresholds for each
aspects addressed by providing mitigation processes which could mean code updates, traffic studies,
design standards (etc.) and all issues and items are memorialized in #4079.
Ordinance 4079 also stated that every five years the "planned action ordinance" was to be reviewed to
ensure that City had complied with standards and assumptions noted in the ordinance. The City's SEPA
Responsible Official provided a complete detailed presentation on October 18, 2022 as requested by
Council (minutes, attached). At the conclusion of the Highway 99 Planned Action Five -Year Review,
Council voted (4-3) to conduct a supplemental EIS (SEIS) to update the 2017 EIS.
Packet Pg. 344
9.3.f
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5th AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • Fax: (425) 771-0221
www.edmondswa.gov
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
MIKE NELSON
MAYOR
To: City Council
From: Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Development Department
Date: September 29, 2023
Subject: Approach to Highway 99 Subarea Plan and Planned Action Ordinance
(PAO) within the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update
1. Background:
The City of Edmonds initiated the Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan to address future land use and
transportation needs on and around the Highway 99 corridor. The plan acts as a guide for future
development of the corridor area, and includes specific actions and investments designed to bring
positive changes to the community. The Subarea Plan and the Planned Action FEIS were adopted in
August 2017.
1.1. Outcomes from Subarea Plan:
a) Proposed update to Highway 99 subarea maps and text to clearly identify three distinct
districts in the subarea anchored around major transportation gateways and employment
clusters
b) Rezone the CG2, RM-1.5, BN, and portions of the RM- 2.4 and BC zones throughout the
study area to CG
c) Development code amendments
d) Initiate improvements to the Highway 99 Corridor and adjacent local streets (As existing or
recommended projects within the City's 2035 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP))
1.2. The Planned Action and the accompanying FEIS:
a) Definition: A planned action is a development project whose impacts have been addressed
by an EIS associated with a plan for a specific geographic area before individual projects are
proposed. A planned action involves detailed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review
and preparation of EIS documents in conjunction with sub -area plans, consistent with RCW
43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164 through WAC 197-11-172. Such up -front analysis of
impacts and mitigation measures then facilitates environmental review of subsequent
individual development projects.
Source: https.//mrsc.org/explore-topics/planning/(and-use-administration/planned-action
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City— Hekinan, Japan
Packet Pg. 345
9.3.f
A Planned Action FEIS provides detailed environmental analysis during the early stages of
the planning process rather than at the individual project permit review stage. The EIS
captures the potential impacts of multiple projects; thereby assessing any potential
cumulative impacts. Future development proposals that are consistent with an adopted
planned action ordinance and meet the conditions of the PAO (and will not have impacts
that exceed those included in the FEIS) complete a SEPA checklist and are not subject to
SEPA appeals when consistent with the planned action ordinance, including specified
mitigation measures. Planned actions still need to meet the City's development regulations
and obtain necessary permits.
b) Purpose of the PAO for Hwy 99 Subarea:
• To facilitate development and provide developers certainty for design requirements AND
• To capture potential impacts of ALL development within the study area overtime rather
than piecemeal, which would not reveal the impacts of multiple developments
1.3. 5-year review by City of Edmonds
Following Ordinance 4079, the SEPA Responsible Official for the City of Edmonds reviewed the planned
action ordinance five years from its effective date to determine continuing relevance of its assumptions
and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the Planned Action area, the impacts of
development, and required mitigation measures. Based upon this review, the City may propose
amendments to this ordinance or may supplement or revise the Planned Action EIS. The city found that
there has been little change to the environmental conditions within the Planned Action area since the
Planned Action was adopted in 2017 and the limited number of projects have not resulted in impacts
not considered in the Planned Action EIS. While there have been some changes to documents and codes
referenced in the mitigation measures, implementing the updated regulations and documents is still
consistent with the mitigation measures envisioned in the Planned Action. As a result, no amendments
or supplements were proposed for the Planned Action EIS.
Source: Memo titled "Highway 99 Planned Action Five -Year Review" submitted by Kernen Lien, Planning
Manager (SEPA Official) on Aug 11, 2022 to Highway 99 Planned Action SEPA File,
City Council
2. Current Status
The City of Edmonds developed a scope of work for the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update that includes
concerns about the Planned Action Ordinance and the subarea plan. The city is aware of these concerns
and determined that the best approach to addressing them is to integrate the analysis and subsequent
recommendations into the new Comprehensive Plan.
2.1. The following concerns have been raised regarding the FEIS and the subarea plan, and may be
addressed and potentially modified in the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update:
a) Requirements for pedestrian oriented design on Highway 99 may not be appropriate for
buildings fronting a seven -lane surface highway
Packet Pg. 346
9.3.f
b) Uniformity of zoning lacks sensitivity to characteristics of different places within the
subarea. (Note: zoning within a subarea cannot be downzoned without potential adverse
legal challenges.)
c) The lack of transition zones creates stark contrasts between allotted development in
boundary areas (75-foot development is allowed adjacent to or across the street from
detached single-family housing).
d) Community concern about lack of participation in the administrative design review process
e) Without a PAO, the unpredictable rules for building design will likely inhibit private
investment.
f) The subarea plan does not include a street typology classification, resulting in no significant
variation in building design between Highway 99 and smaller local cross streets.
2.2. In response to the concerns raised, the City Council is considering whether to repeal the PAO
(Ordinance no. 4079).
3. Benefits of retaining PAO
The PAO and the Planned Action EIS for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan provide an upfront, early
assessment of environmental conditions, potential impacts, and mitigation measures for the Edmonds
Highway 99 Subarea. Without the PAO, each individual project would comply with SEPA separately,
most likely by issuing a SEPA checklist. A checklist rather than an EIS would be required because
individual development projects rarely cause significant impacts that would trigger a SEPA EIS. The result
would be a series of individual projects that can state that they are not causing significant impacts but
when these projects are analyzed on a cumulative scale, they are likely to cause significant impacts (as
determined by the existing FEIS and corresponding PAO). The PAO protects the city from unanticipated
significant effects over time. The PAO requires each potential project to meet conditions established in
the PAO and the FEIS. Each project must complete the Highway 99 Planned Action Review Checklist to
be exempt from completing its own separate SEPA process.
Packet Pg. 347
9.3.f
3.1. Development Process without PAO:
• Each project submits its own
proposal for SEPA review
• An individual project would not
create significant adverse impacts
• Each project issues a SEPA checklist
and is signed by the city SRO
• No EISs are required due to lack of
significant impacts for individual
projects
• Piecemeal environmental analysis
on a project -by project basis!
Significant cumulative impacts
over time!
3.2. Development Process with PAO:
• A Planned Action EIS contains an
upfront assessment of
environmental conditions,
potential impacts, and mitigation
measures. The development
thresholds have been determined.
• Each project does not submit a
separate SEPA checklist
• Each project must follow design
guidelines as specified in
PAO/subarea plan/comprehensive
plan to mitigate impacts.
• Community benefits from better
development outcomes, fewer
significant impacts, and required
mitigation measures already in
place in the PAO
• Creates certainty for developers
with consistent requirements for a
5-year period. The SEPA checklist
is required but not subject to SEPA
challenge.
SEPA
o-
SEPA
J —
L\A
[lag
Highway 99
A � � SEPA
A 0
J —
J—
PAO Sub -Area
A
Park Space Aj&'
gAt Highway99
: �:
IUtilities
*A
Packet Pg. 348
9.3.f
4. Anticipated mitigation measures within the 2024 Comprehensive Plan
Update
The 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update will evaluate the issues raised pertaining to the Subarea Plan
through various measures, not limited to:
a) Conduct Highway 99-focused community engagement as a trust building measure and to
ensure concerns are fully understood.
b) Refine pedestrian -oriented design requirements to reflect the context of streets along
Highway 99
c) Evaluate transition zones that fit within existing neighborhood areas
d) The transportation element within the Comprehensive Plan is also being updated. City-wide
studies on multi -modal LOS are being undertaken for forecasted growth.
e) Consider broader city-wide distribution of development intensity
f) Consider design guidelines overlay which support transition zones and higher design
standards.
Packet Pg. 349